33184 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

(703) 308–8715; e-mail address: 

mendelsohn.mike@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. What Should I Consider as I Prepare 

My Comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through 

regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark 

the part or all of the information that 

you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD–ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for preparing your comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

i. Identify the document by docket ID 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

ii. Follow directions. The Agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

iv. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

v. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

vi. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns and suggest 

alternatives. 

vii. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

viii. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

3. Environmental justice. 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. To help 

address potential environmental justice 

issues, the Agency seeks information on 

any groups or segments of the 

population who, 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 pesticides 

discussed in this document, compared 

to the general population. 

II. What action is the Agency taking? 

EPA is announcing receipt of a 

pesticide petition filed under section 

408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and 

Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, 

requesting the establishment or 

modification of regulations in 40 CFR 

part 174 or part 180 for residues of 

pesticide chemicals in or on various 

food commodities. The Agency is taking 

public comment on the request before 

responding to the petitioner. EPA is not 

proposing any particular action at this 

time. EPA has determined that the 

pesticide petition described in this 

document contains data or information 

prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2); 

however, EPA has not fully evaluated 

the sufficiency of the submitted data at 

this time or whether the data supports 

granting of the pesticide petition. After 

considering the public comments, EPA 

intends to evaluate whether and what 

action may be warranted. Additional 

data may be needed before EPA can 

make a final determination on this 

pesticide petition. 

In accordance with 40 CFR 180.7(f), a 

summary of the petition that is the 

subject of this document, prepared by 

the petitioner, is included in a docket 

EPA has created for this rulemaking. 

The docket for this petition is available 

on-line at http://www.regulations.gov. 

As required by FFDCA section 

408(d)(3), (21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3)), EPA is 

publishing notice of the petition so that 

the public has an opportunity to 

comment on this request for the 

establishment or modification of 

regulations for residues of pesticides in 

or on food commodities. Further 

information on the petition may be 

obtained through the petition summary 

referenced in this unit. 

Amended Tolerance Exemption 

PP1G7868. Syngenta Seeds Inc., P.O. 

Box 12257, Research Triangle Park, 

North Carolina 27709, proposes to 

extend an exemption from the 

requirement of a tolerance for residues 

of the plant-incorporated protectant, 

Bacillus thuringiensis eCry3.1Ab 

protein in corn, in or on the food and 

feed commodities of corn; corn, field; 

corn, sweet; and corn, pop under 40 

CFR 174.532; March 16, 2011; 76 FR 

14289 (FRL–8866–5) when Bacillus 

thuringiensis eCry3.1Ab protein in corn 

is used as a plant-incorporated 

protectant in accordance with the terms 

of Experimental Use Permit 67979– 

EUP–8. The petitioner believes no 

analytical method is needed because a 

temporary exemption from the 

requirement of a tolerance is being 

sought. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 174 

Environmental protection, 

Agricultural commodities, Feed 

additives, Food additives, Pesticides 

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: May 24, 2011. 

Keith A. Matthews, 

Director, Biopesticides and Pollution 

Prevention Division, Office of Pesticide 

Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2011–14190 Filed 6–7–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0360; FRL–8874–7] 

Tetrachlorvinphos; Proposed 

Extension of Time-Limited Interim 

Pesticide Tolerances 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 33185 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This document proposes the 

extension of time-limited interim 

tolerances for the combined residues of 

the insecticide tetrachlorvinphos (Z)-2- 

chloro-1-(2,4,5-trichlorophenyl) vinyl 

dimethyl phosphate, including its 

metabolites, 1-(2,4,5-trichlorophenyl)- 

ethanol (free and conjugated forms), 

2,4,5-trichloroacetophenone, and 1- 

(2,4,5-trichlorophenyl)-ethanediol, in or 

on multiple commodities which will be 

identified later in this document, under 

the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 

Act (FFDCA). 

DATES: Comments, identified by docket 

identification (ID) number EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2011–0360, must be received on or 

before August 8, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket ID number EPA– 

HQ–OPP–2011–0360, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Tetrachlorvinphos; Proposed 

Extension of Time-Limited Interim 

Pesticides, 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. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2011– 

0360. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the docket 

without change and may be made 

available on-line at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through regulations.gov or email. The regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

regulations.gov, your e-mail address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the comment that is 

placed in the docket and made available 

on the Internet. If you submit an 

electronic comment, EPA recommends 

that you include your name and other 

contact information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: 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., 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 OPP 

Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S– 

4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 

2777 S. Crystal Dr., 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 Facility telephone 

number is (703) 305–5805. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Carmen Rodia, Registration Division 

(7504P), Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone 

number: (703) 306–0327; fax number: 

(703) 308–0029; e-mail address: 

rodia.carmen@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. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through 

regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark 

the part or all of the information that 

you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD–ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for preparing your comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

i. Identify the document by docket ID 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

ii. Follow directions. The Agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

iv. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

v. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

vi. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns and suggest 

alternatives. 

vii. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

viii. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
33186 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

II. Background 

Following the enactment of the Food 

Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA), 

EPA reviewed and assessed under the 

new FQPA aggregate risk standard, the 

existing tolerances of 31 

organophosphates (OPs), including 

tetrachlorvinphos (TCVP). In late 

December 2002, EPA reported the 

results of its assessment of TCVP 

tolerances in its Tolerance Reassessment 

Eligibility Decision (TRED) document, 

(67 FR 77491, December 18, 2002) 

(FRL–7279–2). 

The TCVP TRED concluded that the 

TCVP livestock residue studies were not 

adequate, and recommended that the 

Agency require the registrant to conduct 

and submit new magnitude of residue 

(MOR) studies to support permanent 

TCVP tolerances. The TCVP TRED also 

recommended the Agency revoke 4 

existing tolerances in commodities 

supporting TCVP uses that were no 

longer registered. Finally, the TRED 

recommended that the Agency use 

existing TCVP metabolism studies to 

modify 5 existing livestock tolerances 

(fat of cattle, hogs and poultry as well 

as eggs and milk fat) and establish 11 

tolerances for additional tissues of 

cattle, hogs and poultry (such as meat, 

meat byproducts and kidney and liver). 

Specifically, the TRED recommended 

that EPA establish 16 TCVP tolerances 

as ‘‘time-limited for a period of 18 

months * * * to permit sufficient time 

for the registrant to submit the required 

MOR studies.’’ TCVP TRED at 41. On 

February 6, 2004, EPA issued a Generic 

Data Call-In Notice requiring the 

registrant to conduct and submit new 

livestock MOR studies for meat, milk, 

poultry, and eggs. 

On February 6, 2008, pursuant to 

section 408(e) of the FFDCA, EPA 

proposed to revoke, modify and 

establish tolerances for 10 pesticides, 

including TCVP (73 FR 6867) (FRL– 

8345–2). EPA explained that the 

proposed tolerance actions were a 

‘‘follow-up to the Agency reregistration 

program under Federal Insecticide, 

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 

(FIFRA), and tolerance reassessment 

program under FFDCA section 408(q).’’ 

Id. As such, EPA proposed to 

implement the tolerance 

recommendations made in the TCVP 

TRED by: 

(1) Revising the tolerance expression 

in 40 CFR 180.252 to regulate the 

residues of TCVP and its metabolites; 

(2) Revise and establish 16 timelimited TCVP livestock tolerances to 

reflect levels of TCVP and its 

metabolites in various metabolism 

studies; and 

(3) Revoke tolerances for residues of 

TCVP for goat fat and horse fat. 

Specifically, EPA proposed to establish 

the 16 TCVP tolerances for ‘‘18 months 

to permit time for the submission of 

additional MOR data to support 

permanent tolerances.’’ (73 FR 6867, 

February 6, 2008). Because the Agency 

was taking action to establish tolerances 

in/on beef cattle, hog and poultry 

commodities, EPA determined that the 

exception that permitted the use of 

TCVP as an additive to beef cattle, dairy 

cattle, horse and swine feed at certain 

rates was no longer necessary. On 

September 17, 2008, EPA finalized the 

rule as proposed, establishing, among 

other things, 16 time-limited tolerances 

for TCVP with an expiration date of 

March 17, 2010 (73 FR 53732) (FRL– 

8375–2). For both the proposal and the 

final rule, EPA determined that the 

‘‘increased tolerances and new 

tolerances to be established are safe; i.e., 

there is a reasonable certainty that no 

harm will result from aggregate 

exposure to the pesticide chemical 

residue.’’ (73 FR 53732, September 17, 

2008). 

It was EPA’s intention that upon 

submission of the required TCVP MOR 

studies, the time-limited tolerances 

would be extended to allow EPA 

sufficient time to review the data with 

the expectation that the data would 

support the establishment of permanent 

tolerances. Prior to March 17, 2010, the 

registrant did in fact submit MOR data 

in cattle (MRID 47193001), MOR data in 

poultry (MRID 47589301), and the 

livestock validation methodology (MRID 

47369201). However, due to a mistake 

on the part of EPA, the data were not 

reviewed in a timely manner. 

Compounding this error, EPA also failed 

to extend the time-limited tolerances to 

allow for the Agency to review the data 

and make a determination with respect 

to converting the time-limited 

tolerances into permanent tolerances. 

Accordingly, in order to remedy the 

Agency’s mistake and to be consistent 

with its original proposal and final rule 

establishing the TCVP time-limited 

tolerances, EPA is proposing to extend 

the expired time-limited tolerances for 

another 18 months to allow EPA to 

review the livestock MOR data 

submitted by the registrant as well as 

subsequent submissions, including 

storage stability data (MRID 47589301) 

to support the previously submitted 

MOR data in poultry, storage stability 

data (MRID 48378101) to support the 

previously submitted MOR data in 

cattle, and a waiver request for MOR 

data in swine. 

In the TCVP TRED, EPA ‘‘found that, 

apart from consideration of the potential 

cumulative risks from all of the OPs, 

each of the tolerances would meet the 

FFDCA safety standard. EPA has not 

considered the impact of these 

cumulative risks in the reassessment of 

these tolerances and has determined 

that these tolerances make, at most, only 

a negligible contribution to the overall 

risks from OPs. Therefore, these 

tolerances can be maintained regardless 

of the outcome of the OP cumulative 

assessment and any potential regulatory 

action taken as a result of that 

assessment. Accordingly, EPA ‘‘believes 

it is appropriate to consider these 

tolerances reassessed for the purposes of 

section 408(q) of FQPA as of July 23, 

2002.’’ (67 FR 52985, August 14, 2002) 

(FRL–7192–4). 

Among the factors EPA considered in 

making the decision to reassess these 

tolerances were extensive livestock 

feeding/metabolism studies as well as 

extensive monitoring data that was in 

agreement with the livestock feeding/ 

metabolisms studies. In sum, there were 

very few detectable residues in the OP 

monitoring data for animal 

commodities. EPA relied upon 

extensive monitoring data from the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) 

Pesticide Data Program (PDP) and U.S. 

Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) 

Total Diet Study (TDS) covering 

residues of multiple OPs in meats and 

poultry. The residue monitoring data 

showed infrequent detections, and those 

residues were detected at low levels. 

Out of approximately 400 meat samples 

analyzed by the TDS for multiple OPs 

from 1991–1999, only 9 samples 

detected any OP residues (the residues 

ranged between 0.002 ppm and 0.009 

ppm). Out of the approximately 500 

poultry samples analyzed by PDP for 

multiple OPs from 1997–2000, only 1 

sample detected an OP residue (0.01 

ppm) for a pesticide that currently has 

a tolerance. Id. For milk and eggs, 

extensive monitoring data were 

available from USDA’s PDP and FDA’s 

TDS. The residue monitoring data 

showed no detectable OP residues in 

milk (there was only 1 trace sample 

detected out of approximately 1,800 

samples analyzed by PDP for multiple 

OPs from 1996–1998). The residue 

monitoring for eggs also showed no 

detectable OP residues (only 1 trace 

sample was detected out of 

approximately 1,300 samples analyzed 

by TDS for multiple OPs from 1992– 

1998). Id. 

In July of 2006, EPA completed the 

OP cumulative risk assessment (CRA), 

using the best available monitoring data. 

The updated USDA PDP data indicated 

that OP residues would not be expected 

to occur in significant amounts in meat 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 33187 

or milk. The analysis in the OP CRA 

indicated that animal commodities do 

not significantly contribute to OP 

dietary exposure and total OP dietary 

risk. This characterization was 

supported by additional information, 

including the updated TDS data. On 

July 31, 2006, EPA finalized the TCVP 

reregistration eligibility determination 

by concluding that the pesticide 

tolerances covered by the IREDs and 

TREDs that were pending the result of 

the OP CRA—including TCVP 

tolerances, meet the safety standard 

under section 408(b)(2) of the FFDCA. 

In 2008, EPA confirmed that USDA 

PDP analyses of livestock commodities, 

including milk, poultry, pork, and beef, 

through 2005 showed virtually no 

detectable residues of TCVP (except for 

2 lone milk samples detected at levels 

just above the LOQ (less than one part 

per billion), detected out of 

approximately 5,200 samples analyzed 

by PDP for multiple OPs from 2001– 

2005. Furthermore, the USDA Food 

Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) 

monitors meat for residues of 

tetrachlorvinphos, and there have been 

no detections of tetrachlorvinphos from 

2000–2009. 

III. Proposal 

EPA on its own initiative, under 

section 408(e) of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 

346a(e), is proposing to extend the dates 

of expiration/revocation for the timelimited interim tolerances for the 

combined residues of the insecticide 

tetrachlorvinphos (Z)-2-chloro-1-(2,4,5- 

trichlorophenyl) vinyl dimethyl 

phosphate, including its metabolites, 1- 

(2,4,5-trichlorophenyl)-ethanol (free and 

conjugated forms), 2,4,5- 

trichloroacetophenone, and 1-(2,4,5- 

trichlorophenyl)-ethanediol, in or on 

cattle, fat (of which no more than 0.1 

ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se) at 0.2 

parts per million (ppm); cattle, kidney 

(of which no more than 0.05 ppm is 

tetrachlorvinphos per se) at 1.0 ppm; 

cattle, liver (of which no more than 0.05 

ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se) at 0.5 

ppm; cattle, meat (of which no more 

than 2.0 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per 

se) at 2.0 ppm; cattle, meat byproducts, 

except kidney and liver at 1.0 ppm; egg 

(of which no more than 0.05 ppm is 

tetrachlorvinphos per se) at 0.2 ppm; 

hog, fat (of which no more than 0.1 ppm 

is tetrachlorvinphos per se) at 0.2 ppm; 

hog, kidney (of which no more than 0.05 

ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se) at 1.0 

ppm; hog, liver (of which no more than 

0.05 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se) at 

0.5 ppm; hog, meat (of which no more 

than 2.0 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per 

se) at 2.0 ppm; hog, meat byproducts, 

except kidney and liver at 1.0 ppm; 

milk, fat (reflecting negligible residues 

in whole milk and of which no more 

than 0.05 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per 

se) at 0.05 ppm; poultry, fat (of which 

no more than 7.0 ppm is 

tetrachlorvinphos per se) at 7.0 ppm; 

poultry, liver (of which no more than 

0.05 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se) at 

2.0 ppm; poultry, meat (of which no 

more than 3.0 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos 

per se) at 3.0 ppm; and poultry, meat 

byproducts, except liver at 2.0 ppm, for 

a period of 18 months following the date 

of publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register, in order to provide the 

Agency with additional time to 

complete the reviews of the submitted 

livestock MOR data, storage stability 

data, and the waiver request for the 

swine MOR data. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This proposed rule establishes a 

tolerance under section 408(e) of 

FFDCA. 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 proposed 

rule has been exempted from review 

under Executive Order 12866 due to its 

lack of significance, this proposed 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). This proposed rule does not 

contain any information collections 

subject to OMB approval under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq., or 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). 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), or OMB review or any Agency 

action under Executive Order 13045, 

entitled Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

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

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). Since 

tolerances are being established under 

section 408(e) of the FFDCA, such as the 

tolerance in this proposed 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. The Agency hereby 

certifies that this proposed action will 

not have significant negative economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. In addition, the Agency has 

determined that this action will not 

have a substantial direct effect on States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999). Executive Order 13132 requires 

EPA to develop an accountable process 

to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input 

by State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies 

that have federalism implications’’ is 

defined in the Executive order to 

include regulations that have 

‘‘substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government.’’ This proposed 

rule directly regulates growers, food 

processors, food handlers, and food 

retailers, not States. This action does not 

alter the relationships or distribution of 

power and responsibilities established 

by Congress in the preemption 

provisions of section 408(n)(4) of the 

FFDCA. For these same reasons, the 

Agency has determined that this 

proposed rule does not have any ‘‘Tribal 

implications’’ as described in Executive 

Order 13175, entitled Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments (65 FR 67249, November 

9, 2000). Executive Order 3175 requires 

EPA to develop an accountable process 

to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input 

by Tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have Tribal 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have Tribal 

implications’’ is defined in the 

Executive order to include regulations 

that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on 

one or more Indian Tribes, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

Government and the Indian Tribes, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian Tribes.’’ This 

proposed rule will not have substantial 

direct effects on Tribal governments, on 

the relationship between the Federal 

Government and Indian Tribes, or on 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian Tribes, as 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
33188 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

specified in Executive Order 13175. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides 

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: May 26, 2011. 

Lois Rossi, 

Director, Registration Division, Office of 

Pesticide Programs. 

Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR 

chapter I be 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 180.252 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 180.252 Tetrachlorvinphos; tolerances 

for residues. 

(a) General. Tolerances are 

established for the combined residues of 

the insecticide tetrachlorvinphos (Z)-2- 

chloro-1-(2,4,5-trichlorophenyl) vinyl 

dimethyl phosphate, including its 

metabolites, 1-(2,4,5-trichlorophenyl)- 

ethanol (free and conjugated forms), 

2,4,5-trichloroacetophenone, and 1- 

(2,4,5-trichlorophenyl)-ethanediol, in or 

on the following commodities: 

Commodity Parts per million Expiration/revocation date 

Cattle, fat (of which no more than 0.1 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos 

per se).

0 .2 [date 18 months from the date of Final tolerance publication]. 

Cattle, kidney (of which no more than 0.05 ppm is 

tetrachlorvinphos per se).

1 .0 [date 18 months from the date of Final tolerance publication]. 

Cattle, liver (of which no more than 0.05 ppm is 

tetrachlorvinphos per se).

0 .5 [date 18 months from the date of Final tolerance publication]. 

Cattle, meat (of which no more than 2.0 ppm is 

tetrachlorvinphos per se).

2 .0 [date 18 months from the date of Final tolerance publication]. 

Cattle, meat byproducts, except kidney and liver ........................ 1 .0 [date 18 months from the date of Final tolerance publication]. 

Egg (of which no more than 0.05 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per 

se).

0 .2 [date 18 months from the date of Final tolerance publication]. 

Hog, fat (of which no more than 0.1 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos 

per se).

0 .2 [date 18 months from the date of Final tolerance publication]. 

Hog, kidney (of which no more than 0.05 ppm is 

tetrachlorvinphos per se).

1 .0 [date 18 months from the date of Final tolerance publication]. 

Hog, liver (of which no more than 0.05 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos 

per se).

0 .5 [date 18 months from the date of Final tolerance publication]. 

Hog, meat (of which no more than 2.0 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos 

per se).

2 .0 [date 18 months from the date of Final tolerance publication]. 

Hog, meat byproducts, except kidney and liver .......................... 1 .0 [date 18 months from the date of Final tolerance publication]. 

Milk, fat (reflecting negligible residues in whole milk and of 

which no more than 0.05 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se).

0 .05 [date 18 months from the date of Final tolerance publication]. 

Poultry, fat (of which no more than 7.0 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos 

per se).

7 .0 [date 18 months from the date of Final tolerance publication]. 

Poultry, liver (of which no more than 0.05 ppm is 

tetrachlorvinphos per se).

2 .0 [date 18 months from the date of Final tolerance publication]. 

Poultry, meat (of which no more than 3.0 ppm is 

tetrachlorvinphos per se).

3 .0 [date 18 months from the date of Final tolerance publication]. 

Poultry, meat byproducts, except liver ......................................... 2 .0 [date 18 months from the date of Final tolerance publication]. 

(b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. 

[Reserved] 

(c) Tolerances with regional 

registrations. [Reserved] 

(d) Indirect or inadvertent residues. 

[Reserved] 

[FR Doc. 2011–14211 Filed 6–7–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

42 CFR Part 84 

[Docket Number NIOSH–109] 

RIN 0920–AA04 

Quality Assurance Requirements for 

Respirators; Notice of Withdrawal 

AGENCY: Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC), Department of Health 

and Human Services (HHS). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; 

withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Health and 

Human Services (HHS) is withdrawing 

its proposed rule to update the quality 

assurance and control requirements for 

the manufacture of respirators approved 

under 42 CFR Part 84 by the National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention and the Mine 

Safety and Health Administration 

(MSHA). NIOSH has reviewed the 

comments it received to the proposed 

rule and determined that additional 

analysis is needed to assess the 

economic impact of its proposed rule. 

NIOSH plans to seek further information 

and to consider possible alternative 

approaches. 

DATES: The proposed rule published on 

December 10, 2008 (73 FR 75045) will 

be withdrawn as of June 8, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

William Newcomb, NIOSH National 

Personal Protective Technology 

Laboratory (NPPTL), P.O. Box 18070, 

626 Cochrans Mill Road, Pittsburgh, PA 

15236, telephone (412) 386–4034 (this is 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS