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

■ 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,** N **1-(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, N 1-(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, N 1- (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


### 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, N 1-(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, N 1-(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, N 1-(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, N 1-(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, N 1-(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, N 1- (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,

N

1-(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, N 1-(2-aminoethyl)-, polymer with 2,4-diisocyanato-1- methylbenzene to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and 1,2-ethanediamine, N 1- (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, N 1-(2-aminoethyl)-, polymer with 2,4-diisocyanato-1-


### 30409 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 23, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

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, N 1-(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, N 1-(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, N 1-(2- aminoethyl)-, polymer with 2,4- diisocyanato-1-methylbenzene.

IX. Conclusion

Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting residues of 1,2- ethanediamine, N 1-(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


### 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