Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0180-0007
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Pesticide Tolerances: Cyprodinil
Posted Date: 2016-04-19T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 75 (Tuesday, April 19, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22914-22919]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-09028]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0180; FRL-9943-85]

Cyprodinil; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of 
cyprodinil in or on Nut, Tree, Crop Group 14-12; except almond and 
pistachio. Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC requested these tolerances 
under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective April 19, 2016. Objections and 
requests for hearings must be received on or before June 20, 2016, 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-2015-0180, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory 
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency 
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., 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: Susan Lewis, Registration Division 
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone 
number: (703) 305-7090; email address: RDFRNotices@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 producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. 
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System 
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. 
Potentially affected entities may include:
     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://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/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-2015-0180 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 
June 20, 2016. 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 (excluding any Confidential Business Information (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 the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing 
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0180, 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 CBI or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket 
Center (EPA/DC), (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.html.

    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 April 22, 2015 (80 FR 22466) (FRL-9925-
79), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 
4F8333) by Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, 
NC 27419-8300. 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 Nut, Tree, 
Crop Group 14-12; except almond and pistachio at 0.04 parts per million 
(ppm). That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by 
Syngenta Crop Group, LLC, the registrant, which is available in the 
docket, http://www.regulations.gov. Comments were received on the 
notice of filing. EPA's response to these comments is discussed in Unit 
IV.C.

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

[[Page 22915]]

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 subgroups of consumers, including infants and 
children.
    The major target organs of cyprodinil are the liver and the kidney. 
Liver effects were consistent among male and female rats and mice in 
both sub-chronic and chronic studies and typically included increased 
liver weights along with increases in serum clinical chemistry 
parameters associated with adverse effects on liver function (i.e., 
increased cholesterol and phospholipid levels). Microscopic lesions in 
rats and mice included hepatocyte hypertrophy and hepatocellular 
necrosis. In the kidneys, adverse effects were seen as chronic tubular 
lesions and chronic kidney inflammation following sub-chronic exposure 
of male rats. Chronically, cyprodinil caused increased kidney weights 
and progressive nephropathy in male rats. Chronic effects in dogs were 
limited to decreased body-weight gain, decreased food consumption and 
decreased food efficiency; liver toxicity was not seen in the dog. The 
hematopoietic system also appeared to be a target of cyprodinil as mild 
anemia was seen in rats exposed sub-chronically (reductions in 
hematocrit and hemoglobin and microcytosis). Although increases in 
thyroid weight and/or hypertrophy of thyroid follicular cells were 
observed at higher doses in the rat 28-day oral-toxicity studies and in 
the 90-day oral-toxicity study in rats, treatment related changes in 
thyroid weights or gross/microscopic observations were not observed in 
the chronic rat study or in other studies.
    A 28-day dietary immunotoxicity study in mice resulted in no 
apparent suppression of the humoral component of the immune system. The 
only effect attributed to cyprodinil treatment was higher mean 
absolute, relative (to body weight), and adjusted liver weights for the 
5000 ppm group. There were no treatment-related effects on absolute, 
adjusted, or relative spleen or thymus weights; no effects on specific 
activity or total activity of splenic Immunoglobulin M antibody-forming 
cells to the T cell-dependent red blood cell antigens. No dermal or 
systemic toxicity was seen following repeated dermal application at the 
highest dose in a 21-day dermal toxicity study in rabbits.
    An acute neurotoxicity study indicated systemic toxicity with signs 
of induced hunched posture, piloerection, and reduced responsiveness to 
sensory stimuli and reduced motor activity. Females were slightly more 
affected than males per daily clinical observations, which disappeared 
by day 3 to 4. A dose-related reduction in body temperature was seen in 
all treated animals, thus hypothermia is considered a compound-related 
effect in the highest dose tested and was found to be statistically 
significant, whereas the lower dosed animals was not or only marginally 
significant and was fully reversible in all groups. Clinical signs, 
hypothermia, and changes in motor activity were found to all be 
reversible by day 8 and 15 investigations. There were no 
histopathological findings to support evidence of damage to the central 
nervous system, eyes, optic nerves, or skeletal muscles. A sub-chronic 
neurotoxicity study showed no treatment related effects on mortality, 
clinical signs, or gross or histological neuropathology. Functional 
observational battery and motor activity testing revealed no treatment 
related effects up to the highest dose tested.
    There was no evidence of increased susceptibility in the 
developmental rat or rabbit study following in utero exposure or in the 
two-generation reproduction study following pre- and post-natal 
exposure. Fetal toxicity, manifested as significantly lower fetal 
weights and an increased incidence of delayed ossification in the rat 
and a slight increase in litters showing extra ribs (13th) in the 
rabbit, was reported in developmental toxicity studies. In a rat two-
generation reproduction study, significantly lower pup weights for 
F1 and F2 offspring were observed. However, each 
of these fetal/neonatal effects occurred at the same dose levels at 
which maternal toxicity (decreased body weight gain) was observed and 
were considered to be secondary to maternal toxicity.
    Based on the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in mice and rats 
at doses that were judged to be adequate to the carcinogenic potential, 
cyprodinil was classified as ``not likely to be carcinogenic to 
humans.''
    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-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the document, ``Human Health Risk Assessment for 
the Petition Proposing a New Tolerance for the Use of cyprodinil in/on 
Nut, Tree, Crop Group 14-12; except almond and pistachio'' in docket ID 
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0180.

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 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 the NOAEL and the LOAEL are identified. 
Uncertainty/safety factors 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 non-threshold 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://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/assessing-human-health-risk-pesticides.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for cyprodinil used for 
human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.B. of the final rule 
published in the Federal Register of October 16, 2012 (77 FR 49732) 
(FRL-9359-7).

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary 
exposure to cyprodinil, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for

[[Page 22916]]

tolerances as well as all existing cyprodinil tolerances in 40 CFR 
180.532. EPA assessed dietary exposures from cyprodinil in food as 
follows:
    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. EPA used food consumption information from the United 
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Health and Nutrition 
Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). This 
dietary survey was conducted from 2003 to 2008. As to residue levels in 
food, EPA utilized the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with 
the Food Commodity Intake Database DEEM-FCID, Version 3.16 default 
processing factors and tolerance-level residues and 100 percent crop 
treated (PCT) for all commodities.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure 
assessment EPA used food consumption information from the USDA NHANES/
WWEIA dietary survey conducted from 2003 to 2008. As to residue levels 
in food, EPA utilized residue data from field trials to obtain average 
residues and assumed 100 PCT. Empirically derived processing factors 
were used in these assessments when available; all other processing 
factors used the DEEM-FCID Version 7.81 default processing factors.
    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 was not conducted.
    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 and CGA 249287 in drinking water. These 
simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and 
fate/transport characteristics of cyprodinil and CGA 249287. Further 
information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide 
exposure assessment can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/about-water-exposure-models-used-pesticide.
    Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling 
System (PRZM/EXAMS), Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) 
models and Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM GW), the 
estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of cyprodinil and CGA 
249287 for acute exposures are estimated to be 34.8 parts per billion 
(ppb) for surface water and 2.05 ppb for ground water. EDWCs for 
chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 24.7 
ppb for surface water and 1.80 ppb for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly 
entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk 
assessment, the water concentration value of 34.8 ppb was used to 
assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk 
assessment, the water concentration value of 24.7 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 non-occupational, 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 plants. EPA assessed 
residential exposure using the following assumptions: Only short-term 
inhalation exposures to adult residential handlers from application to 
ornamental plants. Though there may be short-term dermal exposures to 
handlers, this was not assessed since no dermal endpoint was 
identified. Post-application exposures to adults and children are not 
expected. Intermediate or chronic exposures are not expected. Further 
information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for 
residential exposures may be found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/standard-operating-procedures-residential-pesticide.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of 
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA 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 engendered 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://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

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 Food Quality 
Protection Act Safety Factor (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. 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 occurs secondary to the maternal 
toxicity noted in the high-dose group. In the rabbit study, the only 
treatment related developmental effect was indication of an increased 
incidence of a 13th rib at maternally toxic doses.

[[Page 22917]]

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 only. 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 routes of exposure and 
retained at 10X for inhalation exposure scenarios for all population 
groups. That decision is based on the following findings:
    i. The toxicity database for cyprodinil is complete, except for a 
90-day inhalation toxicity study required to reduce uncertainty 
associated with the use of an oral POD for assessing risk via the 
inhalation route. In the absence of a route-specific inhalation study, 
a 10x FQPA SF factor for residential scenarios will be retained for 
risk assessments involving inhalation exposure.
    ii. As indicated by an acute neurotoxicity study in mice, 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. In a sub-chronic 
neurotoxicity study in rats, there were no treatment related effects on 
mortality, clinical signs, or gross or histological neuropathology. No 
clinical signs suggestive of neurobehavioral alterations or evidence of 
neuropathological effects were observed in the available oral-toxicity 
studies. Based on this evidence, there is no need for a developmental 
neurotoxicity study or additional uncertainty factors (UFs) to account 
for neurotoxicity.
    iii. In the prenatal developmental rat and rabbit studies and in 
the 2-generation reproduction rat study, toxicity to the fetuses/
offspring, when observed, occurred at the same doses at which effects 
were observed in maternal/parental animals. All of these fetal effects 
were considered to be secondary to maternal toxicity. 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 assessment was conservative and based on 
100 PCT and tolerance level residues as well as DEEM default and 
empirical processing factors. The chronic dietary assessment was 
partially refined with average field trial residues for some 
commodities and tolerance-level residues for the remaining commodities. 
DEEM default and empirical processing factors were also incorporated 
into the chronic dietary assessment. 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, post-application exposure to children as well as 
incidental oral exposure to 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 
acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) and chronic population adjusted 
dose (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. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this 
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water 
to cyprodinil will occupy 8.6% of the aPAD for children one to two 
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 85% of the cPAD for 
children one to two 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 short-term 
residential exposure, 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 
estimated short-term food, water and residential exposures. For adults, 
oral dietary and inhalation estimates were combined using the total 
aggregate risk index (ARI) methodology since the levels of concern 
(LOC) for oral and dietary exposure (LOC=100) and inhalation (LOC 
1,000) are different. The short-term ARI for adults is 70 which is 
greater than 1 and is therefore, 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 intermediate-term 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 HPLC/UV methods (AG-631 and AG-631B) are available for 
enforcing tolerances of cyprodinil 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;

[[Page 22918]]

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 not established an MRL for cyprodinil in/on tree nut 
commodities other than pistachio and almond.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of cyprodinil, 
in or on Nut, Tree Crop Group 14-12; except almond and pistachio at 
0.04 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action 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 action has been 
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action 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 action 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 action 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 action. In addition, this 
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded 
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    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 (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), 
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required 
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and 
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of 
the rule in the Federal Register. This action 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: April 7, 2016.
Daniel J. Rosenblatt,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. In Sec.  180.532, add alphabetically the commodity ``Nut, tree, 
group 14-12; except almond and pistachio'' to the table in paragraph 
(a), to read as follows:

Sec.  180.532  Cyprodinil; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * * (1) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Parts per
                        Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
Nut, tree, group 14-12; except almond and pistachio.....            0.04
 
                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 22919]]

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-09028 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P