Following applications of propiconazole ( EC) at rates totaling 0.224 0.227 lb ai/ A/ season ( 1x rate), total propiconazole residues were 0.06 2.7 ppm and averaged 1.15 ppm in/ on 10 samples of mint hay harvested at 29 30 DAT. Propiconazole Summary of Analyt ical Chemist ry and Residue Data Barcode D238458 Page 40 of 63 Conclusions The available field trial data on almonds, bush and cane berries, carrots, celery, cranberries, mint, onions, pecans, rice and strawberries are adequate and support the proposed use patterns for propiconazole ( EC or WP) on these crops. The number and geographic distribution of the field trials are adequate, and the appropriate samples were collected at the proposed PHIs. Based on available side by side studies with almonds, celery, field corn, and sugar beets comparing the EC and WP formulations, the general results are that the residues are similar with the two formulations, with the exception of sugar beet tops where the EC formulation resulted in higher residues. For crops other than almonds, celery, field corn, and sugar beets, data were generated for only the EC formulation. Sugar beets are the only crop for which most of the data reflect the WP formulation. HED concluded that adequate data are available to support use of both formulations on all crops in these petitions with the exception of sugar beets.

The available bush and cane berries field trial data will support a general use on all members of the berry crop group ( 13); the celery field trial data will support uses on all members of the leafy petioles crop subgroup ( 4B); and the onion ( green and dry bulb) field trial data will support uses on all members of the bulb vegetable crop group ( 3). The almond and pecan data will support uses on all members of the tree nut crop group ( 14); however, use directions for all tree nuts, except pecans, should be amended to specify a minimum PHI of 60 days.

Adequate field trial data have previously been reviewed supporting the current use directions on sweet corn. The available field and pop corn field trial data are adequate and support the use of up to four late season broadcast foliar applications of propiconazole ( EC) to field or pop corn through grain development, up to the dent stage ( R5 stage), at 0.11 lb ai/ A/ application, for a total of 0.44 lb ai/ A/ season. The data support a PHI of 30 days for harvest of forage, grain and stover. However, the most extensive data on field corn forage will only support the use of two earlyseason applications prior to the harvest of forage. The current time limited tolerance of 12 ppm on field corn forage can be reduced to 4.5 ppm if the petitioner intends to only support total use rates of 0.22 lb ai/ A to field corn prior to the harvest of forage.

The sorghum field trial data are also adequate and support the proposed use pattern, provided that the label is amended to specify a maximum total application rate of 0.22 lb ai/ A on sorghum harvested for forage.

There are no sufficient field trial data to support the purposed use on dry peas and beans as only six dry bean field trials are available and no dry pea field trials were conducted. For a subgroup crop tolerance on 6C, a total of 12 dry bean field trials and 5 dry pea field trials are required. In addition, the available dry bean field trials support a PHI of 28 days rather than the 14 day PHI on the proposed label. HED recommends against the establishment of permanent tolerance on subgroup crop 6C until additional field trial data are submitted.

For soybeans, after considering all the available soybean field trial data, HED concluded that sufficient residue data are available to support tolerances on soybean forage and hay harvested 30 days following the second of two applications totaling 0.33 lb ai/ A ( 1x rate). Although the petitioner has requested tolerances for soybean forage and hay, the Agency notes that the currently proposed use directions for soybean prohibit the feeding or grazing for forage or hay. Propiconazole Summary of Analyt ical Chemist ry and Residue Data Barcode D238458 Page 41 of 63 HED also considers sufficient residue data are available to support tolerances on soybean seed, even though the PHIs of the soybean seed data varies from 30 to 90 days, since soybean mature at different times depending on the growth regions, PHI can vary from region to region, therefore, provided the label has such language as " do not apply later than the R5 growth stage' or ` apply up to Stage R6", no additional field trials are required for soybean seeds.

For sugar beets, adequate field trial data are available to support the use of the 45% WP formulation at the proposed rate. However, based on the results of the side by side tests with the WP and EC formulations, residues in/ on tops at the proposed 21 day PHI are likely to be higher for the EC formulation than the WP formulation. Therefore, a complete set of field trial data is required for sugar beet tops reflecting the use of the EC formulation.

The available wheat field trial data for grain and straw are adequate and will support the proposed late season use pattern on wheat, barley, rye and oats; however, the available residue data on forage and hay will only support a maximum use rate of 0.11 lb ai/ A prior to the harvest of forage or hay. The use directions must be amended to specify a maximum total application rate of 0.11 lb ai/ A on wheat, barley, oats or rye harvested for forage or hay. If the petitioner intends to support the use of two applications totaling 0.22 lb ai/ A prior to harvest of forage and hay, then an additional 8 field trials are required on forage and a complete set of 20 field trials are required for hay.

860.1520 Processed Food and Feed 43640401. der5 ( rotated alfalfa) 45080810. der ( field corn) 44548402. der2 ( wheat) 45050811. der2 ( rice) 44757207. der2 ( sugar beet) 45275801. der2 ( sorghum) 44757208. der2 ( wheat) 46576302. der ( soybean)

Alfalfa ( rotational crop). In a field trial conducted during 1989 in NE, propiconazole ( 3.6 lb/ gal EC) was applied to a primary crop of wheat as a single broadcast foliar application at flag leaf emergence ( Feekes Growth Stage 8) at 0.11, 0.33, or 0.55 lb ai/ A ( 0.5x, 1.5x and 2.5x rates). The wheat was grown to maturity and harvested, and a rotational crop alfalfa was planted 77 DAT. Alfalfa hay was harvested the following spring ( 380 DAT) and processed into meal and pellets using simulated commercial practices. Prior to analysis, hay, meal and pellets were stored frozen up to 27 months, an interval supported by the available storage stability data.

Total residues of propiconazole and its 2,4 DCBA containing metabolites were determined using GC/ ECD Method AG 454 B, which was adequately validated in conjunction with the analysis of field trial samples. The validated method LOQ is 0.05 ppm, and an LOD was not reported.

Following an application of propiconazole ( EC) to a primary wheat crop at 0.11 or 0.33 lb ai/ A ( 0.5x or 1.5x), residues were < 0.05 ppm in hay, meal and pellets from alfalfa planted at a 77 day PBI. For the application at 0.55 lb ai/ A ( 2.5x), residues were < 0.05 ppm in alfalfa hay and meal and 0.06 ppm in pellets, indicating the potential for possible concentration of residue at 1.2x in pellets. However, given the low levels of concentration, a separate tolerance is not required for alfalfa meal. Propiconazole Summary of Analyt ical Chemist ry and Residue Data Barcode D238458 Page 42 of 63 Corn. In two field trials conducted during 1998, propiconazole ( 1.04 lb/ gal EC) was applied to two plots of field corn at each site as four broadcast foliar applications during grain development at 0.11 or 0.55 lb ai/ A/ application at RTIs of 5 9 days, for totals of 0.44 or 2.20 lb ai/ A/ season ( 1x and 5x rates). All applications were made using ground equipment in volumes of 21 25 gal/ A, and no adjuvants were included in the spray mixtures. Single control and treated bulk samples of corn grain were harvested from each test at normal crop maturity, 29 or 30 DAT. The grain was cleaned to generate AGF and then processed using simulated wet and dry milling procedures into meal, grits, flour, starch and refined oil. Prior to analysis, the grain and processed fractions were stored frozen for up to 10 months, an interval supported by the available stability data.

Total residues of propiconazole and its 2,4 DCBA containing metabolites were determined using GC/ ECD Method AG 454 B, which was adequately validated in conjunction with the analysis of field trial samples. The validated method LOQ is 0.05 ppm, and an LOD was not reported.

Total combined propiconazole residues in/ on bulk samples of corn grain harvested at 29 or 30 DAT were < 0.05 ppm from the 1x rate tests and 0.062 and 0.081 ppm for the 5x rate tests. Except for AGF, residues in processed fractions were < 0.05 ppm in samples from the 1x rate tests. Residues in AGF from the 1x rate tests were 0.159 0.208 ppm from the IL test and 0.173 ppm from the IA test, indicating the potential for concentration of residues in corn grain AGF. However, due to residues being < LOQ in the RAC at 1x, reliable processing factors for AGF from the 1x rate tests could not be calculated.

For the 5x rate tests, residues were also < 0.05 ppm in meal, grits, flour and starch and were < 0.05 0.097 ppm in refined oil. Processing factors for corn meal, grits, flour and starch were < 0.6x< 0.8x and averaged < 0.7x, and the processing factors for refined oil were < 0.6x 1.6x and averaged 1x. Residues in/ on AGF from the 5x tests were 0.250 0.266 ppm in the IL test and 1.04 ppm in the IA test. As the control sample of AGF from the IL test had apparent residues ( 0.233 0.264 ppm) of similar magnitude to the treated samples, a processing factor was not calculated for AGF from the test in IL. The processing factor for AGF from the 5x test in IA was 12.8x. The maximum theoretical processing factor for corn grain is 25x for corn oil. As the processing factors for meal, flour, grits, starch and refined oil were   1x, separate tolerances are not required for these processed commodities. However, a tolerance will be required for AGF. Based on HAFT residues of 0.1 ppm for corn grain and the 12.8x processing factor, the maximum expected in corn grain AGF would be 1.28 ppm.

Mint. Adequate data are available from two mint processing studies ( DP Barcode D209468, W. Wassell, 4/ 25/ 95). In two field trials, propiconazole ( EC) was applied to mint at rates up to 0.34 lb ai/ A ( 1.5x labeled rate). Samples of fresh mint hay were cut 90 DAT, air dried, and distilled to yield mint oil. Samples of mint hay and oil were stored for up to 224 days prior to analysis using an adequate GC/ ECD method ( AG 454B). Total propiconazole residues were 0.12 ppm in fresh hay from both field trials and were < 0.05 and 0.08 ppm in oil from the two sites, for an average processing factor of 0.5x for mint oil. Therefore, a separate tolerance for mint oil is not required. Propiconazole Summary of Analyt ical Chemist ry and Residue Data Barcode D238458 Page 43 of 63 Rice. In a two field trials conducted during 1998 in AR and LA, propiconazole ( 3.6 lb/ gal EC) was applied to rice as a single broadcast foliar application at heading at 0.28 or 1.40 lb ai/ A ( 0.8x and 4.1x rates) at each site. Rice was grown and harvested at commercial maturity, 35 DAT. Following harvest, whole grain was processed using simulated commercial procedures into polished rice, hulls and bran. Prior to analysis, rice and processed fractions were stored frozen up to 11.1 months, an interval supported by the available storage stability data.

Combined residues of propiconazole and its 2,4 DCBA containing metabolites in/ on rice grain, hulls, bran and polished rice were determined using GC/ ECD Method AG 626, which was adequately validated in conjunction with the analysis of treated samples. The validated method LOQ is 0.05 ppm for each commodity, and a LOD was not reported.

Following application of propiconazole to rice at 0.28 or 1.40 lb ai/ A ( 0.8x and 4.1x), combined propiconazole residues in/ on rice grain at 35 DAT were 0.82 and 0.86 ppm in the two 0.8x tests and 2.4 and 3.7 ppm in the two 4.1x tests. Combined residues were reduced in polished rice by 0.06x 0.19x, and concentrated in rice hulls by 3.0x 4.1x and in bran by 1.7x 3.9x. For all four tests, the average processing factors were 0.12x for polished rice, 3.8x for hulls, and 2.9x for bran. Based on HAFT residues of 5.05 ppm for rice grain and these average processing factors, the maximum expected residues would be 19.2 ppm in hulls and 14.6 ppm in bran. These data indicate that separate tolerances should be established at 20 and 15 ppm for rice hull and bran, respectively.

Sorghum. In two field trials conducted in KS and TX in 1998, propiconazole ( 3.6 lb/ gal EC) was applied to two plots of sorghum at each site as four broadcast foliar applications during grain development at 0.11 or 0.55 lb ai/ A/ application, for totals of 0.44 or 2.2 lb ai/ A/ season ( 1x and 5x rates). All applications were made using ground equipment in volumes of 12 13 gal/ A, and included the use of a surfactant at 0.1 0.25% of the spray volume. Single control and treated bulk samples of grain were harvested from each test at normal crop maturity, 18 or 20 DAT. The grain was cleaned to generate AGF and then processed using simulated commercial procedures into flour. Prior to analysis, the grain and processed fractions were stored frozen for up to 15 months, an interval supported by the available stability data.

Combined residues of propiconazole and its 2,4 DCBA containing metabolites were determined using GC/ ECD Method AG 626 ( modified), which was adequately validated in conjunction with the analysis of treated samples. The validated method LOQ is 0.05 ppm for each commodity, and a LOD was not reported.

Total propiconazole residues in/ on bulk samples of sorghum grain harvested at 18 20 DAT were 0.43 or 1.2 ppm following applications at the 1x rate and 2.2 and 6.9 ppm following applications at the 5x rate. For the 1x rate, residues in AGF were 3.39 and 6.5 ppm and residues in flour were 0.06 and 0.48 ppm. For the 5x rates, residues in AGF were 9.2 and 21.3 ppm and residues in flour were 0.22 and 2.6 ppm. The processing factors for AGF were 3.1x 7.9x and averaged 5.2x, and the processing factors for flour were 0.1x 0.4x and averaged 0.3x. Based on the average processing factors and HAFT residues of 2.1 ppm for sorghum grain, the maximum expected residues would be 0.6 ppm in sorghum flour and 10.9 ppm in sorghum AGF. Propiconazole Summary of Analyt ical Chemist ry and Residue Data Barcode D238458 Page 44 of 63 Soybean. A processing study for soybeans was reviewed in conjunction with the original petition on legume vegetables ( PP# 8F3674, C. Deyrup, 12/ 14/ 88, and DP Barcode D210266 and D210295, M. Rodriquez, 3/ 5/ 97). Samples of mature soybeans bearing combined residues of 0.40 or 0.61 ppm were processed in hulls, meal, oil and soapstock using simulated commercial practices. Combined residues were 0.026 and 0.31 ppm in/ on hulls, 0.40 and 0.75 ppm in meal, < 0.05 ppm in refined oil and 0.18 and 0.19 ppm in soapstock. Average processing factors were 0.7x for hulls, 1.1x for meal, < 0.1x for refined oil, and 0.4x for soapstock.

In addition, the Agency has more recently reviewed a study on soybean AGF ( DP Barcode D246884, T. Morton, 3/ 10/ 05). In two tests conducted in 1997, mature samples of soybeans were harvested 45 or 56 days following two foliar applications of propiconazole ( 3.6 lb/ gal EC) at 0.17 lb ai/ A/ application, with a 14 day RTI, for a total of 0.33 lb ai/ A ( 1x rate). Bulks samples of seed from both tests were cleaned to generate AGF samples, and seeds and AGF samples were analyzed for combined propiconazole residues using GC/ ECD Method AG 626, which has an LOQ of 0.05 ppm. Combined residues in/ on seeds averaged 0.28 and 0.20 ppm from the two tests, and combined residues in/ on AGF averaged 0.27 and 1.5 ppm from the two tests, for processing factors of 1x and 7.5x, respectively. The average processing factor for soybean AGF was 4.3x.

In addition to the above soybean processing data, a soybean processing study is also available reflecting foliar applications later in the growing season of a MAI EC formulation containing propiconazole at 1.04 lb ai/ gal. In a field trial conducted during 2003 in MS, the propiconazole MAI EC formulation was applied to soybeans as three broadcast foliar applications during pod development ( BBCH 75 77) at 0.398 0.420 lb ai/ A/ application, at RTIs of 8 9 days, for a total of 1.225 lb ai/ A ( 3.6x maximum rate). Single bulk samples of control and treated seeds were harvested at commercial maturity, 19 DAT. Following harvest, samples of AGF were generated, and seeds were then processed using simulated commercial procedures into hulls, meal, and refined oil. Samples of seed were stored frozen for up to 3 months prior to analysis, and samples of AGF and processed commodities were stored frozen for   1 month; these intervals are supported by the available storage stability data.

Combined residues of propiconazole and its 2,4 DCBA containing metabolites were determined using a GC/ MSD method, which is a modification to Method AG 626 that uses a MSD instead of ECD for detection of residues. The method is adequately validated in conjunction with the analysis of treated samples. The validated LOQ was 0.5 ppm for all matrices, and the calculated LODs were 0.07 ppm for seeds, 0.4 ppm for hulls, 0.15 ppm for meal and 0.14 ppm for refined oil. An LOD for AGF was not reported.

Following three applications of propiconazole ( EC) to soybeans during pod development at rates totaling 1.23 lb ai/ A ( 3.6x rate), combined residues were 1.23 1.32 ppm in/ on seeds ( RAC) harvested at 19 DAT and were < 0.5 ppm in/ on hulls, meal and refined oil and 39.4 40.1 ppm in/ on AGF. Based on the average combined residues in seeds ( RAC) and each processed fraction, the calculated processing factors are 0.2x for hulls, meal, and for refined oil, and 32x for AGF. Propiconazole Summary of Analyt ical Chemist ry and Residue Data Barcode D238458 Page 45 of 63 Both soybean processing studies indicate that combined propiconazole residues are unlikely to concentrate in hulls, meal and refined oil; therefore, separate tolerances are not required for these commodities. However, both studies also indicate that residues are likely to concentrate in soybean AGF. The difference between the two processing factors for AGF, 4.3x and 32x, was considerable, and most likely reflects the different application timings and harvest intervals for beans in the two studies. In the study with the lower processing factor ( 4.3x), beans were harvested at 45 56 DAT, and in the study with the higher concentration factor ( 32x), beans were harvested at 19 DAT. As the petitioner is now proposing a shorter PHI for the harvest of soybeans ( 30 days), the processing factor from the later study will be more appropriate for estimating soybean AGF residues. Based on HAFT residues of 0.90 ppm for soybean seed and the 32x processing factor, the maximum expected residues would be 30 ppm in soybean AGF.

Sugar beet. In a field trial conducted in MN in 1997, propiconazole ( 45% WP) was applied to sugar beets as three broadcast foliar applications during root enlargement at either 0.11, 0.33 or 0.55 lb ai/ A/ application, at a RTI of 10 days, for totals of 0.33, 0.99 and 1.65 lb ai/ A/ season ( 1x, 3x and 5x rates). Sugar beets were grown and harvested at commercial maturity, 23 DAT. Following harvest, sugar beet roots from each rate were processed into refined sugar, dried pulp and molasses using simulated commercial procedures. Prior to analysis, samples were stored up to 9.9 months, an interval supported by available storage stability data.

Combined residues of propiconazole and its 2,4 DCBA containing metabolites were determined using GC/ ECD Method AG 454B, which was adequately validated in conjunction with the analysis of treated samples. The validated method LOQ is 0.05 ppm for each commodity, and the LOD was 0.02 ppm.

Total residues were 0.03, 0.045 and 0.11 ppm in/ on roots treated at the 1x, 3x and 5x rates, respectively. Residues in roots were above the LOQ only in the 5x treatment. For processed fractions from 1x, 3x, and 5x treatments, residues were respectively 0.11, 0.26 and 0.54 ppm in molasses and 0.18, 0.76, and 0.81 ppm in dried pulp. Residues in refined sugar were nondetectable (< 0.02 ppm) in all samples. Processing factors from all three tests were < 0.2< 0.7x for refined sugar, 6.0 16.9x for molasses, and 3.7 7.4x for dried pulp. With the exception on one for the processing factors for molasses ( 16.9x from 3x rate test), the processing factors were below the maximum theoretical concentration factor for sugar beets, which is 12.5x. Because residues were above the LOQ in roots from only 5x treatment, the processing factors for refined sugar (< 0.2x), molasses ( 7.4x) and dried pulp ( 4.9x) from the 5x treatment should be used for determining residues in sugar beet processed fractions. Based on HAFT residues of 0.18 ppm for sugar beet roots and the above processing factors, the maximum expected residues would be < 0.05 ppm in refined sugar, 1.33 ppm in molasses, and 0.88 ppm in dried pulp. These data indicate that separate tolerances should be established at 1.5 and 1.0 ppm for sugar beet molasses and dried pulp, respectively.

Wheat. Numerous wheat processing studies are available reflecting one or more applications of propiconazole ( EC) to wheat at various growth stages. The Agency previously reviewed ( DP Barcode D240856, T. Morton, 2/ 23/ 05) a series of wheat processing studies conducted in 1996 and in 1992 93. In the four tests conducted in 1996, propiconazole ( EC) was applied to wheat as a single broadcast foliar application at Feekes Growth Stage 8 ( flag leaf emergence) at 0.55 lb ai/ A ( 2.5x rate). Mature grain was harvested at 47 68 DAT, and processed into AGF, germ, Propiconazole Summary of Analyt ical Chemist ry and Residue Data Barcode D238458 Page 46 of 63 bran, middlings, shorts, and flour. Total combined residues were determined in all fractions using GC/ ECD Method AG 454B, which has a LOQ of 0.05 ppm and a LOD of 0.02 ppm. Residues in/ on grain from the four tests were all < LOQ, but were detectable at 0.02 0.04 ppm. Processing factors were all   1x for germ, middlings and flour samples, and were < 1x 1.3x for shorts, 1.5x 3.0x for bran and 2.0x 24x for AGF. Average processing factors were 1.1x for shorts, 2.3x for bran, and 9.6x for AGF.

In the other four tests conducted in 1992 93, propiconazole ( EC) was applied to wheat as either a single broadcast foliar application at Feekes Growth Stage 8 at 0.55 lb ai/ A ( 2.5x rate, 2 tests) or as two foliar applications at 0.55 lb ai/ A at both Feekes Growth Stages 5 and 8, for a total of 1.1 lb ai/ A ( 5x rate, 2 tests). Mature grain was harvested at 54 85 DAT, and processed into AGF, germ, bran, middlings, shorts, and flour. Total combined residues were determined in all fractions using GC/ ECD Method AG 454B, which has a LOQ of 0.05 ppm. The method LOD was not reported. Residues in/ on grain were < LOQ in the two tests which received only a single application ( 2.5x rate) and were 0.08 and 0.43 ppm in the two tests receiving two applications ( 5x rate). For the two 5x test, with had quantifiable residues in grain, processing factors were all < 1x for germ, shorts, middlings and flour, and were 0.9x and 1.4x for bran and 10x and 12x for AGF. Average processing factors for bran and AGF were 1.2x and 11x, respectively.

In addition to the above studies, Syngenta has submitted several more wheat processing studies reflecting the use of propiconazole at later growth stages, which is the use that the registrant is currently proposing. In two trials conducted in 1996 ( 44548402. der2), propiconazole ( EC) was applied to wheat in four plots at each site as a single broadcast foliar application at booting ( Feekes Growth Stage 10) or at heading ( Feekes Growth Stage 10.5) at 0.11 0.12 lb ai/ A or 0.55 0.62 lb ai/ A ( 0.5x and 2.5x rates). All applications were made using ground equipment in volumes of 15 21 gal/ A, and did not include the use of any adjuvants. Single control and treated bulk samples of grain were harvested from each test at normal crop maturity, 63 67 days following the application at booting or 55 57 days following the application at heading. The grain was cleaned to generate AGF and then processed using simulated commercial procedures into wheat germ, bran, middlings, shorts and flour ( low grade and patent). Prior to analysis, the grain and processed fractions were stored frozen for up to 4.9 months, an interval supported by the available stability data. Combined residues were determined using GC/ ECD Method AG 454B, which was adequately validated in conjunction with the analysis of treated samples. The validated method LOQ is 0.05 ppm for each commodity, and the LOD was 0.02 ppm.

For the tests conducted at the 0.5x rate, total propiconazole residues were < LOQ in/ on all samples of grain and all processed fractions, with the exception of AGF. AGF samples from the 0.5x applications were < LOQ in one test and 0.08 0.14 ppm in the remaining three 1x tests, indicating the potential for concentration of residues in AGF. However, reliable processing factors could not be calculated since residues in the RAC were < LOQ.

Residues were also < LOQ in/ on grain samples from two of the tests conducted at 2.5x rates; however, in the remaining two 2.5x tests, residues in/ on grain were 0.16 ppm at 67 DAT and 0.24 ppm at 57 DAT. In these tests, residues were 1.3 1.4 ppm in AGF,   0.06 ppm in germ, 0.05 0.17 ppm in bran, and < LOQ in middlings, shorts and flour. Calculated processing factors for these tests were 5.8 8.1x for AGF,   0.3x for germ, 0.3 0.7x for bran,   0.2x for middlings, Propiconazole Summary of Analyt ical Chemist ry and Residue Data Barcode D238458 Page 47 of 63 shorts and flour. Average processing factors were 7.0x for AGF, 0.2x for germ, 0.5x for bran and < 0.1x for middlings, shorts and flour.

In the final series of wheat processing studies conducted in 1997 ( 44757208. der2), propiconazole was applied at the highest use rates and at the latest possible timing. In two trials, propiconazole ( EC) was applied to wheat in four separate plots as either a single broadcast foliar application at Feekes Growth Stage 10.5 at 0.11 12 lb ai/ A ( 0.5x rate), or as two broadcast foliar applications around Feekes Growth Stages 10 ( booting) and 10.5 ( heading) at either 0.11 0.12, 0.33 0.37, or 0.55 0.62 lb ai/ A/ application, for totals of ~ 0.22, ~ 0.66, and ~ 1.1 lb ai/ A/ season ( 1x, 3x and 5x rates). All applications were made using ground equipment in volumes of 19 20 gal/ A, and no adjuvants were included in the spray mixture. The RTI was 12 or 16 days for plots receiving two applications. Single control and treated bulks samples of grain were harvested from each test at 36 or 47 DAT. Samples were cleaned to generate AGF and then processed using simulated commercial procedures into wheat germ, bran, middlings, shorts and flour ( low grade and patent). Samples were stored up to 9.3 months prior to analysis, an interval supported by available storage stability data.

Combined residues were determined using GC/ ECD Method AG 454B, which was adequately validated in conjunction with the analysis of treated samples. The validated method LOQ is 0.05 ppm for each commodity, and the LOD was 0.02 ppm. In addition, samples from these processing studies were also analyzed for residues of propiconazole, per se, using a GC/ NPD method from PAM Vol. I ( Method 302 E4 + DG5). This method was also adequately validated in conjunction with the analysis of treated samples, and the validated method LOQ was 0.05 ppm for all wheat commodities; a LOD was not reported.

Following a single broadcast application to wheat at a 0.5x rate at FGS 10.5, total combined residues were < LOQ in/ on mature samples of grain harvested at either 36 or 47 DAT. Following two broadcast applications at approximately Feekes Growth Stages ( FGS) 10 and 10.5, combined residues in/ on grain were < 0.05 and 0.062 ppm from the 1x rate tests, 0.101 and 0.129 ppm from the 3x rate tests, and 0.107 and 0.183 ppm from the 5x rate tests. Within each test, levels of combined residues were typically highest in AGF and then bran, and residues were lowest in flour. Processing factors were calculated only for those tests in which residues were   LOQ in/ on whole grain. For these tests, average processing factors for total combined residues were 0.9x for germ, 3.2x for bran, 0.7x for middlings, 0.9x for shorts, and < 0.3x for flour. The maximum theoretical processing factor for wheat is 8.3x. Processing factors for combined residues in AGF varied considerably between the two test sites, averaging 2.7x at the OK site and 34x at the KS site, for an overall processing factor of 18x.

Regardless of the application timing to wheat, all of the above wheat processing studies indicate that there is the potential for substantial concentration of combined propiconazole residues in wheat AGF and to a lesser extent in bran. Total combined residues were either reduced or concentrated only slightly in germ, shorts, middlings, and flour; therefore, separate tolerances are not required for these wheat commodities. As the final series of processing studies ( 44757208. der2) reflected the latest proposed application timing and had the highest levels of residues in the RAC, the average processing factors from these tests will be used to estimate maximum potential residues in AGF ( 18x) and bran ( 3.2x). Using these processing factors and Propiconazole Summary of Analyt ical Chemist ry and Residue Data Barcode D238458 Page 48 of 63 the HAFT residues in wheat grain ( 0.18 ppm) reflecting applications at up to Feekes Growth Stage 10.5, the maximum expected combined residues would be 3.2 ppm in wheat AGF and 0.58 ppm in wheat bran.

Conclusions Adequate processing studies, reflecting the measurement of total combined residues, are available for alfalfa ( rotational crop), field corn, mint, rice, sorghum, soybean, sugar beet, and wheat. Adequate processing data are also available from one of the wheat processing studies reflecting the measurement of only parent residues.

These studies indicate that, with the exception of AGF, combined propiconazole residues did not concentrate in processed commodities derived from alfalfa, field corn, mint, sorghum, and soybeans, or in polished rice, sugar beet refined sugar, or wheat germ, shorts, middlings and flour. However, combined residues were shown to concentrate in rice hulls ( 3.8x) and bran ( 2.9x), sugar beet molasses ( 7.4x) and dried pulp ( 4.9x), and wheat bran ( 3.2x). Therefore separate tolerances are required for these commodities. Considering the HAFT residues in the various RACs and the above processing factors, appropriate tolerances for combined propiconazole residues would be 20 and 15 ppm for rice hulls and bran, 1.5 and 1.0 ppm for sugar beet molasses and dried pulp, and 0.6 ppm for wheat bran.

With regards to AGF, combined residues were shown to concentrate by various degrees in AGF derived from field corn ( 12.8x), sorghum ( 5.2x), soybeans ( 32x), and wheat ( 13x) following late season applications. Considering these AGF processing factors and the HAFT residues in the respective RACs, the maximum excepted residues in AGF are 1.28 ppm for corn, 10.9 ppm for sorghum, 30 ppm for soybean, and 4.14 ppm for wheat. Therefore, the tolerance for combined propiconazole residues in AGF should be set at 30 ppm based on the soybean data.

860.1650 Submittal of Analytical Reference Standards An analytical reference standard for propiconazole is available at the EPA National Pesticide Standards Repository.

860.1850/ 860.1900 Confined and Field Accumulation in Rotational Crops Propiconazole RED, DP Barcode D329394, Y. Donovan, 6/ 15/ 06 43640401. der3 ( alfalfa)

The nature of the residue in confined rotational crops is understood. Based on acceptable studies reviewed by EFED, the metabolism of propiconazole in rotational crops is similar to that in primary crops. Plant back restrictions have been established for propiconazole products registered for use on rotational crops based on the confined rotational crop studies. Labels specify that any food/ feed crops not listed on the label should not be planted within 105 days of treatment.

Syngenta has previously proposed tolerances ( PP# 5F4498) for inadvertent residues on sorghum and alfalfa planted in rotation with propiconazole treated wheat. However, this petition has been Propiconazole Summary of Analyt ical Chemist ry and Residue Data Barcode D238458 Page 49 of 63 superseded by PP# 2F6371, in which Syngenta is now proposing the direct use of propiconazole on sorghum. Once tolerances for the direct use on sorghum are established, rotational crop tolerances on sorghum commodities will no longer be necessary. With regards to alfalfa, Syngenta is still supporting a proposed 0.1 ppm tolerance for alfalfa, based on its rotation with propiconazole treated wheat, and has submitted field trial data depicting combined residues in/ on forage and hay from alfalfa rotated with propiconazole treated wheat. These data are summarized in Table 8 and discussed below. Table 8. Summary of Residue Data in Alfalfa Forage and Hay Rotated at a PBI of ~ 75 days with Propiconazole Treated Wheat. Combined Propiconazole Residues ( ppm) 2 Commodity Total Applic. Rate ( lb ai/ A) PBI ( days) DAP 1 n Min. Max. HAFT 3 Median ( STMdR) 4 Mean ( STMR) 4 Std. Dev.

Fall Forage 60 63 8 < 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.02 Spring Forage 10 < 0.05 0.07 0.05 0.03 0.04 0.02 Spring Hay 0.11 ( 0.5x) 5 72 109 269 333 10 < 0.05 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.02 Fall Forage 60 63 2 < 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.03 Spring Forage 2 < 0.05 < 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.00 Spring Hay 0.22 ( 1x) 72 77 303 333 3 < 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.02 Fall Forage 60 63 2 < 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.02 Spring Forage 2 < 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.03 Spring Hay 0.33 ( 1.5x) 72 77 303 333 3 < 0.05 0.09 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.03 Fall Forage 60 63 2 0.10 0.14 0.14 0.12 0.12 0.03 Spring Forage 2 < 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.02 Spring Hay 0.55 ( 2.5x) 72 77 303 333 3 < 0.05 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.04 1 DAP = days after planting. Forage was collected the fall following planting ( 60 63 DAP) and forage and hay were collected the following spring ( 269 333 DAP). 2 The LOQ for propiconazole residues in/ on alfalfa is 0.05 ppm. The LOD was not reported. 3 HAFT = Highest Average Field Trial. 4 STMdR = Supervised Trial Median Residue; STMR = Supervised Trial Mean Residue. For calculation of the median, mean and standard deviation, 2 the LOQ was used for residues reported at < LOQ. 5 The maximum seasonal application rate is 0.22 lb ai/ A for wheat and other small cereal grains ( oats, barley, rye).

Alfalfa Five rotational crop field trials were conducted on alfalfa in 1989 in Regions 1, 5 and 11. At each site, propiconazole ( 3.6 lb/ gal EC) was applied at 0.11 lb ai/ A to winter wheat in the spring as a single broadcast foliar application at Feekes Growth Stages 7 9. Two of the test sites also had additional plots with application rates at 0.22, 0.33 and 0.55 lb ai/ A. These application rates correspond to 0.5x, 1x, 1.5x, and 2.5x the maximum proposed application rate for wheat. All applications were made using ground equipment at volumes of 15 23 gal/ A. The wheat was grown to maturity and harvested, and a rotational crop of alfalfa was replanted the same year at PBIs of 72 109 days and was grown using standard agricultural practices. A single control and single or duplicate treated samples of forage were cut in the fall at 60 63 days after planting ( DAP), and alfalfa forage and hay samples also collected the following spring at 269 333 DAP. Samples were stored frozen for up to 35 months, an interval supported by available storage stability data.

Residues of propiconazole and its 2,4 DCBA containing metabolites in/ on alfalfa forage and forage were determined using GC/ ECD Method AG 454 B, which was adequately validated in conjunction with the analysis of field trial samples. The validated method LOQ is 0.05 ppm, and an LOD was not reported. Propiconazole Summary of Analyt ical Chemist ry and Residue Data Barcode D238458 Page 50 of 63 Following a single application of propiconazole ( EC) at 0.11 lb ai/ A ( 0.5x rate) to a primary crop of winter wheat in 5 tests, total propiconazole residues in rotational alfalfa forage and hay from PBIs of 72 109 days were < 0.05 0.07 ppm in forage ( fall and spring) and < 0.05 0.08 ppm in hay. Average residues were 0.04 ppm in both alfalfa forage and hay at the 0.5x rate. At the 1x rate, residues were < 0.05 0.07 ppm in forage and hay. At the 1.5x rate, residues were < 0.05 0.07 ppm in forage and < 0.05 0.09 ppm in hay. At the 2.5x rate, residues were 0.10 0.14 ppm in the initial fall forage and < 0.05 0.06 ppm in spring forage and < 0.05 0.09 ppm in spring hay.

Conclusions The field rotational crop trials on alfalfa are adequate and will support a 75 day PBI for alfalfa following primary crops treated with propiconazole at rates totaling up to 0.22 lb ai/ A/ season.

860.1550 Proposed Tolerances Permanent tolerances are currently established for the combined residues of propiconazole and its 2,4 DCBA containing metabolites at levels ranging from 0.1 40 ppm in/ on plant commodities [ 40 CFR § 180.434( a)]. Permanent tolerances are also established for the combined residues of propiconazole and its 2,4 DCBA containing metabolites at 0.1 ppm in fat, meat, and meat byproducts ( except liver and kidney) of livestock, 2.0 ppm in liver and kidney of livestock, and at 0.05 ppm in milk; however, no tolerances have been established for eggs and poultry commodities. Time limited tolerances are established for combined propiconazole residues in/ on a variety of plant commodities at levels from 0.2 ppm in/ on sorghum grain to 25 ppm in/ on soybean hay [ 40 CFR § 180.434( b)]. In addition, tolerances with regional restrictions have been established for combined propiconazole residues at 0.3 ppm in/ on mint tops and 0.5 ppm in/ on wild rice [ 40 CFR § 180.434( c)]. However, HED has determined that the current tolerance expression for plant and animal commodities is not appropriate and has recommended that the tolerance expression be revised to include only parent.

The tolerances proposed by Syngenta and IR 4 for the current petitions and established tolerances are listed in Table 9, along with the Agency's new recommended tolerance levels. Although HED has recommended changing the tolerance expression to include only parent, the majority of residue data submitted in support of the current petitions were generated using common moiety methods, which do not differentiate between parent and its DCBA containing metabolites. Therefore, the recommended tolerances based on these data will overestimate actual propiconazole residues. The recommended tolerance levels for RACs in the current petitions were determined using recent Agency Guidance ( Guidance for Setting Pesticide Tolerances Based on Field Trial Data SOP), with the exception of commodities having substantial (  15%) numbers of residue values below the method LOQ. For those commodities with large numbers of values < LOQ ( corn grain, dry bulb onions, sugar beet roots, tree nuts, and wheat grain), the recommended tolerance was based on the observed maximum residue value. For those commodities for which the tolerance spreadsheet was used to calculate the appropriate tolerance level, the residue data used for the tolerance calculations and the supporting spreadsheet outputs are presented in Appendix II. HED also recommends using the recommended tolerance levels for conducting dietary risk assessment. Although in some cases where uncorrected raw data were used in deriving these tolerances ( with average recoveries around 70%), but since this is a tier I DEEM assessment, it will not under estimate the risk. Propiconazole Summary of Analyt ical Chemist ry and Residue Data Barcode D238458 Page 51 of 63 For purposes of determining tolerances, adequate field trial data are available for alfalfa ( rotational crop), almonds, celery, bush and cane berries, carrots, corn ( field, pop, and sweet), cranberries, mint, onions, pecans, rice, sorghum, soybean ( hay and forage only), strawberries, sugar beet roots, and wheat. The available almond and pecan data will support a crop group tolerance on tree nuts, and separate tolerances pistachios and almond hulls. The celery data will support a subgroup tolerance on leafy petiole vegetables, and the bush and cane berry data will support a crop group tolerance on the berries crop group. In addition, the recommended separate tolerances on green and dry bulb onions will cover the other members of the bulb vegetable crop group.

Based on the different use patterns and resulting residues in/ on the various cereal grains, a crop group tolerance is not appropriate for cereal grain and separate tolerances should be established for each member of the crop group with labeled uses. Adequate field trial data are available for corn, rice, sorghum, and wheat. However, tolerances for corn must be separated out for the specific types of corn. The recent field corn data will support the recommended tolerances for field and pop corn commodities and sweet corn stover, and the previously reviewed sweet corn data ( PP# 8F3674, C. Deyrup, 12/ 14/ 88) will support the current tolerance of 0.1 ppm for sweet corn ( kernels plus cobs with husks removed) along with a lower tolerance ( 6 ppm) for sweet corn forage. The most recent wheat field trial data will be used to set wheat tolerances and will also be translated to set new tolerances on barley and rye commodities. As the proposed changes to the label directions will also cover oats, the wheat residue data will also be translated to oats to reassess the existing tolerances on oats.

Although adequate residue data are available to support tolerances on sugar beet roots, additional residue data are required before permanent tolerances can be established for sugar beet tops if the petitioner wants to use EC formulation. HED recommends a conditional tolerance be established on sugar beet tops.

There are no sufficient residue data to establish a permanent tolerance on the dry pea and bean subgroup. HED recommends against the establishment of permanent tolerance on dry peas and beans ( subgroup 6C) until additional field trials data are submitted.

Adequate processing studies are available for alfalfa, corn, mint, rice, sorghum, soybeans, sugar beets and wheat. The only processed commodities which shown to have substantial concentrations of combined residues were rice bran ( 2.9x) and hulls ( 3.8x), sugar beet molasses ( 7.4x) and dried pulp ( 3.9x), and wheat bran ( 3.2x). Tolerances for these commodities were estimated based on maximum expected residues calculated using HAFT residues and the above processing factors. The tolerances for wheat bran will be translated to barley and rye bran.

The available corn, sorghum, soybean and wheat processing studies all indicated that there is the potential for concentration of combined residues in AGF from all four crops. Following the proposed late season applications, processing factors for AGF were 12.8x for field corn, 5.2x for sorghum, 32x for soybeans, and 13x for wheat ( 13x). Considering these AGF processing factors and the HAFT residues in the respective RACs, the maximum excepted residues in AGF are 1.28 ppm for corn, 10.9 ppm for sorghum, 30 ppm for soybean, and 4.14 ppm for wheat. Therefore, Propiconazole Summary of Analyt ical Chemist ry and Residue Data Barcode D238458 Page 52 of 63 the tolerance for combined propiconazole residues in AGF should be set at 30 ppm based on the soybean data.

To assess livestock tolerances, total combined residues were estimated for a 1x feeding level using the data on combined residues from the available cattle and poultry feeding studies; For beef cattle, estimated combined residues at a 1x feeding level are 1.7 ppm for kidney, 1.6 ppm for liver, 0.03 ppm for muscle, 0.05 ppm for fat, and 0.03 pm for milk. For swine, estimated combined residues at a 1x feeding level are 0.14ppm for kidney, 0.13 ppm for liver and < 0.005 ppm for muscle and fat. HED recommends that the following tolerance levels be established: For cattle, goat, horses and sheep, kidney and liver at 2.0 ppm; meat and meat byproduct ( except kidney and liver) and fat at 0.05 ppm, milk at 0.05 ppm. For hog, kidney and liver at 0.20 ppm, no tolerances are needed for meat, fat, and meat byproduct.

For poultry tissues and eggs, estimated combined residues and parent residues were calculated in the same manner as for cattle and swine. The maximum combined residues in tissues and eggs from the 7.5 ppm dose group in the poultry feeding study were used to estimate residues at the 1x feeding level. The estimated combined residues at the 1x feeding level are all < LOQ. Therefore, tolerances for poultry tissues and eggs are not required as quantifiable levels of propiconazole are unlikely to occur in these commodities [ 40 CFR 180.6( a) ( 3)].

The Agency notes that these recommended tolerance revisions are relatively conservative, as they are based on combined residues instead of propiconazole, per se.

The Codex Alimentarius Commission has established several maximum residue limits ( MRLs) for propiconazole in/ on various raw agricultural commodities. The Codex MRLs are expressed in terms of propiconazole per se, which is the same as the US tolerance expression, recommended by the RED for existing tolerances and for the new uses in the present action. In addition, both Canada and Mexico have established MRLs/ tolerances on several commodities which also have U. S. tolerances. To the extent possible, U. S. tolerances have been harmonized with Codex, Canadian, and Mexican MRLs; however, differences in use patterns and the supporting residue data have precluded reducing many tolerances. A comparison of Codex MRLs, Canadian MRLs, and Mexican tolerances and the corresponding U. S. tolerances is presented in Appendix I. Propiconazole Summary of Analyt ical Chemist ry and Residue Data Barcode D238458 Page 53 of 63 Table 9. Tolerance Summary for Propiconazole Crop Commodity Proposed or ( Established) Tolerance ( ppm) 6 HED Recommend ed Tolerance ( ppm) Comments ( Correct Commodity Definition) Tolerances under § 180.434( a)

AGF 17 30 Based on the maximum expected residues in AGF from corn ( 1.28 ppm), sorghum ( 10.9 ppm), soybeans ( 44.8 ppm), and wheat ( 4.14 ppm), the tolerance for AGF should be based on the available soybean data. Grain, aspirated fractions Alfalfa 0.1 None As the tolerance is for rotated alfalfa, it should be established under § 180.434( d) for inadvertent residues Almond, hulls 8.0 7.0 1 Adequate data are available. Almond, hulls Banana ( 0.2) 0.2 The existing tolerance is adequate Barley, grain 0.5 0.3 Barley, hay 2.0 1.4 Barley, straw 13 10 Barley, bran 2.5 0.6 Tolerances for barley commodities are based on residue data translated from wheat.

Cattle, fat ( 0.1) 0.05 Cattle, kidney ( 2.0) 2.0 Cattle, liver ( 2.0) 2.0 Cattle, meat ( 0.1) 0.05 Cattle, meat byproducts, except liver and kidney ( 0.1) 0.05 The recalculated MTDB for beef cattle ( 28 ppm). Estimated combined residues are: 1.7 ppm in kidney, 1.6 ppm in liver, 0.03 ppm in muscle, 0.05 ppm in fat.

Celery ( 5.0) Delete Once the tolerance of the leaf petioles subgroup is established the separate tolerance on celery should be deleted Crop Subgroup 4 B, leaf petioles 5.0 5.0 1 The available residue data on celery will support the 5 ppm tolerance on Vegetable, leaf petioles, subgroup 4B Crop Subgroup 6 C, Dried shelled peas and bean ( except soybean) 0.5 none 5 Insufficient residue data to support a tolerance on the Pea and bean, dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup 6C Crop Group 13 Berries Group 1.0 1.0 1 Adequate residue data are available on blueberries, black berries, and raspberries to support a tolerance for Berry, group 13 Carrot 0.2 0.25 1 Adequate residue data are available. Carrot, root Corn, field, forage 4.0 12 Adequate residue data are available supporting a 30 day PHI for field corn forage following applications totaling 0.44 lb ai/ A. Corn, field, forage Propiconazole Summary of Analyt ical Chemist ry and Residue Data Barcode D238458 Page 54 of 63 Table 9. Tolerance Summary for Propiconazole Crop Commodity Proposed or ( Established) Tolerance ( ppm) 6 HED Recommend ed Tolerance ( ppm) Comments ( Correct Commodity Definition)

Corn, sweet, forage none 6.0 3 A separate tolerance should be established for sweet corn forage. Based on the available sweet corn field trials, in which maximum residues were 5.0 ppm in/ on forage from a test conducted at a 0.9x rate, a 6.0 ppm tolerance should be established for residues in/ on Corn, sweet, forage.

Corn, field, grain 0.3 0.2 2 Adequate residue data are available supporting the reduced 30 day PHI. Corn, field, grain Corn, pop, grain none 0.22 Adequate residue data are available supporting the reduced 30 day PHI. Corn, pop, grain Corn, sweet, K+ CWHR None 0.1 Adequate residue data are available supporting the existing tolerance. Corn, sweet, K+ CWHR Corn, stover 25 30 1 Adequate residue data are available supporting the reduced 30 day PHI.

Corn, pop, stover None 30 1 Based on the field corn stover data.

Corn, sweet, stover none 30 1 Based on the field corn stover data.

Corn, oil 0.5 None Processing factors for corn oil were 0.6x 1.6x and averaged 1x; therefore, a separate tolerance is not required for corn oil Fruit, stone, group 12 None 1.0 Tolerance was reassessed by the Agency ( HED memo of propiconazole RED, 6/ 28/ 06, Y. Donovan, D329668). Goat, fat ( 0.1) 0.05 Goat, kidney ( 2.0) 2.0 Goat, liver ( 2.0) 2.0 Goat, meat ( 0.1) 0.05 Goat, meat byproducts, except liver and kidney ( 0.1) 0.05 See comments under cattle.

Grass, forage ( 0.5) 0.5 Grass, hay ( 0.5) 0.5 Grass, straw ( 40) 40 The existing tolerances are adequate. The existing tolerances are adequate. ( HED memo of propiconazole RED, 6/ 28/ 06, Y. Donovan, D329668). Hog, fat ( 0.1) Delete Hog, kidney ( 2.0) 0.2 Hog, liver ( 2.0) 0.2 Hog, meat ( 0.1) Delete The recalculated MTDB for swine ( 2.3 ppm) and estimated residues in liver ( 0.13 ppm), kidney ( 0.14 ppm), muscle (< 0.005 ppm) and fat ( 0.005 ppm) at a 1x feeding Propiconazole Summary of Analyt ical Chemist ry and Residue Data Barcode D238458 Page 55 of 63 Table 9. Tolerance Summary for Propiconazole Crop Commodity Proposed or ( Established) Tolerance ( ppm) 6 HED Recommend ed Tolerance ( ppm) Comments ( Correct Commodity Definition) Hog, meat byproducts, except liver and kidney ( 0.1) Delete level.

Horse, fat ( 0.1) 0.05 Horse, kidney ( 2.0) 2.0 Horse, liver ( 2.0) 2.0 Horse, meat ( 0.1) 0.05 Horse, meat byproducts, except liver and kidney ( 0.1) 0.05 See comments under cattle.

Mint, spearmint, tops 3.0 3.5 1 Adequate data are available. Mint, peppermint, tops 3.0 3.5 1 Adequate data are available.

Milk ( 0.05) 0.05 MTDB for dairy cattle is 18.5 ppm. The estimated combined residue on milk at 1x MTDB based on feeding study is 0.03 ppm. Mushroom ( 0.1) 0.1 The existing tolerance is adequate. Oats, forage 10.0 1.7 Oats, grain 0.1 0.32 Oats, hay 30.0 1.4 Oats, straw 1.0 10 As the proposed changes to the label directions will also cover oats in addition to wheat, the wheat residue data will also be translated to oats to reassess the existing tolerances.

Onion, bulb 0.3 0.2 2 Adequate residue data are available. Maximum combined residues were 0.18 ppm in/ on dry bulb onions. Onion, dry bulb Onion, green 8.0 9.0 1 Adequate residue data are available. Onion, green Peanut, nut meat ( 0.2) 0.2 Peanut, hay ( 20) 20 The existing tolerances are adequate.

Pecans ( 0.1) Delete Once the tree nut crop group tolerance is established, the separate tolerance for pecans should be deleted Pineapple ( 0.1) 0.1 The existing tolerance is adequate.

Pistachio 0.2 0.1 Tolerance is based on residue data from almonds and pecans Rice, bran 28 15 Based on HAFT residues of 5.05 ppm for rice grain and an average processing factor of 2.9x for bran, the maximum expected residues in bran would be 14.6 ppm. Rice, bran Rice, grain 7.0 7.0 4 Adequate field trial data are available. Rice, grain Rice, hulls 28 20 Based on HAFT residues of 5.05 ppm for rice grain and an average processing factor of 3.8x for hulls, the maximum expected residues in hulls would be 19.2 ppm. Rice, hulls Propiconazole Summary of Analyt ical Chemist ry and Residue Data Barcode D238458 Page 56 of 63 Table 9. Tolerance Summary for Propiconazole Crop Commodity Proposed or ( Established) Tolerance ( ppm) 6 HED Recommend ed Tolerance ( ppm) Comments ( Correct Commodity Definition)

Rice, straw 18 18 1 Adequate field trial data are available. Rice, straw Rye, grain 0.5 0.3 Rye, forage 3.0 1.7 Rye, straw 13 10 Rye, bran 2.5 0.6 Tolerances for rye commodities are based on residue data translated from wheat.

Grain sorghum, forage 10 12 1 Grain sorghum, grain 2.5 3.5 1 Grain sorghum, ( stover) 15 15 1 Adequate field trial data are available for sorghum. Sorghum, grain, forage; Sorghum, grain; and Sorghum, grain, stover Sheep, fat ( 0.1) 0.05 Sheep, kidney ( 2.0) 2.0 Sheep, liver ( 2.0) 2.0 Sheep, meat ( 0.1) 0.05 Sheep, meat byproducts, except liver and kidney ( 0.1) 0.05 See comments under cattle.

Soybean, forage 8.0 11 1 Soybean, hay 32 30 1 Adequate field trial data are available at the 1x rate to support a 30 day PHI for Soybean, forage and Soybean, hay Soybean, seed 2.0 2.0 Field trial data are available to support Soybean seed following applications up to Stage R6.

Strawberry 1.5 1.3 1 Adequate residue data are available. Strawberry Sugar beet, dried pulp 2.0 1.0 Based on HAFT residues of 0.18 ppm for roots and a 4.9x processing factor for dried pulp, maximum expected residues in dried pulp would be 0.88 ppm. Beet, sugar, dried pulp Sugar beet, roots 0.3 0.3 2 Adequate residue data are available and indicate that there is no difference in residue levels in/ on roots between the WP and EC formulations. Tolerance in based on maximum residues of 0.23 ppm in/ on roots Beet, sugar, roots Propiconazole Summary of Analyt ical Chemist ry and Residue Data Barcode D238458 Page 57 of 63 Table 9. Tolerance Summary for Propiconazole Crop Commodity Proposed or ( Established) Tolerance ( ppm) 6 HED Recommend ed Tolerance ( ppm) Comments ( Correct Commodity Definition)

Sugar beet, tops 10 10 5 Adequate residue data are available for the WP formulation and suggest a tolerance level of 4.5 ppm. However, the limited field trial data for the EC formulation indicate that a higher tolerance is required. A tolerance should be set at 10 ppm, with the registration conditioned upon the submission of additional residue data on tops for the EC formulation. Beet, sugar, tops.

Sugar beet, molasses 3.0 1.5 Based on HAFT residues of 0.18 ppm for roots and a 7.4x processing factor for molasses, maximum expected residues in molasses would be 1.33 ppm. Beet, sugar, molasses Tree nuts crop group 0.2 0.12 Adequate residue data are available on pecans and almonds. Tolerance is based on maximum residues of 0.09 ppm for almonds and < 0.1 ppm for pecans. Nut, tree, group 14 Wheat, bran 2.5 0.6 Based on HAFT combined residues of 0.18 ppm for wheat grain and an average 3.2x processing factor for wheat bran, maximum expected residues in bran would be 0.58 ppm. Wheat, bran Wheat, forage 3.0 1.71 Adequate residue data are available to support only a single application prior to the harvest of Wheat, forage.

Wheat, grain 0.5 0.3 2 Tolerance is based on maximum values of 0.20 ppm for combined residues. Wheat, grain Wheat, hay 2.0 1.41 Adequate residue data are available reflecting only a single application prior to harvest of Wheat, hay.

Wheat, straw 13 101 Adequate residue data are available. Wheat, straw Tolerances under § 180.434( c)

Cranberry 1.0 1.0 Adequate residue data are available. Although the tolerance spreadsheet recommends a 0.9 ppm tolerance, a slightly higher 1.0 ppm tolerance was selected to harmonize with the berries crop group. Cranberry Mint, tops ( leaves and stems) 0.3 Delete Adequate data are available for all major mint growing regions. The tolerance under Propiconazole Summary of Analyt ical Chemist ry and Residue Data Barcode D238458 Page 58 of 63 Table 9. Tolerance Summary for Propiconazole Crop Commodity Proposed or ( Established) Tolerance ( ppm) 6 HED Recommend ed Tolerance ( ppm) Comments ( Correct Commodity Definition) 180.434( c) should be deleted once the new tolerance on mint is established under 180.434( a) Tolerances under § 180.434( d)

Alfalfa 0.1 0.1 2 Adequate residue data are available to support a 75 day PBI for alfalfa. Separate tolerances should be established for inadvertent residues in/ on alfalfa, forage and alfalfa, hay, each at 0.1 ppm 1 Tolerance level was calculated using the tolerance spreadsheet and the relevant Agency guidance ( see Appendix II). 2 Recommended tolerance is based on maximum residue levels due to the large portion (> 15%) of samples having residues < LOQ. 3 The residue data on sweet corn were reviewed under PP# 8F3674 ( C. Deyrup, 12/ 14/ 88). 4 The tolerance spreadsheet recommended a tolerance of 16 ppm for rice grain assuming that the data are distributed lognormally. However, an examination of the plot suggests that the data are not log normal; therefore, a tolerance of 7 ppm was selected using the California Method ( µ + 3 ). Combined residues in/ on rice grain were < 0.05 5.20 ppm and averaged 1.49 ppm. 5 Additional residue data are required. Therefore only a conditional, time limited tolerance is being recommended. 6 Tolerances in parenthesis are currently established under 40 CFR § 180.434. Propiconazole Summary of Analyt ical Chemist ry and Residue Data Barcode D238458 Page 59 of 63 References DP Barcode: None Subject: PP# 4F3007. CGA 64250 ( Tilt) in Pecans. Evaluation of Residue Data and Analytical Method. From: A. Smith To: H. Jacoby Dated: 5/ 15/ 84 MRID( s): 00074495, 00074508, 00074509, and 00153327 RCB#: 4279 DP Barcode: None Subject: PP# 8F3674. Propiconazole in or on Celery, Corn, Pineapple, and Legume Vegetables. Evaluation of the Analytical Methodology and Residue Data. From: C. Deyrup To: L. Rossi Dated: 12/ 14/ 88 MRID( s): 40783301 40783310 DEB#: 6724 DP Barcode: None Subject: PP# 0F3869: Propiconazole ( Tilt ® ) in or on Celery. Amendment of 3/ 1/ 90. From: W. Chin To: S. Lewis Dated: 8/ 15/ 90 MRID( s): 41486801 and 41486802 CB#: 7822 DP Barcode: 1 0964 Subject: PP# 1F3974. Propiconazole on Grass Seed Screenings, Straw, and Forage. Evaluation of Residue Data and Analytical Methodology. From: S. Willett To: S. Lewis and J. Stone Dated: 6/ 11/ 91 MRID( s): 41823301 41823305 DP Barcode: D219664 Subject: PP# 5F04591, Propiconazole on the Berry Crop Grouping, Carrots, and Onions ( green and dry bulb). From: L. Kutney To: D. McCall Dated: 6/ 14/ 96 MRID( s): 43786401 43786404 Propiconazole Summary of Analyt ical Chemist ry and Residue Data Barcode D238458 Page 60 of 63 DP Barcode: D209468 Subject: PP# 2E04047. Propiconazole ( Tilt ® Fungicide) in or on Mint. Amendment submitted on 10/ 24/ 94. From: Y. Donovan To: H. Jamerson and J. Smith Dated: 4/ 25/ 95 MRID( s): 43424601 DP Barcodes: D210266 and D210295 Subject: PP5F04424 & ID# 000100 00618 CGA 64250 Technical: Propiconazole in/ on Dry Beans and Soybeans. Evaluation of Reisdue Data and Analytical Methodology. From: M. Rodriguez To: D. McCall and S. Robbins Dated: 3/ 5/ 97 MRID( s): 43386501 and 43386502 DP Barcode: D240856 Subject: Propiconazole ( 122101): Residue Analytical Method ( GLN 860.1340), Storage Stability Data ( GLN 860.1380), Magnitude of the Residue in Rice and Wheat ( GLN 860.1500), and Magnitude of the Residue in Processed Food/ Feed Commodities of Wheat ( GLN 860.1520) From: T. Morton To: P. Dobak/ S. Lewis Dated: 2/ 23/ 05 MRID( s): 44411201 44411208 DP Barcode: D246884 Subject: Propiconazole ( 122101): Petition PP# 5F04424: Magnitude of the Residue in/ on Soybean Aspirated Grain Fractions ( GLN 860.1500). From: T. Morton To: P. Dobak/ S. Lewis Dated: 3/ 10/ 05 MRID( s): 44549101 Propiconazole Summary of Analyt ical Chemist ry and Residue Data Barcode D238458 Page 61 of 63 DP Barcode: D329394 Subject: Propiconazole ( 122101): Reregistration Eligibility Decision ( RED) Document; Revised Residue Chemistry Considerations. From: Y. Donovan To: M. Goodis and C. Scheltema Dated: 6/ 15/ 06 MRID( s): None Attachments: Appendix I  International Residue Limits Status Appendix II  Tolerance Assessment Calculations Template Version September 2005 Propiconazole Summary of Analyt ical Chemist ry and Residue Data Barcode D238458 Page 62 of 63 Appendix I   International Residue Limits INTERNATIONAL RESIDUE LIMIT STATUS Chemical Name: 1[[ 2( 2,4 dichlorophenyl) 4 propyl 1,3 dioxolan 2 yl] methyl] 1H 1,2,4 triazole Common Name: Propiconazole X Proposed tolerances 9 Reevaluated tolerance 9 Other Date: 7/ 14/ 06 Codex Status ( Maximum Residue Limits) U. S. Tolerances X No Codex proposal step 6 or above 9 No Codex proposal step 6 or above for the crops requested Petition Number: 2F6371, 6E4788, 7E4860, and 8E4931 DP Barcode: D238458 Other Identifier:

Reviewer/ Branch: Y. Donovan/ RAB4 Residue definition ( step 8/ CXL): Propiconazole Residue definition: Tolerances are currently expressed as the combined residues of propiconazole and its metabolites determined as 2,4 DCBA and expressed as parent. However, HED has recommended that the tolerance expression be changed to include only parent.

Crop ( s) 1 MRL ( mg/ kg) Crop( s) Proposed or Established Tolerance ( ppm)

Almonds 0.05 Tree nuts 0.10 Banana 0.1 Banana 0.2 Barley 0.05 Barley, grain 0.3 Coffee beans 0.1 Not registered use Liver and Kidneys of cattle, goats, horses, hogs, and sheep 2.0 Edible offal ( mammalian) 0.05 Meat byproducts, except liver and kidney 0.1 Eggs 0.05 Tolerance not required Grapes 0.5 No registered uses Mango 0.05 No registered uses Meat ( from mammals other than marine mammals) 0.05 Meat and fat of cattle, goats, horses, hogs, and sheep 0.1 Milks 0.01 Tolerance not required Oats 0.05 Oats, grain 0.3 Peanut 0.05 Peanut, whole 0.1 Peanut 0.2 Pecan 0.05 Tree Nuts 0.10 Propiconazole Summary of Analyt ical Chemist ry and Residue Data Barcode D238458 Page 63 of 63 Poultry meat 0.05 Tolerance not required Rape seed 0.05 No registered uses Rye 0.05 Rye, grain 0.3 Stone fruits 1.0 Fruit, Stone, group 12 1.0 Sugar beet 0.05 Beet, sugar, roots Sugar beet leaves or tops 0.5 Beet, sugar, tops 10 Sugar cane 0.05 No registered uses Wheat 0.05 Wheat Grain 0.3 Limits for Canada Limits for Mexico 9 No Limits 9 No Limits for the crops requested 9 No Limits 9 No Limits for the crops requested Residue definition: Propiconazole and its metabolites including the 2,4 DCBA moiety Residue definition: Propiconazole Crop( s) MRL ( mg/ kg) Crop( s) MRL ( ppm) Liver and kidney of cattle 2 Barley 0.1 Apricots, cherries, peaches/ nectarines, plums 1 Beans 0.5 Dried blueberries 0.15 Walnut 0.1 Asparagus 0.1 Banana 0.2 Barley, oats, wheat 0.05 Wheat 0.1 Blueberries 0.02 blackberries, loganberries and raspberries 0.7 proposed Notes/ Special Instructions:


November 21, 2017
MEMORANDUM
TO: 		Air Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0655
SUBJECT:	Summary of Key Assumptions for EPA's Analysis of the Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Associated with Biofuels Produced from Distillers Sorghum Oil

Fuel Use
Following the methodology developed for the March 2010 RFS rule, after notice, public comment and peer review, the carbon in the finished fuel derived from renewable biomass is treated as biologically derived carbon originating from the atmosphere. The uptake of this carbon from the atmosphere by the renewable biomass and the CO2 emissions from combusting it cancel each other out.  Instead of presenting both the carbon uptake and tailpipe CO2 emissions, we leave both out of the results.  Note that our analysis also accounts for all significant indirect emissions, such as from land use changes, meaning we do not simply assume that biofuels are "carbon neutral."
Biodiesel
As for the March 2010 RFS rule, this analysis treats all of the biodiesel fuel carbon as biologically derived carbon originating from the atmosphere. This would be the case where the methanol used in the trans-esterification process was produced from biomass.  If the methanol instead is produced from natural gas, the net carbon dioxide emissions from the combustion of fossil derived methanol in biodiesel would result in a small change to the lifecycle GHG emissions for biodiesel.  Based on our modeling of the trans-esterification process in the March 2010 RFS final rule we estimate that the lifecycle GHG emissions from combustion of biodiesel made with fossil methanol rather than methanol derived from biomass would include approximately 4 kg of additional carbon dioxide-equivalent (CO2e) emissions per mmBtu of biodiesel.  If we included the additional GHG emissions associated with the use of fossil methanol in biodiesel production in our lifecycle GHG assessment of distillers sorghum oil biodiesel it would not affect our determination that such fuel meets the 50% lifecycle GHG reduction threshold.
Renewable Diesel
Our analysis uses the emissions factors for non-CO2 GHGs for baseline diesel fuel.  Available data suggests the non-CO2 emissions factors for renewable diesel are small and not significantly different.  For example, GREET-2016 uses the same methane and nitrous oxide emissions factors for conventional and renewable diesel used in a heavy or medium duty trucks.
Jet Fuel
Our analysis uses the emissions factors for non-CO2 GHGs for baseline diesel fuel.  This is a conservative assumption (i.e., results in higher emissions) because available information suggests that renewable jet fuel use in aircraft results in less methane and nitrous oxide emissions, per mmBtu of fuel used, than the emissions factor for baseline diesel fuel.  For example, GREET-2016, reports non-CO2 GHG emissions of 0.07 kgCO2e/mmBtu for hydroprocessed renewable jet fuel used in a single aisle passenger aircraft, compared to 0.7 kgCO2e/mmBtu for the diesel baseline.
The emissions factors used in our analysis apply the same global warming potentials (GWPs) as used in the March 2010 RFS rule for ground-level emissions.  There is some uncertainty about the most appropriate GWPs for emissions released by aircraft flying at cruising altitudes.  However, available information indicates that emissions for renewable jet fuels, such as hydrotreated jet fuel produced from vegetable oils, and petroleum-based jet fuels are very similar. Thus, regardless of the GWPs applied, renewable jet fuel is unlikely to result in tailpipe emissions with significantly greater climate impacts relative to conventional jet fuels.


U.S. EPA BOARD OF SCIENTIFIC COUNSELORS

Land Preservation and Restoration Subcommittee

MEETING AGENDA

December 13 - 15, 2005

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Research and Development

Andrew W. Breidenbach Environmental Research Center

26 W. Martin Luther King Dr.

Cincinnati, OH

Presentations and Discussions in the Auditorium

Poster Sessions in the Annex Atrium

Tuesday, December  13, 2005 ____________________________________________________

8:00 AM	Registration

Welcome and Overview:                               ________________________________________________

8:30 AM	   Welcome and Opening Remarks	Dr. Charlie Menzie

		Chair, Land Subcommittee

		Dr. Jim Clark

		Vice-Chair, Land Subcommittee

8:40 AM	   DFO Welcome and Charge	Heather Drumm

	  	Designated Federal Official, ORD

8:45 AM	   ORD Welcome	Dr. William Farland

Acting Deputy Assistant       Administrator for Science, ORD

8:55 AM	   ORD Response to Katrina	Sally Gutierrez

		Director, NRMRL, ORD

9:05 AM	   Overview of the Land 	Dr. Randy Wentsel

	   Research Program	National Program Director

		ORD Land Research

Land Research Program Long Term Goal 1:           __________________________________________

9:25 AM	   LTG 1: Overview 	Patricia Erickson

		Assistant Laboratory Director

		NRMRL, ORD

10:00 AM	LTG 1: Poster Session I (Atrium)	Land Subcommittee

11:30 AM	Poster Session Discussion	Land Subcommittee

12:00 PM	Lunch

1:15 PM	LTG 1:  Poster Session II Overview	Dr. Robert Puls

		Director of Research, GWERD

		NRMRL, ORD

1:55 PM	   LTG 1:  Poster Session II (Atrium)	Land Subcommittee

3:25 PM	Poster Session Discussion	Land Subcommittee

4:00 PM	Working Time for Panel	Land Subcommittee

5:00 PM	Adjourn

Wednesday, December 14, 2005 _______________________________________________________

8:30 AM	   Review of Yesterday’s Activities	Dr. Charlie Menzie

	   Overview of Today’s Agenda	Chair, Land Subcommittee

Land Research Program Long Term Goal_2:___________________________________________________

9:00 AM 	    LTG 2: Overview 	Dr. Candida West

		Acting Director of Research, ERD

		NERL, ORD

9:30 AM 	    LTG 2: Poster Session (Atrium)	Land Subcommittee

11:00 AM	    Poster Discussion	Land Subcommittee

11:30 AM	    Lunch

1:00 PM	    Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response 	Dr. Lee Hofmann

	     Perspective	Science Advisor

		OSWER

1:20 PM	    Office of Superfund Remediation	Dr. Elizabeth Southerland

	& Technology Innovation Perspective	Director, Assessment & Remediation    Division, OSRTI

1:40 PM	    Regional Perspective	Dr. Harry Ball

Technical Support Team Leader Superfund Division, Region 9

2:00 PM		BREAK

2:15 PM	    Research Partner Collaboration	Dr. William Suk, NIEHS

Director of the Superfund Basic    Research Program

2:35 PM	    Research Partner Collaboration	Dr. Andrea Leeson

 Environmental Restoration Program     Manager, SERDP/ESTCP DoD

2:55 PM	    ORD Wrap Up	Dr. Randy Wentsel

		National Program Director

		ORD Land Research

3:05 PM	    Public Comment

3:15 PM	    Working Time for Panel	Land Subcommittee

5:00 PM	    Adjourn

Thursday, December 15, 2005 _____________________________________________________

8:30 AM	Working Time for Panel 	Land Subcommittee

	(with working lunch)

2:30 PM	General Report Out	Dr. Charlie Menzie

		Chair, Land Subcommittee

3:00 PM 	Adjourn


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 188 (Friday, September 27, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59663-59664]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23592]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP09-427-000.
    Applicants: Southern Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Report/Form of Southern Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Filed Date: 9/3/13.
    Accession Number: 20130903-5037.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/16/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-1331-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Marketing Company, L.L.C., Gazprom Marketing &
Trading USA, Inc.
    Description: Joint Petition for Temporary Waivers of Commission
Policies, Capacity Release Regulations, and Related Pipeline Tariff
Provisions of El Paso Marketing Company, L.L.C. and Gazprom Marketing &
Trading USA, Inc.
    Filed Date: 9/17/13.
    Accession Number: 20130917-5113.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/24/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-1332-000.
    Applicants: Discovery Gas Transmission LLC.
    Description: 2013 Tariff Revisions--Kinetica Interconnect to be
effective 10/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 9/18/13.
    Accession Number: 20130918-5035.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/30/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-1333-000.
    Applicants: Dominion Transmission, Inc.
    Description: DTI--September 18, 2013 Negotiated Rate Agreements and
Nonconforming SA to be effective 11/1/2013.

    Filed Date: 9/18/13.
    Accession Number: 20130918-5073.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/30/13.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: September 19, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-23592 Filed 9-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P