Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 28, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 53051 

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. There are no 

Codex MRLs established for residues of 

halosulfuron-methyl in/on any 

commodity. 

V. Conclusion 

Therefore, tolerances are established 

for residues of the herbicide 

halosulfuron-methyl, methyl 5-[(4,6- 

dimethoxy-2-pyrimidiny)amino] 

carbonylaminosulfonyl]-3-chloro-1- 

methyl-1H-pyrazole-4-carboxylate, 

including its metabolites and 

degradates, in or on the commodities 

artichoke at 0.05 ppm and caneberry 

subgroup 13–07A at 0.05 ppm. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This final rule establishes tolerances 

under FFDCA section 408(d) in 

response to a petition submitted to the 

Agency. The Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) has exempted these types 

of actions from review under Executive 

Order 12866, entitled ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993). Because this final rule 

has been exempted from review under 

Executive Order 12866, this final rule is 

not subject to Executive Order 13211, 

entitled ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive 

Order 13045, entitled ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997). This final rule does not 

contain any information collections 

subject to OMB approval under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require 

any special considerations under 

Executive Order 12898, entitled 

‘‘Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income 

Populations’’ (59 FR 7629, February 16, 

1994). 

Since tolerances and exemptions that 

are established on the basis of a petition 

under FFDCA section 408(d), such as 

the tolerance in this final rule, do not 

require the issuance of a proposed rule, 

the requirements of the Regulatory 

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

seq.), do not apply. 

This final rule directly regulates 

growers, food processors, food handlers, 

and food retailers, not States or tribes, 

nor does this action alter the 

relationships or distribution of power 

and responsibilities established by 

Congress in the preemption provisions 

of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, 

the Agency has determined that this 

action will not have a substantial direct 

effect on States or tribal governments, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States or tribal 

governments, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government or between 

the Federal Government and Indian 

tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined 

that Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999) and Executive Order 13175, 

entitled ‘‘Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply 

to this final rule. In addition, this final 

rule does not impose any enforceable 

duty or contain any unfunded mandate 

as described under Title II of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.). 

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

VII. Congressional Review Act 

Pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), EPA will 

submit a report containing this rule and 

other required information to the U.S. 

Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. This action is not a ‘‘major 

rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides 

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: August 14, 2013. 

Lois Rossi, 

Director, Registration Division, Office of 

Pesticide Programs. 

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is 

amended as follows: 

PART 180—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 180 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. In § 180.479, add alphabetically the 

following commodities to the table in 

paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows: 

§ 180.479 Halosulfuron-methyl; tolerances 

for residues. 

(a) * * * 

(2) * * * 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

* * * * * 

Artichoke ..................................... 0.05 

* * * * * 

Caneberry subgroup 13–07A ..... 0.05 

* * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2013–20906 Filed 8–27–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–1018; FRL–9396–8] 

Ethyl-2E,4Z-Decadienoate (Pear Ester); 

Exemption From the Requirement of a 

Tolerance 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an 

exemption from the requirement of a 

tolerance for residues of the biochemical 

pesticide ethyl-2E,4Z-decadienoate 

(pear ester) in or on all food 

commodities. This regulation eliminates 

the need to establish a maximum 

permissible level for residues of ethyl2E,4Z-decadienoate (pear ester). 

DATES: This regulation is effective 

August 28, 2013. Objections and 

requests for hearings must be received 

on or before October 28, 2013, and must 

be filed in accordance with the 

instructions provided in 40 CFR part 

178 (see also Unit I.C. of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–1018, 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 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
53052 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 28, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

the visitor instructions and additional 

information about the docket available 

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gina 

Burnett, Biopesticides and Pollution 

Prevention Division (7511P), Office of 

Pesticide Programs, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; 

telephone number: (703) 605–0513; 

email address: burnett.gina@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. 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 electronic access to 

other related information? 

You may access a frequently updated 

electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 

through the Government Printing 

Office’s e-CFR site at http://

www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/

40tab_02.tpl. 

C. How can I file an objection or hearing 

request? 

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 

U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an 

objection to any aspect of this regulation 

and may also request a hearing on those 

objections. You must file your objection 

or request a hearing on this regulation 

in accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure 

proper receipt by EPA, you must 

identify docket ID number EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2011–1018 in the subject line on 

the first page of your submission. All 

objections and requests for a hearing 

must be in writing, and must be 

received by the Hearing Clerk on or 

before October 28, 2013. Addresses for 

mail and hand delivery of objections 

and hearing requests are provided in 40 

CFR 178.25(b). 

In addition to filing an objection or 

hearing request with the Hearing Clerk 

as described in 40 CFR part 178, please 

submit a copy of the filing (excluding 

any Confidential Business Information 

(CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. 

Information not marked confidential 

pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be 

disclosed publicly by EPA without prior 

notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your 

objection or hearing request, identified 

by docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP– 

2011–1018, by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be CBI or 

other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. 

• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental 

Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/ 

DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: To make special 

arrangements for hand delivery or 

delivery of boxed information, please 

follow the instructions at http://

www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.htm. 

Additional instructions on commenting 

or visiting the docket, along with more 

information about dockets generally, is 

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

dockets. 

II. Background and Statutory Findings 

In the Federal Register of March 14, 

2012 (77 FR 15012) (FRL–9335–9), EPA 

issued a notice pursuant to FFDCA 

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

announcing the filing of a pesticide 

tolerance petition (PP 1F7901) by 

Wagner Regulatory Associates, Inc. (the 

Petitioner), on behalf of Bedoukian 

Research, Inc., 21 Finance Drive, 

Danbury, CT 06810. The petition 

requested that 40 CFR part 180 be 

amended by establishing an exemption 

from the requirement of a tolerance for 

residues of ethyl-2E,4Z-decadienoate 

(pear ester). The notice referenced a 

summary of the petition prepared by the 

Petitioner, which is available in the 

docket, http://www.regulations.gov. No 

relevant comments were received on 

this notice of filing. 

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

allows EPA to establish an exemption 

from the requirement of a tolerance (the 

legal limit for a pesticide chemical 

residue in or on a food) only if EPA 

determines that the exemption is ‘‘safe.’’ 

Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA 

defines ‘‘safe’’ to mean that ‘‘there is a 

reasonable certainty that no harm will 

result from aggregate exposure to the 

pesticide chemical residue, including 

all anticipated dietary exposures and all 

other exposures for which there is 

reliable information.’’ This includes 

exposure through drinking water and in 

residential settings, but does not include 

occupational exposure. Pursuant to 

FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), in 

establishing or maintaining in effect an 

exemption from the requirement of a 

tolerance, EPA must take into account 

the factors set forth in FFDCA section 

408(b)(2)(C), which require 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 . . . . ’’ Additionally, 

FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D) requires 

that the Agency consider ‘‘available 

information concerning the cumulative 

effects of a particular pesticide’s 

residues’’ and ‘‘other substances that 

have a common mechanism of toxicity.’’ 

EPA performs a number of analyses to 

determine the risks from aggregate 

exposure to pesticide residues. First, 

EPA determines the toxicity of 

pesticides. Second, EPA examines 

exposure to the pesticide through food, 

drinking water, and through other 

exposures that occur as a result of 

pesticide use in residential settings. 

III. Toxicological Profile 

Consistent with FFDCA section 

408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the 

available scientific data and other 

relevant information in support of this 

action and considered its validity, 

completeness and reliability, and the 

relationship of this information to 

human risk. EPA has also considered 

available information concerning the 

variability of the sensitivities of major 

identifiable subgroups of consumers, 

including infants and children. 

A. Overview of Pear Ester 

Ethyl-2E,4Z-decadienoate (pear ester) 

is a naturally occurring, volatile 

substance emitted from mature, ripening 

fruit, that is attractive to the codling 

moth (CM), Cydia pomonella, a major 

agricultural pest of pome fruit 

worldwide. Male and female moths are 

attracted to pear ester and fly to the 

ripening fruit, where they mate and lay 

their eggs. Synthetic pear ester is 

structurally and functionally identical 

to the natural compound, and its 

intended pesticidal use is to disrupt CM 

mating behavior by attracting the moths 

away from the fruit, reducing their 

chances of finding mates and laying 

eggs in fruit orchards. 

B. Biochemical Pesticide Toxicology 

Data Requirements 

All applicable mammalian toxicology 

data requirements supporting the 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 28, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 53053 

petition to exempt residues of pear ester 

from the requirement of a tolerance in 

or on all food commodities have been 

fulfilled. No toxic endpoints were 

identified in studies conducted and data 

obtained from open technical literature. 

Moreover, pear ester is not likely a 

mutagen or developmental toxicant. 

There are no known effects on 

endocrine systems via oral, dermal, or 

inhalation routes of exposure. For a 

more in-depth synopses of the data 

upon which EPA relied and its human 

health risk assessment based on that 

data can be found in the document 

entitled, ‘‘Federal Food, Drug, and 

Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) Considerations 

for Ethyl-2E,4Z-decadienoate (Pear 

Ester),’’ available in the docket for this 

action as described under ADDRESSES. 

IV. Aggregate Exposures 

In examining aggregate exposure, 

FFDCA section 408 directs EPA to 

consider available information 

concerning exposures from the pesticide 

residue in food and all other nonoccupational exposures, including 

drinking water from ground water or 

surface water and exposure through 

pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or 

buildings (residential and other indoor 

uses). 

A. Dietary Exposure 

The proposed use patterns may result 

in dietary exposure to pear ester, 

although its residues are not expected to 

be any greater than that of current 

exposure due to use of pear ester as a 

flavoring agent. No significant exposure 

via drinking water is expected when 

pear ester is used according to the 

product label directions. The reason for 

this conclusion is that pear ester is 

applied at low rates, degrades rapidly, 

and is not directly applied to water. 

Should exposure occur, however, 

minimal to no risk is expected for the 

general population, including infants 

and children, due to the low toxicity of 

pear ester as demonstrated in the data 

submitted and evaluated by the Agency. 

B. Other Non-Occupational Exposure 

Non-occupational exposure is not 

expected because pear ester will be 

applied as a codling moth mating 

disruptor for agricultural purposes only. 

V. Cumulative Effects From Substances 

With a Common Mechanism of Toxicity 

Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA 

requires that, when considering whether 

to establish, modify, or revoke a 

tolerance, the Agency consider 

‘‘available information’’ concerning the 

cumulative effects of a particular 

pesticide’s residues and ‘‘other 

substances that have a common 

mechanism of toxicity.’’ 

EPA has determined pear ester to 

have a non-toxic mode of action, and 

does not appear to produce any toxic 

metabolites; therefore, 408(b)(2)(D)(v) 

does not apply. For information 

regarding EPA’s efforts to determine 

which chemicals have a common 

mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate 

the cumulative effects of such 

chemicals, see EPA’s Web site at http:// 

www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative. 

VI. Determination of Safety for U.S. 

Population, Infants and Children 

FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C) provides 

that, in considering the establishment of 

a tolerance or tolerance exemption for a 

pesticide chemical residue, EPA shall 

assess the available information about 

consumption patterns among infants 

and children, special susceptibility of 

infants and children to pesticide 

chemical residues, and the cumulative 

effects on infants and children of the 

residues and other substances with a 

common mechanism of toxicity. In 

addition, FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C) 

provides that EPA shall apply an 

additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety 

for infants and children in the case of 

threshold effects to account for prenatal 

and postnatal toxicity and the 

completeness of the database on toxicity 

and exposure, unless EPA determines 

that a different margin of safety will be 

safe for infants and children. This 

additional margin of safety is commonly 

referred to as the Food Quality 

Protection Act Safety Factor. In 

applying this provision, EPA either 

retains the default value of 10X, or uses 

a different additional or no safety factor 

when reliable data are available to 

support a different additional or no 

safety factor. As part of its qualitative 

assessment, EPA evaluated the available 

toxicity and exposure data on pear ester 

and considered its validity, 

completeness, and reliability, as well as 

the relationship of this information to 

human risk. EPA considers the toxicity 

database to be complete and has 

identified no residual uncertainty with 

regard to prenatal and postnatal toxicity 

or exposure. No hazard was identified 

based on the available studies. Based 

upon its evaluation, EPA concludes that 

there are no threshold effects of concern 

to infants, children, or adults when pear 

ester is applied as a mating disruptor of 

codling moth and used in accordance 

with label directions and good 

agricultural practices. As a result, EPA 

concludes that no additional margin of 

exposure (safety) is necessary. 

VII. Other Considerations 

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology 

An analytical method is not required 

for enforcement purposes because EPA 

is establishing an exemption from the 

requirement of a tolerance without any 

numerical limitation. 

B. International Residue Limits 

In making its tolerance decisions, EPA 

seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with 

international standards whenever 

possible, consistent with U.S. food 

safety standards and agricultural 

practices. EPA considers the 

international maximum residue limits 

(MRLs) established by the Codex 

Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as 

required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). 

The Codex Alimentarius is a joint 

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 ethyl-2E,4Z-decadienoate (pear 

ester). 

VIII. Conclusion 

EPA concludes that there is a 

reasonable certainty that no harm will 

result to the U.S. population, including 

infants and children, from aggregate 

exposure to residues of ethyl-2E,4Zdecadienoate (pear ester). EPA is 

therefore establishing an exemption 

from the requirement of a tolerance for 

residues of ethyl-2E,4Z-decadienoate 

(pear ester) in or on all food 

commodities when applied as a codling 

moth mating disruptor and used in 

accordance with good agricultural 

practices. 

IX. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This final rule establishes an 

exemption from the requirement of a 

tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) 

in response to a petition submitted to 

the Agency. The Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) has exempted these 

types of actions from review under 

Executive Order 12866, entitled 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’ (58 

FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because 

this final rule has been exempted from 

review under Executive Order 12866, 

this final rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, entitled ‘‘Actions 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
53054 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 28, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, 

entitled ‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

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

This final rule does not contain any 

information collections subject to OMB 

approval under the Paperwork 

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

seq., nor does it require any special 

considerations under Executive Order 

12898, entitled ‘‘Federal Actions to 

Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations’’ (59 FR 7629, February 16, 

1994). 

Since tolerances and exemptions that 

are established on the basis of a petition 

under FFDCA section 408(d), such as 

the exemption in this final rule, do not 

require the issuance of a proposed rule, 

the requirements of the Regulatory 

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

seq.), do not apply. 

This final rule directly regulates 

growers, food processors, food handlers, 

and food retailers, not States or tribes, 

nor does this action alter the 

relationships or distribution of power 

and responsibilities established by 

Congress in the preemption provisions 

of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, 

the Agency has determined that this 

action will not have a substantial direct 

effect on States or tribal governments, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States or tribal 

governments, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government or between 

the Federal Government and Indian 

tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined 

that Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999) and Executive Order 13175, 

entitled ‘‘Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply 

to this final rule. In addition, this final 

rule does not impose any enforceable 

duty or contain any unfunded mandate 

as described under Title II of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.). 

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

X. Congressional Review Act 

Pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), EPA will 

submit a report containing this rule and 

other required information to the U.S. 

Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. This action is not a ‘‘major 

rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides 

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: August 22, 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. Add § 180.1323 to subpart D to read 

as follows: 

§ 180.1323 Ethyl-2E,4Z-decadienoate (Pear 

Ester); exemption from the requirement of 

a tolerance. 

An exemption from the requirement 

of a tolerance is established for residues 

of the biochemical pesticide, ethyl2E,4Z-decadienoate (pear ester), in or on 

all food commodities, when used in 

accordance with label directions and 

good agricultural practices. 

[FR Doc. 2013–21019 Filed 8–27–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[FCC 13–105; MB Docket No. 02–266; RM– 

10557] 

Radio Broadcasting Services; 

Chillicothe, Dublin, Hillsboro, and 

Marion, Ohio 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule; application for 

review. 

SUMMARY: This document denies an 

Application for Review filed by the 

Committee for Competitive Columbus 

Radio (‘‘Committee’’) of a Memorandum 

Opinion and Order in this proceeding, 

which denied the Committee’s Petition 

for Reconsideration of an earlier Bureau 

action, granting the reallotment, class 

downgrade, and change of community 

of license of an Ohio FM station. The 

document finds that the Bureau 

properly applied the Commission’s 

then-existing policy of not considering 

compliance with the multiple 

ownership rule at the allotment stage. 

DATES: August 28, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Andrew J. Rhodes, Media Bureau, (202) 

418–2700. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s 

Memorandum Opinion and Order, MM 

Docket No. 02–266, adopted July 31, 

2013, and released August 1, 2013. The 

full text of this Commission decision is 

available for inspection and copying 

during normal business hours in the 

FCC Reference Information Center 

(Room CY–A257), 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. The complete 

text of this decision may also be 

purchased from the Commission’s copy 

contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 

Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 

CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554, 

telephone 1–800–378–3160 or 

www.BCPIWEB.com. 

In the Report and Order in this 

proceeding, the Bureau granted a 

Petition for Rulemaking filed by Clear 

Channel Communications for the 

reallotment, downgrade in class of 

channel, and change of community of 

license for its Station WCGX(FM) 

(formerly WMRN–FM) from Channel 

295B at Marion, Ohio to Channel 294B1 

at Dublin, Ohio, over the objection of 

the Committee. See 70 FR 19337 (April 

13, 2005). The Committee had argued 

that the reallotment to Dublin could not 

be implemented because it would 

violate the local radio ownership rule. 

However, the Report and Order rejected 

this argument, explaining that multiple 

ownership issues are not considered in 

FM allotment proceedings. The 

Committee sought reconsideration on 

the same ground, and the Bureau denied 

the petition in the Memorandum 

Opinion and Order. See 71 FR 40927 

(July 19, 2006). 

On review, the Commission finds 

that, contrary to the Committee’s 

contention, the Bureau did not err in 

deferring the issue of compliance with 

the multiple ownership rule until an 

implementing application was filed 

because such an approach is consistent 

with then-existing policy. Additionally, 

the Commission concludes that the 

Bureau did not err in referring to Station 

WCGX(FM) as formerly licensed to 

Marion because the Report and Order 

did modify the Station WCGX(FM) 

license to specify Dublin. However, that 

modification had no immediate impact 

on competition in the Columbus radio 

market as Clear Channel was required to 

file an implementing application and 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES