20752 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Indian Tribal Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications under Executive 

Order 13175, Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments, because it would not have 

a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, 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. 

Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This proposed rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Department of Homeland 

Security Management Directive 023–01 

and Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD, which guide the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have made a preliminary determination 

that this action is one of a category of 

actions which do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment. This proposed 

rule involves implementation of 

regulations within 33 CFR Part 100 

applicable to organized marine events 

on the navigable waters of the United 

States that could negatively impact the 

safety of waterway users and shore side 

activities in the event area. The category 

of water activities includes but is not 

limited to sail boat regattas, boat 

parades, power boat racing, swimming 

events, crew racing, canoe and sail 

board racing. We seek any comments or 

information that may lead to the 

discovery of a significant environmental 

impact from this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100 

Marine safety, Navigation (water), 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows: 

PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON 

NAVIGABLE WATERS 

1. The authority citation for part 100 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233. 

2. Add a temporary section, § 100.35– 

T05–0156 to read as follows: 

§ 100.35–T05–0156 Special Local 

Regulations for Marine Events; Potomac 

River, National Harbor Access Channel, MD. 

(a) Regulated area. The following 

locations are regulated areas: All waters 

of the Potomac River, National Harbor 

Access Channel, within an area from the 

shoreline and then west to a line 

connecting the following positions: from 

position latitude 38°47′28′′ N, longitude 

077°01′20′′ W; thence southerly to 

position latitude 38°46′49′′ N, longitude 

077°01′28′′ W. All coordinates reference 

Datum NAD 1983. 

(b) Definitions: (1) Coast Guard Patrol 

Commander means a commissioned, 

warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. 

Coast Guard who has been designated 

by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector 

Baltimore. 

(2) Official Patrol means any vessel 

assigned or approved by Commander, 

Coast Guard Sector Baltimore with a 

commissioned, warrant, or petty officer 

on board and displaying a Coast Guard 

ensign. 

(c) Special local regulations: (1) 

Except for persons or vessels authorized 

by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, 

no person or vessel may enter or remain 

in the regulated area. 

(2) The operator of any vessel in the 

regulated area must: (i) Stop the vessel 

immediately when directed to do so by 

the Coast Guard Patrol Commander or 

any Official Patrol. 

(ii) Proceed as directed by the Coast 

Guard Patrol Commander or any Official 

Patrol. 

(d) Enforcement period: This section 

will be enforced from 5 a.m. until 

11 a.m. on August 5, 2012. 

Dated: March 22, 2012. 

Mark P. O’Malley, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Baltimore. 

[FR Doc. 2012–8297 Filed 4–5–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0245; FRL–9345–1] 

RIN 2070–ZA16 

Methyl Bromide; Proposed Pesticide 

Tolerance 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This document proposes to 

establish a tolerance for residues of 

methyl bromide in or on cotton, 

undelinted seed under the Federal 

Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) 

because there is a need for imported 

undelinted cottonseed for use as feed for 

dairy cattle in the United States. This 

imported cottonseed has become 

necessary because cottonseed is a 

critical part of the dairy cattle diet and 

the 2011 U.S. cotton crop was 

significantly below average due to 

severe drought conditions in Texas. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 5, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0245, by 

one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

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). 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 20753 

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–2012– 

0245. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the docket 

without change and may be made 

available online 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 email comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

regulations.gov, your email 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: 

Kimberly Nesci, Registration Division 

(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

(703) 308–8059; email address: 

nesci.kimberly@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 email. 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. Comments not 

timely-filed will not be considered in 

EPA’s decision on this proposal or in 

any subsequent proceedings in this 

rulemaking. 

II. This Proposal 

EPA on its own initiative, under 

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

346a(e), is proposing to establish a 

tolerance for residues of the fumigant 

methyl bromide, in or on cotton, 

undelinted seed at 150 parts per million 

(ppm) in newly proposed 40 CFR 

180.124. The Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, an agency of the 

United States Department of Agriculture 

(USDA–APHIS), supports EPA’s 

proposal to establish this tolerance. 

Undelinted cottonseed, also known as 

fuzzy cottonseed, needs to be imported 

into the United States for use as feed for 

dairy cattle in the United States. 

Cottonseed is a critical part of the dairy 

cattle diet because it is high in protein, 

energy, and fiber. In 2011, the size of the 

U.S. cotton crop was significantly below 

average due to severe drought 

conditions in Texas, the leading cotton 

producing state in the United States. As 

a result, U.S. cottonseed has been in 

short supply since the November 2011 

harvest causing hardship for U.S. dairy 

cattle farmers. 

The USDA–APHIS has, in the past, 

pursuant to its authorities from the 

Plant Protection Act (PPA, as amended, 

7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), required imported 

cottonseed to be fumigated as a 

condition of entry into the United 

States. APHIS evaluated the use of 

methyl bromide for such fumigation and 

has determined through efficacy studies 

that methyl bromide does effectively 

mitigate potential pests of concern such 

as Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
20754 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

vasinfectum strains Boggabilla 

(VCG01112) and Cecil Plains 

(VCG01111) that imported undelinted 

cottonseed could harbor. These 

Fusarium strains are not known to occur 

in the United States. Fusarium 

oxysporum f. sp. vasinfectum causes 

Fusarium wilt of cotton and, if 

introduced, these foreign strains could 

cause significant losses to U.S. cotton 

crops. The PPA authorizes the Secretary 

of Agriculture (who has delegated this 

authority to APHIS) to facilitate imports 

of agricultural commodities that pose a 

risk of harboring plant pests, among 

other pests, in ways that will reduce the 

risk of dissemination of plant pests that 

could constitute a threat to crops and 

other plants or plant products and 

burden interstate or foreign commerce. 

The Secretary may prohibit or restrict 

the importation, entry, exportation, or 

movement in interstate commerce of 

any plant, plant product, noxious weed, 

or article if the Secretary determines 

that the prohibition or restriction is 

necessary to prevent the introduction of 

a plant pest into the United States or the 

dissemination of a plant pest within the 

United States. 

As a feed commodity, imported 

cottonseed that has been fumigated with 

methyl bromide requires a tolerance. 

Without a tolerance or exemption, food 

or feed containing pesticide residues is 

considered to be unsafe and therefore 

‘‘adulterated’’ under section 402(a) of 

FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 342(a). Such food or 

feed may not be distributed in interstate 

commerce (21 U.S.C. 331(a)). 

III. Determination of Safety and 

Exposure 

Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA 

allows EPA to establish 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.’’ 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.* * *’’ 

Given the characteristics of methyl 

bromide, EPA concludes that the use of 

methyl bromide on cottonseed will 

result in detectable residues on the 

cottonseed itself. Although the Agency 

does not have controlled fumigation 

trial data for this cottonseed use, EPA 

has received such data for numerous 

other related commodities and use 

patterns. The data that would be most 

representative of potential residues in/ 

on cottonseed are from methyl bromide 

trials with tree nuts because 

commodities with higher fat content, 

such as nuts and oils, tend to have 

higher residues. EPA is proposing a 

tolerance level of 150 parts per million 

(ppm), which is based on the highest 

residue found in tree nuts 24 hours after 

fumigation (138 ppm). Dissipation 

studies indicated that residues dissipate 

relatively quickly, which is consistent 

with the high vapor pressure of methyl 

bromide. Despite the tendency for rapid 

dissipation shown in numerous studies, 

the Agency believes there is still the 

potential for quantifiable residues in the 

imported cottonseed. However, residues 

are likely to be much less than the 

proposed tolerance level. 

EPA further concludes that the use of 

methyl bromide to fumigate imported 

cottonseed will not result in any human 

dietary exposure to methyl bromide 

residues. There are two potential human 

dietary exposure pathways from treated 

cottonseed: Cottonseed oil, an edible 

commodity produced from cottonseed, 

and livestock commodities from 

livestock fed treated cottonseed. 

Cottonseed itself is not consumed by 

humans, nor is it used to produce any 

other edible commodity because 

unrefined cottonseed and cottonseed 

meal contains a naturally occurring 

compound that is toxic to humans, 

gossypol. 

Cottonseed will be imported for the 

purpose of feeding dairy cattle. There is 

no reasonable expectation of finite 

residues of methyl bromide in livestock 

commodities from the use of methyl 

bromide to fumigate cottonseed. Methyl 

bromide residues in/on feed items are 

likely to significantly dissipate during 

storage due to the volatile nature of 

methyl bromide. Should there be methyl 

bromide residues remaining, the methyl 

bromide would likely undergo 

considerable changes in the digestive 

system of livestock. Methyl bromide is 

an alkylating agent and will probably 

undergo chemical reactions with the 

contents of the gut. These chemical 

reactions break down the compound 

into a bromide ion and a methyl group; 

thus, there will be no absorption of 

methyl bromide into the edible tissues 

of livestock. Further, methyl bromide 

has a very low octanol-water coefficient. Octanol-water co-efficient 

values measure the tendency for a 

chemical to partition into organic vs. 

aqueous environments, and is therefore 

commonly used to predict the 

likelihood for partitioning into fatty 

tissue where xenobiotics are more likely 

to persist. Chemicals that tend to 

bioaccumulate tend to have orders of 

magnitude higher octanol-water coefficient values than methyl bromide. 

And, although methyl bromide tends to 

be lipid soluble, the low octanol-water 

co-efficient value overwhelms this 

chemical characteristic. For these 

reasons, EPA does not believe there will 

be transfer of methyl bromide residues 

into the edible tissues of livestock. In its 

Reregistration Eligibility Decision 

document for methyl bromide, EPA also 

determined that no livestock commodity 

tolerances for methyl bromide are 

needed under 40 CFR 180.6(a)(3) 

because there is no reasonable 

expectation of finite methyl bromide 

residues in livestock commodities. Any 

inorganic bromide residues on livestock 

feeding items resulting from fumigation 

of cottonseed with methyl bromide are 

covered by existing inorganic bromide 

tolerances at 40 CFR 180.124. 

Even if the imported cottonseed were 

to be diverted to cottonseed oil 

production, there will be no human 

exposure to methyl bromide in the 

cottonseed oil. In producing oil from 

cottonseed, the oil is removed by 

mechanical high pressure screw, by 

solvent extraction, or a combination of 

the two processes. Under either 

procedure, the seed kernels are first 

rolled into flakes and heated in a cooker 

or conditioner to reduce moisture. Once 

the oil is extracted, it is refined by 

adding sodium hydroxide that removes 

impurities and soapstock from the oil. 

Most cottonseed oil is bleached to 

remove coloring agents and is then 

filtered. Finally, it is deodorized with 

steam under a partial vacuum to remove 

any off flavors. Bromide ion will be 

removed from the oil during the final 

clean-up steps because the bromide ion 

is water soluble and will be washed 

away during the sodium hydroxide 

refining procedure. See also Docket 

EPA–HQ–OPP–2006–0766 document 

number 0022 for further information on 

cottonseed processing. Because methyl 

bromide is a gas at room temperature, 

the heating procedures in cottonseed oil 

processing will dissipate all methyl 

bromide residues from the seed and oil. 

Cottonseed oil produced from 

cottonseed fumigated with methyl 

bromide would not contain residues of 

methyl bromide. 

Accordingly, EPA has determined that 

there would be no human dietary 

exposure to methyl bromide from the 

use of methyl bromide to fumigate 

cottonseed. If meat, milk, or cottonseed 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 20755 

oil were imported rather than the 

cottonseeds themselves, no tolerance 

would be necessary. Because there will 

be no human dietary exposure to the 

methyl bromide in cottonseeds, EPA 

concludes that a methyl bromide 

tolerance in cottonseed, at the level 

proposed, will be safe for the general 

population, including infants and 

children. 

IV. Other Considerations 

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology 

An adequate analytical method, the 

head-space procedure of King et al. is 

available for enforcement of methyl 

bromide tolerances. Samples are 

blended with water at high speed in airtight jars for 5 minutes. After 15 

minutes, the partitioned gas phase is 

sampled and analyzed by gas 

chromatography with electron capture 

detection (GC/EC). See the February 22, 

2002, Residue Chemistry Chapter for the 

methyl bromide RED available in Docket 

EPA–HQ–OPP–2005–0123. 

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 

United Nations 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 methyl bromide on cottonseed. 

V. Conclusion 

A tolerance is proposed for residues 

of methyl bromide in cottonseed at 150 

ppm based on the finding that there 

would be no human dietary exposure to 

methyl bromide from treated cottonseed 

and no exposure to children. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

EPA, at its own initiative, proposes to 

establish a tolerance under FFDCA 

section 408(d). 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). Pursuant to 

the requirements of the Regulatory 

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

seq.), the Agency hereby certifies that 

this proposed action will not have 

significant negative economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Establishing a pesticide tolerance or 

exemption from the requirement of a 

pesticide tolerance is, in effect, the 

removal of a regulatory restriction on 

pesticide residues in food and thus such 

an action will not have any negative 

economic impact on any entities, 

including 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 FFDCA section 408(n)(4). 

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 13175, 

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 

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: April 2, 2012. 

Steve Bradbury, 

Director, 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. Add § 180.124 to subpart C to read 

as follows: 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
20756 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

§ 180.124 Methyl bromide; tolerance for 

residues. 

(a) General. A tolerance is established 

for residues of the fumigant methyl 

bromide, including metabolites and 

degradates, in or on the commodity in 

the table below. Compliance with the 

tolerance level specified below is to be 

determined by measuring only methyl 

bromide. 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Cotton, undelinted seed ........... 150 

(b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. 

[Reserved] 

(c) Tolerances with regional 

registrations. [Reserved] 

(d) Indirect or inadvertent residues. 

[Reserved] 

[FR Doc. 2012–8390 Filed 4–5–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[MM Docket No. 99–25; FCC 12–28] 

Implementation of the Local 

Community Radio Act of 2010; 

Revision of Service and Eligibility 

Rules for Low Power FM Stations 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission seeks comment on how to 

amend its rules to implement certain 

provisions of the Local Community 

Radio Act of 2010 (‘‘LCRA’’) that are not 

already the subject of Commission 

action. It also proposes changes to its 

rules intended to promote the low 

power FM service’s localism and 

diversity goals, reduce the potential for 

licensing abuses, and clarify certain 

rules. 

DATES: Comments must be filed on or 

before May 7, 2012, and reply comments 

must be filed on or before May 21, 2012. 

Written comments on the Paperwork 

Reduction Act proposed information 

collection requirements must be 

submitted by the public, Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), and 

other interested parties on or before 

June 5, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by MM Docket No. 99–25, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web Site: http:// 

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Commission’s Secretary, 

Office of the Secretary, Federal 

Communications Commission, 445 12th 

St. SW., Room TW–A325, Washington, 

DC 20554. 

• People with Disabilities: Contact the 

FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202– 

418–0432). 

For detailed instructions for submitting 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

In addition to filing comments with 

the Secretary, a copy of any comments 

on the Paperwork Reduction Act 

information collection requirements 

contained herein should be submitted to 

the Federal Communications 

Commission via email to PRA@fcc.gov 

and to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of 

Management and Budget, via email to 

Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov or via 

fax at 202–395–5167. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Peter Doyle (202) 418–2789. For 

additional information concerning the 

Paperwork Reduction Act information 

collection requirements contained in 

this document, send an email to 

PRA@fcc.gov or contact Cathy Williams 

on (202) 418–2918. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s document 

in MM Docket No. 99–25, FCC No. 12– 

28, adopted March 19, 2012. A synopsis 

of the order segments of this decision 

were published in a previous issue of 

the Federal Register. The full text of 

this document is available for 

inspection and copying during normal 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Center (Room CY–A257), 445 12th 

Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The 

full text may also be downloaded at: 

http://www.fcc.gov. 

Comment Period and Procedures 

Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 

1.419, interested parties may file 

comments and reply comments on or 

before the dates indicated on the first 

page of this document. Comments may 

be filed using the Commission’s 

Electronic Comment Filing System 

(ECFS). See Electronic Filing of 

Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 

63 FR 24121 (1998). 

D Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the Internet by 

accessing the ECFS: http:// 

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. 

D Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

one copy of each filing. If more than one 

docket or rulemaking number appears in 

the caption of this proceeding, filers 

must submit two additional copies for 

each additional docket or rulemaking 

number. 

Filings can be sent by hand or 

messenger delivery, by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

D All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the 

Commission’s Secretary must be 

delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 

12th St. SW., Room TW–A325, 

Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours 

are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries 

must be held together with rubber bands 

or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes 

must be disposed of before entering the 

building. 

D Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 

East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, 

MD 20743. 

D U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 445 12th Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

People with Disabilities: To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202– 

418–0432 (tty). 

Paperwork Reducation Act of 1995 

This document contains proposed 

information collection requirements. 

The Commission, as part of its 

continuing effort to reduce paperwork 

burdens, invites the general public and 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) to comment on the information 

collection requirements contained in 

this document, as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13. Public and agency 

comments are due June 5, 2012. 

Comments should address: (a) 

Whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

Commission, including whether the 

information shall have practical utility; 

(b) the accuracy of the Commission’s 

burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance 

the quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information collected; (d) ways to 

minimize the burden of the collection of 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1