Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 23, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 30407 

■ a. Redesignate paragraph (a) as (a)(1); 

and 

■ b. Add paragraph (a)(2). 

The amendments read as follows: 

§ 180.561 Acibenzolar- S -methyl; 

tolerances for residues. 

(a) General. 

(1) * * * 

(2) Tolerances are established for 

residues of acibenzolar- S -methyl, 

benzo(1,2,3)thiadiazole-7-carbothioic 

acid- S -methyl ester, including its 

metabolites and degradates, in or on the 

commodities in the table below. 

Compliance with the tolerance levels 

specified below is to be determined by 

measuring only those acibenzolar- S 

-methyl residues convertible to 

benzo(1,2,3)thiadiazole-7-carboxylic 

acid (CGA–210007), expressed as the 

Stoichiometric equivalent of 

acibenzolar- S -methyl, in or on the 

following raw agricultural commodities. 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Expiration/ 

revocation 

date 

Apple ................. 0.05 12/31/2015 

Grapefruit .......... 0.05 12/31/2015 

Pear .................. 0.05 12/31/2015 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–12410 Filed 5–22–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0014; FRL–9349–1] 

1,2-Ethanediamine, N1-(2-aminoethyl)-, 

polymer with 2, 4-diisocyanato-1- 

methylbenzene; Tolerance Exemption 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an 

exemption from the requirement of a 

tolerance for residues of 1,2- 

ethanediamine, N1-(2-aminoethyl)-, 

polymer with 2,4-diisocyanato-1- 

methylbenzene, when used as an inert 

ingredient in a pesticide chemical 

formulation. ICR, Inc., on behalf of 

Triton Systems, 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, N1- 

(2-aminoethyl)-, polymer with 2,4- 

diisocyanato-1-methylbenzene on food 

or feed commodities. 

DATES: This regulation is effective May 

23, 2012. Objections and requests for 

hearings must be received on or before 

July 23, 2012, and must be filed in 

accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also 

Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION). 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0014, is 

available either electronically through 

http://www.regulations.gov or in hard 

copy at the OPP Docket in the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), located in EPA 

West, Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. The 

Public Reading Room is open from 

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

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 

telephone number for the Public 

Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and 

the telephone number for the OPP 

Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review 

the visitor instructions and additional 

information about the docket available 

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Anthony Britten, Registration Division 

(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

(703) 308–8179; email address: 

britten.anthony@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:// 

ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/textidx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/ 

40tab_02.tpl. 

C. Can I file an objection or hearing 

request? 

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 

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

objection to any aspect of this regulation 

and may also request a hearing on those 

objections. You must file your objection 

or request a hearing on this regulation 

in accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure 

proper receipt by EPA, you must 

identify docket ID number EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2012–0014 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 July 23, 2012. 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. Information not marked 

confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 

may be disclosed publicly by EPA 

without prior notice. Submit a copy of 

your non-CBI objection or hearing 

request, identified by docket ID number 

EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0014, 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 April 4, 

2012 (77 FR 20334) (FRL–9340–4), EPA 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
30408 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 23, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

issued a notice pursuant to section 408 

of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a, announcing 

the receipt of a pesticide petition (PP 

1E7912) filed by ICR, Inc., 1330 Dillon 

Heights Avenue, Baltimore, MD 21228– 

1199 on behalf of Triton Systems, Inc., 

200 Turnpike Road, Chelmsford, MA 

01824. The petition requested that 40 

CFR 180.960 be amended by 

establishing an exemption from the 

requirement of a tolerance for residues 

of 1,2-ethanediamine, N1-(2- 

aminoethyl)-, polymer with 2,4- 

diisocyanato-1-methylbenzene (CAS 

Reg. No. 35297–61–1). That notice 

included a summary of the petition 

prepared by the petitioner and solicited 

comments on the petitioner’s request. 

The Agency did not receive any 

comments in response to this notice. 

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 

use 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 an 

exemption from the requirement of 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. * * *’’ and specifies 

factors EPA is to consider in 

establishing an exemption. 

III. Risk Assessment and Statutory 

Findings 

EPA establishes exemptions from the 

requirement of a tolerance only in those 

cases where it can be shown 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. 

Consistent with FFDCA section 

408(b)(2)(D), 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. In the 

case of certain chemical substances that 

are defined as polymers, the Agency has 

established a set of criteria to identify 

categories of polymers expected to 

present minimal or no risk. The 

definition of a polymer is given in 40 

CFR 723.250(b) and the exclusion 

criteria for identifying these low-risk 

polymers are described in 40 CFR 

723.250(d). 1,2-ethanediamine, N1-(2- 

aminoethyl)-, polymer with 2,4- 

diisocyanato-1-methylbenzene conforms 

to the definition of a polymer given in 

40 CFR 723.250(b) and meets the 

following criteria that are used to 

identify low-risk polymers. 

1. The polymer is not a cationic 

polymer nor is it reasonably anticipated 

to become a cationic polymer in a 

natural aquatic environment. 

2. The polymer does contain as an 

integral part of its composition the 

atomic elements carbon, hydrogen, and 

oxygen. 

3. The polymer does not contain as an 

integral part of its composition, except 

as impurities, any element other than 

those listed in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(2)(ii). 

4. The polymer is neither designed 

nor can it be reasonably anticipated to 

substantially degrade, decompose, or 

depolymerize. 

5. The polymer is manufactured or 

imported from monomers and/or 

reactants that are already included on 

the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) 

Chemical Substance Inventory or 

manufactured under an applicable 

TSCA section 5 exemption. 

6. The polymer is not a water 

absorbing polymer with a number 

average molecular weight (MW) greater 

than or equal to 10,000 daltons. 

Additionally, the polymer also meets 

as required the following exemption 

criteria specified in 40 CFR 723.250(e). 

7. The polymer’s number average MW 

is greater than 10,000 daltons. The 

polymer contains less than 2% 

oligomeric material below MW 500 and 

(less than 5% oligomeric material below 

MW 1,000. 

Thus, 1,2-ethanediamine, N1-(2- 

aminoethyl)-, polymer with 2,4- 

diisocyanato-1-methylbenzene meets 

the criteria for a polymer to be 

considered low risk under 40 CFR 

723.250. Based on its conformance to 

the criteria in this unit, no mammalian 

toxicity is anticipated from dietary, 

inhalation, or dermal exposure to 1,2- 

ethanediamine, N1-(2-aminoethyl)-, 

polymer with 2,4-diisocyanato-1- 

methylbenzene. 

IV. Aggregate Exposures 

For the purposes of assessing 

potential exposure under this 

exemption, EPA considered that 1,2- 

ethanediamine, N1-(2-aminoethyl)-, 

polymer with 2,4-diisocyanato-1- 

methylbenzene could be present in all 

raw and processed agricultural 

commodities and drinking water, and 

that non-occupational non-dietary 

exposure was possible. The number 

average MW of 1,2-ethanediamine, N1- 

(2-aminoethyl)-, polymer with 2,4- 

diisocyanato-1-methylbenzene is greater 

than 1 million daltons Generally, a 

polymer of this size would be poorly 

absorbed through the intact 

gastrointestinal tract or through intact 

human skin. Since 1,2-ethanediamine, 

N1-(2-aminoethyl)-, polymer with 2,4- 

diisocyanato-1-methylbenzene conforms 

to the criteria that identify a low-risk 

polymer, there are no concerns for risks 

associated with any potential exposure 

scenarios that are reasonably 

foreseeable. The Agency has determined 

that a tolerance is not necessary to 

protect the public health. 

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 1, 2- 

ethanediamine, N1-(2-aminoethyl)-, 

polymer with 2,4-diisocyanato-1- 

methylbenzene to share a common 

mechanism of toxicity with any other 

substances, and 1,2-ethanediamine, N1- 

(2-aminoethyl)-, polymer with 2,4- 

diisocyanato-1-methylbenzene does not 

appear to produce a toxic metabolite 

produced by other substances. For the 

purposes of this tolerance action, 

therefore, EPA has assumed that 1,2- 

ethanediamine, N1-(2-aminoethyl)-, 

polymer with 2,4-diisocyanato-1- 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 23, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 30409 

methylbenzene does not have a common 

mechanism of toxicity with other 

substances. For information regarding 

EPA’s efforts to determine which 

chemicals have a common mechanism 

of toxicity and to evaluate the 

cumulative effects of such chemicals, 

see EPA’s Web site at http:// 

www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative. 

VI. Additional Safety Factor for the 

Protection of Infants and Children 

Section 408(b)(2)(C) 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 unless 

EPA concludes that a different margin of 

safety will be safe for infants and 

children. Due to the expected low 

toxicity of 1,2-ethanediamine, N1-(2- 

aminoethyl)-polymer with 2,4- 

diisocyanato-1-methylbenzene. EPA has 

not used a safety factor analysis to 

assess the risk. For the same reasons the 

additional tenfold safety factor is 

unnecessary. 

VII. Determination of Safety 

Based on the conformance to the 

criteria used to identify a low-risk 

polymer, EPA concludes that there is a 

reasonable certainty of no harm to the 

U.S. population, including infants and 

children, from aggregate exposure to 

residues of 1,2-ethanediamine, N1-(2- 

aminoethyl)-, polymer with 2,4- 

diisocyanato-1-methylbenzene. 

VIII. Other Considerations 

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology 

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. International Residue Limits 

In making its tolerance decisions, EPA 

seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with 

international standards whenever 

possible, consistent with U.S. food 

safety standards and agricultural 

practices. EPA considers the 

international maximum residue limits 

(MRLs) established by the Codex 

Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as 

required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). 

The Codex Alimentarius is a joint U.N. 

Food and Agriculture Organization/ 

World Health Organization food 

standards program, and it is recognized 

as an international food safety 

standards-setting organization in trade 

agreements to which the United States 

is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance 

that is different from a Codex MRL; 

however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) 

requires that EPA explain the reasons 

for departing from the Codex level. 

The Codex has not established a MRL 

for 1,2-ethanediamine, N1-(2- 

aminoethyl)-, polymer with 2,4- 

diisocyanato-1-methylbenzene. 

IX. Conclusion 

Accordingly, EPA finds that 

exempting residues of 1,2- 

ethanediamine, N1-(2-aminoethyl)-, 

polymer with 2,4-diisocyanato-1- 

methylbenzene from the requirement of 

a tolerance will be safe. 

X. 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 rules 

from review under Executive Order 

12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and 

Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). 

Because this final rule has been 

exempted from review under Executive 

Order 12866, this final rule is not 

subject to Executive Order 13211, 

entitled Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, 

entitled Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

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

This final rule does not contain any 

information collections subject to OMB 

approval under the Paperwork 

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

seq., nor does it 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 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, or otherwise have any unique 

impacts on local governments. 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) (Pub. L. 

104–4). 

Although this action does not 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), EPA seeks to 

achieve environmental justice, the fair 

treatment and meaningful involvement 

of any group, including minority and/or 

low-income populations, in the 

development, implementation, and 

enforcement of environmental laws, 

regulations, and policies. As such, to the 

extent that information is publicly 

available or was submitted in comments 

to EPA, the Agency considered whether 

groups or segments of the population, as 

a result of their location, cultural 

practices, or other factors, may have 

atypical or disproportionately high and 

adverse human health impacts or 

environmental effects from exposure to 

the pesticide discussed in this 

document, compared to the general 

population. 

XI. 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 rule in the Federal 

Register. This rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’ 

as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
30410 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 23, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: May 11, 2012. 

Lois Rossi, 

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 § 180.960, the table is amended 

by alphabetically adding the following 

entry immediately above the existing 

entry which reads in part ‘‘1, 2- 

Ethanediamine, polymer * * *.’’ 

§ 180.960 Polymers; exemptions from the 

requirement of a tolerance. 

* * * * * 

Polymer CAS No. 

*******

1,2-Ethanediamine, N1-(2-aminoethyl)-, polymer with 2,4-diisocyanato-1-methylbenzene, minimum number average molecular weight (in amu), one million .............................................................................................................................................. 35297–61–1 

* * * * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–12110 Filed 5–22–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 36 

[CC Docket No. 80–286; FCC 12–49] 

Jurisdictional Separations and Referral 

to the Federal-State Joint Board 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Interim rule. 

SUMMARY: Jurisdictional separations is 

the process by which incumbent local 

exchange carriers (incumbent LECs) 

apportion regulated costs between the 

intrastate and interstate jurisdictions. In 

this document, the Commission extends 

the current freeze of part 36 category 

relationships and jurisdictional cost 

allocation factors used in jurisdictional 

separations until June 30, 2014. 

Extending the freeze will allow the 

Commission to provide stability for 

carriers that must comply with the 

Commission’s separations rules while 

the Federal-State Joint Board completes 

its analysis of, and recommendations 

for, interim and comprehensive reform 

of the jurisdictional separations process. 

DATES: Effective June 22, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Daniel Ball, Attorney Advisor, at 202– 

418–1577, Pricing Policy Division, 

Wireline Competition Bureau. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Report 

and Order (R&O) in CC Docket No. 80– 

286, FCC 12–49, released on May 8, 

2012. The full text of this document is 

available for public inspection during 

regular business hours in the FCC 

Reference Center, Room CY–A257, 445 

12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. 

1. Jurisdictional separations is the 

process by which incumbent LECs 

apportion regulated costs between the 

intrastate and interstate jurisdictions. 

2. The 2001 Separations Freeze Order, 

66 FR 33202, June 21, 2001, froze all 

part 36 category relationships and 

allocation factors for price cap carriers 

and all allocation factors for rate-ofreturn carriers. Rate-of-return carriers 

had the option to freeze their category 

relationships at the outset of the freeze. 

The freeze was originally established 

July 1, 2001 for a period of five years, 

or until the Commission completed 

separations reform, whichever occurred 

first. The 2006 Separations Freeze 

Extension Order, 71 FR 29843, May 24, 

2006, extended the freeze for three years 

or until the Commission completed 

separations reform, whichever occurred 

first. The 2009 Separations Freeze 

Extension Order, 74 FR 23955, May 22, 

2009, extended the freeze until June 30, 

2010. The 2010 Separations Freeze 

Extension Order, 75 FR 30301, June 1, 

2010, extended the freeze until June 30, 

2011. The 2011 Separations Freeze 

Extension Order, 76 FR 30840, May 27, 

2011, extended the freeze until June 30, 

2012. 

3. The NPRM proposed extending the 

current freeze of part 36 category 

relationships and jurisdictional cost 

allocation factors used in jurisdictional 

separations, which freeze would 

otherwise expire on June 30, 2012, until 

June 30, 2014. The R&O adopts that 

proposal. The extension will allow the 

Commission to continue to work with 

the Federal-State Joint Board on 

Separations to achieve comprehensive 

separations reform. Pending 

comprehensive reform, the Commission 

concludes that the existing freeze 

should be extended on an interim basis 

to avoid the imposition of undue 

administrative burdens on incumbent 

LECs. The overwhelming majority of 

parties filing comments in response to 

the NPRM supported extension of the 

freeze. 

4. The extended freeze will be 

implemented as described in the 2001 

Separations Freeze Order. Specifically, 

price-cap carriers would use the same 

relationships between categories of 

investment and expenses within part 32 

accounts and the same jurisdictional 

allocation factors that have been in 

place since the inception of the current 

freeze on July 1, 2001. Rate-of-return 

carriers would use the same frozen 

jurisdictional allocation factors, and 

would use the same frozen category 

relationships if they had opted 

previously to freeze those as well. 

5. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, the Commission certifies 

that these regulatory amendments will 

not have a significant impact on small 

business entities. 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

6. The R&O does not propose any new 

or modified information collections 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104–13. In 

addition, therefore, it does not contain 

any new, modified, or proposed 

‘‘information collection burden for 

small business concerns with fewer than 

25 employees,’’ pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198, 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4). 

7. The Commission will send a copy 

of the R&O in a report to be sent to 

Congress and the Government 

Accountability Office pursuant to the 

Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 

801(a)(1)(A). 

Ordering Clauses 

8. Pursuant to sections 1, 4(i) and (j), 

214(e), 254, and 410 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 

214(e), 254, and 410, the R&O is 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES