[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 202 (Wednesday, October 20, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61599-61605]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-23261]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[OPP-2004-0327; FRL-7682-1]


Cyprodinil; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of 
cyprodinil, 4-cyclopropyl-6-methyl-N-phenyl-2-pyrimidinamine, in or on 
almond, hulls; bean, dry; bean, succulent; and leafy greens subgroup 
4A, except spinach. Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) 
requested this tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 
(FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA).

DATES: This regulation is effective October 20, 2004. Objections and 
requests for hearings must be received on or before December 20, 2004.

ADDRESSES: To submit a written objection or hearing request follow the 
detailed instructions as provided in Unit VII. of the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION. EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket 
identification (ID) number OPP-2004-0327. All documents in the docket 
are listed in the EDOCKET index at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Although 
listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., 
CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 
Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on 
the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
in EDOCKET or in hard copy at the Public Information and Records 
Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall 2, 1801 South 
Bell St., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 
4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket 
telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maria I. Rodriguez, Registration 
Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental 
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number: (703) 305-6710; e-mail address: 
[email protected].

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. 
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS 111), e.g., agricultural workers; 
greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; farmers.
     Animal production (NAICS 112), e.g., cattle ranchers and 
farmers, dairy cattle farmers, livestock farmers.
     Food manufacturing (NAICS 311), e.g., agricultural 
workers; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; 
ranchers; pesticide applicators.
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 32532), e.g., agricultural 
workers; commercial applicators; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and 
floriculture workers; residential users.
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides 
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this 
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be 
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) 
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining 
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any 
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular 
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT.

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document and Other 
Related Information?

    In addition to using EDOCKET (http://www.epa.gov/edocket/), you may 
access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA 
Internet under the ``Federal Register'' listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. A frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 
is available at E-CFR Beta Site Two at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr/.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of April 21, 2003 (68 FR 19528) (FRL-7301-
6), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21 
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 
3E6530; note that this PP was inadvertently reported as PP 2E6530 in 
the unit entitled Summary of Petition of that notice) by IR-4, 681 U.S. 
Highway 1 South, New Brunswick, NJ 08902-3390. 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 almond, hulls at 8.0 parts per million 
(ppm). That notice included a summary of the petition prepared by IR-4, 
the registrant. There were no comments received in response to the 
notice of filing.
    In the Federal Register of September 1, 2004 (69 FR 53436) (FRL-
7676-4), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21 
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petitions (PP 
3E6638 and PP 3E6700) by IR-4, 681 U.S. Highway 1 South, New 
Brunswick, NJ 08902-3390. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.532 be 
amended by establishing a tolerance for residues of the fungicide 
cyprodinil, 4-cyclopropyl-6-methyl-N-phenyl-2-pyrimidinamine, in or on 
leafy greens subgroup 4A, except spinach at 30 ppm (PP 3E6638); bean, 
dry and bean, succulent at 0.6 ppm each (PP 3E6700). That notice 
included a summary of the petition prepared by IR-4, the registrant. 
Comments were received from one individual in New Jersey opposing and 
objecting the establishment of tolerances for residues of cyprodinil. 
The individual criticized IR-4's involvement in the pesticide 
registration as well as EPA's way of conducting pesticide registration. 
EPA's response to the public comments received is in Unit V. of this 
document.
    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

[[Page 61600]]

aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue....''
    EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from 
aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. For further discussion of the 
regulatory requirements of section 408 of FFDCA and a complete 
description of the risk assessment process, see the final rule on 
Bifenthrin Pesticide Tolerances (62 FR 62961, November 26, 1997) (FRL-
5754-7).

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, 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, consistent with section 
408(b)(2) of FFDCA, for tolerances for residues of cyprodinil in or on 
almond, hulls at 8.0 ppm; bean, dry and bean, succulent at 0.6 ppm 
each; and leafy greens subgroup 4A, except spinach at 30 ppm. EPA's 
assessment of exposures and risks associated with establishing the 
tolerance follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its 
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of 
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered 
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities 
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and 
children. The nature of the toxic effects caused by cyprodinil as well 
as the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) and the lowest observed 
adverse effect level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies reviewed are 
discussed in the Federal Register of September 19, 2003 (68 FR 54808) 
(FRL-7326-4).

B. Toxicological Endpoints

    The dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) from 
the toxicology study identified as appropriate for use in risk 
assessment is used to estimate the toxicological level of concern 
(LOC). However, the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are 
identified (the LOAEL) is sometimes used for risk assessment if no 
NOAEL was achieved in the toxicology study selected. An uncertainty 
factor (UF) is applied to reflect uncertainties inherent in the 
extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and in the 
variations in sensitivity among members of the human population as well 
as other unknowns. An UF of 100 is routinely used, 10X to account for 
interspecies differences and 10X for intraspecies differences.
    Three other types of safety or uncertainty factors may be used: 
``Traditional uncertainty factors;'' the ``special FQPA safety 
factor;'' and the ``default FQPA safety factor.'' By the term 
``traditional uncertainty factor,'' EPA is referring to those 
additional uncertainty factors used prior to FQPA passage to account 
for database deficiencies. These traditional uncertainty factors have 
been incorporated by the FQPA into the additional safety factor for the 
protection of infants and children. The term ``special FQPA safety 
factor'' refers to those safety factors that are deemed necessary for 
the protection of infants and children primarily as a result of the 
FQPA. The ``default FQPA safety factor'' is the additional 10X safety 
factor that is mandated by the statute unless it is decided that there 
are reliable data to choose a different additional factor (potentially 
a traditional uncertainty factor or a special FQPA safety factor).
    For dietary risk assessment (other than cancer) the Agency uses the 
UF to calculate an acute or chronic reference dose (acute RfD or 
chronic RfD) where the RfD is equal to the NOAEL divided by an UF of 
100 to account for interspecies and intraspecies differences and any 
traditional uncertainty factors deemed appropriate (RfD = NOAEL/UF). 
Where a special FQPA safety factor or the default FQPA safety factor is 
used, this additional factor is applied to the RfD by dividing the RfD 
by such additional factor. The acute or chronic Population Adjusted 
Dose (aPAD or cPAD) is a modification of the RfD to accommodate this 
type of safety factor.
    For non-dietary risk assessments (other than cancer) the UF is used 
to determine the LOC. For example, when 100 is the appropriate UF (10X 
to account for interspecies differences and 10X for intraspecies 
differences) the LOC is 100. To estimate risk, a ratio of the NOAEL to 
exposures (margin of exposure (MOE) = NOAEL/exposure) is calculated and 
compared to the LOC.
    The linear default risk methodology (Q*) is the primary method 
currently used by the Agency to quantify carcinogenic risk. The Q* 
approach assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree 
of cancer risk. A Q* is calculated and used to estimate risk which 
represents a probability of occurrence of additional cancer cases 
(e.g., risk). An example of how such a probability risk is expressed 
would be to describe the risk as one in one hundred thousand (1 X 
10-\5\), one in a million (1 X 10-\6\), or one in 
ten million (1 X 10-\7\). Under certain specific 
circumstances, MOE calculations will be used for the carcinogenic risk 
assessment. In this non-linear approach, a ``point of departure'' is 
identified below which carcinogenic effects are not expected. The point 
of departure is typically a NOAEL based on an endpoint related to 
cancer effects though it may be a different value derived from the dose 
response curve. To estimate risk, a ratio of the point of departure to 
exposure (MOEcancer = point of departure/exposures) is 
calculated.
    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 September 19, 2003 (68 FR Page 
54808) (FRL-7326-4).

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. Tolerances have been 
established (40 CFR 180.532) for the residues of cyprodinil, in or on a 
variety of raw agricultural commodities. Risk assessments were 
conducted by EPA to assess dietary exposures from cyprodinil in food as 
follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Acute dietary risk assessments are performed for 
a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological study has indicated the 
possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a one-day 
or single exposure.
    In conducting the acute dietary risk assessment EPA used the 
Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with the Food Commodity 
Intake Database (DEEM-FCID\TM\), which incorporates food consumption 
data as reported by respondents in the United States Department of 
Agriculture (USDA) 1994-1996 and 1998 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of 
Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII), and accumulated exposure to the 
chemical for each commodity. The following assumptions were made for 
the acute exposure assessments: An unrefined, Tier 1 acute dietary 
exposure assessment (using tolerance-level residues, DEEM default 
processing factors and assuming 100% crop treated for all proposed 
commodities) was conducted for the females 13-49 years old population 
subgroup.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary risk 
assessment EPA used the DEEM-FCID\TM\, which incorporates food 
consumption data as reported by respondents in the USDA 1994-1996 and 
1998 Nationwide CSFII, and accumulated exposure to the chemical for 
each commodity. The following assumptions were made for the chronic 
exposure assessments: An unrefined, Tier 1 chronic dietary

[[Page 61601]]

exposure assessment (using tolerance-level residues, DEEM default 
processing factors, and assuming 100% crop treated for all proposed 
commodities) was conducted for the general U.S. population and various 
population subgroups.
    iii. Cancer. A quantitative cancer aggregate-exposure assessment 
was not performed because cyprodinil is not carcinogenic.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency lacks 
sufficient monitoring exposure data to complete a comprehensive dietary 
exposure analysis and risk assessment for cyprodinil in drinking water. 
Because the Agency does not have comprehensive monitoring data, 
drinking water concentration estimates are made by reliance on 
simulation or modeling taking into account data on the physical 
characteristics of cyprodinil.
    The Agency uses the FQPA Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) or 
the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/
EXAMS), to produce estimates of pesticide concentrations in an index 
reservoir. The SCI-GROW model is used to predict pesticide 
concentrations in shallow ground water. For a screening-level 
assessment for surface water EPA will use FIRST (a tier 1 model) before 
using PRZM/EXAMS (a tier 2 model). The FIRST model is a subset of the 
PRZM/EXAMS model that uses a specific high-end runoff scenario for 
pesticides. Both FIRST and PRZM/EXAMS incorporate an index reservoir 
environment, and both models include a percent crop area factor as an 
adjustment to account for the maximum percent crop coverage within a 
watershed or drainage basin.
    None of these models include consideration of the impact processing 
(mixing, dilution, or treatment) of raw water for distribution as 
drinking water would likely have on the removal of pesticides from the 
source water. The primary use of these models by the Agency at this 
stage is to provide a screen for sorting out pesticides for which it is 
unlikely that drinking water concentrations would exceed human health 
levels of concern.
    Since the models used are considered to be screening tools in the 
risk assessment process, the Agency does not use estimated 
environmental concentrations (EECs), which are the model estimates of a 
pesticide's concentration in water. EECs derived from these models are 
used to quantify drinking water exposure and risk as a %RfD or %PAD. 
Instead drinking water levels of comparison (DWLOCs) are calculated and 
used as a point of comparison against the model estimates of a 
pesticide's concentration in water. DWLOCs are theoretical upper limits 
on a pesticide's concentration in drinking water in light of total 
aggregate exposure to a pesticide in food, and from residential uses. 
Since DWLOCs address total aggregate exposure to cyprodinil they are 
further discussed in the aggregate risk sections in Unit III.E.
    Based on the PRZM/EXAMS and SCI-GROW models, the EECs of cyprodinil 
for acute exposures are estimated to be 73 parts per billion (ppb) for 
surface water and 0.062 ppb for ground water. The EECs for chronic 
exposures are estimated to be 61 ppb for surface water and 0.062 ppb 
for ground 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 not registered for use on any sites that would result 
in residential exposure.
    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.''
    Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative 
risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made 
a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to cyprodinil and 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 not assumed that cyprodinil has 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 
the policy statements released by EPA's OPP concerning common mechanism 
determinations and procedures for cumulating effects from substances 
found to have a common mechanism on EPA's web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative/.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408 of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply 
an additional tenfold 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 data base on toxicity and exposure 
unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of 
safety will be safe for infants and children. Margins of safety are 
incorporated into EPA risk assessments either directly through use of a 
MOE analysis or through using uncertainty (safety) factors in 
calculating a dose level that poses no appreciable risk to humans. In 
applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X 
when reliable data do not support the choice of a different factor, or, 
if reliable data are available, EPA uses a different additional safety 
factor value based on the use of traditional uncertainty factors and/or 
special FQPA safety factors, as appropriate.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There are no concerns or 
uncertainties for pre- and/or post-natal exposure.
    3. Conclusion. There is a complete toxicity data base for 
cyprodinil and exposure data are complete or are estimated based on 
data that reasonably accounts for potential exposures. The 10X default 
safety factor (SF) to protect infants and children has been reduced to 
1X. The basis for the recommendation has been discussed in Unit III.D. 
of the final rule published in the Federal Register of September 19, 
2003 (68 FR 54808) (FRL-7326-4).

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    To estimate total aggregate exposure to a pesticide from food, 
drinking water, and residential uses, the Agency calculates DWLOCs 
which are used as a point of comparison against EECs. DWLOC values are 
not regulatory standards for drinking water. DWLOCs are theoretical 
upper limits on a pesticide's concentration in drinking water in light 
of total aggregate exposure to a pesticide in food and residential 
uses. In calculating a DWLOC, the Agency determines how much of the 
acceptable exposure (i.e., the PAD) is available for exposure through 
drinking water (e.g., allowable chronic water exposure (mg/kg/day) = 
cPAD - (average food + residential exposure)). This allowable exposure 
through drinking water is used to calculate a DWLOC.
    A DWLOC will vary depending on the toxic endpoint, drinking water 
consumption, and body weights. Default body weights and consumption 
values as used by the EPA's Office of Water are used to calculate 
DWLOCs: 2 liter (L)/70 kg (adult male), 2L/60 kg (adult

[[Page 61602]]

female), and 1L/10 kg (child). Default body weights and drinking water 
consumption values vary on an individual basis. This variation will be 
taken into account in more refined screening-level and quantitative 
drinking water exposure assessments. Different populations will have 
different DWLOCs. Generally, a DWLOC is calculated for each type of 
risk assessment used: Acute, short-term, intermediate-term, chronic, 
and cancer.
    When EECs for surface water and ground water are less than the 
calculated DWLOCs, OPP concludes with reasonable certainty that 
exposures to the pesticide in drinking water (when considered along 
with other sources of exposure for which OPP has reliable data) would 
not result in unacceptable levels of aggregate human health risk at 
this time. Because OPP considers the aggregate risk resulting from 
multiple exposure pathways associated with a pesticide's uses, levels 
of comparison in drinking water may vary as those uses change. If new 
uses are added in the future, OPP will reassess the potential impacts 
of residues of the pesticide in drinking water as a part of the 
aggregate risk assessment process.
    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this 
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food to 
cyprodinil will occupy, 4% of the aPAD of 1.5 mg/kg/day for females 13 
to 49 years. For the general population, no toxic effects of concern 
that could be attributed to a single exposure were observed in the oral 
toxicity studies, including the developmental toxicity studies in rats 
and rabbits. Therefore, cyprodinil is not expected to pose an acute 
risk to this population subgroup. In addition, there is potential for 
acute dietary exposure to cyprodinil in drinking water. After 
calculating DWLOCs and comparing them to the EECs for surface and 
ground water, EPA does not expect the aggregate exposure to exceed 100% 
of the aPAD, as shown in Table 1. of this unit:

                      Table 1.--Aggregate Risk Assessment for Acute Exposure to Cyprodinil
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Surface       Ground
              Population Subgroup                 aPAD (mg/      % aPAD     Water EEC    Water EEC   Acute DWLOC
                                                     kg)         (Food)       (ppb)        (ppb)        (ppb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Females (13-49 years old)                                1.5            4           73        0.062       43,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this 
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that exposure to 
cyprodinil from food will utilize 38% of the cPAD of 0.03 mg/kg/day for 
the U.S. population, and 67% of the cPAD for the most highly exposed 
population subgroup, children 1-2 years old. There are no residential 
uses for cyprodinil that result in chronic residential exposure to 
cyprodinil. In addition, there is potential for chronic dietary 
exposure to cyprodinil in drinking water. After calculating DWLOCs and 
comparing them to the EECs for surface and ground water, EPA does not 
expect the aggregate exposure to exceed 100% of the cPAD, as shown in 
Table 2. of this unit:

               Table 2.--Aggregate Risk Assessment for Chronic (Non-Cancer) Exposure to Cyprodinil
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Surface       Ground
              Population Subgroup                cPAD mg/kg/     % cPAD     Water EEC    Water EEC     Chronic
                                                     day         (Food)       (ppb)        (ppb)     DWLOC (ppb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. population                                         0.03           38           61        0.062          650
------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into 
account residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water 
(considered to be a background exposure level).
    Cyprodinil is not registered for use on any sites that would result 
in residential exposure. Therefore, the aggregate risk is the sum of 
the risk from food and water, which do not exceed the Agency's level of 
concern.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure 
takes into account residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food 
and water (considered to be a background exposure level).
    Cyprodinil is not registered for use on any sites that would result 
in residential exposure. Therefore, the aggregate risk is the sum of 
the risk from food and water, which do not exceed the Agency's level of 
concern.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of 
evidence of carcinogenicity in mice and rats at doses that were judged 
to be adequate to assess the carcinogenic potential, cyprodinil was 
classified as ``not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.'' Therefore, 
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, and to infants and children from aggregate 
exposure to cyprodinil residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology is available to enforce the 
tolerance expression. Head and leaf lettuce, lima bean, dry bean, and 
snap bean were analyzed using Novartis working method AG-631B. The 
method uses High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) with Column 
Switching. Almonds were analyzed using Syngenta tolerance enforcement 
method AG-631A. The method uses HPLC with Column Switching, with 
modifications. The confirmatory method uses HPLC with Ultraviolet 
detection (HPLC/UV). 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; e-mail 
address: [email protected].

B. International Residue Limits

    Canada, Codex, and Mexico do not have maximum residue limits (MRLs)

[[Page 61603]]

for residues of cyprodinil in/on the proposed crops. Therefore, 
harmonization is not an issue.

V. EPA's Response to Public Comments Received Regarding the Notice of 
Filing

    Comments were received from one individual in New Jersey opposing 
and objecting the establishment of tolerances for residues of 
cyprodinil. The individual criticized IR-4's involvement in the 
pesticide registration as well as EPA's way of conducting pesticide 
registration. The comments were in response to the notice of filing 
published in the Federal Register of September 1, 2004 (69 FR 53436) 
(FRL-7676-4).
    One comment indicated that IR-4 and Rutgers University are 
profiteering by registering pesticides for Syngenta. The IR-4 program 
was created by Congress in 1963 in order to assist minor crop growers 
in the process of obtaining pesticide registrations. IR-4 National 
Coordinating Headquarters is located at Rutgers University in New 
Jersey and receives the majority (90%) of its funding from the USDA. It 
is the only publicly funded program that conducts research and submits 
petitions for tolerances. IR-4 operates in collaboration with USDA, the 
Land Grant University System, the agrochemical industry, commodity 
associations, and EPA. IR-4 identifies needs, prioritizes accordingly, 
and conducts research. The majority (over 80%) of IR-4's research is 
conducted on reduced-risk chemicals. Under the Pesticide Registration 
Improvement Act (PRIA), IR-4 works in cooperation with the registrant 
to request a waiver for the registration services. The waiver may be 
granted if the application is solely associated by simultaneous 
submission with a tolerance petition in connection with IR-4 and if it 
is in the public interest. This fee waiver serves as an incentive to 
pursue registration of minor uses supported by the IR-4 program. In 
addition to the work done in pesticide registration, IR-4 develops risk 
mitigation measures for existing registered products. Therefore, IR-4 
and Rutgers University are not profiteering from registering 
pesticides.
    Another comment alleged that according to information on the fifth 
page of the notice of filing, there is no data at EPA to support the 
pesticide registration. The comment applies to the use of ``available 
data'' concerning the cumulative effects of the pesticide's residues 
and ``other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.'' In 
this case, EPA did not assume that this chemical has a common mechanism 
of toxicity with other substances as the chemical does not generate 
metabolites produced also by other chemicals. For specific information 
regarding EPA's approach to the use of common mechanism of toxicity to 
evaluate the cumulative effects of chemicals, please refer to EPA's 
website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative/ to see policy 
statements.
    An additional comment indicated that during animal testing, rabbits 
are abused, tortured, and fed toxic chemicals. EPA test guidelines 
recommend rabbits as test animals in acute eye irritation studies as 
well as in longer term studies such as developmental toxicity and 
reproduction studies. Results obtained from studies conducted with 
animals (in general) are relevant to humans because cells and molecules 
of humans can be very similar to those of animals. Therefore, if a 
pesticide causes toxicity in animals, it is likely to do so in humans 
as well. EPA supports the use of the least possible number of animals 
in the pertinent studies. In addition, it should be noted that 
currently there are no in vitro studies that can address the concerns 
these studies satisfy. EPA is working with the Interagency Coordinating 
Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM) to 
investigate in vitro methods to determine the toxicological concerns 
associated with the use of pesticides.

VI. Conclusion

    Therefore, the tolerances are established for residues of 
cyprodinil, 4-cyclopropyl-6-methyl-N-phenyl-2-pyrimidinamine, in or on 
almond, hulls at 8.0 ppm; bean, dry and bean, succulent at 0.6 ppm 
each; and leafy greens subgroup 4A, except spinach at 30 ppm.

VII. Objections and Hearing Requests

    Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, as amended by FQPA, any person may 
file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request 
a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural regulations which 
govern the submission of objections and requests for hearings appear in 
40 CFR part 178. Although the procedures in those regulations require 
some modification to reflect the amendments made to FFDCA by FQPA, EPA 
will continue to use those procedures, with appropriate adjustments, 
until the necessary modifications can be made. The new section 408(g) 
of FFDCA provides essentially the same process for persons to 
``object'' to a regulation for an exemption from the requirement of a 
tolerance issued by EPA under new section 408(d) of FFDCA, as was 
provided in the old sections 408 and 409 of FFDCA. However, the period 
for filing objections is now 60 days, rather than 30 days.

A. What Do I Need to Do to File an Objection or Request a Hearing?

    You must file your objection or request a hearing on this 
regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in this unit 
and in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must 
identify docket ID number OPP-2004-0327 in the subject line on the 
first page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and 
must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before December 
20, 2004.
    1. Filing the request. Your objection must specify the specific 
provisions in the regulation that you object to, and the grounds for 
the objections (40 CFR 178.25). If a hearing is requested, the 
objections must include a statement of the factual issues(s) on which a 
hearing is requested, the requestor's contentions on such issues, and a 
summary of any evidence relied upon by the objector (40 CFR 178.27). 
Information submitted in connection with an objection or hearing 
request may be claimed confidential by marking any part or all of that 
information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except 
in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. A copy of the 
information that does not contain CBI must be submitted for inclusion 
in the public record. Information not marked confidential may be 
disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice.
    Mail your written request to: Office of the Hearing Clerk (1900L), 
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC 20460-0001. You may also deliver your request to the 
Office of the Hearing Clerk in Suite 350, 1099 14\th\ St., NW., 
Washington, DC 20005. The Office of the Hearing Clerk is open from 8 
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 
telephone number for the Office of the Hearing Clerk is (202) 564-6255.
    2. Copies for the Docket. In addition to filing an objection or 
hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in Unit VII.A., you 
should also send a copy of your request to the PIRIB for its inclusion 
in the official record that is described in ADDRESSES. Mail your 
copies, identified by docket ID number OPP-2004-0327, to: Public 
Information and Records Integrity Branch, Information Resources and 
Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental 
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,

[[Page 61604]]

Washington, DC 20460-0001. In person or by courier, bring a copy to the 
location of the PIRIB described in ADDRESSES. You may also send an 
electronic copy of your request via e-mail to: [email protected]. 
Please use an ASCII file format and avoid the use of special characters 
and any form of encryption. Copies of electronic objections and hearing 
requests will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect 6.1/8.0 or ASCII 
file format. Do not include any CBI in your electronic copy. You may 
also submit an electronic copy of your request at many Federal 
Depository Libraries.

B. When Will the Agency Grant a Request for a Hearing?

    A request for a hearing will be granted if the Administrator 
determines that the material submitted shows the following: There is a 
genuine and substantial issue of fact; there is a reasonable 
possibility that available evidence identified by the requestor would, 
if established resolve one or more of such issues in favor of the 
requestor, taking into account uncontested claims or facts to the 
contrary; and resolution of the factual issues(s) in the manner sought 
by the requestor would be adequate to justify the action requested (40 
CFR 178.32).

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of 
FFDCA 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 rule has been 
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of 
significance, this rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, 
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This final rule does 
not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under 
the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., or impose 
any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under 
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 
104-4). Nor does it require any special considerations under Executive 
Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice 
in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, 
February 16, 1994); or OMB review or any Agency action under Executive 
Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health 
Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). 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). Since 
tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a 
petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, 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. In addition, the Agency has determined that this 
action will not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism 
(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to 
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input 
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies 
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism 
implications'' is defined in the Executive order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government.'' This final rule directly regulates growers, food 
processors, food handlers and food retailers, not States. This action 
does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and 
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions 
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. For these same reasons, the Agency has 
determined that this rule does not have any ``tribal implications'' as 
described in Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and 
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 6, 
2000). Executive Order 13175, requires EPA to develop an accountable 
process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in 
the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.'' 
``Policies that have tribal implications'' is defined in the Executive 
order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on 
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal 
Government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.'' 
This rule will not have substantial direct effects on tribal 
governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and 
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to 
this rule.

IX. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and 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: October 6, 2004.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
Therefore, 40 CFR part 180 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. Section 180.532 is amended as follows:
0
a. By revising the commodity ``Almond, hulls'' in the table in 
paragraph (a).
0
b. By alphabetically adding commodities to the table in paragraph (a).


Sec.  180.532  Cyprodinil; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

[[Page 61605]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Parts per
                         Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Almond, hulls..............................................          8.0
                                * * * * *
Bean, dry..................................................          0.6
Bean, succulent............................................          0.6
                                * * * * *
Leafy greens subgroup 4A, except spinach...................           30
                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 04-23261 Filed 10-19-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S