Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 27447 

This rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit within 60 days from 

the effective date of this rule. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this rule for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This rule may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62 

Environmental protection; 

Administrative practice and procedure; 

Air pollution control; Intergovernmental 

relations; Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: April 10, 2009. 

Beverly H. Banister, 

Acting, Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

■ 40 CFR part 62, subpart RR, is 

amended as follows: 

PART 62—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 62 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart RR—Tennessee 

■ 2. Section 62.10626 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (b)(6) and (c)(3) to 

read as follows: 

§ 62.10626 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(6) City of Memphis Implementation 

Plan: Federal Emission Guidelines 

Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste 

Incinerators (HMIWI), submitted on 

February 16, 2006, by the Memphis and 

Shelby County Health Department. 

(c) * * * 

(3) Existing Hospital/Medical/ 

Infectious Waste Incinerators 

■ 3. Part 62 is amended by adding a new 

undesignated center heading to subpart 

RR and a new § 62.10632 to read as 

follows: 

Air Emissions From Existing Hospital/ 

Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators 

(HMIWI)—Section 111(d)/129 Plan 

§ 62.10632 Identification of sources. 

The Plan applies to all existing HMWI 

facilities at St. Jude Children’s Hospital 

in the City of Memphis, for which 

construction was commenced on or 

before June 20, 1996. 

[FR Doc. E9–13595 Filed 6–9–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2007–0395; FRL–8412–1] 

Residues of Silver in Foods from Food 

Contact Surface Sanitizing Solutions; 

Exemption from the Requirement of a 

Tolerance 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation amends the 

exemption from the requirement of a 

tolerance for residues of silver (excludes 

silver salts) in or on all foods when 

applied or used in public eating places, 

dairy processing equipment, and foodprocessing equipment. ETO H2O, Inc., 

submitted a petition to EPA under the 

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 

requesting to establish concentration 

limits for silver in end-use solutions 

eligible for tolerance exemption. The 

regulation being established will exempt 

all foods from the requirement of a 

tolerance for residues of silver resulting 

from contact with surfaces treated with 

solutions in which the end-use 

concentration of silver is not to exceed 

50 parts per million (ppm). 

DATES: This regulation is effective June 

10, 2009. Objections and requests for 

hearings must be received on or before 

August 10, 2009 and must be filed in 

accordance with the itructions 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–2007–0395. To access the 

electronic docket, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, select ‘‘Advanced 

Search,’’ then ‘‘Docket Search.’’ Insert 

the docket ID number where indicated 

and select the ‘‘Submit’’ button. Follow 

the instructions on the regulations.gov 

web site to view the docket index or 

access available documents. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the docket index available in 

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 either in the electronic docket 

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

available in hard copy, at the Office of 

Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory 

Public Docket in Rm. S–4400, One 

Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 S. 

Crystal Drive Arlington, VA. The hours 

of operation of this Docket Facility are 

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: 

Marshall Swindell, Antimicrobials 

Division (7510P), Office of Pesticide 

Programs, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone 

number: (703) 308–6341; e-mail address: 

swindell.marshal@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 a dairy cattle milk 

producer, food manufacturer, or 

beverage manufacturer. Potentially 

affected entities may include, but are 

not limited to: 

• Food Manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 

• Beverage Manufacturing (NAICS 

code 3121). 

• Dairy Cattle Milk Production 

(NAICS code 11212). 

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. To determine whether 

you or your business may be affected by 

this action, you should carefully 

examine the applicability provisions in 

40 CFR 180.940 (a) Tolerance 

exemptions for active and inert 

ingredients for use in antimicrobial 

formulations (Food-contact surface 

sanitizing solutions). 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 an electronic 

copy of this Federal Register document 

through the electronic docket at http:// 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES

27448 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

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–2007–0395 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 August 10, 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–2007–0395, 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 Building), 2777 S. 

Crystal Drive, 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. Background and Statutory Findings 

In the Federal Register of July 11, 

2007 (72 FR 37779) (FRL–8136–1), EPA 

issued a notice pursuant to section 

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

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

pesticide tolerance petition (PP 7F7178) 

by ETO H20, Inc, 1725 Gillespie Way, 

El Cajon, CA 92020. The petition 

requested that 40 CFR 180.940(a) be 

amended by establishing concentration 

limits for Silver in end-use solutions 

eligible for the tolerance exemption in 

all foods from treatment of food contact 

surfaces in public eating establishments, 

dairy processing equipment, and food 

processing equipment and utensils not 

to exceed silver at 50 ppm. The notice 

referenced a summary of the petition 

prepared by ETO H20, Inc., 90 Boroline 

Rd Allendale, NJ 07401, the registrant, 

which is available to the public in the 

docket at www.regulations.gov, Docket 

ID Number EPA–HQ–OPP–2007–0395. 

There were no comments received in 

response to the notice of filing. 

In drafting the regulatory language for 

this exemption, EPA has adopted more 

restrictive language than suggested in 

the petition to ensure that the scope of 

the exemption does not exceed the form 

of silver evaluated in the risk 

assessment supporting this action. As 

revised, the tolerance expression would 

now read: 

Silver ions resulting from the use of 

electrolytically-generated silver ions 

stabilized in citric acid as silver dihydrogen 

citrate (does not include metallic silver). 

This revised tolerance expression 

excludes any other silver-containing 

compounds whether they are other 

silver salts, complexes with inorganic 

polymers such as zeolites, or metallic 

silver in any form or dimension 

including nanoscale. 

EPA understands that this petition 

was not intended to extend to silver 

salts accordingly EPA has modified the 

regulatory language to make this clear. 

Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of the 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(c)(2)(A)(ii) defines ‘‘safe’’ to 

mean that ‘‘there is a reasonable 

certainty that no harm will result from 

aggregate exposure to the pesticide 

chemical residue, including all 

anticipated dietary exposures and all 

other exposures for which there is 

reliable information.’’ This includes 

exposure through drinking water and in 

residential settings, but does not include 

occupational exposure. Pursuant to 

section 408(c)(2)(B), in establishing or 

maintaining in effect an exemption from 

the requirement of a tolerance, EPA 

must take into account the factors set 

forth in section 408(b)(2)(C), which 

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. Toxicological Profile 

A. Toxic Effects 

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 

silver are discussed in this unit. 

Silver ions and preparations 

containing silver in an ionic state have 

been used for over a century for 

medicinal and bactericidal purposes. 

Because of its bactericidal properties, 

silver has been used as a topical 

treatment for burns, as a treatment for 

venereal diseases, as an ingredient in 

cosmetic formulations and in the 

sanitation of swimming pools and hot 

tubs/spas. Silver has also been used in 

dentistry (as amalgams and as an 

ingredient in mouth washes), in 

acupuncture, jewelry making, and 

photography. Silver can be found in 

electroplating as well as in paints and 

in water purification systems. 

The toxicity of silver is well 

understood based on epidemiological 

data from humans, toxicology data in 

animals, and documented information 

on the metabolism of silver in 

mammalian species. Unlike for other 

pesticides, EPA does not have a 

conventional check-list of guideline 

laboratory animal studies to assess 

human risk from exposure to silver. 

Based on the extensive past uses of 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 27449 

silver and EPA’s knowledge and 

experience about those uses of the 

compound, however, it is apparent that 

humans and laboratory animals do not 

handle elevated doses of silver in the 

same manner. For this reason, 

additional conventional laboratory 

animal toxicity studies would not 

provide a better understanding of the 

effects of silver in humans. Further, the 

Agency has determined that silver and 

several of its salts (chloride, sulfate 

nitrate and acetate) can be reviewed 

together because these silver salts react 

similarly in aqueous media and the 

major active ion is the silver ion. 

A human biomonitoring study 

conducted in 1935, as reported in the 

Journal of the American Medical 

Association by L.E. Gaul and H.E. 

Staud, has served as the basis for 

establishing regulatory limits for silver 

in drinking water and in the diet. The 

results from this study were further 

supported by the results from an 

inhalation study conducted by Pillsbury 

and Hill in 1939, which established 

inhalation limits for silver in humans. 

In both studies, the effect of concern 

was argyria, a bluish discoloration of the 

skin. Argyria, while a permanent 

condition, is a cosmetic condition. The 

function of the skin as an organ is not 

compromised and the resulting 

discoloration is not associated with 

systemic toxicity. In the 1935 study by 

Gaul and Staud, silver was administered 

for medicinal purposes to 70 patients for 

periods from 2 to 9 years. Of the 70 

patients receiving medicinal silver, 1/70 

developed argyria after receiving an 

intravenous dose of 1 gram. This 

intravenous dose was converted to an 

oral dose of 0.014 milligram/kilogram/ 

day (mg/kg/day) and was considered a 

lowest observed effect level. Other 

patients did not develop argyria until 

doses five times higher were 

administered. This study and an 

inhalation biomonitoring study by 

Pillsbury, et al, clearly determined the 

endpoint of concern for humans. 

Interestingly, the skin form of argyria 

has not been reported in laboratory 

animals when doses that are 

approximately 4 orders of magnitude 

higher (100 mg/kg) are administered. 

Further support for not requiring 

additional laboratory animal studies for 

silver is provided from the results of the 

developmental toxicity study in rats, 

conducted by the National Toxicology 

Program (NTP). In a developmental 

study conducted in 2002, silver acetate 

was administered by gavage on days 6 

– 19 of gestation. No developmental 

effects were reported at doses up to 100 

mg/kg; maternal animals were observed 

to have piloerection and rooting 

behavior at 30 mg/kg. The observed 

effects in maternal animals would not 

be expected to occur in humans and are 

frequently observed in animal studies. 

These observations, when made in the 

absence of other clinical findings are not 

considered adverse when establishing a 

‘‘no adverse effect level.’’ More 

importantly, the results from this study 

did not demonstrate an increased 

susceptibility of offspring, nor did it 

demonstrate systemic toxicity. This 

study corroborates the use of the 

information provided by the human 

biomonitoring study in determining 

dietary limits for silver and further 

supports our decision to not rely on 

animal data when assessing the health 

effects of silver in humans. 

In addition to the information gleaned 

from the biomonitoring studies and the 

developmental toxicity study, the 

reviews of the literature by other EPA 

offices and national and inter-national 

organizations provide supplemental 

support that argyria is the primary effect 

in humans (e.g. EPA’s Integrated Risk 

Management System, Agency for Toxic 

Substances and Disease Registry, the 

World Health Organization). Also the 

acute oral toxicity studies that have 

been provided to support the 

registration of silver as an antimicrobial 

agent establish LD50s between 2,000 and 

5,000 mg/kg. These values are above the 

limit dose for acute toxicity. For other 

silver salts, such as silver cyanide, the 

LD50 values may be significantly lower 

based on the molecules to which the 

silver ions are attached. For the 

antimicrobial silver covered by this 

exemption, the LD50 ranges are very 

high because the silver ions have very 

low acute toxicity. 

Finally, the pharmacokinetics of 

silver is understood and may explain 

the low systemic toxicity potential of 

the compound. Pharmacokinetics 

describes what the body does to a 

chemical when it is introduced into the 

body including how it is metabolized, 

distributed, and eliminated. When silver 

is introduced into the body by the oral 

or dietary route, it is absorbed by the 

digestive system and then enters the 

liver before it reaches the rest of the 

body (referred to as first-pass 

metabolism). This first pass through the 

liver greatly reduces the bioavailability 

of silver in that about 90% of the orally 

administered dose is eliminated in the 

feces. The remaining 10% that is not 

eliminated in the feces, reacts with 

proteins by binding to a specific 

chemical group contained in the 

structure of the protein. By forming 

silver-protein complexes through this 

binding action, the remaining silver is 

removed from circulation. This 

remaining fraction accounts for the 

background levels of silver that are 

found within the body. At excessive 

doses, the pathways of elimination 

become saturated and deposition of 

these complexes in the tissues is 

increased. The formation of these 

complexes and deposition in the skin, 

mucous membranes, and conjunctiva is 

the primary mechanism which results in 

the development of argyria. Based on 

information from biomonitoring studies, 

the lowest observed effect level for the 

formation of argyria was 1 gram (total 

dose), which was converted to an oral 

dose of 0.014 mg/kg/day. 

B. Regulatory Levels 

Safe exposure levels for silver have 

been established by several regulatory 

Agencies including the Food and Drug 

Administration, Occupational Safety 

and Health Administration and other 

offices within EPA based on the 

common endpoint argyria and using the 

same human studies. Argyria is a bluegray discoloration of the skin and is not 

considered as being of toxicological 

concern. Argyria is cosmetically 

disfiguring and permanent in nature; 

however, the occurrence of this 

condition does not adversely affect 

organ function or threaten human 

health. EPA believes that by regulating 

for argyria, it is protecting the public 

from this permanent cosmetic effect as 

well as any potential toxic 

manifestations of silver that may occur 

at much higher doses. There is no 

animal condition that would mimic the 

dermatologic form of argyria found in 

humans following exposure to silver by 

various routes. This may be due in part 

to the protection imparted by the 

presence of the fur or by the fact that 

laboratory animal species are not 

routinely exposed to direct sunlight. 

Argyrosis, a form of argyria which 

involves silver deposition in organs, has 

been documented. In laboratory species, 

the effects of silver toxicity have been 

reported to involve pathology to the 

liver (necrosis) and kidney (thickening 

of the basement membranes of the 

glomeruli), and, at elevated levels, 

death. 

The effect on which silver is regulated 

(argyria) occurs only after chronic 

exposure. Both the Secondary 

Maximum Contamination Level (SMCL) 

reported by the EPA’s Office of Water 

and the oral reference dose (RfD) 

reported under the EPA’s Integrated 

Risk Information System (IRIS) were 

determined based on the previouslymentioned human biomonitoring by 

Gaul and Staud. For the SMCL, 

additional mathematical derivations 

were applied to the oral equivalent dose 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES

27450 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

to the study Lowest Observed Adverse 

Effect Level (LOAEL) of 0.014 mg/kg/ 

day to obtain a 0.1 milligram/Liter (mg/ 

L) dose level. The factors applied for 

changing volume to mass account for 

the slight difference in the values 

reported for the SMCL (0.003 mg/kg/ 

day) and for the RfD (0.005 mg/kg/day). 

In deriving the chronic dietary 

regulatory level (RfD) and the SMCL, a 

safety factor of 3X was applied based on 

the following rationale as reported by 

the Office of Water and IRIS. First, the 

critical effect was cosmetic and not of 

toxicological significance. Second, the 

derivation of the LOAEL included the 

most sensitive individual since other 

patients did not present with argyria 

unless dose levels five times higher 

were administered. Finally, in the 

human biomonitoring study, silver was 

administered to these individuals over a 

period of time that is in excess of 

chronic exposure and that approaches a 

level that would be considered a life 

time exposure duration. Therefore, the 

dose that was administered was 

determined as being one that would 

mimic lifetime exposure. 

For the oral exposure route, the 

Agency is relying on the drinking water 

Secondary Maximum Contaminant 

Level (SMCL) of 0.1 mg/L (0.003 mg/kg/ 

day) based on skin discoloration and 

graying of the whites of eyes (argyria). 

The Agency applied an additional 3X 

uncertainty factor to further address the 

lack of a NOAEL in the study on which 

this assessment and all regulatory 

advisories are set. This additional 3X 

factor was not imposed due to the lack 

or need for additional standard animal 

toxicity testing. Thus, a composite 

database factor of 10X is being applied 

to account for a lack of NOAEL in the 

Gaul and Staud (1935) study. This 

composite factor of 10 should be 

sufficient for providing protection from 

the non-toxic effects which may result 

from chronic oral exposure to silver. 

Chronic Dietary Reference Dose (RFD) = 

0.003 mg/kg/day ÷ 3 = 0.001 mg/kg/day 

Alternatively, a roughly equivalent 

chronic RfD can be derived by dividing 

the oral equivalent dose from the Gaul 

and Staud study (0.014 mg/kg/day) by a 

factor of 10X. 

Following dermal exposure, silver 

ions tend to bind to the skin and do not 

penetrate the skin to cause systemic 

effects. Rather, skin discoloration is the 

only effect induced by silver exposure 

through the dermal route. Although this 

discoloration appears to be the same 

effect that results from oral and 

inhalation exposure, the mechanism by 

which discoloration occurs following 

dermal exposure is not the same as the 

mechanism leading to argyria following 

other routes of exposure. Systemic 

uptake and distribution of silver 

following dermal exposure does not 

occur, and the discoloration is the result 

of a localized reaction. Again, the effect 

is not adverse and there is no reason to 

believe that there would be an increase 

in susceptibility based on age to the 

nontoxic discoloration. Susceptibility to 

this cosmetic event is a function of dose 

and not age. 

IV. Aggregate Exposures 

To establish a tolerance, it must be 

shown ‘‘that there is reasonable 

certainty that no harm will result from 

aggregate exposure to pesticide 

chemical residue, including all 

anticipated dietary exposures and other 

exposures for which there are reliable 

information.’’ Aggregate exposure is the 

total exposure to a single chemical (or 

its residues) that may occur from dietary 

(i.e., food and drinking water), 

residential, and other non-occupational 

sources, and from all known or 

plausible exposure routes (oral, dermal, 

and inhalation). 

Silver is commonly used for a variety 

of non-pesticidal industrial uses, which 

include but are not limited to 

photography, cosmetics, sunscreens, 

manufacture of inks and dyes, mirror 

production, and in jewelry. These 

sources result in primary exposures 

being via the dermal route. As 

previously mentioned, the consequence 

of silver exposures via the dermal route 

is dermal argyria, which does not 

contribute to the systemic argyria 

induced by oral and inhalation routes of 

exposures. Silver has also been used in 

dentistry (as amalgams) and as an 

ingredient in mouth washes. However, 

there is no documented evidence of 

argyria developing from dental or mouth 

wash uses of silver despite its 

widespread and frequent use in 

dentistry for over a century; 

consequently, EPA concludes that the 

level of exposure from the dental and 

mouthwash uses is negligible. 

Therefore, EPA did not aggregate the 

exposures resulting from these various 

uses with pesticidal exposure sources. 

A. Dietary Exposure 

Under the current proposal (PP 

7F7178), silver will be used as a 

sanitizer for food contact surfaces, 

resulting in dietary, drinking water, and 

residential exposures. The use sites 

include but are not limited to: Food 

service facilities, cafeterias, households, 

kitchens, food preparation areas, food 

processing equipment and treated 

surfaces, such as countertops, 

equipment, and appliances. The 

sanitizing solution is applied to these 

various surfaces by spraying (trigger, 

spraying, coarse pump), wiping with a 

cloth or sponge, mopping, or by full 

immersion. As a result of these uses, 

residues are expected to transfer to the 

food that comes into contact with these 

treated surfaces and subsequently to be 

ingested by humans. 

1. Food. The Agency assessed chronic 

dietary exposure from the use of silver 

as a food contact sanitizer. The dietary 

assessment was only completed for 

chronic routes because the regulatory 

effect that has been identified is based 

on argyria, one that occurs only after 

chronic exposure. For dietary exposures 

from this product being used on 

countertops, the Incidental Dietary 

Residential Exposure Assessment 

Model, IDREAMTM incorporates 

consumption data from USDA’s 

Continuing Surveys of Food Intakes by 

Individuals (CSFII), 1994-1996 and 

1998. The 1994-1996, and 1998 data are 

based on the reported consumption of 

more than 20,000 individuals over two 

non-consecutive survey days. The 

maximum rate for silver is 50 ppm 

active ingredient. 

The use on utensils, dishes and glass 

was assessed. Based on conservative 

calculations, risk concerns were 

identified. At this time, a label 

restriction will be required that 

prohibits the use on utensils, dishes and 

glassware until a residue transfer study 

has been conducted and accepted by the 

Agency. 

Agricultural Premises-Dairy Facilities. 

Dietary exposures from these general 

premise uses are expected to be much 

lower than the dietary exposure 

resulting from the surface disinfectant 

and sanitizing uses considered for this 

tolerance exemption: therefore, the 

agricultural uses were not assessed 

separately. However, the sanitization of 

food processing equipment permits 

product contact with the interior of 

equipment. The milk-truck model 

(described in the FDA document, 

‘‘Sanitizing Solutions: Chemistry 

Guidelines for Food Additive Petitions’’, 

pages 9-10)(FDA 2003) for these types of 

uses was executed in order to estimate 

residues that could transfer from treated 

surfaces to food. From this guidance, it 

was conservatively assumed that a child 

will consume 320 grams of milk per day 

(90th percentile value) and an adult will 

consume 125 grams milk per day (mean 

value). Because EPA has utilized this 

maximized value for children along 

with a child’s body weight in this 

assessment, EPA has confidence that the 

calculations are conservative and 

representative of any potential risks to 

any population. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 27451 

The Agency assumes that the 

sanitized tank truck which transports 

the milk is a conservative estimate of 

residue that is available in food 

processing facilities. 

Milk undergoes no additional dilution 

prior to reaching the consumer and it is 

also assumed that 100% of the residues 

available post sanitation is transferred to 

the food. 

Additionally, the dietary contribution 

as a result of food processing equipment 

sanitization is so extremely small that it 

is considered negligible and not 

included in the combined or aggregate 

assessments. 

2. Drinking water exposure. There are 

no outdoor or potable human drinking 

water system uses for the use of silver 

proposed in pesticide petition (PP) 

7F7178. In addition, the uses identified 

as indoor hard surface applications will 

result in minimal, if any, runoff of silver 

into the surface water. The use of silver 

as a food contact surface sanitizer will 

result in minimal, if any, runoff of silver 

into the surface water. This use will 

result in an insignificant contribution to 

drinking water exposures. In addition to 

sanitization, silver is registered as an 

active ingredient in water filters. The 

bacteriostatic water filters are 

impregnated with silver and may result 

in residues in the drinking water 

supply. However, the levels of available 

residues resulting from impregnated 

water filters are much less when in 

comparison to the amount of residues 

that will be available for intake when 

silver-containing liquid concentrates are 

used. As a result, any drinking water 

exposures from the new use of silver are 

assumed to be negligible. Additionally, 

any drinking water risks from 

impregnated filters are assumed to be 

represented by the dietary risks 

resulting from hard surface sanitization. 

The Agency believes that an assessment 

of any potential risks resulting from 

silver in drinking water is not warranted 

at this time. 

Therefore, based on the uses of silver 

outlined in the pesticide petition, the 

Agency believes that risks resulting 

from silver in drinking water will be 

negligible and that an assessment is not 

warranted at this time. 

Table 1 provides a comprehensive 

summary of all of the use patterns 

potentially resulting in dietary exposure 

that were considered for this tolerance 

exemption. 

TABLE 1.—POTENTIAL USE SCENARIOS

Use Site Category Example Use Sites Scenarios 

Use Site Category I: Agricultural Premises and 

Equipment 

Dairy farms, hog farms, equine farms Application to hard surface (feeding dishes, 

bottling equipment, floors, etc) through 

coarse spraying (low pressure spray), trigger pump spray, wipe/sponge, mop, and 

immersion 

Use Site Categories II, III, and V: Food Handling, Commercial/Institutional/Industrial, 

Medical 

Food processing plants; Hospitals; Public 

places (e.g., restaurants, hotel/motel 

rooms); Medical/Dental offices; Nursing 

home; Schools, Cruise ships, Dining Halls. 

Application to hard surfaces through coarse 

spraying (low pressure spray), trigger pump 

spray, wipe/sponge, mop, and immersion. 

Some examples of surfaces include: sinks, 

cutting boards, counter tops, kitchen appliances, breast pumps and parts, baby bottles, ice chests, and various others that are 

summarized on the proposed label. 

Use Site Category IV: Residential and Public 

Access Premises 

Homes, kitchens Application to hard surfaces through coarse 

spraying (low pressure spray), trigger pump 

spray, wipe/sponge, mop, and immersion. 

Examples of the hard surfaces include those 

identified for Use Site Categories II, III, and 

V. 

B. Other Non-Occupational Exposure 

The residential exposure assessment 

considers all potential non-occupational 

pesticide exposure, other than exposure 

due to residues in food or in drinking 

water. Exposures may occur during and 

after application on hard surfaces (e.g., 

floors). Each route of exposure 

(incidental oral, dermal, inhalation) is 

considered where appropriate. The risks 

to handlers are quantitatively assessed 

based on the nature of the chemical. As 

previously stated, there are no adverse 

toxicological consequences (systemic or 

irritation) resulting from contact with 

silver other than skin discoloration. 

Residential exposures are short-term (< 

30 days) and intermediate-term (1 to 6 

months) in nature. As supported in the 

toxicological discussion, however, silver 

ion produces only cosmetic effects and 

only as a result of chronic exposures. In 

addition, incidental ingestion (hand to 

mouth behavior of a child on a treated 

floor) as well as dermal exposures 

resulting from a child contacting a 

freshly cleaned floor are considered 

short-term in duration. 

Based on the fact that silver will exist 

in the ionic form, which does not 

volatilize, any post-application 

inhalation exposures to vapors are 

expected to be negligible. Essentially, 

there are no toxicological consequences 

(systematic or irritation) resulting from 

contact with silver other than 

discoloration. Table 2 outlines the use 

patterns and routes of exposure that 

were considered for purposes of a non 

dietary residential assessment. The 

Agency will request that label claim be 

placed on the label to advise users that 

prolonged contact with the product may 

cause skin discoloration. 

Other non-pesticidal industrial uses 

of silver include, but are not limited to, 

photography, cosmetics, sunscreens, 

manufacture of inks and dyes, mirror 

production, and in jewelry. All these 

uses may result in exposures via the 

dermal route, which over a chronic 

duration, may cause skin discoloration. 

However, dermal exposures resulting 

from these uses are not appropriate to 

include in this aggregate exposure 

assessment. It has been previously 

concluded that systemic uptake and 

distribution of silver does not occur via 

the dermal route. The specific uses of 

silver that were considered for this 

aggregate assessment include the 

cleansing of hard surfaces in various 

food handling, institutional, medical 

and residential premises. Exposures 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES

27452 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

resulting from freshly cleaned surfaces are considered not to be of concern to 

the Agency. 

TABLE 2.—REPRESENTATIVE USES ASSOCIATED WITH RESIDENTIAL EXPOSURE

Representative Use Exposure Scenario Application Method Application Rate 

Indoor Hard Surfaces ST Handler: Dermal and Inhalation; Liquid Pour 4.17 E-04 lb ai/gal 

(0.005% ai x 8.34 lb/gal) 

ST and IT Post-app1: child incidental ingestion and dermal Mopping 

Wiping 

Trigger Pump Spray 

Low Pressure Spray (coarse spray) 

Immersion2

50 ppm silver ion 

ST = Short-term exposure, IT = Intermediate-term exposure 

1 IT post-application exposures to children were assessed because this product could be used in a commercial day care facility. 

2The handler exposures associated with liquid pouring of this product are representative of those associated with immersion (standing 

solution). 

V. 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 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 between 

silver and any other substances and 

silver does not appear to produce a toxic 

metabolite produced by other 

substances. For the purposes of this 

tolerance exemption action, therefore, 

EPA has not assumed that silver 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 on EPA’s website at http:// 

www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative. 

VI. Safety Factor for Infants and 

Children1. In general. 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. 

2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. 

There is extensive data and analysis on 

silver’s toxicity in the historical data/ 

literature and the regulatory advisories 

established by other Federal Agencies, 

which do not indicate an increased 

susceptibility of children to the toxic 

effects of silver. A NTP developmental 

toxicity study concluded that the 

NOAEL recorded for developmental 

toxicity in rats receiving gavage doses of 

silver acetate, was greater than 100 mg/ 

kg when the test material was 

administered on gestation days 6 

through 19. No increase in susceptibility 

was apparent in this study. 

Furthermore, silver nitrate has been 

used for decades to treat neonatal 

conjunctivitis. Finally, there is no 

reason to believe that the effects that are 

observed following the administration 

of silver would warrant additional 

safety factors for children. The skin is 

the target organ and the deposition of 

silver should not be age dependent. 

Moreover, because EPA believes that the 

Gaul and Staud study adequately 

characterizes variability in human 

sensitivity, EPA is not applying an intraspecies uncertainty factor in deriving 

the chronic RfD for silver. 

3. Conclusion. Although EPA is not 

applying an inter-species uncertainty 

factor (because of reliance on human 

data) or an intra-species uncertainty 

factor (because human sensitivity has 

been adequately characterized), EPA is 

retaining the 10X FQPA safety factor in 

assessing oral risk to address the fact 

that the dose used to determine the 

chronic RfD showed effects from silver 

(argyria). In making this determination, 

EPA took into account that argyria is not 

a toxic effect, there is no evidence of 

increased sensitivity in the young, and 

the exposure assessment for silver is 

very conservative. 

For dermal exposure, silver ions tend 

to bind to the skin and do not penetrate 

the skin to cause systemic effects. Thus, 

systemic uptake and distribution of 

silver does not occur following dermal 

exposure. Skin discoloration is the only 

effect due to a localized reaction. Based 

on the above findings, a FQPA safety 

factor of 1X should be applied to the 

chronic dietary RfD for assessing dermal 

exposure. An additional safety factor is 

not required for the protection of infants 

and children because there would not 

be an increase in susceptibility to this 

cosmetic nontoxic effect. This cosmetic 

event is a function of the dermal contact 

dose not age. Furthermore, the approach 

taken to assess risk from dermal 

exposure is very conservative in that the 

Agency has based its dermal risk 

assessment on the systemic oral dose 

that was used to establish the oral/ 

dietary risks. 

VII. Aggregate Risks and Determination 

of Safety 

Safety is assessed for acute and 

chronic risks by comparing aggregate 

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 LOC by all 

applicable uncertainty/safety factors. 

For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates 

the probability of additional cancer 

cases given aggregate exposure. Shortterm, intermediate-term, and long-term 

risks are evaluated by comparing 

aggregate exposure to the LOC to ensure 

that the margin of exposure (MOE) 

called for by the product of all 

applicable uncertainty/safety factors is 

not exceeded. 

For a tolerance to be found to be safe, 

it must be shown ‘‘that there is 

reasonable certainty that no harm will 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 27453 

result from aggregate exposure to 

pesticide chemical residue, including 

all anticipated dietary exposures and 

other exposures for which there are 

reliable information.’’ Aggregate 

exposure is the total exposure to a single 

chemical (or its residues) that may occur 

from dietary (i.e., food and drinking 

water), residential, and other nonoccupational sources, and from all 

known or plausible exposure routes 

(oral, dermal, and inhalation). 

1. Dietary risk. A summary of 

antimicrobial indirect food use acute/ 

chronic risk estimates from exposure to 

treated countertops are shown below in 

Table 3. As explained above, EPA 

believes that exposures resulting from 

silver in drinking water will be 

negligible. For adults, chronic dietary 

exposure risk estimates are 

approximately 20% of the chronic PAD. 

For children, the most highly exposed 

population subgroup, the chronic 

dietary risk estimates are 62% of the 

chronic PAD. Therefore, chronic dietary 

exposure estimates are below the 

Agency’s level of concern for all 

population subgroups. 

TABLE 3.—CALCULATED EXPOSURE

AND RISK RESULTING FROM SILVER

SANITIZATION OF COUNTERTOPS

Exposure Group 

Chronic 

DDD(mg/kg/ 

d) a %cPAD b

Adult males 

(13+) 0.00022 22 

Adult females 

(13-69) 0.00021 21 

Children (1-2) 0.00062 62 

a DDD (mg/kg/day) was provided from the 

IDREAM model. b % PAD = exposure (total dietary exposure)/ PAD) x 100. The cPAD is equivalent to 

the chronic oral RfD value of 0.001mg/kg/day. 

2. Aggregate non-cancer risk. 

Aggregate exposure takes into account 

residential exposure plus chronic 

exposure to food and water (considered 

to be a background exposure level). 

Because any oral residential exposures 

will be short-term in nature, the chronic 

risk is equal to the estimate for dietary 

risk. 

3. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. 

population. Available animal and 

human experience through occupational 

and medicinal exposure scenarios have 

not indicated a carcinogenic potential 

for silver. Therefore, silver is not 

expected to be carcinogenic to humans 

particularly in light of its low systemic 

toxicity potential and our understanding 

of its metabolism. 

4. Determination of safety. Based on 

these risk assessments, EPA concludes 

that there is reasonable certainty that no 

harm will result to the general 

population or to infants and children 

from aggregate exposure to silver 

residues. 

VIII. Other Considerations 

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology 

An analytical method for food is not 

needed. Food contact sanitizers are 

typically regulated by state health 

departments to ensure that the food 

industry is using these products in 

compliance with the regulations in 40 

CFR 180.940. The end use solution that 

is applied to the food contact surface is 

analyzed rather than food items that 

may come into contact with the treated 

surface. An analytical method is 

available to analyze the use dilution that 

is applied to food contact surfaces. The 

following methods of analysis are used 

to analyze the use dilution of silver 

being applied to food contact surfaces: 

Gas chromatography (GC), infrared (IR), 

ultraviolet absorption (UV), nuclear 

magnetic resonance (NMR). 

B. International Residue Limits 

There is not a Codex Maximum 

Residue Level established for silver. 

IX. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This final rule establishes a tolerance 

under section 408(d) of FFDCA in 

response to a petition submitted to the 

Agency. The Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) has exempted these types 

of actions from review under Executive 

Order 12866, entitled Regulatory 

Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993). Because this rule has 

been exempted from review under 

Executive Order 12866, 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) 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 tolerance in this final rule, do not 

require the issuance of a proposed rule, 

the requirements of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et 

seq.) do not apply. 

This final rule directly regulates 

growers, food processors, food handlers 

and food retailers, not States or tribes, 

nor does this action alter the 

relationships or distribution of power 

and responsibilities established by 

Congress in the preemption provisions 

of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, 

the Agency has determined that this 

action will not have a substantial direct 

effect on States or tribal governments, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States or tribal 

governments, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government or between 

the Federal Government and Indian 

tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined 

that Executive Order 13132, entitled 

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999) and Executive Order 13175, 

entitled Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 

67249, November 6, 2000) do not apply 

to this rule. In addition, This rule does 

not impose any enforceable duty or 

contain any unfunded mandate as 

described under Title II of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 

(Public Law 104-4). 

This action does not involve any 

technical standards that would require 

Agency consideration of voluntary 

consensus standards pursuant to section 

12(d) of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 

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

X. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

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

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report to each House of 

the Congress and to the Comptroller 

General of the United States. EPA will 

submit a report containing this rule and 

other required information to the U.S. 

Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of this final rule in the 

Federal Register. This final rule is not 

a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Food contact sanitizers, Silver, Food 

additives, Pesticides and pests, 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES

27454 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: May 26, 2009. 

Joan Harrigan-Farrelly, 

Director, Antimicrobials 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. Section 180.940 is amended by 

adding alphabetically the following 

entry to the table in paragraph (a): 

§ 180.940 Tolerance exemptions for active 

and inert ingredients for use in 

antimicrobial formulations (Food-contact 

surface sanitizing solutions). 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

Pesticide Chemical CAS Reg. No. Limits 

* * * * * * * 

Silver ions resulting from the use of electrolytically-generated silver ions stabilized in 

citric acid as silver dihydrogen citrate 

(does not include metallic silver) 

14701–21–4 When ready for use, the end-use concentration of 

silver ions is not to exceed 50 ppm of active silver. 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E9–13476 Filed 6–9–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[DA 09–1209; MB Docket No. 08–126; RM– 

11458] 

Television Broadcasting Services; 

Canton, OH 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Commission grants a 

petition for rulemaking filed by Trinity 

Christian Center of Santa Ana, Inc., 

d/b/a Trinity Broadcasting Network 

(‘‘Trinity’’), the licensee of station 

WDLI–DT, to substitute DTV channel 49 

for its assigned post-transition DTV 

channel 39 at Canton, Ohio. 

DATES: This rule is effective June 10, 

2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David J. Brown, Media Bureau, (202) 

418–1600. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s Report 

and Order, MB Docket No. 08–126, 

adopted May 28, 2009, and released 

May 29, 2009. The full text of this 

document is available for public 

inspection and copying during normal 

business hours in the FCC’s Reference 

Information Center at Portals II, CY– 

A257, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. This document 

will also be available via ECFS (http:// 

www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/). (Documents 

will be available electronically in ASCII, 

Word 97, and/or Adobe Acrobat.) This 

document may be purchased from the 

Commission’s duplicating contractor, 

Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th 

Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1– 

800–478–3160 or via the Internet http:// 

www.BCPIWEB.com. To request this 

document in accessible formats 

(computer diskettes, large print, audio 

recording, and Braille), send an e-mail 

to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 

418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432 

(TTY). This document does not contain 

information collection requirements 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995, Public Law 104–13. In addition, 

therefore, it does not contain any 

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, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4). Provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to 

this proceeding. 

The Commission will send a copy of 

this Report and Order 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). 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 

Television, Television broadcasting. 

■ For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission amends 47 CFR Part 73 as 

follows: 

PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST 

SERVICES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 73 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336. 

§ 73.622 [Amended] 

■ 2. Section 73.622(i), the PostTransition Table of DTV Allotments 

under Ohio, is amended by adding DTV 

channel 49 and removing DTV channel 

39 at Canton. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Clay C. Pendarvis 

Associate Chief, Video Division, Media 

Bureau. 

[FR Doc. E9–13650 Filed 6–9–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[DA 09–1225; MB Docket No. 08–129; RM– 

11461] 

Television Broadcasting Services; 

Spokane, WA 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Commission grants a 

petition for rulemaking filed KHQ, 

Incorporated (‘‘KHQ’’), the licensee of 

station KHQ–DT, DTV channel 7, 

Spokane, Washington, and a related 

petition for rulemaking filed by Spokane 

School District #81 (‘‘Spokane School 

District’’), the licensee of 

noncommercial educational station 

KSPS–DT, DTV channel *8, Spokane, 

Washington. KHQ requests the 

substitution of DTV channel 15 for its 

assigned post-transition DTV channel 7 

at Spokane, and the Spokane School 

District requests the substitution of DTV 

channel *7, its current analog channel, 

for its assigned post-transition DTV 

channel *8 at Spokane. 

DATES: This rule is effective June 10, 

2009. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES