49732 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 160 / Friday, August 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

Technical Standards 

This rule does not use technical 

standards. Therefore, we did not 

consider the use of voluntary consensus 

standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Department of Homeland Security 

Management Directive 023–01 and 

Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 

which guide the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have made a determination that this 

action is one of a category of actions that 

do not individually or cumulatively 

have a significant effect on the human 

environment. This rule is categorically 

excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph 

(34)(g), of the Instruction because it 

involves the establishment of a safety 

zone 

A final environmental analysis 

checklist and a categorical exclusion 

determination are available in the 

docket where indicated under 

ADDRESSES. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165- REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority:— 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapters 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; 

Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department 

of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Add § 165.T09–0043 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T09–0043 Safety Zone; Antique Boat 

Show, Niagara River, Grand Island, NY. 

(a) Location. The safety zone will 

encompass all waters of the Niagara 

River, Grand Island, NY starting at 

position 42°59′59′′ N, 078°56′22′′ W, 

East to 42°59′54′′ N, 078°56′14′′ W, 

South to 42°57′54′′ N, 078°56′04′′ W, 

West to 42°057′48′′ N, 078°56′22′′ W. 

(NAD 83). 

(b) Effective and Enforcement Period. 

This regulation is effective and will be 

enforced on September 8, 2012 from 

9:30 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. 

(c) Regulations. 

(1) In accordance with the general 

regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry 

into, transiting, or anchoring within this 

safety zone is prohibited unless 

authorized by the Captain of the Port 

Buffalo or his designated on-scene 

representative. 

(2) This safety zone is closed to all 

vessel traffic, except as may be 

permitted by the Captain of the Port 

Buffalo or his designated on-scene 

representative. 

(3) The ‘‘on-scene representative’’ of 

the Captain of the Port Buffalo is any 

Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or 

petty officer who has been designated 

by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act 

on his behalf. The on-scene 

representative of the Captain of the Port 

Buffalo is any Coast Guard 

commissioned, warrant or petty officer 

who has been designated by the Captain 

of the Port Buffalo to act on his behalf. 

(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter 

or operate within the safety zone shall 

contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo 

or his on-scene representative to obtain 

permission to do so. The Captain of the 

Port Buffalo or his on-scene 

representative may be contacted via 

VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given 

permission to enter or operate in the 

safety zone must comply with all 

directions given to them by the Captain 

of the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene 

representative. 

Dated: April 16, 2012. 

S.M. Wischmann, 

Captain, U. S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Buffalo. 

[FR Doc. 2012–20188 Filed 8–16–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0394; FRL–9359–7] 

Cyprodinil; Pesticide Tolerances 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes 

tolerances for residues of cyprodinil in 

or on multiple commodities which are 

identified and discussed later in this 

document, associated with Pesticide 

Petition (PP) 1E7854, and establishes a 

tolerance in or on leaf petioles subgroup 

4B, associated with PP 1E7869. 

Interregional Research Project Number 4 

(IR–4) and Syngenta Crop Protection 

requested the tolerances associated with 

PP 1E7854 and 1E7869, respectively, 

under the Federal Food, Drug, and 

Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). 

DATES: This regulation is effective 

August 17, 2012. Objections and 

requests for hearings must be received 

on or before October 16, 2012, and must 

be filed in accordance with the 

instructions provided in 40 CFR part 

178 (see also Unit I.C. of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0394, is 

available either electronically through 

http://www.regulations.gov or in hard 

copy at the OPP Docket in the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), located in EPA 

West, Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. The 

Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 

a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 

telephone number for the Public 

Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and 

the telephone number for the OPP 

Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review 

the visitor instructions and additional 

information about the docket available 

at http://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laura Nollen, Registration Division 

(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

(703) 305–7390; email address: 

Nollen.Laura@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are an agricultural 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 160 / Friday, August 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 49733 

producer, food manufacturer, or 

pesticide manufacturer. Potentially 

affected entities may include, but are 

not limited to those engaged in the 

following activities: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 111). 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112). 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532). 

B. How can I get electronic access to 

other related information? 

You may access a frequently updated 

electronic version of EPA’s tolerance 

regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through 

the Government Printing Office’s e-CFR 

site at http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/ 

text/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/ 

Title40/40tab_02.tpl. 

C. How can I file an objection or hearing 

request? 

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 

U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an 

objection to any aspect of this regulation 

and may also request a hearing on those 

objections. You must file your objection 

or request a hearing on this regulation 

in accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure 

proper receipt by EPA, you must 

identify docket ID number EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2011–0394 in the subject line on 

the first page of your submission. All 

objections and requests for a hearing 

must be in writing, and must be 

received by the Hearing Clerk on or 

before October 16, 2012. Addresses for 

mail and hand delivery of objections 

and hearing requests are provided in 40 

CFR 178.25(b). 

In addition to filing an objection or 

hearing request with the Hearing Clerk 

as described in 40 CFR part 178, please 

submit a copy of the filing that does not 

contain any CBI for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information not marked 

confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 

may be disclosed publicly by EPA 

without prior notice. Submit a copy of 

your non-CBI objection or hearing 

request, identified by docket ID number 

EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0394, by one of 

the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. 

• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental 

Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/ 

DC), Mail Code: 28221T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: To make special 

arrangements for hand delivery or 

delivery of boxed information, please 

follow the instructions at http:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.htm. 

Additional instructions on 

commenting or visiting the docket, 

along with more information about 

dockets generally, is available at 

http://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

II. Summary of Petitioned-For 

Tolerance 

In the Federal Register of July 20, 

2011 (76 FR 43231) (FRL–8880–1), EPA 

issued a notice pursuant to FFDCA 

section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), 

announcing the filing of PP 1E7854 by 

IR–4, 500 College Road East, Suite 

201W, Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition 

requested that 40 CFR 180.532 be 

amended by establishing tolerances for 

residues of the fungicide cyprodinil, 4- 

cyclopropyl-6-methyl-N-phenyl-2- 

pyrimidinamine, in or on onion, bulb, 

subgroup 3–07A at 0.6 parts per million 

(ppm); onion, green, subgroup 3–07B at 

4.0 ppm; caneberry subgroup 13–07A at 

10.0 ppm; bushberry subgroup 13–07B 

at 3.0 ppm; fruit, small vine climbing, 

except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13–07F 

at 2.0 ppm; berry, low growing, 

subgroup 13–07G, except cranberry at 

5.0 ppm; dragon fruit at 2.0 ppm; fruit, 

pome, group 11–10 at 1.7 ppm; 

vegetable, fruiting, group 8–10 at 1.3 

ppm; and leafy greens subgroup 4A at 

40 ppm. 

Upon approval of the aforementioned 

tolerances, the petition additionally 

requested amendment of 40 CFR 

180.532 by removing the established 

tolerances for the residues of cyprodinil 

in or on onion, bulb at 0.60 ppm; onion, 

green at 4.0 ppm; caneberry subgroup 

13A at 10 ppm; bushberry subgroup 13B 

at 3.0 ppm; Juneberry at 3.0 ppm; 

lingonberry at 3.0 ppm; salal at 3.0 ppm; 

grape at 2.0 ppm; strawberry at 5.0 ppm; 

fruit, pome at 1.7 ppm; tomatillo at 0.45 

ppm; tomato at 0.45 ppm; and leafy 

greens subgroup 4A, except spinach at 

30 ppm. The published notice of the 

petition referenced a summary of the 

petition prepared on behalf of IR–4 by 

Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., the 

registrant, which is available in the 

docket, http://www.regulations.gov. 

There were no comments received in 

response to this notice of filing. 

In the Federal Register of April 4, 

2012 (77 FR 20334) (FRL–9340–4), EPA 

issued a notice pursuant to FFDCA 

section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), 

announcing the filing of PP 1E7869 by 

Syngenta Crop Protection, P.O. Box 

18300, Greensboro, NC 27409. The 

petition requested that 40 CFR 180.532 

be amended by establishing tolerances 

for residues of the fungicide cyprodinil 

in or on leafy petioles subgroup 4B at 

30 parts per million. That notice 

referenced a summary of the petition 

prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, 

Inc., the registrant, which is available in 

the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. 

One comment was received to this 

notice of filing. EPA’s response to the 

comment is discussed in Unit IV.C. 

Based upon review of the data 

supporting the petitions, EPA has 

revised the proposed tolerance levels for 

several commodities. The reasons for 

these changes are explained in Unit 

IV.D. 

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and 

Determination of Safety 

Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of 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) of FFDCA 

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) of FFDCA 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* * *.’’ 

Consistent with FFDCA section 

408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in 

FFDCA 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 

and to make a determination on 

aggregate exposure for cyprodinil 

including exposure resulting from the 

tolerances established by this action. 

EPA’s assessment of exposures and risks 

associated with cyprodinil 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
49734 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 160 / Friday, August 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

subgroups of consumers, including 

infants and children. 

Cyprodinil has low acute toxicity via 

the oral, dermal, and inhalation routes 

of exposure. Cyprodinil is mildly 

irritating to the eyes and negligibly 

irritating to the skin. It is a dermal 

sensitizer. The major target organs of 

cyprodinil are the liver in both rats and 

mice and the kidney in rats. Liver 

effects observed consistently in 

subchronic and chronic studies in rats 

and mice included increased liver 

weights and increases in serum clinical 

chemistry parameters associated with 

adverse effects on liver function, 

hepatocyte hypertrophy, and 

hepatocellular necrosis. Adverse kidney 

effects included tubular lesions and 

inflammation following subchronic 

exposure of male rats. The 

hematopoietic system also appeared to 

be a target of cyprodinil, causing mild 

anemia following subchronic exposure 

to cyprodinil in rats. Chronic effects in 

dogs were limited to decreased body 

weight gain, decreased food 

consumption and decreased food 

efficiency. 

Fetal toxicity reported in 

developmental toxicity studies in the rat 

included significantly lower fetal 

weights and an increased incidence of 

delayed ossification in the rat and 

showed a slight increase in litters 

showing extra ribs in the rabbit. In a rat 

2-generation reproduction study, 

significantly lower pup weights were 

observed in F1 and F2 offspring. 

However, each of these fetal and 

neonatal effects occurred at the same 

dose levels at which maternal toxicity 

(decreased body weight gain) was 

observed, and the effects were 

considered to be secondary to maternal 

toxicity. 

In an acute neurotoxicity study in 

rats, clinical signs, hypothermia, and 

changes in motor activity were all found 

to be reversible and no longer seen at 

day 8 and 15 investigations. There were 

no treatment related effects on 

mortality, gross or histological 

neuropathology. Reduced motor 

activity, induced hunched posture, 

piloerection and reduced 

responsiveness to sensory stimuli were 

observed and disappeared in all animals 

by day 3 to 4. The subchronic 

neurotoxicity study in rats, showed no 

treatment-related effects related to 

neurotoxicity. An immunotoxicity study 

in mice resulted in no apparent 

suppression of the humoral component 

of the immune system. There was no 

evidence of carcinogenic potential in 

either the rat chronic toxicity/ 

carcinogenicity or mouse 

carcinogenicity studies. 

Specific information on the studies 

received and the nature of the adverse 

effects caused by cyprodinil as well as 

the no-observed-adverse-effect-level 

(NOAEL) and the lowest-observedadverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the 

toxicity studies can be found at http:// 

www.regulations.gov in document: 

‘‘Cyprodinil: Expansions of Existing 

Crop Group/Representative Commodity 

Uses to Numerous Crop Subgroups, 

Adding Use on Leafy Petiole Subgroup 

4B, and Adding Use on the Remaining 

Crops in Fruiting Vegetables Group 8– 

10.’’ pp 34–38 in docket ID number 

EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0394.’’ 

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/ 

Levels of Concern 

Once a pesticide’s toxicological 

profile is determined, EPA identifies 

toxicological points of departure (POD) 

and levels of concern (LOC) to use in 

evaluating the risk posed by human 

exposure to the pesticide. For hazards 

that have a threshold below which there 

is no appreciable risk, the toxicological 

POD is used as the basis for derivation 

of reference values for risk assessment. 

PODs are developed based on a careful 

analysis of the doses in each 

toxicological study to determine the 

dose at which no adverse effects are 

observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest 

dose at which adverse effects of concern 

are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/ 

safety factors (U/SF) are used in 

conjunction with the POD to calculate a 

safe exposure level—generally referred 

to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) 

or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe 

margin of exposure (MOE). For nonthreshold risks, the Agency assumes 

that any amount of exposure will lead 

to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency 

estimates risk in terms of the probability 

of an occurrence of the adverse effect 

expected in a lifetime. For more 

information on the general principles 

EPA uses in risk characterization and a 

complete description of the risk 

assessment process, see http:// 

www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/ 

riskassess.htm. A summary of the 

toxicological endpoints for cyprodinil 

used for human risk assessment is 

shown in Table 1 of this unit. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF TOXICOLOGICAL DOSES AND ENDPOINTS FOR CYPRODINIL FOR USE IN HUMAN HEALTH RISK

ASSESSMENT

Exposure/scenario 

Point of departure 

and 

uncertainty/safety 

factors 

RfD, PAD, LOC for 

risk 

assessment 

Study and toxicological effects 

Acute dietary All populations) ... NOAEL = 200 mg/ 

kg/day.

UFA = 10x 

UFH = 10x 

FQPA SF = 1x 

Acute RfD = 2.0 mg/ 

kg/day.

aPAD = 2.0 mg/kg/ 

day 

Acute Neurotoxicity—Rat LOAEL = 600 mg/kg/day based on 

clinical signs of toxicity (hunched posture, piloerection, and 

reduced responsiveness to sensory stimuli, reduced motor 

activity and hypothermia). 

Chronic dietary (All populations) NOAEL = 2.7 mg/kg/ 

day.

UFA = 10x 

UFH = 10x 

FQPA SF = 1x 

Chronic RfD = 0.027 

mg/kg/day.

cPAD = 0.027 mg/ 

kg/day 

2-Year Chronic Toxicity/Carcinogenicity—rat LOAEL = 35.6 mg/ 

kg/day based on degenerative liver lesions (spongiosis hepatitis) in males. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 160 / Friday, August 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 49735 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF TOXICOLOGICAL DOSES AND ENDPOINTS FOR CYPRODINIL FOR USE IN HUMAN HEALTH RISK

ASSESSMENT—Continued 

Exposure/scenario 

Point of departure 

and 

uncertainty/safety 

factors 

RfD, PAD, LOC for 

risk 

assessment 

Study and toxicological effects 

Inhalation short-term (1 to 30 

days).

Inhalation (or oral) 

study NOAEL= 62 

mg/kg/day (inhalation absorption 

rate = 100%).

UFA = 10x 

UFH = 10x 

FQPA SF = 10x 

LOC for MOE = 

1,000.

28-Day Feeding/Range-Finding—Rat LOAEL = 299 mg/kg/day 

based on decreased body-weight gain, increased cholesterol 

and phospholipid levels, microcytosis, and hepatocyte hypertrophy. 

Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation).Not likely to be carcinogenic to humans. 

FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOC = level of concern. mg/kg/day = 

milligram/kilogram/day. MOE = margin of exposure. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = 

chronic). RfD = reference dose. UF = uncertainty factor. UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in 

sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies). 

C. Exposure Assessment 

1. Dietary exposure from food and 

feed uses. In evaluating dietary 

exposure to cyprodinil, EPA considered 

exposure under the petitioned-for 

tolerances as well as all existing 

cyprodinil tolerances in 40 CFR 

180.532. 

i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute 

dietary exposure and 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. Such effects were identified 

for cyprodinil. In estimating acute 

dietary exposure, EPA used food 

consumption information from the 

United States Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) 1994–1996 and 1998 

Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food 

Intake by Individuals (CSFII). As to 

residue levels in food, EPA assumed 

tolerance-level residues, 100 percent 

crop treated (PCT) estimates, and 

Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model 

(DEEMTM (ver. 7.81)) default processing 

factors. 

ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting 

the chronic dietary exposure assessment 

EPA used the food consumption data 

from the USDA 1994–1996 and 1998 

CSFII. As to residue levels in food, EPA 

assumed tolerance-level residues for 

most commodities; average field trial 

residues for pome fruit, head lettuce, 

leaf lettuce, and grapes; and 100 PCT 

estimates. DEEMTM (ver. 7.81) default 

and empirical processing factors for 

tomato paste/puree (1x) and lemon/lime 

juice (1x) were used to modify the 

tolerance values. 

iii. Cancer. Based on the data 

summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has 

concluded that cyprodinil does not pose 

a cancer risk to humans. Therefore, a 

dietary exposure assessment for the 

purpose of assessing cancer risk is 

unnecessary. 

iv. Anticipated residue information. 

Section 408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA 

authorizes EPA to use available data and 

information on the anticipated residue 

levels of pesticide residues in food and 

the actual levels of pesticide residues 

that have been measured in food. If EPA 

relies on such information, EPA must 

require pursuant to FFDCA section 

408(f)(1) that data be provided 5 years 

after the tolerance is established, 

modified, or left in effect, demonstrating 

that the levels in food are not above the 

levels anticipated. For the present 

action, EPA will issue such data call-ins 

as are required by FFDCA section 

408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under 

FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be 

required to be submitted no later than 

5 years from the date of issuance of 

these tolerances. 

2. Dietary exposure from drinking 

water. The Agency used screening level 

water exposure models in the dietary 

exposure analysis and risk assessment 

for cyprodinil in drinking water. These 

simulation models take into account 

data on the physical, chemical, and fate/ 

transport characteristics of cyprodinil. 

Further information regarding EPA 

drinking water models used in pesticide 

exposure assessment can be found at 

http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/ 

water/index.htm. 

Based on the Pesticide Root Zone 

Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling 

System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Screening 

Concentration in Ground Water (SCI– 

GROW) models, the estimated drinking 

water concentrations (EDWCs) of 

cyprodinil for surface water are 

expected to be 34.79 parts per billion 

(ppb) for acute exposures and 24.65 ppb 

for chronic exposures. The EDWCs of 

cyprodinil for ground water are 

expected to be 0.0861 ppb for acute and 

chronic exposures. 

Modeled estimates of drinking water 

concentrations were directly entered 

into the dietary exposure model. For 

acute dietary risk assessment, the water 

concentration value of 34.79 ppb was 

used to assess the contribution to 

drinking water. For chronic dietary risk 

assessment, the water concentration of 

value 24.65 ppb was used to assess the 

contribution to drinking water. 

3. From non-dietary exposure. The 

term ‘‘residential exposure’’ is used in 

this document to refer to nonoccupational, non-dietary exposure 

(e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, 

indoor pest control, termiticides, and 

flea and tick control on pets). 

Cyprodinil is currently registered for the 

following uses that could result in 

residential exposures: Ornamental 

landscapes. EPA assessed residential 

exposure using the following 

assumptions: Short-term inhalation 

exposures to residential handlers are 

expected from application to 

ornamental landscapes. Dermal 

exposures were not assessed, since there 

is no dermal POD. Residential handler 

exposure scenarios are considered to be 

short-term only, due to the infrequent 

use patterns associated with homeowner 

products. Postapplication exposures are 

not expected. Further information 

regarding EPA standard assumptions 

and generic inputs for residential 

exposures may be found at http:// 

www.epa.gov/pesticides/trac/science/ 

trac6a05.pdf. 

4. Cumulative effects from substances 

with a common mechanism of toxicity. 

Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
49736 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 160 / Friday, August 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 has not found cyprodinil to share 

a common mechanism of toxicity with 

any other substances, and cyprodinil 

does not appear to produce a toxic 

metabolite produced by other 

substances. For the purposes of this 

tolerance action, therefore, EPA has 

assumed that cyprodinil does not have 

a common mechanism of toxicity with 

other substances. For 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 EPA’s Web site at 

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ 

cumulative. 

D. Safety Factor for Infants and 

Children 

1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of 

FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply 

an additional tenfold (10X) margin of 

safety for infants and children in the 

case of threshold effects to account for 

prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the 

completeness of the database on toxicity 

and exposure unless EPA determines 

based on reliable data that a different 

margin of safety will be safe for infants 

and children. This additional margin of 

safety is commonly referred to as the 

FQPA SF. In applying this provision, 

EPA either retains the default value of 

10X, or uses a different additional safety 

factor when reliable data available to 

EPA support the choice of a different 

factor. 

2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. 

The cyprodinil toxicity database is 

adequate to evaluate potential increased 

susceptibility of infants and children, 

and includes developmental toxicity 

studies in rats and rabbits and a 2- 

generation reproduction study in rats. In 

a rat developmental toxicity study, there 

were significantly lower mean fetal 

weights in the high dose group 

compared to controls as well as a 

significant increase in skeletal 

anomalies in the high dose group due to 

abnormal ossification. The skeletal 

anomalies/variations were considered to 

be a transient developmental delay that 

occurred secondary to the maternal 

toxicity noted in the high dose group. In 

the rabbit study, the only treatment 

related developmental effect was the 

indication of an increased incidence of 

a 13th rib at maternally toxic doses. 

Signs of fetal effects in the reproductive 

toxicity study included significantly 

lower F1 and F2 pup weights in the 

high dose group during lactation, which 

continued to be lower than controls 

post-weaning and after the pre-mating 

period in the F1 generation. 

Reproductive effects were seen only at 

doses that also caused parental toxicity. 

3. Conclusion. EPA has determined 

that reliable data show the safety of 

infants and children would be 

adequately protected if the FQPA SF 

were reduced to 1X for non-inhalation 

exposure scenarios. For inhalation 

exposure scenarios for all population 

groups, EPA is retaining a 10X FQPA 

SF. That decision is based on the 

following findings: 

i. The toxicity database for cyprodinil 

is complete except for a 90-day 

inhalation toxicity study. In the absence 

of inhalation data, EPA is relying on an 

oral study for estimating risk from 

inhalation exposures. EPA evaluation of 

use of oral studies to extrapolate an 

inhalation endpoint has shown that 

such extrapolation may understate risk. 

Accordingly, to address the uncertainty 

caused by extrapolating an inhalation 

endpoint from an oral study for 

cyprodinil, EPA has concluded that the 

10X FQPA SF should be retained for 

risk assessments involving inhalation 

exposure. 

ii. In the subchronic neurotoxicity 

study in rats, there was no indication 

that cyprodinil is a neurotoxic chemical. 

In an acute neurotoxicity study in rats, 

clinical signs, hypothermia, and 

changes in motor activity were all found 

to be reversible and no longer seen at 

day 8 and 15 investigations. There were 

no treatment related effects on mortality 

or gross or histological neuropathology. 

Reduced motor activity, induced 

hunched posture, piloerection and 

reduced responsiveness to sensory 

stimuli were observed and disappeared 

in all animals by day 3 to 4. Based on 

this evidence, there is no need for a 

developmental neurotoxicity study or 

additional UFs to account for 

neurotoxicity. 

iii. In the prenatal developmental 

toxicity studies in rats and rabbits and 

the 2-generation reproduction study in 

rats, toxicity to the fetuses and/or 

offspring, when observed, occurred at 

the same doses at which effects were 

observed in maternal/parental animals. 

Additionally, the skeletal anomalies/ 

variations were considered to be a 

transient developmental delay that 

occurred secondary to the maternal 

toxicity noted in the high dose group. 

Therefore, there is no evidence that 

cyprodinil results in increased 

susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits 

in the prenatal developmental studies or 

in young rats in the 2-generation 

reproduction study. 

iv. There are no residual uncertainties 

identified in the exposure databases. 

The acute dietary food exposure 

assessment was performed based on 100 

PCT and tolerance-level residues. The 

chronic dietary food exposure 

assessment was partially refined, 

assuming average field trial residues 

and empirical processing factors for 

some commodities, and tolerance level 

residues and DEEMTM (ver. 7.81) default 

for the remaining commodities. EPA 

made conservative (protective) 

assumptions in the ground and surface 

water modeling used to assess exposure 

to cyprodinil in drinking water. Based 

on the discussion in Unit III.C.3, 

postapplication exposure of children as 

well as incidental oral exposure of 

toddlers is not expected. These 

assessments will not underestimate the 

exposure and risks posed by cyprodinil. 

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of 

Safety 

EPA determines whether acute and 

chronic dietary pesticide exposures are 

safe by comparing aggregate exposure 

estimates to the aPAD and cPAD. For 

linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the 

lifetime probability of acquiring cancer 

given the estimated aggregate exposure. 

Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term 

risks are evaluated by comparing the 

estimated aggregate food, water, and 

residential exposure to the appropriate 

PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE 

exists. 

1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk 

assessment takes into account acute 

exposure estimates from dietary 

consumption of food and drinking 

water. Using the exposure assumptions 

discussed in this unit for acute 

exposure, the acute dietary exposure 

from food and water to cyprodinil will 

occupy 8.2% of the aPAD for children 

1–2 years old, the population group 

receiving the greatest exposure. 

2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure 

assumptions described in this unit for 

chronic exposure, EPA has concluded 

that chronic exposure to cyprodinil 

from food and water will utilize 75% of 

the cPAD for children 1–2 years old, the 

population group receiving the greatest 

exposure. Based on the explanation in 

Unit III.C.3., regarding residential use 

patterns, chronic residential exposure to 

residues of cyprodinil is not expected. 

3. Short-term risk. Short-term 

aggregate exposure takes into account 

short-term residential exposure plus 

chronic exposure to food and water 

(considered to be a background 

exposure level). Cyprodinil is currently 

registered for uses that could result in 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 160 / Friday, August 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 49737 

short-term residential exposure to 

adults, and the Agency has determined 

that it is appropriate to aggregate 

chronic exposure through food and 

water with short-term residential 

exposures to cyprodinil. Using the 

exposure assumptions described in this 

unit for short-term exposures, EPA has 

concluded the combined short-term 

food, water, and residential exposures 

result in an aggregate MOE of 9,000. 

Because EPA’s level of concern for 

cyprodinil is a MOE of 1,000 or below, 

these MOEs are not of concern. 

4. Intermediate-term risk. 

Intermediate-term aggregate exposure 

takes into account intermediate-term 

residential exposure plus chronic 

exposure to food and water (considered 

to be a background exposure level). An 

intermediate-term adverse effect was 

identified; however, cyprodinil is not 

registered for any use patterns that 

would result in intermediate-term 

residential exposure. Intermediate-term 

risk is assessed based on intermediateterm residential exposure plus chronic 

dietary exposure. Because there is no 

intermediate-term residential exposure 

and chronic dietary exposure has 

already been assessed under the 

appropriately protective cPAD (which is 

at least as protective as the POD used to 

assess intermediate-term risk), no 

further assessment of intermediate-term 

risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the 

chronic dietary risk assessment for 

evaluating intermediate-term risk for 

cyprodinil. 

5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. 

population. Based on the lack of 

evidence of carcinogenicity in two 

adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies, 

cyprodinil is not expected to pose a 

cancer risk to humans. 

6. Determination of safety. Based on 

these risk assessments, EPA concludes 

that there is a reasonable certainty that 

no harm will result to the general 

population, or to infants and children 

from aggregate exposure to cyprodinil 

residues. 

IV. Other Considerations 

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology 

Adequate high performance liquid 

chromatography, using ultra-violet 

detection (HPLC/UV) methods (Methods 

AG–631 and AG–631B) are available to 

enforce the tolerance expression of 

cyprodinil in/on plant commodities. 

The method may be requested from: 

Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, 

Environmental Science Center, 701 

Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755–5350; 

telephone number: (410) 305–2905; 

email address: 

residuemethods@epa.gov. 

B. International Residue Limits 

In making its tolerance decisions, EPA 

seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with 

international standards whenever 

possible, consistent with U.S. food 

safety standards and agricultural 

practices. EPA considers the 

international maximum residue limits 

(MRLs) established by the Codex 

Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as 

required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). 

The Codex Alimentarius is a joint 

United Nations Food and Agriculture 

Organization/World Health 

Organization food standards program, 

and it is recognized as an international 

food safety standards-setting 

organization in trade agreements to 

which the United States is a party. EPA 

may establish a tolerance that is 

different from a Codex MRL; however, 

FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that 

EPA explain the reasons for departing 

from the Codex level. 

The Codex has established MRLs for 

cyprodinil in or on several commodities 

that are not harmonized with the 

tolerances being established in the 

United States, as follows: Codex MRL 

on eggplant at 0.2 ppm, pepper at 0.5 

ppm, and tomato at 0.5 ppm and U.S. 

tolerance on vegetable, fruiting, group 

8–10 at 1.5 ppm; Codex MRL on onion, 

bulb at 0.3 ppm and U. S. tolerance on 

onion, bulb, subgroup 3–07A at 0.6 

ppm; Codex MRL on black and red 

raspberry at 0.5 ppm and U.S. tolerance 

on caneberry subgroup 13–07A at 10 

ppm; Codex MRL on head and leaf 

lettuce at 10 ppm and U. S. tolerance on 

leafy greens subgroup 4A at 50 ppm; 

and Codex MRLs on apple at 0.05 ppm 

and pear at 1 ppm and U. S. tolerance 

on fruit, pome, group 11–10 at 1.7 ppm. 

The United States tolerance 

recommendations cannot be 

harmonized with the Codex MRLs 

established for cyprodinil because the 

residue data supporting the tolerance 

necessitate a higher value. 

Additionally, Codex has an 

established MRL on grape at 3 ppm and 

dried grapes at 5 ppm. The EPA is 

establishing the tolerance for fruit, small 

vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, 

subgroup 13–07F (for which grape is the 

representative commodity) at 3 ppm and 

grape, raisin at 5 ppm in order to 

harmonize with the Codex MRLs. Codex 

has not established MRLs on the other 

commodities associated with these 

petitions. 

C. Response to Comments 

One comment was received to the 

Notice of Filing for PP 1E7869, which 

requested additional information about 

the nature of the residue and the 

adverse effects noted from exposure to 

cyprodinil. Specific information on the 

nature of the residue, including physical 

and chemical characteristics, as well as 

the adverse effects caused by cyprodinil 

from the toxicity studies can be found 

in the supporting and related material at 

http://www.regulations.gov in docket ID 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0394. 

D. Revisions to Petitioned-For 

Tolerances 

Based on the data supporting the 

petitions, EPA has revised the proposed 

tolerance on vegetable, fruiting, group 

8–10 from 1.3 ppm to 1.5 ppm; and 

leafy greens subgroup 4A from 40 ppm 

to 50 ppm. The Agency revised these 

tolerance levels based on analysis of the 

residue field trial data using the 

Organization for Economic Co-operation 

and Development (OECD) tolerance 

calculation procedures. 

Additionally, the Agency revised the 

proposed tolerance in or on fruit, small 

vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, 

subgroup 13–07F from 2.0 ppm to 3.0 

ppm in order to harmonize with the 

established Codex MRL on grape at 3 

ppm. The Agency has also revised the 

established tolerance in or on grape, 

raisin from 3.0 ppm to 5.0 ppm in order 

to align with the Codex MRL on dried 

grapes at 5 ppm. 

EPA determined that the established 

tolerance on tomato, paste at 1.0 ppm 

should be removed, as it will be 

superseded by the tolerance in or on 

fruiting vegetable group 8–10 tolerance 

at 1.5 ppm. 

V. Conclusion 

Therefore, tolerances are established 

for residues of cyprodinil, 4- 

cyclopropyl-6-methyl- N -phenyl-2- 

pyrimidinamine, in or on onion, bulb, 

subgroup 3–07A at 0.6 ppm; onion, 

green, subgroup 3–07B at 4.0 ppm; 

caneberry subgroup 13–07A at 10 ppm; 

bushberry subgroup 13–07B at 3.0 ppm; 

fruit, small vine climbing, except fuzzy 

kiwifruit, subgroup 13–07F at 3.0 ppm; 

grape, raisin at 5.0 ppm; berry, low 

growing, subgroup 13–07G, except 

cranberry at 5.0 ppm; vegetable, fruiting, 

group 8–10 at 1.5 ppm; leafy greens 

subgroup 4A at 50 ppm; fruit, pome, 

group 11–10 at 1.7 ppm; dragon fruit at 

2.0 ppm; and leaf petioles subgroup 4B 

at 30 ppm. Additionally, the established 

tolerance on citrus, oil is amended from 

340 ppm to 60 ppm. Finally, this 

regulation removes tolerances of 

cyprodinil in or on onion, bulb at 0.60 

ppm; onion, green at 4.0 ppm; caneberry 

subgroup 13A at 10 ppm; bushberry 

subgroup 13B at 3.0 ppm; grape at 2.0 

ppm; strawberry at 5.0 ppm; tomato at 

0.45 ppm; Juneberry at 3.0 ppm; 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
49738 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 160 / Friday, August 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

lingonberry at 3.0 ppm; salal at 3.0 ppm; 

tomatillo at 0.45 ppm; fruit, pome at 1.7 

ppm; leafy greens subgroup 4A, except 

spinach at 30 ppm; and tomato, paste at 

1.0 ppm. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This final rule establishes tolerances 

under FFDCA section 408(d) in 

response to a petition submitted to the 

Agency. 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). Because this final rule 

has been exempted from review under 

Executive Order 12866, this final rule is 

not subject to Executive Order 13211, 

entitled ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive 

Order 13045, entitled ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997). 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., nor does it require 

any special considerations under 

Executive Order 12898, entitled 

‘‘Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income 

Populations’’ (59 FR 7629, February 16, 

1994). 

Since tolerances and exemptions that 

are established on the basis of a petition 

under FFDCA section 408(d), 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. 

This final rule directly regulates 

growers, food processors, food handlers, 

and food retailers, not States or tribes, 

nor does this action alter the 

relationships or distribution of power 

and responsibilities established by 

Congress in the preemption provisions 

of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, 

the Agency has determined that this 

action will not have a substantial direct 

effect on States or tribal governments, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States or tribal 

governments, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government or between 

the Federal Government and Indian 

tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined 

that Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999) and Executive Order 13175, 

entitled ‘‘Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply 

to this final rule. In addition, this final 

rule does not impose any enforceable 

duty or contain any unfunded mandate 

as described under Title II of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(UMRA) (Pub. L. 104–4). 

This action does not involve any 

technical standards that would require 

Agency consideration of voluntary 

consensus standards pursuant to section 

12(d) of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(NTTAA), Public Law 104–113, section 

12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). 

VII. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report to each House of 

the Congress and to the Comptroller 

General of the United States. EPA will 

submit a report containing this rule and 

other required information to the U.S. 

Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of this final rule in the 

Federal Register. This final 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: August 10, 2012. 

Daniel J. Rosenblatt, 

Acting Director, Registration Division, Office 

of Pesticide Programs. 

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is 

amended as follows: 

PART 180—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 180 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. 

■ 2. In § 180.532, the table in paragraph 

(a)(1) is revised to read as follows: 

§ 180.532 Cyprodinil; tolerances for 

residues. 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

Commodity 

Parts 

per 

million 

Almond .......................................... 0 .02 

Almond, hulls ................................ 8 .0 

Apple, wet pomace ....................... 4 .6 

Avocado ........................................ 1 .2 

Bean, dry ...................................... 0 .6 

Bean, succulent ............................ 0 .6 

Berry, low growing, subgroup 13– 

07G, except cranberry .............. 5 .0 

Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A ................................... 1 .0 

Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 

5B .............................................. 10 .0 

Bushberry subgroup 13–07B ........ 3 .0 

Caneberry subgroup 13–07A ....... 10 

Canistel ......................................... 1 .2 

Canola, seed 1 .............................. 0 .03 

Citrus, dried pulp .......................... 8 .0 

Citrus, oil ....................................... 60 

Dragon fruit ................................... 2 .0 

Fruit, pome, group 11–10 ............. 1 .7 

Fruit, small vine climbing, except 

fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13– 

07F ............................................ 3 .0 

Fruit, stone, group 12 ................... 2 .0 

Grape, raisin ................................. 5 .0 

Herb subgroup 19A, dried, except 

parsley ....................................... 15 .0 

Herb subgroup 19A, fresh, except 

parsley ....................................... 3 .0 

Kiwifruit ......................................... 1 .8 

Leaf petioles subgroup 4B ........... 30 

Leafy greens subgroup 4A ........... 50 

Lemon ........................................... 0 .60 

Lime .............................................. 0 .60 

Longan .......................................... 2 .0 

Lychee .......................................... 2 .0 

Mango ........................................... 1 .2 

Onion, bulb, subgroup 3–07A ...... 0 .6 

Onion, green, subgroup 3–07B .... 4 .0 

Papaya .......................................... 1 .2 

Parsley, dried leaves .................... 170 

Parsley, leaves ............................. 35 

Pistachio ....................................... 0 .10 

Pulasan ......................................... 2 .0 

Rambutan ..................................... 2 .0 

Sapodilla ....................................... 1 .2 

Sapote, black ................................ 1 .2 

Sapote, mamey ............................ 1 .2 

Spanish lime ................................. 2 .0 

Star apple ..................................... 1 .2 

Turnip, greens .............................. 10 .0 

Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 ........ 0 .70 

Vegetable, fruiting, group 8–10 .... 1 .5 

Vegetable, leaves of root and 

tuber, group 2 ........................... 10 

Vegetable, root, except sugarbeet, subgroup 1B .................... 0 .75 

Watercress .................................... 20 

1 Import only. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–20235 Filed 8–16–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES