29672 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 96–14455 Filed 6–11–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 180

[PP 2F4086/R2238; FRL–5368–4]

RIN 2070–AB78

Pesticide Tolerance for 1-[[2-(2,4-

Dichlorophenyl)-4-Propyl-1,3-Dioxolan2-yl]Methyl]-1H-1,2,4-Triazole

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rule establishes a

tolerance for combined residues of the

fungicide 1-[[2-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-4-

propyl-1,3-dioxolan-2-yl]methyl]-1H1,2,4-triazole and its metabolites

determined as 2,4-dichlorobenzoic acid

and expressed as parent compound in or

on the raw agricultural commodities oat

grain at 0.1 parts per million (ppm), oat

straw at 1.0 ppm, oat forage at 10.0 ppm,

and oat hay at 30.0 ppm. The regulation

to establish a maximum permissible

level for residues of the fungicide was

requested in a petition submitted by

Ciba-Geigy Corp.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation

becomes effective June 12, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Written objections and

hearing requests, identified by the

document control number, [PP 2F4086/

R2238], may be submitted to: Hearing

Clerk (1900), Environmental Protection

Agency, Rm. M3708, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. A copy of any

objections and hearing requests filed

with the Hearing Clerk should be

identified by the document control

number and 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 copy of objections and

hearing requests to Rm. 1132, CM #2,

1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington,

VA 22202. Fees accompanying

objections shall be labeled ‘‘Tolerance

Petition Fees’’ and forwarded to: EPA

Headquarters Accounting Operations

Branch, OPP (Tolerance Fees), P.O. Box

360277M, Pittsburgh, PA 15251.

An electronic copy of objections and

hearing requests filed with the Hearing

Clerk may be submitted to OPP by

sending electronic mail (e-mail) to: oppdocket@epamail.epa.gov.

Copies of electronic objections and

hearing requests must be submitted as

an ASCII file avoiding the use of special

characters and any form of encryption.

Copies of electronic objections and

hearing requests will also be accepted

on disks in WordPerfect 5.1 file format

or ASCII file format. All copies of

electronic objections and hearing

requests must be identified by the

docket number [PP 2F4086/R2238] . 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. Additional information on

electronic submissions can be found

below in this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail: Connie B. Welch, Product

Manager (PM) 21, Registration Division

(7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs,

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.

Office location and telephone number:

Rm. 227, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis

Highway, Arlington, VA 22202 (703)

305–6226; e-mail:

welch.connie@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA

issued a notice (FRL–4971–5),

published in the Federal Register of

November 15, 1995 (60 FR 57420),

which announced that Ciba-Geigy Corp.,

P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419

had submitted pesticide petition (PP)

2F4086 to EPA requesting that the

Administrator, pursuant to section

408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and

Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d

), establish tolerances for combined

residues of the fungicide 1-[[2-(2,4-

dichlorophenyl)-4-propyl-1,3-dioxolan2-yl]methyl]-1H -1,2,4-triazole in or on

the raw agricultural commodities oat

grain at 0.1 ppm, oat straw at 1.0 ppm,

oat forage at 10.0 ppm, and oat hay at

30.0 ppm.

There were no comments received in

response to the notice of filing.

The scientific data submitted in the

petition and other relevant material

have been evaluated. The data

considered in support of the tolerance

include:

1. Plant and animal metabolism

studies.

2. Residue data for crop and livestock

commodities.

3. Two enforcement methods and

multiresidue method testing data.

4. A 90–day rat feeding study with a

no-observable-effect level (NOEL) of 12

mg/kg/day.

5. A 90–day dog feeding study with a

NOEL of 1.25 mg/kg/day.

6. A rabbit developmental toxicity

study with a maternal NOEL of 100 mg/

kg/day and a developmental toxicity

NOEL of Greater than 400 mg/kg/day

(highest dose tested) (HDT)).

7. A rat teratology study with a

maternal NOEL of 30 mg/kg/day and a

developmental toxicity NOEL of 30 mg/

kg/day.

8. A 2–generation rat reproduction

study with a reproductive NOEL of 125

mg/kg/day (HDT) and a developmental

toxicity NOEL of 25 mg/kg/day.

9. A 1–year dog feeding study with a

NOEL of 1.25 mg/kg/day.

10. A 2–year rat chronic feeding/

carcinogenicity study with a NOEL of 5

mg/kg/day with no carcinogenic

potential under the conditions of the

study up to and including

approximately 125 mg/kg/day, the

highest dose tested.

11. A 2–year mouse chronic feeding/

carcinogenicity study with a NOEL of 15

mg/kg/day and with a statistically

significant increase in combined

adenomas and carcinomas of the liver in

male mice at approximately 375 mg/kg/

day, the highest dose tested.

12. Ames test with and without

activation, negative.

13. A mouse dominant-lethal assay,

negative.

14. Chinese hamster nucleus anomaly,

negative.

15. Cell transformation assay,

negative.

Ciba-Geigy submitted information

which resolved the previously

outstanding concerns about the nature

of the residue in ruminants, an

explanation of recovery calculations,

and an explanation of the crop field trial

protocol. Data gaps exist concerning

dosing in the mouse carcinogenicity

study. These data requirements were

required under reregistration, pursuant

to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,

and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C.

136 et seq.

As part of EPA’s evaluation of

potential human health risks, 1-[[2-(2,4-

dichlorophenyl)-4-propyl-1,3-dioxolan2-yl]methyl]-1H- 1,2,4-triazole has been

the subject of five Peer Reviews and one

Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP)

meeting.

The fungicide 1-[[2-(2,4-

dichlorophenyl)-4-propyl-1,3-dioxolan2-yl]methyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole was

originally evaluated by the Peer Review

Committee on January 15, 1987, and

classified as a Group C (possible human)

carcinogen with a recommendation

made for the quantification of estimated

potential human risk using a linearized

low-dose extrapolation. The method

resulted in the establishment of a Q* of

7.9 × 10-2 (mg/kg/day)-1.

The Peer Review Committee’s

decision was presented to the FIFRA

Scientific Advisory Panel on March 2,

1988. The Panel did not concur with the

committee’s overall assessment of the
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 29673

weight-of-evidence on the

carcinogenicity of 1-[[2-(2,4-

dichlorophenyl)-4-propyl-1,3-dioxolan2-yl]methyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole. The

Panel recommended placing the

chemical in Group D, indicating that the

Group C classification was based on

minimal evidence. The Panel’s

determination that EPA’s Group C

classification was based on minimal

evidence was due to the fact that the

incidence of liver tumors in male mice

only occurred when the mice were

given an excessive chemical dose.

As part of a fifth Peer Review, EPA

considered additional information

provided by the registrant in support of

the registrant’s argument that the high

dose was excessively toxic in the mouse

carcinogenicity study. It further argued

that the data from the high dose (2,500

ppm) should not be included in the

evaluation of carcinogenic potential of

-[[2-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-4-propyl-1,3-

dioxolan-2-yl]methyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole.

In support of these arguments, the

registrant provided two subchronic oral

toxicity studies in mice. Ciba-Geigy also

provided a reread of the pathology

slides from a mouse oncogenicity study

which it felt indicated sufficient

concurrent liver toxicity at 2,500 ppm to

document that this dose was excessive.

These findings were not present in the

original pathology report. Owing to the

inconsistency in Ciba-Geigy’s report and

the original report, the Agency

requested that an independent (third)

evaluation of the pathology slides be

made to determine if the pathology

reported could be confirmed. The

results of this (third) pathology

evaluation were used in the fifth Peer

Review in place of data resulting from

the earlier evaluations provided by

Ciba-Geigy.

The Peer Review Committee

considered the following facts regarding

the toxicology data on 1-[[2-(2,4-

dichlorophenyl)-4- propyl-1,3-dioxolan2-yl]methyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole in a

weight-of-evidence determination of

carcinogenic potential:

1. Increased numbers of adenomas

(increased trend and pairwise

comparison) were found in the livers of

male CD1 mice given 2,500 ppm of 1-

[[2-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-4-propyl-1,3-

dioxolan-2-yl]methyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole

in their diet.

2. The treated animals had earlier

fatalities than the controls.

3. The numbers of carcinomas were

increased (trend only) in male mice only

at the 2,500 ppm dose level. Tumors

were not significantly increased at the

500 ppm dose level. Adenomas

observed in the treated animals were

larger and more numerous than those in

controls; however, the tumor type

(adenoma) was the same.

4. No excessive number of tumors was

found in female mice.

5. In a rat study conducted with

acceptable doses of 1-[[2-(2,4-

dichlorophenyl)-4-propyl-1,3-dioxolan2-yl]methyl]-1H-1,2, 4-triazole, no

excessive numbers of tumors were

found.

The Peer Review Committee

determined, based on the additional

information submitted by Ciba-Geigy

from two 90–day subchronic studies in

mice that the 2,500 ppm dose used in

the 2-year chronic study exceeded the

maximum tolerated dose (MTD) based

on the endpoint of hepatic necrosis, and

the 500 ppm dose used in the chronic

study was inadequate to assess the

carcinogenicity of 1-[[2-(2,4-

dichlorophenyl)-4-propyl-1,3-dioxolan2-yl]methyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole. Based on

the third pathology evaluation of the

chronic study, the Peer Review

Committee disagreed with Ciba-Geigy’s

argument that the study showed

excessive toxicity at the 2,500 ppm

dose. However, the Peer Review

Committee concluded that the 90-day

subchronic studies are a better measure

of what would be an MTD.

Based upon these findings, the Peer

Review Committee agreed that the

classification for 1-[[2-(2,4-

dichlorophenyl)-4-propyl-1,3-dioxolan2-yl]methyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole should

remain a Group C (possible human)

carcinogen and recommended against

the previously used Q* (viz. 0.079) for

risk assessment purposes. For the

purpose of risk characterization the Peer

Review Committee recommended that

the reference dose (RfD) approach

should be used for quantification of

human risk. This decision was based on

the disqualification of the high dose

(2,500 ppm), making the data

inappropriate for the calculation of Q*.

Because the middle dose (500 ppm) was

not considered sufficiently high enough

for assessing the carcinogenic potential

of 1-[[2-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-4-propyl1,3-dioxolan-2-yl]methyl]-1H-1,2,4-

triazole, EPA has requested an

additional mouse study at intermediate

dose levels in male mice only. EPA does

not expect that these data will

significantly change the above cancer

assessment that 1-[[2-(2,4-

dichlorophenyl)-4-propyl-1,3-dioxolan2-yl]methyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole poses a

negligible risk to humans.

The reference dose for 1-[[2-(2,4-

dichlorophenyl)-4-propyl- 1,3-dioxolan2-yl]methyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole is 0.013

mg/kg/day, and based on a NOEL of

1.25 mg/kg/day and an uncertainty

factor of 100. The NOEL is taken from

a 1–year dog feeding study that

demonstrated irritation of the stomach

in males as an endpoint effect. The

Anticipated Residue Contribution (ARC)

from the current action is estimated at

0.000872 mg/kg/day and utilizes 7% of

the RfD of the general population of the

48 states. The ARC for the most highly

exposed subgroup, non-nursing infants

less than 1 year old is 0.00405 or mg/

kg/day (31% of the RfD).

The nature of the residue in plants

and animals is adequately understood

and an adequate analytical method, gas

chromatography, is available for

enforcement purposes. Adequate animal

tissue, milk, and egg tolerances exist to

cover secondary residues incurred in

those commodities from the proposed

uses.

The enforcement methodology has

been submitted to the Food and Drug

Administration for publication in the

Pesticide Analytical Manual, Volume II

(PAM II). Because of the long lead time

for publication of the method in PAM II,

the analytical methodology is being

made available in the interim to anyone

interested in pesticide enforcement

when requested from: Calvin Furlow,

Public Response and Program Resources

Branch, Field Operations Division

(7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs,

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.

Office location and telephone number:

Rm. 1132, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis

Highway, Arlington, VA 22202 (703)

305–5232.

There are presently no actions

pending against the continued

registration of this chemical. The

pesticide is considered useful for the

purpose for which the tolerance is

sought.

Based on the information and data

considered, the Agency has determined

that the tolerance established by

amending 40 CFR part 180 will protect

the public health. Therefore, the

tolerance is established as set forth

below.

Any person adversely affected by this

regulation may, within 30 days after

publication of this document in the

Federal Register, file written objections

to the 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 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
29674 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

accompanied by the fee prescribed by

40 CFR 180.33(i). If a hearing is

requested, the objections must include a

statement of the factual issue(s) on

which a hearing is requested, the

requestor’s contentions on such issues,

and a summary of any evidence relied

upon by the objector (40 CFR 178.27). A

request for a hearing will be granted if

the Administrator determines that the

material submitted shows the following:

There is genuine and substantial issue

of fact; there is a reasonable possibility

that available evidence identified by the

requestor would, if established, resolve

one or more of such issues in favor of

the requestor, taking into account

uncontested claims or facts to the

contrary; and resolution of the factual

issue(s) in the manner sought by the

requestor would be adequate to justify

the action requested (40 CFR 178.32).

A record has been established for this

rulemaking under the docket number

[PP 2F4086/R2238] (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 a.m. to 4 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 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 rule-making record which

will also include all comments

submitted directly in writing. The

official rulemaking record is the paper

record maintained at the address in

‘‘ADDRESSES’’ at the beginning of this

document.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency

must determine whether the regulatory

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore

subject to all the requirements of the

Executive Order (i.e., Regulatory Impact

Analysis, review by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB)). Under

section 3(f), the order defines

‘‘significant’’ as those actions likely to

lead to 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 known 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 (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).

Pursuant to the requirements of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 9–

354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601–612),

the Administrator has determined that

regulations establishing new tolerances

or raising tolerance levels or

establishing exemptions from tolerance

requirements do not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. A certification

statement to this effect was published in

the Federal Register of May 4, 1981 (46

FR 24950).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: May 23, 1996.

Stephen L. Johnson,

Director, Registration Division, Office of

Pesticide Programs.

Therefore, 40 CFR part 180 is

amended as follows:

PART 180—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 180

continues to read as follows:

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

2. In § 180.434, by revising the

introductory text to paragraph (a) and by

adding alphabetically the entries for

‘‘oats, grain,’’ ‘‘oats, straw,’’ ‘‘oats,

forage,’’ and ‘‘oats, hay’’ to the table in

paragraph (a), to read a follows:

§ 180.434 1-[[2-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-4-

propyl-1,3-dioxolan-2-yl]methyl]-1H-1,2,4-

triazole; tolerances for residues.

(a) Tolerances are established for the

combined residues of the fungicide 1-

[[2-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-4-propyl-1,3-

dioxolan-2-yl] methyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole

and its metabolites determined as 2,4-

dichlorobenzoic acid and expressed as

parent compound in or on the following

raw agricultural commodities:

Commodity Parts per

million

* * * * *

Oats, grain ................................ 0.1

Oats, straw ................................ 1.0

Oats, forage .............................. 10.0

Oats, hay .................................. 30.0

* * * * *

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 96–14452 Filed 6–11–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

40 CFR Part 180

[PP 5F4522/R2237; FRL–5367–8]

RIN 2070–AB78

Imidacloprid; Pesticide Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rule establishes a

tolerance for residues of the insecticide

(1-[(6-chloro-3-pyridinyl)methyl]-Nnitro-2-imidazolidinimine) and its

metabolites in or on leafy green

vegetables. Bayer Corporation (formerly

Miles, Inc.) requested this regulation to

establish these maximum permissible

levels for residues of the insecticide.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation became

effective May 28, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Written objections and

hearing requests, identified by the

docket control number, [PP 5F4522/

R2237], may be submitted to: Hearing

Clerk (A-110), Environmental Protection

Agency, Rm. M3708, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. A copy of any

objections and hearing requests filed

with the Hearing Clerk should be

identified by the docket control number

and submitted to: Public Response and

Program Resources Branch, Field

Operations Division (7506C), Office of

Pesticide Programs, Environmental