5294 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 21 / Friday, January 31, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

replacement; see paragraph (c)(130) of 

this section. 

* * * * * 

(130) On June 20, 2013, the Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources 

submitted a request to remove the state’s 

TSP air quality standard, sections NR 

404.02(11), NR 404.04(3), and NR 

484.04(3) of the Wisconsin 

Administrative Code, from the state’s air 

quality State Implementation Plan. 

(i) [Reserved] 

(ii) Additional material. Wisconsin 

Natural Resources Board October 6, 

2011, Board Order AM–23–07B to 

repeal the state’s TSP air quality 

standard, as published in the Wisconsin 

Administrative Register November 2011, 

No. 671, effective December 1, 2011. 

[FR Doc. 2014–01900 Filed 1–30–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, South Coast Air 

Quality Management District 

CFR Correction 

■ In Title 40 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, Part 52 (§§ 52.01 to 

52.1018), revised as of July 1, 2013, on 

page 277, in § 52.220, the paragraph 

designation for paragraph (311)(A)(i)(2) 

is italicized and the paragraph is moved 

to before paragraph (311)(A)(i)(3). 

[FR Doc. 2014–02088 Filed 1–30–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0515; FRL–9904–27] 

Diflubenzuron; Pesticide Tolerances 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes 

tolerances for residues of diflubenzuron 

(N-[[(4-chlorophenyl)amino]carbonyl]- 

2,6-difluorobenzimide) in or on fruit, 

citrus, group 10–10 and citrus, oil. 

Chemtura Corporation, requested these 

tolerances under the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). 

DATES: This regulation is effective 

January 31, 2014. Objections and 

requests for hearings must be received 

on or before April 1, 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–2012–0515, 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, 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: 

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–2012–0515 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 1, 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– 

2012–0515, 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 September 

12, 2013 (78 FR 56185) (FRL–9399–7), 

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 2F8015) by 

Chemtura Corporation,199 Benson 

Road, Middlebury, CT 06749. The 

petition requested that 40 CFR 180.377 

be amended by establishing tolerances 

for residues of the insecticide 

diflubenzuron, (DFB) and its 

metabolites 4-chlorophenylurea (CPU) 

and 4-chloroaniline (PCA), in or on 

fruit, citrus, group 10–10 at 3.0 parts per 

million (ppm), and citrus, oil at 32.0 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 21 / Friday, January 31, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 5295 

ppm. That document referenced a 

summary of the petition prepared by 

Chemtura Corporation, the registrant, 

which is available in the docket, http:// 

www.regulations.gov. There were no 

comments received in response to the 

notice of filing. 

In conjunction with this rulemaking, 

EPA has updated the tolerance 

expression to be consistent with the 

FFDCA. See Unit IV.D. EPA is also 

removing the existing tolerances for 

grapefruit, orange, pummelo, and 

tangerine that are made redundant by 

establishment of the crop group 

tolerance for citrus. 

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 diflubenzuron 

including exposure resulting from the 

tolerances established by this action. 

EPA’s assessment of exposures and risks 

associated with diflubenzuron follows. 

A. Toxicological Profile 

EPA has evaluated the available 

toxicity data and considered its validity, 

completeness, and reliability as well as 

the relationship of the results of the 

studies to human risk. EPA has also 

considered available information 

concerning the variability of the 

sensitivities of major identifiable 

subgroups of consumers, including 

infants and children. 

The acute oral, dermal and inhalation 

toxicity of diflubenzuron is low. It is a 

mild eye irritant and not a skin irritant 

in laboratory animals. It is negative for 

sensitization in the guinea pig. In 

subchronic and chronic feeding studies, 

the primary endpoint of concern was 

methemoglobinemia and/or 

sulfhemoglobinemia. These effects were 

evident in both sexes of mice, rats, and 

dogs and were produced by more than 

one route of administration in rats (i.e., 

oral, dermal and inhalation). The 

general consequence of 

methemoglobinemia and/or 

sulfhemoglobinemia is the impairment 

of the oxygen transportation capacity of 

the blood, which is generally known to 

be caused by aromatic amines in both 

humans and animals. Degradates of 

diflubenzuron with aromatic amines, 

CPU and PCA, are also included in the 

diflubenzuron non-cancer risk 

assessment. CPU, an analog of monuron, 

does not effect methemoglobin 

formation but does produce tumors in 

the liver and kidneys of male rats. The 

toxicity of PCA is well understood with 

methemoglobin formation the primary 

systemic effect. PCA is similar in 

potency to diflubenzuron on 

methemoglobin formation. Therefore, 

the non-cancer assessment will include 

diflubenzuron, CPU and PCA. Since the 

toxicity of CPU and PCA is well 

understood, additional toxicity studies 

are not required. 

The toxicity data provide no 

indication of an increased susceptibility 

to rats or to rabbits from in utero or 

postnatal exposure to diflubenzuron. 

Developmental and reproduction 

studies in rats and rabbits indicate a 

very low hazard potential for adverse 

effects. Developmental studies were 

tested at the limit dose of 1,000 

milligrams/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day) 

without apparent effects in both dams 

and the fetuses. The reproduction study 

indicated that effects in offspring 

occurred at doses that were higher than 

the doses producing effects in parents. 

The requirement for acute and 

subchronic neurotoxicity studies were 

recently waived because there are no 

clear signs of neurotoxicity following 

subchronic or chronic dosing in 

multiple species in the diflubenzuron 

database. The toxicity profile of 

diflubenzuron shows that the principal 

toxic effects are the formation of 

methemoglobinemia and/or 

sulfhemoglobinemia in the blood. The 

immunotoxicity study has been 

reviewed and immunotoxicity was not 

observed above the limit dose. 

The Agency concluded that 

diflubenzuron is not carcinogenic in 

humans based on lack of evidence of 

carcinogenicity in rats and mice. PCA, 

a plant metabolite of diflubenzuron, 

tested positive for splenic tumors in 

male rats and hepatocellular adenomas/ 

carcinomas in male mice in a National 

Toxicology Program (NTP) study. 

Therefore, EPA has treated PCA as a 

probable human carcinogen. CPU is the 

major degradate found in water and is 

a significant metabolite in milk. CPU is 

structurally related to monuron (N,Ndimethyl-CPU), a compound producing 

tumors of the kidney and liver in male 

rats. EPA has assumed CPU is a 

probable human carcinogen as well. 

Specific information on the studies 

received and the nature of the adverse 

effects caused by diflubenzuron as well 

as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level 

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

toxicity studies can be found at http:// 

www.regulations.gov in document, 

‘‘Diflubenzuron: Human Health Risk 

Assessment for an Amended Section 3 

Registration for the Expanded Citrus 

Crop Group 10–10.’’ in docket ID 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0515. 

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 the NOAEL and the 

LOAEL are identified. Uncertainty/

safety factors are used in conjunction 

with the POD to calculate a safe 

exposure level—generally referred to as 

a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a 

reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin 

of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold 

risks, the Agency assumes that any 

amount of exposure will lead to some 

degree of risk. Thus, the Agency 

estimates risk in terms of the probability 

of an occurrence of the adverse effect 

expected in a lifetime. For more 

information on the general principles 

EPA uses in risk characterization and a 

complete description of the risk 

assessment process, see http://

www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/

riskassess.htm. 

A summary of the toxicological 

endpoints for diflubenzuron used for 

human risk assessment is shown in 

Table 1 and 2 of this unit. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
5296 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 21 / Friday, January 31, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF TOXICOLOGICAL DOSES AND ENDPOINTS FOR DIFLUBENZURON FOR USE IN DIETARY HUMAN

HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENTS

Exposure/scenario POD Uncertainty/ 

FQPA safety factors 

RfD, PAD, LOC 

for risk 

assessment 

Study and 

toxicological effects 

Acute dietary all populations ........ N/A ............................. N/A ............................. No appropriate endpoint attributable to single exposure 

was available 

Chronic dietary all populations .... NOAEL = 2 mg/kg/day UFA = 10X 

UFH = 10X 

FQPA SF = 1X 

cPAD = chronic RfD 

FQPA SF = 0.02 

mg/kg/day.

Chronic dog study 00146174. 

LOAEL = 10 mg/kg/day based on 

methemoglobinemia and 

sulfhemoglobinemia. 

Cancer (all routes) Diflubenzuron Classification: ‘‘Group E’’ evidence of non- carcinogenicity for humans. 

Cancer (oral, dermal, inhalation) PCA ‘‘Group B2’’ 

probably human 

carcinogen Q1*.

1.12 × 10¥1 (mg/kg/ 

day)¥1

N/A ............................. NTP oral mouse study. 

Cancer (oral, dermal, inhalation) CPU Q1* based on 

monuron a structural analog and the 

Q1* 1.52 × 10¥2.

N/A ............................. NTP oral rat study. 

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. 

NOAEL = no observed adverse effect level. LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effect level. UF = uncertainty factor. UFA = extrapolation from 

animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies). FQPA SF = Food 

Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. MOE = margin of exposure. LOC = level of concern. N/A = not applicable. 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF TOXICOLOGICAL DOSES AND ENDPOINTS FOR DIFLUBENZURON FOR USE IN RESIDENTIAL AND

OCCUPATIONAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENTS

Exposure/scenario POD Uncertainty/ 

factors 

Level of 

concern 

for risk 

assessment 

Study and 

toxicological effects 

Short- and intermediate-term incidental oral (1 day–6 months) 

(residential).

N/A ............................. N/A ............................. N/A ............................. These endpoints were not evaluated. There are no registered 

uses of diflubenzuron which result in significant residential exposure. 

Short-term dermal (1–30 days) 

(occupational).

NOAEL = 500 mg/kg/ 

day.

UFA = 10X .................

UFH = 10X 

LOC for MOE = 100 .. 21-day rat dermal 

LOAEL = 1,000 mg/kg/day based 

on methemoglobinemia. 

Dermal intermediate term (1–6 

months).

NOAEL = 2 mg/kg/day UFA = 10X .................

UFH = 10X 

dermal absorption: 

0.5%.

LOC for MOE = 100 .. 13—week oral dog 

LOAEL = 6.4 mg/kg/day based 

on methemoglobinemia. 

Inhalation short term (1–30 days) NOAEL = 0.109 mg/L 

NOAEL = 20.30 1 mg/ 

kg/day 

UFA = 10X .................

UFH = 10X 

LOC for MOE = 100 .. 28-day Inhalation rat study. 

No effect at HDT 2, 0.109 mg/L. 

Inhalation intermediate term (1–6 

months).

NOAEL = 0.109 mg/L 

NOAEL = 20.30 1 mg/ 

kg/day 

UFA = 10X .................

UFH =10X 

LOC for MOE = 100 .. 28-day Inhalation rat study. 

No effect at HDT, 0.109 mg/L. 

Inhalation long term (1–6 months) NOAEL = 2 mg/kg/day UFA = 10X .................

UFH = 10X 

LOC for MOE = 100 .. Chronic dog study. 

LOAEL = 10 mg/kg/day based on 

methemoglobinemia and 

sulfhemoglobinemia. 

Cancer (all routes) ....................... Classification: ‘‘Group E’’ evidence of non- carcinogenicity for humans. 

1 Conversion from mg/L to oral dose (mg/kg/day) = mg/L × absorption (1.0) × Respiratory Volume (Sprague-Dawley rats) for 6 hours/d × Duration of Exposure (5 d/week)/body weight × 7 d/week = 0.109 mg/L × 1.0 × (0.26(RV) × 6 hrs) × 5 d/wk ÷ 0.236 kg × 7 d/wk = 20.3 mg/kg/day 

(TXR 0050503). 2 Highest Dose Tested. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 21 / Friday, January 31, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 5297 

C. Exposure Assessment 

1. Dietary exposure from food and 

feed uses. In evaluating dietary 

exposure to diflubenzuron, EPA 

considered exposure under the 

petitioned-for tolerances as well as all 

existing diflubenzuron tolerances in 40 

CFR 180.377. EPA assessed dietary 

exposures from diflubenzuron 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 diflubenzuron; therefore, a 

quantitative acute dietary exposure 

assessment is unnecessary. 

ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting 

the chronic non-cancer dietary exposure 

assessment, EPA used the food 

consumption data from the United 

States Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) National Health and Nutrition 

Examination Survey, ‘‘What We Eat in 

America’’ (NHANES/WWEIA) from 

2003 through 2008. As to residue levels 

in food, EPA used the assumption that 

diflubenzuron residues are present in 

most commodities at tolerance levels 

(including tolerances previously 

established as well as those established 

in this action) and that 100% of all 

crops are treated. Average field trial 

residues were assumed for grapefruit, 

lemon, and orange. Tolerances include 

residues of diflubenzuron, PCA, and 

CPU. 

iii. Cancer. Based on the data 

summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has 

concluded that diflubenzuron does not 

pose a cancer risk to humans. However, 

metabolites CPU and PCA are 

considered probable carcinogens and 

have Q*s assigned to them. Individual 

cancer dietary exposure analyses were 

conducted for each metabolite. For PCA, 

average percent crop treated (PCT) was 

used for some commodities. One-half 

the Limit of Quantitation (LOQ) was 

used for estimating PCA residues on the 

majority of crops because most crops 

did not contain detectable residues of 

PCA. Average field trial residue was 

used for mushrooms. The CPU cancer 

dietary analysis focused on CPU 

residues in milk because metabolism 

studies indicate that diflubenzuron 

metabolizes to CPU in milk. EPA 

assumed that 100% of milk 

commodities contained CPU at 1⁄2 the 

LOQ. One-half the LOQ was used since 

detectable residues of CPU were not 

found in the feeding study. 

iv. Anticipated residue and PCT 

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 CallIns 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. 

Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states 

that the Agency may use data on the 

actual percent of food treated for 

assessing chronic dietary risk only if: 

• Condition a: The data used are 

reliable and provide a valid basis to 

show what percentage of the food 

derived from such crop is likely to 

contain the pesticide residue. 

• Condition b: The exposure estimate 

does not underestimate exposure for any 

significant subpopulation group. 

• Condition c: Data are available on 

pesticide use and food consumption in 

a particular area, the exposure estimate 

does not understate exposure for the 

population in such area. 

In addition, the Agency must provide 

for periodic evaluation of any estimates 

used. To provide for the periodic 

evaluation of the estimate of PCT as 

required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(F), 

EPA may require registrants to submit 

data on PCT. 

The Agency estimated the PCT for 

existing uses as follows: Almond (10%), 

apricot (10%), artichoke (50%), cotton 

(1%), grapefruit (15%), oranges (5%), 

peach (5%), peanut (5%), pear (5%), 

pecan (2.5%), peppers (1%), rice (1%), 

soybeans (1%), tangerines (5%), and 

wheat (1%). 

In most cases, EPA uses available data 

from USDA/National Agricultural 

Statistics Service (NASS), proprietary 

market surveys, and the National 

Pesticide Use Database for the chemical/ 

crop combination for the most recent 6 

to 7 years. EPA uses an average PCT for 

chronic dietary risk analysis. The 

average PCT figure for each existing use 

is derived by combining available 

public and private market survey data 

for that use, averaging across all 

observations, and rounding to the 

nearest 5%, except for those situations 

in which the average PCT is less than 

one. In those cases, 1% is used as the 

average PCT and 2.5% is used as the 

maximum PCT. EPA uses a maximum 

PCT for acute dietary risk analysis. The 

maximum PCT figure is the highest 

observed maximum value reported 

within the recent 6 years of available 

public and private market survey data 

for the existing use and rounded up to 

the nearest multiple of 5%. 

The Agency believes that the three 

conditions discussed in Unit III.C.1.iv. 

have been met. With respect to 

Condition a, PCT estimates are derived 

from Federal and private market survey 

data, which are reliable and have a valid 

basis. The Agency is reasonably certain 

that the percentage of the food treated 

is not likely to be an underestimation. 

As to Conditions b and c, regional 

consumption information and 

consumption information for significant 

subpopulations is taken into account 

through EPA’s computer-based model 

for evaluating the exposure of 

significant subpopulations, including 

several regional groups. Use of this 

consumption information in EPA’s risk 

assessment process ensures that EPA’s 

exposure estimate does not understate 

exposure for any significant 

subpopulation group and allows the 

Agency to be reasonably certain that no 

regional population is exposed to 

residue levels higher than those 

estimated by the Agency. Other than the 

data available through national food 

consumption surveys, EPA does not 

have available reliable information on 

the regional consumption of food to 

which diflubenzuron may be applied in 

a particular area. 

2. Dietary exposure from drinking 

water. The Agency used screening level 

water exposure models in the dietary 

exposure analysis and risk assessment 

for diflubenzuron in drinking water. 

These simulation models take into 

account data on the physical, chemical, 

and fate/transport characteristics of 

diflubenzuron. 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. 

Modeled estimates of drinking water 

concentrations were directly entered 

into the dietary exposure model. 

Based on the Pesticide Root Zone 

Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling 

System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Screening 

Concentration in Ground Water (SCI– 

GROW) models, the Estimated Drinking 

Water Concentrations (EDWC) of 12.8 

microgram/Liter (mg/L) (including 

diflubenzuron and CPU) was used to 

assess chronic non-cancer dietary risk. 

CPU cancer risk was assessed using the 

EDWC of 8.81 mg/L. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
5298 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 21 / Friday, January 31, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

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). 

Although there are no registered 

homeowner uses, there are registered 

uses for professional applications to 

outdoor trees and ornamentals in 

residential areas. However, given the 

effects in the 21-day dermal toxicity 

study were only observed at the limit 

dose (1,000 mg/kg/day) and the dermal 

absorption is extremely low (0.5%) as 

well as the intermittent potential for 

post-application residential exposure to 

ornamentals (i.e., contact with 

ornamentals every day is not likely), a 

residential post-application assessment 

is not required at this time. 

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 diflubenzuron to 

share a common mechanism of toxicity 

with any other substances, and 

diflubenzuron does not appear to 

produce a toxic metabolite produced by 

other substances. For the purposes of 

this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has 

assumed that diflubenzuron 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 (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. 

Based on the available developmental 

toxicity studies in rats and rabbits and 

the reproduction study, there is no 

increased susceptibility to fetuses 

exposed in utero. 

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. That decision is 

based on the following findings: 

i. The toxicological database for 

diflubenzuron is complete. The toxicity 

of CPU and PCA is well understood. 

CPU is less toxic and does not affect 

methemoglobin. PCA does cause 

methemoglobin formation but is similar 

in potency to diflubenzuron. Therefore, 

assuming equal toxicity of CPU and 

PCA to diflubenzuron is health 

protective, additional toxicity studies 

are not required. 

ii. There are no clear signs of 

neurotoxicity following subchronic or 

chronic dosing in multiple species in 

the diflubenzuron database; therefore, 

there is no need for any neurotoxicity 

studies. 

iii. There is no evidence that 

diflubenzuron 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. The dietary exposure assessment 

uses conservative assumptions which 

will not underestimate dietary exposure 

and EPA made conservative (protective) 

assumptions in the ground and surface 

water modeling used to assess exposure 

to diflubenzuron in drinking water. 

These assessments will not 

underestimate the exposure and risks 

posed by diflubenzuron. 

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of 

Safety 

EPA determines whether acute and 

chronic dietary pesticide exposures are 

safe by comparing aggregate exposure 

estimates to the aPAD and cPAD. For 

linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the 

lifetime probability of acquiring cancer 

given the estimated aggregate exposure. 

Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term 

risks are evaluated by comparing the 

estimated aggregate food, water, and 

residential exposure to the appropriate 

PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE 

exists. 

1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk 

assessment takes into account acute 

exposure estimates from dietary 

consumption of food and drinking 

water. No adverse effect resulting from 

a single oral exposure was identified 

and no acute dietary endpoint was 

selected. Therefore, diflubenzuron 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 diflubenzuron 

from food and water will utilize 37% of 

the cPAD for children 1 to 2 years old, 

the population group receiving the 

greatest exposure. There are no 

residential uses for diflubenzuron. 

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). A short-term adverse 

effect was identified; however, 

diflubenzuron is not registered for any 

use patterns that would result in shortterm residential exposure; therefore, no 

further assessment of short-term risk is 

necessary. 

4. Intermediate-term risk. 

Intermediate-term aggregate exposure 

takes into account intermediate-term 

residential exposure plus chronic 

exposure to food and water (considered 

to be a background exposure level). An 

intermediate-term adverse effect was 

identified; however, diflubenzuron is 

not registered for any use patterns that 

would result in intermediate-term 

residential exposure; therefore, no 

further assessment of intermediate-term 

risk is necessary. 

5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. 

population. Based on the lack of 

evidence of carcinogenicity in two 

adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies, 

diflubenzuron is not expected to pose a 

cancer risk to humans. However, 

metabolites CPU and PCA are 

considered probable carcinogens and 

have Q*s assigned to them. Individual 

cancer dietary exposure analyses were 

conducted for each metabolite. The 

cancer assessment for PCA includes 

food only (not present in drinking 

water). The cancer assessment for CPU 

includes milk and water only. For PCA, 

the cancer dietary exposure estimate for 

the U.S. population is 1 × 10¥6. For 

CPU, the cancer dietary exposure 

estimate for the U.S. population is 3 × 

10¥6. 

EPA generally considers cancer risks 

in the range of 10¥6 or less to be 

negligible. The precision which can be 

assumed for cancer risk estimates is best 

described by rounding to the nearest 

integral order of magnitude on the log 

scale; for example, risks falling between 

3 × 10 7 and 3 × 10¥6 are expressed 

as risks in the range of 10¥6. 

Considering the precision with which 

cancer hazard can be estimated, the 

conservativeness of low-dose linear 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 21 / Friday, January 31, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 5299 

extrapolation, and the rounding 

procedure described above, cancer risk 

should generally not be assumed to 

exceed the benchmark level of concern 

of the range of 10¥6 until the calculated 

risk exceeds approximately 3 × 10¥6. 

This is particularly the case where some 

conservatism is maintained in the 

exposure assessment. Although the PCA 

and CPU exposure risk assessment are 

refined, they retain significant 

conservatism in that residues in food 

were estimated at 1⁄2 LOQ even though 

no residues were detected in field trials 

and feeding studies, and for some 

commodities EPA assumed 100 PCT. 

Accordingly, EPA has concluded the 

cancer risk for all existing 

diflubenzuron uses, and the uses 

associated with the tolerances 

established in this action fall within the 

range of 1 × 10¥6 and are thus 

negligible. 

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 

diflubenzuron residues. 

IV. Other Considerations 

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology 

Adequate enforcement methodology 

(gas chromatography/electron capture 

detection (ECD) and high-performance 

liquid chromatography/ultraviolet 

(HPLC/UV)) is available to enforce the 

tolerance expression. 

B. International Residue Limits 

In making its tolerance decisions, EPA 

seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with 

international standards whenever 

possible, consistent with U.S. food 

safety standards and agricultural 

practices. EPA considers the 

international maximum residue limits 

(MRLs) established by the Codex 

Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as 

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

The Codex Alimentarius is a joint 

United Nations Food and Agriculture 

Organization/World Health 

Organization food standards program, 

and it is recognized as an international 

food safety standards-setting 

organization in trade agreements to 

which the United States is a party. EPA 

may establish a tolerance that is 

different from a Codex MRL; however, 

FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that 

EPA explain the reasons for departing 

from the Codex level. 

The Codex has established MRLs for 

diflubenzuron, expressed in terms of 

diflubenzuron per se, for many 

including: Citrus, fruits 0.5 ppm. This 

MRL is different than the citrus crop 

group tolerance being established for 

diflubenzuron in this action. 

Numerical compatibility with Codex 

is not possible as the good agricultural 

practices used for the Codex MRL are 

different from the proposed use pattern 

in the U.S. Additionally, the tolerance 

expression for the Codex MRL and the 

U.S. tolerance are not the same, only the 

U.S. tolerance contains the CPU and 

PCA metabolites. EPA is re-examining 

whether it can harmonize the U.S. 

tolerance expression with the Codex 

MRL, but making this change alone 

would not harmonize the numerical 

difference. 

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For 

Tolerances 

EPA is revising the tolerance 

expression to clarify that, as provided in 

FFDCA section 408(a)(3), the tolerance 

covers metabolites and degradates of 

diflubenzuron not specifically 

mentioned; and that compliance with 

the specified tolerance levels is to be 

determined by measuring only the 

specific compounds mentioned in the 

tolerance expression. Therefore, the 

tolerance expression for diflubenzuron 

will be revised under 40 CFR 180.377 

(a)(1), (a)(2), and (b) (see the regulatory 

text of this document). 

V. Conclusion 

Therefore, tolerances are established 

for residues of diflubenzuron, (N-[[(4- 

chlorophenyl)amino]carbonyl]-2,6- 

difluorobenzimide) in or on fruit, citrus, 

group 10–10 at 3.0 ppm; and citrus, oil 

at 32 ppm. The Agency is removing the 

currently established tolerances for 

grapefruit, orange, pummel, and 

tangerine from 40 CFR 180.377. These 

tolerances are being replaced by the 

tolerance for fruit, citrus, group 10–10. 

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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
5300 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 21 / Friday, January 31, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

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 17, 2014. 

Lois Rossi, 

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 § 180.377: 

■ a. Revise the introductory text in 

paragraph (a)(1). 

■ b. Remove ‘‘Grapefruit’’, ‘‘Orange 

sweet’’, and ‘‘Tangerine’’ from the table 

in paragraph (a)(1). 

■ c. Revise the introductory text in 

paragraph (a)(2). 

■ d. Remove ‘‘Pummelo’’, from the table 

in paragraph (a)(2). 

■ e. Add Citrus, oil, and Fruit, citrus, 

group 10–10 to the table in paragraph 

(a)(2). 

■ f. Revise the introductory text in 

paragraph (b). 

The amendments read as follows: 

§ 180.377 Diflubenzuron; tolerances for 

residues. 

(a) General. (1) Tolerances are 

established for residues of 

diflubenzuron, including its metabolites 

and degradates, in or on the 

commodities in the table below. 

Compliance with the tolerance levels 

specified below is to be determined by 

measuring only diflubenzuron (N-[[(4- 

chlorophenyl)amino]carbonyl]-2,6- 

difluorobenzamide). 

* * * * * 

(2) Tolerances are established for 

residues of the insecticide 

diflubenzuron (N-[[(4- 

chlorophenyl)amino]carbonyl]-2,6- 

difluorobenzamide), in or on the 

commodities in the table below. 

Compliance with the tolerance levels 

specified below is to be determined by 

measuring only the sum of 

diflubenzuron (N-[[(4- 

chlorophenyl)amino]carbonyl]-2,6- 

difluorobenzamide), 4- 

chlorophenylyurea and 4-chloroaniline, 

calculated as the stoichiometric 

equivalent of diflubenzuron, in or on 

the commodity. 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

* * * * * 

Citrus, oil ..................................... 32 

* * * * * 

Fruit, citrus, group 10–10 ........... 3.0 

* * * * * 

(b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. 

Time-limited tolerances are established 

for residues of the insecticide 

diflubenzuron (N-[[(4- 

chlorophenyl)amino]carbonyl]-2,6- 

difluorobenzamide) and its metabolites, 

in connection with use of the pesticide 

under section 18 emergency exemptions 

granted by EPA. Compliance with the 

tolerance levels specified below is to be 

determined by measuring only the sum 

of diflubenzuron (N-[[(4- 

chlorophenyl)amino]carbonyl]-2,6- 

difluorobenzamide), 4- 

chlorophenylyurea and 4-chloroaniline, 

calculated as the stoichiometric 

equivalent of diflubenzuron, in or on 

the commodity. The tolerances are 

specified in the following table, and will 

expire and are revoked on the dates 

specified. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–02064 Filed 1–30–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 622 

[Docket No. 101206604–1758–02] 

RIN 0648–XC464 

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of 

Mexico, and South Atlantic; Coastal 

Migratory Pelagic Resources of the 

Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; closure. 

SUMMARY: NMFS implements an 

accountability measure (AM) through 

this temporary final rule for commercial 

harvest of king mackerel in the southern 

Florida west coast subzone of the 

eastern zone of the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) 

exclusive economic zone (EEZ) using 

run-around gillnet gear. NMFS has 

determined that the commercial annual 

catch limit (ACL) (equal to the 

commercial quota) for king mackerel 

using run-around gillnet gear in the 

southern Florida west coast subzone of 

the Gulf EEZ will have been reached by 

January 29, 2014. Therefore, NMFS 

closes the southern Florida west coast 

subzone to commercial king mackerel 

fishing using run-around gillnet gear in 

the Gulf EEZ. This closure is necessary 

to protect the Gulf king mackerel 

resource. 

DATES: The closure is effective 12:01 

p.m., eastern standard time, January 29, 

2014, through 6 a.m., eastern standard 

time, January 20, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Susan Gerhart, telephone: 727–824– 

5305, email: Susan.Gerhart@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

fishery for coastal migratory pelagic fish 

(king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, and 

cobia) is managed under the Fishery 

Management Plan for the Coastal 

Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf 

of Mexico and South Atlantic (FMP). 

The FMP was prepared by the Gulf of 

Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery 

Management Councils and is 

implemented under the authority of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations 

at 50 CFR part 622. 

Gulf migratory group king mackerel’s 

Florida west coast subzone of the Gulf 

eastern zone is divided into northern 

and southern subzones, each with 

separate quotas. The southern subzone 

is that part of the Florida west coast 

subzone, which from November 1 

through March 31, extends south and 

west from 25°20.4’ N. lat. (a line directly 

east from the Miami-Dade/Monroe 

County, FL, boundary), north to 26°19.8’ 

N. lat. (a line directly west from the Lee/ 

Collier County, FL, boundary), i.e., the 

area off Monroe and Collier Counties. 

From April 1 through October 31, the 

southern subzone is that part of the 

Florida west coast subzone that is 

between 26°19.8’ N. lat. (a line directly 

west from the Lee/Collier County, FL, 

boundary) and 25°48’ N. lat. (a line 

directly west from the Monroe/Collier 

County, FL, boundary), i.e., the area off 

Collier County (50 CFR 

622.384(b)(1)(i)(C)). 

On January 30, 2012 (76 FR 82058, 

December 29, 2011), NMFS 

implemented a commercial ACL 

(commercial quota) for the Gulf 

migratory group king mackerel in the 

southern Florida west coast subzone of 

551,448 lb (250,133 kg) for vessels using 

run-around gillnet gear (50 CFR 

622.384(b)(1)(i)(B)(1)), for the current 

fishing year, July 1, 2013, through June 

30, 2014. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES