[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 36 (Thursday, February 22, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7781-7782]
[FR Doc No: 2018-03623]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2011-0196]

The Vinyl Chloride Standard; Extension of the Office of
Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection
(Paperwork) Requirements

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Request for public comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comments concerning its proposal to
extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the
information collection requirements specified in the Vinyl Chloride
Standard.

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by
April 23, 2018.

ADDRESSES:
    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:
When using this method, you must submit a copy of your comments and
attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2011-0196,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of
Labor, Room N-3653, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210.
Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger, and courier service) are
accepted during the Docket Office's normal business hours, 10:00 a.m.
to 3:00 p.m., ET.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and the
OSHA docket number (OSHA-2011-0196) for the Information Collection
Request (ICR). All comments, including any personal information you
provide, are placed in the public docket without change, and may be
made available online at http://www.regulations.gov. For further
information on submitting comments, see the ``Public Participation''
heading in the section of this notice titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at
the address above. All documents in the docket (including this Federal
Register notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index;
however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly
available to read or download from the website. All submissions,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and
copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You may also contact Theda Kenney at
the address below to obtain a copy of the ICR.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Theda Kenney or Charles McCormick,
Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a
preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information
collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that
information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs)
is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's
estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651
et seq.) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or
appropriate for enforcement of the Act or for developing information
regarding the causes and prevention of occupational injuries,
illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also requires
that OSHA obtain such information with minimum burden upon employers,
especially those operating small businesses, and to reduce to the
maximum extent feasible unnecessary duplication of efforts in obtaining
information (29 U.S.C. 657).
    The Standard specifies a number of paperwork requirements. The
following is a brief description of the collection of information
requirements contained in the Vinyl Chloride (VC) Standard.

(A) Exposure Monitoring (Sec.  1910.1017(d)) and (Sec.  1910.1017(n))

    Paragraph 1910.1017(d)(2) requires employers to conduct exposure
monitoring at least quarterly if the results show that worker exposures
are above the permissible exposure limit (PEL), while those exposed at
or above the Action Level (AL) must be monitored no less than
semiannually. Paragraph (d)(3) requires that employers perform
additional monitoring whenever there has been a change in VC
production, process or control that may result in an increase in the
release of VC.

(B) Written Compliance Plan (Sec. Sec.  1910.1017(f)(2) and (f)(3))

    Paragraph (f)(2) requires employers whose engineering and work
practice controls cannot sufficiently reduce worker VC exposures to a
level at or below the PEL to develop and implement a plan for doing so.
Paragraph (f)(3) requires employers to develop this written plan and
provide it upon request to OSHA for examination and copying. These
plans must be updated annually.

(C) Respirator Program (Sec.  1910.1017(g)(2))

    When respirators are required, the employer must establish a
respiratory protection program in accordance with 1910.134, paragraphs
(b) through (d) (except (d)(1)(iii) and (d)(3)(iii)(B)(1) and (2)) and
(f) through (m). Paragraph 1910.134(c) requires the employer to develop
and implement a written respiratory protection program with worksite-
specific procedures and elements for required respirator use. The
purpose of these requirements is to ensure that employers establish a
standardized procedure for selecting, using, and maintaining
respirators for each workplace where respirators will be used.
Developing written procedures ensures that employers develop a
respirator program that meets the needs of their workers.

(D) Emergency Plan (Sec.  1910.1017(i))

    Employers must develop a written operational plan for dealing with
emergencies; the plan must address the storage, handling, and use of VC
as a liquid or compressed gas. In the event of an emergency,
appropriate elements of the plan must be implemented. Emergency plans
must maximize workers' personal protection and minimize the hazards of
an emergency.

(E) Medical Surveillance (Sec.  1910.1017(k))

    Paragraph (k) requires employers to develop a medical surveillance
program for workers exposed to VC in excess of the action level.
Examinations must be provided in accord with this paragraph at least
annually. Employers must also obtain, and provide to each worker, a
copy of a physician's statement

regarding the worker's suitability for continued exposure to VC,
including use of protective equipment and respirators, if appropriate.

(F) Communication of VC Hazards (Sec.  1910.1017(l))

    Under paragraph 1910.1017(l)(1), Hazard Communication, the employer
shall ensure that at least the following hazards are addressed: Cancer;
central nervous system effects; liver effects; blood effects; and
flammability. Under paragraph 1910.1017(l)(1)(iii), the employer shall
include vinyl chloride and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) in the program
established to comply with the Hazard Communication Standard (HCS)
(Sec.  1910.1200). The employer shall ensure that each employee has
access to labels on containers of chemicals and substances associated
with vinyl and polyvinyl chloride and to safety data sheets, and is
trained in accordance with the provisions of HCS and paragraph (j) of
this section.

(G) Recordkeeping (Sec.  1910.1017(m))

    Employers must maintain worker exposure and medical records.
Medical and monitoring records are maintained principally for worker
access, but are designed to provide valuable information to both
workers and employers. The medical and monitoring records required by
this standard will aid workers and their physicians in determining
whether or not treatment or other interventions are needed for VC
exposure. The information also will enable employers to ensure that
workers are not being overexposed; such information may alert the
employer that steps must be taken to reduce VC exposures.
    Exposure records must be maintained for at least 30 years, and
medical records must be kept for the duration of employment plus 20
years, or for a total of 30 years, whichever is longer. Records must be
kept for extended periods because of the long latency period associated
with VC-related carcinogenesis (i.e., cancer). Cancer often cannot be
detected until 20 or more years after the first exposure to VC.

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed information collection requirements
are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions,
including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the information collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply.
For example, by using automated or other technological information
collection and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Actions

    OSHA is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the information
collection requirements contained in the Vinyl Chloride Standard. The
Agency is requesting an adjustment decrease in burden hours from 535 to
428 hours, a total decrease of 107 burden hours. The reduction is a
result of fewer VC and PVC establishments identified for this ICR. The
currently approved ICR estimates a total of 24 establishments, and this
proposed ICR estimates a total of 19 establishments. There is also a
decrease in the cost under Item 13 from $43,320 to $34,279, a total
decrease of $9,041. The cost decrease results from a decrease in the
number of exposure monitoring samples and medical examinations.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Title: Vinyl Chloride Standard (29 CFR part 1910.1017).
    OMB Control Number: 1218-0010.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profits.
    Number of Respondents: 19.
    Frequency of Responses: On occasion.
    Total Responses: 620.
    Average Time per Response: Various.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 428.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $0.

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on This Notice and
Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1) Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (fax); or (3) by hard copy. All
comments, attachments, and other material must identify the Agency name
and the OSHA docket number (Docket No. OSHA-2011-0196) for the ICR. You
may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files
electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference
to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit them to the
OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled ADDRESSES).
The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments
by your name, date, and the docket number so the Agency can attach them
to your comments.
    Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a
significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about
security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand,
express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the
OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>, (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about
submitting personal information such as social security numbers and
dates of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to read or download from this
website.
All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for
inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on using
the http://www.regulations.gov website to submit comments and access
the docket is available at the website's ``User Tips'' link. Contact
the OSHA Docket Office for information about materials not available
from the website, and for assistance in using the internet to locate
docket submissions.

V. Authority and Signature

    Loren Sweatt, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The
authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR
3912).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on February 15, 2018.
Loren Sweatt,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2018-03623 Filed 2-21-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register: July 29, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 144)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 37564-37571]
[DOCID:fr29jy09-12]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0130; FRL-8429-3]

N,N,N',N'',-Tetrakis-(2-Hydroxypropyl) Ethylenediamine; Exemption
from the Requirement of a Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of N,N,N',N'',-tetrakis-(2-hydroxypropyl)
ethylenediamine (NTHE) when used as an inert ingredient for pre-harvest
uses under 40 CFR 180.920 at a maximum of 20% by weight in pesticide
formulations. The Joint Inerts Task Force (JITF), Cluster Support Team
Number 15 (CST 15), 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 NTHE.

DATES: This regulation is effective July 29, 2009. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before September 28, 2009,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0130. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available at http://
www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket
Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kerry Leifer, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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 those
engaged in the following activities:
     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 to
provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be

affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this
unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial
Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you
and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain
entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document?

    In addition to accessing electronically available documents at
http://www.regulations.gov, you may access this Federal Register
document electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal
Register'' listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may also access
a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations
at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR cite
at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr. To access the OPPTS Harmonized
Guidelines referenced in this document, go directly to the guidelines
at http://www.epa.gov/opptsfrs/home/guidelin.htm.

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file
an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. 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-2009-0130 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 as required by 40 CFR part 178
on or before September 28, 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 this copy, identified by docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0130, 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<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Background

    In the Federal Register of April 15, 2009 (74 FR 17487) (FRL-8409-
7), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
9E7531) by JITF, CST 15, c/o CropLife America, 1156 15\th\ St., NW.,
Suite 400, Washington, DC 20005. The petition requested that 40 CFR
180.920 be amended by establishing exemptions from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of the inert ingredient NTHE. That notice
referenced a summary of the petition prepared by JITF, CST 15, the
petitioner, which is available to the public in the docket, http://
www.regulations.gov.
    The Agency received only one comment in response to the notice of
filing. One comment was received from a private citizen who opposed the
authorization to sell any pesticide that leaves a residue on food. The
Agency understands the commenter's concerns and recognizes that some
individuals believe that no residue of pesticides should be allowed.
However, under the existing legal framework provided by FFDCA section
408, EPA is authorized to establish pesticide tolerances or exemptions
where persons seeking such tolerances or exemptions have demonstrated
that the pesticide meets the safety standard imposed by that statute.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
modified the exemption requested by limiting NTHE to a maximum of 20%
by weight in pesticide formulations. This limitation is based on the
Agency's risk assessment which can be found at http://
www.regulations.gov in document, N,N,N',N'',-Tetrakis-(2-Hydroxypropyl)
Ethylenediamine (NTHE - JITF CST 15 Inert Ingredient). Human Health
Risk Assessment to Support Proposed Exemption from the Requirement of a
Tolerance When Used as an Inert Ingredient in Pesticide Formulations in
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0130.
    This petition was submitted in response to a final rule published
in the Federal Register issue of August 9, 2006, (71 FR 45415) (FRL-
8084-1) in which the Agency revoked, under FFDCA section 408(e)(1), the
existing exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of
certain inert ingredients because of insufficient data to make the
determination of safety required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2). The
expiration date for the tolerance exemptions subject to revocation was
August 9, 2008, which was later extended to August 9, 2009 by a final
rule published in the Federal Register of August 4, 2008 (73 FR 45312)
(FRL-8372-7) to allow for data to be submitted to support the
establishment of tolerance exemptions for these inert ingredients prior
to the effective date of the tolerance exemption revocation.

III. Inert Ingredient Definition

    Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active
ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not
limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a
pesticidal efficacy of their own): Solvents such as alcohols and
hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty
acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as
carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing
agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents;
and emulsifiers. The term ``inert'' is not intended to imply
nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active.
Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a
tolerance based on the low toxicity of the individual inert
ingredients.

IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines
``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue,
including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for
which there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through
drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include
occupational exposure. Section

408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to
exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in
establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from
aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue....''
    EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. First, EPA determines the
toxicity of pesticides. Second, EPA examines exposure to the pesticide
through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as
a result of pesticide use in residential settings.
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for the petitioned-for exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of NTHE provided that
the concentration of NTHE inerts is limited to no more than 20% by
weight in pesticide formulations. EPA's assessment of exposures and
risks associated with establishing tolerances follows.

 A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children.
     The existing toxicology database for NTHE consists of one OPPTS
Harmonized Guideline 870.3650 (combined repeated dose toxicity study
with the reproduction/developmental screening study in rats), a 90-day
toxicity study in rats, and several studies in the scientific
literature on acute oral toxicity and mutagenicity.
    The available toxicity data indicates that NTHE has low acute oral
toxicity. NTHE was not mutagenic in an Ames Test. In the OPPTS
Harmonized Guideline 870.3650 rat reproductive/developmental toxicity
screening study, there was no evidence of increased susceptibility.
Parental toxicity manifested as microscopic brain lesions at 1,000
milligrams/kilograms/day (mg/kg/day) (the highest dose tested). No
developmental or reproductive effects were observed at doses of 100,
300, and 1,000 mg/kg/day. There is no evidence of increased
susceptibility to the offspring of rats following prenatal and
postnatal exposure in the OPPTS Harmonized Guideline 870.3650 study.
There were no offspring effects at any dose level up to the limit dose
(1,000 mg/kg/day). In addition, in a 90-day dietary study in rats
(1956), where the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) was set at
600-900 mg/kg/day (1% in diet), based on body-weight gain effects at 3%
and 5% in the diet and a slightly greater incidence of borderline
abnormalities of the liver of questionable significance, there are no
other repeat dose toxicity data available. The NOAEL from the OPPTS
Harmonized Guideline 870.3650 study (300 mg/kg/day) is protective of
any potential liver toxicity.
    However, there is suggestive evidence of adverse neurotoxic effects
in the adult animal in the OPPTS Harmonized Guideline 870.3650 study at
the limit dose of 1,000 mg/kg/day. These effects manifested as
different sized vacuoles in the choroid plexus epithelial cells (some
were signet-ring shaped) of the lateral ventricles of the brain in all
high-dose parental male and female rats. None of the low- or mid-dose
or control animals showed a similar change.
    Pharmacokinetics in rats indicate that, following oral dosing, NTHE
is poorly absorbed and rapidly excreted in the urine, mainly unchanged
(92%-96%). None of the hypothetical metabolites, such as keto- or N-
dealkylated derivatives, were observed. The calculated bioavailability
factor (F=0.018) revealed that less than 2% of the orally administered
dose of NTHE is absorbed through the stomach and intestine. The half-
life for elimination is 82 minutes (in non-diabetic rats) as a first
order process.
    There are no chronic toxicity studies available for NTHE. The
Agency used a qualitative structure activity relationship (SAR)
database, DEREK 11, to determine if there were structural alerts
suggestive of carcinogenicity. No structural alerts were identified. In
addition, there was little concern about any of the postulated
metabolites having greater toxicity than the parent compounds.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by NTHE, as well as, the NOAEL and the lowest-
observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be
found at http://www.regulations.gov in document N,N,N',N'',-Tetrakis-
(2-Hydroxypropyl) Ethylenediamine (NTHE - JITF CST 15 Inert
Ingredient). Human Health Risk Assessment to Support Proposed Exemption
from the Requirement of a Tolerance When Used as an Inert Ingredient in
Pesticide Formulations at pp. 7-11 and 31-34 in docket ID number EPA-
HQ-OPP-2009-0130.

B. Toxicological Endpoints

    For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, a toxicological point of departure (POD) is
identified as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk
assessment. The POD may be defined as the highest dose at which no
adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) in the toxicology study
identified as appropriate for use in risk assessment. However, if a
NOAEL cannot be determined, the lowest dose at which adverse effects of
concern are identified (the LOAEL) or a benchmark dose (BMD) approach
is sometimes used for risk assessment. Uncertainty/safety factors (UFs)
are used in conjunction with the POD to take into account uncertainties
inherent in the extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and
in the variations in sensitivity among members of the human population
as well as other unknowns. Safety is assessed for acute and chronic
dietary risks by comparing aggregate food and water exposure to the
pesticide to the acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) and chronic
population adjusted dose (cPAD). The aPAD and cPAD are calculated by
dividing the POD by all applicable UFs. Aggregate short-, intermediate-
, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing food, water, and
residential exposure to the POD to ensure that the margin of exposure
(MOE) called for by the product of all applicable UFs is not exceeded.
This latter value is referred to as the level of concern (LOC).
    For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of
exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates
risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect
greater than that expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/
pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for NTHE used for human
health risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.

         Table 1.--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         POD and Uncertainty/    RfD, PAD, LOC for Risk  Study and Toxicological
          Exposure/Scenario                 Safety Factors             Assessment                Effects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary                           No appropriate endpoint was identified for acute dietary assessment. The
(all populations)....................    brain lesions observed following repeat dosing at the limit dose would
                                                  not be expected to occur following a single exposure.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic dietary                        NOAEL= 300 mg/kg/day     Chronic RfD = 3 mg/kg/   OPPTS Harmonized
(all populations)....................  UFA = 10X..............   day                      Guideline 870.3650
                                       UFH = 10X..............  cPAD = 3 mg/kg/day.....   reproduction/
                                       FQPA SF = 10X..........                            developmental screen
                                                                                in rats
                                                                                LOAEL = 1,000 mg/kg/
                                                                                day, based on
                                                                                microscopic lesions
                                                                                (vacuoles in choroid
                                                                                plexus epithelial
                                                                                cells of the lateral
                                                                                ventricles) of the
                                                                                brain in all high-dose
                                                                                animals (both sexes).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Short-Term (1-30 days) Incidental      NOAEL= 300 mg/kg/day     Residential LOC for MOE  OPPTS Harmonized
 Oral and Inhalation                   UFA = 10X..............   = 1,000                  Guideline 870.3650
                                       UFH = 10X..............                            reproduction/
                                       FQPA SF = 10X..........                            developmental screen
                                       Inhalation hazard                                  in rats
                                        assumed to be                                    LOAEL = 1,000 mg/kg/
                                        equivalent to oral                                day, based on
                                        hazard.                                           microscopic lesions
                                                                                (vacuoles in choroid
                                                                                plexus epithelial
                                                                                cells of the lateral
                                                                                ventricles) of the
                                                                                brain in all high-dose
                                                                                animals (both sexes).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intermediate- and Long-Term (1-6       Oral NOAEL = 300 mg/kg/  Residential LOC for MOE  OPPTS Harmonized
 months and >6 months) Incidental       day                      = 1,000                  Guideline 870.3650
 Oral and Inhalation                   UFA = 10X..............                            reproduction/
                                       UFH = 10X..............                            developmental screen
                                       FQPA SF = 10X..........                            in rats
                                       Inhalation hazard                                 LOAEL = 1,000 mg/kg/
                                        assumed to be                                     day, based on
                                        equivalent to oral                                microscopic lesions
                                        hazard.                                           (vacuoles in choroid
                                                                                plexus epithelial
                                                                                cells of the lateral
                                                                                ventricles) of the
                                                                                brain in all high-dose
                                                                                animals (both sexes).
--------------------------------------
                                                                                (oral, dermal,
                                                                                inhalation)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point of departure (POD) = A data point or an estimated point that is derived from observed dose-response data
  and used to mark the beginning of extrapolation to determine risk associated with lower environmentally
  relevant human exposures. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
  level. UF = uncertainty factor. UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential
  variation in sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies). PAD = population adjusted dose
  (a=acute, c=chronic). FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 Safety Factor. RfD = reference dose. MOE =
  margin of exposure. LOC = level of concern. SAR = structure activity relationship.

C. Exposure Assessment

    Limited information is available on the metabolism and
environmental degradation of this compound. The Agency has considered
the chemical structure, the submitted physicochemical data, as well as
SAR information, to determine the residues of concern for this inert
ingredient.
    A rat metabolism study showed little absorption, with most of the
parent compound excreted unchanged in the urine. Although data on plant
metabolism and environmental degradation are not available, any
postulated metabolites as a result of de-alkylation are likely to be
highly water soluble (like the parent) and are not likely to be more
toxic than the parent compound. Therefore, a risk assessment based on
the toxicity data for the parent compound is not likely to
underestimate risk.
     Available data indicate that oral absorption of NTHE is low, and
dermal absorption is expected to be very low. Low dermal absorption is
expected based on its physicochemical properties. Therefore, it is
concluded that quantification of dermal risk is not necessary for NTHE.
    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to NTHE, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. EPA assessed dietary
exposures from NTHE in food as follows:
     i. Acute exposure. No adverse effects attributable to a single
exposure of NTHE was seen in the toxicity databases; therefore, an
acute exposure assessment for NTHE is not necessary.
     ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment, EPA used food consumption information from the United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1994-1996 and 1998 Nationwide
Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII). As to residue
levels in food, no residue data were submitted for NTHE. In the absence
of specific residue data, EPA has developed an approach which uses
surrogate information to derive upper bound exposure estimates for the
subject inert ingredient. Upper bound exposure estimates are based on
the highest tolerance for a given commodity from a list of high-use
insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides. A complete description of the
general approach taken to assess inert ingredient risks in the absence
of residue data is contained in the memorandum entitled Alkyl Amines
Polyalkoxylates (Cluster 4): Acute and Chronic Aggregate (Food and
Drinking Water) Dietary Exposure and Risk Assessments for the Inerts
(D361707, S. Piper, 2/25/09) and can be found at http://
www.regulations.gov in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0738.
    In the dietary exposure assessment, the Agency assumed that the
residue level of the inert ingredient would be no higher than the
highest tolerance for a given commodity. Implicit in this assumption is
that there would be similar rates of degradation (if any) between the
active and inert ingredient

and that the concentration of inert ingredient in the scenarios leading
to these highest of tolerances would be no higher than the
concentration of the active ingredient.
    The Agency believes the assumptions used to estimate dietary
exposures lead to an extremely conservative assessment of dietary risk
due to a series of compounded conservatisms. First, assuming that the
level of residue for an inert ingredient is equal to the level of
residue for the active ingredient will overstate exposure. The
concentrations of active ingredient in agricultural products is
generally at least 50% of the product and often can be much higher.
Further, pesticide products rarely have a single inert ingredient;
rather there is generally a combination of different inert ingredients
used which additionally reduces the concentration of any single inert
ingredient in the pesticide product in relation to that of the active
ingredient. In the case of NTHE, EPA made a specific adjustment to the
dietary exposure assessment to account for the use limitations of the
amount of NTHE that may be in formulations (no more than 20% by weight
in pesticide formulations) and assumed that NTHE is present at the
maximum limitation rather than at equal quantities with the active
ingredient. This remains a very conservative assumption because
surfactants are generally used at levels far below this percentage.
    Second, the conservatism of this methodology is compounded by EPA's
decision to assume that, for each commodity, the active ingredient
which will serve as a guide to the potential level of inert ingredient
residues is the active ingredient with the highest tolerance level.
This assumption overstates residue values because it would be highly
unlikely, given the high number of inert ingredients, that a single
inert ingredient or class of ingredients would be present at the level
of the active ingredient in the highest tolerance for every commodity.
Finally, a third compounding conservatism is EPA's assumption that all
foods contain the inert ingredient at the highest tolerance level. In
other words, EPA assumed 100% of all foods are treated with the inert
ingredient at the rate and manner necessary to produce the highest
residue legally possible for an active ingredient. In summary, EPA
chose a very conservative method for estimating what level of inert
residue could be on food, then used this methodology to choose the
highest possible residue that could be found on food and assumed that
all food contained this residue. No consideration was given to
potential degradation between harvest and consumption even though
monitoring data shows that tolerance level residues are typically one
to two orders of magnitude higher than actual residues in food when
distributed in commerce.
    Accordingly, although sufficient information to quantify actual
residue levels in food is not available, the compounding of these
conservative assumptions will lead to a significant exaggeration of
actual exposures. EPA does not believe that this approach
underestimates exposure in the absence of residue data.
     iii. Cancer. The Agency used a qualitative SAR database, DEREK11,
to determine if there were structural alerts suggestive of
carcinogenicity. No structural alerts for carcinogenicity were
identified. NTHE is not expected to be carcinogenic. Therefore a cancer
dietary exposure assessment is not necessary to assess cancer risk.
     iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT)
information. EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information
in the dietary assessment for NTHE. Tolerance level residues and/or 100
PCT were assumed for all food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for NTHE in drinking water. These simulation models take
into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of NTHE. Further information regarding EPA drinking
water models used in the pesticide exposure assessment can be found at
http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
    A screening level drinking water analysis, based on the Pesticide
Root Zone Model /Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS) was
performed to calculate the estimated drinking water concentrations
(EDWCs) of NTHE. Modeling runs on four surrogate inert ingredients
using a range of physical chemical properties that would bracket those
of NTHE were conducted. Modeled acute drinking water values ranged from
0.001 part per billion (ppb) to 41 ppb. Modeled chronic drinking water
values ranged from 0.0002 ppb to 19 ppb. Further details of this
drinking water analysis can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in
the document N,N,N',N'',-Tetrakis-(2-Hydroxypropyl) Ethylenediamine
(NTHE - JITF CST 15 Inert Ingredient). Human Health Risk Assessment to
Support Proposed Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance When
Used as an Inert Ingredient in Pesticide Formulations at pp. 11-12 and
36-38 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0130.
    For the purpose of the screening level dietary risk assessment to
support this request for an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for NTHE, a conservative drinking water concentration value
of 100 ppb based on screening level modeling was used to assess the
contribution to drinking water for the chronic dietary risk assessments
for parent compound. These values were directly entered into the
dietary exposure model.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). NTHE may be used as
inert ingredients in pesticide products that are registered for
specific uses that may result in outdoor residential exposures.
    A screening level residential exposure and risk assessment was
completed for products containing NTHE as an inert ingredient. In this
assessment, representative scenarios, based on end-use product
application methods and labeled application rates, were selected. The
Agency did not identify any products intended for use on pets or home
cleaning products that contain NTHE. For each of the use scenarios, the
Agency assessed residential handler (applicator) inhalation exposure
for outdoor scenarios with high exposure potential (i.e., exposure
scenarios with high end unit exposure values) to serve as a screening
assessment for all potential residential pesticides containing.
Similarly, residential post application oral exposure assessments were
also performed utilizing high end outdoor exposure scenarios. Further
details of this residential exposure and risk analysis can be found at
http://www.regulations.gov in the memorandum entitled JITF Inert
Ingredients. Residential and Occupational Exposure Assessment
Algorithms and Assumptions Appendix for the Human Health Risk
Assessments to Support Proposed Exemption from the Requirement of a
Tolerance When Used as Inert Ingredients in Pesticide Formulations
(D364751, 5/7/09, Lloyd/LaMay) in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-
0710.
    4. 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 to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any
other substances, and NTHE does not appear to produce a toxic
metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that NTHE 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 website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/
cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. 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 SF. In
applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X,
or uses a different additional SF when reliable data available to EPA
support the choice of a different factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. The existing toxicology
database for NTHE consists of one OPPTS Harmonized Guideline 870.3650
combined repeated dose toxicity study with the reproduction/
developmental screening study in rats, and several studies in the
scientific literature on acute oral toxicity and mutagenicity.
    In the case of NTHE, there was no increased susceptibility to the
offspring of rats following pre and postnatal (PND 0-4) exposure in the
OPPTS Harmonized Guideline 870.3650 study (gavage dosing of males for
28 days, females for 46 days). There were no offspring effects at any
dose level up to the limit dose (1,000 mg/kg/day) where maternal/
paternal toxicity was manifested as microscopic lesions in the brain at
1,000 mg/kg/day. Although the parental NOAEL selected as the POD for
the chronic dietary, incidental oral, and inhalation risk assessments
is protective of the adult animal, the particular findings in the
parental animals lead to uncertainties for the offspring. There is a
concern for neurodevelopment since this is not addressed in the OPPTS
Harmonized Guideline 870.3650 reproduction/developmental screening
study.
    3. Conclusion. Despite the fact that no quantitative or qualitative
increased susceptibility to offspring was seen in the OPPTS Harmonized
Guideline 870.3650 combined repeated dose toxicity study and the
conservative exposure assessment, EPA has determined that the FQPA SF
cannot be reduced. A 10X FQPA SF is retained for the following reason:
    In the OPPTS Harmonized Guideline 870.3650 study in rats there is
some evidence of neurotoxicity in the adult animals in the OPPTS
Harmonized Guideline 870.3650 reproductive/developmental study, which
occurred only at the highest-dose tested of 1,000 mg/kg/day. The
vacuoles in the choroid plexus epithelial cells of the lateral
ventricles of the brain were of different size, and some of the
epithelial cells were signet-ring shaped. None of the other dose groups
(100 and 300 mg/kg/day) showed a similar change. These results indicate
a potential concern for effects on neurodevelopment at high doses
following repeat exposure. Given that neither neurotoxicity nor
standard developmental toxicity studies are available on NTHE,
retention of the FQPA SF is appropriate.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic pesticide exposures are
safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the aPAD and cPAD.
The aPAD and cPAD represent the highest-safe exposures, taking into
account all appropriate SFs. EPA calculates the aPAD and cPAD by
dividing the POD by all applicable UFs. For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the probability of additional cancer cases given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the POD to ensure that the MOE called for
by the product of all applicable UFs is not exceeded.
    1. Acute risk.There was no hazard attributable to a single exposure
seen in the toxicity database for NTHE. Therefore, NTHE is not expected
to pose an acute risk.
    2. Chronic risk. A chronic aggregate risk assessment takes into
account exposure estimates from chronic dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit
for chronic exposure and the use limitations of not more than 20% by
weight in pesticide formulations, the chronic dietary exposure from
food and water to NTHE is 26% of the cPAD for the U.S. population and
84% of the cPAD for children 1-2 years old, the most highly exposed
population subgroup.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level).
     NTHE is used as an inert ingredient in pesticide products that are
currently registered for uses that could result in short-term
residential exposure and the Agency has determined that it is
appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with
short-term residential exposures to NTHE. Using the exposure
assumptions described in this unit, EPA has concluded that the combined
short-term aggregated food, water, and residential exposures result in
aggregate MOEs of 4,800 and 5,000 for adult males and females,
respectively. Adult residential exposure includes high-end inhalation
handler exposure from outdoor uses. EPA has concluded the combined
short-term aggregated food, water, and residential exposures result in
an aggregate MOE of 1,100 for children. Children's residential exposure
includes incidental oral exposure from treated turf. As the LOC is for
MOEs that are lower than 1,000, these MOEs are not of concern.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level).
    NTHE is currently registered for uses that could result in
intermediate-term residential exposure and the Agency has determined
that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and
water with intermediate-term residential exposures to NTHE. Using the
exposure assumptions described in this unit, EPA has concluded that the
combined intermediate-term aggregated exposures result in aggregate
MOEs of 4,800 and 5,100, for adult males and females, respectively. EPA
has concluded the combined intermediate-term aggregated food, water,
and residential exposures result in an aggregate MOE of 1,200 for
children. Children's residential exposure includes incidental oral
exposure from treated turf. As the LOC is for MOEs that are lower than
1,000, these MOEs are not of concern.
     5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. The Agency has not
identified any concerns for carcinogenicity relating to NTHE.

    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to residues of NTHE.

V. 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

     The Agency is not aware of any country requiring a tolerance for
NTHE nor have any CODEX Maximum Residue Levels been established for any
food crops at this time.

VI. Conclusion

    Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is
established for residues.of N,N,N',N'',-tetrakis-(2-hydroxypropyl)
ethylenediamine when used as an inert ingredient for pre-harvest uses
under 40 CFR 180.920 at a maximum of 20% by weight in pesticide
formulations.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes tolerances under section 408(d) of
FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is
not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use (66 FR 28355, May 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 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition,
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).

VIII. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
United States prior to publication of this final rule in the Federal
Register. This final rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: July 21, 2009.
G. Jeffrey Herndon,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. In Sec. 180.920, the table is amended by adding alphabetically the
following inert ingredient to read as follows:

Sec.  180.920  Inert ingredients used pre-harvest; exemptions from the
requirement of a tolerance.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Inert Ingredients               Limits               Uses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                * * * * *
N,N,N',N'',-tetrakis-(2-          Concentration in    Stabilizer for
 hydroxypropyl) ethylenediamine    formulated end-     formulation
 (CAS Reg. No. 102-60-3).          use products not
                                   to exceed 20% by
                                   weight in
                                   pesticide
                                   formulations.
                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. E9-17945 Filed 7-28-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register: May 16, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 94)]
[Notices]
[Page 27550]
[DOCID:fr16my07-58]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-312-002]

Mississippi Canyon Gas Pipeline, LLC; Notice of Supplemental
Filing

May 9, 2007.
    Take notice that on April 19, 2007, Mississippi Canyon Gas
Pipeline, LLC (Mississippi Canyon) tendered for filing a letter in the
captioned docket. Mississippi Canyon states that it satisfies the
Commission's condition regarding existing similarly situated Rate
Schedule FT-2 shippers, as required in its April 3, 2007 letter order.
Mississippi Canyon also states that it will offer the same discounted
rate for similarly situated new shippers under the same rate schedule.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing a
protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons

unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on May 17, 2007.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-9357 Filed 5-15-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P