Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 14443 

Appendix Q to Subpart G of Part 82—

Unacceptable Substitutes Listed in the 

March 28, 2007 Final Rule, Effective 

May 29, 2007. 

FOAM BLOWING UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES

End use Substitute Decision Further information 

—Rigid polyurethane commercial refrigeration ...............

—Rigid polyurethane sandwich panels. 

HCFC–22; HCFC–142b as 

substitutes for HCFC–

141b.

Unacceptable 1 .................. Alternatives exist with 

lower or zero-ODP. 

—Rigid polyurethane slabstock and other foams. 

—Rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated 

boardstock.

—Rigid polyurethane appliance. 

HCFC–22; HCFC–142b as 

substitutes for CFCs.

Unacceptable 2 .................. Alternatives exist with 

lower or zero-ODP. 

—Rigid polyurethane spray and commercial refrigeration, and sandwich panels. 

—Rigid polyurethane slabstock and other foams. 

—Polystyrene extruded insulation boardstock and billet. 

—Phenolic insulation board and bunstock. 

—Flexible polyurethane. 

—Polystyrene extruded sheet. 

1For existing users of HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b as of November 4, 2005 other than in marine applications, the unacceptability determination 

is effective on March 1, 2008; for existing users of HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b as of November 4, 2005 in marine applications, including marine 

flotation foam, the unacceptability determination is effective on September 1, 2009. For an existing user of HCFC–22 or HCFC–142b that currently operates in only one facility that it does not own, and is scheduled to transition to a non-ODS, flammable alternative to coincide with a 

move to a new facility and installation of new process equipment that cannot be completed by March 1, 2008, the unacceptability determination 

is effective January 1, 2010. 2For existing users of HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b in polystyrene extruded insulation boardstock and billet and the other foam end uses, as of 

November 4, 2005, the unacceptability determination is effective on January 1, 2010. 

■ 3. In Appendix K to Subpart G, the 

second table (Foam Blowing—

Acceptable Substitutes) is removed. 

[FR Doc. E7–5491 Filed 3–27–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2006–481; FRL–8120–1] 

Fluopicolide; Pesticide Tolerance 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes 

tolerances for residues of fluopicolide in 

or on imported grape at 2.0 parts per 

million (ppm), and grape, raisin at 6.0 

ppm with no U.S. registration. Bayer 

CropScience AG requested this 

tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug, 

and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended 

by the Food Quality Protection Act of 

1996 (FQPA). The tolerance petition and 

data was transferred to Valent U.S.A. 

Corporation on January 9, 2006. 

DATES: This regulation is effective 

March 28, 2007. Objections and requests 

for hearings must be received on or 

before May 29, 2007, 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–2006–0481. All documents in the 

docket are listed in the index for the 

docket. 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 

telephone number is (703) 305-5805. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Janet Whitehurst, Registration Division 

(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460-0001; telephone number: 

(703) 305-6129; e-mail address: 

janet.whitehurst@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), 

e.g., agricultural workers; greenhouse, 

nursery, and floriculture workers; 

farmers. 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112), e.g., cattle ranchers and farmers, 

dairy cattle farmers, livestock farmers. 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311), e.g., agricultural workers; farmers; 

greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture 

workers; ranchers; pesticide applicators. 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532), e.g., agricultural workers; 

commercial applicators; farmers; 

greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture 

workers; residential users. 

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 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
14444 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

the person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies 

of This Document? 

In addition to accessing an electronic 

copy of this Federal Register document 

through the electronic docket at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, you may access 

this Federal Register document 

electronically through the EPA Internet 

under the ‘‘Federal Register’’ listings at 

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may 

also access a frequently updated 

electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 

through the Government Printing 

Office’s pilot e-CFR site at http:// 

www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr. 

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing 

Request? 

Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, as 

amended by the FQPA, any person may 

file an objection to any aspect of this 

regulation 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–2006–0481 in the subject line on 

the first page of your submission. All 

requests must be in writing, and must be 

mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk 

on or before May 29, 2007. 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–

2006–0481, 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’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 telephone number is (703) 305- 

5805. 

II. Petition for Tolerance 

In the Federal Register of January 24, 

2007 (72 FR 3132) (FRL–8110–9), 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 petition (PP 5E6903) by Valent 

U.S.A. Corporation, Walnut Creek, CA 

94596-8025. The petition requested that 

40 CFR part 180 be amended by 

establishing a tolerance for residues of 

the fungicide fluopicolide, 2,6-dichloroN-[[3-chloro-5-(trifluoromethyl)-2- 

pyridinyl]methyl] benzamide, in or on 

imported grape, juice, and grape, wine 

at 2.0 ppm and the processed 

commodity grape, raisin at 9.0 ppm. 

That notice referenced a summary of the 

petition prepared by Valent U.S.A. 

Corporation, the registrant, which is 

available to the public in the docket, 

http://www.regulations.gov. Comments 

were received on the notice of filing. 

EPA’s response to these comments are 

discussed in Unit IV.C. 

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....’’

EPA performs a number of analyses to 

determine the risks from aggregate 

exposure to pesticide residues. For 

further discussion of the regulatory 

requirements of section 408 of the 

FFDCA and a complete description of 

the risk assessment process, see http:// 

www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/1997/ 

November/Day-26/p30948.htm. 

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and 

Determination of Safety 

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. EPA has sufficient data to assess 

the hazards of and to make a 

determination on aggregate exposure, 

consistent with section 408(b)(2) of 

FFDCA, for a tolerance for residues of 

fluopicolide in or on grape at 2.0 ppm 

and grape, raisin at 6.0 ppm. EPA’s 

assessment of exposures and risks 

associated with establishing the 

tolerance follows. 

A. Toxicological Profile 

EPA has evaluated the available 

toxicity data and considered its validity, 

completeness, and reliability as well as 

the relationship of the results of the 

studies to human risk. EPA has also 

considered available information 

concerning the variability of the 

sensitivities of major identifiable 

subgroups of consumers, including 

infants and children. Specific 

information on the studies received and 

the nature of the toxic effects caused by 

fluopicolide as well as the no-observedadverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the 

lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level 

(LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can 

be found at http://www.regulations.gov. 

The referenced document is available in 

docket ID EPA–HQ–OPP–2006–0481. 

B. Toxicological Endpoints 

For hazards that have a threshold 

below which there is no appreciable 

risk, the dose at which no adverse 

effects are observed (the NOAEL) from 

the toxicology study identified as 

appropriate for use in risk assessment is 

used to estimate the toxicological level 

of concern (LOC). However, the lowest 

dose at which adverse effects of concern 

are identified (the LOAEL) is sometimes 

used for risk assessment if no NOAEL 

was achieved in the toxicology study 

selected. An uncertainty factor (UF) is 

applied to reflect uncertainties inherent 

in the extrapolation from laboratory 

animal data to humans and in the 

variations in sensitivity among members 

of the human population as well as 

other unknowns. 

The linear default risk methodology 

(Q*) is the primary method currently 

used by the Agency to quantify nonthreshold hazards such as cancer. The 

Q* approach assumes that any amount 

of exposure will lead to some degree of 

cancer risk, estimates risk in terms of 

the probability of occurrence of 

additional cancer cases. More 

information can be found on the general 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 14445 

principles EPA uses in risk 

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

pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm and 

http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/trac/ 

science. 

A summary of the toxicological 

endpoints for fluopicolide used for 

human risk assessment can be found at 

http://www.regulations.gov. The 

referenced document is available in 

docket ID EPA–HQ–OPP–2006–0481. 

C. Exposure Assessment 

1. Dietary exposure from food and 

feed uses. Tolerances have not been 

established (40 CFR 180.627) for the 

residues of fluopicolide, in or imported 

grapes. There are no registrations for use 

of fluopicolide in the United States. 

There are no major livestock feed items 

associated with the use on imported 

grapes. Therefore, residues in livestock 

commodities are not relevant to the 

establishment of import tolerances for 

grapes. Risk assessments were 

conducted by EPA to assess dietary 

exposures from fluopicolide in food as 

follows: 

i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute 

dietary exposure and risk assessments 

are performed for a food-use pesticide, 

if a toxicological study has indicated the 

possibility of an effect of concern 

occurring as a result of a one-day or 

single exposure. 

No acute reference dose was 

established nor was a dietary endpoint 

identified in either the general 

population or for females aged 13-49 

years. There were no appropriate 

studies that demonstrated evidence of 

toxicity attributable to a single dose of 

fluopicolide for these populations. As a 

result, a quantitative acute dietary 

exposure assessment is unnecessary. 

ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting 

the chronic dietary exposure assessment 

EPA used the Dietary Exposure 

Evaluation Model software with the 

Food Commodity Intake Database 

(DEEM-FCIDTM), which incorporates 

food consumption data as reported by 

respondents in the USDA 1994–1996 

and 1998 Nationwide Continuing 

Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals 

(CSFII), and accumulated exposure to 

the chemical for each commodity. The 

dietary assessment included grape 

commodities, as the only source of 

residues for fluopicolide. It was 

assumed that 100% of all grape 

commodities contained tolerance level 

residues. 

iii. Cancer. Fluopicolide is not likely 

to be carcinogenic to humans; therefore, 

a cancer exposure assessment was not 

conducted. 

iv. Anticipated residue and percent 

crop treated (PCT) information. 

Anticipated residues/PCT data were not 

needed to refine the risk assessment so 

they were not used. 

2. Dietary exposure from drinking 

water. Since there are no existing U.S. 

registrations for fluopicolide, no 

residues from fluopicolide are expected 

to occur in drinking water. 

3. From non-dietary exposure. The 

term ‘‘residential exposure’’ is used in 

this document to refer to nonoccupational, non-dietary exposure 

(e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, 

indoor pest control, termiticides, and 

flea and tick control on pets). No 

occupational exporue to fluopicolide is 

expected to occur in the U.S. as a result 

of fluopicolide on imported grapes. 

4. Cumulative effects from substances 

with a common mechanism of toxicity. 

Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of the 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.’’

Unlike other pesticides for which EPA 

has followed a cumulative risk approach 

based on a common mechanism of 

toxicity, EPA has not made a common 

mechanism of toxicity finding as to 

fluopicolide and any other substances 

and fluopicolide 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 fluopicolide has 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 the policy statements 

released by EPA’s Office of Pesticide 

Programs concerning common 

mechanism determinations and 

procedures for cumulating effects from 

substances found to have a common 

mechanism on EPA’s website at http:// 

www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative. 

D. Safety Factor for Infants and 

Children 

1. In general. Section 408 of FFDCA 

provides that EPA shall apply an 

additional tenfold 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 data base on 

toxicity and exposure unless EPA 

determines based on reliable data 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 

applying this provision, EPA either 

retains the default value of 10X when 

reliable data do not support the choice 

of a different factor, or, if reliable data 

are available, EPA uses a different 

additional safety factor value based on 

the use of traditional uncertainty factors 

and/or special FQPA safety factors, as 

appropriate. 

2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. 

Acceptable/guideline studies for 

developmental toxicity in rats and 

rabbits as well as a 2-generation 

reproduction study in rats were 

available for consideration during 

endpoint selection. There is no evidence 

of susceptibility following in utero and/ 

or postnatal exposure in the rabbit 

developmental toxicity study or in the 

2-generation rat reproduction study. 

Although qualitative susceptibility was 

observed in the rat developmental 

toxicity study, there is low concern for 

these effects because the offspring 

effects (reduced growth and skeletal 

defects) are well characterized and 

accompanied by maternal toxicity. 

There are no residual uncertainties 

concerning pre- and post-natal toxicity. 

3. Conclusion. EPA has determined 

that reliable data show that it would be 

safe for infants and children to reduce 

the FQPA safety factor to 1X. That 

decision is based on the following 

findings: There is a complete toxicity 

database for fluopicolide. There are no 

residual uncertainties concerning preand post-natal toxicity and no 

neurotoxicity concerns. The dietary 

food exposure assessment utilizes 

tolerance level residues and 100% CT. 

There is no potential for drinking water 

exposure. There is no potential for 

residential exposure. 

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of 

Safety 

In accordance with the FQPA, EPA 

must consider and aggregate pesticide 

exposures and risks from three major 

sources: Food, drinking water, and 

residential exposures. In an aggregate 

assessment, exposures from relevant 

sources are added together and 

compared to quantitative estimates of 

hazard (e.g., a NOAEL or PAD), or the 

risks themselves can be aggregated. 

When aggregating exposures and risks 

from various sources, EPA considers 

both the route and duration of 

exposure.The registrant is seeking 

import tolerances on grapes and its 

processed commodities and the risk 

assessment includes only dietary 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
14446 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

exposure to fluopicolide. There is no 

expectation that exposure to 

fluopicolide would occur via water 

consumption or residential use. 

Therefore, an aggregate exposure risk 

assessment is equivalent to the dietary 

risk assessment. 

1. Acute risk. Because there was no 

evidence of toxicity for fluopicolide 

attributable to a single dose, 

fluopicolide is not expected to pose an 

acute risk. 

2. Chronic risk. As there are no U.S. 

registrations or proposed registrations, 

the chronic aggregate risk is equivalent 

to the chronic dietary risk for 

fluopicolide residues in food. The 

chronic dietary exposure estimates are 

<1% cPAD for the general U.S. 

population and 3% cPAD for children 1- 

2 years old, the most highly exposed 

subgroup. The dietary risk estimates are 

all below EPA’s level of concern. 

3. Short-term risk. Short–term 

aggregate exposure takes into account 

residential exposure plus chronic 

exposure to food and water (considered 

to be a background exposure level). As 

there are no U.S. registrations or 

proposed registrations for fluopicolide, 

there will be no exposures from 

residential uses or residues in drinking 

water. Therefore, the aggregate risk is 

the risk from food (grape commodities) 

only. The dietary risk estimates are all 

below EPA’s level of concern. 

4. Intermediate-term risk. 

Intermediate-term aggregate exposure 

takes into account residential exposure 

plus chronic exposure to food and water 

(considered to be a background 

exposure level). As there are no U.S. 

registrations or proposed registrations 

for fluopicolide, there will be no 

exposures from residential uses or 

residues in drinking water. Therefore, 

the aggregate risk is the risk from food 

(grape commodities) only. The dietary 

risk estimates are all below EPA’s level 

of concern. 

5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. 

population. Fluopicolide is not likely to 

be carcinogenic to humans; therefore, 

fluopicolide is not expected to pose a 

cancer risk. 

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, and to infants and children 

from aggregate exposure to fluopicolide 

residues. 

IV. Other Considerations 

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology 

Adequate enforcement methodology 

liquid chromatography/mass 

spectrometry/mass spectrometry (LC/ 

MS/MS) is available to enforce the 

tolerance expression. The method may 

be requested from: Chief, Analytical 

Chemistry Branch, Environmental 

Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. 

Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone 

number: (410) 305-2905; e-mail address: 

residuemethods@epa.gov. 

B. International Residue Limits 

No Codex, Canadian, or Mexican 

maximum residue limits (MRLs) or 

tolerances have been established for 

fluopicolide. 

C. Response to Coments 

One comment dated June 14, 2006, 

was received from B. Sachau. Ms. 

Sachau’s comments regarding general 

exposure to pesticides contained no 

scientific data or evidence to rebut the 

Agency’s conclusion that there is a 

reasonable certainty that no harm will 

result from aggregate exposure to 

fluopicolide, including all anticipated 

dietary exposures and other exposures 

for which there is reliable information. 

This comment as well as her comments 

regarding animal testing have been 

responded to by the Agency on several 

occasions. For examples, see the 

Federal Register issues of January 7, 

2005 (70 FR 1349) (FRL–7691–4) and 

October 29, 2004 (69 FR 63083) (FRL–

7681–9). 

V. Conclusion 

Therefore, the tolerance is established 

for residues of fluopicolide, 2,6- 

dichloro-N-[[3-chloro-5- 

(trifluoromethyl)-2- 

pyridinyl]methyl]benzamide, in or on 

grape at a tolerance level of 2.0 parts per 

million (ppm), and grape, raisin at a 

tolerance level of 6.0 ppm. 

VI. 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 rule has 

been exempted from review under 

Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of 

significance, this rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). 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) (Public 

Law 104–4). 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); or OMB review or any Agency 

action under Executive Order 13045, 

entitled Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

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

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). 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. In addition, the 

Agency has determined that this action 

will not have a substantial direct effect 

on States, on the relationship between 

the national government and the States, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

Federalism(64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999). Executive Order 13132 requires 

EPA to develop an accountable process 

to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input 

by State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies 

that have federalism implications’’ is 

defined in the Executive order to 

include regulations that have 

‘‘substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government.’’ This final rule 

directly regulates growers, food 

processors, food handlers and food 

retailers, not States. This action does not 

alter the relationships or distribution of 

power and responsibilities established 

by Congress in the preemption 

provisions of section 408(n)(4) of 

FFDCA. For these same reasons, the 

Agency has determined that this rule 

does not have any ‘‘tribal implications’’

as described in Executive Order 13175, 

entitled Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 14447 

67249, November 6, 2000). Executive 

Order 13175, requires EPA to develop 

an accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by tribal 

officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal 

implications’’ is defined in the 

Executive order to include regulations 

that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on 

one or more Indian tribes, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

Government and the Indian tribes, or on 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes.’’ This 

rule will not have substantial direct 

effects on tribal governments, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes, as 

specified in Executive Order 13175. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this rule. 

VII. Congressional Review Act 

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 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: March 21, 2007. 

Steven Bradbury, 

Acting Director, Office of Pesticides Program. 

■ 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. Section 180.627 is added to subpart 

C to read as follows: 

§ 180.627 Fluopicolide; tolerances for 

residues. 

(a) General. Tolerances are 

established for residues of fluopicolide, 

2,6-dichloro-N-[[3-chloro-5- 

(trifluoromethyl)-2-pyridinyl]methyl] 

benzamide, in or on the following 

commodities. 

Commodity Parts per million 

Grape ................................ 2.0 

Grape, raisin ..................... 6.0 

(b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. 

[Reserved] 

(c) Tolerances with regional 

registrations. [Reserved] 

(d) Indirect or inadvertent residues. 

[Reserved] 

[FR Doc. E7–5628 Filed 3–27–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

44 CFR Part 65 

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: 

William R. Blanton, Jr., Engineering 

Management Section, Mitigation 

Division, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–3151. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) makes the final determinations 

listed below of 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 Mitigation Division 

Director of FEMA 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 

BFEs 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 to either 

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 are used to meet 

the floodplain management 

requirements of the NFIP and are also 

used to calculate the appropriate flood 

insurance premium rates for new 

buildings built after these elevations are 

made final, and for the contents in these 

buildings. The changes in BFEs are in 

accordance with 44 CFR 65.4. 

National Environmental Policy Act. 

This final rule is categorically excluded 

from the requirements of 44 CFR part 

10, Environmental Consideration. An 

environmental impact assessment has 

not been prepared. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood 

elevation determinations are not within 

the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, a regulatory 

flexibility analysis is not required. 

Regulatory Classification. This final 

rule is not a significant regulatory action 

under the criteria of section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES