6826 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 24 / Wednesday, February 5, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

this cite-all option must submit to the 

Agency: 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(v) The applicant’s name, address, 

and contact information, including a 

telephone number and email address. 

* * * * * 

■ 13. Revise § 152.96 to read as follows: 

§ 152.96 Claim of data gap. 

(a) When a data gap may be claimed. 

Except as provided in paragraph (b) of 

this section, an applicant may defer his 

obligation to satisfy an applicable data 

requirement until the Agency requires 

the data if no other person has 

previously submitted to the Agency a 

valid study that would satisfy the data 

requirement in question. 

(b) When a data gap may not be 

claimed—(1) Product containing a new 

active ingredient. An applicant for 

registration of a product containing a 

new active ingredient may not defer his 

obligation by claiming a data gap unless 

he can demonstrate to the Agency’s 

satisfaction that the data requirement 

was imposed so recently that 

insufficient time has elapsed for the 

study to have been completed and that, 

in the public interest, the product 

should be registered during the limited 

period of time required to complete the 

study. Refer to the Federal Insecticide, 

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) 

section 3(c)(7)(C). 

(2) Product not containing a new 

active ingredient. An applicant for 

registration of a product under FIFRA 

sections 3(c)(7)(A) or (B) (a product not 

containing a new active ingredient) may 

not defer his obligation by claiming a 

data gap if the data are: 

(i) Data needed to determine whether 

the product is identical or substantially 

similar to another currently registered 

product or differs only in ways that 

would substantially increase the risk of 

unreasonable adverse effects on the 

environment. 

(ii) Efficacy data specific to the 

product, if required to be submitted to 

the Agency. 

(iii) If a new use is proposed for a 

product that is identical or substantially 

similar to an existing product, data to 

demonstrate whether the new use 

would substantially increase the risk of 

unreasonable adverse effects on the 

environment. 

(c) Approval of application with a 

data gap claim—(1) In accordance with 

§ 152.115(a), any registration that is 

approved based upon a data gap claim 

shall be conditioned on the submission 

of the data no later than the time that 

the data are required to be submitted for 

similar products already registered. 

(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (c)(1) 

of this section, the Agency will not 

approve an application if it determines 

that the data for which a data gap claim 

has been made are needed to determine 

if the product meets the requirements of 

FIFRA sections 3(c)(5) or (7). 

■ 14. Revise § 152.97 to read as follows: 

§ 152.97 Rights and obligations regarding 

the Data Submitters List. 

(a) Each original data submitter shall 

have the right to be included on the 

Agency’s Data Submitters List. 

(b) Each original data submitter who 

wishes to have his name added to the 

current Data Submitters List must 

submit to the Agency the following 

information: 

(1) Name and current address. 

(2) Chemical name, common name (if 

any) and Chemical Abstracts Service 

(CAS) number (if any) of the active 

ingredients(s), with respect to which he 

is an original data submitter. 

(3) For each such active ingredient, 

the type(s) of study he has previously 

submitted (identified by reference to 

data/information requirements listed in 

part 158 of this chapter), the date of 

submission, and the EPA registration 

number, file symbol, or other 

identifying reference for which it was 

submitted. 

(c) Each applicant not already 

included on the Data Submitters List for 

a particular active ingredient must 

inform the Agency at the time of the 

submission of a relevant study whether 

he wishes to be included on the Data 

Submitters List for that pesticide. 

■ 15. In § 152.99: 

■ a. Remove paragraph (a)(2)(iv). 

■ b. Redesignate paragraphs (a)(2)(v) 

and (a)(2)(vi) as paragraphs (a)(2)(iv) 

and (a)(2)(v). 

■ c. Revise newly redesignated 

paragraph (a)(2)(iv) and paragraph 

(b)(2). 

The amendments read as follows: 

§ 152.99 Petitions to cancel registration. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iv) The applicant has falsely or 

improperly claimed that a data gap 

existed at the time of his application. 

(b) * * * 

(2) Notice to affected registrant. At the 

same time that the petitioner files his 

petition with the Agency, the petitioner 

shall send a copy to the affected 

applicant or registrant by certified mail 

or by any other method that provides 

evidence of delivery. The affected 

applicant or registrant shall have 60 

days from the date of receipt of the 

petition to submit written comments to 

the Agency. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–02294 Filed 2–4–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0668; FRL–9388–7] 

Cyantraniliprole; Pesticide Tolerances 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes 

tolerances for residues of 

cyantraniliprole in or on multiple 

commodities that are identified and 

discussed later in this document. E.I. du 

Pont de Nemours & Company (DuPont) 

requested these tolerances under the 

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 

(FFDCA). 

DATES: This regulation is effective 

February 5, 2014. Objections and 

requests for hearings must be received 

on or before April 7, 2014, and must be 

filed in accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also 

Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION). 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0668, is 

available at http://www.regulations.gov 

or at the Office of Pesticide Programs 

Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) 

in the Environmental Protection Agency 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West 

Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. The 

Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 

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

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 

telephone number for the Public 

Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and 

the telephone number for the OPP 

Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review 

the visitor instructions and additional 

information about the docket available 

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lois 

Rossi, Registration Division (7505P), 

Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

(703) 305–7090; email address: 

RDFRNotices@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 24 / Wednesday, February 5, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 6827 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are an agricultural 

producer, food manufacturer, or 

pesticide manufacturer. The following 

list of North American Industrial 

Classification System (NAICS) codes is 

not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide to help readers 

determine whether this document 

applies to them. Potentially affected 

entities may include: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 111). 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112). 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532). 

B. How can I get electronic access to 

other related information? 

You may access a frequently updated 

electronic version of EPA’s tolerance 

regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through 

the Government Printing Office’s e-CFR 

site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/

40tab_02.tpl. 

C. How can I file an objection or hearing 

request? 

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 

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

objection to any aspect of this regulation 

and may also request a hearing on those 

objections. You must file your objection 

or request a hearing on this regulation 

in accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure 

proper receipt by EPA, you must 

identify docket ID number EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2011–0668 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 April 7, 2014. 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– 

2011–0668, by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be CBI or 

other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. 

• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental 

Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/ 

DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: To make special 

arrangements for hand delivery or 

delivery of boxed information, please 

follow the instructions at http://

www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. 

Additional instructions on 

commenting or visiting the docket, 

along with more information about 

dockets generally, is available at http:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets. 

II. Summary of Petitioned-For 

Tolerance 

In the Federal Register of May 23, 

2012 (77 FR 30481) (FRL–9347–8), 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 1F7894) by E.I. du Pont de 

Nemours & Company (DuPont), 1007 

Market St., Wilmington, DE 19898. The 

petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 

be amended by establishing tolerances 

for residues of the insecticide 

cyantraniliprole, 3-bromo-1-(3-chloro-2- 

pyridinyl)-N-[4-cyano-2-methyl-6- 

[(methylamino)carbonyl]phenyl]-1Hpyrazole-5-carboxamide, including its 

metabolites and degradates, in or on 

almond hulls at 30 parts per million 

(ppm); berries and small fruits, 

bushberries (subgroup 13–07B) at 4 

ppm; Brassica (cole) leafy vegetables, 

head and stem Brassica (subgroup 5A) 

at 2 ppm; Brassica (cole) leafy 

vegetables, leafy Brassica greens 

(subgroup 5B) at 30 ppm; bulb 

vegetables, onion, bulb (subgroup 3– 

07A) at 0.04 ppm; bulb vegetables, 

onion, green (subgroup 3–07B) at 8 

ppm; cattle, fat at 0.01 ppm; cattle, liver 

at 0.04 ppm; cattle, meat at 0.01 ppm; 

cattle, meat byproducts, except liver at 

0.01 ppm; cherries at 6 ppm; citrus 

fruits (group 10–10) at 0.7 ppm; cotton 

gin byproduct at 10 ppm; cucurbit 

vegetables (group 9) at 0.3 ppm; fruiting 

vegetables (group 8–10) at 2 ppm; goat, 

fat at 0.01 ppm; goat, liver at 0.04 ppm; 

goat, meat at 0.01 ppm; goat, meat 

byproducts, except liver at 0.01 ppm; 

hog, fat at 0.01 ppm; hog, liver at 0.04 

ppm; hog, meat at 0.01 ppm; hog, meat 

byproducts, except liver at 0.01 ppm; 

horse, fat at 0.01 ppm; horse, liver at 

0.04 ppm; horse, meat at 0.01 ppm; 

horse, meat byproducts, except liver at 

0.01 ppm; leafy vegetables (except 

Brassica vegetables) (group 4) at 15 

ppm; milk at 0.01 ppm; milk, fat at 0.04 

ppm; oilseeds, except cotton gin 

byproduct (group 20) at 1 ppm; pome 

fruits (group 11–10) at 0.8 ppm; root and 

tuber vegetables, tuberous and corm 

vegetables (subgroup 1C) at 0.15 ppm; 

sheep, fat at 0.01 ppm; sheep, liver at 

0.04 ppm; sheep, meat at 0.01 ppm; 

sheep, meat byproducts, except liver at 

0.01 ppm; stone fruits, except cherries 

(group 12) at 1.5 ppm; tree nuts, except 

almond hulls (group 14) at 0.06 ppm; 

citrus, oil at 6 ppm; citrus, raw peel at 

2 ppm; and potato, wet peel at 0.3 ppm. 

In addition, DuPont requested to 

amend 40 CFR part 180 to establish 

indirect or inadvertent tolerances for 

residues of cyantraniliprole, 3-bromo-1- 

(3-chloro-2-pyridinyl)-N-[4-cyano-2- 

methyl-6- 

[(methylamino)carbonyl]phenyl]-1Hpyrazole-5-carboxamide, including its 

metabolites and degradates, in or on the 

following commodities: Foliage of 

legume vegetables (group 7), forage at 

0.15 ppm; foliage of legume vegetables 

(group 7), hay at 0.6 ppm; forage, fodder 

and straw of cereal grains (group 16), 

forage at 0.06 ppm; forage, fodder and 

straw of cereal grains (group 16), hay 

and straw at 0.15 ppm; grass forage, 

fodder, and hay (group 17), forage at 

0.06 ppm; grass forage, fodder, and hay 

(group 17), hay at 0.15 ppm; leaves of 

root and tuber vegetables (human food 

or animal feed) (group 2) at 0.04 ppm; 

nongrass animal feeds (forage, fodder, 

straw, and hay) (group 18), forage at 

0.06 ppm; nongrass animal feeds 

(forage, fodder, straw, and hay) (group 

18), hay at 0.15 ppm; peanut hay at 0.03 

ppm; root and tuber vegetables, root 

vegetables (subgroup 1A) at 0.03 ppm. 

That document referenced a summary 

of the petition prepared by DuPont, the 

registrant, which is available in the 

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

Based upon review of the data 

supporting the petition, EPA is 

establishing several tolerances that vary 

from levels requested in the original 

petition. 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
6828 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 24 / Wednesday, February 5, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

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 cyantraniliprole 

including exposure resulting from the 

tolerances established by this action. 

EPA’s assessment of exposures and risks 

associated with cyantraniliprole 

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. Cyantraniliprole is 

a 2-generation ryanodine receptor (RyR) 

insecticide belonging to the diamide 

class of chemistry whose pesticidal 

mode of action (MOA) is through 

unregulated activation of insect RyR 

channels. This leads to internal calcium 

store depletion and impaired regulation 

of muscle contraction, causing paralysis 

and eventual death of the insect. 

Mammalian RyR are shown to be 350 to 

>2,500 times less sensitive than those of 

insects. In general, cyantraniliprole 

administration in mammals produces 

both adverse and adaptive changes in 

the liver, thyroid gland, and adrenal 

cortex. With repeated dosing, consistent 

findings of mild to moderate increases 

in liver weights across multiple species 

(rats, mice, and dogs) are observed. Dogs 

appear to be more sensitive than rats 

and mice; cyantraniliprole produces 

adverse liver effects (increases in 

alkaline phosphatase, decreases in 

cholesterol, and decreases in albumin) 

in dogs at lower dose levels than in rats. 

In addition, the liver effects in the dog 

show progressive severity with 

increased duration of exposure. The 

available data also show thyroid 

hormone homeostasis is altered in rats 

following exposure to cyantraniliprole 

after 90 days due to enhanced 

metabolism of the thyroid hormones by 

the liver. However, cyantraniliprole 

does not act directly on the thyroid; the 

thyroid effects observed are only as a 

result of the adverse effects on the liver. 

Cyantraniliprole is classified as ‘‘Not 

Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans’’ 

based on the absence of increased tumor 

incidence in acceptable/guideline 

carcinogenicity studies in rats and mice. 

In addition, there are no genotoxicity, 

mutagenicity, neurotoxicity, or 

immunotoxicity concerns. There are 

also no developmental or reproductive 

toxicity concerns. There is no evidence 

of an adverse effect attributable to a 

single dose. Specific information on the 

studies received and the nature of the 

adverse effects caused by 

cyantraniliprole as well as the noobserved-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) 

and the lowest-observed-adverse-effectlevel (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies 

can be found at http://

www.regulations.gov in the document 

‘‘Cyantraniliprole. Aggregate Human 

Health Risk Assessment for the 

Proposed New Uses of the New Active 

Insecticide (March 7, 2013)’’ at p.16 in 

docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2011– 

0668. 

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/

Levels of Concern 

Once a pesticide’s toxicological 

profile is determined, EPA identifies 

toxicological points of departure (POD) 

and levels of concern (LOC) to use in 

evaluating the risk posed by human 

exposure to the pesticide. For hazards 

that have a threshold below which there 

is no appreciable risk, the toxicological 

POD is used as the basis for derivation 

of reference values for risk assessment. 

PODs are developed based on a careful 

analysis of the doses in each 

toxicological study to determine the 

dose at which no adverse effects are 

observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest 

dose at which adverse effects of concern 

are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/ 

safety factors are used in conjunction 

with the POD to calculate a safe 

exposure level—generally referred to as 

a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a 

reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin 

of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold 

risks, the Agency assumes that any 

amount of exposure will lead to some 

degree of risk. Thus, the Agency 

estimates risk in terms of the probability 

of an occurrence of the adverse effect 

expected in a lifetime. For more 

information on the general principles 

EPA uses in risk characterization and a 

complete description of the risk 

assessment process, see http://

www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/

riskassess.htm. 

A summary of the toxicological 

endpoints and points of departure for 

cyantraniliprole used for human risk 

assessment is shown in Table 1 of this 

unit. 

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

RISK ASSESSMENT

Exposure/scenario 

POD and 

uncertainty/ 

safety factors 

RfD, PAD, LOC for 

risk assessment Study and toxicological effects 

Acute dietary (general population, including infants and 

children and females 13–49 

years of age).

An effect attributed to a single dose was not identified in the toxicology database. 

Chronic dietary (All populations) NOAEL = 1 mg/kg/

day.

UFA = 10x. 

UFH = 10x. 

FQPA SF = 1x. 

Chronic RfD = 0.01 

mg/kg/day.

cPAD = 0.01 mg/kg/

day. 

Based on 1-year oral study in dogs. 

LOAEL = 6 mg/kg/day based on effects indicative of liver toxicity (increased liver weights and alkaline phosphatase activity), and significant decreases in albumin level. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 24 / Wednesday, February 5, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 6829 

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

RISK ASSESSMENT—Continued 

Exposure/scenario 

POD and 

uncertainty/ 

safety factors 

RfD, PAD, LOC for 

risk assessment Study and toxicological effects 

Incidental oral short-term (1 to 

30 days) and incidental oral 

intermediate-term (1 to 6 

months).

NOAEL = 3 mg/kg/

day.

UFA = 10x. 

UFH = 10x. 

FQPA SF = 1x. 

LOC for MOE = 100 Based on both 28-day and 90-day oral study in dogs. 

28-Day LOAEL = 35 mg/kg/day (lowest dose tested) based on 

decreases in body weight, food consumption, food efficiency, 

and changes in clinical chemistry (increased alkaline phosphatase, decreased cholesterol and decreased albumin). 

90-Day LOAEL = 32 mg/kg/day based on a collection of treatment-related effects indicative of liver toxicity. The effects included decreases in total protein, albumin, and cholesterol in 

males and females; increases in alkaline phosphatase in 

males and females; increases in alanine aminotransferase in 

females; and increases in liver weights in males and females. 

Dermal short-term (1 to 30 

days).

A toxicity endpoint was not identified. 

Systemic toxicity was not seen in 28-day dermal toxicity in rats at the limit dose (1,000 mg/kg/day). There are 

no concerns for developmental or reproductive toxicity or neurotoxicity. 

Inhalation short-term (1 to 30 

days).

Inhalation study 

NOAEL = 0.1 mg/

kg/day.

UFA = 3x.a

UFH = 10x. 

FQPA SF = 1x. 

HEC = 0.05 mg/L. 

HED = 7.2 mg/kg/

day. 

LOC for MOE = 30 .. Based on 28-day inhalation toxicity study in rats. 

A LOAEL was not established because the highest concentration tested (0.1 mg/L) did not demonstrate any adverse portal 

of entry or systemic effects. 

Cancer (oral, dermal, inhalation).Classification: ‘‘Not likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans’’ based on data showing lack of treatment-related increase in tumor incidence in the rat and mouse carcinogenicity studies. Mutagenic concern was not reported 

in the mutagenicity studies. 

FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. HEC = human equivalent concentration. HED = human equivalent dose. LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effect level. LOC = level of concern. mg/kg/day = milligram/kilogram/day. 

mg/L = milligram/Liter. MOE = margin of exposure. NOAEL = no observed adverse effect level. PAD = population-adjusted dose. POD = point 

of departure. 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). aThe magnitude of the UFs applied is dependent on the methodology used to calculate risk. The reference concentration (RfC) methodology 

takes into consideration the pharmacokinetic (PK) differences, but not the pharmacodynamic (PD) differences. Consequently, the UF for interspecies extrapolation may be reduced to 3x (to account for the PD differences). 

C. Exposure Assessment 

1. Dietary exposure from food and 

feed uses. In evaluating dietary 

exposure to cyantraniliprole, EPA 

considered exposure under the 

petitioned-for tolerances. EPA assessed 

dietary exposures from cyantraniliprole 

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. No such effects were 

identified in the toxicological studies 

for cyantraniliprole; therefore, a 

quantitative acute dietary exposure 

assessment is unnecessary. 

ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting 

the chronic dietary exposure assessment 

EPA used the food consumption data 

from the 2003–2008 food consumption 

data from the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture’s (USDA’s) National Health 

and Nutrition Examination Survey, 

What We Eat in America, (NHANES/

WWEIA). As to residue levels in food, 

EPA conducted a somewhat refined 

chronic (food and drinking water) 

dietary assessment assuming average 

field trial residues for all crops (except 

crop subgroup 1A which used tolerance 

levels). Tolerance-level residues were 

used to cover residues in all livestock 

commodities except liver and meat 

byproducts for which higher anticipated 

residue calculations were used. For 

processed commodities, input values 

included combined average residues of 

parent and the metabolite with relevant 

processing factors. It was assumed that 

100% crop treated (PCT) for all crops. 

iii. Cancer. Based on the data 

summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has 

concluded that cyantraniliprole does 

not pose a cancer risk to humans. 

Therefore, a dietary exposure 

assessment for the purpose of assessing 

cancer risk is unnecessary. 

iv. Anticipated residue information. 

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

authorizes EPA to use available data and 

information on the anticipated residue 

levels of pesticide residues in food and 

the actual levels of pesticide residues 

that have been measured in food. If EPA 

relies on such information, EPA must 

require pursuant to FFDCA section 

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

after the tolerance is established, 

modified, or left in effect, demonstrating 

that the levels in food are not above the 

levels anticipated. For the present 

action, EPA will issue such data call-ins 

as are required by FFDCA section 

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

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

required to be submitted no later than 

5 years from the date of issuance of 

these tolerances. 

2. Dietary exposure from drinking 

water. The Agency used screening level 

water exposure models in the dietary 

exposure analysis and risk assessment 

for cyantraniliprole in drinking water. 

These simulation models take into 

account data on the physical, chemical, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
6830 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 24 / Wednesday, February 5, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

and fate/transport characteristics of 

cyantraniliprole. Further information 

regarding EPA drinking water models 

used in pesticide exposure assessment 

can be found at http://www.epa.gov/

oppefed1/models/water/index.htm. 

Based on the First Index Reservoir 

Screening Tool (FIRST) and Screening 

Concentration in Ground Water (SCI– 

GROW) models, the estimated drinking 

water concentrations (EDWCs) of 

cyantraniliprole for acute exposures are 

estimated to be 43.14 parts per billion 

(ppb) for surface water and 6.33 ppb for 

ground water. For chronic exposures for 

non-cancer assessments EDWCs are also 

estimated to be 24.45 ppb for surface 

water and 6.33 for ground water. 

Modeled estimates of drinking water 

concentrations were directly entered 

into the dietary exposure model. An 

acute dietary risk assessment was not 

conducted since no acute toxicological 

effects were found. For chronic dietary 

risk assessment, the water concentration 

of value 24.45 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). 

Cyantraniliprole is proposed for use on 

the following sites that could result in 

residential exposures: indoor crack/

crevice application, turfgrass, golf 

courses, and ornamentals including 

both outdoors and in interior 

plantscapes. EPA assessed residential 

exposure using the following 

assumptions: Residential exposure may 

occur by the dermal, oral, and 

inhalation routes of exposures. 

However, since dermal hazard has not 

been identified for cyantraniliprole, the 

only exposures of concern are handler 

inhalation (for adults), and postapplication incidental oral (for 

children). Residential handler exposure 

is expected to be short-term in duration. 

The turf and ornamental labels indicate 

that a maximum of two applications are 

allowed per season. Thus, intermediateterm exposures are not likely because of 

the intermittent nature of applications 

by homeowners. Post-application 

incidental oral exposures for children 

may occur for short- and intermediateterm durations due to the persistence of 

cyantraniliprole. Further information 

regarding EPA standard assumptions 

and generic inputs for residential 

exposures may be found at http://

www.epa.gov/opp00001/science/

residential-exposure-sop.html. 

4. Cumulative effects from substances 

with a common mechanism of toxicity. 

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

requires that, when considering whether 

to establish, modify, or revoke a 

tolerance, the Agency consider 

‘‘available information’’ concerning the 

cumulative effects of a particular 

pesticide’s residues and ‘‘other 

substances that have a common 

mechanism of toxicity.’’ EPA has not 

found cyantraniliprole to share a 

common mechanism of toxicity with 

any other substances, and 

cyantraniliprole does not appear to 

produce a toxic metabolite produced by 

other substances. For the purposes of 

this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has 

assumed that cyantraniliprole does not 

have a common mechanism of toxicity 

with other substances. For information 

regarding EPA’s efforts to determine 

which chemicals have a common 

mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate 

the cumulative effects of such 

chemicals, see EPA’s Web site at http:// 

www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative. 

D. Safety Factor for Infants and 

Children 

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

FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply 

an additional tenfold (10x) margin of 

safety for infants and children in the 

case of threshold effects to account for 

prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the 

completeness of the database on toxicity 

and exposure unless EPA determines 

based on reliable data that a different 

margin of safety will be safe for infants 

and children. This additional margin of 

safety is commonly referred to as the 

Food Quality Protection Act Safety 

Factor (FQPA SF). In applying this 

provision, EPA either retains the default 

value of 10x, or uses a different 

additional SF when reliable data 

available to EPA support the choice of 

a different factor. 

2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. 

There is no evidence of susceptibility in 

developmental toxicity studies in rats 

and rabbits. The developmental toxicity 

study in rats is tested up to the limit 

dose (1,000 mg/kg/day). In the rabbit 

developmental toxicity study decrease 

in fetal body weight is seen at a dose 

higher than that resulting in maternal 

effects. In the reproductive toxicity 

study, increased incidence of thyroid 

follicular epithelium hypertrophy/

hyperplasia occurs in F1 parental 

animals (offspring of P0 generation) at 

14 mg/kg/day which is lower than that 

for the parental (P0) generation (110 mg/ 

kg/day). A clear NOAEL (1.4 mg/kg/day) 

is established for F1 parental animals, 

and the PODs selected for risk 

assessment from the dog studies (1 or 3 

mg/kg/day) are protective of the effect 

(thyroid effect) seen in the F1 parental 

animals. In addition, the submitted data 

support the conclusion that the effects 

on the thyroid are secondary to effects 

on the liver. 

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 1. That decision is 

based on the following findings: 

i. The toxicity database for 

cyantraniliprole is complete. 

ii. There is no indication that 

cyantraniliprole is a neurotoxic 

chemical and there is no need for a 

developmental neurotoxicity study or 

additional UFs to account for 

neurotoxicity. 

iii. As discussed in Unit III.D.2., there 

is no evidence that cyantraniliprole 

results in increased susceptibility in in 

utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal 

developmental studies. 

iv. There are no residual uncertainties 

identified in the exposure databases. 

The dietary food exposure assessments 

were performed based on 100 PCT and 

average field trial residues. The field 

trial data were validated against the 

appropriate guideline criteria and found 

acceptable. The field trial data reflect 

the maximum residues that are likely to 

occur on food commodities when 

cyantraniliprole is used according to 

label directions at the maximum 

allowed application rate and minimum 

allowed interval from treatment to 

harvest. These are farm gate residues 

and do not reflect decreases in residues 

that may occur during transport and 

storage prior to consumption. No 

corrections were made for the 

percentage of crops treated, that is, it 

was assumed that 100% of all crops for 

which there is a cyantraniliprole 

tolerance will be treated. Therefore, the 

data are considered unlikely to 

underestimate actual dietary exposure 

to cyantraniliprole. EPA made 

conservative (protective) assumptions in 

the ground and surface water modeling 

used to assess exposure to 

cyantraniliprole in drinking water. In 

addition, the residential exposure 

assessment is based on the updated 

2012 Residential Standard Operating 

Procedures (SOPs) employing surrogate 

study data, including conservative 

exposure assumptions based on day 0 

dermal/oral contact to turf and surfaces 

treated at the maximum application 

rate. These data are reliable and are not 

expected to underestimate risks to 

adults or children. The Residential 

SOPs are based upon reasonable ‘‘worstcase’’ assumptions are not expected to 

underestimate risk. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 24 / Wednesday, February 5, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 6831 

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of 

Safety 

EPA determines whether acute and 

chronic dietary pesticide exposures are 

safe by comparing aggregate exposure 

estimates to the acute 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. An acute aggregate risk 

assessment takes into account acute 

exposure estimates from dietary 

consumption of food and drinking 

water. No adverse effect resulting from 

a single oral exposure was identified 

and no acute dietary endpoint was 

selected. Therefore, cyantraniliprole is 

not expected to pose an acute risk. 

2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure 

assumptions described in this unit for 

chronic exposure, EPA has concluded 

that chronic exposure to 

cyantraniliprole from food and water 

will utilize 50% of the cPAD for 

children 1–2 years old (the population 

group receiving the greatest exposure) 

and 22% of the general U.S. population. 

3. Short-term risk. Short-term 

aggregate exposure takes into account 

short-term residential exposure plus 

chronic exposure to food and water 

(considered to be a background 

exposure level). Cyantraniliprole is 

proposed for uses that could result in 

short-term residential exposure, and the 

Agency has determined that it is 

appropriate to aggregate chronic 

exposure through food and water with 

short-term residential exposures to 

cyantraniliprole. Residential exposure 

estimates of all possible scenarios are 

not of concern. Short-term inhalation 

MOEs range from 22,000 to 220,000,000. 

Furthermore, these calculated risk 

estimates are highly conservative 

because the inhalation exposure POD is 

based on an exposure duration of 24 

hours per day. 

Using the exposure assumptions 

described in this unit for short-term 

exposures, EPA has concluded the 

combined short-term food, water, and 

residential exposures result in aggregate 

MOEs of 290 for children 1–2 years old 

(the population group receiving the 

greatest exposure) and 22,000 for adults. 

Because EPA’s LOC for cyantraniliprole 

is a MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs 

are not of concern. 

4. Intermediate-term risk. 

Intermediate-term aggregate exposure 

takes into account intermediate-term 

residential exposure plus chronic 

exposure to food and water (considered 

to be a background exposure level). For 

adults, intermediate-term exposure is 

not expected for the residential 

exposure pathway. Therefore, the 

intermediate-term aggregate risk would 

be equivalent to the chronic dietary 

exposure estimate. For children 1 to <2 

years old, the short-term aggregate risk 

is protective of the intermediate-term 

duration. 

5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. 

population. Based on the lack of 

evidence of carcinogenicity in two 

adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies, 

cyantraniliprole is not expected to pose 

a cancer risk to humans. 

6. Determination of safety. Based on 

these risk assessments, EPA concludes 

that there is a reasonable certainty that 

no harm will result to the general 

population or to infants and children 

from aggregate exposure to 

cyantraniliprole residues. 

IV. Other Considerations 

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology 

Adequate residue analytical method 

data have been submitted. Validation 

data have been provided for the 

proposed enforcement methods. 

Methods for measuring cyantraniliprole 

include the European Union (EU) multiresidue method DFG S19 (LC/MS/MS 

module, Dupont-21328) and the North 

American Free Trade Association 

(NAFTA) LC/MS/MS 1187 and 1552 

methods. These methods utilize two 

mass ion transitions so confirmatory 

methods are not required. EU Method 

DFG S19 has been independently 

validated with a limit of quantification 

(LOQ) of 0.01 ppm for parent 

cyantraniliprole in cereals and dry 

products, matrices with high water 

content, acidic matrices, and fatty 

products. NAFTA method 1187 has 

been independently validated with an 

LOQ of 0.01 ppm for parent 

cyantraniliprole in almonds, onions, 

tomato paste, and sun dried tomatoes. 

NAFTA method 1552 has been 

independently validated with an LOQ of 

0.01 ppm for parent cyantraniliprole in 

milk, muscle, and kidney. Note that 

cyantraniliprole is not recovered using 

the Food and Drug Administration 

(FDA) multi-residue methods. 

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. Currently there 

are no Codex MRLs for cyantraniliprole. 

C. Response to Comments 

The Agency did not receive any 

public comments on the May 23, 2012 

Federal Register Notice of Filing. 

D. Revisions to Petitioned-For 

Tolerances 

Based on the residue data provided 

and using the Organization of Economic 

Cooperation and Development (OECD) 

statistical calculation procedures, EPA 

is revising the tolerance levels for the 

following plant commodities: Almond 

hulls; Brassica head and stem vegetables 

(subgroup 5A); fruit, pome (group 11– 

10); fruit, stone; nut, tree (group 14–12); 

oilseed (group 20); vegetable, cucurbit 

(group 9); and vegetable, leafy (except 

Brassica) (group 4). 

The proposed tolerance for citrus oil 

was lowered from 4 ppm to 2.4 ppm, 

consistent with the results from 

application of the median processing 

factor to the highest average field trials 

(HAFT) for oranges. EPA is not 

establishing tolerances for the processed 

commodities citrus raw peel and potato 

wet peel. The processing studies do not 

show a concentration of residue in these 

commodities relative to the raw 

agricultural commodities (RAC); 

therefore, the tolerances on RAC are 

sufficient to cover residues in these 

processed commodities. 

EPA is not establishing separate 

tolerances for liver of cattle, goat, horse, 

and sheep; hog fat, liver, meat, and meat 

byproducts; and milk fat. The livestock 

commodity tolerances are derived from 

consideration of the maximum 

reasonably balanced livestock diets and 

the livestock feeding studies. A 

tolerance value of 0.01 ppm is 

appropriate for liver (of cattle, goat, 

horse, and sheep), which is covered by 

the meat byproducts tolerance. The 

dietary exposures of hogs and poultry 

do not indicate a need for tolerances 

(residues are not anticipated), and there 

is no indication of significant 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
6832 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 24 / Wednesday, February 5, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

concentration of cyantraniliprole in 

milk fat relative to milk. 

With the exception of the proposed 

tolerance for leaves of root and tuber 

vegetables, EPA is revising all of the 

proposed tolerances for inadvertent 

residues (with a plantback interval (PBI) 

of 30 days) based on available residue 

data and use of the OECD statistical 

calculation procedures. For some crop 

groups, more than one tolerance was 

proposed for various components of the 

group (e.g., crop group 16 which 

includes forage, fodder, and straw of 

cereal grains); however, only one 

tolerance is possible per group, and the 

tolerance is based on the member 

commodity with the highest residue 

levels. 

EPA issued a final rule in the Federal 

Register of August 22, 2012 (77 FR 

50617) (FRL–9354–3) that revised some 

crop grouping regulations. As part of 

that action, EPA expanded and revised 

the previously existing tree nut crop 

group 14. Changes to crop group 14 

included adding pistachios plus a 

number of other nuts, revising the 

taxonomic names for several 

commodities, and naming the new crop 

group tree nut group 14–12. The 

representative commodities remain the 

same as previous almond and pecan. 

That final rule became effective on 

October 22, 2012. EPA indicated in the 

August 22, 2012 final rule as well as the 

earlier proposed rule published in the 

Federal Register of November 9, 2011 

(76 FR 69693) (FRL–8887–8) that, for 

existing petitions for which a Notice of 

Filing had been published, the Agency 

would attempt to conform these 

petitions to the rule. Therefore, 

consistent with this rule, EPA has 

assessed and is establishing a tolerance 

for cyantraniliprole on tree nuts crop 

group 14–12. 

V. Conclusion 

Therefore, tolerances are established 

for residues of cyantraniliprole, 3-bromo

-1-(3-chloro-2-pyridinyl)-N-[4-cyano-2-

methyl-6-[(methylamino)carbonyl]

phenyl]-1H-pyrazole-5-carboxamide, 

including its metabolites and 

degradates, in or on almond, hulls at 8.0 

ppm; Brassica head and stem (subgroup 

5A) at 3.0 ppm; Brassica leafy 

vegetables (subgroup 5B) at 30 ppm; 

bushberry (subgroup 13–07B) at 4.0 

ppm; cattle, fat at 0.01 ppm; cattle, meat 

at 0.01 ppm; cattle, meat byproducts at 

0.01 ppm; cherry (subgroup 12–12A) at 

6.0 ppm; citrus, oil at 2.4 ppm; cotton, 

gin byproducts at 10 ppm; fruit, citrus 

(group 10–10) at 0.70 ppm; fruit, pome 

(group 11–10) at 1.5 ppm; goat, fat at 

0.01 ppm; goat, meat at 0.01 ppm; goat, 

meat byproducts at 0.01 ppm; horse, fat 

at 0.01 ppm; horse, meat at 0.01 ppm; 

horse, meat byproducts at 0.01 ppm; 

milk at 0.01 ppm; nut, tree (group 14– 

12) at 0.04 ppm; oilseed (group 20) at 

1.5 ppm; onion, bulb (subgroup 3–07A) 

at 0.04 ppm; onion, green (subgroup 3– 

07B) at 8.0 ppm; peach (subgroup 12– 

12B) at 1.5 ppm; plum (subgroup 12– 

12C) at 0.50 ppm; sheep, fat at 0.01 

ppm; sheep, meat at 0.01 ppm; sheep, 

meat byproducts at 0.01 ppm; vegetable, 

cucurbit (group 9) at 0.40 ppm; 

vegetable, fruiting (group 8–10) at 2.0 

ppm; vegetable, leafy (except Brassica) 

(group 4) at 20 ppm; vegetable, tuberous 

and corm (subgroup 1C) at 0.15 ppm. In 

addition, indirect or inadvertent 

tolerances for cyantraniliprole, 3-bromo

-1-(3-chloro-2-pyridinyl)-N-[4-cyano-2-

methyl-6-[(methylamino)carbonyl]

phenyl]-1H-pyrazole-5-carboxamide), 

including its metabolites and 

degradates, in or on the following 

commodities: Animal feed, nongrass 

(group 18) at 0.20 ppm; grain, cereal, 

forage, fodder and straw (group 16) at 

0.50 ppm; grass forage, fodder and hay 

(group 17) at 0.50 ppm; peanut, hay at 

0.01 ppm; vegetable, foliage of legume 

(group 7) at 0.70 ppm; vegetable, leaves 

of root and tuber vegetables (group 2) at 

0.04 ppm; vegetable, root (subgroup 1A) 

at 0.02 ppm. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This final rule establishes tolerances 

under FFDCA section 408(d) in 

response to a petition submitted to the 

Agency. The Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) has exempted these types 

of actions from review under Executive 

Order 12866, entitled ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993). Because this final rule 

has been exempted from review under 

Executive Order 12866, this final rule is 

not subject to Executive Order 13211, 

entitled ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive 

Order 13045, entitled ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997). This final rule does not 

contain any information collections 

subject to OMB approval under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require 

any special considerations under 

Executive Order 12898, entitled 

‘‘Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income 

Populations’’ (59 FR 7629, February 16, 

1994). 

Since tolerances and exemptions that 

are established on the basis of a petition 

under FFDCA section 408(d), such as 

the tolerance in this final rule, do not 

require the issuance of a proposed rule, 

the requirements of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et 

seq.), do not apply. 

This final rule directly regulates 

growers, food processors, food handlers, 

and food retailers, not States or tribes, 

nor does this action alter the 

relationships or distribution of power 

and responsibilities established by 

Congress in the preemption provisions 

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

the Agency has determined that this 

action will not have a substantial direct 

effect on States or tribal governments, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States or tribal 

governments, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government or between 

the Federal Government and Indian 

tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined 

that Executive Order 13132, entitled 

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

1999) and Executive Order 13175, 

entitled ‘‘Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply 

to this final rule. In addition, this final 

rule does not impose any enforceable 

duty or contain any unfunded mandate 

as described under Title II of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(UMRA) (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 of 1995 

(NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). 

VII. Congressional Review Act 

Pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), EPA will 

submit a report containing this rule and 

other required information to the U.S. 

Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. This action is not a ‘‘major 

rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides 

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: January 24, 2014. 

Steven Bradbury, 

Director, Office of Pesticide Programs. 

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is 

amended as follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 24 / Wednesday, February 5, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 6833 

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. Add new § 180.672 to subpart C to 

read as follows: 

§ 180.672 Cyantraniliprole; tolerances for 

residues. 

(a) General. Tolerances are 

established for the combined residues of 

the insecticide cyantraniliprole, 3-

bromo-1-(3-chloro-2-pyridinyl)-N-[4-

cyano-2-methyl-6-[(methylamino)

carbonyl]phenyl]-1H-pyrazole-5-

carboxamide, including its metabolites 

and degradates, in or on commodities in 

the following table. Compliance with 

the tolerance levels specified in the 

following table is to be determined by 

measuring only cyantraniliprole in or on 

the commodity. 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Almond, hulls ............................ 8.0 

Brassica head and stem (subgroup 5A) .............................. 3.0 

Brassica leafy vegetables (subgroup 5B) .............................. 30 

Bushberry (subgroup 13–07B) 4.0 

Cattle, fat .................................. 0.01 

Cattle, meat .............................. 0.01 

Cattle, meat byproducts ........... 0.01 

Cherry (subgroup 12–12A) ....... 6.0 

Citrus, oil ................................... 2.4 

Cotton, gin byproducts ............. 10 

Fruit, citrus (group 10–10) ........ 0.70 

Fruit, pome (group 11–10) ....... 1.5 

Goat, fat .................................... 0.01 

Goat, meat ................................ 0.01 

Goat, meat byproducts ............. 0.01 

Horse, fat .................................. 0.01 

Horse, meat .............................. 0.01 

Horse, meat byproducts ........... 0.01 

Milk ........................................... 0.01 

Nut, tree (group 14–12) ............ 0.04 

Oilseed (group 20) .................... 1.5 

Onion, bulb (subgroup 3–07A) 0.04 

Onion, green (subgroup 3–07B) 8.0 

Peach (subgroup 12–12B) ....... 1.5 

Plum (subgroup 12–12C) ......... 0.50 

Sheep, fat ................................. 0.01 

Sheep, meat ............................. 0.01 

Sheep, meat byproducts .......... 0.01 

Vegetable, cucurbit (group 9) ... 0.40 

Vegetable, fruiting (group 8–10) 2.0 

Vegetable, leafy (except Brassica) (group 4) ....................... 20 

Vegetable, tuberous and corm 

(subgroup 1C) ....................... 0.15 

(b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. 

[Reserved] 

(c) Tolerances with regional 

registrations. [Reserved] 

(d) Indirect or inadvertent residues. 

Tolerances are established for indirect 

or inadvertent tolerances for residues of 

cyantraniliprole, 3-bromo-1-(3-chloro-2-

pyridinyl)-N-[4-cyano-2-methyl-6-

[(methylamino)carbonyl]phenyl]-1Hpyrazole-5-carboxamide, including its 

metabolites and degradates, in or on 

commodities in the following table. 

Compliance with the tolerance levels 

specified in the following table is to be 

determined by measuring only 

cyantraniliprole in or on the 

commodity. 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Animal feed, nongrass (group 

18) ......................................... 0.20 

Grain, cereal, forage, fodder 

and straw (group 16) ............ 0.50 

Grass forage, fodder and hay 

(group 17) ............................. 0.50 

Peanut, hay .............................. 0.01 

Vegetable, foliage of legume 

(group 7) ............................... 0.70 

Vegetable, leaves of root and 

tuber vegetables (group 2) ... 0.04 

Vegetable, root (subgroup 1A) 0.02 

[FR Doc. 2014–02210 Filed 2–4–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

44 CFR Part 64 

[Docket ID FEMA–2013–0002; Internal 

Agency Docket No. FEMA–8321] 

Suspension of Community Eligibility 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule identifies 

communities where the sale of flood 

insurance has been authorized under 

the National Flood Insurance Program 

(NFIP) that are scheduled for 

suspension on the effective dates listed 

within this rule because of 

noncompliance with the floodplain 

management requirements of the 

program. If the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) receives 

documentation that the community has 

adopted the required floodplain 

management measures prior to the 

effective suspension date given in this 

rule, the suspension will not occur and 

a notice of this will be provided by 

publication in the Federal Register on a 

subsequent date. Also, information 

identifying the current participation 

status of a community can be obtained 

from FEMA’s Community Status Book 

(CSB). The CSB is available at http://

www.fema.gov/fema/csb.shtm. 

DATES: Effective Dates: The effective 

date of each community’s scheduled 

suspension is the third date (‘‘Susp.’’) 

listed in the third column of the 

following tables. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you want to determine whether a 

particular community was suspended 

on the suspension date or for further 

information, contact David Stearrett, 

Federal Insurance and Mitigation 

Administration, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–2953. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP 

enables property owners to purchase 

Federal flood insurance that is not 

otherwise generally available from 

private insurers. In return, communities 

agree to adopt and administer local 

floodplain management measures aimed 

at protecting lives and new construction 

from future flooding. Section 1315 of 

the National Flood Insurance Act of 

1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, 

prohibits the sale of NFIP flood 

insurance unless an appropriate public 

body adopts adequate floodplain 

management measures with effective 

enforcement measures. The 

communities listed in this document no 

longer meet that statutory requirement 

for compliance with program 

regulations, 44 CFR part 59. 

Accordingly, the communities will be 

suspended on the effective date in the 

third column. As of that date, flood 

insurance will no longer be available in 

the community. We recognize that some 

of these communities may adopt and 

submit the required documentation of 

legally enforceable floodplain 

management measures after this rule is 

published but prior to the actual 

suspension date. These communities 

will not be suspended and will continue 

to be eligible for the sale of NFIP flood 

insurance. A notice withdrawing the 

suspension of such communities will be 

published in the Federal Register. 

In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood 

Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that 

identifies the Special Flood Hazard 

Areas (SFHAs) in these communities. 

The date of the FIRM, if one has been 

published, is indicated in the fourth 

column of the table. No direct Federal 

financial assistance (except assistance 

pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford 

Disaster Relief and Emergency 

Assistance Act not in connection with a 

flood) may be provided for construction 

or acquisition of buildings in identified 

SFHAs for communities not 

participating in the NFIP and identified 

for more than a year on FEMA’s initial 

FIRM for the community as having 

flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES