### 41135 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

[FR Doc. 2011–17467 Filed 7–12–11; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION**
**AGENCY**

**40 CFR Part 180**

**[EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0327; FRL–8878–4]**

**2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, phenylmethyl ester, polymer with 2-**  **propenoic acid and sodium 2-methyl-2- [(1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl)amino]-1-**  **propanesulfonate (1:1), peroxydisulfuric acid ([HO)S(O)2]202)**  **sodium salt (1:2)-initiated; Tolerance Exemption** 

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

**ACTION :**  Final rule.

**SUMMARY :**  This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of 2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, phenylmethyl ester, polymer with 2-propenoic acid and sodium 2-methyl-2-[(1-oxo-2-propen-1- yl)amino]-1-propanesulfonate (1:1), peroxydisulfuric acid ([HO)S(O)2]202) sodium salt (1:2)-initiated (also known here as: ‘‘the Polymer’’); when used as an inert ingredient in a pesticide
chemical formulation under 40 CFR 180.960. Akzo Nobel Surface Chemistry LLC, 909 Mueller Avenue, Chattanooga, TN 37406 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 ‘‘the Polymer’’ on food or feed commodities.

**DATES :**  This regulation is effective July 13, 2011. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before September 12, 2011, 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–2011–0327. 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 :**  Mark Dow, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone number: (703) 305–5533; e-mail address: dow.mark@epa.gov.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :** 

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are
not limited to:

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of
entities not listed in this unit could also
be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under **FOR FURTHER**

**INFORMATION CONTACT**

. B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing
Office’s e-CFR site at http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/textidx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/
40tab

_02.tpl.

C. Can I file an objection or hearing request?

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation
in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA–HQ– OPP–2011–0327 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before September 12, 2011. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit a copy of your non-CBI objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0327, by one of the following methods.

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

• Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,

DC 20460–0001.

• Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S–4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only accepted during the Docket Facility’s normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special arrangements should be made
for deliveries of boxed information. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703) 305–5805.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

In the Federal Register of April 20, 2011 (76 FR 22069) (FRL–8869–7), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408 of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a, announcing the receipt of a pesticide petition (PP 1E7834) filed by Akzo Nobel Surface Chemistry LLC, 909 Mueller Avenue, Chattanooga, TN 37406. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.960 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of 2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl- ,phenylmethyl ester, polymer with 2- propenoic acid and sodium 2-methyl-2- [(1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl)amino]-1- propanesulfonate (1:1), peroxydisulfuric acid ([HO)S(O)2]202) sodium salt (1:2)-


### 41136 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

initiated (CASRN 1246766–57–3). That notice included a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner and solicited comments on the petitioner’s request. The Agency did not receive any comments. Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of
FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the exemption is ‘‘safe.’’ Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of
FFDCA defines ‘‘safe’’ to mean that ‘‘there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.’’ This includes exposure through drinking water and use in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance and to ‘‘ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will
result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue * * *’’ and specifies
factors EPA is to consider in establishing an exemption.

III. Risk Assessment and Statutory Findings

EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only in those
cases where it can be shown that the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human
health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If
EPA is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance may be established.

Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability and the relationship of this information to
human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. In the
case of certain chemical substances that are defined as polymers, the Agency has established a set of criteria to identify categories of polymers expected to present minimal or no risk. The definition of a polymer is given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and the exclusion criteria for identifying these low-risk polymers are described in 40 CFR 723.250(d). 2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl- ,phenylmethyl ester, polymer with 2- propenoic acid and sodium 2-methyl-2- [(1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl)amino]-1- propanesulfonate (1:1), peroxydisulfuric acid ([HO)S(O)2]202) sodium salt (1:2)-
initiated conforms to the definition of a polymer given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and meets the following criteria that are used to identify low-risk polymers.

1. The polymer is not a cationic polymer nor is it reasonably anticipated to become a cationic polymer in a natural aquatic environment.

2. The polymer does contain as an integral part of its composition the atomic elements carbon, hydrogen, and

oxygen.

3. The polymer does not contain as an integral part of its composition, except as impurities, any element other than those listed in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(2)(ii).

4. The polymer is neither designed nor can it be reasonably anticipated to substantially degrade, decompose, or depolymerize.

5. The polymer is manufactured or imported from monomers and/or reactants that are already included on
the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory or manufactured under an applicable TSCA section 5 exemption.

6. The polymer is not a water absorbing polymer with a number average molecular weight (MW) greater than or equal to 10,000 daltons.

Additionally, the polymer also meets as required the following exemption criteria specified in 40 CFR 723.250(e).

7. The polymer’s number average MW is greater than 1,000 and less than 10,000 daltons. The polymer contains less than 10% oligomeric material below MW 500 and less than 25% oligomeric material below MW 1,000, and the polymer does not contain any reactive functional groups.

Thus, ‘‘the Polymer’’ meets the criteria for a polymer to be considered
low risk under 40 CFR 723.250. Based
on its conformance to the criteria in this unit, no mammalian toxicity is anticipated from dietary, inhalation, or dermal exposure to ‘‘the Polymer’’. IV. Aggregate Exposures
For the purposes of assessing potential exposure under this exemption, EPA considered that 2- Propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, phenylmethyl ester, polymer with 2- propenoic acid and sodium 2-methyl-2- [(1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl)amino]-1- propanesulfonate (1:1), peroxydisulfuric acid ([HO)S(O)2]202) sodium salt (1:2)- initiated could be present in all raw and processed agricultural commodities anddrinking water, and that nonoccupational non-dietary exposure was possible. The number average MW of ‘‘the Polymer’’ is 1,000 daltons. Generally, a polymer of this size would be poorly absorbed through the intact gastrointestinal tract or through intact human skin. Since ‘‘the Polymer’’ conform to the criteria that identify a low-risk polymer, there are no concerns for risks associated with any potential exposure scenarios that are reasonably foreseeable. The Agency has determined that a tolerance is not necessary to protect the public health.

V. Cumulative Effects From Substances With a Common Mechanism of Toxicity

Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider ‘‘available information’’ concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide’s residues and ‘‘other
substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.’’

EPA has not found ‘‘the Polymer’’ to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and ‘‘the Polymer’’ does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that ‘‘the Polymer’’ does not have a common mechanism of toxicity
with other substances. For information regarding EPA’s efforts to determine
which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate
the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA’s Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/
cumulative.

VI. Additional Safety Factor for the
Protection of Infants and Children

Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold margin of safety for
infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the data base unless EPA concludes that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and


### 41137 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

children. Due to the expected low toxicity of ‘‘the Polymer’’, EPA has not used a safety factor analysis to assess
the risk. For the same reasons the additional tenfold safety factor is

unnecessary.
VII. Determination of Safety

Based on the conformance to the criteria used to identify a low-risk polymer, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of 2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl- , phenylmethyl ester, polymer with 2- propenoic acid and sodium 2-methyl-2- [(1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl)amino]-1- propanesulfonate (1:1), peroxydisulfuric acid ([HO)S(O)2]202) sodium salt (1:2)-
initiated.

VIII. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation.

B. International Residue Limits

In making its tolerance decisions, EPA
seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with
international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the
international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization/ World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.

The Codex has not established a MRL for ‘‘the Polymer’’.

IX. Conclusion

Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting residues of 2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, phenylmethyl ester, polymer with 2-propenoic acid and sodium 2- methyl-2-[(1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl)amino]- 1-propanesulfonate (1:1), peroxydisulfuric acid ([HO)S(O)2]202) sodium salt (1:2)-initiated from the requirement of a tolerance will be safe. X. Statutory and Executive Order

Reviews

This final rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these rules
from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and

Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993).
Because this final rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211,
entitled Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045,
entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et

seq., nor does it involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104–113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the 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, or otherwise have any unique impacts on local governments. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal

Governments (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition, this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described
under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104–4).

Although this action does not require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), EPA seeks to achieve environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group, including minority and/or low-income populations, in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. As such, to the extent that information is publicly
available or was submitted in comments to EPA, the Agency considered whether groups or segments of the population, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticide discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

XI. Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act, 5

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

Dated: June 27, 2011.

Lois Rossi, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is
amended as follows:

**PART 180—[AMENDED]**

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

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


### 41138 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

1 A.M. Best Company is a well-recognized source of insurance company ratings and information. 49 ■ 2. In § 180.960, the table is amended by adding alphabetically the following polymers to read as follows: **§ 180.960 Polymers; exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance.** 

* * * * *

Polymer CAS No.

*******

2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, phenylmethyl ester, polymer with 2-propenoic acid and sodium 2-methyl-2-[(1-oxo-2-

propen-1-yl)amino]-1-propanesulfonate (1:1), peroxydisulfuric acid ([HO)S(O)2]202) sodium salt (1:2)-initiated minimum number average molecular weight > 1,000 Daltons; maximum number average molecular weight 10,000 Daltons. CASRN 1246766–57–3

*******

[FR Doc. 2011–17391 Filed 7–12–11; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION**

**National Highway Traffic Safety**
**Administration**

**49 CFR Part 544**

**[Docket No.: NHTSA–2011–0016]**

**RIN 2127–AK90**

**Insurer Reporting Requirements; List of Insurers Required To File Reports** 

**AGENCY :**  National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

**ACTION :**  Final rule.

**SUMMARY :**  This final rule amends 49 CFR Part 544, Insurer Reporting Requirements. This Part specifies the requirements for annual insurer reports and lists in appendices those passenger motor vehicle insurers that are required to file reports on their motor vehicle theft loss experiences. An insurer included in any of these appendices must file three copies of its report for the 2008 calendar year before October 25, 2011. If the passenger motor vehicle insurers remain listed, they must submit reports by each subsequent October 25.

**DATES :**  This final rule becomes effective on August 12, 2011. Insurers listed in the appendices are required to submit reports on or before October 25, 2011. If you wish to submit a petition for reconsideration of this rule, your petition must be received by August 29,

2011.

**ADDRESSES :**  Petitions for reconsideration
should refer to the docket number and be submitted to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, Room W41–307, Washington,

DC 20590. **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Carlita Ballard, Office of International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, Room W43–439, Washington, DC 20590, by
electronic mail to carlita.ballard@dot.gov. Ms. Ballard’s telephone number is (202) 366–5222. Her fax number is (202) 493–2990.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :** 
I. Background

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33112, Insurer reports and information , NHTSA requires certain passenger motor vehicle insurers to file an annual report with the agency. Each insurer’s report includes
information about thefts and recoveries of motor vehicles, the rating rules used by the insurer to establish premiums for comprehensive coverage, the actions taken by the insurer to reduce such premiums, and the actions taken by the
insurer to reduce or deter theft. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. Section 33112(f), the following insurers are subject to the reporting requirements:

(1) Issuers of motor vehicle insurance policies whose total premiums account for 1 percent or more of the total premiums of motor vehicle insurance issued within the United States;

(2) issuers of motor vehicle insurance policies whose premiums account for 10 percent or more of total premiums written within any one state and;

(3) rental and leasing companies with
a fleet of 20 or more vehicles not covered by theft insurance policies issued by insurers of motor vehicles, other than any governmental entity.

Pursuant to its statutory exemption authority, the agency exempted certain passenger motor vehicle insurers from the reporting requirements.

A. Small Insurers of Passenger Motor
Vehicles

Section 33112(f)(2) provides that the agency shall exempt small insurers of passenger motor vehicles if NHTSA finds that such exemptions will not significantly affect the validity or
usefulness of the information in thereports, either nationally or on a stateby-state basis. The term ‘‘small insurer’’ is defined, in Section 33112(f)(1)(A) and (B), as an insurer whose premiums for motor vehicle insurance issued directly or through an affiliate, including pooling arrangements established under state law or regulation for the issuance of motor vehicle insurance, account for less than 1 percent of the total premiums for all forms of motor vehicle insurance issued by insurers within the United States. However, that section also stipulates that if an insurance company satisfies this definition of a ‘‘small insurer,’’ but accounts for 10 percent or more of the total premiums
for all motor vehicle insurance issued in a particular state, the insurer must report about its operations in that state.

In the final rule establishing the insurer reports requirement (49 CFR part 544; 52 FR 59, January 2, 1987), NHTSA exercised its exemption authority by listing in Appendix A each insurer that must report because it had at least 1 percent of the motor vehicle insurance premiums nationally. Listing the insurers subject to reporting, instead of each insurer exempted from reporting because it had less than 1 percent of the premiums nationally, is administratively simpler, since the former group is much smaller than the latter. In Appendix B, NHTSA lists those insurers required to report for particular states because each insurer had a 10 percent or greater market share of motor vehicle premiums in those states. In the January 1987 final rule, the agency stated that it would update Appendices A and B annually. NHTSA updates the appendices based on data voluntarily provided by insurance companies to A.M. Best, which A.M.

Best 1 publishes in its State/Line Report