Cyromazine; Pesticide Tolerances, 53316-53322 [2019-21542]
Download as PDF
53316
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 194 / Monday, October 7, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
paragraph (a) of this section unless
authorized by the COTP St. Petersburg
or a designated representative.
(2) Designated representatives may
control vessel traffic throughout the
enforcement area as determined by the
prevailing conditions.
(3) Persons and vessels may request
authorization to enter, transit through,
anchor in, or remain within the
regulated areas by contacting the COTP
St. Petersburg by telephone at (727)
824–7506, or a designated
representative via VHF radio on channel
16. If authorization is granted, all
persons and vessels receiving such
authorization must comply with the
instructions of the COTP St. Petersburg
or a designated representative.
(4) The Coast Guard will provide
notice of the regulated area by Local
Notice to Mariners and/or Broadcast
Notice to Mariners.
(d) Enforcement period. This section
will be enforced daily from 9:30 a.m.
until 5:30 p.m., on October 10, 2019,
through October 12, 2019.
Dated: September 27, 2019.
Matthew A. Thompson
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port Saint Petersburg.
[FR Doc. 2019–21527 Filed 10–4–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2018–0286; FRL–9999–57]
Cyromazine; Pesticide Tolerances
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This regulation establishes
tolerances for residues of cyromazine in
or on multiple commodities which are
identified and discussed later in this
document. The Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR–4) requested these
tolerances under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
DATES: This regulation is effective
October 7, 2019. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received
on or before December 6, 2019, 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–2018–0286, is
available at https://www.regulations.gov
or at the Office of Pesticide Programs
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
04:48 Oct 05, 2019
Jkt 250001
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 https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael Goodis, 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 Publishing Office’s eCFR site at https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/
text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/
Title40/40tab_02.tpl. To access the
OCSPP test guidelines referenced in this
document electronically, please go to
https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/aboutoffice-chemical-safety-and-pollutionprevention-ocspp and select ‘‘Test
Methods and Guidelines.’’
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
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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–2018–0286 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
December 6, 2019. 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–
2018–0286, by one of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
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 https://
www.epa.gov/dockets/where-sendcomments-epa-dockets. Additional
instructions on commenting or visiting
the docket, along with more information
about dockets generally, is available at
https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
II. Summary of Petitioned-For
Tolerance
In the Federal Register of July 24,
2018 (83 FR 34968) (FRL–9980–31),
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 8E8673) by The
Interregional Research Project Number 4
(IR–4), Rutgers, The State University of
New Jersey, 500 College Road East,
Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540. The
petition requested that 40 CFR 180.414
be amended by establishing tolerances
for residues of the insecticide
cyromazine, N-cyclopropyl-1,3,5triazine-2,4,6-triamine, in or on
Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4–16B
E:\FR\FM\07OCR1.SGM
07OCR1
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 194 / Monday, October 7, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
at 10.0 parts per million (ppm); Celtuce
at 7.0 ppm; Chickpea, edible podded at
0.4 ppm; Chickpea, succulent shelled at
0.3 ppm; Dwarf pea, edible podded at
0.4 ppm; Edible podded pea, edible
podded at 0.4 ppm; English pea,
succulent shelled at 0.3 ppm; Florence
fennel at 7.0 ppm; Garden pea,
succulent shelled at 0.3 ppm; Grass-pea,
edible podded at 0.4 ppm; Green pea,
edible podded at 0.4 ppm; Green pea,
succulent shelled at 0.3 ppm; Kohlrabi
at 10.0 ppm; Leaf petiole subgroup 22B
at 7.0 ppm; Leafy green subgroup 4–16A
at 7.0 ppm; Lentil, edible podded at 0.4
ppm; Lentil, succulent shelled at 0.3
ppm; Onion, bulb, subgroup 3–07A at
0.2 ppm; Onion, green, subgroup 3–07B
at 3.0 ppm; Pepper/eggplant 8–10B at
1.0 ppm; Pigeon pea, edible podded at
0.4 ppm; Pigeon pea, succulent shelled
at 0.3 ppm; Snap pea, edible podded at
0.4 ppm; Snow pea, edible podded at
0.4 ppm; Sugar snap pea, edible podded
at 0.4 ppm; Tomato subgroup 8–10A at
1.0 ppm; Vegetable, brassica, head and
stem, group 5–16, except broccoli at
10.0 ppm; and Vegetable, tuberous and
corm, subgroup 1C at 0.8 ppm.
Upon establishing those tolerances,
the petition also proposed to remove
existing tolerances for residues of
cyromazine (N-cyclopropyl-1,3,5triazine-2,4,6-triamine) in or on cabbage,
abyssinian at 10.0 ppm; cabbage, seakale
at 10.0 ppm; garlic at 0.2 ppm; garlic,
great-headed, bulb at 0.2 ppm; Hanover
salad, leaves at 10.0 ppm; leek at 3.0
ppm; onion, bulb at 0.2 ppm; onion,
green at 3.0 ppm; onion, potato at 3.0
ppm; onion, tree at 3.0 ppm; onion,
welsh at 3.0 ppm; pepper at 1.0 ppm;
potato at 0.8 ppm; rakkyo, bulb at 0.2
ppm; shallot, bulb at 0.2 ppm; shallot,
fresh leaves at 3.0 ppm; tomato at 0.5
ppm; turnip, greens at 10.0 ppm;
vegetable, brassica, leafy, group 5,
except broccoli at 10.0; vegetable, leafy,
except brassica, group 4 at 7.0 ppm.
That document referenced a summary of
the petition prepared by Makhteshim
Agan of North American, Inc.,
(ADAMA) and Syngenta Crop
Protection, LLC, the registrants, which
is available in the docket, https://
www.regulations.gov. Three comments
were received on the notice of filing.
EPA’s response to these comments is
discussed in Unit IV.C.
Based upon review of the data
supporting the petition, EPA has
corrected the terminology for several
commodities and is establishing
tolerances at levels other than
petitioned for on some of the
commodities. The reasons for these
changes are explained in Unit IV.D.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
04:48 Oct 05, 2019
Jkt 250001
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 cyromazine
including exposure resulting from the
tolerances established by this action.
EPA’s assessment of exposures and risks
associated with cyromazine 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.
No specific toxicity was associated
with cyromazine, with lowest observed
adverse effects levels (LOAELs)
occurring at relatively high doses.
Decreases in body weight and food
consumption are the common features
of cyromazine toxicity following
subchronic or chronic oral exposures as
seen in dogs, rats, mice, and rabbits.
Other effects reported were organ
weight (relative) changes and changes to
some hematological parameters that
were biologically insignificant and nonadverse. No dermal or systemic toxicity
was seen at the highest dose tested
(greater than 2,000 mg/kg/day) in two
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
53317
21-day dermal toxicity studies in
rabbits. In a 28-day inhalation study in
rats, cyromazine produced clinical signs
of toxicity (hunched posture,
piloerection, and reduced spontaneous
activity) consistent with dyspnea at all
concentrations tested. An acute
neurotoxicity study demonstrated
reduced motor activity as the main
effect with no treatment-related effects
on mortality, brain weight, or gross and
histologic pathology or neuropathology
up to the limit dose tested.
There is no evidence of
developmental toxicity following in
utero exposures or that offspring are
more susceptible following postnatal
exposure. In the 2-generation
reproduction study in rats no
reproductive effects were observed. The
available oral perinatal, prenatal and
postnatal data demonstrated no
indication of increased sensitivity of
rats or rabbits to in utero exposure to
cyromazine. No quantitative or
qualitative susceptibility was observed
in any study. In the prenatal
developmental rat toxicity study, the
NOAEL (300 mg/kg/day) for
developmental effects (increased
incidence of minor skeletal variations)
was higher than the maternal NOAEL
(100 mg/kg/day). In the developmental
toxicity study in rabbits, no evidence of
developmental toxicity was noted since
the NOAEL was the highest dose tested
(60 mg/kg/day). In the 2-generation
reproduction rat study, no reproductive
effects were observed up to the highest
dose tested (150 mg/kg/day).
Cyromazine was not carcinogenic in
mice or rats following long-term dietary
administration and was classified
‘‘Group E—Evidence of
Noncarcinogenicity for Humans.’’ The
available mutagenicity data suggest that
cyromazine does not have genotoxic
activity. Cyromazine is categorized as
Toxicity Category III for acute oral,
dermal and inhalation toxicity.
Cyromazine is neither an eye irritant nor
a dermal sensitizer; however, it is mild
skin irritant.
Specific information on the studies
received and the nature of the adverse
effects caused by cyromazine 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 https://
www.regulations.gov in document
‘‘Cyromazine: Human health Risk
Assessment for Proposed New Foliar
Uses on Edible Podded pea and
Succulent Shelled Pea Commodities,
Crop Group Conversion on Leafy green
subgroup 4–16A, Leaf petiole subgroup
22B, Celtuce, and Florence fennel;
Vegetable, brassica, head and stem,
E:\FR\FM\07OCR1.SGM
07OCR1
53318
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 194 / Monday, October 7, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
group 5–16, except broccoli; Brassica,
leafy greens, subgroup 4–16B; Kohlrabi;
Hanover salad, leaves; Turnip, greens;
Cabbage, Abyssinian; and Cabbage,
seakale; Tomato subgroup 8–10A;
Pepper/eggplant subgroup 8–10B; and
Expansion of Vegetable, tuberous ad
corm, subgroup 1C, Onion, bulb,
subgroup 3–07A; and Onion, green,
subgroup 3–07B’’ at page number 11
and ‘‘Cyromazine: Human Health Risk
Assessment for Registration Review’’ at
pages 51–53 in docket ID number EPA–
HQ–OPP–2018–0286.
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 no adverse effects are
observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest
dose at which adverse effects of concern
are identified (the LOAEL). 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 https://
www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-andassessing-pesticide-risks.
A summary of the toxicological
endpoints for cyromazine used for
human risk assessment is shown in
Table 1 of this unit.
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF TOXICOLOGICAL DOSES AND ENDPOINTS FOR CYROMAZINE FOR USE IN HUMAN HEALTH RISK
ASSESSMENT
Point of departure and
uncertainty/safety
factors
Exposure/scenario
RfD, PAD, LOC for
risk assessment
Study and toxicological effects
Acute dietary (Females 13+ years of
age).
No developmental effects attributable to a single dose were seen following in utero exposures to rats and rabbits.
Acute dietary (All populations) ...........
LOAEL = 250 mg/kg/
day.
UFA = 10x
UFH = 10x
FQPA SF = 3x
Acute RfD = 2.5 mg/kg/
day.
aPAD = 0.83 mg/kg/day
Acute Neurotoxicity Study in rats.
LOAEL = 250 mg/kg/day based on decreased motor activity (mean cumulative ambulatory LMA counts, 44%) in males at the time of peak
effect on Day 0, and decreased food consumption (17%) on Day 1.
Chronic dietary (All populations) ........
NOAEL = 50 mg/kg/day
UFA = 10x
UFH = 10x
FQPA SF = 1x
Chronic RfD = 0.5 mg/
kg/day.
cPAD = 0.5 mg/kg/day
Two-Generation Reproductive Study in rats.
LOAEL = 150 mg/kg/day for decreased body weights (27%) that were
associated with decreased food efficiency.
Co-critical with:
Chronic Carcinogenicity Study in the rat.
LOAEL = 150 mg/kg/day based on decreased body weight (20% males,
29% females) associated with lower food consumption (10–15%) compared to controls.
Cancer (All routes) .............................
Group E—No evidence for carcinogenicity in humans.
Point of Departure (POD) = A data point or an estimated point that is derived from observed dose-response data and used to mark the beginning of extrapolation to
determine risk associated with lower environmentally relevant human exposures. FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observedadverse-effect-level. LOC = level of concern. mg/kg/day = milligram/kilogram/day. 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).
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with RULES
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and
feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to cyromazine, EPA
considered exposure under the
petitioned-for tolerances as well as all
existing cyromazine tolerances in 40
CFR 180.414. EPA assessed dietary
exposures from cyromazine 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 cyromazine. In estimating acute
dietary exposure, EPA used food
consumption information from the
United States Department of Agriculture
VerDate Sep<11>2014
04:48 Oct 05, 2019
Jkt 250001
(USDA’s) 2003–2008 National Health
and Nutrition Examination Survey,
What We Eat in America (NHANES/
WWEIA). As to residue levels in food,
EPA used tolerance-level residues and
100% crop treated assumptions.
ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting
the chronic dietary exposure assessment
EPA used the food consumption data
from the USDA 2003–2008 National
Health and Nutrition Examination
Survey, What We Eat in America
(NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels
in food, EPA used tolerance-level
residues and 100% crop treated
assumptions.
iii. Cancer. Based on the data
summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that cyromazine does not
pose a cancer risk to humans. Therefore,
a dietary exposure assessment for the
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
purpose of assessing cancer risk is
unnecessary.
iv. Anticipated residue and percent
crop treated (PCT) information. EPA did
not use anticipated residue and/or PCT
information in the dietary assessment
for cyromazine. Tolerance level residues
and 100% CT were assumed for all food
commodities.
2. Dietary exposure from drinking
water. The Agency used screening-level
water exposure models in the dietary
exposure analysis and risk assessment
for cyromazine in drinking water. These
simulation models take into account
data on the physical, chemical, and fate/
transport characteristics of cyromazine.
Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide
exposure assessment can be found at
https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-
E:\FR\FM\07OCR1.SGM
07OCR1
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 194 / Monday, October 7, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
and-assessing-pesticide-risks/aboutwater-exposure-models-used-pesticide.
Based on the First Index Reservoir
Screening Tool (FIRST) and Pesticide
Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM
GW), the estimated drinking water
concentrations (EDWCs) of cyromazine
for acute exposures are estimated to be
47.1 parts per billion (ppb) for surface
water and 111 ppb for ground water. For
chronic exposures for non-cancer
assessments, EDWCs are estimated to be
15.8 ppb for surface water and 86 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 111 ppb was used to assess the
contribution to drinking water. For
chronic dietary risk assessment, the
water concentration value of 86 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).
Cyromazine is not registered for any
specific use patterns that would result
in residential exposure. Further
information regarding EPA standard
assumptions and generic inputs for
residential exposures may be found at
https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-scienceand-assessing-pesticide-risks/standardoperating-procedures-residentialpesticide.
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
determined that the available
toxicological data suggests cyromazine
does not share a similar toxicological
profile, and thus no common
mechanism of toxicity, with other
pesticides. No further cumulative
evaluation is necessary for cyromazine.
This analysis can be found at https://
www.regulations.gov in document
‘‘Chitin Synthesis Inhibitors (Buprofezin
and Cyromazine): Screening Analysis of
Toxicological Profiles to Consider
Whether a Candidate Common
Mechanism Group Can Be Established’’
in docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–
2018–0286.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
04:48 Oct 05, 2019
Jkt 250001
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 Safety Factor (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.
Based on the available data, there is no
quantitative and qualitative evidence of
increased susceptibility observed
following in utero cyromazine exposure
to rats and rabbits or following prenatal/
postnatal exposure in the 2-generation
reproduction study. The database is
considered adequate for selection of
study endpoints and determination of a
dose/response to characterize the
potential prenatal or postnatal toxicity
of cyromazine to infants and children.
No increase in susceptibility was seen
in developmental toxicity studies in rat
and rabbit or reproductive toxicity
studies in the rat. Toxicity to offspring
was observed at dose levels the same or
greater than those causing maternal or
parental toxicity. Based on the results of
developmental and reproductive
toxicity studies, there is not a concern
or increased qualitative and/or
quantitative susceptibility following in
utero exposure to cyromazine.
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 the chronic
dietary exposure assessment and
retained at 3X for the acute dietary
exposure assessment. That decision is
based on the following findings:
i. The toxicity database for
cyromazine is complete for assessing the
risks to infants and children. However,
the study providing the basis for the
acute dietary exposure POD lacks a
NOAEL, so the Agency is retaining a 3X
FQPA SF for extrapolating a NOAEL.
ii. There is no evidence of
neurotoxicity in the cyromazine
repeated dose studies, which include
subchronic or chronic dosing in
multiple species. However, in the acute
neurotoxicity study conducted in rats,
reduced motor activity was seen at all
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
53319
doses tested and additional neurological
effects (decreased foot splay in males
and increased rearing behavior in
females) were observed at the highest
dose tested. Because a NOAEL was not
established for the acute neurotoxicity
effects, an FQPA SF will be retained for
the acute risk assessment. In this case,
the default FQPA SF of 10X can be
reduced to 3X for the following reasons:
(1) the toxicity database is considered
complete for cyromazine and no other
studies via the oral route showed
clinical signs or histopathology
indicative of neurotoxicity;
(2) a 3X SF yields an acute PAD of
0.83 mg/kg/day, which is similar to the
chronic PAD of 0.5 mg/kg/day. The
chronic POD is considered very
conservative and is based on 27%
decreased body weight seen at the
LOAEL of 150 mg/kg/day in absence of
any other significant effects. The aPAD
is conservative because it is unlikely
that decreased motor activity would
occur at doses similar to the chronic
endpoint. The effects used to derive the
chronic POD (decrease in body weight)
were observed only after repeated
exposure (15 weeks) and there was no
indication of decreased activity or other
neurological clinical signs in the
chronic study; and
(3) motor activity seems to be a very
sensitive indicator of acute toxicity of
cyromazine. While there are indications
of neurotoxicity in the ACN and
inhalation studies, the selected
endpoints are protective of those effects,
therefore there is no concern for
developmental neurotoxicity resulting
from exposure to cyromazine. Based on
the findings in the acute neurotoxicity
study and the total weight of evidence,
the requirement for the subchronic
neurotoxicity study was waived.
iii. There is no evidence that
cyromazine 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 dietary food exposure assessments
were performed based on 100% CT and
tolerance-level residues. EPA made
conservative (protective) assumptions in
the ground and surface water modeling
used to assess exposure to cyromazine
in drinking water. These assessments
will not underestimate the exposure and
risks posed by cyromazine.
E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of
Safety
EPA determines whether acute and
chronic dietary pesticide exposures are
safe by comparing aggregate exposure
E:\FR\FM\07OCR1.SGM
07OCR1
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with RULES
53320
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 194 / Monday, October 7, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and
chronic PAD (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
cyromazine will occupy 18% of the
aPAD for children 1 to 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 cyromazine
from food and water will utilize 8.3% of
the cPAD for children 1 to 2 years old,
the population group receiving the
greatest exposure. There are no
residential uses for cyromazine that
would result in chronic exposure.
3. Short-term and Intermediate-term
risk. Short- and intermediate-term
aggregate exposure takes into account
short- and intermediate-term residential
exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a
background exposure level). Short- and
intermediate-term adverse effects were
identified; however, cyromazine is not
registered for any use patterns that
would result in short- or intermediateterm residential exposure. Short- and
intermediate-term risk is assessed based
on short- and intermediate-term
residential exposure plus chronic
dietary exposure. Because there is no
short- or 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 short- or intermediate-term risk),
no further assessment of short- or
intermediate-term risk is necessary, and
EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk
assessment for evaluating short- and
intermediate-term risk for cyromazine.
4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S.
population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two
adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies,
cyromazine is not expected to pose a
cancer risk to humans.
5. 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 cyromazine
residues.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
04:48 Oct 05, 2019
Jkt 250001
IV. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
Adequate enforcement methodology
is available to enforce the tolerance
expression. Adequate methods are
available in Pesticide Analytical Manual
(PAM), Vol. II for enforcement of the
established tolerances for cyromazine
in/on plant commodities. The working
method ‘‘Determination of Cyromazine
in Bean (snap)’’ Revision O, was derived
from Ciba-Geigy Analytical Method No.
AG0621, ‘‘Analytical Method for the
Determination of Cyromazine and its
Metabolite Melamine residues in Crops
by Gas Chromatography with a
Nitrogen/Phosphorous detector in the
Nitrogen Specific Mode. (January 12,
1995).’’ Minor modifications were made
to improve the performance of the
method. The limit of quantitation for
cyromazine is 0.05 ppm in most plant
commodities. Adequate methods are
available in PAM, Vol. II for
enforcement of the established
tolerances for cyromazine in/on meat,
milk, poultry, and eggs. Cyromazine, per
se, was recovered when analyzed
through Protocol III (present Protocol
D). The Agency concluded that the data
were acceptable and no additional
cyromazine multiresidue method
(MRM) recovery data were required.
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.
There are Codex MRLs established for
residues of cyromazine in/on several
commodities. The U.S. tolerances being
established for Onion, green, subgroup
3–07B and Tomato subgroup 8–10A are
harmonized with Codex. The U.S. is not
able to harmonize with Codex for
Onion, bulb, subgroup 3–07A; Leafy
green subgroup 4–16A; Leaf petiole
subgroup 22B; Brassica, leafy greens,
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
subgroup 4–16B; and pepper/eggplant
subgroup 8–10B because differences in
use patterns and residues in submitted
field trials support higher U.S.
tolerances; harmonization would cause
tolerance exceedances and violative
residues, despite legal use of
cyromazine pursuant to U.S. labels.
There are no Codex MRLs for the other
commodities in this action.
C. Response to Comments
EPA received three comments to the
Notice of Filing. Two comments
expressed concerns about wildfires,
health and habitats. These comments
did not raise any issues related to the
Agency’s safety determination of
cyromazine tolerances. The receipt of
these comments is acknowledged
however, these comments are not
relevant to this action. Another
commenter stated the following, ‘‘In
rule making, please use the following
standard: The amounts of residues
found in food must be safe for
consumers and must be as low as
possible.’’ When new or amended
tolerances are requested for residues of
a pesticide in food or feed, the Agency,
as is required by section 408 of the
FFDCA, estimates the risk of the
potential exposure to these residues.
The Agency has concluded after this
assessment, that there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will result from
aggregate human exposure to
cyromazine and that, accordingly, the
cyromazine tolerances on these
commodities are safe. The commenter
has provided no information suggesting
that the levels approved are not safe.
D. Revisions to Petitioned-For
Tolerances
EPA made two minor wording
changes to the existing tolerance
expression by deleting the phrases ‘‘the
insecticide’’ and ‘‘. . . , in or on the
commodity’’ at the end of the tolerance
expression for consistency with Agency
policy. For harmonization purposes, the
Agency is establishing different
tolerances for the following
commodities than what was petitioned
for: Leafy green subgroup 4–l6A,
Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4–16B,
Celtuce, Fennel, Florence, fresh leaves
and stalk, Kohlrabi, Leaf petiole
vegetable subgroup 22B, Onion, bulb,
subgroup 3–07A, Pepper/eggplant
subgroup 8–10B, and Vegetable,
brassica, head and stem, group 5–16,
except broccoli. Additionally, the
Agency revised the commodity
terminology to use the following correct
commodity definitions: Leafy greens
subgroup 4–16A, Leaf petiole vegetable
subgroup 22B, Fennel, Florence, fresh
E:\FR\FM\07OCR1.SGM
07OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 194 / Monday, October 7, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with RULES
leaves and stalk, and Pepper/eggplant
subgroup 8–10B. Finally, EPA is
establishing several tolerances that
differ from the petitioned-for tolerance
levels to conform to the Agency’s
rounding classes.
E. International Trade Considerations
In this rule, EPA is establishing lower
tolerances for cyromazine residues in or
on onion, potato than the current
tolerance. The current tolerance for
onion, potato is 3.0 ppm, but onion,
potato is a commodity in the onion,
bulb, subgroup 3–07A, for which EPA is
establishing a new tolerance in this
rulemaking at 0.3 ppm. As a result, EPA
intends for the allowable residues
onion, potato to be reduced. As
discussed in EPA’s crop grouping
rulemaking, EPA has determined that
onion, potato is similar to other bulb
onions and appropriately categorized in
subgroup 3–07A. See 72 FR 69150 (Dec.
7, 2007). Based on residue data
supporting the 0.3 ppm tolerance for
subgroup 3–07A and the similarity of
onion, potato to other bulb onions, EPA
concludes that it is appropriate to
reduce the tolerance on onion, potato as
well.
In accordance with the World Trade
Organization’s (WTO) Sanitary and
Phytosanitary Measures (SPS)
Agreement, EPA intends to notify the
WTO of the changes to these tolerances
in order to satisfy its obligations under
the Agreement. In addition, the SPS
Agreement requires that Members
provide a ‘‘reasonable interval’’ between
the publication of a regulation subject to
the Agreement and its entry into force
to allow time for producers in exporting
Member countries to adapt to the new
requirement. Accordingly, EPA is
establishing an expiration date for the
existing tolerance to allow this tolerance
to remain in effect for a period of six
months after the effective date of this
final rule. After the six-month period
expires, this tolerance will be reduced
or revoked, as indicated in the
regulatory text, and allowable residues
on onion, potato must conform to the
tolerance for subgroup 3–07A.
This reduction in tolerance level is
not discriminatory; the same food safety
standard contained in the FFDCA
applies equally to domestically
produced and imported foods. The new
tolerance level is supported by available
residue data.
V. Conclusion
Therefore, tolerances are established
for residues of the insecticide
cyromazine, N-cyclopropyl-1,3,5triazine-2,4,6-triamine, in or on
Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4–16B
VerDate Sep<11>2014
04:48 Oct 05, 2019
Jkt 250001
at 35 ppm; Celtuce at 10 ppm; Chickpea,
edible podded at 0.4 ppm; Chickpea,
succulent shelled at 0.3 ppm; Dwarf
pea, edible podded at 0.4 ppm; Edible
podded pea, edible podded at 0.4 ppm;
English pea, succulent shelled at 0.3
ppm; Fennel, Florence, fresh leaves and
stalk at 10 ppm; Garden pea, succulent
shelled at 0.3 ppm; Grass-pea, edible
podded at 0.4 ppm; Green pea, edible
podded at 0.4 ppm; Green pea,
succulent shelled at 0.3 ppm; Kohlrabi
at 35 ppm; Leaf petiole vegetable
subgroup 22B at 10 ppm; Leafy greens
subgroup 4–16A at 10 ppm; Lentil,
edible podded at 0.4 ppm; Lentil,
succulent shelled at 0.3 ppm; Onion,
bulb, subgroup 3–07A at 0.3 ppm;
Onion, green, subgroup 3–07B at 3 ppm;
Pepper/eggplant subgroup 8–10B at 3
ppm; Pigeon pea, edible podded at 0.4
ppm; Pigeon pea, succulent shelled at
0.3 ppm; Snap pea, edible podded at 0.4
ppm; Snow pea, edible podded at 0.4
ppm; Sugar snap pea, edible podded at
0.4 ppm; Tomato subgroup 8–10A at 1
ppm; Vegetable, brassica, head and
stem, group 5–16, except broccoli at 35
ppm; Vegetable, tuberous and corm,
subgroup 1C at 0.8 ppm.
In addition, EPA is removing the
following tolerances because they are
superseded by the new tolerances being
established in this rulemaking: Cabbage,
abyssinian at 10.0 ppm; cabbage, seakale
at 10.0 ppm, garlic at 0.2 ppm; garlic,
great-headed, bulb at 0.2 ppm; Hanover
salad, leaves at 10.0 ppm; leek at 3.0
ppm; onion, bulb at 0.2 ppm; onion,
green at 3.0 ppm; onion, tree at 3.0 ppm;
onion, welsh at 3.0 ppm; pepper at 1.0
ppm; potato at 0.8 ppm; rakkyo, bulb at
0.2 ppm; shallot, bulb at 0.2 ppm;
shallot, fresh leaves at 3.0 ppm; tomato
at 0.5 ppm; turnip, greens at 10.0 ppm;
vegetable, brassica, leafy, group 5,
except broccoli at 10.0; vegetable, leafy,
except brassica, group 4 at 7.0 ppm.
Finally, EPA is setting a six-month
expiration date for the current onion,
potato tolerance at 3.0 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
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
53321
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), nor is it considered a
regulatory action under Executive Order
13771, entitled ‘‘Reducing Regulations
and Controlling Regulatory Costs’’ (82
FR 9339, February 3, 2017). 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 tolerances 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
E:\FR\FM\07OCR1.SGM
07OCR1
53322
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 194 / Monday, October 7, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
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: September 20, 2019.
Michael Goodis,
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 § 180.414, revise paragraph (a)(1)
introductory text and amend the table in
paragraph (a)(1) as follows:
■ a. Add alphabetically the entries
‘‘Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4–
16B’’;
■ b. Remove the entries for ‘‘Cabbage,
abyssinian’’; and ‘‘Cabbage, seakale’’;
■ c. Add alphabetically the entries
‘‘Celtuce’’; ‘‘Chickpea, edible podded’’;
‘‘Chickpea, succulent shelled’’; ‘‘Dwarf
pea, edible podded’’; ‘‘Edible podded
pea, edible podded’’; ‘‘English pea,
succulent shelled’’; ‘‘Fennel, Florence,
fresh leaves and stalk’’; ‘‘Garden pea,
succulent shelled’’;
■ d. Remove the entries for ‘‘Garlic’’;
and ‘‘Garlic, great-headed, bulb’’;
■ e. Add alphabetically the entries
‘‘Grass-pea, edible podded’’; ‘‘Green
pea, edible podded’’; and ‘‘Green pea,
succulent shelled’’;
■ f. Remove the entry for ‘‘Hanover
salad, leaves’’;
■ g. Add alphabetically the entries
‘‘Kohlrabi’’; ‘‘Leaf petiole vegetable
subgroup 22B’’; and ‘‘Leafy greens
subgroup 4–16A’’;
■ h. Remove the entry for ‘‘Leek’’;
■ i. Add alphabetically the entries
‘‘Lentil, edible podded’’; and ‘‘Lentil,
succulent shelled’’;
■ j. Remove the entries for ‘‘Onion,
bulb’’; and ‘‘Onion, green’’;
■ k. Add alphabetically the entries
‘‘Onion, bulb, subgroup 3–07A’’; and
‘‘Onion, green, subgroup 3–07B’’;
■ l. Revise the entry for ‘‘Onion,
potato’’; to add a footnote 2;
■ m. Remove the entries for ‘‘Onion,
tree’’; ‘‘Onion, welsh’’; and ‘‘Pepper’’;
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with RULES
■
VerDate Sep<11>2014
04:48 Oct 05, 2019
Jkt 250001
n. Add alphabetically the entries
‘‘Pepper/eggplant subgroup 8–10B’’;
‘‘Pigeon pea, edible podded’’; and
‘‘Pigeon pea, succulent shelled’’;
■ o. Remove the entries for ‘‘Potato’’;
‘‘Rakkyo, bulb’’; ‘‘Shallot, bulb’’; and
‘‘Shallot, fresh leaves’’;
■ p. Add alphabetically the entries
‘‘Snap pea, edible podded’’; ‘‘Snow pea,
edible podded’’; and ‘‘Sugar snap pea,
edible podded’’;
■ q. Remove the entry for ‘‘Tomato’’;
■ r. Add alphabetically the entry
‘‘Tomato subgroup 8–10A’’;
■ s. Remove the entry for ‘‘Turnip,
greens’’;
■ t. Add alphabetically the entry
‘‘Vegetable, brassica, head and stem,
group 5–16, except broccoli’’;
■ u. Remove the entries for ‘‘Vegetable,
brassica, leafy, group 5, except
broccoli’’; and ‘‘Vegetable, leafy, except
brassica, group 4’’; and
■ v. Add alphabetically the entry
‘‘Vegetable, tuberous and corm,
subgroup 1C’’.
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
■
§ 180.414 Cyromazine; tolerances for
residues.
Parts per
million
Commodity
*
*
*
*
Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup
4–16B ......................................
*
*
*
*
*
Celtuce ........................................
Chickpea, edible podded ............
Chickpea, succulent shelled .......
Dwarf pea, edible podded ..........
Edible podded pea, edible podded ..........................................
*
*
*
*
*
English pea, succulent shelled ...
Fennel, Florence, fresh leaves
and stalk ..................................
Garden pea, succulent shelled ...
*
*
*
*
*
Grass-pea, edible podded ..........
Green pea, edible podded ..........
Green pea, succulent shelled .....
*
*
*
*
*
Kohlrabi .......................................
Leaf petiole vegetable subgroup
22B ..........................................
*
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Leafy greens subgroup 4–16A ...
Lentil, edible podded ..................
Lentil, succulent shelled .............
35
10
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.3
10
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.3
35
10
10
0.4
0.3
*
*
*
*
Onion, bulb, subgroup 3–07A ....
Onion, green, subgroup 3–07B ..
Onion, potato 2 ............................
Pepper/eggplant subgroup 8–
10B ..........................................
Pigeon pea, edible podded ........
Pigeon pea, succulent shelled ...
*
*
*
*
*
Snap pea, edible podded ...........
Snow pea, edible podded ...........
Sugar snap pea, edible podded
Tomato subgroup 8–10A ............
Vegetable, brassica, head and
stem, group 5–16, except
broccoli ....................................
*
*
*
*
*
Vegetable, tuberous and corm,
subgroup 1C ...........................
*
0.3
3
3.0
3
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
1
35
0.8
* * *
2 This tolerance expires on April 7, 2020.
*
(a) General. (1) Tolerances are
established for residues of cyromazine,
including its metabolites and
degradates, in or on the commodities in
the table in this paragraph. Compliance
with the tolerance levels specified in
this paragraph is to be determined by
measuring only cyromazine, Ncyclopropyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4,6triamine.
Parts per
million
Commodity
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2019–21542 Filed 10–4–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2018–0656; FRL–9999–54]
Chlorantraniliprole; Pesticide
Tolerances
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This regulation establishes
tolerances for residues of
chlorantraniliprole in or on palm, oil.
FMC Corporation requested these
tolerances under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
DATES: This regulation is effective
October 7, 2019. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received
on or before December 6, 2019, 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–2018–0656, is
available at https://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
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\07OCR1.SGM
07OCR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 194 (Monday, October 7, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53316-53322]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-21542]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0286; FRL-9999-57]
Cyromazine; Pesticide Tolerances
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
cyromazine in or on multiple commodities which are identified and
discussed later in this document. The Interregional Research Project
Number 4 (IR-4) requested these tolerances under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
DATES: This regulation is effective October 7, 2019. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before December 6, 2019,
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-2018-0286, is available at https://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 https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Goodis, 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: [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.
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
Publishing Office's e-CFR site at https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl. To access the OCSPP
test guidelines referenced in this document electronically, please go
to https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/about-office-chemical-safety-and-pollution-prevention-ocspp and select ``Test Methods and Guidelines.''
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-2018-0286 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
December 6, 2019. 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-2018-0286, by one of
the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://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 https://www.epa.gov/dockets/where-send-comments-epa-dockets. Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket,
along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance
In the Federal Register of July 24, 2018 (83 FR 34968) (FRL-9980-
31), 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
8E8673) by The Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), Rutgers,
The State University of New Jersey, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W,
Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.414 be
amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the insecticide
cyromazine, N-cyclopropyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4,6-triamine, in or on
Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B
[[Page 53317]]
at 10.0 parts per million (ppm); Celtuce at 7.0 ppm; Chickpea, edible
podded at 0.4 ppm; Chickpea, succulent shelled at 0.3 ppm; Dwarf pea,
edible podded at 0.4 ppm; Edible podded pea, edible podded at 0.4 ppm;
English pea, succulent shelled at 0.3 ppm; Florence fennel at 7.0 ppm;
Garden pea, succulent shelled at 0.3 ppm; Grass-pea, edible podded at
0.4 ppm; Green pea, edible podded at 0.4 ppm; Green pea, succulent
shelled at 0.3 ppm; Kohlrabi at 10.0 ppm; Leaf petiole subgroup 22B at
7.0 ppm; Leafy green subgroup 4-16A at 7.0 ppm; Lentil, edible podded
at 0.4 ppm; Lentil, succulent shelled at 0.3 ppm; Onion, bulb, subgroup
3-07A at 0.2 ppm; Onion, green, subgroup 3-07B at 3.0 ppm; Pepper/
eggplant 8-10B at 1.0 ppm; Pigeon pea, edible podded at 0.4 ppm; Pigeon
pea, succulent shelled at 0.3 ppm; Snap pea, edible podded at 0.4 ppm;
Snow pea, edible podded at 0.4 ppm; Sugar snap pea, edible podded at
0.4 ppm; Tomato subgroup 8-10A at 1.0 ppm; Vegetable, brassica, head
and stem, group 5-16, except broccoli at 10.0 ppm; and Vegetable,
tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C at 0.8 ppm.
Upon establishing those tolerances, the petition also proposed to
remove existing tolerances for residues of cyromazine (N-cyclopropyl-
1,3,5-triazine-2,4,6-triamine) in or on cabbage, abyssinian at 10.0
ppm; cabbage, seakale at 10.0 ppm; garlic at 0.2 ppm; garlic, great-
headed, bulb at 0.2 ppm; Hanover salad, leaves at 10.0 ppm; leek at 3.0
ppm; onion, bulb at 0.2 ppm; onion, green at 3.0 ppm; onion, potato at
3.0 ppm; onion, tree at 3.0 ppm; onion, welsh at 3.0 ppm; pepper at 1.0
ppm; potato at 0.8 ppm; rakkyo, bulb at 0.2 ppm; shallot, bulb at 0.2
ppm; shallot, fresh leaves at 3.0 ppm; tomato at 0.5 ppm; turnip,
greens at 10.0 ppm; vegetable, brassica, leafy, group 5, except
broccoli at 10.0; vegetable, leafy, except brassica, group 4 at 7.0
ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by
Makhteshim Agan of North American, Inc., (ADAMA) and Syngenta Crop
Protection, LLC, the registrants, which is available in the docket,
https://www.regulations.gov. Three comments were received on the notice
of filing. EPA's response to these comments is discussed in Unit IV.C.
Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
corrected the terminology for several commodities and is establishing
tolerances at levels other than petitioned for on some of the
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 cyromazine including exposure
resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with cyromazine 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.
No specific toxicity was associated with cyromazine, with lowest
observed adverse effects levels (LOAELs) occurring at relatively high
doses. Decreases in body weight and food consumption are the common
features of cyromazine toxicity following subchronic or chronic oral
exposures as seen in dogs, rats, mice, and rabbits. Other effects
reported were organ weight (relative) changes and changes to some
hematological parameters that were biologically insignificant and non-
adverse. No dermal or systemic toxicity was seen at the highest dose
tested (greater than 2,000 mg/kg/day) in two 21-day dermal toxicity
studies in rabbits. In a 28-day inhalation study in rats, cyromazine
produced clinical signs of toxicity (hunched posture, piloerection, and
reduced spontaneous activity) consistent with dyspnea at all
concentrations tested. An acute neurotoxicity study demonstrated
reduced motor activity as the main effect with no treatment-related
effects on mortality, brain weight, or gross and histologic pathology
or neuropathology up to the limit dose tested.
There is no evidence of developmental toxicity following in utero
exposures or that offspring are more susceptible following postnatal
exposure. In the 2-generation reproduction study in rats no
reproductive effects were observed. The available oral perinatal,
prenatal and postnatal data demonstrated no indication of increased
sensitivity of rats or rabbits to in utero exposure to cyromazine. No
quantitative or qualitative susceptibility was observed in any study.
In the prenatal developmental rat toxicity study, the NOAEL (300 mg/kg/
day) for developmental effects (increased incidence of minor skeletal
variations) was higher than the maternal NOAEL (100 mg/kg/day). In the
developmental toxicity study in rabbits, no evidence of developmental
toxicity was noted since the NOAEL was the highest dose tested (60 mg/
kg/day). In the 2-generation reproduction rat study, no reproductive
effects were observed up to the highest dose tested (150 mg/kg/day).
Cyromazine was not carcinogenic in mice or rats following long-term
dietary administration and was classified ``Group E--Evidence of
Noncarcinogenicity for Humans.'' The available mutagenicity data
suggest that cyromazine does not have genotoxic activity. Cyromazine is
categorized as Toxicity Category III for acute oral, dermal and
inhalation toxicity. Cyromazine is neither an eye irritant nor a dermal
sensitizer; however, it is mild skin irritant.
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by cyromazine 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 https://www.regulations.gov in document ``Cyromazine: Human health Risk
Assessment for Proposed New Foliar Uses on Edible Podded pea and
Succulent Shelled Pea Commodities, Crop Group Conversion on Leafy green
subgroup 4-16A, Leaf petiole subgroup 22B, Celtuce, and Florence
fennel; Vegetable, brassica, head and stem,
[[Page 53318]]
group 5-16, except broccoli; Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B;
Kohlrabi; Hanover salad, leaves; Turnip, greens; Cabbage, Abyssinian;
and Cabbage, seakale; Tomato subgroup 8-10A; Pepper/eggplant subgroup
8-10B; and Expansion of Vegetable, tuberous ad corm, subgroup 1C,
Onion, bulb, subgroup 3-07A; and Onion, green, subgroup 3-07B'' at page
number 11 and ``Cyromazine: Human Health Risk Assessment for
Registration Review'' at pages 51-53 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2018-0286.
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 no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). 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 https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks.
A summary of the toxicological endpoints for cyromazine used for
human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.
Table 1--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Cyromazine for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point of departure
Exposure/scenario and uncertainty/ RfD, PAD, LOC for Study and toxicological effects
safety factors risk assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (Females 13+ years No developmental effects attributable to a single dose were seen following in
of age). utero exposures to rats and rabbits.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (All populations).. LOAEL = 250 mg/kg/ Acute RfD = 2.5 mg/ Acute Neurotoxicity Study in rats.
day. kg/day. LOAEL = 250 mg/kg/day based on
UFA = 10x........... aPAD = 0.83 mg/kg/ decreased motor activity (mean
UFH = 10x........... day. cumulative ambulatory LMA counts,
FQPA SF = 3x........ 44%) in males at the time of peak
effect on Day 0, and decreased
food consumption (17%) on Day 1.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic dietary (All populations) NOAEL = 50 mg/kg/day Chronic RfD = 0.5 Two-Generation Reproductive Study
UFA = 10x........... mg/kg/day. in rats.
UFH = 10x........... cPAD = 0.5 mg/kg/ LOAEL = 150 mg/kg/day for
FQPA SF = 1x........ day. decreased body weights (27%) that
were associated with decreased
food efficiency.
Co-critical with:
Chronic Carcinogenicity Study in
the rat.
LOAEL = 150 mg/kg/day based on
decreased body weight (20% males,
29% females) associated with
lower food consumption (10-15%)
compared to controls.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (All routes).............. Group E--No evidence for carcinogenicity in humans.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point of Departure (POD) = A data point or an estimated point that is derived from observed dose-response data
and used to mark the beginning of extrapolation to determine risk associated with lower environmentally
relevant human exposures. FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-
effect-level. LOC = level of concern. mg/kg/day = milligram/kilogram/day. 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 cyromazine, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all existing cyromazine tolerances in 40 CFR
180.414. EPA assessed dietary exposures from cyromazine 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 cyromazine. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food
consumption information from the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA's) 2003-2008 National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey, What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA). As to
residue levels in food, EPA used tolerance-level residues and 100% crop
treated assumptions.
ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 2003-2008
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in
America (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in food, EPA used
tolerance-level residues and 100% crop treated assumptions.
iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that cyromazine 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 and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the
dietary assessment for cyromazine. Tolerance level residues and 100% CT
were assumed for all food commodities.
2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening-
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for cyromazine in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of cyromazine. Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-
[[Page 53319]]
and-assessing-pesticide-risks/about-water-exposure-models-used-
pesticide.
Based on the First Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) and
Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM GW), the estimated
drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of cyromazine for acute exposures
are estimated to be 47.1 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and
111 ppb for ground water. For chronic exposures for non-cancer
assessments, EDWCs are estimated to be 15.8 ppb for surface water and
86 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 111
ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic
dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 86 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). Cyromazine is not
registered for any specific use patterns that would result in
residential exposure. Further information regarding EPA standard
assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found
at https://www.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 determined that the
available toxicological data suggests cyromazine does not share a
similar toxicological profile, and thus no common mechanism of
toxicity, with other pesticides. No further cumulative evaluation is
necessary for cyromazine. This analysis can be found at https://www.regulations.gov in document ``Chitin Synthesis Inhibitors
(Buprofezin and Cyromazine): Screening Analysis of Toxicological
Profiles to Consider Whether a Candidate Common Mechanism Group Can Be
Established'' in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0286.
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 Safety
Factor (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. Based on the available data,
there is no quantitative and qualitative evidence of increased
susceptibility observed following in utero cyromazine exposure to rats
and rabbits or following prenatal/postnatal exposure in the 2-
generation reproduction study. The database is considered adequate for
selection of study endpoints and determination of a dose/response to
characterize the potential prenatal or postnatal toxicity of cyromazine
to infants and children. No increase in susceptibility was seen in
developmental toxicity studies in rat and rabbit or reproductive
toxicity studies in the rat. Toxicity to offspring was observed at dose
levels the same or greater than those causing maternal or parental
toxicity. Based on the results of developmental and reproductive
toxicity studies, there is not a concern or increased qualitative and/
or quantitative susceptibility following in utero exposure to
cyromazine.
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 the chronic dietary exposure assessment
and retained at 3X for the acute dietary exposure assessment. That
decision is based on the following findings:
i. The toxicity database for cyromazine is complete for assessing
the risks to infants and children. However, the study providing the
basis for the acute dietary exposure POD lacks a NOAEL, so the Agency
is retaining a 3X FQPA SF for extrapolating a NOAEL.
ii. There is no evidence of neurotoxicity in the cyromazine
repeated dose studies, which include subchronic or chronic dosing in
multiple species. However, in the acute neurotoxicity study conducted
in rats, reduced motor activity was seen at all doses tested and
additional neurological effects (decreased foot splay in males and
increased rearing behavior in females) were observed at the highest
dose tested. Because a NOAEL was not established for the acute
neurotoxicity effects, an FQPA SF will be retained for the acute risk
assessment. In this case, the default FQPA SF of 10X can be reduced to
3X for the following reasons:
(1) the toxicity database is considered complete for cyromazine and
no other studies via the oral route showed clinical signs or
histopathology indicative of neurotoxicity;
(2) a 3X SF yields an acute PAD of 0.83 mg/kg/day, which is similar
to the chronic PAD of 0.5 mg/kg/day. The chronic POD is considered very
conservative and is based on 27% decreased body weight seen at the
LOAEL of 150 mg/kg/day in absence of any other significant effects. The
aPAD is conservative because it is unlikely that decreased motor
activity would occur at doses similar to the chronic endpoint. The
effects used to derive the chronic POD (decrease in body weight) were
observed only after repeated exposure (15 weeks) and there was no
indication of decreased activity or other neurological clinical signs
in the chronic study; and
(3) motor activity seems to be a very sensitive indicator of acute
toxicity of cyromazine. While there are indications of neurotoxicity in
the ACN and inhalation studies, the selected endpoints are protective
of those effects, therefore there is no concern for developmental
neurotoxicity resulting from exposure to cyromazine. Based on the
findings in the acute neurotoxicity study and the total weight of
evidence, the requirement for the subchronic neurotoxicity study was
waived.
iii. There is no evidence that cyromazine 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 dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100% CT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative
(protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used
to assess exposure to cyromazine in drinking water. These assessments
will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by cyromazine.
E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety
EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure
[[Page 53320]]
estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (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 cyromazine will occupy 18% of the aPAD for children 1 to 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
cyromazine from food and water will utilize 8.3% of the cPAD for
children 1 to 2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest
exposure. There are no residential uses for cyromazine that would
result in chronic exposure.
3. Short-term and Intermediate-term risk. Short- and intermediate-
term aggregate exposure takes into account short- and intermediate-term
residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water
(considered to be a background exposure level). Short- and
intermediate-term adverse effects were identified; however, cyromazine
is not registered for any use patterns that would result in short- or
intermediate-term residential exposure. Short- and intermediate-term
risk is assessed based on short- and intermediate-term residential
exposure plus chronic dietary exposure. Because there is no short- or
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 short- or
intermediate-term risk), no further assessment of short- or
intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic
dietary risk assessment for evaluating short- and intermediate-term
risk for cyromazine.
4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity
studies, cyromazine is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.
5. 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 cyromazine residues.
IV. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
Adequate enforcement methodology is available to enforce the
tolerance expression. Adequate methods are available in Pesticide
Analytical Manual (PAM), Vol. II for enforcement of the established
tolerances for cyromazine in/on plant commodities. The working method
``Determination of Cyromazine in Bean (snap)'' Revision O, was derived
from Ciba-Geigy Analytical Method No. AG0621, ``Analytical Method for
the Determination of Cyromazine and its Metabolite Melamine residues in
Crops by Gas Chromatography with a Nitrogen/Phosphorous detector in the
Nitrogen Specific Mode. (January 12, 1995).'' Minor modifications were
made to improve the performance of the method. The limit of
quantitation for cyromazine is 0.05 ppm in most plant commodities.
Adequate methods are available in PAM, Vol. II for enforcement of the
established tolerances for cyromazine in/on meat, milk, poultry, and
eggs. Cyromazine, per se, was recovered when analyzed through Protocol
III (present Protocol D). The Agency concluded that the data were
acceptable and no additional cyromazine multiresidue method (MRM)
recovery data were required.
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.
There are Codex MRLs established for residues of cyromazine in/on
several commodities. The U.S. tolerances being established for Onion,
green, subgroup 3-07B and Tomato subgroup 8-10A are harmonized with
Codex. The U.S. is not able to harmonize with Codex for Onion, bulb,
subgroup 3-07A; Leafy green subgroup 4-16A; Leaf petiole subgroup 22B;
Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B; and pepper/eggplant subgroup 8-
10B because differences in use patterns and residues in submitted field
trials support higher U.S. tolerances; harmonization would cause
tolerance exceedances and violative residues, despite legal use of
cyromazine pursuant to U.S. labels. There are no Codex MRLs for the
other commodities in this action.
C. Response to Comments
EPA received three comments to the Notice of Filing. Two comments
expressed concerns about wildfires, health and habitats. These comments
did not raise any issues related to the Agency's safety determination
of cyromazine tolerances. The receipt of these comments is acknowledged
however, these comments are not relevant to this action. Another
commenter stated the following, ``In rule making, please use the
following standard: The amounts of residues found in food must be safe
for consumers and must be as low as possible.'' When new or amended
tolerances are requested for residues of a pesticide in food or feed,
the Agency, as is required by section 408 of the FFDCA, estimates the
risk of the potential exposure to these residues. The Agency has
concluded after this assessment, that there is a reasonable certainty
that no harm will result from aggregate human exposure to cyromazine
and that, accordingly, the cyromazine tolerances on these commodities
are safe. The commenter has provided no information suggesting that the
levels approved are not safe.
D. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances
EPA made two minor wording changes to the existing tolerance
expression by deleting the phrases ``the insecticide'' and ``. . . , in
or on the commodity'' at the end of the tolerance expression for
consistency with Agency policy. For harmonization purposes, the Agency
is establishing different tolerances for the following commodities than
what was petitioned for: Leafy green subgroup 4-l6A, Brassica, leafy
greens, subgroup 4-16B, Celtuce, Fennel, Florence, fresh leaves and
stalk, Kohlrabi, Leaf petiole vegetable subgroup 22B, Onion, bulb,
subgroup 3-07A, Pepper/eggplant subgroup 8-10B, and Vegetable,
brassica, head and stem, group 5-16, except broccoli. Additionally, the
Agency revised the commodity terminology to use the following correct
commodity definitions: Leafy greens subgroup 4-16A, Leaf petiole
vegetable subgroup 22B, Fennel, Florence, fresh
[[Page 53321]]
leaves and stalk, and Pepper/eggplant subgroup 8-10B. Finally, EPA is
establishing several tolerances that differ from the petitioned-for
tolerance levels to conform to the Agency's rounding classes.
E. International Trade Considerations
In this rule, EPA is establishing lower tolerances for cyromazine
residues in or on onion, potato than the current tolerance. The current
tolerance for onion, potato is 3.0 ppm, but onion, potato is a
commodity in the onion, bulb, subgroup 3-07A, for which EPA is
establishing a new tolerance in this rulemaking at 0.3 ppm. As a
result, EPA intends for the allowable residues onion, potato to be
reduced. As discussed in EPA's crop grouping rulemaking, EPA has
determined that onion, potato is similar to other bulb onions and
appropriately categorized in subgroup 3-07A. See 72 FR 69150 (Dec. 7,
2007). Based on residue data supporting the 0.3 ppm tolerance for
subgroup 3-07A and the similarity of onion, potato to other bulb
onions, EPA concludes that it is appropriate to reduce the tolerance on
onion, potato as well.
In accordance with the World Trade Organization's (WTO) Sanitary
and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) Agreement, EPA intends to notify the
WTO of the changes to these tolerances in order to satisfy its
obligations under the Agreement. In addition, the SPS Agreement
requires that Members provide a ``reasonable interval'' between the
publication of a regulation subject to the Agreement and its entry into
force to allow time for producers in exporting Member countries to
adapt to the new requirement. Accordingly, EPA is establishing an
expiration date for the existing tolerance to allow this tolerance to
remain in effect for a period of six months after the effective date of
this final rule. After the six-month period expires, this tolerance
will be reduced or revoked, as indicated in the regulatory text, and
allowable residues on onion, potato must conform to the tolerance for
subgroup 3-07A.
This reduction in tolerance level is not discriminatory; the same
food safety standard contained in the FFDCA applies equally to
domestically produced and imported foods. The new tolerance level is
supported by available residue data.
V. Conclusion
Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of the
insecticide cyromazine, N-cyclopropyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4,6-triamine, in
or on Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B at 35 ppm; Celtuce at 10
ppm; Chickpea, edible podded at 0.4 ppm; Chickpea, succulent shelled at
0.3 ppm; Dwarf pea, edible podded at 0.4 ppm; Edible podded pea, edible
podded at 0.4 ppm; English pea, succulent shelled at 0.3 ppm; Fennel,
Florence, fresh leaves and stalk at 10 ppm; Garden pea, succulent
shelled at 0.3 ppm; Grass-pea, edible podded at 0.4 ppm; Green pea,
edible podded at 0.4 ppm; Green pea, succulent shelled at 0.3 ppm;
Kohlrabi at 35 ppm; Leaf petiole vegetable subgroup 22B at 10 ppm;
Leafy greens subgroup 4-16A at 10 ppm; Lentil, edible podded at 0.4
ppm; Lentil, succulent shelled at 0.3 ppm; Onion, bulb, subgroup 3-07A
at 0.3 ppm; Onion, green, subgroup 3-07B at 3 ppm; Pepper/eggplant
subgroup 8-10B at 3 ppm; Pigeon pea, edible podded at 0.4 ppm; Pigeon
pea, succulent shelled at 0.3 ppm; Snap pea, edible podded at 0.4 ppm;
Snow pea, edible podded at 0.4 ppm; Sugar snap pea, edible podded at
0.4 ppm; Tomato subgroup 8-10A at 1 ppm; Vegetable, brassica, head and
stem, group 5-16, except broccoli at 35 ppm; Vegetable, tuberous and
corm, subgroup 1C at 0.8 ppm.
In addition, EPA is removing the following tolerances because they
are superseded by the new tolerances being established in this
rulemaking: Cabbage, abyssinian at 10.0 ppm; cabbage, seakale at 10.0
ppm, garlic at 0.2 ppm; garlic, great-headed, bulb at 0.2 ppm; Hanover
salad, leaves at 10.0 ppm; leek at 3.0 ppm; onion, bulb at 0.2 ppm;
onion, green at 3.0 ppm; onion, tree at 3.0 ppm; onion, welsh at 3.0
ppm; pepper at 1.0 ppm; potato at 0.8 ppm; rakkyo, bulb at 0.2 ppm;
shallot, bulb at 0.2 ppm; shallot, fresh leaves at 3.0 ppm; tomato at
0.5 ppm; turnip, greens at 10.0 ppm; vegetable, brassica, leafy, group
5, except broccoli at 10.0; vegetable, leafy, except brassica, group 4
at 7.0 ppm. Finally, EPA is setting a six-month expiration date for the
current onion, potato tolerance at 3.0 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), nor is it considered a
regulatory action under Executive Order 13771, entitled ``Reducing
Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs'' (82 FR 9339, February 3,
2017). 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 tolerances 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
[[Page 53322]]
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: September 20, 2019.
Michael Goodis,
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. 180.414, revise paragraph (a)(1) introductory text and
amend the table in paragraph (a)(1) as follows:
0
a. Add alphabetically the entries ``Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup
4-16B'';
0
b. Remove the entries for ``Cabbage, abyssinian''; and ``Cabbage,
seakale'';
0
c. Add alphabetically the entries ``Celtuce''; ``Chickpea, edible
podded''; ``Chickpea, succulent shelled''; ``Dwarf pea, edible
podded''; ``Edible podded pea, edible podded''; ``English pea,
succulent shelled''; ``Fennel, Florence, fresh leaves and stalk'';
``Garden pea, succulent shelled'';
0
d. Remove the entries for ``Garlic''; and ``Garlic, great-headed,
bulb'';
0
e. Add alphabetically the entries ``Grass-pea, edible podded'';
``Green pea, edible podded''; and ``Green pea, succulent shelled'';
0
f. Remove the entry for ``Hanover salad, leaves'';
0
g. Add alphabetically the entries ``Kohlrabi''; ``Leaf petiole
vegetable subgroup 22B''; and ``Leafy greens subgroup 4-16A'';
0
h. Remove the entry for ``Leek'';
0
i. Add alphabetically the entries ``Lentil, edible podded''; and
``Lentil, succulent shelled'';
0
j. Remove the entries for ``Onion, bulb''; and ``Onion, green'';
0
k. Add alphabetically the entries ``Onion, bulb, subgroup 3-07A''; and
``Onion, green, subgroup 3-07B'';
0
l. Revise the entry for ``Onion, potato''; to add a footnote 2;
0
m. Remove the entries for ``Onion, tree''; ``Onion, welsh''; and
``Pepper'';
0
n. Add alphabetically the entries ``Pepper/eggplant subgroup 8-10B'';
``Pigeon pea, edible podded''; and ``Pigeon pea, succulent shelled'';
0
o. Remove the entries for ``Potato''; ``Rakkyo, bulb''; ``Shallot,
bulb''; and ``Shallot, fresh leaves'';
0
p. Add alphabetically the entries ``Snap pea, edible podded''; ``Snow
pea, edible podded''; and ``Sugar snap pea, edible podded'';
0
q. Remove the entry for ``Tomato'';
0
r. Add alphabetically the entry ``Tomato subgroup 8-10A'';
0
s. Remove the entry for ``Turnip, greens'';
0
t. Add alphabetically the entry ``Vegetable, brassica, head and stem,
group 5-16, except broccoli'';
0
u. Remove the entries for ``Vegetable, brassica, leafy, group 5, except
broccoli''; and ``Vegetable, leafy, except brassica, group 4''; and
0
v. Add alphabetically the entry ``Vegetable, tuberous and corm,
subgroup 1C''.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 180.414 Cyromazine; tolerances for residues.
(a) General. (1) Tolerances are established for residues of
cyromazine, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the
commodities in the table in this paragraph. Compliance with the
tolerance levels specified in this paragraph is to be determined by
measuring only cyromazine, N-cyclopropyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4,6-triamine.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodity million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B...................... 35
* * * * *
Celtuce..................................................... 10
Chickpea, edible podded..................................... 0.4
Chickpea, succulent shelled................................. 0.3
Dwarf pea, edible podded.................................... 0.4
Edible podded pea, edible podded............................ 0.4
* * * * *
English pea, succulent shelled.............................. 0.3
Fennel, Florence, fresh leaves and stalk.................... 10
Garden pea, succulent shelled............................... 0.3
* * * * *
Grass-pea, edible podded.................................... 0.4
Green pea, edible podded.................................... 0.4
Green pea, succulent shelled................................ 0.3
* * * * *
Kohlrabi.................................................... 35
Leaf petiole vegetable subgroup 22B......................... 10
Leafy greens subgroup 4-16A................................. 10
Lentil, edible podded....................................... 0.4
Lentil, succulent shelled................................... 0.3
* * * * *
Onion, bulb, subgroup 3-07A................................. 0.3
Onion, green, subgroup 3-07B................................ 3
Onion, potato \2\........................................... 3.0
Pepper/eggplant subgroup 8-10B.............................. 3
Pigeon pea, edible podded................................... 0.4
Pigeon pea, succulent shelled............................... 0.3
* * * * *
Snap pea, edible podded..................................... 0.4
Snow pea, edible podded..................................... 0.4
Sugar snap pea, edible podded............................... 0.4
Tomato subgroup 8-10A....................................... 1
Vegetable, brassica, head and stem, group 5-16, except 35
broccoli...................................................
* * * * *
Vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C................... 0.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * *
\2\ This tolerance expires on April 7, 2020.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2019-21542 Filed 10-4-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P