41794 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

[Reserved for Product Description] 

Caller Service 

[Reserved for Product Description] 

Change-of-Address Credit Card 

Authentication 

[Reserved for Product Description] 

Confirm 

[Reserved for Product Description] 

International Reply Coupon Service 

[Reserved for Product Description] 

International Business Reply Mail Service 

[Reserved for Product Description] 

Money Orders 

[Reserved for Product Description] 

Post Office Box Service 

[Reserved for Product Description] 

Negotiated Service Agreements 

[Reserved for Class Description] 

HSBC North America Holdings Inc. 

Negotiated Service Agreement 

[Reserved for Product Description] 

Bookspan Negotiated Service Agreement 

[Reserved for Product Description] 

Bank of America Corporation Negotiated 

Service Agreement 

The Bradford Group Negotiated Service 

Agreement 

Part B—Competitive Products 

2000 Competitive Product List 

Express Mail 

Express Mail 

Outbound International Expedited Services 

Inbound International Expedited Services 

Inbound International Expedited Services 1 

(CP2008–7) 

Inbound International Expedited Services 2 

(MC2009–10 and CP2009–12) 

Priority Mail 

Priority Mail 

Outbound Priority Mail International 

Inbound Air Parcel Post 

Royal Mail Group Inbound Air Parcel Post 

Agreement 

Parcel Select 

Parcel Return Service 

International 

International Priority Airlift (IPA) 

International Surface Airlift (ISAL) 

International Direct Sacks—M-Bags 

Global Customized Shipping Services 

Inbound Surface Parcel Post (at non-UPU 

rates) 

Canada Post—United States Postal Service 

Contractual Bilateral Agreement for 

Inbound Competitive Services (MC2009– 

8 and CP2009–9) 

International Money Transfer Service 

International Ancillary Services 

Special Services 

Premium Forwarding Service 

Negotiated Service Agreements 

Domestic 

Express Mail Contract 1 (MC2008–5) 

Express Mail Contract 2 (MC2009–3 and 

CP2009–4) 

Express Mail Contract 3 (MC2009–15 and 

CP2009–21) 

Express Mail Contract 4 (MC2009–34 and 

CP2009–45) 

Express Mail & Priority Mail Contract 1 

(MC2009–6 and CP2009–7) 

Express Mail & Priority Mail Contract 2 

(MC2009–12 and CP2009–14) 

Express Mail & Priority Mail Contract 3 

(MC2009–13 and CP2009–17) 

Express Mail & Priority Mail Contract 4 

(MC2009–17 and CP2009–24) 

Express Mail & Priority Mail Contract 5 

(MC2009–18 and CP2009–25) 

Express Mail & Priority Mail Contract 6 

(MC2009–31 and CP2009–42) 

Express Mail & Priority Mail Contract 7 

(MC2009–32 and CP2009–43) 

Express Mail & Priority Mail Contract 8 

(MC2009–33 and CP2009–44) 

Parcel Return Service Contract 1 (MC2009– 

1 and CP2009–2) 

Priority Mail Contract 1 (MC2008–8 and 

CP2008–26) 

Priority Mail Contract 2 (MC2009–2 and 

CP2009–3) 

Priority Mail Contract 3 (MC2009–4 and 

CP2009–5) 

Priority Mail Contract 4 (MC2009–5 and 

CP2009–6) 

Priority Mail Contract 5 (MC2009–21 and 

CP2009–26) 

Priority Mail Contract 6 (MC2009–25 and 

CP2009–30) 

Priority Mail Contract 7 (MC2009–25 and 

CP2009–31) 

Priority Mail Contract 8 (MC2009–25 and 

CP2009–32) 

Priority Mail Contract 9 (MC2009–25 and 

CP2009–33) 

Priority Mail Contract 10 (MC2009–25 and 

CP2009–34) 

Priority Mail Contract 11 (MC2009–27 and 

CP2009–37) 

Priority Mail Contract 12 (MC2009–28 and 

CP2009–38) 

Priority Mail Contract 13 (MC2009–29 and 

CP2009–39) 

Priority Mail Contract 14 (MC2009–30 and 

CP2009–40) 

Outbound International 

Direct Entry Parcels Contracts 

Direct Entry Parcels 1 (MC2009–26 and 

CP2009–36) 

Global Direct Contracts (MC2009–9, 

CP2009–10, and CP2009–11) 

Global Expedited Package Services (GEPS) 

Contracts 

GEPS 1 (CP2008–5, CP2008–11, CP2008– 

12, and CP2008–13, CP2008–18, 

CP2008–19, CP2008–20, CP2008–21, 

CP2008–22, CP2008–23, and CP2008–24) 

Global Plus Contracts 

Global Plus 1 (CP2008–8, CP2008–46 and 

CP2009–47) 

Global Plus 2 (MC2008–7, CP2009–48 and 

CP2009–49) 

Inbound International 

Inbound Direct Entry Contracts with 

Foreign Postal Administrations 

(MC2008–6, CP2008–14 and CP2008–15) 

International Business Reply Service 

Competitive Contract 1 (MC2009–14 and 

CP2009–20) 

[FR Doc. E9–19855 Filed 8–18–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2004–0285; FRL–8430–6] 

1,2-ethanediamine, N,N,N ′,N ′- 

tetramethyl-, polymer with 1,1′- 

oxybis[2-chloroethane]; Exemption 

from the Requirement of a Tolerance 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an 

exemption from the requirement of a 

tolerance under 40 CFR 180.920 for 

residues of 1,2-ethanediamine, 

N,N,N ′,N ′-tetramethyl-, polymer with 

1,1′-oxybis[2-chloroethane] (CAS Reg. 

No. 31075–24–8) when used as an inert 

ingredient in pesticide formulations 

applied to cotton or wheat crops only. 

Buckman Laboratories International, Inc 

submitted a petition to EPA under the 

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 

(FFDCA), requesting an exemption from 

the requirement of a tolerance. This 

regulation eliminates the need to 

establish a maximum permissible level 

for residues of 1,2-ethanediamine, 

N,N,N ′,N ′-tetramethyl-, polymer with 

1,1′-oxybis[2-chloroethane]. 

DATES: This regulation is effective 

August 19, 2009. Objections and 

requests for hearings must be received 

on or before October 19, 2009, 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–2004–0285. 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. 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 41795 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keri 

Grinstead, Registration Division 

(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

(703) 308–8373; e-mail address: 

grinstead.keri@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 Access Electronic Copies 

of this Document? 

In addition to accessing electronically 

available documents 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 e-CFR cite 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, 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–2004–0285 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 October 19, 2009. 

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–2004–0285, 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 September 

17, 2004 (69 FR 56062) (FRL–7675–9), 

EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 

408 of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a, as 

amended by Food Quality Protection 

Act (FQPA) (Public Law 104–170), 

announcing the filing of a pesticide 

petition (PP 4E6841) by Buckman 

Laboratories International, Inc., 1256 

North McLean Blvd., Memphis, TN 

38108. The petition requested that 40 

CFR 180.920 be amended by 

establishing an exemption from the 

requirement of a tolerance for residues 

of 1,2-ethanediamine,N,N,N ′,N ′- 

tetramethyl-, polymer with 1,1′- 

oxybis[2-chloroethane] (CAS Reg. No. 

31075–24–8) in or on raw agricultural 

commodities when used as an inert 

ingredient in pesticide formulations. 

That notice included a summary of the 

petition prepared by the petitioner. 

There were no substantive comments 

received in response to the notice of 

filing. The petitioner subsequently 

specified that the inert ingredient use of 

the chemical will be as an adjuvant or 

water conditioner in pesticide products 

applied only to cotton and to wheat 

prior to boot stage. 

For ease of reading in this document, 

1,2-ethanediamine,N,N,N ′,N ′- 

tetramethyl-, polymer with 1,1′- 

oxybis[2-chloroethane] is herein 

referred to as BCETMD copolymer. 

Section 408(b)(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 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. 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. Inert Ingredient Definition 

Inert ingredients are all ingredients 

that are not active ingredients as defined 

in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are 

not limited to, the following types of 

ingredients (except when they have a 

pesticidal efficacy of their own): 

Solvents such as alcohols and 

hydrocarbons; surfactants such as 

polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty 

acids; carriers such as clay and 

diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as 

carrageenan and modified cellulose; 

wetting, spreading, and dispersing 

agents; propellants in aerosol 

dispensers; microencapsulating agents; 

and emulsifiers. The term ‘‘inert’’ is not 

intended to imply nontoxicity; the 

ingredient may or may not be 

chemically active. Generally, EPA has 

exempted inert ingredients from the 

requirement of a tolerance based on the 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES
41796 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

low toxicity of the individual inert 

ingredients. 

IV. 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. The 

nature of the toxic effects caused by 1,2- 

ethanediamine,N,N,N ′,N ′-tetramethyl-, 

polymer with 1,1′-oxybis[2- 

chloroethane are discussed in this unit. 

The following provides a brief 

summary of the risk assessment and 

conclusions from the Agency’s review of 

BCETMD copolymer. The Agency’s full 

risk assessment for this action, ‘‘Inert 

Ingredient Decision Document for 

Pesticide Petition 4E6841: 1,2- 

ethanediamine, N,N,N ′,N ′-tetramethyl-, 

polymer with 1,1′-oxybis[2- 

chloroethane] (CAS Reg. No. 31075–24– 

8)’’, is available in the docket (EPA– 

HQ–OPP–2004–0285). 

Sufficient data were submitted to the 

Agency in support of this action. In 

acute toxicity studies, BCETMD 

copolymer exhibits low to moderate oral 

toxicity, slight irritation to the rabbit eye 

and skin, and is not a skin sensitizer in 

Guinea pigs. A subchronic study in rats 

had a no observed adverse effect level 

(NOAEL) of 221 milligrams/kilogram/ 

day (mk/kg/day) and a lowest observed 

adverse level (LOAEL) of 752 mg/kg/day 

due to mineralization of the renal 

tubules. The following were observed at 

the two highest dosages: Decreases in 

body weights and possibly absolute 

organ weights (heart, liver, kidney and 

gonads); an equivocal decrease in red 

blood cell counts; elevated leukocyte 

counts; non-suppurative inflammation 

of the choroid plexus of the brain; and 

death. A chronic study in the dog 

showed: In males, a NOAEL of 250 mg/ 

kg/day and a LOAEL of 500 mg/kg/day 

based on testicular hypoplasia, atrophy/ 

degeneration, aspermia, dysplasia and 

cellular debris of testicular origin in 

epididymis; and, in females, a NOAEL 

of 500 mg/kg/day and a LOAEL of 1,000 

mg/kg/day based on gastrointestinal 

disturbances, emaciation and 

neurological signs, bloody stools, weight 

loss and ataxia. Reproductive/ 

developmental toxicity was only seen at 

dosage levels at or above those which 

also caused maternal effects. BCETMD 

copolymer was determined not to be 

mutagenic or carcinogenic. In 

metabolism studies, most (>86%) of the 

chemical was excreted in the feces. 

V. 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). 

EPA establishes exemptions from the 

requirement of a tolerance only in those 

cases where it can be clearly 

demonstrated that the risks from 

aggregate exposure to pesticide 

chemical residues under reasonably 

foreseeable circumstances will pose no 

appreciable risks to human health. In 

order to determine the risks from 

aggregate exposure to pesticide inert 

ingredients, the Agency considers the 

toxicity of the inert in conjunction with 

possible exposure to residues of the 

inert ingredient through food, drinking 

water, and through other exposures that 

occur as a result of pesticide use in 

residential settings. If EPA is able to 

determine that a finite tolerance is not 

necessary to ensure that there is a 

reasonable certainty that no harm will 

result from aggregate exposure to the 

inert ingredient, an exemption from the 

requirement of a tolerance may be 

established. 

The primary route of exposure to 

BCETMD copolymer from its use as an 

inert ingredient in pesticide products 

applied to cotton and wheat crops 

would most likely be through 

consumption of food to which pesticide 

products containing it as an inert 

ingredient have been applied, and 

possibly through drinking water (from 

runoff). The use of this chemical is 

limited to pesticide formulations 

applied to cotton and wheat crops only, 

therefore, there are no residential uses 

of this chemical, and thus no residential 

(dermal and inhalation) exposures are 

expected. 

No adverse effects attributable to a 

single exposure of BCETMD copolymer 

were seen in the toxicity database. 

Therefore, an acute dietary risk 

assessment is not required. 

There are no data provided regarding 

BCETMD copolymer residues in food or 

any other nonoccupational exposures to 

BCETMD copolymer. In the absence of 

actual residue data for BCETMD 

copolymer, the Agency performed a 

chronic dietary (food and drinking 

water) exposure assessment for 

BCETMD copolymer when used as an 

inert ingredient in pesticide 

formulations applied pre-harvest to 

cotton and wheat using a series of very 

conservative assumptions. This 

exposure assessment was calculated 

based on the following assumptions: 

1. BCETMD copolymer would be used 

as an inert ingredient in all food use 

pesticide formulations applied preharvest to cotton and wheat crops. 

2. A hundred percent of all cotton and 

wheat crops would be treated with 

pesticide products containing BCETMD 

copolymer. 

3. BCETMD copolymer residues 

would be present in all cotton and 

wheat crops at levels equal to or 

exceeding the highest established 

tolerance levels for any pesticide active 

ingredient. 

4. A conservative default value of 

1,000 parts per billion (ppb) for the 

concentration of an inert ingredient in 

all sources of drinking water was used. 

This approach is highly conservative as 

it is extremely unlikely that BCETMD 

copolymer would have such use as a 

pesticide product inert ingredient and 

be present in cotton and wheat food 

commodities and drinking water at such 

high levels. 

VI. Cumulative Effects 

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.’’ 

Unlike other pesticide ingredients 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 BCETMD copolymer and 

any other substances and BCETMD 

copolymer 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 BCETMD copolymer 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/. 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 41797 

VII. Determination of Safety for Infants 

and Children 

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 safety factor when reliable 

data available to EPA support the choice 

of a different factor. 

EPA has determined that reliable data 

show the safety of infants and children 

would be adequately protected if the 

FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That 

decision is based on the following 

findings: 

1. The database is considered 

adequate for FQPA assessment. The 

studies included in the toxicological 

database are: 90–day toxicity study in 

rats via the oral route, 90–day dermal 

toxicity study in rabbits, chronic 

toxicity study in dogs, carcinogenicity 

study in mice, combined chronic/ 

carcinogenicity study in rats, several 

mutagenicity studies (in vivo and in 

vitro), metabolism study in rats and 

dermal penetration study in rats. There 

are no acute and/or subchronic 

neurotoxicity studies available in the 

database. There was no evidence of 

clinical signs of neurotoxicity in the 

database except ataxia in the chronic 

toxicity study in dogs (1,000 mg/kg/day) 

and convulsions in a carcinogenicity 

study in mice (1,200 mg/kg/day). These 

effects are considered due to excessive 

toxicity and not of a neurologic origin. 

Therefore, there is no need for acute and 

subchronic neurotoxicity studies for this 

chemical. EPA also concluded that there 

is no need for a developmental 

neurotoxicity study for this chemical 

because there is no evidence in the 

database of neurotoxicity or increased 

susceptibility to infants and children. 

2. There is no evidence of increased 

qualitative or quantitative susceptibility 

in the developmental toxicity study in 

rats and rabbits and in the twogeneration reproduction study in rats. 

No developmental effects were observed 

in the rat developmental toxicity study 

at doses up to 500 mg/kg/day highest 

dose tested (HDT) in the presence of 

maternal toxicity. In the rabbit 

developmental toxicity study, the 

maternal and developmental NOAELs 

were 45 mg/kg/day. In this study, 

skeletal variations (developmental 

effects) were observed in the presence of 

equally severe maternal toxicity 

(abortions). In the 2-generation 

reproduction study in rats, pup weights 

were decreased at a dose level higher 

than the dose that produced maternal 

toxicity. 

3. The highly conservative dietary 

exposure assessment using default 

assumptions would not underestimate 

the risk to infants and children. 

VIII. Determination of Safety for U.S. 

Population 

For hazards that have a threshold 

below which there is no appreciable 

risk, a toxicological point of departure 

(POD) is identified as the basis for 

derivation of reference values for risk 

assessment. The POD may be defined as 

the highest dose at which no adverse 

effects are observed (the NOAEL) in the 

toxicology study identified as 

appropriate for use in risk assessment. 

Uncertainty/safety factors (UFs) are 

used in conjunction with the POD to 

take into account 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. Safety is assessed for 

acute and chronic dietary risks by 

comparing aggregate food and water 

exposure to the pesticide to the acute 

population adjusted dose (aPAD) and 

chronic population adjusted dose 

(cPAD). The aPAD and cPAD are 

calculated by dividing the POD by all 

applicable UFs. 

Residues of concern are not 

anticipated for dietary exposure (food 

and drinking water) from the use of 

BCETMD copolymer as an inert 

ingredient in pesticide products applied 

pre-harvest to cotton and wheat and 

there are no residential uses/exposures 

from this use. The toxicology data 

indicate that BCETMD copolymer does 

not pose an acute risk and, therefore, 

derivation of an aPAD is unnecessary. 

Chronic risk was assessed by comparing 

aggregate exposure to BCETMD 

copolymer to a cPAD of .45 mg/kg/day 

(based on a NOAEL of 45 mg/kg/day in 

the developmental toxicity study in 

rabbits and a safety/uncertainty factor of 

100X (10X for interspecies and 10X for 

intraspecies variations). Utilizing the 

highly conservative aggregate exposure 

assessment described above, the 

resulting chronic exposure estimates do 

not exceed the Agency’s level of 

concern; the chronic dietary estimate for 

the U.S. population was 6.7% (nonnursing infants were the most highly 

exposed population with the chronic 

exposure estimates occupying 20.0% of 

the cPAD). 

Taking into consideration all available 

information on BCETMD copolymer and 

the limitations in the proposed 

tolerance exemption, EPA has 

determined that there is a reasonable 

certainty that no harm to any population 

subgroup will result from aggregate 

exposure to BCETMD copolymer under 

reasonable foreseeable circumstances. 

Therefore, the establishment of an 

exemption from tolerance under 40 CFR 

180.920 for residues of BCETMD 

copolymer when used as an inert 

ingredient in pesticide formulations 

applied pre-harvest to cotton and wheat 

only, is safe under section 408 of the 

FFDCA. 

IX. Other Considerations 

A. Analytical Method 

An analytical method is not required 

for enforcement purposes since the 

Agency is establishing an exemption 

from the requirement of a tolerance 

without any numerical limitation. 

B. Existing Exemptions 

There are no existing exemptions for 

BCETMD copolymer. 

C. International Tolerances 

The Agency is not aware of any 

country requiring a tolerance for 

BCETMD copolymer nor have any 

CODEX Maximum Residue Levels been 

established for any food crops at this 

time. 

X. Conclusions 

Therefore, an exemption from the 

requirement of tolerance is established 

under 40 CFR 180.920 for BCETMD 

copolymer (CAS Reg. No. 31075–24–8) 

when used as an inert ingredient 

(adjuvant or water conditioner) in 

pesticide formulations applied to cotton 

or wheat only. 

XI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This final rule establishes an 

exemption from the requirement of 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 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES
41798 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, 

entitled Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

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

This final rule does not contain any 

information collections subject to OMB 

approval under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et 

seq., nor does it require any special 

considerations under Executive Order 

12898, entitled Federal Actions to 

Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 

1994). 

Since tolerances and exemptions that 

are established on the basis of a petition 

under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as 

the exemption 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). 

XII. 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: August 6, 2009. 

G. Jeffrey Herndon, 

Acting Director, Registration Division, Office 

of Pesticide Programs. 

■ Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is 

amended as follows: 

PART 180—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 180 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. In §180.920, the table is amended 

by adding alphabetically the following 

inert ingredient. 

§ 180.920 Inert ingredients used preharvest; exemptions from the requirement 

of a tolerance. 

* * * * * 

Inert ingredients Limits Uses 

* * * * * * * 

1,2- 

ethanediamine,N,N,N ′, N ′- 

tetramethyl-, polymer with 1,1′- 

oxybis[2- 

chloroethane] 

(CAS Reg. No. 

31075–24–8) 

For use 

in 

pesticide 

formulations 

applied 

to cotton or 

wheat 

only 

Adjuvant or 

water 

conditioner 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E9–19762 Filed 8–18–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[DA 09–1732; MB Docket No. 09–18; RM– 

11513] 

Radio Broadcasting Services: Dulac, 

LA 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The staff grants a rulemaking 

petition filed by Sunburst MediaLouisiana, LLC, by substituting FM 

Channel 230A for vacant Channel 242A 

at Dulac, Louisiana. The reference 

coordinates for Channel 230A at Dulac 

are 29–20–37 NL and 90–45–16 WL. 

DATES: Effective September 17, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal 

Communications Commission, 445 12th 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Andrew J. Rhodes, Media Bureau, (202) 

418–2180. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s Report 

and Order, MB Docket No. 09–18, 

adopted July 30, 2009, and released 

August 3, 2009. The full text of this 

Report and Order is available for 

inspection and copying during normal 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Information Center (Room CY–A257), 

445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20554. The complete text of this 

decision may also be purchased from 

the Commission’s copy contractor, Best 

Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 

12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, telephone 

1–800–378–3160 or http:// 

www.BCPIWEB.com. 

The Notice of Proposed Rule Making 

in this proceeding stated that Sunburst 

Media-Louisiana’s rulemaking petition 

was filed as part of a hybrid application 

and rulemaking proposal involving its 

concurrently filed minor change 

application (File No. BPH– 

20090129AMR). In this application, 

Sunburst proposes the upgrade and 

reallotment of its Station KMYO–FM 

from Channel 244C3 at Morgan City, 

Louisiana, to Channel 244C2 at Gray, 

Louisiana. The modification of the 

Morgan City license is contingent upon 

the channel substitution at Dulac. The 

Report and Order notes that Sunburst’s 

application is being granted 

simultaneously with the release of the 

Report and Order. 

The Report and Order does not 

contain proposed information collection 

requirements subject to the Paperwork 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES