Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2012 / Proposed Rules 45535 

States develop the 172(c)(3) emissions 

inventory by the incorporation of data 

from multiple sources. States were 

required to develop and submit to EPA 

a triennial emissions inventory 

according to the Consolidated Emissions 

Reporting Rule for all source categories 

(i.e., point, area, nonroad mobile and 

on-road mobile). This inventory often 

forms the basis for data that states 

update with more recent information 

and data that they use in their 

attainment demonstration modeling 

inventory. Such was the case in the 

development of the 2005 emissions 

inventory that MDEQ submitted in its 

attainment SIP for the Detroit-Ann 

Arbor area. The 2005 emissions 

inventory was based on data developed 

with the Lake Michigan Air Directors 

Consortium (LADCO) and the Midwest 

Regional Planning Organization (MRPO) 

and submitted by the states to the 2005 

National Emissions Inventory (NEI). 

Data from many databases, studies and 

models (e.g., Vehicle Miles Traveled, 

fuel programs, the NONROAD 2002 

model data for commercial marine 

vessels, locomotives and Clean Air 

Market Division, etc.) resulted in the 

inventory submitted in this SIP. The 

data were developed according to 

current EPA emissions inventory 

guidance ‘‘Emissions Inventory 

Guidance for Implementation of Ozone 

and Particulate Matter National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) and Regional Haze 

Regulations’’ (August 2005) and a 

quality assurance project plan that was 

developed through LADCO and 

approved by EPA. 

EPA has reviewed MDEQ’s emissions 

inventory and proposes to determine 

that it is adequate for the purposes of 

meeting section 172(c)(3) emissions 

inventory requirement. Further, EPA’s 

review shows that the emissions were 

developed consistent with the CAA, 

implementing regulations and EPA 

guidance for emission inventories. 

III. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve the 2005 

base year emissions inventory portion of 

the SIP revision submitted by MDEQ on 

June 13, 2008. EPA is making the 

determination that this action is 

consistent with sections 110 and 172 of 

the CAA. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely approves state law as 

meeting federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 F43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications as specified 

by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the Commonwealth, and EPA 

notes that it will not impose substantial 

direct costs on tribal governments or 

preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and record-keeping 

requirements. 

Dated: July 13, 2012. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2012–18799 Filed 7–31–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2005–0163; FRL–9355–8] 

RIN 2070–ZA16 

Aldicarb; Proposed Tolerance Actions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to revoke 

certain tolerances for the insecticide and 

nematocide aldicarb because, in followup to voluntary requests from a 

registrant, EPA amended an aldicarb 

registration to delete specific uses, 

leaving no aldicarb registrations for 

those uses. Also, in accordance with 

current Agency practice, EPA is 

proposing to revise the nomenclature of 

specific tolerances and make minor 

revisions to the tolerance expression for 

aldicarb. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 1, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2005–0163 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 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. 

• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental 

Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/ 

DC), Mail Code: 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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joseph Nevola, Pesticide Re-evaluation 

Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide 

Programs, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

45536 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

number: (703) 308–8037; email address: 

nevola.joseph@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. To determine whether 

you or your business may be affected by 

this action, you should carefully 

examine the applicability provisions in 

Unit II.A. 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. 

C. What can I do if I wish the agency 

to maintain a tolerance that the agency 

proposes to revoke? 

This proposed rule provides a 

comment period of 60 days for any 

person to state an interest in retaining 

a tolerance proposed for revocation. If 

EPA receives a comment within the 60- 

day period to that effect, EPA will not 

proceed to revoke the tolerance 

immediately. However, EPA will take 

steps to ensure the submission of any 

needed supporting data and will issue 

an order in the Federal Register under 

the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 

Act (FFDCA) section 408(f), if needed. 

The order would specify data needed 

and the timeframes for its submission, 

and would require that within 90 days 

some person or persons notify EPA that 

they will submit the data. If the data are 

not submitted as required in the order, 

EPA will take appropriate action under 

FFDCA. 

EPA issues a final rule after 

considering comments that are 

submitted in response to this proposed 

rule. In addition to submitting 

comments in response to this proposal, 

you may also submit an objection at the 

time of the final rule. If you fail to file 

an objection to the final rule within the 

time period specified, you will have 

waived the right to raise any issues 

resolved in the final rule. After the 

specified time, issues resolved in the 

final rule cannot be raised again in any 

subsequent proceedings. 

II. Background 

A. What action is the agency taking? 

EPA is proposing to revoke certain 

tolerances for aldicarb because, in 

follow-up to voluntary requests from a 

registrant, EPA amended an aldicarb 

registration to delete specific uses, 

leaving no aldicarb registrations for 

those uses, and therefore the tolerances 

are no longer needed. Also, EPA is 

proposing these revocations in 

accordance with a Memorandum of 

Agreement (MOA) of August 16, 2010 

between EPA and the registrant 

regarding the registration of a pesticide 

product containing aldicarb, which is 

available in the docket of this proposed 

rule. 

It is EPA’s general practice to propose 

revocation of those tolerances for 

residues of pesticide active ingredients 

on crop uses for which there are no 

active registrations under the Federal 

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide 

Act (FIFRA), unless any person submits 

comments on the proposal that indicate 

a need for the tolerance to cover 

residues in or on imported commodities 

or legally treated domestic commodities. 

In the Federal Register of October 7, 

2010 (75 FR 62129) (FRL–8848–1), EPA 

published a notice of receipt of a request 

to voluntarily amend an aldicarb 

registration to terminate uses, including 

use of aldicarb in or on citrus 

commodities and potato. 

In the Federal Register of May 9, 2012 

(77 FR 27226) (FRL–9348–2) and May 

25, 2012 (77 FR 31355) (FRL–9351–4), 

EPA issued a cancellation order and 

correction that announced its approval 

for the amendment of a registration, 

including the termination of aldicarb 

uses in or on citrus commodities and 

potato, effective immediately, which 

permitted no use as of May 9, 2012. 

Tolerances are subject to the World 

Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) Sanitary 

and Phytosanitary (SPS) Measures 

Agreement, including its provisions in 

Annex B, paragraph 2 and WT/MIN 

(01)/17, paragraph 5.2 (available at 

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/ 

sps_e/spsagr_e.htm and http://www.wto.

org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/min01_e/

mindecl_implementation_e.htm) which 

provide a reasonable interval (6 months) 

for producers in exporting members to 

adapt to the requirements of the 

importing members. Therefore, the 

effective date of a tolerance revocation 

should normally be delayed at least 6 

months after publication. Consequently, 

EPA is proposing to revoke the 

tolerances for aldicarb in 40 CFR 

180.269 on citrus, dried pulp; 

grapefruit; lemon; lime; orange, sweet; 

and potato with an effective date of 

revocation that is 6 months after the 

date of publication of a final rule in the 

Federal Register. 

Also, in accordance with current 

Agency practice, EPA is proposing to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2012 / Proposed Rules 45537 

revise the commodity terminology in 40 

CFR 180.269(a) for ‘‘coffee, bean, green’’ 

to read ‘‘coffee, green bean’’ and 

‘‘soybean’’ to read ‘‘soybean, seed.’’ In 

addition, in accordance with current 

Agency practice to describe more clearly 

the measurement and scope or coverage 

of the tolerances, including applicable 

metabolites and degradates, EPA is 

proposing minor revisions to the 

tolerance expression for aldicarb in 40 

CFR 180.269(a) to read as set out in the 

proposed regulatory text at the end of 

this document. The revisions do not 

substantively change the tolerance or, in 

any way, modify the permissible level of 

residues permitted by the tolerance. 

B. What is the agency’s authority for 

taking this action? 

A ‘‘tolerance’’ represents the 

maximum level for residues of pesticide 

chemicals legally allowed in or on raw 

agricultural commodities and processed 

foods. Section 408 of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 

346a, as amended by the Food Quality 

Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996, Public 

Law 104–170, authorizes the 

establishment of tolerances, exemptions 

from tolerance requirements, 

modifications in tolerances, and 

revocation of tolerances for residues of 

pesticide chemicals in or on raw 

agricultural commodities and processed 

foods. Without a tolerance or 

exemption, food containing pesticide 

residues is considered to be unsafe and 

therefore ‘‘adulterated’’ under FFDCA 

section 402(a), 21 U.S.C. 342(a). Such 

food may not be distributed in interstate 

commerce (21 U.S.C. 331(a)). For a fooduse pesticide to be sold and distributed, 

the pesticide must not only have 

appropriate tolerances under the 

FFDCA, but also must be registered 

under FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.). 

Food-use pesticides not registered in the 

United States must have tolerances in 

order for commodities treated with 

those pesticides to be imported into the 

United States. 

EPA’s general practice is to propose 

revocation of tolerances for residues of 

pesticide active ingredients on crops for 

which FIFRA registrations no longer 

exist and on which the pesticide may 

therefore no longer be used in the 

United States. EPA has historically been 

concerned that retention of tolerances 

that are not necessary to cover residues 

in or on legally treated foods may 

encourage misuse of pesticides within 

the United States. Nonetheless, EPA 

will establish and maintain tolerances 

even when corresponding domestic uses 

are canceled if the tolerances, which 

EPA refers to as ‘‘import tolerances,’’ are 

necessary to allow importation into the 

United States of food containing such 

pesticide residues. However, where 

there are no imported commodities that 

require these import tolerances, the 

Agency believes it is appropriate to 

revoke tolerances for unregistered 

pesticides in order to prevent potential 

misuse. 

Furthermore, as a general matter, the 

Agency believes that retention of import 

tolerances not needed to cover any 

imported food may result in 

unnecessary restriction on trade of 

pesticides and foods. Under FFDCA 

section 408, a tolerance may only be 

established or maintained if EPA 

determines that the tolerance is safe 

based on a number of factors, including 

an assessment of the aggregate exposure 

to the pesticide and an assessment of 

the cumulative effects of such pesticide 

and other substances that have a 

common mechanism of toxicity. In 

doing so, EPA must consider potential 

contributions to such exposure from all 

tolerances. If the cumulative risk is such 

that the tolerances in aggregate are not 

safe, then every one of these tolerances 

is potentially vulnerable to revocation. 

Furthermore, if unneeded tolerances are 

included in the aggregate and 

cumulative risk assessments, the 

estimated exposure to the pesticide 

would be inflated. Consequently, it may 

be more difficult for others to obtain 

needed tolerances or to register needed 

new uses. To avoid potential trade 

restrictions, the Agency is proposing to 

revoke tolerances for residues on crops 

uses for which FIFRA registrations no 

longer exist, unless someone expresses 

a need for such tolerances. Through this 

proposed rule, the Agency is inviting 

individuals who need these import 

tolerances to identify themselves and 

the tolerances that are needed to cover 

imported commodities. 

Parties interested in retention of the 

tolerances should be aware that 

additional data may be needed to 

support retention. These parties should 

be aware that, under FFDCA section 

408(f), if the Agency determines that 

additional information is reasonably 

required to support the continuation of 

a tolerance, EPA may require that 

parties interested in maintaining the 

tolerances provide the necessary 

information. If the requisite information 

is not submitted, EPA may issue an 

order revoking the tolerance at issue. 

C. When do these actions become 

effective? 

EPA is proposing that the actions 

herein become effective 6 months after 

the date of publication of the final rule 

in the Federal Register. EPA is 

proposing this effective date for these 

actions to allow a reasonable interval for 

producers in exporting members of the 

WTO’s SPS Measures Agreement to 

adapt to the requirements of a final rule. 

EPA believes that treated commodities 

will have sufficient time for passage 

through the channels of trade. If you 

have comments regarding existing 

stocks and whether the effective date 

allows sufficient time for treated 

commodities to clear the channels of 

trade, please submit comments as 

described under SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION. 

Any commodities listed in this 

proposal treated with the pesticides 

subject to this proposal, and in the 

channels of trade following the 

tolerance revocations, shall be subject to 

FFDCA section 408(1)(5), as established 

by FQPA. Under this unit, any residues 

of these pesticides in or on such food 

shall not render the food adulterated so 

long as it is shown to the satisfaction of 

the Food and Drug Administration that: 

1. The residue is present as the result 

of an application or use of the pesticide 

at a time and in a manner that was 

lawful under FIFRA, and 

2. The residue does not exceed the 

level that was authorized at the time of 

the application or use to be present on 

the food under a tolerance or exemption 

from tolerance. Evidence to show that 

food was lawfully treated may include 

records that verify the dates when the 

pesticide was applied to such food. 

III. 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 an 

MRL for aldicarb in or on potato, but 

has established MRLs for aldicarb, 

including an MRL in or on citrus fruits 

at 0.2 milligrams/kilogram (mg/kg), 

which is covered by U.S. tolerances for 

aldicarb at a higher level of 0.3 ppm on 

grapefruit, lemon, lime, and orange, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

45538 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

sweet, and 0.6 ppm on citrus, dried 

pulp. These MRLs are different than the 

tolerances established for aldicarb in the 

United States because of differences in 

use patterns and/or good agricultural 

practices. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

In this proposed rule, EPA is 

proposing to revoke specific tolerances 

established under FFDCA section 408. 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has exempted this type of action 

(e.g., tolerance revocation for which 

extraordinary circumstances do not 

exist) 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 as required by 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 other 

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 Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Agency 

previously assessed whether revocations 

of tolerances might significantly impact 

a substantial number of small entities 

and concluded that, as a general matter, 

these actions do not impose a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. This analysis 

was published on December 17, 1997 

(62 FR 66020) (FRL–5753–1), and was 

provided to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration. Taking into account 

this analysis, and available information 

concerning the pesticides listed in this 

proposed rule, the Agency hereby 

certifies that this proposed rule will not 

have a significant negative economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. In a memorandum dated May 

25, 2001, EPA determined that eight 

conditions must all be satisfied in order 

for an import tolerance or tolerance 

exemption revocation to adversely affect 

a significant number of small entity 

importers, and that there is a negligible 

joint probability of all eight conditions 

holding simultaneously with respect to 

any particular revocation. (This Agency 

document is available in the docket of 

this proposed rule). Furthermore, for the 

pesticide named in this proposed rule, 

the Agency knows of no extraordinary 

circumstances that exist as to the 

present proposal that would change the 

EPA’s previous analysis. Any comments 

about the Agency’s determination 

should be submitted to the EPA along 

with comments on the proposal, and 

will be addressed prior to issuing a final 

rule. 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: July 18, 2012. 

Steven 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. In § 180.269 paragraph (a) is revised 

to read as follows: 

§ 180.269 Aldicarb; tolerances for 

residues. 

(a) General. Tolerances are 

established for residues of the 

insecticide and nematocide aldicarb, 

including its metabolites and 

degradates, in or on the commodities in 

the table in this paragraph. Compliance 

with the tolerance levels specified in 

this paragraph is to be determined by 

measuring only the sum of aldicarb (2- 

methyl-2-(methylthio)propanal O- 

((methylamino)carbonyl)oxime), and its 

cholinesterase-inhibiting metabolites 2- 

methyl-2-(methylsulfinyl)propanal O- 

((methylamino)carbonyl)oxime and 2- 

methyl-2-(methylsulfonyl)propanal O- 

((methylamino)carbonyl)oxime, 

calculated as the stoichiometric 

equivalent of aldicarb, in or on the 

commodity. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2012 / Proposed Rules 45539 

Commodity Parts per million 

Bean, dry, seed .................. 0 .1 

Beet, sugar, roots ............... 0 .05 

Beet, sugar, tops ................ 1 

Coffee, green bean ............. 0 .1 

Cotton, undelinted seed ..... 0 .1 

Cotton, hulls ........................ 0 .3 

Peanut ................................ 0 .05 

Pecan .................................. 0 .5 

Sorghum, grain, bran .......... 0 .5 

Sorghum, grain, grain ......... 0 .2 

Sorghum, grain, stover ....... 0 .5 

Soybean, seed .................... 0 .02 

Sugarcane, cane ................ 0 .02 

Sweet potato, roots ............ 0 .1 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–18508 Filed 7–31–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

46 CFR Part 401 

[USCG–2012–0409] 

RIN 1625–AB89 

Great Lakes Pilotage Rates—2013 

Annual Review and Adjustment 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes 

rate adjustments for pilotage services on 

the Great Lakes, which were last 

amended in February 2012. The 

proposed adjustments would establish 

new base rates and are made in 

accordance with a required full 

ratemaking procedure. The proposed 

update reflects changes in benchmark 

contractual wages and benefits and an 

adjustment for inflation. This 

rulemaking promotes the Coast Guard’s 

strategic goal of maritime safety. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must either be submitted to our online 

docket via http://www.regulations.gov 

on or before October 1, 2012 or reach 

the Docket Management Facility by that 

date. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2012–0409 using any one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

(2) Fax: 202–493–2251. 

(3) Mail: Docket Management Facility 

(M–30), U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590– 

0001. 

(4) Hand delivery: Same as mail 

address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. The telephone number 

is 202–366–9329. 

To avoid duplication, please use only 

one of these four methods. See the 

‘‘Public Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below for instructions on submitting 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this proposed 

rule, call or email Mr. Todd Haviland, 

Management & Program Analyst, Office 

of Great Lakes Pilotage, Commandant 

(CG–WWM–2), Coast Guard; telephone 

202–372–2037, email 

Todd.A.Haviland@uscg.mil, or fax 202– 

372–1909. If you have questions on 

viewing or submitting material to the 

docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program 

Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 

202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents for Preamble 

I. Public Participation and Request for 

Comment 

A. Submitting Comments 

B. Viewing Comments and Documents 

C. Privacy Act 

D. Public Meeting 

II. Abbreviations 

III. Basis and Purpose 

IV. Background 

V. Discussion of Proposed Rule 

VI. Regulatory Analyses 

A. Regulatory Planning and Review 

B. Small Entities 

C. Assistance for Small Entities 

D. Collection of Information 

E. Federalism 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

G. Taking of Private Property 

H. Civil Justice Reform 

I. Protection of Children 

J. Indian Tribal Governments 

K. Energy Effects 

L. Technical Standards 

M. Environment 

I. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

We encourage you to participate in 

this rulemaking by submitting 

comments and related materials. All 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov and will include 

any personal information you have 

provided. 

A. Submitting Comments 

If you submit a comment, please 

include the docket number for this 

rulemaking (USCG–2012–0409), 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and provide a reason for each 

suggestion or recommendation. You 

may submit your comments and 

material online or by fax, mail, or hand 

delivery, but please use only one of 

these means. We recommend that you 

include your name and a mailing 

address, an email address, or a phone 

number in the body of your document 

so that we can contact you if we have 

questions regarding your submission. 

To submit your comment online, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and insert 

‘‘USCG–2012–0409’’ in the ‘‘Search’’ 

box. Click on ‘‘Submit a Comment’’ in 

the ‘‘Actions’’ column. If you submit 

your comments by mail or hand 

delivery, submit them in an unbound 

format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, 

suitable for copying and electronic 

filing. If you submit comments by mail 

and would like to know that they 

reached the Facility, please enclose a 

stamped, self-addressed postcard or 

envelope. 

We will consider all comments and 

material received during the comment 

period and may change this proposed 

rule based on your comments. 

B. Viewing Comments and Documents 

To view comments, as well as 

documents mentioned in this preamble 

as being available in the docket, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov, insert 

‘‘USCG–2012–0409’’ and click 

‘‘Search.’’ Click the ‘‘Open Docket 

Folder’’ in the ‘‘Actions’’ column. If you 

do not have access to the Internet, you 

may view the docket online by visiting 

the Docket Management Facility in 

Room W12–140 on the ground floor of 

the Department of Transportation West 

Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. We have an 

agreement with the Department of 

Transportation to use the Docket 

Management Facility. 

C. Privacy Act 

Anyone can search the electronic 

form of comments received into any of 

our dockets by the name of the 

individual submitting the comment (or 

signing the comment, if submitted on 

behalf of an association, business, labor 

union, etc.). You may review a Privacy 

Act notice regarding our public dockets 

in the January 17, 2008 issue of the 

Federal Register (73 FR 3316). 

D. Public Meeting 

We do not now plan to hold a public 

meeting. But you may submit a request 

for one to the docket using one of the 

methods specified under ADDRESSES. In 

your request, explain why you believe a 

public meeting would be beneficial. If 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS