Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 92 /Wednesday, May 13, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 26481

Commodity Parts per million

Cattle, fat ........................... 1 ppm

Cattle, mbyp ...................... 3.5 ppm

Cattle, meat ....................... 0.5 ppm

Cotton gin byproducts ....... 7.0 ppm

Cotton, hulls ...................... 5.0 ppm

Cotton, undelinted seed .... 1.5 ppm

Eggs .................................. 0.05 ppm

Goats, fat .......................... 1 ppm

Goats, mbyp ...................... 3.5 ppm

Goats, meat ...................... 0.5 ppm

Hogs, fat ............................ 1 ppm

Hogs, mbyp ....................... 3.5 ppm

Hogs, meat ........................ 0.5 ppm

Horses, fat ......................... 1 ppm

Horses, mbyp .................... 3.5 ppm

Horses, meat ..................... 0.5 ppm

Milk .................................... 0.1 ppm

Poultry, fat ......................... 0.05 ppm

Poultry, mbyp .................... 0.3 ppm

Poultry, meat ..................... 0.05 ppm

Sheep, fat .......................... 1 ppm

Sheep, mbyp ..................... 3.5 ppm

Sheep, meat ...................... 0.5 ppm

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 98–12639 Filed 5–8–98; 9:42 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[OPP–300660; FRL–5790–5]

RIN 2070–AB78

Diflubenzuron; Temporary Pesticide

Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a

temporary tolerance for residues of the

insecticide diflubenzuron (N-[[4-

chlorophenyl)amino]-carbonyl]-2,6-

difluorobenzamide) and metabolites

convertible to p-chloroaniline expressed

as diflubenzuron on rice grain at 0.01

ppm. Uniroyal Chemical Company, Inc.

submitted a petition to EPA under the

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act

(FFDCA), as amended by the Food

Quality Protection Act of 1996

requesting this temporary tolerance in

association with an Experimental Use

Permit (EUP) under the Federal

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide

Act (FIFRA).

DATES: This regulation is effective May

13, 1998. Objections and requests for

hearings must be received by EPA on or

before July 13, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Written objections and

hearing requests, identified by the

docket control number, [OPP–300660],

must be submitted to: Hearing Clerk

(1900), Environmental Protection

Agency, Rm. M3708, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. Fees

accompanying objections and hearing

requests shall be labeled ‘‘Tolerance

Petition Fees’’ and forwarded to: EPA

Headquarters Accounting Operations

Branch, OPP (Tolerance Fees), P.O. Box

360277M, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. A copy

of any objections and hearing requests

filed with the Hearing Clerk identified

by the docket control number, [OPP–

300660], must also be submitted to:

Public Information and Records

Integrity Branch, Information Resources

and Services Division (7506C), Office of

Pesticide Programs, Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring

a copy of objections and hearing

requests to Rm. 1132, CM #2, 1921

Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA.

A copy of objections and hearing

requests filed with the Hearing Clerk

may also be submitted electronically by

sending electronic mail (e-mail) to: oppdocket@epamail.epa.gov. Copies of

objections and hearing requests must be

submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the

use of special characters and any form

of encryption. Copies of objections and

hearing requests will also be accepted

on disks in WordPerfect 5.1 file format

or ASCII file format. All copies of

objections and hearing requests in

electronic form must be identified by

the docket control number [OPP–

300660]. No Confidential Business

Information (CBI) should be submitted

through e-mail. Electronic copies of

objections and hearing requests on this

rule may be filed online at many Federal

Depository Libraries.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail: Paul Schroeder, Registration

Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide

Programs, Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington,

DC 20460. Office location, telephone

number, and e-mail address: Crystal

Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy.,

Arlington, VA, (703) 305-6602, e-mail:

schroeder.paul@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the

Federal Register of February 25, 1998

(63 FR 9528) (FRL–5775–3), EPA issued

a notice pursuant to section 408 of the

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act

(FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(e) announcing

the filing of a pesticide petition (PP

6G4771) from Uniroyal Chemical

Company, Inc., Bethany, CT proposing

to amend 40 CFR part 180 by

establishing a tolerance for residues of

the insect growth regulator,

diflubenzuron and metabolites

convertible to p-chloroaniline,

expressed as diflubenzuron in or on rice

at 0.02 parts per million (ppm) and rice

straw at 0.8 ppm. The notice included

a summary of the petition prepared by

Uniroyal Chemical Company, Inc., the

registrant. In the Federal Register of

March 9, 1998 (63 FR 11445) (FRL–

5777-8), a clarification of the notice of

filing was published explaining that

Uniroyal had submitted two petitions,

6G4771, for the establishment of a

temporary tolerance in or on rice at 0.01

ppm in association with a 3,000 acre

EUP, and 8F4925, to amend 40 CFR

180.377 to include a tolerance for

residues of the insect growth regulator,

diflubenzuron and metabolites

convertible to p-chloroaniline,

expressed as diflubenzuron in or on rice

at 0.02 parts per million (ppm) and rice

straw at 0.8 ppm. There were no

comments received in response to the

notice of filing or the clarification.

I. Risk Assessment and Statutory

Findings

EPA establishes maximum legal levels

(tolerances) for pesticide residues on

food under section 408 of FFDCA. EPA

performs a number of analyses to

determine the risk from aggregate

exposure to pesticide residues. For

further discussion of the regulatory

requirements of section 408 and a

complete description of the risk

assessment process, see the Final Rule

on Bifenthrin Pesticide Tolerances (62

FR 62961, November 26, 1997) (FRL–

5754–7).

II. Aggregate Risk Assessment and

Determination of Safety

Consistent with 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 residues of the insecticide

diflubenzuron (N-[[4-

chlorophenyl)amino]-carbonyl]-2,6-

difluorobenzamide) and metabolites

convertible to p-chloroaniline expressed

as diflubenzuron on rice grain at 0.01,

and to make a determination on

aggregate exposure, consistent with

section 408(b)(2), for a tolerance for

residues of the insecticide

diflubenzuron (N-[[4-

chlorophenyl)amino]-carbonyl]-2,6-

difluorobenzamide) and metabolites

convertible to p-chloroaniline expressed

as diflubenzuron on rice grain at 0.01.

EPA’s assessment of the dietary

exposures and risks associated with

establishing the tolerance follows.
26482 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 92 /Wednesday, May 13, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

A. Toxicological Profile

EPA has evaluated the available

toxicity data and considered its validity,

completeness, and reliability as well as

the relationship of the results of the

studies to human risk. EPA has also

considered available information

concerning the variability of the

sensitivities of major identifiable

subgroups of consumers, including

infants and children. The nature of the

toxic effects caused by diflubenzuron

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

2,6-difluorobenzamide) and metabolites

convertible to p-chloroaniline expressed

as diflubenzuron have been fully

described in the Reregistration

Eligibility Decision (RED) document

(EPA 738-R-97-008, August 1997), a

copy of which is in the public docket.

B. Toxicological Endpoints

1. Acute toxicity. A risk assessment

for acute dietary exposure (1 day) is not

necessary. One day single dose oral

studies in rats and mice indicated only

marginal effects on methemoglobin

levels at a dose level of 10,000

milligrams/kilograms (mg/kg) of

diflubenzuron (25% wettable powder

formulation). Sulfhemoglobin levels and

Heinz bodies were not affected.

2. Short- and intermediate-term

toxicity. The toxicology endpoint for

short-term occupational or residential

exposure (1 to 7 days) is

sulfhemoglobinemia observed in the 14–

day subchronic oral study in mice dosed

with technical grade diflubenzuron. The

no observed effect level (NOEL) in this

study was 40 mg/kg/day and the lowest

effect level (LEL) was 200 mg/kg/day.

The toxicology endpoint for

intermediate-term occupational or

residential exposure (1 week to several

months) is methemoglobinemia

observed in the 13-week subchronic

feeding study in dogs. For the purpose

of risk assessments, the NOEL of 1.64

mg/kg/day in this study should be

considered to be 2 mg/kg/day so as to

be consistent with the NOEL of 2 mg/

kg/day in the chronic study used to

calculate the RfD.

The LEL in this study was 6.24 mg/

kg/day. There were no acceptable

dermal absorption studies available.

However, a dermal absorption rate was

selected from an acceptable dermal

absorption submitted to the Agency on

June 25, 1996. From that study, a dermal

absorption rate of 0.50% for exposures

of 1 to 10 hours was determined for use

in an occupational exposure assessment.

3. Chronic toxicity. The RfD was

determined to be 0.02 mg/kg/day and is

based on the NOEL of 2.0 mg/kg/day in

the 52–week chronic oral study in dogs.

Increases in methemoglobin and

sulfhemoglobin were observed at the

next higher dose level of 10.0 mg/kg/

day. An uncertainty factor of 100 was

applied to account for the interspecies

extrapolation and intraspecies

variability. Diflubenzuron has been

reviewed by the FAO/WHO joint

committee on pesticide residues and an

Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) of 0.02

mg/kg/day was established in 1985. The

ADI was based upon the one-year oral

toxicity study in dogs with a NOEL of

2.0 mg/kg/day. A safety factor of 100

was applied to account for the

interspecies extrapolation and

intraspecies variability.

4. Carcinogenicity. Based on the

available evidence, which included

adequate carcinogenicity studies in rats

and mice and a battery of negative

mutagenicity studies, diflubenzuron per

se has been classified as Group E

(evidence of non-carcinogenicity for

humans). However, p-chloroaniline

(PCA), a metabolite of diflubenzuron,

was classified as a Group B2 carcinogen

(probable human carcinogen). The

classification for PCA was based on the

results of a National Toxicology

Program (NTP) study reported in July

1989 in which p-chloroaniline

hydrochloride was administered by

gavage to rats and mice for 2 years. In

rats, clearly increased incidences of

uncommon sarcomas (fibrosarcomas,

hemangiosarcomas and/or

osteosarcomas) of the spleen were

observed in males. In females, two

additional sarcomas of the spleen were

also found. Pheochromocytomas of the

adrenal gland may also have been

associated with the test material in male

and female rats. In mice, increased

incidences of hepatocellular neoplasms

in the liver and of hemangiosarcomas in

the spleen and/or liver were observed in

males. In females, no evidence of

carcinogenic activity was observed. The

results of several mutagenicity studies

on PCA were also included in the same

NTP report. PCA was mutagenic in

Salmonella strains TA98 and TA100

with metabolic activation. Gene

mutations were induced by PCA in

cultured mouse lymphoma cells with

and without metabolic activation. In

cultured Chinese hamster ovary (CHO)

cells, treatment with PCA produced

significant increases in sister chromatid

exchanges (SCEs) with and without

metabolic activation. Chromosomal

aberrations were also significantly

increased in CHO cells in the presence

of metabolic activation.

For the purpose of calculating dietary

risk assessments, the following

procedure was used:

a. P-chlorophenylurea (CPU) and pchloroacetanilide (PCAA), additional

metabolites of diflubenzuron that are

closely related to PCA and for which

there are no adequate carcinogenicity

data available, should be considered to

be potentially carcinogenic and to have

the same carcinogenic potency (Q1*) as

PCA.

b. The sum of PCA, CPU and PCAA

residues in ingested food should be

used to estimate the dietary exposure of

humans to the carcinogenic metabolites

of diflubenzuron.

c. In addition to ingested residues of

these three metabolites, amounts of

PCA, CPU, and/or PCAA formed in vivo

following ingestion of diflubenzuron

should also be included when

estimating the total exposure of humans

to the carcinogenic metabolites of

diflubenzuron. The in vivo conversion

of ingested diflubenzuron to PCA and/

or CPU was estimated to be 2.0%, based

on data in the rat metabolism study.

The Q1* (estimated unit risk) for PCA,

based upon spleen sarcoma rates in

male rats, was calculated to be 6.38 x

10-2 (mg/kg/day)-1 in human

equivalents.

Where no PCA, CPU, and/or PCAA

are present, the toxicological endpoint

for diflubenzuron per se should be used

for risk assessments.

Regarding potential carcinogenic risks

to humans resulting from dermal and/or

inhalation exposures to PCA, CPU, and/

or PCAA occurring during occupational

or residential exposures to

diflubenzuron, it has been determined

that these risks are likely to be

negligible since exposure to these

metabolites is not anticipated. Only in

the event that direct exposure to one or

more of these metabolites of

diflubenzuron is demonstrated would it

be necessary to perform such risk

assessments.

It has been determined that PCAA

does not occur in animal or plant tissues

in significant amounts.

5. Special sensitivity to infants and

children. In assessing the potential for

additional sensitivity of infants and

children to residues of diflubenzuron,

EPA considered data from

developmental toxicity studies in the rat

and rabbit and a 2-generation

reproductive toxicity study in the rat.

Developmental toxicity studies are

designed to evaluate adverse effects on

the developing fetus resulting from

maternal pesticide exposure during

gestation. Reproductive toxicity studies

provide information relating to pre- and

post-natal effects from exposure to the

pesticide, information on the

reproductive capability of mating

animals, and data on systemic toxicity.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 92 /Wednesday, May 13, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 26483

FFDCA section 408 provides that EPA

shall apply an additional 10-fold margin

of safety for infants and children in the

case of threshold effects to account for

pre- and post-natal toxicity and the

completeness of the data base unless

EPA determines that a different margin

of safety will be safe for infants and

children. Margins of safety are

incorporated into EPA risk assessments

either directly through use of a margin

of exposure analysis or through using

uncertainty (safety) factors in

calculating a dose level that poses no

appreciable risk to humans. In either

case, EPA generally defines the level of

appreciable risk as exposure that is

greater than 1/100 of the no observed

effect level in the animal study

appropriate to the particular risk

assessment. This 100-fold uncertainty

(safety) factor/margin of exposure

(safety) is designed to account for interspecies extrapolation and intra-species

variability. EPA believes that reliable

data support using the 100-fold margin/

factor, rather than the 1,000-fold

margin/factor, when EPA has a

complete data base under existing

guidelines, and when the severity of the

effect in infants or children, the potency

or unusual toxic properties of a

compound, or the quality of the

exposure data do not raise concerns

regarding the adequacy of the standard

margin/factor.

a. Developmental toxicity studies—i.

Rats. In the developmental study in rats,

the maternal (systemic) NOEL was

1,000.0 mg/kg/day [HDT]. The

developmental (fetal) NOEL was 1,000.0

mg/kg/day, [HDT].

ii. Rabbits. In the developmental

toxicity study in rabbits, the maternal

(systemic) NOEL was 1,000.0 mg/kg/

day, [HDT]. The developmental (pup)

NOEL was 1,000.0 mg/kg/day, [HDT].

b. Reproductive toxicity studies. In the

2-generation reproductive toxicity study

in rats, the maternal (systemic) NOEL

was <36 males/<42 females mg/kg/day,

[LDT] based on hematological effects at

all dose levels tested. The reproductive

(pup) NOEL was 427.0 mg/kg/day,

based on decreases in the F-1 pup

weight at the LEL of 2,454.0 mg/kg/day

[HDT].

c. Pre- and post-natal sensitivity. The

toxicological data base for evaluating

pre- and post-natal toxicity for

diflubenzuron is complete with respect

to current data requirements. There is

an ongoing review of these data with

respect to the requirements of the Food

Quality Protection Act. However, a

preliminary decision, for purposes of

this temporary tolerance, is that there is

no extra sensitivity for pre- or post-natal

effects and that there are reliable data to

support use of a 100-fold margin of

exposure/uncertainty factor, to protect

infants and children.

C. Exposures and Risks

1. From food and feed uses.

Tolerances have been established (40

CFR 180.377) for residues of

diflubenzuron per se, in or on citrus,

artichokes, walnuts, mushrooms,

cottonseed, soybean, and associated

livestock commodities. Existing

tolerances range from 0.05 ppm in/on

soybeans to 6.0 ppm in/on artichokes.

Tolerances of 0.05 ppm have also been

established for residues of

diflubenzuron in animal commodities.

For the dietary risk assessment,

anticipated residues levels for were

calculated in livestock commodities.

Anticipated residue estimates for

diflubenzuron were not calculated for

raw agricultural commodities. Percent

crop treated data were utilized where

available.

Section 408(b)(2)(F) states that the

Agency may use data on the actual

percent of food treated for assessing

chronic dietary risk only if the Agency

can make the following findings: (1)

That the data used are reliable and

provide a valid basis for showing the

percentage of food derived from a crop

that is likely to contain residues; (2) that

the exposure estimate does not

underestimate the exposure for any

significant subpopulation and; (3) where

data on regional pesticide use and food

consumption are available, that the

exposure estimate does not understate

exposure for any regional population. In

addition, the Agency must provide for

periodic evaluation of any estimates

used. To provide for the periodic

evaluation of these estimates of percent

crop treated as required by section

408(b)(2)(F), EPA may require

registrants to submit data on percent

crop treated (PCT).

Dietary exposure estimates were

based on the following percent crop

treated estimates: grass/rangeland, 1%;

cottonseed, 3%; soybean, 1%; cattle

bolus, 5%. Other commodities were

assumed to be 100 percent treated. The

Agency believes that the three

conditions listed above have been met.

With respect to (1), EPA finds that the

PCT information described above for

diflubenzuron is reliable and has a valid

basis. The Agency has utilized statistical

data from public and proprietary

sources, including DOANE, and

checked these against data provided by

the registrant. These are the best

available sources for such information.

Concerning (2) and (3), 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

data available through national food

consumption surveys, EPA does not

have available information on the

consumption of food bearing

diflubenzuron in a particular area.

Risk assessments were conducted as

follows:

a. Acute exposure and risk. A risk

assessment for acute dietary exposure (1

day) is not necessary. One day single

dose oral studies in rats and mice

indicated only marginal effects on

methemoglobin levels at a dose level of

10,000 mg/kg of diflubenzuron (25%

wettable powder formulation).

Sulfhemoglobin levels and Heinz bodies

were not affected.

b. Chronic exposure and risk. A

chronic dietary risk assessment is

required for diflubenzuron. The RfD

used for the chronic dietary analysis for

diflubenzuron is 0.02 mg/kg bwt/day.

The DRES analysis utilized anticipated

residues and percent crop treated,

where available. The proposed

diflubenzuron tolerance result in a

dietary exposure that is equivalent to

the following percent of the RfD:

Subgroups Diflubenzuron

U.S. population (48

states)

< 1%

Hispanics < 1%

Non-hispanic others < 1%

Nursing Infants (< 1

year old)

< 1%

Non-nursing infants

(<1 year old)

< 1%

Females (13+ years,

pregnant)

< 1%

Females (13+ years,

nursing)

< 1%

Children (1-6 years

old)

1%

Children (7-12 years

old)

< 1%

Females (20+ years,

not pregnant, not

nursing)

< 1%

EPA does not consider the chronic

dietary risk to exceed the level of

concern.
26484 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 92 /Wednesday, May 13, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

c. Cancer risk from consumption of

PCA and related metabolites. The

Agency has determined that there are

three sources of carcinogenic

metabolites from the current uses of

diflubenzuron and has added these

three sources together to estimate the

total cancer risk for PCA and related

metabolites.

The first source is mushrooms. The

Agency used results from mushroom

metabolism studies to determine the

percent of Total Radioactive Residue

(TRR) present as PCA or the related

compound CPU in mushrooms. The

percent crop treated value for

mushrooms, 30%, is an upper bound

estimate. The overall U.S. dietary

exposure is 0.0000045 mg/kg/day for a

risk estimate of 2.9 x 10-7.

For the second source, animal

commodities, tolerance levels for

diflubenzuron in animal commodities

were used and, adjusting for percent

crop treated of feed items, total levels of

PCA and related compounds were

estimated. The overall U.S. dietary

exposure is 0.000004 mg/kg/day for a

risk estimate of 2.7 x 10-7.

Finally, based on the results of a rat

metabolism study, assumption of a 2.0%

conversion of diflubenzuron to PCA in

humans was assumed. Using the above

exposure estimate for rice and currently

registered uses of diflubenzuron, the

calculated exposure is 0.00008 mg/kg/

day for a risk estimate of 1.0 x 10-7.

The total of these three estimates

gives a total cancer risk estimate for

PCA and related metabolites from all

dietary sources of diflubenzuron of 6.6

x 10-7.

2. From drinking water. HED has

calculated drinking water levels of

concern (DWLOCs) for chronic (noncancer) exposure to diflubenzuron in

surface and ground water for the U.S.

population and children (1-6 yrs). They

are 700 and 200 ppb, respectively. For

chronic (cancer) exposure to CPU in

surface and ground water, the DWLOC

is 0.21 ppb for the U.S. population. To

calculate the DWLOC for chronic (noncancer) exposure relative to a chronic

toxicity endpoint, the chronic dietary

food exposure (from DRES) was

subtracted from the RfD to obtain the

acceptable chronic (non-cancer)

exposure to diflubenzuron in drinking

water. To calculate the DWLOC for

chronic exposures relative to a

carcinogenic toxicity endpoint, the

chronic (cancer) dietary food exposure

was subtracted from the ratio of the

negligible cancer risk to the Q* to obtain

the acceptable chronic (cancer)

exposure to diflubenzuron in drinking

water. DWLOCs were then calculated

using default body weights and drinking

water consumption figures.

a. Chronic risk: Chronic RfD = 0.002

mg/kg/day. Maximum H2O = 0.002 -

Food Exposure.

Subgroup Food Exposure (from DRES mg/kg/day) Maximum H2O Exposure (mg/kg/day)

U.S. population 0.000080 0.01992

Children (1-6 years) 0.00021 0.01980

U.S. Population: DWLOC = 700 ppb

Children (1-6 years): DWLOC = 200 ppb

b. Cancer risk: Q* = 6.38 x 10-2 (mg/

kg/day) -- Maximum H2O = 1.6 x 10-5 -

Food Exposure

Subgroup Food Exposure (mg/kg/day) Maximum H2O Exposure (mg/kg/day)

U.S. population 0.0000101 0.0000059

U.S. population: DWLOC = 0.21 ppb

The estimated average concentration

of diflubenzuron in surface water

sources is not expected to exceed 0.05

ppb. Estimated average concentrations

of CPU in surface water sources is not

expected to exceed 0.85 ppb. The

estimated average concentrations of

diflubenzuron in surface water are less

than EPA’s levels of concern for

diflubenzuron in drinking water as a

contribution to chronic (non-cancer)

aggregate exposure. However, the

estimated average concentration (0.85

ppb) of CPU in surface water exceeds

EPA’s levels of concern for CPU in

drinking water (0.21 ppb) as a

contribution to chronic (cancer)

aggregate exposure.

EPA believes the estimates of CPU

exposure in water derived from the

PRZM-EXAMS model, particularly the

estimates pertaining to chronic

exposure, are significantly overstated for

several reasons. The PRZM-EXAMS

model was designed to estimate

exposure from ecological risk

assessments and thus uses a scenario of

a body of water approximating the size

of a 1 hectare (2.5 acres) pond. This

tends to overstate chronic drinking

water exposure levels for the following

reasons. First, surface water source

drinking water generally comes from

bodies of water that are substantially

larger than a 1 hectare (2.5 acres) pond.

Second, the modeled scenario also

assumes that essentially the whole basin

receives an application of the pesticide.

Yet in virtually all cases, basins large

enough to support a drinking water

facility will contain a substantial

fraction of the area which does not

receive pesticide. Third, there is often at

least some flow (in a river) or turnover

(in a reservoir or lake) of the water so

the persistence of the pesticide near the

drinking water facility is usually

overestimated. Fourth, even assuming a

reservoir is directly adjacent to an

agricultural field, the agricultural field

may not be used to grow a crop on

which the pesticide in question is

registered for use. Fifth, the PRZMEXAMS modeled scenario does not take

into account reductions in residueloading due to applications of less than

the maximum application rate or no

treatment of the crop at all (percent crop

treated data). Although there is a high

degree of uncertainty to this analysis,

these are the best available estimates of

concentrations of CPU in drinking

water. EPA believes that these numbers

justify asking for field runoff monitoring

for CPU in conjunction with the

registered use on cotton.

EPA bases this determination on a

comparison of estimated concentrations
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 92 /Wednesday, May 13, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 26485

of diflubenzuron and CPU in surface

waters and ground waters to backcalculated ‘‘levels of concern’’ for

diflubenzuron and CPU in drinking

water. These levels of concern in

drinking water were determined after

EPA has considered all other nonoccupational human exposures for

which it has reliable data, including all

current uses, and uses considered in

this action. The estimates of

diflubenzuron and CPU in surface and

ground waters are derived from water

quality models that use conservative

assumptions (health-protective)

regarding the pesticide transport from

the point of application to surface and

ground water. Because EPA considers

the aggregate risk resulting from

multiple exposure pathways associated

with a pesticide’s uses, levels of concern

in drinking water may vary as those

uses change. If new uses are added in

the future, EPA will reassess the

potential impacts of diflubenzuron and

CPU on drinking water as a part of the

aggregate risk assessment process.

3. From non-occupational non-dietary

exposure. Diflubenzuron is a restricted

use pesticide and therefore not available

for use by homeowners. However, nonagricultural uses of diflubenzuron may

expose people in residential locations.

Based on the low dermal absorption rate

(0.5%), and the extremely low dermal

and inhalation toxicity, these uses are

expected to result in insignificant risk.

4. Cumulative exposure to substances

with common mechanism of toxicity.

Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) 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.’’

An explanation of the current Agency

approach to assessment of pesticides

with a common mechanism of toxicity

may be found in the Final Rule on

Bifenthrin Pesticide Tolerances (62 FR

62961).

Diflubenzuron is structurally similar

to other substituted benzoylurea

insecticides including triflumuron and

flucycloxuron. EPA does not have, at

this time, available data to determine

whether diflubenzuron has a common

mechanism of toxicity with other

substances or how to include this

pesticide in a cumulative risk

assessment. Unlike other pesticides for

which EPA has followed a cumulative

risk approach based on a common

mechanism of toxicity, diflubenzuron

does not appear to produce a toxic

metabolite produced by other

substances. For the purposes of this

tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not

assumed that diflubenzuron has a

common mechanism of toxicity with

other substances.

D. Aggregate Risks and Determination of

Safety for U.S. Population, Infants, and

Children

1. Acute risk. There is no risk from

acute dietary exposure (1 day) to

diflubenzuron as there is no toxic

endpoint identified.

2. Chronic. For the U.S. population,

<1% of the RfD is occupied by dietary

(food) exposure. The estimated average

concentrations of diflubenzuron in

surface and ground water are less than

OPP’s levels of concern for

diflubenzuron in drinking water.

Therefore, EPA concludes that there is

a reasonable certainty that no harm will

result to infants, children, or adults

from chronic aggregate (food plus water)

exposure to diflubenzuron residues.

3. Carcinogenic aggregate exposure

and risk. For the U.S. population,

cancer risk resulting from dietary (food)

exposure is 6.6 x 10-7. The estimated

average concentration (0.85 ppb) of CPU

in surface water exceeds EPA’s levels of

concern for CPU in drinking water (0.21

ppb) as a contribution to chronic

(cancer) aggregate exposure. However,

EPA believes that these PRZM-EXAMS

model overestimates exposures for the

reasons given above. EPA does not

generally use surface water modeling

values for quantitative risk assessment.

However, due to the statistical

uncertainties regarding the significance

of cancer risks which are near 1 x 10-6,

EPA has calculated that the cancer risk

resulting from 0.85 ppb of CPU in

drinking water is 1.55 x 10-6. The

aggregate cancer risk is thus 2.2 x 10-6

(6.6 x 10-7 for food + 1.55 x 10-6 for

water).

4. Determination of safety. EPA

believes that the total risk estimate for

CPU in food and drinking water of 2.2

x 10-6 generally represents a negligible

risk, as EPA has traditionally applied

that concept. EPA has commonly

referred to a negligible risk as one that

is at or below 1 in 1 million (1 x 10-6).

Quantitative cancer risk assessment is

not a precise science. There are a

significant number of uncertainties in

both the toxicology used to derive the

cancer potency of a substance and in the

data used to measure and calculate

exposure. The Agency does not attach

great significance to numerical estimates

for carcinogenic risk that differ by

approximately a factor of 2.

III. Other Considerations

A. Metabolism in Plants and Animals

The qualitative nature of the residue

in plants is adequately understood

based on data from citrus, mushroom,

and soybean metabolism studies. The

Agency has concluded that tolerances

should be expressed in terms of the

combined residues of diflubenzuron and

metabolites convertible to PCA (CPU

and PCAA) expressed as diflubenzuron.

However, for the purposes of this

temporary tolerance petition,

diflubenzuron per se should be the

regulated residue in plants.

The nature of the residue in animals

is adequately understood based on

acceptable poultry and ruminant

metabolism studies reflecting oral

dosing. Terminal residues identified in

animal tissues, milk, and eggs include

diflubenzuron, 2-hydroxydiflubenzuron (2HDFB), 2,6-

difluorobenzamide (DFBAM), 2,6-

difluorobenzoic acid (DFBA), N-(4-

chlorophenyl)urea (CPU), and PCA. For

the purposes of this temporary tolerance

petition, diflubenzuron should be the

regulated residue in animals.

B. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

Adequate methods are available for

the analysis of Diflubenzuron in rice

grain (0.01 ppm), rice straw (0.01 ppm)

and water (0.001 ppm). The method for

measuring PCA in rice grain recovers

only about 50% at the 0.025 ppm level.

As part of the reregistration of

diflubenzuron, the Agency concluded

that tolerances should be expressed in

terms of the combined residues of

diflubenzuron and metabolites. Until

suitable methodology is developed,

regulation of diflubenzuron per se is an

acceptable alternative. Three

enforcement methods for diflubenzuron

are published in PAM, Vol. II as

Methods I, II, and III. Method II is a GC/

ECD method that can separately

determine residues of diflubenzuron,

CPU, and PCA in eggs, milk, and animal

tissues. All three methods have

undergone successful Agency

validations and are acceptable for

enforcement purposes. The FDA

PESTDATA data base dated 1/94 (PAM

Vol. I, Appendix II) contains no

information on diflubenzuron recovery

using Multiresidue Methods PAM, Vol.

I Sections 302, 303, and 304. However,

the registrant has submitted multiresidue testing data that the Agency has

forwarded to the FDA.

C. Magnitude of Residues

Uniroyal Chemical Company

submitted data from 10 tests depicting

residues of diflubenzuron in/on rice.
26486 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 92 /Wednesday, May 13, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

Ten trials were conducted in Arizona

(2), California (2), Louisiana (1),

Mississippi (2), and Texas (3). At each

site rice grain and straw were harvested

at normal maturity following one

broadcast application of diflubenzuron

(25% WP, EPA Reg. No. 400-465; 2 lb/

gal FlC, EPA Reg. No. 400-461) at 0.25

lb. ai/A (1x the maximum proposed

application rate). A single application

was made 10 days or 2 weeks following

permanent flood or rice emergence,

respectively. Applications of the WP/D

and FlC formulation were made in 10

gal of water/A using ground equipment.

Aerial applications of the FlC

formulation were made at 5-10 gal of

water/A. Residues of diflubenzuron and

PCA in/on treated rice grain were <LOQ

for all samples. The submitted field trial

data indicate that residues of

diflubenzuron will not exceed the

proposed temporary tolerance of 0.01

ppm in/on rice grain. As an adjunct to

the magnitude of the residue study on

rice, the petitioner also conducted

residue studies to determine the

magnitude of the residue of

diflubenzuron in treated rice flood

waters. Residue levels were determined

from samples taken from the treated and

untreated plots of the diflubenzuron

crop field trials. Five trials were

conducted in California (2), Louisiana

(1), and Texas (2). Following one

broadcast application of diflubenzuron

as a 25% WP formulation or 2 lb/gal FlC

formulation at 0.25 lb. ai/A (1x the

maximum proposed application rate) as

described in the crop field trial

discussion, one control and duplicate

treated samples of water were collected

from each plot at each test site at

intervals of 0, 1, 3, 7, 14, 21, and 28

days following insecticide application.

For the sampling intervals 0, 1, 3 and 7

days after application of diflubenzuron

at 1x the maximum proposed

application rate (0.25 lb. ai/A), residues

of diflubenzuron in treated rice flood

waters were 0.011 to 0.04 ppm, 0.0007

to 0.027 ppm, <0.0003 to 0.020 ppm,

and <0.0003 to 0.0014 ppm; residues

were <LOQ for all samples collected 14

or more days after treatment.

There are several active SLNs [SLN

Nos. AL930004, FL910004, HI940003,

CA850041, CA870049, and NV940003]

which allow the application of

diflubenzuron to water at a maximum

rate 0.25 lb. ai/A for mosquito

abatement. Labels prohibit the use of

treated water for irrigation or human

consumption. The proposed label

recommends the retention of flood

waters for 14 days to allow for the

dissipation of diflubenzuron residues.

Residue data indicate that

diflubenzuron residues >LOQ may be

present in rice flood waters <14 days

after application of diflubenzuron.

D. Magnitude of the Residue in

Processed Commodities

Uniroyal Chemical Company

submitted data depicting the potential

for concentration of diflubenzuron

residues in the processed commodities

of rice. Two tests were conducted in

Mississippi (1) and Texas (1). At each

site, rice grain was harvested at

maturity, 82 to 85 days following a postpermanent flood application of the 2 lb/

gal FlC formulation at 2 lb. ai/A (8x the

proposed maximum application rate).

Samples were processed according to

simulated commercial procedures into

hulls, bran, and polished rice. Residues

of diflubenzuron were non-detectable

(LOQ <0.01 ppm) and 0.26 and 0.87

ppm in four treated samples of the RAC,

and did not concentrate in processed

commodities of rice harvested 82 to 85

days following a single 2 lb. ai/A (8x)

of diflubenzuron. As the residues of

diflubenzuron did not concentrate in

the hull, bran, or whole rice fractions of

processed rice grain, a tolerance for

residues in rice processed commodities

is not required.

E. Magnitude of Secondary Residues in

Meat/Milk/Poultry/Eggs

Rice grain, straw, hulls and bran may

be fed to livestock and/or poultry.

However, the incremental exposure of

diflubenzuron residues to livestock and

poultry is minimal when compared to

the existing exposure. EPA concludes

that the current tolerances on meat,

milk, poultry and eggs are adequate to

cover the added residues resulting from

the experimental use on rice.

F. International Residue Limits

There are no Codex proposals,

Canadian, or Mexican limits for residues

of diflubenzuron on rice. A

compatibility issue is not relevant to the

proposed temporary tolerance.

G. Rotational Crop Restrictions.

The nature of the residue in rotational

crops is adequately understood for

purposes of reregistration (residue

chemistry chapters for the Reregistration

Eligibility Decision (RED) document,

March 16, 1995). Although EPA

concluded that the available confined

rotational crop study was inadequate to

fully satisfy GLN 165-1 reregistration

requirements, another confined

rotational crop study will not be

required because the study allowed EPA

to make regulatory conclusions

regarding the need for limited rotational

crop studies (GLN 165-2) and to

comment on the appropriateness of the

currently established plantback interval

(PBI) on diflubenzuron end-use product

labels.

Residue data on field-grown rotational

crops are not available. Although the

confined study was deemed inadequate,

the available data indicate that

diflubenzuron and CPU may exceed

0.01 ppm in rotational crops planted up

to 4 months after a 1x application of

diflubenzuron to the primary crop and

in cereal grains planted up to 12 months

after a 1x application.

IV. Conclusion

Therefore, the temporary tolerance is

established for residues of the

insecticide diflubenzuron (N-[[4-

chlorophenyl)amino]-carbonyl]-2,6-

difluorobenzamide) and metabolites

convertible to p-chloroaniline expressed

as diflubenzuron on rice grain at 0.01

ppm.

V. Objections and Hearing Requests

The new FFDCA section 408(g)

provides essentially the same process

for persons to ‘‘object’’ to a tolerance

regulation issued by EPA under new

section 408(e) and (l)(6) as was provided

in the old section 408 and in section

409. However, the period for filing

objections is 60 days, rather than 30

days. EPA currently has procedural

regulations which govern the

submission of objections and hearing

requests. These regulations will require

some modification to reflect the new

law. However, until those modifications

can be made, EPA will continue to use

those procedural regulations with

appropriate adjustments to reflect the

new law.

Any person may, by July 13, 1998, file

written objections to any aspect of this

regulation and may also request a

hearing on those objections. Objections

and hearing requests must be filed with

the Hearing Clerk, at the address given

above (40 CFR 178.20). A copy of the

objections and/or hearing requests filed

with the Hearing Clerk should be

submitted to the OPP docket for this

rulemaking. The objections submitted

must specify the provisions of the

regulation deemed objectionable and the

grounds for the objections (40 CFR

178.25). Each objection must be

accompanied by the fee prescribed by

40 CFR 180.33(i). If a hearing is

requested, the objections must include a

statement of the factual issues on which

a hearing is requested, the requestor’s

contentions on such issues, and a

summary of any evidence relied upon

by the requestor (40 CFR 178.27). A

request for a hearing will be granted if

the Administrator determines that the
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 92 /Wednesday, May 13, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 26487

material submitted shows the following:

There is genuine and substantial issue

of fact; there is a reasonable possibility

that available evidence identified by the

requestor would, if established, resolve

one or more of such issues in favor of

the requestor, taking into account

uncontested claims or facts to the

contrary; and resolution of the factual

issues in the manner sought by the

requestor would be adequate to justify

the action requested (40 CFR 178.32).

Information submitted in connection

with an objection or hearing request

may be claimed confidential by marking

any part or all of that information as

CBI. Information so marked will not be

disclosed except in accordance with

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

A copy of the information that does not

contain CBI must be submitted for

inclusion in the public record.

Information not marked confidential

may be disclosed publicly by EPA

without prior notice.

VI. Public Docket

EPA has established a record for this

rulemaking under docket control

number [OPP–300660] (including any

comments and data submitted

electronically). A public version of this

record, including printed, paper

versions of electronic comments, which

does not include any information

claimed as CBI, is available for

inspection from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, excluding legal

holidays. The public record is located in

Rm. 1119 of the Public Information and

Records Integrity Branch, Information

Resources and Services Division

(7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs,

Environmental Protection Agency,

Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis

Highway, Arlington, VA.

Electronic comments may be sent

directly to EPA at:

opp-docket@epamail.epa.gov.

Electronic comments must be

submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the

use of special characters and any form

of encryption.

The official record for this

rulemaking, as well as the public

version, as described above will be kept

in paper form. Accordingly, EPA will

transfer any copies of objections and

hearing requests received electronically

into printed, paper form as they are

received and will place the paper copies

in the official rulemaking record which

will also include all comments

submitted directly in writing. The

official rulemaking record is the paper

record maintained at the Virginia

address in ‘‘ADDRESSES’’ at the

beginning of this document.

VII. Regulatory Assessment

Requirements

This final rule establishes a temporary

tolerance for the residues of

diflubenzuron (N-[[4-

chlorophenyl)amino]-carbonyl]-2,6-

difluorobenzamide) and metabolites

convertible to p-chloroaniline expressed

as diflubenzuron on rice grain at 0.01

ppm 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). This final rule does

not contain any information collections

subject to OMB approval under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq., or impose any

enforceable duty or contain any

unfunded mandate as described under

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L.

104-4). Nor does it require any prior

consultation as specified by Executive

Order 12875, entitled Enhancing the

Intergovernmental Partnership (58 FR

58093, October 28, 1993), or special

considerations as required by Executive

Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to

Address Environmental Justice in

Minority Populations and Low-Income

Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16,

1994), or require OMB review in

accordance with Executive Order 13045,

entitled Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997).

In addition, since these tolerances and

exemptions that are established on the

basis of a petition under FFDCA section

408(d), such as the tolerances for the

residues of diflubenzuron (N-[[4-

chlorophenyl)amino]-carbonyl]-2,6-

difluorobenzamide) and metabolites

convertible to p-chloroaniline expressed

as diflubenzuron on rice grain at 0.01

ppm 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. Nevertheless, the

Agency has previously assessed whether

establishing tolerances, exemptions

from tolerances, raising tolerance levels

or expanding exemptions might

adversely impact small entities and

concluded, as a generic matter, that

there is no adverse economic impact.

The factual basis for the Agency’s

generic certification for tolerance

actions published on May 4, 1981 (46

FR 24950) and was provided to the

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small

Business Administration.

VIII. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. EPA will submit a

report containing this rule and other

required information to the U.S. Senate,

the U.S. House of Representatives, and

the Comptroller General of the United

States prior to publication of the rule in

the Federal Register. This rule is not a

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.

804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: May 7, 1998.

James Jones,

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. 346a and 371.

2. By revising § 180.377 to read as

follows:

§ 180.377 Diflubenzuron; tolerances for

residues.

(a) General. (1) Tolerances are

established for residues of the

insecticide diflubenzuron (N-[[(4-

chlorophenyl)amino]carbonyl]-2,6-

difluorobenzamide) in or on the

following raw agricultural commodities:

Commodity Parts per

million

Artichokes ................................... 6.0

Cattle, fat .................................... 0.05

Cattle, mbyp ................................ 0.05

Cattle, meat ................................ 0.05

Cottonseed .................................. 0.2

Eggs ............................................ 0.05

Goats, fat .................................... 0.05

Goats, mbyp ............................... 0.05

Goats, meat ................................ 0.05

Grapefruit .................................... 0.5

Hogs, fat ..................................... 0.05

Hogs, mbyp ................................. 0.05

Hogs, meat ................................. 0.05

Horses, fat .................................. 0.05
26488 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 92 /Wednesday, May 13, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

Commodity Parts per

million

Horses, mbyp .............................. 0.05

Horses, meat .............................. 0.05

Milk .............................................. 0.05

Mushrooms ................................. 0.2

Orange ........................................ 0.5

Poultry, fat ................................... 0.05

Poultry, mbyp .............................. 0.05

Poultry, meat ............................... 0.05

Sheep, fat ................................... 0.05

Sheep, mbyp ............................... 0.05

Sheep, meat ............................... 0.05

Soybeans .................................... 0.05

Tangerine .................................... 0.5

Walnuts ....................................... 0.1

(2) A temporary tolerance expiring

June 30, 1999, is established for residues

of the insecticide diflubenzuron (N-[[4-

chlorophenyl)amino]-carbonyl]-2,6-

difluorobenzamide) and metabolites

convertible to p-chloroaniline expressed

as diflubenzuron on rice grain at 0.01

ppm.

(b) Section 18 emergency exemptions.

[Reserved]

(c) Tolerances with regional

registrations. Tolerances with regional

registration, as defined in § 180.1(n), are

established for residues of

diflubenzuron in or on the following

raw agricultural commodities:

Commodity Parts per

million

Grass, pasture ............................ 1.0

Grass, range ............................... 3.0

(d) Indirect or inadvertent residues.

[Reserved]

[FR Doc. 98–12640 Filed 5–12–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

GENERAL SERVICES

ADMINISTRATION

41 CFR Chapter 301

[FTR Amendment 72]

RIN 3090–AG72

Federal Travel Regulation; Maximum

Per Diem Rates

AGENCY: Office of Governmentwide

Policy, GSA.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the

Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) to

change the maximum per diem rate

prescribed in FTR Amendment 68 (62

FR 63798, December 2, 1997) for El Paso

(El Paso County), Texas.

The General Services Administration

(GSA), after an analysis of additional

data, has determined that the current

lodging allowance for El Paso, Texas

does not adequately reflect the costs of

lodging accommodations near Federal

Government facilities. To provide

adequate per diem reimbursement for

Federal employee travel to El Paso,

Texas, the maximum lodging allowance

is being changed to $78 and the meals

and incidental expenses (M&IE) rate

remains at $34, resulting in a maximum

per diem rate of $112.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is

effective May 13, 1998, and applies for

travel performed on or after May 13,

1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joddy Garner, General Services

Administration, Travel and

Transportation Management Policy

Division (MTT), Washington, DC 20405,

telephone 202–501–1538.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: GSA has

determined that this rule is not a

significant regulatory action for the

purposes of Executive Order 12866 of

September 30, 1993. This final rule is

not required to be published in the

Federal Register for notice and

comment. Therefore, the Regulatory

Flexibility Act does not apply. This rule

is also exempt from Congressional

review prescribed under 5 U.S.C. 801

since it relates solely to agency

management and personnel.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, under 5 U.S.C. 5701-5709

title 41, Chapter 301 of the Code of

Federal Regulations is revised to read as

follows:

CHAPTER 301—TRAVEL

ALLOWANCES

Appendix A to chapter 301 is

amended by removing the

corresponding lodging, M&IE, and

maximum per diem rates for El Paso,

Texas, and inserting in their places the

following entry:

Appendix A To Chapter 301—

Prescribed Maximum Per Diem Rates

For Conus

* * * * * * *

El Paso El Paso 78 34

112

* * * * * * *

Dated: May 6, 1998.

David J. Barram,

Administrator of General Services.

[FR Doc. 98–12827 Filed 5–12–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820–14–P

CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND

COMMUNITY SERVICE

45 CFR Parts 1215 and 2507

RIN 3045–AA16

Freedom of Information Act Regulation

and Implementation of Electronic

Freedom of Information Act

Amendments of 1996

AGENCY: Corporation for National and

Community Service.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Corporation for National

and Community Service (hereinafter the

‘‘Corporation’’) has revised its

regulations under the Freedom of

Information Act (FOIA). The

Corporation redesignated the existing

regulations under former ACTION’s CFR

chapter as updated regulations under

the Corporation’s CFR chapter. These

procedures facilitate the public’s access

to Corporation records, and implement

the Electronic Freedom of Information

Act Amendments of 1996.

DATES: This final rule is effective June

12, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill

Hudson, Corporation FOIA/Privacy Act

Officer, at (202) 606–5000, ext. 265.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Corporation published a notice of

proposed rulemaking on March 12, 1998

(63 FR 12068) announcing its intention

to redesignate the existing regulations

under former ACTION’s CFR chapter as

updated regulations under the

Corporation’s CFR chapter. The

functions of the ACTION agency,

including the VISTA and senior

volunteer programs, were transferred to

the Corporation on April 4, 1994. The

Corporation operates under two statutes,

the National and Community Service

Act of 1990, as amended, 42 U.S.C.

12501 et seq., and the Domestic

Volunteer Service Act of 1973, as

amended, 42 U.S.C. 4950 et seq.

The Corporation received only two

comments on this proposed rule. One

comment requested that the Corporation

publish a more detailed index list of

documents available on its internet web

site. The Corporation’s FOIA Officer

will publish a more detailed index list

on its internet web site as additional

types of documents become available on

that site. The other comment was a

request to grant the Corporation’s Office

of Inspector General (OIG) authority to

make the final determination on all

FOIA appeals where the OIG denied the

initial request for any document in its

possession. The Corporation has

determined that its Chief Operating