Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 8407 

court for the district in which the 

violation was found to have occurred. 

§ 1986.114 District court jurisdiction of 

retaliation complaints under SPA. 

(a) If there is no final order of the 

Secretary, 210 days have passed since 

the filing of the complaint, and there is 

no showing that there has been delay 

due to the bad faith of the complainant, 

the complainant may bring an action at 

law or equity for de novo review in the 

appropriate district court of the United 

States, which will have jurisdiction over 

such an action without regard to the 

amount in controversy. The action shall, 

at the request of either party to such 

action, be tried by the court with a jury. 

(b) Within seven days after filing a 

complaint in federal court, a 

complainant must file with the 

Assistant Secretary, the ALJ, or the ARB, 

depending on where the proceeding is 

pending, a copy of the file-stamped 

complaint. A copy of the complaint also 

must be served on the OSHA official 

who issued the findings and/or 

preliminary order, the Assistant 

Secretary, and the Associate Solicitor, 

Division of Occupational Safety and 

Health, U.S. Department of Labor. 

§ 1986.115 Special circumstances; waiver 

of rules. 

In special circumstances not 

contemplated by the provisions of these 

rules, or for good cause shown, the ALJ 

or the ARB on review may, upon 

application, after three days notice to all 

parties, waive any rule or issue such 

orders as justice or the administration of 

SPA requires. 

[FR Doc. 2013–02539 Filed 2–5–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 

POSTAL SERVICE 

39 CFR Part 501 

Authorization To Manufacture and 

Distribute Postage Evidencing 

Systems; Discontinued Indicia 

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Postal Service is 

amending the rules concerning the 

manufacture and distribution of postage 

evidencing systems to clarify that 

effective January 1, 2016, all postage 

evidencing systems (postage meters and 

PC Postage® products) will be required 

to produce Information-Based Indicia 

(IBI) or Intelligent Mail® Indicia (IMI) 

for evidence of pre-paid postage, and 

that indicia from noncompliant systems 

will not be recognized as valid postage. 

DATES: Effective date: January 1, 2016. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marlo Ivey, Business Programs 

Specialist, Payment Technology, U.S. 

Postal Service, (202) 268–7613. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 1999, 

the Postal Service introduced the 

Information Based Indicia Program 

(IBIP). Under IBIP, postage evidencing 

systems submitted for Postal Service test 

and evaluation were required to 

produce IBI—digital indicia that use a 

two-dimensional (2–D) barcode. In 

2012, the next generation of postage 

evidencing was introduced through the 

publication of the IMI performance 

criteria. Both IBI and IMI contain a 2– 

D barcode that includes revenue 

security-related data elements and 

product and service information. 

On July 13, 2012, the Postal Service 

published a proposed rule (77 FR 

41336) stating that after January 1, 2016, 

all postage evidencing systems (postage 

meters and PC Postage products) will be 

required to produce IBI or IMI for 

evidence of pre-paid postage. Indicia 

from postage evidencing systems that 

are not IBI-compliant or IMI-compliant 

will not be recognized as valid after 

December 31, 2015. The following 

amendment to 39 CFR part 501 is 

intended to clarify that noncompliant 

indicia will be decertified, and will not 

be recognized as valid after that date. 

One comment was received. The 

vendor understands the need to 

implement such changes to maintain 

revenue protection and accountability. 

However, by discontinuing the non-IBI 

or non-IMI indicia over such a short 

period of time it would put them at risk 

in the market due to the amount of 

resources needed to complete upgrading 

their customers in just 3 years. 

Our response noted that this proposed 

rule was expected over the past several 

years, since the Postal Service has 

discussed with the industry the need to 

discontinue these indicia. Since the 

introduction of the IBI, the Postal 

Service has made significant investment 

in infrastructure to enhance the revenue 

security and processing of the mail. 

Postage meter indicia that do not bear 

an IBI or IMI indicia are inconsistent 

with these enhanced systems and 

processes and pose a threat to their 

effectiveness. Also, they do not have the 

enhanced revenue security features 

required under today’s performance 

criteria. Recent experiences have 

demonstrated that these meters pose 

revenue risks to the Postal Service. 

In addition, metering systems 

producing non-IBI or IMI do not provide 

the Postal Service and its customers the 

product level and mail processing 

visibility needed to manage business in 

today’s information rich environment. 

Given these compelling reasons, the 

Postal Service does not intend to delay 

the discontinuance of non-IBI or IMI 

beyond December 31, 2015. We believe 

this date (about 3 years in the future) 

provides the best compromise for all 

parties impacted by this ruling. 

List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 501 

Postal Service. 

Accordingly, the Postal Service 

amends 39 CFR part 501 as follows: 

PART 501—AUTHORIZATION TO 

MANUFACTURE AND DISTRIBUTE 

POSTAGE EVIDENCING SYSTEMS 

■ 1. The authority citation for 39 CFR 

part 501 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 39 U.S.C. 101, 

401, 403, 404, 410, 2601, 2605, Inspector 

General Act of 1978, as amended (Pub. L. 95– 

452, as amended); 5 U.S.C. App. 3. 

■ 2. Add § 501.20 to read as follows: 

§ 501.20 Discontinued Postage Evidencing 

Indicia. 

(a) Decertified indicia (evidence of 

pre-paid postage) are indicia that have 

been withdrawn by the Postal Service as 

valid forms of postage evidence through 

publication by the Postal Service in the 

Federal Register, or by voluntary 

withdrawal undertaken by the provider. 

(b) Effective January 1, 2016, all 

Postage Evidencing Systems (postage 

meters and PC Postage products) will be 

required to produce Information-Based 

Indicia (IBI) or Intelligent Mail Indicia 

(IMI) for evidence of pre-paid postage. 

Non-IBI and non-IMI indicia will be 

decertified effective January 1, 2016, 

and may not be used as a valid form of 

postage evidence. These decertified 

indicia will not be recognized as valid 

postage after December 31, 2015. 

Stanley F. Mires, 

Attorney, Legal Policy & Legislative Advice. 

[FR Doc. 2013–02514 Filed 2–5–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0104; FRL–9363–1] 

40 CFR Part 180 

Endosulfan; Pesticide Tolerance 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Order reestablishing tolerance. 

SUMMARY: EPA has granted an objection 

to the timing of the revocation of the 

tolerance for endosulfan on tea. The 

objection was filed by the Chamber of 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
8408 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

Commerce of Zhejiang International Tea 

Industry. With this document, EPA is 

amending the tolerances for endosulfan 

to reestablish a time-limited tolerance 

for residues on tea. 

DATES: This document is effective 

February 6, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0104, is 

available at http://www.regulations.gov 

or at the Office of Pesticide Programs 

Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) 

in the Environmental Protection Agency 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West 

Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. The 

Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 

a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 

telephone number for the Public 

Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and 

the telephone number for the OPP 

Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review 

the visitor instructions and additional 

information about the docket available 

at http://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Andrea Mojica, Pesticide Reevaluation 

Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide 

Programs, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone 

number: (703) 308–0122; fax number: 

(703) 308–8005; email address: 

mojica.andrea@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

In this document EPA grants an 

objection by the Chamber of Commerce 

of Zhejiang International Tea Industry to 

the timing of a revocation action 

concerning the endosulfan tolerance on 

tea. This action may also be of interest 

to agricultural producers, food 

manufacturers, or pesticide 

manufacturers. The following list of 

North American Industrial 

Classification System (NAICS) codes is 

not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide to help readers 

determine whether this document 

applies to them. Potentially affected 

entities may include: 

• Crop Production (NAICS code 111). 

• Animal Production (NAICS code 

112). 

• Food Manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 

• Pesticide Manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532). 

B. How can I get copies of this document 

and other related information? 

The docket for this action, identified 

by docket identification (ID) number 

EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0104, is available 

at http://www.regulations.gov or at the 

Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory 

Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West 

Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. The 

Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 

a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 

telephone number for the Public 

Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and 

the telephone number for the OPP 

Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review 

the visitor instructions and additional 

information about the docket available 

at http://www.epa.gov/dockets. The 

electronic version of EPA’s tolerance 

regulations in 40 CFR part 180 are 

available through the Government 

Printing Office’s e-CFR site at http:// 

www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr. 

II. Response to Objection 

A. What action is the Agency taking? 

In this order, EPA grants the objection 

of the Chamber of Commerce of 

Zhejiang International Tea Industry 

(‘‘Zhejiang Chamber of Commerce’’) to 

the immediate revocation of the 

tolerance. On May 4, 2011, EPA 

proposed to revoke all tolerances for 

endosulfan (76 FR 25281) (FRL–8870– 

4). Many of the tolerances were not 

proposed to be revoked immediately but 

had proposed revocation dates from 1 to 

5 years in the future to allow phase-out 

of endosulfan. However, as to the tea 

tolerance, EPA proposed immediate 

revocation based upon the fact that 

‘‘[t]here are no active registrations for 

use of endosulfan in the United States 

for growing tea and there may never 

have been one.’’ EPA concluded that 

‘‘these tolerances are no longer needed 

and should be revoked.’’ EPA received 

no comments on proposed revocation of 

the tea tolerance and accordingly, the 

tolerance was revoked on September 14, 

2011 (76 FR 56648) (FRL–8883–9). 

The Zhejiang Chamber of Commerce 

filed a timely objection to EPA’s action 

noting that endosulfan has been used in 

China tea production. While the 

Zhejiang Chamber of Commerce agrees 

with the phase out of endosulfan, it 

asserts that for tea, similar to other 

crops, additional time is needed to 

transition to an alternative to 

endosulfan. The Zhejiang Chamber of 

Commerce seeks a phase out period not 

to exceed 5 years. Finally, the Zhejiang 

Chamber of Commerce indicates that it 

did not comment on the proposed rule 

because EPA failed to follow established 

procedures for providing notice of such 

proposed actions under the World Trade 

Organization (WTO). The Zhejiang 

Chamber of Commerce objection can be 

found in docket number EPA–HQ–OPP– 

2011–0104 at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

After having reviewed this objection, 

EPA finds that it erred in basing its 

immediate revocation of the tea 

tolerance on the fact that there are no 

registrations for use of endosulfan on tea 

in the United States. Tea is not widely 

grown in the United States and the tea 

tolerance served as an ‘‘import’’ 

tolerance to allow importation of tea 

grown in foreign counties to the United 

States. However, EPA believes that 

revocation, albeit on a different 

timeframe, is still appropriate because 

the objector has indicated that China 

intends to phase out use of endosulfan 

on tea. 

Accordingly, consistent with the 

phase out of tolerances for pineapple, 

strawberry, animal ear tag and 

vegetables grown for seed uses, EPA is 

granting the objection and re-instating 

the tea tolerance with an expiration date 

of July 31, 2016. This date, which is 

consistent with the objections, allows 

time for phase out of endosulfan and 

transition to alternatives as well as for 

treated commodities to clear the 

channels of trade. Although EPA would 

not normally consider an objection that 

could have been, but was not, filed as 

a comment, EPA believes an exception 

is appropriate here given EPA’s failure 

to provide proper notice of the proposed 

revocation under WTO procedures to 

the foreign community. 

The granting of this objection is in 

response to an objection calling to EPA’s 

attention an error in the basis for the 

original action to revoke the tea 

tolerance. Granting the objection does 

not indicate that EPA has re-examined 

the endosulfan tea tolerance and found 

it to be in accord with the statutory 

standards of the Federal Food, Drug and 

Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) section 408. EPA 

may in the future initiate revocation 

proceedings as to this tolerance on other 

grounds. 

B. What is the Agency’s authority for 

taking this action? 

Final rules issued under section 

408(d)(4)(i) are subject to a statutorilycreated administrative review process 

(21 U.S.C. 346a(g)(2)). Any person may 

file objections to a section 408(d)(4)(iii) 

order with EPA and request a hearing on 

those objections. EPA is required by 

section 408(g)(2)(C) to issue a final order 

resolving the objections to the section 

408(d)(4)(iii) order (21 U.S.C. 

346a(g)(2)(C)). 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 8409 

III. Regulatory Assessment 

Requirements 

This action announces the Agency’s 

final order regarding objections filed 

under section 408 of FFDCA. As such, 

this action is an adjudication and not a 

rule. Under the Administrative 

Procedures Act (APA), orders are 

expressly excluded from the definition 

of a rule. (5 U.S.C. 551(4)). The 

regulatory assessment requirements 

imposed on rulemaking do not, 

therefore, apply to this action. 

A. Executive Order 12866 and Executive 

Order 13563 

Because this order is not a ‘‘regulatory 

action’’ as that term is defined in 

Executive Order 12866 entitled 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’ (58 

FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action 

is not subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

entitled ‘‘Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review’’ (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011). 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not contain any 

information collections subject to OMB 

approval under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et 

seq. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Since this order is not a rule under 

the APA (5 U.S.C. 551(4)), and does 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. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act; and 

Executive Orders 13132, and 13175 

This order 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 order. In addition, this order does 

not impose any enforceable duty or 

contain any unfunded mandate as 

described under Title II of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 

1531–1538). 

E. Executive Orders 13045, 13211 and 

12898 

As indicated previously, this action is 

not a ‘‘regulatory action’’ as defined by 

Executive Order 12866. As a result, this 

action is not subject to Executive Order 

13045, entitled ‘‘Protection of Children 

from Environmental Health Risks and 

Safety Risks’’, (62 FR 19885, April 23, 

1997) and Executive Order 13211 

entitled ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’, 

(66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). In 

addition, this order also 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). 

F. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

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 

(NTTAA), (15 U.S.C. 272 note). 

IV. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq. does not apply 

because this action is not a rule as that 

term is defined in 5 U.S.C. 804(3). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides 

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: January 24, 2013. 

Steven Bradbury, 

Director, Office of Pesticide Programs. 

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is 

amended as follows: 

PART 180—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 180 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. Section 180.182 is amended as 

follows: 

■ i. Redesignate paragraph (a) 

introductory text and the table as 

paragraph (a)(1); and 

■ ii. Add paragraph (a)(2). 

The addition reads as follows: 

§ 180.182 Endosulfan; tolerances for 

residues. 

(a) * * * 

(2) A tolerance is established for the 

combined residues of the insecticide 

endosulfan, 6,7,8,9,10,10-hexachloro1,5,5a,6,9,9a-hexahydro-6,9-methano-2, 

4,3-benzodioxathiepin-3-oxide (alpha 

and beta isomers), and its metabolite 

endosulfan sulfate, 6,7,8,9,10,10- 

hexachloro-1,5,5a,6,9,9a-hexahydro-6,9- 

methano-2, 4,3-benzodioxathiepin-3,3- 

dioxide in or on the commodity in the 

following table: 

Commodity Parts per million 

Expiration/ 

revocation 

date 

Tea, dried .................. 24 (reflecting less than 0.1 ppm in beverage tea) resulting from application of the insecticide to growing tea.7/31/16 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2013–02392 Filed 2–5–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES