[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 12 (Wednesday, January 20, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2995-3003]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-1255]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[OPP-300770; FRL-6049-8]
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 propiconazole and its metabolites determined as 
2,4-dichlorobenzoic acid in or on blueberries and raspberries. This 
action is in response to EPA's granting of emergency exemptions under 
section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 
authorizing use of the pesticide on blueberries and raspberries. This 
regulation establishes a maximum permissible level for residues of 
propiconazole in these food commodities 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 are 
revoked on December 31, 1999.

DATES: This regulation is effective January 20, 1999. Objections and 
requests for hearings must be received by EPA on or before March 22, 
1999.

ADDRESSES: Written objections and hearing requests, identified by the 
docket control number, [OPP-300770], 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 docket 
control number, [OPP-300770], must also be submitted to: Public 
Information and Records Integrity Branch, Information Resources and 
Services Division (7502C), 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. 119, Crystal 
Mall 2 (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 5.1/6.1 
or ASCII file format. All copies of electronic objections and hearing 
requests must be identified by the docket control number [OPP-300770]. 
No Confidential Business Information (CBI) should be submitted through 
e-mail. Copies of electronic 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 (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, 
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. 
Office location, telephone number, and e-mail address: CM #2, 1921 
Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, (703) 308-9362, e-mail: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA, on its own initiative, pursuant to 
sections 408 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 
combined residues of the fungicide propiconazole, 1-[[2-(2,4-
dichlorophenyl)-4-propyl-1,3-dioxolan-2-yl]methyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole, 
and its metabolite determined as 2,4-dichlorobenzoic acid, in or on 
blueberries and raspberries at 1.0 part per million (ppm). These 
tolerances will expire and are revoked on December 31, 1999. EPA will 
publish a document in the Federal Register to remove the revoked 
tolerances from the Code of Federal Regulations.

I. Background and Statutory Findings

    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. These activities are described in this preamble and 
discussed in greater detail in the final rule establishing the time-
limited tolerance associated with the emergency exemption for use of 
propiconazole on sorghum (61 FR 58135, November 13, 1996)(FRL-5572-9).
    New section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCA 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 and in residential settings, 
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 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.
    Section 408(l)(6) of the FFDCA requires EPA to establish a time-
limited tolerance or exemption from the requirement for a tolerance for 
pesticide chemical residues in food that will

[[Page 2996]]

result from the use of a pesticide under an emergency exemption granted 
by EPA under section 18 of FIFRA. Such tolerances can be established 
without providing notice or period for public comment.
    Because decisions on section 18-related tolerances must proceed 
before EPA reaches closure on several policy issues relating to 
interpretation and implementation of the FQPA, EPA does not intend for 
its actions on such tolerance to set binding precedents for the 
application of section 408 and the new safety standard to other 
tolerances and exemptions.

II. Emergency Exemptions for Propiconazole on Blueberries and 
Raspberries and FFDCA Tolerances

    Mummy berry (Monilinia vaccinii-corymbosi) is a fungal disease 
which causes damage to the fruit, flower and leaf of blueberries. The 
principal cause of significant yield reductions to wild blueberries is 
the destruction of flowers/flower clusters in the spring by the primary 
inoculum, though severe defoliation may also result in reduced berry 
size. Triflorine was the preferred fungicide for controlling this 
disease, but the use was voluntarily canceled by the registrant and 
only a limited amount of existing stock is available. Sulfur, ziram, 
neem oil, certain copper compounds, potassium salts of fatty acids, and 
chlorothalonil are all alternative fungicides registered for use on 
blueberries, but these are generally considered to provide unsuitable 
or unknown levels of performance. The only non-chemical control measure 
is the burning of fields to prune back vegetative growth; this practice 
is no longer considered environmentally acceptable and has been 
replaced by mowing, which does not reduce the fungal inoculum on the 
mummified berries. The Agency concluded that while it was unclear 
whether growers are expected to suffer ``significant'' economic losses 
in 1998 from this disease, they may incur significant economic losses 
in the 1999 growing season if the mummy berry disease intensifies 
without adequate control.
    Yellow rust of raspberry is caused by a fungal pathogen, 
Phragmidium rubi-idaei. The pathogen is widespread in red raspberry 
fields in Oregon and Washington States, particularly in years when 
spring rains continue late. Historically, yellow rust has not been a 
problem. Under normal winter weather conditions of the Pacific 
Northwestern United States, teliospores of the pathogen are the sole 
survivor and they do not infect raspberry plants directly; 
urediniospores cause most damage to raspberry plants. However, last 
winter urediniospores also overwintered due to mild winter weather 
conditions. Urediniospores infected raspberry plants and disease 
symptoms were seen during early spring season. Urediniospores are the 
most damaging stage of yellow rust because they are normally produced 
in repeating cycles during summer months, but this spring they provided 
an immediate means to cause a rapid buildup of the pathogen, resulting 
in damage that caused this emergency. In addition, during the 1998 
spring season the climatic conditions were very conducive for the 
disease development. The warm weather accompanied by rain caused the 
plants to break bud about 2-3 weeks earlier than normal. The moisture 
from dew and fog were sufficient to allow both spore germination and 
infection. All of these conditions contributed to the current emergency 
situation. EPA has authorized under FIFRA section 18 the use of 
propiconazole on blueberries for control of mummy berry disease 
(Monilinia vacinii-corymbosi) in Georgia, Maine and South Carolina and 
the use on raspberries for control of yellow rust (Phragmidium rubi-
idaei) in Oregon and Washington. After having reviewed the submissions, 
EPA concurs that emergency conditions exist for these states.
    As part of its assessment of these emergency exemptions, EPA 
assessed the potential risks presented by residues of propiconazole in 
or on blueberries and raspberries. In doing so, EPA considered the new 
safety standard in FFDCA section 408(b)(2), and EPA decided that the 
necessary tolerances under FFDCA section 408(l)(6) would be consistent 
with the new safety standard and with FIFRA section 18. Consistent with 
the need to move quickly on the emergency exemption in order to address 
an urgent non-routine situation 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 are 
revoked on December 31, 1999, under FFDCA section 408(l)(5), residues 
of the pesticide not in excess of the amounts specified in the 
tolerances remaining in or on blueberries or raspberries after that 
date will not be unlawful, provided the pesticide is applied in a 
manner that was lawful under FIFRA, and the residues do not exceed a 
level that was authorized by these tolerances at the time of that 
application. 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.
    Because these tolerances are being approved under emergency 
conditions EPA has not made any decisions about whether propiconazole 
meets EPA's registration requirements for use on blueberries or 
raspberries or whether permanent tolerances for these uses would be 
appropriate. Under these circumstances, EPA does not believe that these 
tolerances serve as a basis for registration of propiconazole by a 
State for special local needs under FIFRA section 24(c). Nor do these 
tolerances serve as the basis for any State other than Georgia, Maine, 
Oregon, South Carolina and Washington to use this pesticide on these 
crops 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 under the 
``ADDRESSES'' section.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    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. Second, 
EPA examines exposure to the pesticide through the diet (e.g., food and 
drinking water) and through exposures that occur as a result of 
pesticide use in residential settings.

A. Toxicity

    1. Threshold and non-threshold effects. For many animal 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 adversed effect level'' or 
``NOAEL'').
    Once a study has been evaluated and the observed effects have been 
determined to be threshold effects, EPA generally divides the NOAEL 
from the study with the lowest NOAEL 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

[[Page 2997]]

(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% or less of the 
RfD) is generally considered acceptable by EPA. EPA generally uses the 
RfD to evaluate the chronic risks posed by pesticide exposure. For 
shorter term risks, EPA calculates a margin of exposure (MOE) by 
dividing the estimated human exposure into the NOAEL from the 
appropriate animal study. Commonly, EPA finds MOEs lower than 100 to be 
unacceptable. This 100-fold MOE is based on the same rationale as the 
100-fold uncertainty factor.
    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 MOE calculation based on the appropriate NOAEL) will 
be carried out based on the nature of the carcinogenic response and the 
Agency's knowledge of its mode of action.
    2. Differences in toxic effect due to exposure duration. The 
toxicological effects of a pesticide can vary with different exposure 
durations. EPA considers the entire toxicity data base, and based on 
the effects seen for different durations and routes of exposure, 
determines which risk assessments should be done to assure that the 
public is adequately protected from any pesticide exposure scenario. 
Both short and long durations of exposure are always considered. 
Typically, risk assessments include ``acute'', ``short-term'', 
``intermediate term'', and ``chronic'' risks. These assessments are 
defined by the Agency as follows.
    Acute risk, by the Agency's definition, results from 1-day 
consumption of food and water, and reflects toxicity which could be 
expressed following a single oral exposure to the pesticide residues. 
High end exposure to food and water residues are typically assumed.
    Short-term risk results from exposure to the pesticide for a period 
of 1-7 days, and therefore overlaps with the acute risk assessment. 
Historically, this risk assessment was intended to address primarily 
dermal and inhalation exposure which could result, for example, from 
residential pesticide applications. However, since enaction of FQPA, 
this assessment has been expanded to include both dietary and non-
dietary sources of exposure, and will typically consider exposure from 
food, water, and residential uses when reliable data are available. In 
this assessment, risks from average food and water exposure, and high-
end residential exposure, are aggregated. High-end exposures from all 3 
sources are not typically added because of the very low probability of 
this occurring in most cases, and because the other conservative 
assumptions built into the assessment assure adequate protection of 
public health. However, for cases in which high-end exposure can 
reasonably be expected from multiple sources (e.g. frequent and 
widespread homeowner use in a specific geographical area), multiple 
high-end risks will be aggregated and presented as part of the 
comprehensive risk assessment/characterization. Since the toxicological 
endpoint considered in this assessment reflects exposure over a period 
of at least 7 days, an additional degree of conservatism is built into 
the assessment; i.e., the risk assessment nominally covers 1-7 days 
exposure, and the toxicological endpoint/NOAEL is selected to be 
adequate for at least 7 days of exposure. (Toxicity results at lower 
levels when the dosing duration is increased.)
    Intermediate-term risk results from exposure for 7 days to several 
months. This assessment is handled in a manner similar to the short-
term risk assessment.
    Chronic risk assessment describes risk which could result from 
several months to a lifetime of exposure. For this assessment, risks 
are aggregated considering average exposure from all sources for 
representative population subgroups including infants and children.

B. Aggregate Exposure

    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, residues in groundwater 
or surface water that is consumed as drinking water, and other non-
occupational exposures through pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or 
buildings (residential and other indoor uses). 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. In evaluating food 
exposures, EPA takes into account varying consumption patterns of major 
identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. 
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% 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.
    Percent of crop treated estimates are derived from federal and 
private market survey data. Typically, a range of estimates are 
supplied and the upper end of this range is assumed for the exposure 
assessment. By using this upper end estimate of percent of crop 
treated, the Agency is reasonably certain that exposure is not 
understated for any significant subpopulation group. Further, regional 
consumption information is taken into account through EPA's computer-
based model for evaluating the exposure of significant subpopulations 
including several regional groups, to pesticide residues. For this 
pesticide, the most highly exposed population subgroup (non-nursing 
infants less than 1 year old) was not regionally based.

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, 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

[[Page 2998]]

time-limited tolerances for combined residues of propiconazole and its 
metabolites determined as 2,4-dichlorobenzoic acid on blueberries and 
raspberries at 1.0 ppm. EPA's assessment of the dietary exposures and 
risks associated with establishing the tolerances follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its 
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of 
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered 
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities 
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and 
children. The nature of the toxic effects caused by propiconazole are 
discussed below.
    1. Acute toxicity. For acute dietary risk assessment, EPA used the 
developmental NOAEL of 30 mg/kg/day from a developmental toxicity study 
in rats. The lowest observed adversed effect level (LOAEL) of 90 mg/kg/
day was based on the increased incidence of unossified sternebrae, 
rudimentary ribs, and shortened or absent renal papillae. This risk 
assessment evaluates acute dietary risk to the population of concern, 
females 13 years and older.
    2. Short- and intermediate-term toxicity. For short- and 
intermediate-term dermal MOE calculations, EPA used the developmental 
NOAEL of 30 mg/kg/day from the developmental toxicity study in rats. 
For short- and intermediate-term inhalation MOE calculations, EPA used 
the NOAEL of 92.8 mg/kg/day, the highest dose tested (HDT) from the 5-
day inhalation toxicity study in rats. This risk assessment evaluates 
short- and intermediate-term risk to the population of concern, females 
13 years and older.
    3. Chronic toxicity. EPA has established the RfD for propiconazole 
at 0.013 milligrams/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day). This RfD is based on a 
NOAEL of 1.25 mg/kg/day taken from a one year feeding study in dogs. 
The effect seen at the LOAEL of 6.25 mg/kg/day is mild irritation of 
the gastric mucosa. An uncertainty factor of 100 was added to take into 
account interspecies and intraspecies variation.
    4. Carcinogenicity. Propiconazole has been classified as a Group C, 
``possible human carcinogen'', chemical by the Agency. EPA has 
determined that the RfD approach for quantitation of human risk is 
appropriate. Therefore, the RfD noted above is deemed protective of all 
chronic human health effects, including cancer.

B. Exposures and Risks

    1. From food and feed uses. Tolerances have been established (40 
CFR 180.434) for the combined residues of propiconazole and its 
metabolite determined as 2,4-dichlorobenzoic acid, in or on a variety 
of raw agricultural commodities. Risk assessments were conducted by EPA 
to assess dietary exposures and risks from propiconazole as follows:
    i.  Acute exposure and risk. Acute dietary risk assessments are 
performed for a food-use pesticide if a toxicological study has 
indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result 
of a one day or single exposure. The acute dietary (food only) risk 
assessment assumed tolerance level residues and one hundred percent 
crop treated. The resulting high-end exposure estimate of 0.01 mg/kg/
day, which results in a dietary (food only) MOE of 3,000 for females 
13+ years old, should be viewed as conservative; refinement using 
anticipated residue values and percent crop-treated data would result 
in a lower acute dietary exposure estimate.
    ii. Chronic exposure and risk. For the purpose of assessing chronic 
dietary exposure from propiconazole, EPA assumed anticipated residues 
and percent of crop treated refinements for many of the existing uses 
to estimate the Anticipated Residue Contribution (ARC) from existing 
and proposed uses. While more refined than TMRC exposure estimates, the 
assumptions of tolerance level residues and one hundred percent of crop 
treated for the proposed use and numerous existing uses still result in 
overestimation of exposure. Based on the above assumptions, chronic 
dietary exposure to the U.S. population represents 7% of the RfD. 
Dietary exposure to the subgroup most highly exposed, non-nursing 
infants less than one year, utilizes 20% of the RfD.
    2. From drinking water. Available data suggest propiconazole is 
moderately persistent and moderately mobile to immobile in soil and 
aqueous environments. It has the potential to be transported with 
water, particularly in coarse-textured soils low in organic matter. 
Propiconazole's persistence indicates the potential to reach surface 
water with run-off or adsorbed to soil particles. There is no 
established Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for residues of 
propiconazole in drinking water. No health advisory levels for 
propiconazole in drinking water have been established.
    The Agency has calculated drinking water levels of comparison 
(DWLOCs) for acute and chronic exposure to propiconazole in surface and 
groundwater. The DWLOCs are calculated by subtracting from the toxicity 
endpoint (acute or chronic) the respective acute or chronic dietary 
exposure attributable to food to obtain the acceptable exposure to 
propiconazole in drinking water. Default body weights (70 kg for males, 
60 kg for females, and 10 kg for non-nursing infants < 1 year old) and 
default drinking water consumption estimates (2 L/day for adults, 1 L/
day for non-nursing infants) are then used to calculate the actual 
DWLOCs. The DWLOC represents the concentration level in surface water 
or groundwater at which aggregate exposure to the chemical is not of 
concern.
    Using Generic Expected Environmental Concentration (GENEEC) 
(surface water) and Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) 
(groundwater) models, the Agency has calculated acute and chronic Tier 
I Estimated Environmental Concentrations (EECs) for propiconazole for 
use in human health risk assessments. These values represent the upper 
bound estimates of the concentrations of propiconazole that might be 
found in surface and ground water assuming the maximum application rate 
allowed on the label of the highest use pattern. The EECs from these 
models are compared to the DWLOCs to make the safety determination.
    i. Acute exposure and risk. The subpopulation of concern for acute 
risk is females 13 years and older. Using the GENEEC model, the acute 
peak concentration in surface water was determined to be 110 parts per 
trillion (ppt). The Tier I SCI-GROW model predicted that groundwater 
concentrations of propiconazole are not likely to exceed 1.42 ppt. 
Assuming an adult female body weight of 60 kg and a drinking water 
consumption estimate of 2 L/day, the Agency calculated an acute DWLOC 
of 8,700 parts per billion (ppb). As even the upper bound 
concentrations of propiconazole are not expected to exceed 110 ppt in 
surface water or 1.42 ppt in groundwater, and this value is well below 
the acute DWLOC, the Agency concludes with reasonable certainty that 
acute exposure to propiconazole in drinking water is not of concern.
    ii. Chronic exposure and risk. Using the GENEEC model, the Agency 
calculated a chronic concentration of propiconazole residues in surface 
water of 90 ppt. As described above, groundwater concentrations of 
propiconazole are not likely to exceed 1.42 ppt. Using the same body 
weight and drinking water consumption

[[Page 2999]]

estimates as those in the acute risk assessment, the DWLOCs for chronic 
exposure were calculated to be 420 ppb for the U.S. population, 430 ppb 
for males 13 years and older, 360 ppb for nursing females 13 years and 
older, and 100 ppb for infants and children. The estimated long-term 
concentrations of propiconazole in surface water and groundwater are 
well below any of these values, and the Agency concludes that chronic 
exposure to propiconazole in drinking water is not of concern. Since 
the RfD approach is recommended for quantification of cancer risk, the 
cancer and chronic DWLOCs are identical. Therefore the Agency also 
concludes that exposure is below the Agency's level of concern for 
cancer effects arising from chronic exposure to propiconazole in 
drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. -- i. Propiconazole is currently 
registered for residential use as a wood preservative and for 
residential lawn and turf uses as well as on ornamental plants. Under 
current OPP guidelines, these uses do not represent a chronic exposure 
scenario, but may constitute a short- and/or intermediate-term exposure 
scenario.
    According to the acres-treated information available to the Agency 
on lawn and turf use, between 0.004% and 0.007% of all households 
nationally are treated with lawn products containing propiconazole as 
an active ingredient. Of those households which are treated, 
applications are mostly made by lawn care operators and landscapers 
instead of homeowners. It is therefore the Agency's best scientific 
judgement that potential residential exposure to propiconazole through 
the registered lawn and turf uses and use on ornamental plants is 
minimal. Based on this conclusion, risk assessments for these 
residential uses were not performed.
    ii. Short- and intermediate-term exposure and risk.  The Agency 
calculated exposure and risk from wood treatment use using recently 
developed methodologies for residential exposure assessment. These 
methodologies rely on high-end scenarios and the resulting exposure 
assessments should be considered conservative. If initial assessments 
using the assumptions in these methodologies indicate a potential 
concern, a more detailed exposure assessment, possibly incorporating 
chemical-specific or site-specific data, would be pursued. Because one 
of the variables used for assessing residential handlers exposure comes 
from the Pesticide Handlers Exposure Database (PHED), and is considered 
to be a central tendency value, resulting exposure and risk estimates 
are considered to be central tendency to high-end estimates. Using 
these assumptions, short-term dermal and inhalation MOEs from the wood 
treatment use were calculated to be 200 and 20,000, respectively. The 
Agency is generally not concerned with MOEs which exceed 100.
    4. Cumulative exposure to substances with common mechanism of 
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) requires that, when considering 
whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency 
consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative effects of 
a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances that have a 
common mechanism of toxicity.'' The Agency believes that ``available 
information'' in this context might include not only toxicity, 
chemistry, and exposure data, but also scientific policies and 
methodologies for understanding common mechanisms of toxicity and 
conducting cumulative risk assessments. For most pesticides, although 
the Agency has some information in its files that may turn out to be 
helpful in eventually determining whether a pesticide shares a common 
mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, EPA does not at this 
time have the methodologies to resolve the complex scientific issues 
concerning common mechanism of toxicity in a meaningful way. EPA has 
begun a pilot process to study this issue further through the 
examination of particular classes of pesticides. The Agency hopes that 
the results of this pilot process will increase the Agency's scientific 
understanding of this question such that EPA will be able to develop 
and apply scientific principles for better determining which chemicals 
have a common mechanism of toxicity and evaluating the cumulative 
effects of such chemicals. The Agency anticipates, however, that even 
as its understanding of the science of common mechanisms increases, 
decisions on specific classes of chemicals will be heavily dependent on 
chemical specific data, much of which may not be presently available.
    Although at present the Agency does not know how to apply the 
information in its files concerning common mechanism issues to most 
risk assessments, there are pesticides as to which the common mechanism 
issues can be resolved. These pesticides include pesticides that are 
toxicologically dissimilar to existing chemical substances (in which 
case the Agency can conclude that it is unlikely that a pesticide 
shares a common mechanism of activity with other substances) and 
pesticides that produce a common toxic metabolite (in which case common 
mechanism of activity will be assumed).
    EPA does not have, at this time, available data to determine 
whether propiconazole has a common mechanism of toxicity with other 
substances or how to include this pesticide in a cumulative risk 
assessment. Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a 
cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, 
propiconazole does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by 
other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, 
EPA has not assumed that propiconazole has a common mechanism of 
toxicity with other substances.

C. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety for U.S. Population

    1. Acute risk. Using TMRC exposure assumptions, the Agency 
estimated the high-end exposure to females 13+ years, the population 
subgroup of concern, to be 0.01 mg/kg/day , which results in a dietary 
(food only) MOE of 3,000. Based on an adult female body weight of 60 kg 
and 2L consumption of water per day, the acute DWLOC for females 13 
years and older is 8,700 ppb. The estimated peak concentration (acute) 
values of 110 ppt in surface water and 1.42 ppt in groundwater are 
lower than the acute DWLOC for females 13 years and older; therefore, 
the Agency concludes with reasonable certainty that the aggregate acute 
exposure to propiconazole residues in food and drinking water is not 
likely to exceed the Agency's level of concern for acute dietary 
exposure.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the ARC exposure assumptions described 
above, EPA has concluded that aggregate exposure to propiconazole from 
food will utilize 7% of the RfD for the U.S. population. The major 
identifiable subgroup with the highest aggregate exposure is non-
nursing infants less than one year old (discussed below). EPA generally 
has no concern for exposures below 100% of the RfD because the RfD 
represents the level at or below which daily aggregate dietary exposure 
over a lifetime will not pose appreciable risks to human health. Based 
on body weight and drinking water consumption estimates discussed 
earlier, the chronic DWLOC for the U.S. population is 424 ppb, 430 ppb 
for males 13 years and older, and 360 ppb for females 13 years and 
older. The estimated chronic concentrations of 90 ppt in surface water 
and 1.42 ppt in groundwater are lower than these chronic DWLOCs. EPA 
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no

[[Page 3000]]

harm will result from aggregate exposure to propiconazole residues.
    3. Short- and intermediate-term risk. Short- and intermediate-term 
aggregate exposure takes into account chronic dietary food and water 
(considered to be a background exposure level) plus indoor and outdoor 
residential exposure.
    Short- and intermediate-term endpoints were identified for females 
13 years and older, the subpopulation of concern. The aggregate 
exposure takes into account chronic dietary food and water (considered 
to be a background exposure level) plus short- and intermediate-term 
residential uses.
    When endpoints from multiple studies are selected from risk 
assessment, risks should only be aggregated if the endpoints (toxic 
effects) are the same or if the multiple residential exposure scenarios 
have a reasonable chance of occurring together. In this case the dermal 
and inhalation endpoints do not have the same toxic effects. Therefore 
the MOE dermal and MOE inhalation cannot be aggregated together. 
Furthermore, because exposure from residential wood preservative uses 
occurs mainly by the dermal route (dermal exposure = 0.15 mg/kg/day; 
inhalation exposure = 0.00047 mg/kg/day), exposure via inhalation was 
not considered in the calculation for risk from short- and 
intermediate-term aggregate exposure.
    Using the Agency's interim guidance, short- and intermediate-term 
aggregate risk was calculated by considering short- and intermediate-
term dermal exposure from residential uses, and chronic dietary 
exposure from food uses and drinking water. Because estimates for 
chronic exposure from drinking water are not available (only 
conservative estimates of environmental concentrations), the Agency 
calculated a short- and intermediate-term DWLOC by estimating the 
exposure level for drinking water which would result in an aggregate 
MOE of 100, given the known MOEs for food uses and residential 
exposure, and then deriving the DWLOC from this exposure value using 
the consumption and body weight assumptions discussed earlier. The 
short- and intermediate-term drinking water exposure was calculated to 
be 0.15 mg/kg/day. Using this value, the short- and intermediate-term 
DWLOC was calculated to be 4,500 ppb. Since chronic EECs are below this 
value, it is concluded that short- and intermediate-term aggregate risk 
does not exceed the Agency's level of concern.

D. Aggregate Cancer Risk for U.S. Population

    Propiconazole has been classified as a Group C, ``possible human 
carcinogen'', chemical by the Agency. EPA used the RfD approach for 
quantitation of human risk. Therefore, the RfD is deemed protective of 
all chronic human health effects, including cancer; as aggregate 
chronic risk (discussed above) does not exceed the Agency's level of 
concern, there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from 
cancer effects arising from chronic aggregate exposure to propiconazole 
residues.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety for Infants and Children

    1. Safety factor for infants and children --i. In general. 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-generation 
reproduction study in the rat. The developmental toxicity studies are 
designed to evaluate adverse effects on the developing organism 
resulting from maternal pesticide exposure during gestation. 
Reproduction studies provide information relating to effects from 
exposure to the pesticide on the reproductive capability of mating 
animals and data on systemic toxicity.
    FFDCA section 408 provides that EPA shall apply an additional 
tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the case of 
threshold effects to account for pre-and post-natal toxicity and the 
completeness of the database unless EPA determines that a different 
margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. Margins of 
safety are incorporated into EPA risk assessments either directly 
through use of a MOE analysis or through using uncertainty (safety) 
factors in calculating a dose level that poses no appreciable risk to 
humans. EPA believes that reliable data support using the standard MOE 
and uncertainty factor (usually 100 for combined inter- and intra-
species variability)) and not the additional tenfold MOE/uncertainty 
factor when EPA has a complete data base under existing guidelines and 
when the severity of the effect in infants or children or the potency 
or unusual toxic properties of a compound do not raise concerns 
regarding the adequacy of the standard MOE/safety factor.
    ii. Developmental toxicity studies. In the developmental toxicity 
study in rats, the maternal (systemic) NOAEL was 30 mg/kg/day. The 
maternal lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) of 90 mg/kg/day 
was based on reduced body weight gain and rales in females. The 
developmental NOAEL was also 30 mg/kg/day. The developmental LOAEL of 
90 mg/kg/day was based on the increased incidence of unossified 
sternebrae, rudimentary ribs, and shortened or absent renal papillae. 
In the rabbit developmental toxicity study, the maternal (systemic) 
NOAEL was 100 mg/kg/day. The maternal LOAEL of 250 mg/kg/day was based 
on decreased food consumption and body weight gain. There was also an 
increased incidence of abortion at 400 mg/kg/day. The developmental 
NOAEL was 400 mg/kg/day (HDT), based upon the lack of developmental 
delays or alterations.
    iii. Reproductive toxicity study. In the 2-generation reproductive 
toxicity study in rats, the parental (systemic) LOAEL of 5 mg/kg/day 
(lowest dose tested) was based on the increased incidence of hepatic 
``clear-cell change'' at all dose levels; additionally, at 25 and 125 
mg/kg/day, decreased body weights, decreased food consumption, and/or 
an increased incidence of hepatic cellular swelling were observed. A 
NOAEL for parental toxicity was not determined. The reproductive/
developmental NOAEL was 25 mg/kg/day. The reproductive LOAEL 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).
    iv. Pre- and post-natal sensitivity. The pre- and post-natal 
toxicology data base for propiconazole is complete with respect to 
current toxicological data requirements. There are no pre- or post-
natal toxicity concerns for infants and children, based on the results 
of the rat and rabbit developmental toxicity studies and the 2-
generation rat reproductive study. Propiconazole is not developmentally 
toxic in the rabbit. There is evidence in the 2-generation study that 
propiconazole is developmentally toxic in rats; however, toxicity in 
offspring occurred at doses toxic to the parents. Based on the 
developmental and reproductive toxicity studies discussed above, for 
propiconazole there does not appear to be an extra sensitivity for pre- 
or post-natal effects.
    v. Conclusion. Based on the above information, the Agency has 
concluded that a 100-fold safety factor is adequately protective of 
infants and children and that the 10-fold safety factor required by 
FQPA should be removed.
    2. Acute risk. Toxicological effects applicable to the children/
infants that

[[Page 3001]]

could be attributed to a single exposure (dose) were not observed in 
oral toxicity studies in rats and rabbits. Therefore, a dose and 
endpoint were not identified for acute dietary risk assessment for this 
population subgroup.
    3. Chronic risk. Using the conservative exposure assumptions 
described above, EPA has concluded that aggregate exposure to 
propiconazole from food will utilize 20% of the RfD for infants and 13% 
of the RfD for children aged 1 through 6. EPA generally has no concern 
for exposures below 100% of the RfD because the RfD represents the 
level at or below which daily aggregate dietary exposure over a 
lifetime will not pose appreciable risks to human health. Based on body 
weight and drinking water consumption estimates discussed earlier, the 
chronic DWLOC for infants and children is 100 ppb. The estimated 
chronic concentrations of 90 ppt in surface water and 1.42 ppt in 
groundwater are lower than this chronic DWLOC. Under current Agency 
criteria, the registered, non-dietary uses of propiconazole do not 
constitute a chronic exposure scenario. EPA concludes that there is a 
reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children 
from chronic aggregate exposure to propiconazole residues.

V. Other Considerations

A. Metabolism In Plants and Animals

    The nature of the residue in plants is understood for the purposes 
of these section 18 emergency exemptions. The residues of concern are 
propiconazole and its metabolites determined as 2,4-dichlorobenzoic 
acid and expressed as parent compound (as specified in 40 CFR 180.434). 
As no animal feed items are associated with these requests, the nature 
of the residue in animals is not of concern.

B. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate methodology (Ciba-Geigy's Analytical Method AG-454) is 
available to enforce the established tolerances. This enforcement 
method for plants is a single moiety analytical method which detects 
residues as 2,4-dichlorobenzoic acid methyl ester and reports them as 
propiconazole equivalents. Separation and detection are performed by 
gas chromatography with electron capture detection. This analytical 
method has been validated by EPA's Analytical Chemistry Laboratory. 
Pending publication in PAM II, the analytical method is available from 
the Agency (IRSD/PIRIB)].

C. Magnitude of Residues

    Residues of propiconazole and its regulated metabolites are not 
expected to exceed 1.0 ppm in/on blueberries and raspberries. Time-
limited tolerances should be established at this level.

D. International Residue Limits

    There are no CODEX, Canadian or Mexican Maximum Residue Limits 
(MRL) for propiconazole on blueberries or raspberries. Thus, 
harmonization of tolerances is not an issue for these tolerances.

E. Rotational Crop Restrictions

    As blueberries and raspberries are not routinely rotated to other 
crops, rotational crop restrictions are not applicable.

VI. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for combined residues of 
propiconazole and its metabolite determined as 2,4-dichlorobenzoic acid 
in blueberries and raspberries at 1.0 ppm.

VII. Objections and Hearing Requests

    The new FFDCA section 408(g) provides essentially the same process 
for persons to ``object'' to a tolerance regulation 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 March 22, 1999, file written objections to any 
aspect of this regulation 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 regulation. 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). EPA is authorized to waive any fee requirement ``when in 
the judgment of the Administrator such a waiver or refund is equitable 
and not contrary to the purpose of this subsection.'' For additional 
information regarding tolerance objection fee waivers, contact James 
Tompkins, Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, 
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. 
Office location, telephone number, and e-mail address: Rm. 239, CM #2, 
1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, (703) 305-5697, 
[email protected]. Request for waiver of tolerance objection fees 
should be sent to James Hollins, Information Resources and Services 
Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental 
Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.
    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 Record and Electronic Submissions

    EPA has established a record for this regulation under docket 
control number [OPP-300770] (including any comments and data submitted 
electronically). A public version of this record, including printed, 
paper versions of electronic comments, which does not include any 
information claimed as CBI, is available for inspection from 8:30 a.m. 
to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The public 
record is located in Rm. 119 of the Public Information and Records 
Integrity Branch, Information Resources and Services Division (7502C) 
Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, CM

[[Page 3002]]

#2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.
    Electronic comments may be sent directly to EPA at:
    [email protected].


    Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the 
use of special characters and any form of encryption.
    The official record for this regulation, as well as the public 
version, as described above will be kept in paper form. Accordingly, 
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 record which will also 
include all comments submitted directly in writing. The official record 
is the paper record maintained at the Virginia address in ``ADDRESSES'' 
at the beginning of this document.

IX. Regulatory Assessment Requirements

A. Certain Acts and Executive Orders

    This final rule establishes a tolerances under section 408 of the 
FFDCA. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these 
types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled 
Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). This 
final rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB 
approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq., or impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as 
described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4). Nor does it require any special considerations 
as required by Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to 
Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), or require OMB review in 
accordance with Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children 
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 
23, 1997).
    In addition, since tolerances and exemptions that are established 
on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(l)(6), such as the 
tolerances in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a 
proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) do not apply. Nevertheless, the Agency has 
previously assessed whether establishing tolerances, exemptions from 
tolerances, raising tolerance levels or expanding exemptions might 
adversely impact small entities and concluded, as a generic matter, 
that there is no adverse economic impact. The factual basis for the 
Agency's generic certification for tolerance actions published on May 
4, 1981 (46 FR 24950), and was provided to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

B. Executive Order 12875

    Under Executive Order 12875, entitled Enhancing the 
Intergovernmental Partnership (58 FR 58093, October 28, 1993), EPA may 
not issue a regulation that is not required by statute and that creates 
a mandate upon a State, local, or tribal government, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by those governments. If the mandate is unfunded, EPA 
must provide to OMB a description of the extent of EPA's prior 
consultation with representatives of affected State, local, and tribal 
governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of any written 
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the 
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875 
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected 
officials and other representatives of State, local, and tribal 
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development 
of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.''
    Today's rule does not create an unfunded Federal mandate on State, 
local, or tribal governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable 
duties on these entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) 
of Executive Order 12875 do not apply to this rule.

C. Executive Order 13084

    Under Executive Order 13084, entitled Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments (63 FR 27655, May 19, 1998), EPA may not 
issue a regulation that is not required by statute, that significantly 
or uniquely affects the communities of Indian tribal governments, and 
that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, 
unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the 
direct compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the 
mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide to OMB, in a separately 
identified section of the preamble to the rule, a description of the 
extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected 
tribal governments, a summary of the nature of their concerns, and a 
statement supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, 
Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop an effective process 
permitting elected officials and other representatives of Indian tribal 
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development 
of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect 
their communities.''
    Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of Indian tribal governments. This action does not involve 
or impose any requirements that affect Indian tribes. Accordingly, the 
requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to 
this rule.

X. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a 
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: December 30, 1998.

Robert A. Forrest,
Acting Director, Registration Division, 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 alphabetically adding the following 
commodities to the table in paragraph (b) 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.

*    *    *    *    *    
    (b)        *        *        *

[[Page 3003]]



 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Expiration/
            Commodity              Parts per million    Revocation Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                        *    *    *    *    *
Blueberries.....................  1.0                 12/31/99
 
                        *    *    *    *    *
Raspberries.....................  1.0                 12/31/99
 
                        *    *    *    *    *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

*    *    *    *    *    

[FR Doc. 99-1255 Filed 1-19-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F