Fludioxonil. June 30, 1999, Pesticide Tolerance for Emergency Exemption for canberries. Final Rule. Federal Register.

FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORK PESTICIDE PROJECT

Fludioxonil. June 30, 1999, Pesticide Tolerance for Emergency Exemption for caneberries. Final Rule. Federal Register.

http://www.epa.gov/EPA-PEST/1999/June/Day-30/p16544.htm

[Federal Register: June 30, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 125)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 35037-35043]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr30jn99-25]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[OPP-300877; FRL-6086-4]
RIN 2070-AB78

Fludioxonil; Pesticide Tolerance for Emergency Exemption

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a time-limited tolerance for
residues of fludioxonil in or on caneberries. This action is in
response to EPA's granting of an emergency exemption under section 18
of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act authorizing
use of the pesticide on caneberries. This regulation establishes a
maximum permissible level for residues of fludioxonil in this food
commodity 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 tolerance will expire and is revoked on December 31, 2000.

DATES: This regulation is effective June 30, 1999. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received by EPA on or before August 30,
1999.
ADDRESSES: Written objections and hearing requests, identified by the
docket control number [OPP-300877], 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

[[Page 35038]]

filed with the Hearing Clerk identified by the docket control number,
[OPP-300877], 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: opp-docket@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 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-300877].
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 (OPP),
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.
Office location, telephone number, and e-mail address: Rm. 271, CM#2,
1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, (703) 308-9362,
schaible.stephen@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA, on its own initiative, pursuant to
section 408(l)(6) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA),
21 U.S.C. 346a, is establishing a tolerance for residues of the
fungicide fludioxonil, in or on caneberries at 2.0 parts per million
(ppm). This tolerance will expire and is revoked on December 31, 2000.
EPA will publish a document in the Federal Register to remove the
revoked tolerance from the Code of Federal Regulations.

I. Background and Statutory Findings

The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA) (Public Law 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 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 tolerances to set binding precedents for the
application of section 408 and the new safety standard to other
tolerances and exemptions.

II. Emergency Exemption for Fludioxonil on Caneberries and FFDCA
Tolerances

According to the Applicant, weather conditions favorable to gray
mold disease development, combined with pathogen resistance to existing
registered fungicides, has contributed to an emergency condition for
caneberry growers in the States of Washington and Oregon. The states
claim that registered pesticides either do not provide an adequate
level of economic control of gray mold fruit rot or are limited in the
number of applications needed for season-long control. EPA has
authorized under FIFRA section 18 the use of the product Switch 62.5
WG, containing the active ingredients cyprodinil and fludioxonil, on
caneberries for control of gray mold in Oregon and Washington. After
having reviewed the submission, EPA concurs that emergency conditions
exist for these States.
As part of its assessment of this emergency exemption, EPA assessed
the potential risks presented by residues of fludioxonil in or on
caneberries. In doing so, EPA considered the safety standard in FFDCA
section 408(b)(2), and EPA decided that the necessary tolerance under
FFDCA section 408(l)(6) would be consistent with the 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 this tolerance without notice and opportunity for public
comment under section 408(e), as provided in section 408(l)(6).
Although this tolerance will expire and is revoked on December 31,
2000, under FFDCA section 408(l)(5), residues of the pesticide not in
excess of the amounts specified in the tolerance remaining in or on
caneberries 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 this tolerance at
the time of that application. EPA will take action to revoke this
tolerance earlier if any experience with, scientific data on, or other
relevant information on this pesticide indicate that the residues are
not safe.
Because this tolerance is being approved under emergency
conditions, EPA has not made any decisions about whether fludioxonil
meets EPA's registration requirements for use on caneberries or whether
a permanent tolerance for this use would be appropriate. Under these
circumstances, EPA does not believe that this tolerance

[[Page 35039]]

serves as a basis for registration of fludioxonil by a State for
special local needs under FIFRA section 24(c). Nor does this tolerance
serve as the basis for any State other than Oregon and Washington to
use this pesticide on this crop under section 18 of FIFRA without
following all provisions of EPA's regulations implementing section 18
as identified in 40 CFR part 166. For additional information regarding
the emergency exemption for fludioxonil, 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. For further discussion of the
regulatory requirements of section 408 and a complete description of
the risk assessment process, see the final rule on Bifenthrin Pesticide
Tolerances (62 FR 62961, November 26, 1997) (FRL-5754-7) .
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
fludioxonil and to make a determination on aggregate exposure,
consistent with section 408(b)(2), for a time-limited tolerance for
residues of fludioxonil on caneberries at 5.0 ppm. EPA's assessment of
the dietary exposures and risks associated with establishing the
tolerance 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 fludioxonil are
discussed in this unit.

B. Toxicological Endpoint

1. Acute toxicity. No endpoint was identified for acute dietary
exposure. The OPP Toxicity Endpoint Selection Committee has concluded
that the toxicology data base does not suggest the need for this
assessment.
2. Short- and intermediate-term toxicity. No toxicological
endpoints of concern were identified for acute oral exposure, short-
term dermal exposure, or inhalation exposure for all time periods. Risk
assessments for these exposure scenarios were not conducted.
3. Chronic toxicity. EPA has established the Reference Dose (RfD)
for fludioxonil at 0.03 milligrams/kilograms/day (mg/kg/day). This RfD
is based on a no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 3.3 mg/kg/
day, taken from a chronic feeding study in dogs, and an uncertainty
factor of 100. The effect observed at the lowest observed adverse
effect level (LOAEL) of 35.5 mg/kg/day was decreased body weight gain
in females.
4. Carcinogenicity. Fludioxonil has been classified as a Group D
not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity, chemical by the Cancer
Peer Review Committee. The Group D classification was based on the
statistically significant increase in liver tumors in female rats for
combined adenoma/carcinoma only, the lack of tumorigenic response in
male rats or in either sex of the mouse, and the need for additional
mutagenicity studies.

C. Exposures and Risks

1. From food and feed uses. A tolerance has been established (40
CFR 180.516) for the residues of fludioxonil, in or on potatoes at 0.02
ppm. Fludioxonil is currently registered for use as a seed treatment on
potatoes, popcorn, field and sweet corn, and sorghum, as well as for
use in greenhouses on nonfood crops. Additionally, time-limited
tolerances have been established for residues of fludioxonil on
apricots, nectarines, peaches, plums, and strawberries. Risk
assessments were conducted by EPA to assess dietary exposures and risks
from fludioxonil 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 1-day or single exposure. In reviewing the toxicity data base, no
toxicological endpoints were identified which could be attributable to
a single dietary exposure. Therefore a risk assessment for this
exposure scenario was not conducted.
ii. Chronic exposure and risk. Tolerance level residues and 100%
crop treated were assumed to calculate Theoretical Maximum Residue
Contribution (TMRCs) for the United States (U.S.) population and
population subgroups from residues on published and proposed uses.
Chronic exposure from food uses of fludioxonil represents 5% of the RfD
for the U.S. population and 22% of the RfD for infants (<1yr), the
subgroup most highly exposed.
2. From drinking water. Fludioxonil is not expected to impact
ground or surface water resources. Available data suggest fludioxonil
has a relatively low potential to leach to ground water and move in
runoff to aquatic environments. There is no established Maximum
Contaminant Level (MCL) for residues of fludioxonil in drinking water.
No health advisory levels for fludioxonil in drinking water have been
established.
The Agency has calculated drinking water levels of comparison
(DWLOCs) for chronic exposure to fludioxonil in surface and ground
water. The DWLOCs are calculated by subtracting from the RfD the
respective chronic dietary exposure attributable to food to obtain the
acceptable exposure to fludioxonil in drinking water. Default body
weight (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 liter (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 ground water at which aggregate
exposure to the chemical is not of concern.
Using Generic (GENEEC (surface water)) and Screening Concentration
in Ground Water (SCI-GROW (ground water)) models, the Agency has
calculated chronic Tier I Estimated Environmental Concentrations (EECs)
for fludioxonil for use in human health risk assessments. These values
represent the upper bound estimates of the concentrations of
fludioxonil 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. In reviewing the toxicity data base,
no toxicological endpoints were identified which could be attributable
to a single dietary exposure. Therefore a risk assessment for this
exposure scenario was not conducted.
ii. Chronic exposure and risk. Using the SCI-GROW model, the
maximum long-term estimated concentration in ground water is not
expected to exceed 0.08 parts per billion (ppb). The chronic estimated
concentration in surface water, using the GENEEC model, is 7.8 ppb. The
DWLOC for the U.S. population was calculated to be 999 ppb; the DWLOC
for the most sensitive subgroup, infants less than 1 year old, was
calculated to be 235 ppb. As even the upper bound concentrations of
fludioxonil in ground water and surface water are not expected to
exceed the

[[Page 35040]]

calculated DWLOC, the Agency concludes with reasonable certainty that
chronic exposure to fludioxonil in drinking water is not of concern.
3. From non-dietary exposure. Fludioxonil is currently not
registered for use on residential, non-food sites; therefore, no non-
occupational, non-dietary exposure is expected.
4. Cumulative exposure to substances with a 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.''
EPA does not have, at this time, available data to determine
whether fludioxonil 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,
fludioxonil 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 fludioxonil has a common mechanism of toxicity
with other substances. For more information regarding EPA's efforts to
determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to
evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see the final rule
for Bifenthrin Pesticide Tolerances (62 FR 62961, November 26, 1997).

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

1. Acute risk. In reviewing the toxicity data base, no
toxicological endpoints were identified which could be attributable to
a single dietary exposure. Therefore a risk assessment for this
exposure scenario was not conducted.
2. Chronic risk. Using the TMRC exposure assumptions described in
this unit, EPA has concluded that aggregate exposure to fludioxonil
from food will utilize 5% of the RfD for the U.S. population. The major
identifiable subgroup with the highest aggregate exposure is infants
less than 1 year in age (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. Estimated
chronic environmental concentrations of fludioxonil in surface water
and ground water do not exceed chronic DWLOCs calculated by the Agency.
EPA does not expect the aggregate exposure to exceed 100% of the RfD.
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.
Fludioxonil is currently not registered for use on residential,
non-food sites; therefore, short- and intermediate-term aggregate risk
assessments were not conducted.
4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Fludioxonil has been
classified as a Group D- not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity-
chemical by the Cancer Peer Review Committee. The Group D
classification was based on the statistically significant increase in
liver tumors in female rats for combined adenoma/carcinoma only, the
lack of tumorigenic response in male rats or in either sex of the
mouse, and the need for additional mutagenicity studies.
5. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
from aggregate exposure to fludioxonil 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 fludioxonil, 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 postnatal toxicity and the
completeness of the data base 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 margin of exposure (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 rat developmental study,
the maternal (systemic) NOAEL was 100 mg/kg/day, based on reduction in
mean body weight gain in dams during gestation period at the LOAEL of
1,000 mg/kg/day. The developmental (fetal) NOAEL was 100 mg/kg/day,
based on increased fetal and litter incidence of dilated renal pelvis
and dilated ureter at the LOAEL of 1,000 mg/kg/day. In the rabbit
developmental toxicity study, the maternal (systemic) NOAEL was 10 mg/
kg/day, based on decreased body weight gains and food efficiency at the
LOAEL of 100 mg/kg/day. The developmental (pup) NOAEL was 300 mg/kg/
day, the highest dose tested.
iii. Reproductive toxicity study. In the 2-generation reproductive
toxicity study in rats, the parental (systemic) NOAEL was 22.13 mg/kg/
day (males) and 24.24 mg/kg/day (females), based on clinical signs and
decreased body weight, body weight gain and food consumption at the
LOAEL of 221.6 mg/kg/day (males) and 249.7 mg/kg/day (females). The
reproductive/developmental (pup) NOAEL was 22.13 mg/kg/day (males) and
24.24 mg/kg/day (females), based on reduced pup weights at the LOAEL of
221.6 mg/kg/day (males) and 249.7 mg/kg/day (females).
iv. Pre- and postnatal sensitivity. The toxicological data base for
evaluating pre- and postnatal toxicity for fludioxonil is complete with
respect to current data requirements. There are no pre- or postnatal
toxicity concerns for infants and children, based on the results of the
rat and rabbit developmental toxicity studies and the 2-generation rat
reproductive toxicity study.
v. Conclusion. There is a complete toxicity data base for
fludioxonil and exposure data are complete or are estimated based on
data that reasonably accounts for potential exposures.
2. Acute risk. In reviewing the toxicity data base, no
toxicological endpoints were identified which could be attributable to
a single dietary exposure. Therefore, a risk assessment for this
exposure scenario was not conducted.
3. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit, EPA has concluded that aggregate exposure

[[Page 35041]]

to fludioxonil from food will utilize 22% of the RfD for non-nursing
and nursing infants less than 1 year old, the subgroups most highly
exposed. 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. Because the chronic DWLOCs are not exceeded by
estimated chronic environmental concentrations in ground water or
surface water, EPA does not expect the aggregate exposure to exceed
100% of the RfD.
4. Short- or intermediate-term risk. Fludioxonil is currently not
registered for use on residential, non-food sites; therefore, short-
and intermediate-term aggregate risk assessments were not conducted.
5. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to infants and children from aggregate exposure to fludioxonil
residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Metabolism In Plants and Animals

The nature of the residue in plants is adequately understood based
on a metabolism study submitted for seed treatment use on potatoes. The
residue of concern is the parent compound, fludioxonil, only. There are
no livestock feed items associated with the proposed use on
caneberries. Therefore, the nature of the residue in animals is not of
concern with regard to the establishment of this tolerance.

B. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

Adequate enforcement methodology high pressure liquid
chromotography/using ultraviolet detection (HPLC/UV) is available to
enforce the tolerance expression. The method may be requested from:
Calvin Furlow, PRRIB, IRSD (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.
Office location and telephone number: Rm 101FF, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson
Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, (703) 305-5229.

C. Magnitude of Residues

Residues of fludioxonil are not expected to exceed 5.0 ppm in/on
caneberries as a result of the proposed section 18 use. Secondary
residues are not expected in animal commodities as there are no feed
items associated with use on caneberries.

D. International Residue Limits

There are no Codex residue limits established for fludioxonil, and
no Canadian or Mexican residue limits for fludioxonil use on
caneberries.

E. Rotational Crop Restrictions

As caneberries are not considered to be a rotated crop, no
rotational crop data are required.

V. Conclusion

Therefore, the tolerance is established for residues of fludioxonil
in caneberries at 5.0 ppm.

VI. 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 August 30, 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 under the ``ADDRESSES'' section (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). EPA is authorized to waive any fee requirement
``when in the judgement 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, tompkins.jim@epa.gov. Requests 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.

VII. Public Record and Electronic Submissions

EPA has established a record for this regulation under docket
control number [OPP-300877] (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#2,
1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA.
Objections and hearing requests may be sent by e-mail directly to
EPA at:

opp-docket@epa.gov

E-mailed objections and hearing requests 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 in this unit will be kept in paper form.
Accordingly, EPA will transfer any copies of objections and

[[Page 35042]]

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.

VIII. Regulatory Assessment Requirements

A. Certain Acts and Executive Orders

This final rule establishes a tolerance 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) (Public Law 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
tolerance 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 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 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.

IX. 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 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: June 11, 1999.

James Jones,
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. 321(q), 346(a) and 371.

2. In Sec. 180.516, by alphabetically adding the commodity
``Caneberries'' to the table in paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec. 180.516 Fludioxonil; tolerances for residues.

(b) * * *

[[Page 35043]]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expiration/revocation
Commodity Parts per million date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Caneberries................................................... 5.0 12/31/00
* * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 99-16544 Filed 6-29-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F