11740 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

EPA-APPROVED VIRGINIA REGULATIONS AND STATUTES

State citation Title/subject State effective 

date EPA approval date Explanation [former SIP citation] 

* * * * * * * 

29 VAC 5, Chapter 140 Regulations for Emissions Trading Programs 

* * * * * * * 

Part IV SO2 Annual Trading Program 

* * * * * * * 

5–140–3400 ............................ State trading budgets ............ 12/12/07 03/12/10 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

1. In section title, replace 

‘‘State’’ with ‘‘CAIR SO2 Annual’’. 

2. In paragraph 1, replace 

2009 with 2010. 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2010–5105 Filed 3–11–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2009–0127; FRL–8814–5] 

S-Abscisic Acid, (S)-5-(1-hydroxy-2,6,6- 

trimethyl-4-oxo-1-cyclohex-2-enyl)-3- 

methyl-penta-(2Z,4E)-dienoic Acid; 

Amendment to an Exemption from the 

Requirement of a Tolerance 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation amends the 

current temporary exemption from the 

requirement of a tolerance for residues 

of the biochemical pesticide S-Abscisic 

Acid, (S)-5-(1-hydroxy-2,6,6-trimethyl4-oxo-1-cyclohex-2-enyl)-3-methylpenta-(2Z,4E)-dienoic Acid (ABA), to 

make it a permanent exemption from 

the requirement of a tolerance for 

residues of ABA in or on all food 

commodities when applied or used 

preharvest as a plant regulator. Valent 

Biosciences Corporation submitted a 

petition to EPA under the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 

requesting that the Agency amend the 

existing temporary exemption from the 

requirement of a tolerance. This 

regulation eliminates the need to 

establish a maximum permissible level 

for residues of S-Abscisic Acid. 

DATES: This regulation is effective 

March 12, 2010. Objections and requests 

for hearings must be received on or 

before May 11, 2010, 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: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under docket 

identification (ID) number EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2009–0127. All documents in the 

docket are listed in the docket index 

available at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available in the electronic docket at 

http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only 

available in hard copy, at the OPP 

Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S– 

4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 

2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The 

Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. 

to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The Docket 

Facility telephone number is (703) 305– 

5805. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Chris Pfeifer, Biopesticides and 

Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

(703) 308–0031; e-mail address: 

pfeifer.chris@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. Potentially 

affected entities may include, but are 

not limited to: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 111). 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112). 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532). 

This listing is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. Other types of 

entities not listed in this unit could also 

be affected. The North American 

Industrial Classification System 

(NAICS) codes have been provided to 

assist you and others in determining 

whether this action might apply to 

certain entities. If you have any 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, consult 

the person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

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.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr. 

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing 

Request? 

Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, 21 

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

objection to any aspect of this regulation 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 11741 

and may also request a hearing on those 

objections. The EPA procedural 

regulations which govern the 

submission of objections and requests 

for hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. 

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–2009–0127 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 May 11, 2010. 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 that does not 

contain any CBI for inclusion in the 

public docket that is described in 

ADDRESSES. Information not marked 

confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 

may be disclosed publicly by EPA 

without prior notice. Submit your 

copies, identified by docket ID number 

EPA–HQ–OPP–2009–0127, by one of 

the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs 

(OPP) Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001. 

• Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public 

Docket (7502P), Environmental 

Protection Agency, Rm. S–4400, One 

Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. 

Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries 

are only accepted during the Docket 

Facility’s normal hours of operation 

(8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays). 

Special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. The 

Docket Facility telephone number is 

(703) 305–5805. 

II. Background and Statutory Findings 

In the Federal Register of May 6, 2009 

(74 FR 20946) (FRL–8411–2), EPA 

issued a notice pursuant to section 

408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 

346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a 

pesticide tolerance petition (PP 8F7391) 

by Valent Biosciences Corporation, 870 

Technology Way, Libertyville, IL 60048. 

The petition requested that 40 CFR 

180.1281 be amended by establishing a 

permanent exemption from the 

requirement of a tolerance for residues 

of S-Abscisic Acid, (S)-5-(1-hydroxy2,6,6-trimethyl-4-oxo-1-cyclohex-2- 

enyl)-3-methyl-penta-(2Z,4E)-dienoic 

Acid (hereafter referred to as ABA). This 

notice stated that a summary of the 

petition prepared by the petitioner 

Valent Biosciences Corporation could be 

found in the docket for this action, 

which is available to the public in the 

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

There were no substantive comments 

received in response to the notice of 

filing. Currently, there is a two-part 

temporary exemption from the 

requirement of a tolerance for residues 

of ABA. ABA is exempt from the 

requirement of a tolerance when used 

on grapes in accordance with 

Experimental Use permit 73049–EUP–4, 

which expires on October 1, 2010; and 

ABA is exempt when used on grapes, 

herbs and spices, leafy vegetables, 

pineapple, pome fruit and stone fruit in 

accordance with Experimental Use 

permit 73049–EUP–7, which expires on 

August 7, 2012. Valent Biosciences 

Corporation requested an amendment of 

this two-part temporary exemption to a 

permanent exemption in or on all food 

commodities. 

Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA 

allows EPA to establish an exemption 

from the requirement for a tolerance (the 

legal limit for a pesticide chemical 

residue in or on a food) only if EPA 

determines that the exemption is ‘‘safe.’’ 

Section 408(c)(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. Pursuant to 

section 408(c)(2)(B) of FFDCA, in 

establishing or maintaining in effect an 

exemption from the requirement of a 

tolerance, EPA must take into account 

the factors set forth in section 

408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA, which require 

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. . . .’’ 

Additionally, section 408(b)(2)(D) of 

FFDCA requires that 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 performs a number of analyses to 

determine the risks from aggregate 

exposure to pesticide residues. First, 

EPA determines the toxicity of 

pesticides. Second, EPA examines 

exposure to the pesticide through food, 

drinking water, and through other 

exposures that occur as a result of 

pesticide use in residential settings. 

III. Toxicological Profile 

Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) 

of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the 

available scientific data and other 

relevant information in support of this 

action and considered its validity, 

completeness, and reliability and the 

relationship of this information 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. 

ABA is a plant regulator present in all 

vascular plants, algae, and some fungi. 

Its name derives from its purported role 

in abscission—the shedding of leaves, 

fruits, flowers, and seeds. As a plant 

hormone, ABA is known to be a strong 

actor in regulating plant growth by 

aiding in stress resistance, fruit set, 

ripening, and senescence. It is naturally 

present in fruits and vegetables at 

various levels, generally not in excess of 

10 parts per million (ppm), and has 

always been a component of any diet 

containing plant materials. To date, no 

toxic effects to humans have been 

associated with the consumption of 

ABA in fruits and vegetables. 

Summaries of the toxicological data 

submitted in support of this exemption 

from the requirement of a tolerance 

follows: 

1. Acute toxicity. Acute toxicity 

studies, submitted to support the 

registration of the end-use product 

containing ABA, confirm a low toxicity 

profile and buttress the finding that this 

active ingredient poses no significant 

human health risk with regard to new 

food uses. Altogether, the acute toxicity 

data show virtual nontoxicity for all 

routes of exposure and suggest that any 

dietary risks associated with this 

naturally occurring plant regulator 

would be negligible. 

i. The acute oral median lethal dose 

(LD50) in rats was greater than 5,000 

milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) and 

confirmed negligible toxicity through 

the oral route. There were no observed 

toxicological effects on the test subjects 

in the acute oral study submitted 

(Master Record Identification Number 

MRID No. 46895611). ABA is Toxicity 

Category IV for acute oral toxicity. 

ii. The acute dermal LD50 in rats was 

greater than 5,000 mg/kg. These data 

substantiated ABA’s relative dermal 

nontoxicity to the general public (MRID 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
11742 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

No. 46895612). ABA is Toxicity 

Category IV for acute dermal toxicity. 

iii. The acute inhalation median lethal 

concentration (LC50) was greater than 

2.06 milligrams per liter (mg/L) in rats 

and showed no significant inhalation 

toxicity (MRID No. 46895613). ABA is 

Toxicity Category IV for acute 

inhalation toxicity. 

iv. A skin irritation study on rabbits 

indicated that ABA was not irritating to 

the skin (MRID No. 46895615). ABA is 

Toxicity Category IV for dermal 

irritation. 

v. Data indicated ABA is not a dermal 

sensitizer (MRID No. 46895616). Data 

indicate that ABA is not acutely toxic. 

No toxic endpoints were established, 

and no significant toxicological effects 

were observed in any of the acute 

toxicity studies. 

2. Mutagenicity. Three mutagenicity 

studies, using ABA as the test 

substance, were performed. These 

studies are sufficient to confirm that 

there are no expected dietary or nonoccupational risks of mutagenicity with 

regard to new food uses. 

i. The Reverse Mutation Assay (MRID 

No. 47030901) showed that ABA did not 

induce mutant colonies relative to 

control groups. 

ii. The In vitro Mammalian Cells in 

Culture Assay (MRID No. 47005302) 

demonstrated that ABA did not damage 

chromosomes or the mitotic apparatus 

of hamster ovary cells. 

iii. A Bone Marrow Micronucleus 

Assay (MRID No. 47005301) indicated 

no mutagenicity in the bone marrow 

cells of mice up to the limit dose of 

2,000 mg/kg. 

3. Subchronic toxicity. Based on its 

biodegradation properties, residues of 

ABA are not expected to result in 

significant dietary exposure beyond the 

levels expected in background dietary 

exposures. Nonetheless, two subchronic 

oral toxicity studies satisfied the data 

requirements for subchronic toxicity 

and indicated that ABA has no 

subchronic toxicological effect. 

i. A 28–day Oral Toxicity Study 

(MRID No. 47470509) found no 

toxicological effects regarding mortality, 

clinical observations, neurotoxicity 

assessment, body weight, food 

consumption, hematology, clinical 

chemistry, organ weights, and 

macroscopic or microscopic 

observations. The no observable adverse 

effect level (NOAEL) was determined to 

be 20,000 milligrams per kilogram per 

day (mg/kg/day). 

ii. A 90–day Oral Toxicity Study 

(MRID No. 47470510) found no 

statistical difference in hematology, 

clinical chemistry, or urinalysis 

between test subjects and the control. 

The NOAEL was determined to be 

20,000 mg/kg/day. 

4. Developmental toxicity. The data 

submitted to the Agency (MRID No. 

47470511) demonstrate a clear lack of 

developmental toxicity and support the 

Agency’s conclusion that there is no risk 

of developmental toxicity associated 

with new food uses. Data submitted to 

the Agency satisfy the data requirements 

for developmental toxicity and indicate 

that ABA poses negligible risk with 

regard to developmental toxicity. 

A Prenatal Developmental Toxicity 

Study (MRID No. 47470512) found no 

significant treatment-related 

reproductive effects or fetal 

abnormalities and established a NOAEL 

of 1,000 mg/kg/day. 

5. Effects on endocrine systems. 

There is no available evidence 

demonstrating that ABA is an endocrine 

disruptor in humans. As a result, the 

Agency is not requiring information on 

the endocrine effects of ABA at this 

time. However, the Endocrine 

Disruption Screening Program (EDSP) 

has established a protocol, which guides 

the Agency in selecting suspect 

ingredients for review, and the Agency 

reserves the right to require new 

information should the program require 

it. Presently, based on the lack of 

exposure and the negligible toxicity 

profile of ABA, no adverse effects to the 

endocrine are known or expected. 

Overall, the lack of evidence of 

endocrine disruption is consistent with 

ABA’s low toxicity profile and supports 

this exemption from the requirement of 

a tolerance. 

IV. Aggregate Exposures 

In examining aggregate exposure, 

section 408 of FFDCA directs EPA to 

consider available information 

concerning exposures from the pesticide 

residue in food and all other nonoccupational exposures, including 

drinking water from ground water or 

surface water and exposure through 

pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or 

buildings (residential and other indoor 

uses). 

A. Dietary Exposure 

ABA is a plant regulator present in all 

vascular plants, algae, and some fungi. 

It is naturally present in fruits and 

vegetables at various levels, generally 

not in excess of 10 ppm, and has always 

been a component of any diet 

containing plant materials. Because of 

the rapid degradation of ABA, the 

proposed preharvest uses of this active 

ingredient are not expected to result in 

dietary residues in or on food above the 

natural background levels. Even in a 

worst-case scenario, exposure to ABA 

residues would not be expected to 

exceed exposures expected in a 

vegetarian diet. 

1. Food. Residues of ABA applied to 

food crops are expected to dissipate to 

background levels before they are 

distributed for consumption. Data 

submitted by the registrant confirm 

ABA’s rapid dissipation through 

metabolization, photo-isomerization, 

and degradation (MRID No. 47131404). 

Data demonstrate that ABA residues on 

grape leaves are 95% degraded within 

24 hours of application. Moreover, 

confirmatory data on the degradation of 

ABA on wheat leaves show a half-life 

ranging between 5 and 8 hours. Given 

ABA’s preharvest application and rapid 

degradation, no significant residues are 

expected. Even in the unlikely event of 

dietary exposure to ABA residues, it is 

noted that ABA is naturally present in 

fruits and vegetables at various levels up 

to 10 ppm and has always been a 

component of any diet containing plant 

materials. No toxicological hazard has 

historically been associated with its 

consumption. In sum, while little to no 

dietary exposure from use of ABA as a 

pesticide is expected, dietary exposures 

would not be expected to pose any 

quantifiable risk, due to ABA’s nontoxic 

profile as described in Unit III. 

2. Drinking water exposure. 

Applications of ABA are made directly 

to terrestrial crops. Accordingly, no 

aquatic exposures are expected. While 

ABA residues might runoff after 

application, they are not expected to be 

able to reach surface water or to 

percolate through the soil to ground 

water because of the rapid 

biodegradation of ABA and the rapid 

metabolization of ABA by soil microbes 

(MRID No. 47131404). Modeling of 

estimated environmental concentrations 

(EECs) in water indicate that maximum 

residues in water resulting from an 

incidental offsite movement of ABA 

would not exceed the low parts per 

billion level – an amount that is 

indistinguishable from the natural level 

of ABA already found in our water. 

(Notably, the highest potential EECs in 

water are many orders of magnitude 

below the amounts that would be 

commonly found in a typical serving of 

fruit and vegetables.) In sum, the 

Agency concludes that any residues 

resulting from the application of ABA to 

crops are not expected to result in any 

significant drinking water exposure and 

that any incidental residues resulting 

from a drift or run-off event would be 

so negligible that they would not pose 

any quantifiable risk. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 11743 

B. Other Non-Occupational Exposure 

Non-occupational exposure is not 

expected because ABA is not approved 

for residential uses. The active 

ingredient is applied directly to food 

commodities and degrades rapidly. 

Furthermore, the Agency notes that 

health risks are not expected from any 

pesticidal exposure to this active 

ingredient, no matter the circumstances. 

A December 2009 Agency risk 

assessment of ABA clearly establishes 

that even prolonged and regular 

occupational exposures, which are 

associated with this active ingredient, 

pose negligible risks. In the event of 

incidental non-occupational exposure, 

no risks are expected due to ABA’s low 

toxicity profile, nontoxic mode of 

action, and demonstrable lack of dietary 

effects. 

1. Dermal exposure. Nonoccupational dermal exposures to ABA 

are expected to be negligible because of 

its directed agricultural use. In the event 

of dermal exposure to residues, the 

nontoxic profile of ABA (as described in 

Unit III.) is not expected to result in any 

risks through this route of exposure. 

2. Inhalation exposure. Nonoccupational inhalation exposures are 

not expected to result from the 

agricultural uses of ABA. Any 

inhalation exposure associated with this 

new agricultural use pattern is expected 

to be occupational in nature. 

V. 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 S-Abscisic Acid to 

share a common mechanism of toxicity 

with any other substances, and SAbscisic Acid does not appear to 

produce a toxic metabolite produced by 

other substances. For the purposes of 

this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has 

assumed that S-Abscisic Acid 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 website at http:// 

www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative. 

VI. Determination of Safety for U.S. 

Population, Infants and Children 

Health risks to humans, including 

infants and children, are considered 

negligible with regard to the pesticidal 

use of ABA. As illustrated in Unit III., 

acute toxicity studies indicate that ABA 

has negligible toxicity. Furthermore, it 

is ubiquitous in nature and present in 

all fruits and vegetables. To date, there 

is no history of toxicological incident 

involving its consumption. Of equal 

note, little to no exposure to the 

residues of ABA is expected. Pesticidal 

applications are applied directly to 

agricultural crops, and data suggest that 

significant residues are not expected 

beyond the time of harvest. 

Accordingly, little to no dietary 

exposure is expected. As such, the 

Agency has determined that this food 

use of ABA poses no foreseeable risks to 

human health or the environment. Thus, 

there is a reasonable certainty of no 

harm to the general U.S. population, 

including infants and children, from 

exposure to this active ingredient. 

1. U.S. population. The Agency has 

determined that there is a reasonable 

certainty that no harm will result from 

aggregate exposure to residues of ABA 

to the U.S. population. This includes all 

anticipated dietary exposures and other 

non-occupational exposures for which 

there is reliable information. The 

Agency arrived at this conclusion based 

on the low levels of mammalian dietary 

toxicity associated with ABA, the 

natural ubiquity of ABA in foodstuffs, 

and information suggesting that the 

pesticidal use of ABA will not result in 

any significant exposure. For these 

reasons, the Agency has determined that 

ABA residues in and on all food 

commodities will be safe, and that there 

is a reasonable certainty that no harm 

will result from aggregate exposure to 

residues of ABA. 

2. Infants and children. Section 

408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that 

EPA shall assess the available 

information about consumption patterns 

among infants and children, special 

susceptibility of infants and children to 

pesticide chemical residues, and the 

cumulative effects on infants and 

children of the residues and other 

substances with a common mechanism 

of toxicity. In addition, section 

408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that 

EPA shall apply an additional tenfold 

margin of exposure (safety) for infants 

and children in the case of threshold 

effects to account for prenatal and 

postnatal toxicity and the completeness 

of the database unless the EPA 

determines that a different margin of 

exposure (safety) will be safe for infants 

and children. Margins of exposure 

(safety), which are often referred to as 

uncertainty factors, are incorporated 

into EPA risk assessments either 

directly or through the use of a margin 

of exposure analysis, or by using 

uncertainty (safety) factors in 

calculating a dose level that poses no 

appreciable risk. Based on all the 

information evaluated for ABA, the 

Agency concludes that there are no 

threshold effects of concern and, as a 

result, the provision requiring an 

additional margin of safety does not 

apply. Further, the considerations of 

consumption patterns, special 

susceptibility, and cumulative effects do 

not apply to pesticides, such as ABA, 

without a demonstrated significant 

adverse effect. 

VII. Other Considerations 

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology 

Through this action, the Agency 

proposes an exemption from the 

requirement of a tolerance of ABA when 

used on all food commodities without 

any numerical limitations for residues. 

EPA has determined that residues 

resulting from the pesticidal uses of 

ABA would be so low as to be virtually 

indistinguishable from natural 

background levels. As a result, the 

Agency has concluded that an analytical 

method is not required for enforcement 

purposes for ABA. 

B. International Residue Limits 

There are no codex maximum residue 

levels established for residues of ABA. 

VIII. Conclusions 

Based on the data submitted to 

support this tolerance exemption, and 

other information available to the 

Agency, EPA is amending the current 

temporary exemption from the tolerance 

requirements, pursuant to section 408(c) 

of FFDCA, to be a permanent exemption 

from the requirement for a tolerance for 

residues of ABA in or on all food 

commodities when applied pre-harvest 

as a plant regulator. 

IX. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This final rule establishes a tolerance 

under section 408(d) of FFDCA 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
11744 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

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 section 408(d) of FFDCA, 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 section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. 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) (Public Law 104–4). 

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), Public Law 104–113, section 

12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). 

X. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report 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 this final rule in the 

Federal Register. This final 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: February 25, 2010. 

Steven Bradbury, 

Acting Director, 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 subpart D, revise § 180.1281 to 

read as follows: 

§ 180.1281 S-Abscisic Acid, (S)-5-(1- 

hydroxy-2,6,6-trimethyl-4-oxo-1-cyclohex-2- 

enyl)-3-methyl-penta-(2Z,4E)-dienoic Acid; 

exemption from the requirement of a 

tolerance. 

An exemption from the requirement 

of a tolerance is established for residues 

of S-Abscisic Acid in or on all food 

commodities when applied or used 

preharvest as a plant regulator. 

[FR Doc. 2010–5491 Filed 3–11–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

44 CFR Part 65 

[Docket ID FEMA–2010–0003] 

Changes in Flood Elevation 

Determinations 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: Modified Base (1% annualchance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) are 

finalized for the communities listed 

below. These modified BFEs will be 

used to calculate flood insurance 

premium rates for new buildings and 

their contents. 

DATES: The effective dates for these 

modified BFEs are indicated on the 

following table and revise the Flood 

Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) in effect 

for the listed communities prior to this 

date. 

ADDRESSES: The modified BFEs for each 

community are available for inspection 

at the office of the Chief Executive 

Officer of each community. The 

respective addresses are listed in the 

table below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kevin C. Long, Acting Chief, 

Engineering Management Branch, 

Mitigation Directorate, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, 500 C 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, 

(202) 646–2820. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) makes the final determinations 

listed below for the modified BFEs for 

each community listed. These modified 

BFEs have been published in 

newspapers of local circulation and 

ninety (90) days have elapsed since that 

publication. The Deputy Federal 

Insurance and Mitigation Administrator 

has resolved any appeals resulting from 

this notification. 

The modified BFEs are not listed for 

each community in this notice. 

However, this final rule includes the 

address of the Chief Executive Officer of 

the community where the modified BFE 

determinations are available for 

inspection. 

The modified BFEs are made pursuant 

to section 206 of the Flood Disaster 

Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, 

and are in accordance with the National 

Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 

4001 et seq., and with 44 CFR part 65. 

For rating purposes, the currently 

effective community number is shown 

and must be used for all new policies 

and renewals. 

The modified BFEs are the basis for 

the floodplain management measures 

that the community is required either to 

adopt or to show evidence of being 

already in effect in order to qualify or 

to remain qualified for participation in 

the National Flood Insurance Program 

(NFIP). 

These modified BFEs, together with 

the floodplain management criteria 

required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the 

minimum that are required. They 

should not be construed to mean that 

the community must change any 

existing ordinances that are more 

stringent in their floodplain 

management requirements. The 

community may at any time enact 

stricter requirements of its own or 

pursuant to policies established by other 

Federal, State, or regional entities. 

These modified BFEs also are used to 

meet the floodplain management 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES