Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0755-0003
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Pesticide Tolerances for Emergency Exemptions: Dinotefuran
Posted Date: 2014-01-22T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 14 (Wednesday, January 22, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3508-3512]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-01079]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0755; FRL-9402-8]

Dinotefuran; Pesticide Tolerances for Emergency Exemptions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation modifies existing time-limited tolerances 
established at 40 CFR 180.603 under section 408 of the Federal Food, 
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), for residues of dinotefuran in or on 
pome fruit and stone fruit by raising them from 1.0 ppm to 2.0 ppm. A 
document published in the Federal Register of November 9, 2012, which 
first established the tolerances in response to EPA's granting of an 
emergency exemption under Section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, 
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) authorizing use of the pesticide 
on pome fruit and stone fruit. The previous tolerances were supported 
by surrogate residue data in pears. Additional residue data has been 
produced on peach indicating that residues may be higher than suggested 
by the residue data in pears. Review of the new data has concluded that 
the tolerance levels for pome and stone fruits should be increased to 
2.0 ppm. Therefore, this regulation modifies the maximum permissible 
level for residues of dinotefuran in or on these commodities by raising 
them from 1.0 ppm to 2.0 ppm. The time-limited tolerances expire on 
December 31, 2015.

DATES: This regulation is effective January 22, 2014. Objections and 
requests for hearings must be received on or before March 24, 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-2012-0755, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory 
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency 
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution 
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open 
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-
5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information 
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lois Rossi, Registration Division 
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone 
number: (703)305-7090; email address: RDFRNotices@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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 40 CFR 
part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under section 408(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 
(FFDCA), 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-
2012-0755 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 March 24, 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-2012-0755, 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.htm.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along 
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    EPA, on its own initiative, in accordance with FFDCA sections 
408(e) and 408(l)(6) of, 21 U.S.C. 346a(e) and 346a(1)(6), is modifying 
the time-limited tolerances for residues of dinotefuran, (RS)-1-methyl-
2-nitro-3-((tetrahydro-3-furanyl)methyl)guanidine including its 
degradates DN, 1-methyl-3-(tetrahydro-3-furylmethyl)guanidine, and UF, 
1-

[[Page 3509]]

methyl-3-(tetrahydro-3-furylmethyl)urea in or on Fruit, stone, Group 
11, and Fruit, pome, Group 12 by revising to 2.0 parts per million 
(ppm). The current time-limited tolerances were first established for 
these crop groups at 1.0 ppm in a rule published in the Federal 
Register document on November 9, 2012. These modified time-limited 
tolerances expire on December 31, 2015.
    Section 408(l)(6) of FFDCA requires EPA to establish a time-limited 
tolerance or exemption from the requirement for a tolerance for 
pesticide chemical residues in food that will result from the use of a 
pesticide under an emergency exemption granted by EPA under FIFRA 
section 18. Such tolerances can be established or modified without 
providing notice or period for public comment. EPA does not intend for 
its actions on FIFRA section 18 related time-limited tolerances to set 
binding precedents for the application of FFDCA section 408 and the 
safety standard to other tolerances and exemptions. Section 408(e) of 
FFDCA allows EPA to establish or modify a tolerance or an exemption 
from the requirement of a tolerance on its own initiative, i.e., 
without having received any petition from an outside party.
    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.''
    Section 18 of FIFRA authorizes EPA to exempt any Federal or State 
agency from any provision of FIFRA, if EPA determines that ``emergency 
conditions exist which require such exemption.'' EPA has established 
regulations governing such emergency exemptions in 40 CFR part 166.

III. Emergency Exemption for Dinotefuran on Pome and Stone Fruit and 
FFDCA Tolerances

    Eight state lead agricultural agencies have requested and received 
emergency exemptions for the use of dinotefuran on pome and stone 
fruits to control the brown marmorated stink bug (BMSB) for the past 
two years. The states are: Delaware, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, 
North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia. The States 
claimed that the abrupt increase and spread of damaging populations of 
BMSB, a recently introduced invasive species, resulted in an urgent and 
non-routine situation with significant economic losses of over 20% 
expected without the use of dinotefuran as an additional pest 
management tool.
    After having reviewed the submissions, EPA determined that 
emergency conditions exist for these States, and that the criteria for 
approval of emergency exemptions are met. EPA has authorized specific 
exemptions under FIFRA section 18 for the use of dinotefuran on pome 
fruit and stone fruit for control of the BMSB in the eight states 
listed previously. Time-limited tolerances were established at 1.0 ppm 
in or on stone and pome fruits, previously, in connection with these 
actions. The tolerances were supported by surrogate residue data in 
pears. Since then, additional residue data has been produced in peach 
indicating that residues may be higher than suggested by the pear data. 
EPA has reviewed the new data and concluded that a tolerance level of 
2.0 ppm is appropriate.
    As part of its evaluation of the emergency exemption application, 
EPA assessed the potential risks presented by raising the tolerances 
for residues of dinotefuran in or on pome fruit and stone fruit. In 
doing so, EPA considered the safety standard in FFDCA section 
408(b)(2), and EPA decided that the necessary tolerance under FFDCA 
section 408(l)(6) would be consistent with the safety standard and with 
FIFRA section 18.
    Consistent with the need to move quickly on the emergency 
exemptions in order to address an urgent non-routine situation and to 
ensure that the resulting food is safe and lawful, EPA is issuing this 
modification of the initial tolerances without notice and opportunity 
for public comment as provided in FFDCA section 408(l)(6). Although 
these time-limited tolerances expire on December 31, 2015, under FFDCA 
section 408(l)(5), residues of the pesticide not in excess of the 
amounts specified in the tolerance remaining in or on pome fruit and 
stone fruit after that date will not be unlawful, provided the 
pesticide was applied in a manner that was lawful under FIFRA, and the 
residues do not exceed a level that was authorized by these time-
limited tolerances at the time of that application. EPA will take 
action to revoke these time-limited tolerances earlier if any 
experience with, scientific data on, or other relevant information on 
this pesticide indicate that the residues are not safe.
    Because these time-limited tolerances were approved under emergency 
conditions, EPA has not made any decisions about whether dinotefuran 
meets FIFRA's registration requirements for use on pome fruit and stone 
fruit or whether permanent tolerances for this use would be 
appropriate. Under these circumstances, EPA does not believe that these 
time-limited tolerance decisions serve as a basis for registration of 
dinotefuran by a State for special local needs under FIFRA section 
24(c). Nor do these tolerances by themselves serve as the authority for 
persons in any State other than those named previously in this notice 
to use this pesticide on the applicable crops under FIFRA section 18 
absent the issuance of an emergency exemption applicable within that 
State. For additional information regarding the emergency exemption for 
dinotefuran, contact the Agency's Registration Division at the address 
provided under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Consistent with 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 expected as a result of this emergency exemption use and the 
time-limited tolerances for residues of dinotefuran on pome fruit and 
stone fruit at 2.0 ppm. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks 
associated with these time-limited tolerances follows.

A. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA 
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of 
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the 
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no 
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for 
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed 
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each

[[Page 3510]]

toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects 
are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects 
of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are 
used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--
generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a 
reference dose (RfD)--and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-
threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will 
lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms 
of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a 
lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in 
risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment 
process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm. A 
summary of the toxicological endpoints for dinotefuran used for human 
risk assessment is discussed in Unit III of the final rule published in 
the Federal Register of September 12, 2012 (77 FR 56133) (FRL-9359-6). 
These endpoints remain unchanged since that date.

B. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary 
exposure to dinotefuran, EPA considered exposure under the time-limited 
tolerances as modified by this action as well as all existing 
dinotefuran tolerances in 40 CFR 180.603. EPA assessed dietary 
exposures from dinotefuran in food as follows:
    i. Acute and Chronic exposures. Acute and chronic effects were 
identified for dinotefuran. In estimating acute and chronic dietary 
exposures, EPA used food consumption information from the United States 
Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1994-1996 and 1998 Nationwide 
Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII). As to residue 
levels in food, EPA assumed 100 percent crop treated (PCT) and 
tolerance level residues for all commodities.
    ii. Cancer. Based on the data referenced in Unit IV.A., EPA has 
concluded that dinotefuran does not pose a cancer risk to humans. 
Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing 
cancer risk is unnecessary.
    iii. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) 
information. EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information 
in the dietary assessment for dinotefuran. Tolerance level residues and 
100 PCT were assumed for all food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening 
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk 
assessment for dinotefuran in drinking water. These simulation models 
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport 
characteristics of dinotefuran. Further information regarding EPA 
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be 
found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
    Based on the First Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST), 
Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/
EXAMS) and the Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) 
models the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of 
dinotefuran for acute exposures are estimated to be 269 parts per 
billion (ppb) for surface water and 4.9 ppb for ground water; and for 
chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 253-
257 ppb for surface water and 4.9 ppb for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly 
entered into the dietary exposure models. For acute dietary risk 
assessment, the water concentration value of 269 ppb was used to assess 
the dietary exposure contribution from drinking water. For chronic 
dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 257 ppb was 
used to assess the dietary exposure contribution from drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is 
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary 
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, 
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Dinotefuran is 
currently registered for the following uses that could result in 
residential exposures: Turf, ornamentals, vegetable gardens, pets, 
indoor aerosol sprays, and crack and crevice sprays. EPA assessed 
residential exposure using the following assumptions: Residential 
handler exposures were not assessed because no dermal or inhalation 
hazards were identified. For this same reason, postapplication 
residential dermal and inhalation exposure scenarios were not assessed. 
The Agency only considered post-application scenarios in which 
incidental oral exposures to children are expected. The oral exposures 
assessed included incidental oral exposures from turf, ant bait, ready 
to use garden trigger sprayers, dog and cat spot-on treatment, indoor 
broadcast, and indoor crack and crevice uses. Of all these scenarios, 
treated turf was determined to result in the highest levels of 
exposure. In assessing risks from residential exposures, EPA combines 
different residential sources of exposure that could reasonably be 
expected to occur on the same day. While it is possible for children to 
be exposed to indoor broadcast sprays on hard surfaces/carpets and to 
spot-on treatment to cats or dogs on the same day, these exposures have 
not been combined in this assessment because incidental oral hand-to-
mouth exposure from treated turf is higher and still results in an MOE 
that does not exceed the Agency's Level of Concern (LOC). Further 
information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for 
residential exposures may be found at: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/trac/science/trac6a05.pdf.
    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 dinotefuran to share a common mechanism of 
toxicity with any other substances, and dinotefuran does not appear to 
produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the 
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that 
dinotefuran 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.

C. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA 
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants 
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal 
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity 
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a 
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This 
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety 
Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default 
value of 10X, or uses a different additional SF when reliable data 
available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.

[[Page 3511]]

    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. In the pre-natal studies, no 
maternal or developmental toxicity was seen at the limit dose in rats. 
In rabbits, maternal toxicity manifested as clinical signs of 
neurotoxicity but no developmental toxicity was seen. In the 
reproduction study, parental and offspring toxicity was seen at the 
limit dose. Parental toxicity included decreased body weight gain, 
transient decrease in food consumption, and decreased thyroid weights. 
Offspring toxicity was characterized as decreased forelimb grip 
strength or hindlimb grip strength in the F1 pups. There was no adverse 
effect on reproductive performance at any dose. In the developmental 
neurotoxicity study, no maternal or offspring toxicity was seen at any 
dose including the limit dose.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show that 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 toxicity database for dinotefuran is complete.
    ii. The neurotoxic potential of dinotefuran has been adequately 
considered. Dinotefuran is a neonicotinoid and has a neurotoxic mode of 
pesticidal action. Consistent with the mode of action, changes in motor 
activity were seen in repeat-dose studies, including the subchronic 
neurotoxicity study. Additionally, decreased grip strength and brain 
weight was observed in the offspring of a multi-generation reproduction 
study albeit at doses close to the limit dose. For these reasons, a 
developmental neurotoxicity study was required. Upon review of the 
developmental neurotoxicity study, it was concluded that there is no 
evidence of a unique sensitivity to the developing nervous system since 
no effects on neurobehavioral parameters were seen in the offspring at 
doses that approached or exceeded the limit dose.
    iii. There is no evidence that dinotefuran results in increased 
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal 
developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction 
study.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure 
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based 
on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative 
(protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used 
to assess exposure to dinotefuran from potential residues in drinking 
water. EPA used similarly conservative assumptions to assess 
postapplication exposure of children as well as incidental oral 
exposure of toddlers. These assessments will not underestimate the 
exposure and risks posed by dinotefuran.

D. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide 
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the 
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA 
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the 
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term 
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, 
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an 
adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this 
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water 
to dinotefuran will occupy 12% of the aPAD for Children 1-2 years old, 
the population group receiving the greatest exposure.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this 
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to 
dinotefuran from food and water will utilize 5.7% of the cPAD for 
Children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest 
exposure. Based on the explanation in the unit regarding residential 
use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of dinotefuran 
is not expected.
    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).
    Dinotefuran is currently registered for uses that could result in 
short-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it 
is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water 
with short-term residential exposures to dinotefuran.
    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-
term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water, 
and residential exposures result in aggregate MOE of 690 for Children 
1-2 years old from hand to mouth exposure from treated turf, the 
scenario with the highest exposure. Because EPA's level of concern for 
dinotefuran is when MOEs are less than 100, this MOE is not of concern.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure 
takes into account intermediate-term non-dietary, non-occupational 
exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a 
background exposure level). Intermediate-term exposure is not expected 
for the adult residential exposure pathways. Therefore, the 
intermediate-term aggregate risk would be equivalent to the chronic 
dietary exposure estimate. For children, intermediate-term incidental 
oral exposures could potentially occur from indoor uses. However, while 
it is possible for children to be exposed for longer durations, the 
magnitude of residues is expected to be lower due to dissipation or 
other activities. Since incidental oral short- and intermediate-term 
toxicity endpoints and points of departure are the same, the short-term 
aggregate risk estimate, which includes the highest residential 
exposure estimate (from turf), is protective of any risks from 
intermediate-term exposures.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of 
evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity 
studies, dinotefuran is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA 
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result 
to the general population, or to infants and children, from aggregate 
exposure to dinotefuran residues. A more detailed discussion of the 
aggregate risk assessments and determination of safety may be found at 
http://www.regulations.gov in Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0755, in 
the aggregate human risk assessment document for this action, entitled 
``Dinotefuran ID: 13MI04 Section 18 Emergency Exemption for 
Use on Pome Fruits and Stone Fruits in Michigan to Control Brown 
Marmorated Stink Bugs.''

V. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodologies (a high performance liquid 
chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC/MS/MS) method for the 
determination of residues of dinotefuran, and the metabolites DN, and 
UF; an HPLC/ultraviolet (UV) detection method for the determination of 
residues of dinotefuran; and HPLC/MS and HPLC/MS/MS methods for the 
determination of DN and UF) are available to enforce the tolerance 
expression.
    The methods may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry 
Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 
20755-5350;

[[Page 3512]]

telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address: 
residuemethods@epa.gov.

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 not 
established MRLs for dinotefuran in or on pome fruit and stone fruit.

VI. Conclusion

    Therefore, the established time-limited tolerances for residues of 
dinotefuran, (RS)-1-methyl-2-nitro-3-((tetrahydro-3-
furanyl)methyl)guanidine including its metabolites and degradates, in 
or on pome fruit and stone fruit are modified by raising them to 2.0 
ppm. These tolerances expire on December 31, 2015.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule modifies tolerances under FFDCA sections 408(e) and 
408(l)(6). 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 in accordance 
with FFDCA sections 408(e) and 408(l)(6), such as the tolerances in 
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the 
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.) do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food 
handlers, and food retailers, but 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).

VIII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), 
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required 
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and 
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of 
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' 
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: January 10, 2014.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. In Sec.  180.603, revise the table in paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  180.603  Dinotefuran; tolerances for residues.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Expiration/
                    Commodity                     Parts per   revocation
                                                   million       date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fruit, pome, Group 11...........................        2.0   12/31/2015
Fruit, stone, Group 12..........................        2.0   12/31/2015
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-01079 Filed 1-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P