Rules and Regulations. Final rule

24,142 words·~110 min read·/register/2006/05/31/06-4854

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0487; FRL-8062-3] Pesticides; Minimal Risk Tolerance Exemptions AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This rule reorganizes the existing tolerance exemptions for 12 chemical substances that are now classified as “minimal risk.” The Agency is shifting the existing tolerance exemptions for these chemicals to 40 CFR 180.950(e). The Agency is merely moving certain tolerance exemptions from one section of the CFR to another section.

No tolerance exemptions are lost or added as a result of this action. DATES: This regulation is effective May 31, 2006. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before July 31, 2006, 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: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification

(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0487. All documents in the docket are listed in the index for the docket. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information

(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 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 Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. The Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Docket Facility is

(703)305-5805. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathryn Boyle, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:

(703)305-6304; fax number:

(703)305-0599; e-mail address: *boyle.kathryn@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. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document? In addition to accessing an electronic copy of this *Federal Register* document through the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , you may access this **Federal Register** document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ **Federal Register** ” listings at *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr* . You may also access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's pilot e-CFR site at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr* . C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request? Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, as amended by the FQPA, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural regulations which govern the submission of objections and requests for hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. 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-2005-0487 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before July 31, 2006. 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 that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public docket that is described in ADDRESSES . Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit your copies, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0487, by one of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line 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 Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The telephone number for the Docket Facility is

(703)305-5805. II. Background and Statutory Findings A. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action? This final rule is issued pursuant to section 408(e) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Comestic Act (FFDCA), as amended by Food Quality Protection Act

(FQPA)(21 U.S.C. 346a(e)). Section 408 of FFDCA authorizes the establishment of tolerances, exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance, 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 tolerance exemption, food containing pesticide residues is considered to be unsafe and therefore, “adulterated” under section 402(a) of FFDCA. If food containing pesticide residues is found to be adulterated, the food may not be distributed in interstate commerce (21 U.S.C. 331(a) and 342 (a)). B. What Action is the Agency Taking? In the **Federal Register** of January 25, 2006 (71 FR 4087) (FRL-7754-8), EPA issued a proposed rule under section 408(e) of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a, as amended by the FQPA (Public Law 104-170). In that rule, the Agency proposed to shift existing tolerance exemptions for certain inert ingredients that have been classified by the Agency as List 4A, “minimal risk,” to 40 CFR 180.950(e). One comment was received from the Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA). WSDA requested that “EPA consider revoking the tolerance exemption for sperm oil” since it is derived from the sperm whale, an endangered species. In light of this comment, the Agency will not shift the exemption for sperm oil to 40 CFR 180.950(e), and will consider in the future whether to take action to revoke this tolerance exemption. No other comments were received. Accordingly, based on the reasons set forth in the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA is shifting the tolerance exemptions for the 12 chemical substances specified in the regulatory text to § 180.950(e). III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews This final rule re-organizes the tolerance exemptions for 12 chemical substances. Such reorganization does not impose any new requirements, has no impact, and is therefore, not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of significance, this rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, *Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use* (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). 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.* , 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 section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(RFA)(5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ), the Agency hereby certifies that re-organizing these tolerance exemptions will not have significant negative economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In addition, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled *Federalism* (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers and food retailers, not States. This action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of section 408(n)(4) of the FFDCA. For these same reasons, the Agency has determined that this 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 6, 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 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 rule. IV. Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the Agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and the Comptroller General of the United States. 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 rule 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, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: May 16, 2006. 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), 346(a) and 374 2. In § 180.910, the table is amended by removing the entries for: Ascorbic acid (CAS Reg. No. 50-81-7); beeswax; carnauba wax; glycerol; isopropyl alcohol; soap (sodium or potassium salts of fatty acids); sodium benzoate; sodium bicarbonate; sorbitol, and sorbic acid (and potassium salt) and alphabetically adding the following entry to the table to read as follows: § 180.910 Inert ingredients used pre- and post-harvest; exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance. Inert Ingredients Limits Uses * * * * * Sorbic acid (CAS Reg. No. 110-44-1) Preservative for formulations * * * * * 3. In § 180.920, the table is amended by removing the entries for: Potassium carbonate and vanillin and adding the following two entries to the table to read as follows: § 180.920 Inert ingredients used pre-harvest; exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance. Inert Ingredients Limits Uses * * * * * Carbonic acid, dipotassium salt (CAS Reg. No. 584-08-7) Buffering agent Carbonic acid, dipotassium salt, trihydrate (CAS Reg. No. 18662-52-7) Buffering agent * * * * * § 180.930 [Amended] 4. In § 180.930, the table is amended by removing the entries for: Carnauba wax (CAS Reg. No. 8015-86-9); glycerol (glycerin); isopropyl alcohol; and sodium benzoate. § 180.940 [Amended] 5. Section 180.940 is amended as follows: a. By removing from the table in paragraph

(a)the entries for 2-propanol (isopropanol) and sodium bicarbonate. b. By removing from the table in paragraph

(b)the entry for 2-propanol (isopropanol). c. By removing from the table in paragraph

(c)the entries for 2-propanol (isopropanol) and sodium bicarbonate. 6. In § 180.950, the table in paragraph

(e)is amended by adding alphabetically the following 12 entries to read as follows: § 180.950 Tolerance exemptions for minimal risk active and inert ingredients.

(e)* * * Chemical Name CAS Reg. No. * * * * * Ascorbic acid (vitamin C) 50-81-7 Beeswax 8012-89-3 Benzoic acid, sodium salt 532-32-1 * * * * * Carbonic acid, monopotassium salt 298-14-6 Carbonic acid, monosodium salt (sodium bicarbonate) 144-55-8 Carnauba wax 8015-86-9 * * * * * D-Glucitol (sorbitol) 50-70-4 Glycerol (glycerin) (1,2,3-propanetriol) 56-81-5 * * * * * 2-Propanol (isopropyl alcohol) 67-63-0 * * * * * Soap (The water soluble sodium or potassium salts of fatty acids produced by either the saponification of fats and oils, or the neutralization of fatty acid). None Sorbic acid, potassium salt 24634-61-5 * * * * * Vanillin 121-33-5 * * * * * [FR Doc. E6-8249 Filed 5-30-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0215; FRL-8057-9] Terbacil; Pesticide Tolerance AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a tolerance for combined residues of terbacil in or on watermelon. The Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), on behalf of the registrant, DuPont Crop Protection, requested this tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA). EPA is also deleting an existing time-limited terbacil tolerance that is no longer needed as a result of this action. DATES: This regulation is effective May 31, 2006. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before July 31, 2006, 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: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification

(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0215. All documents in the docket are listed in the index for the docket. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information

(703)305-5805. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sidney Jackson, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:

(703)305-7610; e-mail address: *jackson.sidney@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 111), e.g., agricultural workers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; farmers. • Animal production (NAICS 112), e.g., cattle ranchers and farmers, dairy cattle farmers, livestock farmers. • Food manufacturing (NAICS 311), e.g., agricultural workers; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; ranchers; pesticide applicators. • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 32532), e.g., agricultural workers; commercial applicators; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; residential users. 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. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document? In addition to accessing an electronic copy of this **Federal Register** document through the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , you may access this **Federal Register** document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ **Federal Register** ” listings at *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr* . You may also access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's pilot e-CFR site at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr* . To access the OPPTS Harmonized Guidelines referenced in this document, go directly to the guidelines at *http://www.epa.gov/opptsfrs/home/guidelin.htm* . C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request? Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, as amended by the FQPA, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural regulations which govern the submission of objections and requests for hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. 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-2005-0215 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before July 31, 2006. 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 that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public docket that is described in ADDRESSES . Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit your copies, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0215, by one of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail* : Office of Pesticide Programs

(703)305-5805. II. Background and Statutory Findings In the **Federal Register** of September 7, 2005 (70 FR 53180) (FRL-7731-1), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 3E6640) by IR-4, on behalf of DuPont Crop Protection, P.O. Box 30, Newark, Delaware 19714-0030. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.209 be amended by establishing a tolerance for combined residues of the herbicide terbacil, (3-tert-butyl-5-chloro-6-methyluracil) and its metabolites [3-tert-butyl-5-chloro-6-hydroxymethyluracil], [6-chloro-2,3-dihydro-7-hydroxymethyl 3,3-dimethyl-5H-oxazolo(3,2-a) pyrimidin-5-one], and [6-chloro-2,3-dihydro-3,3,7-trimethyl-5H-oxazolo(3,2-a) pyrimidin-5-one], in or on watermelon at 1.0 parts per million (ppm). That notice included a summary of the petition prepared by DuPont Crop Protection, the registrant. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing. EPA is also deleting an established tolerance in section 40 CFR 180.209(b) that is no longer needed, as a result of this action. The tolerance deletion under section 40 CFR 180.209(b) is a time-limited tolerance established under section 18 emergency exemptions that is superceded by the establishment of a general tolerance for terbacil section 40 CFR 180.209(a). The revision to 40 CFR 180.209 is as follow: Delete the time-limiting tolerance for watermelon at 0.4 ppm under 40 CFR 180.209(b). Tolerance for watermelon at 1.0 ppm is established by this action under 40 CFR 180.209(a). 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.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. 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....” EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. For further discussion of the regulatory requirements of section 408 of the FFDCA and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/1997/November/Day-26/p30948.htm* . III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure, consistent with section 408(b)(2) of FFDCA, for a tolerance for combined residues of terbacil on watermelon at 1.0 ppm. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with establishing the tolerance follows. A. Toxicological Profile EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies 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. Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the toxic effects caused by terbacil as well as the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) and the lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) from available toxicity studies as summarized in Table 1 below: **Table 1: Toxicity Profile for Terbacil — Subchronic, Chronic and Other Toxicity** Guideline No. Study Type Assessment Results 870.3100 90-Day oral toxicity rat Dosage at 0, 8, 20, and 200 milligrams/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day) NOAEL = 500 ppm (20 mg/kg/day) LOAEL = 5,000 ppm (200 mg/kg/day), based on focal necrosis and triaditis in females (F), vacuolization in males

(M)and increased relative liver weight and hypertrophy of hepatocytes in both sexes. 870.3200 21-Day dermal rabbit Dosage at 0 and 5,000 mg/kg/day NOAEL = 5,000 mg/kg/day LOAEL was not established. There were no clinical signs of toxicity, gross or histopathologic changes. 870.4100 Chronic oral 2-year dog Dosage at 0, 1.0, 5.0, 50, and 200 mg/kg/day NOAEL = 250 ppm (equivalent to 5.0 mg/kg/day) LOAEL = 2500 ppm (equivalent to 50 mg/kg/day), based on increased relative thyroid weights and thymic involution in both sexes. 870.4200 Carcinogenicity mouse Dosage for M/F: 0/0, 6.5/8.0, 162/199, and 746/895 mg/kg/day NOAEL = 162 mg/kg/day LOAEL = 746 mg/kg/day, based on increased liver weights, hyperplastic nodules, necrosis, and vacuolation in the liver in males. There was no oncogenic potential at the doses tested. 870.3700 Developmental toxicity rat Dosage at 0, 24, 104 and 392 mg/kg/day Maternal NOAEL was not established Maternal LOAEL = 24 mg/kg/day based on decreased body weight gain. Developmental NOAEL = 24 mg/kg/day Developmental LOAEL = 104 mg/kg/day, based on decreased number of live fetuses/litter. 870.3700 Developmental Toxicity rabbit Dosage at 0, 30, 200, and 600 mg/kg/day Maternal NOAEL = 200 mg/kg/day Maternal LOAEL = 600 mg/kg/day, based on mortality, clinical findings (anorexia, discharge), decreased body weight and body weight gain. Developmental NOAEL = 200 mg/kg/day Developmental LOAEL = 600 mg/kg/day, based on decreased body weight, increased incidence of skeletal malformations (fused ribs) and increase frequency of skeletal variations. 870.3800 3-generation reproduction - rat Dosage at 0, 2.0, and 10 mg/kg/day Parental NOAEL = 50 ppm (equivalent to2.0 mg/kg/day) Parental LOAEL = 250 ppm (equivalent to 10 mg/kg/day) based on decreased body weight, Reproductive NOAEL = 250 ppm (equivalent to 10 mg/kg/day) Reproductive LOAEL was not established Offspring NOAEL = 250 ppm (equivalent to 10 mg/kg/day) Offspring LOAEL was not established 870.4300 Combined Chronic Toxicity/Carcinogenicity rat Dosage M/F: 0/0, 0.9/1.4, 58/83, 308/484 mg/kg/day NOAEL (M/F)= 58/1.4 mg/kg/day LOAEL (M/F)= 308/83 mg/kg/day, based on decreased body weight and body weight gain and increased absolute and relative liver weights in males and females. There was no oncogenic potential at the doses tested. 870.4300 Combined Chronic Toxicity/ Carcinogenicity rat Dosage at 0, 2.0, 10 and 100/400 mg/kg/day) Systemic NOAEL = 250 ppm (equivalent to 10 mg/kg/day) Systemic LOAEL = 2,500/10,000 ppm (equivalent to 100/400 mg/kg/day) based on increased mean relative liver weights, hepatocyte centrilobular hypertrophy in males and females and vacuolation in females. There was no oncogenic potential at the doses tested. 870.5300 Mutagenic- (HGPRT) Dosage at 0, 2, 3, 5 and 6 mM (-S9); 0, 1, 2, 2.5, 2.75, 3.25 and 3.50 mM (+S9) Did not induce mutation in chinese hamster ovary cells with or without metabolic activation. 870.5375 *In vitro* chromosome aberration assay CHO cells Dosage at 0, 20, 100 and 500 mg/kg Negative for clastogenic activity in the rat bone marrow cytogenetic assay. 870.5500 Unscheduled DNA synthesis assay rat primary hepatocyte Dosage at 0, 0.010, 0.033, 0.10, 0.33, 1.0, 2.5, 5.0, 7.5, and 10 mM Did not induce unscheduled DNA synthesis in primary rat hepatocytes. 870.5100 Mutagenicity study (bacteriophage assay) Did not show the suspected (5-bromo-uracil metabolite) mutagenic action. 870.7485 Metabolism study rat Doseage at single doses of 6.5 or 500 mg/kg Approximately 57-82% of the administered dose was absorbed in 24 hours. Ninety one to 103% of radioactivity was recovered within 5 days; with 70 to 86% in urine and 14-28% in feces. The major metabolites were glucuronide, sulfate and sulfate/N-acetylcysteine conjugates. The primary metabolic pathway is hydroxylation of the 6-methyl group to form the alcohol which is conjugated to form the glucuronide (35% of the dose) and the sulfate derivatives (11%). Terbacil is also metabolized to the 5-hydroxy intermediate, which is further conjugated to form a sulfate derivative (17%). There was no evidence suggestive of bioaccumulation. B. Toxicological Endpoints For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the dose at which the NOAEL from the toxicology study identified as appropriate for use in risk assessment is used to estimate the toxicological level of concern (LOC). However, the LOAEL is sometimes used for risk assessment if no NOAEL was achieved in the toxicology study selected. An uncertainty factor

(UF)is applied to reflect uncertainties inherent in the extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and in the variations in sensitivity among members of the human population as well as other unknowns. The linear default risk methodology (Q*) is the primary method currently used by the Agency to quantify non-threshold hazards such as cancer. The Q* approach assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of cancer risk, estimates risk in terms of the probability of occurrence of additional cancer cases. More information can be found on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization at *http://www.epa.gov/pesticide/health/human.htm* . A summary of the toxicological endpoints for terbacil used for human risk assessment is presented in the following Table 2: **Table 2.—Summary of Toxicological Dose and Endpoints for terbacil for Use in Human Risk Assessment** Exposure/Scenario Dose Used in Risk Assessment, Interspecies and Intraspecies and any Traditional UF Special FQPA SF and Level of Concern for Risk Assessment Study and Toxicological Effects Acute Dietary (General Population and Females 13-50 years of age) NA NA An endpoint of concern attributable to a single dose for the general population or female 13+ was not identified Chronic dietary (All populations) NOAEL= 1.4 mg/kg/day UF = 100X Chronic RfD = cRfD= 0.014 mg/kg/day Special FQPA SF = 1X cPAD = cRfD divided by Special FQPA SF = 0.014 mg/kg/day Combined Chronic Toxicity/carcinogenicity - rat LOAEL = 83 mg/kg/day based on decreased body weight and body weight gain in females Short (1-30 days) and Intermediate (1-6 months) Term Incidental oral Oral NOAEL = 2.0 mg/kg/day (inhalation absorption rate = 100% oral equivalent) LOC for margin of exposure

(MOEs)< 100 (occupational and residential) 3-Generation reproduction - rat LOAEL = 10 mg/kg/day based on decreased body weight Dermal (any time period) NA NA Quantification of dermal risk is not required; the lack of dermal or systemic toxicity at 5,000 mg/kg (5X the limit dose) in a 21 day dermal toxicity study in rats which indicates poor dermal absorption. Short- (1 to 30 days) and Intermediate- (1 to 6 months) term inhalation NOAEL= 2.0 mg/kg/day (inhalation absorption rate = 100% oral equivalent) LOC for MOEs < 100 (residential) 3-Generation reproduction - rat LOAEL = 10 mg/kg/day, based on decreased body weight Long-term inhalation ( > 6 months) Oral NOAEL= 1.4 mg/kg/day (inhalation absorption rate = 100% oral equivalent) LOC for MOE < 100 (residential and occupational) Combined Chronic Toxicity/Carcinogeni-city - rat LOAEL = 83 mg/kg/day based on decreased body weight and body weight gain in females Cancer (oral, dermal, inhalation) NA NA Classification: Not likely to be carcinogenic to humans C. Exposure Assessment 1. *Dietary exposure from food and feed uses* . Tolerances have been established (40 CFR 180.209) for the combined residues of terbacil, in or on a variety of raw agricultural commodities. Tolerances are currently established for the combined residues of terbacil, (3-tert-butyl-5-chloro-6-methyluracil) and its metabolites [3-tert-butyl-5-chloro-6-hydroxymethyluracil], [6-chloro-2,3-dihydro-7-hydroxymethyl 3,3-dimethyl-5H-oxazolo(3,2-a) pyrimidin-5-one], and [6-chloro-2,3-dihydro-3,3,7-trimethyl-5H-oxazolo(3,2-a) pyrimidin-5-one], calculated as terbacil, in/on alfalfa, apple, asparagus, blueberry, caneberry, peach, peppermint, spearmint, strawberry, and sugarcane ranging from 0.1-2.0 ppm. A time-limited tolerance at 0.4 ppm in/on watermelon is currently established under section 18 exemption of the FIFRA and scheduled to expire June 30, 2007. Tolerances in/on livestock are not currently established. There are no feed commodities associated with watermelon. Risk assessments were conducted by EPA to assess dietary exposures from terbacil in food as follows: i. *Acute exposure* . Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. An appropriate endpoint attributable to a single dose for the general population or females 13 years and older was not identified in the toxicological studies for terbacil; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is not needed. ii. *Chronic exposure* . In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with the Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID TM ver. 2.3), which incorporates food consumption data as reported by respondents in the U.S. Department of Agriculture

(USDA)1994-1996 and 1998 nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII), and accumulated exposure to the chemical for each commodity. The following assumptions were made for the chronic exposure assessments: The chronic dietary analysis incorporated tolerance level residues, 100% crop treated, and DEEM TM (ver 7.81) default processing factors for all registered/proposed crops. The chronic analysis also assumed the Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) modeled water estimates for all water sources (direct and indirect). The ground water estimate was generated using the highest registered/proposed application rate. Although rotational crop tolerances are not currently established, the Agency concluded that the dietary analysis should incorporate residue estimates for rotated crops. Of the registered/proposed crops, alfalfa, mint, strawberry, sugar cane, and watermelon are crops which are rotated. Based on the field rotational crop data (residues < = 0.19 ppm, 0.3-2.1 x the maximum application rate, 30-day plant-back intervals (PBIs)), the registered proposed PBIs, and the application rates, residues in/on crops rotated into alfalfa, mint, and sugar cane fields which were treated with terbacil are possible. Based on the field rotational crop data, the dietary analysis assumed a residue of 1.0 ppm for cereal grains and soybean (these crops are commonly rotated into alfalfa, mint, and sugarcane fields) Based on the tolerances for the primary crops (0.1-2.0 ppm) and the field rotational crop data, EPA anticipates that the 1.0 ppm residue for rotated crops is conservative. The Agency notes that the assessment assumes, based on cultural practices, that only cereal grains and soybean are rotated into alfalfa, sugar cane, and mint fields while the registered application scenario for these crops permits the rotation of any crop. When the residue estimates used to generate the dietary exposure estimates are taken in total ((SCI-GROW) drinking water estimates, tolerance level residue, 100% crop treated for all registered/proposed crops, conservative residue estimates for cereal grain and soybean rotation crops), EPA concludes that chronic dietary exposure to terbacil is likely to be less than the estimates provided in this document. iii. *Cancer* . Terbacil is classified as not likely to be carcinogenic to humans based on the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in a carcinogenicity study in mice and two combined chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity studies in rats. Therefore, a cancer exposure assessment was not performed. 2. *Dietary exposure from drinking water* . The Agency lacks sufficient monitoring exposure data to complete a comprehensive dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for terbacil in drinking water. Because the Agency does not have comprehensive monitoring data, drinking water concentration estimates are made by reliance on simulation or modeling taking into account data on the physical characteristics of terbacil. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at *http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm* . Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS) and SCI-GROW models, the estimated environmental concentrations

(EECs)of terbacil for acute exposures are estimated to be 123 parts per billion

(ppb)for surface water and 111 ppb for ground water. The EECs for chronic exposures are estimated to be 25.4 ppb for surface water and 111 ppb for ground water. The drinking water estimates are based upon the crop with the highest application rate (sugarcane). The use of terbacil on sugarcane has the highest single application rate at 3.0 pounds active ingredient/acre (lb ai/A), this application rate was used in the PRZM/EXAMS and SCI-GROW models to estimate the concentrations of this chemical in surface water and ground water, respectively. Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model (DEEM TM - FCID). For chronic dietary risk assessment, the annual average concentration of 111 ppb was used to access the contribution to drinking water. 3. *From non-dietary exposure* . The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Terbacil is not registered for use on any sites that would result in residential exposure. 4. *Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of toxicity* . Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of the 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.” Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to terbacil and any other substances and terbacil does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that terbacil has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. 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 the policy statements released by EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs concerning common mechanism determinations and procedures for cumulating effects from substances found to have a common mechanism on EPA's website at *http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative* . D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children 1. *In general* . Section 408 of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold 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 based on reliable data that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. Margins of safety are incorporated into EPA risk assessments either directly through use of a MOE analysis or through using uncertainty (safety) factors in calculating a dose level that poses no appreciable risk to humans. In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X when reliable data do not support the choice of a different factor, or, if reliable data are available, EPA uses a different additional safety factor value based on the use of traditional uncertainty factors and/or special FQPA safety factors, as appropriate. 2. *Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity* . There is no indication of increased susceptibility of rat and rabbit fetuses to *in utero* and/or postnatal exposure to terbacil. 3. *Conclusion* . There is a complete toxicity database for terbacil and exposure data are complete or are estimated based on data that reasonably account for potential exposures. Based on analyses of available exposure data, as outlined in Unit III.C.1.ii., the Agency believes that exposure to terbacil from existing and potential sources has been adequately assessed and is likely to be less than the estimates provided. EPA concludes that the FQPA SF can be reduced to 1x for the following reasons:

(i)There is no evidence of increased susceptibility in rat and rabbit fetuses to *in utero* exposure to terbacil;

(ii)there is no evidence of increased susceptibility to terbacil following prenatal exposure in a 3-generation reproduction study in rats;

(iii)there are no residual toxicological uncertainties or concerns for increased susceptibility;

(iv)there are well established NOAELs and LOAELs in the developmental and reproduction studies;

(v)the environmental fate database is adequate to access the nature and magnitude of the residue in drinking water;

(vi)the dietary exposure analysis assumed tolerance-level residues and 100% crop treated. E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety The Agency currently has two ways to estimate total aggregate exposure to a pesticide from food, drinking water, and residential uses. First, a screening assessment can be used, in which the Agency calculates drinking water levels of comparison (DWLOCs) which are used as a point of comparison against estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs). The DWLOC values are not regulatory standards for drinking water, but are theoretical upper limits on a pesticide's concentration in drinking water in light of total aggregate exposure to a pesticide in food and residential uses. More information on the use of DWLOCs in dietary aggregate risk assessments can be found at *http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/trac/science/screeningsop.pdf* . More recently the Agency has used another approach to estimate aggregate exposure through food, residential and drinking water pathways. In this approach, modeled surface water and ground water EDWCs are directly incorporated into the dietary exposure analysis, along with food. This provides a more realistic estimate of exposure because actual body weights and water consumption from the CSFII are used. The combined food and water exposures are then added to estimated exposure from residential sources to calculate aggregate risks. The resulting exposure and risk estimates are still considered to be high end, due to the assumptions used in developing drinking water modeling inputs. 1. * Acute risk* . An endpoint of concern attributable to a single exposure was not identified in the hazard database and therefore no acute risk is expected from exposure to terbacil. 2. *Chronic risk* . Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that exposure to terbacil from food and water will utilize 40% of the cPAD for the U.S. population, 99% of the cPAD for all infants < 1 year old (subpopulations at greatest exposure), and 94% of the cPAD for children 1-2 years old. There are no residential uses for terbacil that result in chronic residential exposure to terbacil. Based on the use pattern, chronic residential exposure to residues of terbacil is not expected since there are no registered residential use. The Agency believes that exposure to terbacil from existing and potential sources has been adequately assessed and that chronic exposure to terbacil is likely to be less than the estimates provided in this document as discussed in Unit III.C.1.ii. 3. *Short-term and Intermediate-term risk* . Short-term and intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Terbacil is not registered for use on any sites that would result in residential exposure. Therefore, the aggregate risk is the sum of the risk from food and water, which do not exceed the Agency's level of concern. 4. *Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population* . Terbacil has been classified as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans” based on the results of a carcinogenicity study in mice and the combined chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity study in rats. Therefore, terbacil is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans. 5. *Determination of safety* . Based on these risk assessments, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, and to infants and children from aggregate exposure to terbacil residues. IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology There is a practical analytical method gas chromatography/electron capture detection (GC/ELCD) for detecting and measuring levels of terbacil in or on food with residues at or above the level set by the terbacil tolerance(Method II of PAM Vol. II). EPA has provided information on this method to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The method is available to anyone who is interested and may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd. Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number:

(410)305-2905; e-mail address: *residuemethods@epa.gov.* B. International Residue Limits There are no Codex, Canadian, or Mexican maximum residue limits in or on watermelon. C. Conditions of Registration Data gaps exist as follow and are required to be satisfactorily filled as conditions of registration for this use. 1. Petition Method Validation

(PMV)of the plant method(s). 2. FDA multiresidue testing of terbacil and its metabolites through protocol D. 3. Additional watermelon field trial, conducted with application after crop emergence, in Region 3 (n=1), 5 (n=1), and 6 (n=1). V. Conclusion Therefore, tolerance is established for combined residues of the herbicide, terbacil (3-tert-butyl-5-chloro-6-methyluracil) and its metabolites [3-tert-butyl-5-chloro-6-hydroxymethyluracil], [6-chloro-2,3-dihydro-7-hydroxymethyl 3,3-dimethyl-5H-oxazolo(3,2-a) pyrimidin-5-one], and [6-chloro-2,3-dihydro-3,3,7-trimethyl-5H-oxazolo(3,2-a) pyrimidin-5-one], calculated as terbacil, in or on watermelon at 1.0 ppm. VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews This final rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of FFDCA 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 rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of significance, this rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, *Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use* (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). 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.* , or impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(UMRA)(Public Law 104-4). Nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled *Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations* (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994); or OMB review or any Agency action under Executive Order 13045, entitled *Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks* (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, 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. 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 final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers and food retailers, not States. This action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. For these same reasons, the Agency has determined that this 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 6, 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 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 rule. VII. Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. 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 this final rule in the **Federal Register** . This final rule 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. May 16, 2006. 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. Section 180.209 is revised to read as follows: § 180.209 Terbacil; tolerances for residues.

(a)*General* . Tolerances are established for combined residues of the herbicide terbacil, (3-tert-butyl-5-chloro-6-methyluracil) and its metabolites [3-tert-butyl-5-chloro-6-hydroxymethyluracil], [6-chloro-2,3-dihydro-7-hydroxymethyl 3,3-dimethyl-5H-oxazolo(3,2-a) pyrimidin-5-one], and [6-chloro-2,3-dihydro-3,3,7-trimethyl-5H-oxazolo(3,2-a) pyrimidin-5-one], calculated as terbacil, in or on the following raw agricultural commodities: Commodity Parts per million Alfalfa, forage 1.0 Alfalfa, hay 2.0 Apple 0.3 Asparagus 0.4 Blueberry 0.2 Canebserry 0.2 Peach 0.2 Peppermint, tops 2.0 Spearmint, tops 2.0 Strawberry 0.1 Sugarcane, cane 0.4 Watermelon 1.0

(b)*Section 18 emergency exemptions* . [Reserved]

(c)*Tolerances with regional registrations* . [Reserved]

(d)*Indirect or inadvertent residues* . [Reserved] [FR Doc. E6-8275 Filed 5-30-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 64 [CG Docket No. 03-123; FCC 06-57] Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals With Hearing and Speech Disabilities AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Clarification. SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission addresses a petition (Petition) requesting clarification that a Video Relay Service

(VRS)provider may not receive compensation from the Interstate telecommunications relay service

(TRS)Fund

(Fund)if it blocks calls to competing VRS providers from equipment it gives to consumers. DATES: Effective July 31, 2006. ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Chandler, Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, Disability Rights Office at

(202)418-1475 (voice),

(202)418-0597 (TTY), or e-mail at *Thomas.Chandler@fcc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the PRA of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, it does not contain any new or modified “information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, *see* 44 U.S.C. 3506 (c)(4). This is a summary of the Commission's document FCC 06-57, *Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities* , Declaratory Ruling, CG Docket No. 03-123, adopted May 3, 2006, released May 9, 2006 addressing issues raised in the California Coalition of Agencies Serving the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (CCASDHH or Petitioner) Petition for Declaratory Ruling: Petition for Declaratory Ruling on Interoperability, CC Docket No. 98-67, CG Docket No. 03-123, filed February 15, 2005. The full text of document FCC 06-57 and copies of any subsequently filed documents in this matter will be available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. Document FCC 06-57 and copies of subsequently filed documents in this matter may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor at Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Customers may contact the Commission's duplicating contractor at its Web site *http://www.bcpiweb.com* or by calling 1-800-378-3160. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to *fcc504@fcc.gov* or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at

(202)418-0530 (voice),

(202)418-0432 (TTY). Document FCC 06-xxx can also be downloaded in Word or Portable Document Format

(PDF)at: * http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro.* Synopsis CCASDHH filed a Petition for Declaratory Ruling on Interoperability on February 15, 2005, requesting the Commission to declare that a VRS provider may not receive compensation from the Interstate TRS Fund

(Fund)if it blocks calls to competing VRS providers from equipment it distributes to consumers. CCASDHH is a coalition of eight community-based nonprofit agencies providing various social services to deaf and hard-of-hearing consumers in California. *See* Petition at 1, note 1. The Commission agrees, and concludes that the practice of restricting the use of VRS equipment to a particular provider—sometimes termed “call blocking”—is inconsistent with the TRS regime as intended by Congress, and raises serious public safety concerns. Traditional TRS and VRS When Congress enacted section 225 of the Communications Act, and the Commission implemented the TRS, relay calls were placed using a text telephone device

(TTY)connected to the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN). In such a “traditional” TRS call, a person with a hearing (or speech) disability dials a telephone number for a TRS facility using a TTY. In this context, the first step for the TRS user, the completion of the outbound call to the TRS facility, is functionally equivalent to receiving a “dial tone.” *See, e.g.* , 47 CFR 64.601(1). VRS allows persons using American Sign Language

(ASL)to access the telephone system through a broadband Internet video connection between the VRS user and the communications assistant (CA). A VRS user may initiate a VRS call either via a VRS provider's Web site or directly through VRS equipment connected to the Internet. With VRS, the dial tone equivalent is when the VRS user establishes a video connection with the CA, who then places an outbound telephone call to a hearing person. During the call, the CA communicates in ASL with the VRS user and by voice with the hearing person. As a result, the conversation between the two end users flows in near real time and in a faster manner than with a TTY or a text-based TRS call. VRS therefore provides a degree of “functional equivalency” that is not attainable with text-based TRS by allowing those persons whose primary language is ASL to communicate in sign language, just as a hearing person communicates in, *e.g.* , spoken English. VRS Equipment and Provider Marketing Practices VRS usage has grown rapidly. VRS first began in January 2002, with approximately 7,200 monthly minutes of use. By January 2004, there were nearly a half million monthly minutes of use. Most recently, in December 2005, the number of VRS minutes surpassed three million. *See* TRS Fund Performance Status Reports maintained by National Exchange Carrier Association (NECA), *http://www.neca.org* (under Resources, then TRS Fund). Further, there are now eight VRS providers, and more are expected. VRS consumers can use a variety of equipment to communicate with the VRS CA in the video-to-video leg of a VRS call. Consumers generally use either a small camera that connects to a personal computer (generally called a “webcam”) or a videophone that directly attaches to a television. Both must have a broadband Internet connection. Most commonly, VRS consumers use a videophone device that attaches to a television. These devices are popular because they do not require a computer and are easy to use. The D-link (also called “i2eye”) videophone and the VP-100 videophone, both developed by Sorenson, are the most widely used videophone devices. Petition at 4, note 4. The D-Link i2eye is available for purchase on the retail market for approximately $200 and also is offered for free by some VRS providers. The D-Link is essentially a more basic model than the VP 100, with fewer user interface features and a slightly lower quality of video image. Both use the same proprietary video compression technology that enables these devices to work effectively with TVs. The VP-100 videophone has additional features that distinguish it from the D-Link and other videophones. Also, the VP-100 videophone is available only from Sorenson, with the restrictions Sorenson has placed on the use of device, as discussed below. The popularity of VRS and the competition between the VRS providers to increase their share of the VRS market has resulted in the providers using a variety of marketing practices to gain new customers and a larger market share. These include the practice of distributing and installing VRS equipment at consumers' premises at no charge to the consumer. The Commission has made clear that the costs of consumer equipment that a provider may give to a consumer are not compensable from the Fund. *See* NECA, Interstate Telecommunications Relay Services Fund Payment Formula and Fund Size Estimate, CC Docket No. 98-67 at Appendix A (Relay Service Data Request Instructions), p. 4 (filed April 25, 2005) (stating that “[t]he cost of equipment given to, sold to, and/or used by relay callers, and call incentives, are not to be reported as expenses” (emphasis in original)); *VRS Marketing Practices Declaratory Ruling* , 20 FCC Rcd 1469, paragraph 8, note 30; published at 70 FR 9239 (February 25, 2005). Sorenson distributes VP-100s to its customers free of charge, but presently Sorenson does not permit its customers to use a VP-100 to make an outgoing VRS call through any VRS provider's service except its own. *See* Sorenson *Ex Parte* (January 6, 2006) at 12 (“Sorenson has decided to offer users a VP-100 only in conjunction with access to its interpreters”). Presently, a consumer who desires to obtain and use the Sorenson VP-100 can only make VRS calls through Sorenson's relay service, unless the consumer has a second piece of equipment and the ability to use his or her broadband Internet connection with either piece of equipment. *See* Sorenson Reply Comments at 4; *http://www.sorensonvrs.com/apply/index.php.* Sorenson allows customers to make peer-to-peer calls— *i.e.* , direct videophone-to-videophone calls—to other individuals free of charge even if the other party is not using a VP-100. These calls are not TRS calls and therefore are not regulated or compensated under section 225 of the Communications Act. Sorenson states that these calls constitute more than 80 percent of all Sorenson calls. Sorenson *Ex Parte* (January 6, 2006) at 10-11. The Commission notes that on February 20, 2006, Sorenson issued a press release announcing plans to allow, by July 1, 2006, users of its videophones to use the services of other VRS providers. * See http:// www.sorensonvrs.com. * That announcement, addressing Sorenson's future marketing plans, does not preclude us from ruling on the Petition. Another provider, Hands On, has engaged in a similar marketing practice that involves the distribution and installation of a free pre-configured router and videophone that restricts its customers to using its VRS service. The customers agreeing to this arrangement receive reimbursement from Hands On for their broadband access charge. *See* Sorenson *Ex Parte* (January 6, 2006) at 12-13 n.33; CSD *Ex Parte Letter* (November 7, 2005). Hands On asserts that it adopted the practice of blocking access to competitors over the broadband service it provides “out of competitive necessity to prevent loss of market share.” Hands On *Ex Parte* (November 11, 2005) at 13 (attachment). Hands On further asserts, however, that it does not block videophones supplied by competitors, and that in any event it “believes all blocking of consumer access to competitors should be prohibited” because otherwise other providers will do the same and “balkanize the VRS market.” The Petition Petitioner requests a Declaratory Ruling that VRS providers receiving compensation from the Fund are prohibited from restricting VRS equipment from accessing other VRS providers, because that this practice violates the principle of functional equivalency. Petition at iii-iv, 8-10; *see* 47 U.S.C. 225(a)(3). Petitioner focuses in particular on Sorenson's practice of giving its VP-100 videophone to consumers for free but restricting its use to Sorenson's VRS service and blocking customers from contacting any other VRS provider. Petitioner asserts that this practice violates functional equivalency because Sorenson's customers are unable to use the services of other VRS provider for any incoming or outgoing calls. Petition at iii. Petitioner asserts that although consumers could access multiple providers by having two sets of equipment, “having two sets of devices creates a considerable burden for consumers,” who must, for example, “keep separate lists of contacts, unique names and passwords, and learn how to operate two systems.” Petition at iv. Petitioner states that “just as hearing people are not expected to have two separate devices to make or receive calls * * * neither should VRS users be expected to have dual equipment.” Petition at iv. The Petition also emphasizes that because it is not always possible to promptly reach an available CA, if VRS equipment is restricted consumers have no choice but to wait for an available CA; they cannot, instead, try to place a call through another provider. Petition at iv at 5. Petitioner also argues that a consumer's consent cannot justify compensating a provider from the Interstate TRS Fund, if that provider is restricting the use of its equipment. Petition at iv at 5. Petitioner also asserts that deaf VRS consumers accepting Sorenson's equipment often do not have a full understanding of restrictions placed on their use of the equipment. Petition at 10. Petitioner states that as “the final arbiter of the [Interstate TRS] Fund, the [Commission] has a duty to ensure that all providers of VRS act in a manner that does not frustrate the purposes of section 225 of the Communications Act, or interfere with the other objectives of the Communications Act.” Petition at 24. Petitioner also asserts that requiring interoperability is in the public's interest. Petitioner emphasizes that blocking access to other VRS providers creates a serious danger for VRS consumers attempting to place a VRS call in the event of an emergency. Petition at 19-22. Petitioner notes that many videophone users have abandoned their TTYs and choose to use VRS exclusively for calls to hearing individuals. Petition at 19-20. As a result, in the event of an emergency, if a consumer cannot promptly reach a CA through the only VRS provider they are allowed to use with their equipment, they will not be able to call emergency services at all. Petition at 20. Petitioner contends that a “practice that prohibits customers from accessing another VRS provider [during an emergency] conflicts with our nation's homeland security polices, which are designed to facilitate, not restrict, access to emergency support—especially when an emergency strikes a sizeable area.” Petitioner also notes that there may be times when a provider's service is shut down or overwhelmed by an influx of calls, and that in such cases it is imperative that consumers have access to all VRS providers, as well as all available interpreters. Petition at 22. Finally, Petitioner asserts that restricting the use of VRS equipment to a single provider is at odds with the Commission's emphasis on open and integrated telecommunications networks, including the Internet, and interconnection principles. Petitioner maintains that this practice is “contrary to the Commission's overall efforts to achieve a seamless and integrated network of communications services, and inconsistent with national policies promoting competition, nondiscriminatory practices, and dialing parity.” Petition at iii. Petitioner states that “Congress and the Commission have consistently renewed their commitment to policies that promote the interconnection of services and equipment, in the interest of both furthering competition and facilitating use of the nation's public telecommunications networks by the broadest number of consumers.” Petition at 8. Petitioner emphasizes that the requirement in the TRS rules that providers offer consumers their long distance carrier of choice “is a form of interoperability designed to foster competition for relay calls made over long distance.” Petition at 8. Relatedly, Petitioner asserts that requiring interoperability would level the playing field and foster competition by encouraging new providers to offer service. Petition at 22-23. The Comments On March 1, 2005, the Petition was placed on Public Notice. *See Petition for Declaratory Ruling filed by the California Coalition of Agencies Serving the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (CCASDHH) concerning Video Relay Service

(VRS)Interoperability),* CC Docket No. 98-67, CG Docket No. 03-123, Public Notice, 20 FCC Rcd 4162 (March 1, 2005); published at 70 FR 12884 (March 16, 2005) ( *Interoperability PN* ). Six TRS providers and six organizations filed comments and reply comments. Of these commenters, only Sorenson opposes the Petition. Numerous individuals also filed comments and reply comments, most of which generally support the Petition. Many *ex parte* meetings and paper filings also occurred. *The Comments* . Supporting commenters generally make the same arguments as Petitioner. They assert that because equipment restrictions limit the ability of the consumers to use their VRS provider of choice, the practice violates the functional equivalency mandate. The commenters argue that consumers should not be locked into using one provider's relay service simply because the provider gave the consumer free VRS equipment. Commenters further assert that this practice compels consumers who desire to have access to multiple providers to have more than one videophone device, which is burdensome and costly. Commenters state that it is inconsistent with functional equivalency to require consumers using VRS to use two or more separate video devices to ensure that they can promptly reach a VRS CA (the equivalent of reaching a dial tone when hearing people can use a single conventional voice phone). Commenters also emphasize that restricting the use of VRS equipment can thwart a consumer's ability to contact promptly emergency services. If the consumer cannot promptly reach a CA ( *e.g.* , because of long wait times), the inability to place a call through another VRS provider puts their safety at risk. Most individual commenters also express the desire to be able to call any of the VRS providers in an emergency. *Sorenson's Response* . Sorenson opposes the Petition. Sorenson acknowledges that it presently does not permit a consumer to use its VP-100 device to place a VRS call through any other VRS provider's service. But Sorenson asserts that consumers using the VP-100 still remain free to use any providers' VRS service with any other equipment they may have. Sorenson characterizes its VRS service as a “total service platform,” which it states it has developed at considerable expense. According to Sorenson, this platform includes provision of the VP-100 with its “high-quality video imagery,” access to highly trained interpreters, maintenance and repair of all elements of its service (including the VP-100), and unlimited point-to-point calling. Sorenson asserts that each provider “should be free to offer whatever service packages it thinks will be most attractive to consumers.” Sorenson also describes its total service platform approach as consistent with the approach used by most consumer communications today, such as wireless providers. Sorenson argues that if it were forced to “unbundled its platform,” *i.e.,* permit consumers to use its VP-100 with other VRS providers, the VP-100 would no longer be part of Sorenson's service and therefore, *e.g.,* Sorenson would not be responsible for maintaining and repairing the equipment. Sorenson further asserts that if it is required to permit consumers to use its VP-100 to make calls through other providers' VRS service, “much of the incentive to develop innovations will disappear because any new technology will be shared with all other VRS providers, thus precluding the inventor from recovering or profiting on any investment made.” Sorenson Reply Comments at 11; Sorenson *Ex Parte* (January 6, 2006) at 17. Sorenson contends that under section 225 of the Communications Act, the Commission has the obligation to ensure that the TRS regulations encourage, not impair, the development of new technology and that it has a duty to make TRS available to all Americans in an expeditious manner as possible. Sorenson therefore argues that allowing a competitive VRS market without regulatory intervention—such as an interoperability requirement—will “encourage providers to invest in advanced technology for VRS products and services, which will, in-turn, benefit the deaf and hard-of-hearing communities.” Sorenson also maintains that its proposed solution for handling emergency calls made via their VRS service—identifying emergency calls that are in queue and routing them to a CA trained in facilitating the VRS caller in reaching an appropriate PSAP—negates the argument that providing access to emergency service requires interoperability. Sorenson *Ex Parte* (January 6, 2006) at 18-20. Sorenson asserts that they are implementing a process whereby incoming VRS customers calling 9-1-1 will automatically be moved to the front of the queue and that those incoming calls will be routed to CAs who are specially trained regarding proper handling of 9-1-1 calls. Sorenson explains that it “plans to integrate software that automatically moves the caller, in an emergency situation, to the front of the queue for the next available operator.” Discussion The Commission concludes that a provider's practice of restricting the use of VRS as described herein—including by blocking calls to other providers or providing degraded service quality for connections to the service of other VRS providers—is inconsistent with the functional equivalency mandate, the public interest, and the TRS regime as intended by Congress. The Commission further concludes that all VRS consumers must be able to place a VRS call through any of the VRS providers' service, and all VRS providers must be able to receive calls from, and make calls to, any VRS consumer. As a result, effective July 31, 2006, any VRS provider restricting the use of its service so that a consumer cannot use it to place or receive a call through any of the VRS providers' relay service will be ineligible for compensation from the Interstate TRS Fund. *See paragraph 43, infra* addressing effective date. *Functional Equivalency* . The Commission concludes that restricting access to competing VRS providers is inconsistent with section 225 of the Communications Act's functional equivalency mandate. 47 U.S.C. 225(a)(3). Voice telephone users reach a dial tone almost instantaneously every time they pick up the telephone. For TRS users, the Commission has recognized that reaching a CA ready to handle the call is essentially the same as reaching a dial tone. *See* , *e.g., 2004 TRS Report and Order* , 19 FCC Rcd 12480, paragraph 3, note 18. Therefore, “the ability of a TRS user to reach a CA prepared to place his or her call * * * is fundamental to the concept of ‘functional equivalency.’ ” *Call Handling Practices PN,* 20 FCC Rcd 1474; published at 70 FR 8034 (February 17, 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). For this reason, the TRS regulations include a speed of answer requirement so that a TRS user does not have to wait to reach a CA. *See 2005 VRS Speed of Answer Order,* 20 FCC Rcd 13168, paragraph 6; published at 70 FR 51649 (August 1, 2005). For text-based TRS services, the speed of answer requires that 85 percent of all calls be answered within 10 seconds. 47 CFR 64.604(b)(2) of the Commission's rules. Presently, for VRS, the speed of answer rule requires 80 percent of all calls to be answered within three minutes. *See 2005 VRS Speed of Answer Order,* 20 FCC Rcd 13165, paragraph 1 (although this requirement had been waived for VRS, effective January 1, 2006, 80 percent of all VRS calls must be answered within 3 minutes). This longer speed of answer period for VRS reflects concerns over the shortage of qualified interpreters available to handle VRS calls. *2005 VRS Speed of Answer Order* 13174-13175, paragraph 18. If a consumer is limited to using only one provider's service, the consumer is dependent solely on that provider to reach a CA available to place a call. If there is a long wait time, or the call is urgent, the consumer cannot attempt to contact a CA of another provider's service because such calls are blocked. Therefore, at any particular moment in time, a VRS user is at a disadvantage compared to voice callers because a CA may not be available to handle the VRS user's call, and the VRS user cannot promptly reach a “dial tone.” As CAC states, “[w]hen a hearing person picks up the telephone to make a call, that individual can immediately access anyone, anytime, regardless of the telephone carrier to which that person or the called party subscribes. This same capacity is not being made available to those VRS users who are restricted to one service provider. These consumers are presently unable to switch to another provider to make their calls, even when their primary provider has no dial tone *i.e.,* no interpreter available to place the call.” CAC Comments at 3. Although the VRS speed of answer requirement was adopted to address this issue, because compliance with the rule is measured on a monthly basis, and the compliance rate is presently 80 percent of all calls, even if the standard is met a VRS user may have to wait a significant amount of time to reach a CA. Therefore, in these circumstances, speed of answer does not necessarily ensure functional equivalency for any particular call. The Commission also believes that it is inconsistent with functional equivalency to require VRS users to have two sets of equipment to ensure that they can promptly reach a CA, and impractical in an urgent situation to expect users to have to switch out equipment if one provider is not available quickly enough. For many consumers, particularly those that are not technologically sophisticated, switching relay equipment that is attached to the consumer's broadband Internet connection is not a simple matter. For example, at a minimum the consumer must ensure that:

(1)He or she has selected the right piece of equipment for the particular provider;

(2)the equipment is turned on and plugged into the Internet connection;

(3)the other piece of equipment is turned off and disconnected from the Internet connection; and

(4)the piece of equipment is properly configured to read the correct IP address of the VRS provider. Voice telephone users are not required to have multiple sets of equipment to obtain a dial tone and access the telephone network. In addition, this is burdensome and costly. Further, requiring consumers to have two sets of equipment to access multiple providers adversely affects a VRS user's ability to receive incoming calls. If, for example, only one device is turned on, the router may nevertheless direct the incoming call to the device that is turned off, and as a result the VRS user will miss the call. Voice telephone users do not similarly risk missing incoming calls because of the necessity of having multiple equipment to ensure access to a dial tone. Further, call blocking adversely affects the ability of hearing person to successfully initiate a VRS call. If a hearing person is limited to calling a deaf person through one provider's service, the choices of the hearing person are constrained by an arrangement to which he or she is not a party and likely does not even know about. The hearing person may attempt to place a VRS call through several providers before reaching the one provider that can place a call to the VRS user. This not only discourages VRS calls initiated by hearing persons, but again is inconsistent with TRS as a service that must be available to give persons with hearing and speech disabilities access to the telephone system, regardless whether the person with a disability or the voice telephone user initiates the call. In sum, consistent with functional equivalency, all VRS consumers must be able to place a VRS call through any of the VRS providers' service, and all VRS providers must be able to receive calls from, and make calls to, any VRS consumer. Therefore, a provider may not block calls so that VRS equipment cannot be used with other providers' service. In addition, a provider may not take other steps that restrict a consumer's unfettered access to other providers' service. This includes the practice of providing degraded service quality to consumers using VRS equipment or service with another provider's service. Finally, new providers seeking to offer service have the burden of ensuring that their service is interoperable with existing providers' service. *The Public Interest and Access to Emergency Services.* The Commission has repeatedly emphasized the public interest importance of ensuring that consumers have access to emergency services. Because a VRS user, like all consumers, must be able to contact promptly emergency services, the Commission also concludes that restricting consumers to contacting a single VRS provider is inconsistent with the public interest. As noted above, many individuals with hearing and speech disabilities use TRS to contact emergency services. If a VRS user is restricted to placing a call with one provider, and that provider's wait time prevents the user from promptly reaching a CA in the event of an emergency, the consumer may suffer serious harm. Even assuming a VRS provider is able to develop a means of promptly handling emergency calls, this does not negate the broader public interest in ensuring full VRS access to all providers. In the event of an emergency, or an event that might temporarily affect a particular provider's ability to offer service, consumers must be able to call any CA to reach emergency services. Particularly in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, and recent hurricanes in the Gulf Coast, the Commission finds that it is essential to ensure that VRS consumers are not dependent on services of a single provider in the event of an emergency. *Call Blocking Cannot be Justified as Part of a “Total Platform Service.* Sorenson contends that it may receive compensation from the Fund regardless of how it provisions relay service with equipment and other services. Sorenson's argument is premised on at least four points:

(1)The provision of TRS is no different from the provision of other communication services to the public, including wireless telephone calls, traditional wireline telephone calls, and satellite television;

(2)TRS providers therefore may offer whatever “service package” they like, which may include bundling equipment, the relaying of calls, maintenance and repair of the equipment, and additional features;

(3)bundling equipment with service is essential to ensuring that the provider recovers the cost of developing the equipment ( *i.e.* , a return on investment) and therefore can continue to innovate; and

(4)bundling equipment with service permits deaf consumers to use the equipment to make free peer-to-peer calls, which furthers the goal of improving communication for deaf people. As summarized below, Sorenson's points cannot support the use of the Interstate TRS Fund to compensate call blocking practices. First, TRS is fundamentally different from the provision of wireless telephone, satellite television, or similar services that may bundle equipment and services in that these services are market-based and, unlike TRS, are paid for by any consumer wishing to subscribe. By contrast, TRS is an accommodation for persons with disabilities required of voice telephone providers as mandated by Congress. TRS is fully compensated by the states and the Federal Interstate TRS Fund; it is not paid for by the consumer. Moreover, section 225 of the Communications Act focuses on the provision of relay service. Indeed, this is apparent from the plain language of section 225 of the Communications Act, which is directed at “services” that carriers must offer in their service areas that enable communication between persons who use a TTY or other nonvoice terminal device and an individual who does not use such device. 47 U.S.C. 225(a)(3) and (c); *see also* CSD and Hamilton *Ex Parte* (January 25, 2006) at 5 (attachment) (“the FCC has always interpreted the ADA's TRS mandates to require the provision of relay services, not the manufacture and distribution of equipment uses with those services”). Section 225 of the Communications Act requires carriers to make relay service available to handle calls that consumers choose to make, and provides a mechanism whereby they will be compensated for their reasonable costs of operating relay facilities and relaying calls. For this reason, relay users have traditionally purchased their own devices ( *e.g.* , TTYs) or received them from state programs. Although more recently some providers have distributed free TRS equipment to consumers, consistent with the purpose of section 225 of the Communications Act, the Commission has made clear that the costs of consumer equipment are not compensable from the Fund. Second, and for the same reason, not all “service packages” marketed by TRS providers are compensable from the Fund under section 225 of the Communications Act. TRS is a service that certain common carriers are required to offer (and that some non-common carriers such as Sorenson have voluntarily chosen to offer) that is defined by section 225 of the Communications Act and the TRS mandatory minimum standards. If a provider offers service in compliance with these rules, it may be compensated from the Fund. But an entity cannot determine for itself that it is going to provide something different than or beyond the Commission's rules, and still expect compensation from the Fund. For example, Video Remote Interpreting

(VRI)is a commercial service similar to VRS for which consumers must pay a fee. *See generally Call Handling Practices PN,* 20 FCC Rcd 1475 (distinguishing VRI and VRS). Sorenson make the related argument that call blocking is necessary to allow it to recover the cost of developing its equipment. *See, e.g.* , Sorenson Comments at 29. As noted above, entities that develop customer equipment are, of course, free to sell their equipment to consumers to recover their investment in the equipment. Sorenson's final argument, that its “bundled” approach permits deaf consumers to make free peer-to-peer calls, is irrelevant to the fundamental point that to receive compensation from the Fund a company must allow full unrestricted access to this nation's communications network. In related contexts, the Commission has repeatedly adhered to policies favoring open access to networks and interoperability of terminal equipment. For example, in the context of connecting terminal equipment to the telephone network, the Commission has promulgated a series of rules to ensure open access and interoperability. *See* 47 CFR 68.1 *et seq.* Moreover, policies of open access and interconnection were fundamental to the Telecommunications Act of 1996. For example, section 251 of the Communications Act provides a duty of telecommunications carriers to interconnect with other carriers and “not to install network features, functions, or capabilities that do not comply with the guidelines and standards established pursuant to section 255 of the Communications Act (Access by Persons with Disabilities).” 47 U.S.C. 251(a)(1) & (2). *Research and Development.* Some commenters assert that in connection with requiring interoperability the Commission should permit recovery of some costs for research and development relating to the improvement of VRS service. The Commission has previously emphasized that, as a general matter, engineering and other expenses for research and development to meet waived mandatory minimum standards, or to provide enhancements beyond applicable non-waived mandatory minimum standards, are not compensable from the Fund. *See, e.g., 2004 TRS Report and Order,* 19 FCC Rcd 12547-12548, paragraphs 188-189. The Commission clarifies, however, that to the extent providers engage in research and development directed at the provision of service to the consumer as required by the rules, *e.g.* , the routing and handling of calls at the relay center, such costs may be compensable subject to the “reasonableness” standard. Such costs do not include those directed at issues inherent in Internet-based services generally or the provision of Voice over IP (VoIP). *Notification.* The Commission requires any VRS provider that has restricted the use of TRS equipment to notify their customers by July 1, 2006, that, upon the effective date of this *Declaratory Ruling,* they may make or receive a VRS call through any of the providers. Further, as of that date, it will be an impermissible marketing practice for any provider to tell or suggest to any consumer that the consumer may not be used to make a relay call through another provider's service. *Cf. Call Handling Practices PN,* (addressing improper TRS marketing practices). *Effective Date.* The Commission recognizes that because the provision of VRS is now subject to a speed of answer requirement, and as a result of this order some providers may experience an increase in call volume, all providers may need a period of time to adjust their operations to take into account the possible effect of this order. *See, e.g.* , Sorenson *Ex Parte* (January 24, 2006) at 1 (requesting if the Commission requires interoperability a reasonable amount of time “to implement software, hardware, and other modifications necessary to comply” with the new rule); Hands On *Ex Parte* (January 27, 2006) (noting that elimination of call blocking may result in a “temporary dislocation of the market” as consumers will be free to choose any provider to make a VRS call, and therefore requesting a 90 day waiver of the speed of answer requirement). For these reasons, this *Declaratory Ruling* shall be effective July 31, 2006. Beginning on that date, any VRS provider restricting its service as described above will be ineligible for compensation from the Fund. Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended

(RFA)requires that a regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared for rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. 601-612, has been amended by the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, 110 Statute 847

(1996)(CWAAA). Title II of the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996 (SBREFA). The RFA generally defines “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” 5 U.S.C. 605(b). In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of “small business concern” in the Small Business Act, 5 U.S.C. 632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies “unless an agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the **Federal Register** .” A “small business concern” is one which:

(1)Is independently owned and operated;

(2)is not dominant in its field of operation; and

(3)satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). 15 U.S.C. 632. This *Declaratory Ruling* addresses a petition requesting the Commission to declare that a VRS provider may not receive compensation from the Interstate TRS Fund if it blocks calls to competing VRS providers. *See CCASDHH Petition* , note 1, *supra* . The Commission concludes that the practice of restricting the use of VRS to a particular provider is inconsistent with the TRS regime as intended by Congress, and raises serious public safety concerns. *See* 47 U.S.C. 225(a)(3), note 2, *supra* . The Commission further concludes that all VRS consumers must be able to place a VRS call through any of the VRS providers' service, and all VRS providers must be able to receive calls from, and make calls to, any VRS consumer. As consumers increasingly rely on VRS as their preferred means of using TRS to access the telephone system, the Commission finds that it is in the public interest that all VRS consumers can place and receive calls through any VRS providers' service in the event of emergency and urgency. Therefore, this *Declaratory Ruling* concludes that providers must ensure that all VRS consumers can place and receive calls through any of the VRS providers' service in order to receive compensation from the Interstate TRS Fund. The Interstate TRS Fund administrator distributes the VRS providers for reasonable costs of providing VRS. Each year, the Interstate TRS Fund administrator, the National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc. (NECA), proposes the compensation rates for the various forms of TRS, including VRS, to the Commission. NECA collects and reviews projected cost and minutes of use data submitted by TRS providers to determine the annual TRS compensation rates. Reasonable compliance cost is included in the projected cost submitted by TRS providers. *See* paragraphs 8-9, *supra* . *See also* , TRS Fund Performance Status Reports maintained by National Exchange Carrier Association

(NECA)as of October 31, 2005, *http://www.neca.org* (under Resources, then TRS Fund). In order to be compensated for the costs of providing VRS, the providers are required to meet the applicable TRS mandatory minimum standards as required in § 64.604. *See generally* 47 CFR 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(E) of the Commission's rules. Reasonable costs of compliance with this *Declaratory Ruling* are compensable from the Fund. Because the providers will be recouped for the costs of compliance within a reasonable period, the Commission asserts that the providers will not be detrimentally burdened. Therefore, the Commission certifies that the requirements of the *Declaratory Ruling* will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Commission also notes that, arguably, there are not a substantial number of small entities that will be affected by our action. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which consists of all such firms having 1,500 or fewer employees. 13 CFR 121.201 of the Commission's rules, NAICS code 517110. According to Census Bureau data for 1997, there were 2,225 firms in this category which operated for the entire year. U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series: Information, “Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of Organization),” Table 5, NAICS code 513310 (issued Oct. 2000). Of this total, 2,201 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and an additional 24 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small. (The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer employees; the largest category provided is “Firms with 1,000 employees or more.”) Currently, only eight providers are providing VRS and being compensated from the Interstate TRS Fund: AT&T Corp.; Communication Access Center for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc.; Hamilton Relay, Inc.; Hands On; MCI; Nordia Inc.; Sorenson; and Sprint. The Commission notes that two of the providers noted above are small entities under the SBA's small business size standard. Because two of the affected providers will be promptly compensated within a reasonable period for complying with this *Declaratory Ruling* , the Commission concludes that the number of small entities affected by our decision in this Order is not substantial. Therefore, the Commission certifies that the requirements of this *Declaratory Ruling* will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Commission will send a copy of this Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification, in a report to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. *See* 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). In addition, the *Declaratory Ruling* and this final certification will be sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. *See* 5 U.S.C. 605(b). Congressional Review Act The Commission will not send a copy of the *Declaratory Ruling* pursuant to the Congressional Review Act because the adopted rules are rules of particular applicability. *See* 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). Ordering Clauses Pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1.2 and 225 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152 and 225, the *Declaratory Ruling* is adopted. CCASDHH's Petition is granted to the extent indicated herein. The Declaratory Ruling shall become effective July 31, 2006. The Commission will send a copy of the *Declaratory Ruling* , including a copy of this Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-8376 Filed 5-30-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 73 [DA 06-992; MB Docket No. 05-269; RM-11267] Radio Broadcasting Services; Allegan, Mattawan, and Otsego, MI AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This document grants a petition filed by Forum Communications, Inc., licensee of FM Station WZUU, proposing the substitution of Channel 223A for Channel 222A at Allegan, reallotment of Channel 223A from Allegan to Mattawan, Michigan, as its first local service and modification of the FM Station WZUU license accordingly. To prevent removal of Allegan's sole local service, the document grants the reallotment of co-owned Station WQXC-FM, Channel 265A from Otsego to Allegan, Michigan and modification of the Station WQXC-FM license accordingly. A staff engineering analysis has determined that Channel 223A can be allotted to Mattawan in conformity with the Commission's rules, provided there is a site restriction of 10.6 kilometers (6.6 miles) southeast at reference coordinates 42-07-45 NL and 85-43-13 WL. Additionally, Channel 265A can be allotted to Allegan in compliance with the Commission's rules, at the Station WQXC(FM) existing transmitter site at coordinates 42-30-31 NL and 85-46-08 WL. The reallotments are located within 320 kilometers (200 miles) of the U.S.-Canadian border. Canadian concurrence has been requested and approved for these reallotments. DATES: Effective June 22, 2006. ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rolanda F. Smith, Media Bureau,

(202)418-2180. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's *Report and Order* , MB Docket No. 05-269, adopted May 5, 2006, and released May 8, 2006. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the Commission's Reference Center, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20054, telephone 1-800-378-3160 or *http://www.BCPIWEB.com.* The Commission will send a copy of this *Report and Order* in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, *see* 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 Radio, Radio broadcasting. For reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 73 as follows: PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows: Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336. § 73.202 [Amended] 1. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Michigan, is amended by removing Channel 222A and by adding Channel 265A at Allegan, by adding Mattawan, Channel 223A, and by removing Ostego, Channel 265A. Federal Communications Commission. John A. Karousos, Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau. [FR Doc. E6-8162 Filed 5-30-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 73 [DA 06-955; MB Docket No. 05-292; RM-11281] Radio Broadcasting Services; Churchville and Keswick, VA and Marlinton, WV AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: In response to a *Notice of Proposed Rule Making,* this *Report and Order* allots Channel 292A to Marlinton, West Virginia. In addition it substitutes Channel 291A for Channel 292B1, Station WBOP(FM), Churchville, Virginia, reallots Channel 291A to Keswick, Virginia, and modifies Station WBOP(FM)'s license accordingly. The coordinates for Channel 292A at Marlinton, West Virginia, are 38-13-24 NL and 80-05-41 WL. The coordinates for Channel 291A at Keswick, Virginia, are 38-01-48 NL and 78-22-55 WL, with a site restriction of 2.1 kilometers (1.3 miles) northwest of Keswick. DATES: Effective June 19, 2006. ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission; 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: R. Barthen Gorman, Media Bureau,

(202)418-2180. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's *Report and Order,* MB Docket No. 05-292, adopted May 3, 2006 and released May 5, 2006. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-800-378-3160 or *http://www.BCPIWEB.com.* The Commission will send a copy of this *Report and Order* in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, *see* 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 Radio, Radio broadcasting. For reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 73 as follows: PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES 1. The authority citation for part 73 reads as follows: Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336. § 73.202 [Amended] 2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Virginia, is amended by removing Churchville, Channel 292B1, and adding Keswick, Channel 291A. 3. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under West Virginia, is amended by adding Marlinton, Channel 292A. Federal Communications Commission. John A. Karousos, Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau. [FR Doc. E6-8160 Filed 5-30-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 73 [DA 06-986; MB Docket No. 04-375; RM-11038] Radio Broadcasting Services; Hillsborough and Louisburg, NC AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Audio Division, at the request of New Century Media Group, LLC, reallots Channel 273A from Louisburg, North Carolina to Hillsborough, North Carolina, and modifies the license of Station WKXU(FM), accordingly. The coordinates for Channel 273 at Hillsborough are 36-06-49 North Latitude and 79-00-20 West Longitude, with a site restriction of 9.51 kilometers (5.91 miles) northeast of the community. DATES: Effective June 26, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Helen McLean, Media Bureau,

(202)418-2738. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's *Report and Order,* MB Docket No. 04-375, adopted May 10, 2006, and released May 12, 2006. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC's Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-800-378-3160 or *http://www.BCPIWEB.com.* The Commission will send a copy of this *Report and Order* in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, *see* 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 Radio, Radio broadcasting. As stated in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 73 as follows: PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES 1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows: Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336. § 73.202 [Amended] 2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under North Carolina, is amended by removing Louisburg, Channel 273A and by adding Hillsborough, Channel 273A. Federal Communications Commission. John A. Karousos, Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau. [FR Doc. E6-8171 Filed 5-30-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 73 [DA 06-1005; MB Docket No. 05-125, RM-11176] Radio Broadcasting Services; Weaverville, Palo Cedro, and Alturas, CA AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Audio Division, at the request of George S. Flinn, Jr., licensee of Station KWCA(FM), Channel 266A, Weaverville, California, deletes Channel 266A at Weaverville, California, from the FM Table of Allotments, allots Channel 266C3 at Palo Cedro, California as the community's first local FM service, and modifies the license of Station KWCA(FM) to specify operation on Channel 266C3 at Palo Cedro, California. In order to accommodate that allotment, the Audio Division further deletes vacant Channel 267C at Alturas, California, and allots, in its place, Channel 268C1 at Alturas. Channel 266C3 can be allotted to Palo Cedro, California, in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements with a site restriction of 19.6 km (12.2 miles) northwest of Palo Cedro. The coordinates for Channel 266C3 at Palo Cedro, California, are 40-40-04 North Latitude and 122-25-31 West Longitude. Channel 268C1 can be allotted at Alturas, California, with a site restriction of 48.1 km (29.9 miles) west of Alturas. The coordinates for Channel 268C1 at Alturas, California, are 41-25-00 NL and 121-06-32 WL. DATES: Effective June 26, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah Dupont, Media Bureau,

(202)418-2180. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's *Report and Order* , MB Docket No. 05-125, adopted May 10, 2006, and released May 12, 2006. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this decision also may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554,

(800)378-3160, or via the company's Web site, *http://www.bcpiweb.com* . The Commission will send a copy of this *Report and Order* in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, *see* U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). List of Subjects in 47 CFR part 73 Radio, Radio broadcasting. As stated in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 73 as follows: PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES 1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows: Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336. § 73.202 [Amended] 2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under California is amended by removing Channel 267C and adding Channel 268C1 at Alturas, by removing Channel 266A at Weaverville, and by adding Palo Cedro, Channel 266C3. Federal Communications Commission. John A. Karousos, Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau. [FR Doc. E6-8153 Filed 5-30-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 73 [DA 06-954; MB Docket No. 05-316; RM-11294] Radio Broadcasting Services; Arnold and City of Angels, CA AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: In response to a *Notice of Proposed Rule Making* , this *Report and Order* allots Channel 240A, FM Station KBYN, Arnold, California from Arnold to City of Angels, California, and modifies Station KBYN's license accordingly. The coordinates for Channel 240A at City of Angels, California are 38-05-32 NL and 120-27-22 WL, with a site restriction of 8.6 kilometers (5.3 miles) east of City of Angels. DATES: Effective June 19, 2006. ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission; 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: R. Barthen Gorman, Media Bureau,

(202)418-2180. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's *Report and Order* , MB Docket No. 05-316, adopted May 3, 2006 and released May 5, 2006. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-800-378-3160 or *http://www.BCPIWEB.com* . The Commission will send a copy of this *Report and Order* in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, *see* 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 Radio, Radio broadcasting. For reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 73 as follows: PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES 1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows: Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336. § 73.202 [Amended] 2. Section 73.202 (b), the Table of FM Allotments under California, is amended by removing Channel 240A at Arnold, and adding City of Angels, Channel 240A. Federal Communications Commission. John A. Karousos, Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau. [FR Doc. E6-8156 Filed 5-30-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 73 [DA 06-1004; MB Docket No. 05-166, RM-11228] Radio Broadcasting Services; McAlester, Okemah, and Wilburton, OK AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The staff grants a rulemaking petition jointly filed by Little Dixie Radio, Inc., KESC Enterprises, Inc., and Southeastern Oklahoma Radio, LLC, to reallot and change the community of license for Station KESC(FM) from Channel 279C1 at Wilburton to Channel 279C1 at Okemah, Oklahoma, as a first local service. To prevent the removal of the sole local aural service at Wilburton, the staff approved the “back-fill” reallotment and change of community for Station KMCO(FM) from Channel 267C1 at McAlester, Oklahoma, to Channel 267C1 at Wilburton, Oklahoma. With this action, the proceeding is terminated. DATES: Effective June 26, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew J. Rhodes, Media Bureau,

(202)418-2180. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MM Docket No. 05-166, adopted May 10, 2006, and released May 12, 2006. 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. 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 20054, telephone 1-800-378-3160 or *http://www.BCPIWEB.com.* The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order in this proceeding in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). The reference coordinates for Channel 279C1 at Okemah are 35-14-22 NL and 96-18-48 WL. Station KMCO(FM) is not changing its transmitter site. The reference coordinates for Channel 267C1 at Wilburton are 34-59-13 NL and 95-42-10 WL. The staff also denied objections filed by Maryellen Mooney and Doncie Campagna. In denying these objections, the staff held that the “back-fill” reallotment of Channel 267C1 at Wilburton will be an adequate substitute for Channel 279C1 from a technical standpoint. List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 Radio, Radio broadcasting. As stated in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 73 as follows: PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES 1. The authority for part 73 continues to read as follows: Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336. § 73.202 [Amended] 2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Oklahoma, is amended by removing Channel 267C1 at McAlester, by adding Okemah, Channel 279C1, and by removing Channel 279C1 and adding Channel 267C1 at Wilburton. Federal Communications Commission. John A. Karousos, Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau. [FR Doc. E6-8149 Filed 5-30-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 73 [DA 06-1007; MB Docket No. 05-162; RM-11227, RM-11295] Radio Broadcasting Services; Enfield, New Hampshire; Hartford, VT; Keeseville and Morrisonville, NY and White River Junction, VT AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: In response to a *Notice of Proposed Rule Making* , this *Report and Order*

(1)allots Channel 282A to Enfield, New Hampshire as its first local aural transmission service;

(2)reallots Channel 282C3 from Hartford, Vermont, to Keeseville, New York, and modifies the license of FM Station WWOD accordingly;

(3)reallots Channel 237A from White River Junction, Vermont, to Hartford, Vermont and modifies the license of FM Station WXLF accordingly, and

(4)reallots Channel 231A from Keeseville, New York, to Morrisonville, New York, as Morrisonville's first local aural transmission service. The coordinates for Channel 282A at Enfield, New Hampshire are 43-38-30 North Latitude and 72-08-42 West Longitude, with no site restrictions. The coordinates for Channel 282C3 at Keeseville, New York are 44-31-31 North Latitude and 73-31-07 West Longitude, with a site restriction of 3.8 kilometers (2.3 miles) northwest of Keeseville. The coordinates for Channel 237A at Hartford, Vermont, are 43-43-45 North Latitude and 72-22-22 West Longitude, with a site restriction of 8.1 kilometers (5.0 miles) north of Hartford. The coordinates for Channel 231A at Morrisonville, New York are 44-40-19 North Latitude and 73-32-17 West Longitude, with a site restriction of 3.0 kilometers (1.9 miles) southeast of Morrisonville. DATES: Effective June 26, 2006. ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission; 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: R. Barthen Gorman, Media Bureau,

(202)418-2180. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's *Report and Order* , MB Docket No. 05-162, adopted May 10, 2006, and released May 12, 2006. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-800-378-3160 or *http://www.BCPIWEB.com.* The Commission will send a copy of this *Report and Order* in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, *see* 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). Station WWOD was granted a license to specify operation on Channel 282C3 in lieu of Channel 282A at Hartford, Vermont. *See* File No. BLH-1996 0919 KA. List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 Radio, Radio Broadcasting. As stated in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 73 as follows: PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES 1. The authority citation for part 73 reads as follows: Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336. § 73.202 [Amended] 2. Section 73.202 (b), the Table of FM Allotments under New Hampshire, is amended by adding Enfield, Channel 282A. 3. Section 73.202 (b), the Table of FM Allotments under New York, is amended by removing Channel 231A and adding Channel 282C3 at Keeseville and by adding Morrisonville, Channel 231A. 4. Section 73.202 (b), the Table of FM Allotments under Vermont, is amended by removing Channel 282A and adding Channel 237A at Hartford; and by removing White River Junction, Channel 237A. Federal Communications Commission. John A. Karousos, Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau. [FR Doc. E6-8150 Filed 5-30-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 73 [DA 06-1006; MB Docket No. 05-123, RM-11191] Radio Broadcasting Services; Alturas, CA AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Audio Division, at the request of George S. Finn, Jr., allots Channel 277C at Alturas, California, as the community's fourth local FM service. Channel 277C can be allotted to Alturas, California, in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements with a site restriction of 18.2 kilometers (11.3 miles) east of Alturas. The coordinates for Channel 277C at Alturas, California, are 41-31-30 North Latitude and 120-19-45 West Longitude. DATES: Effective June 26, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah Dupont, Media Bureau,

(202)418-2180. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's *Report and Order* , MB Docket No. 05-123, adopted May 10, 2006, and released May 12, 2006. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this decision also may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554,

(800)378-3160, or via the company's Web site, *http://www.bcpiweb.com.* The Commission will send a copy of this *Report and Order* in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, *see* U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 Radio, Radio broadcasting. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 73 as follows: PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES 1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows: Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336. § 73.202 [Amended] 2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under California, is amended by adding Channel 277C at Alturas. Federal Communications Commission. John A. Karousos, Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau. [FR Doc. E6-8377 Filed 5-30-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of the Secretary of Transportation 49 CFR Part 1 [Docket No. OST-1999-6189] RIN 9991-AA50 Organization and Delegation of Powers and Duties AGENCY: Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This amendment delegates various authorities vested in the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) by the “Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users” or “SAFETEA-LU” (Pub. L. 109-59; August 10, 2005) and other laws to the Research and Innovative Technology Administrator, the Federal Highway Administrator, the Federal Railroad Administrator, the National Traffic Highway Safety Administrator, the Federal Transit Administrator, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administrator, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administrator, and the Under Secretary for Transportation Policy. DATES: *Effective Date:* May 31, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Starring, Attorney Advisor, Office of General Counsel, Department of Transportation, 400 7th St., SW., Room 10424, Washington, DC 20590-0001; Telephone (202)366-9314. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 10, 2005, the “Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users” or “SAFETEA-LU”, Public Law 109-59, was signed into law. Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)section 1.4(f) is amended to reflect SAFETEA-LU nomenclature for “mass transit” which is now “public transportation.” 49 CFR 1.23 defines the spheres of primary responsibility of the Secretary, Deputy Secretary, Assistant Secretaries, and specific Department level offices. As a result of SAFETEA-LU, the Department will add a Deputy Assistant Secretary for Tribal Government Affairs. This rulemaking defines the sphere of primary responsibility for the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Tribal Government Affairs. 49 CFR 1.45(b) permits the Administrators to redelegate authority the Secretary delegates to them. However, inadvertently, section 1.45(b) failed to specifically grant this authority to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administrator. While the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administrator clearly has this authority as a matter of general administrative law, the Department is seizing this opportunity to correct this inadvertent error. In addition, please note that prior actions taken by subordinate FMCSA officials are considered valid despite the lack of specific redelegation language. 49 CFR 1.46 delegates to the Administrator of the Research and Innovative Technology Administration

(RITA)the authority to carry out various functions and activities related to the mission of the agency vested in or delegated to the Secretary. The Secretary has determined that certain authority vested in the Secretary under SAFETEA-LU should be delegated to the Research and Innovative Technology Administrator. This rulemaking revises section 1.46 to reflect these delegations. 49 CFR 1.48 delegates to the Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration

(FHWA)the authority to carry out various functions and activities related to the mission of the agency vested in or delegated to the Secretary. The Secretary has determined that the authority vested in the Secretary under SAFETEA-LU concerning the authorization of funds for Federal-aid highways, Federal lands highways, and highway safety programs, and other matters should be delegated to the Federal Highway Administrator. This rulemaking adds subsection (c)(24) to section 1.48 to reflect these delegations. In addition, the remainder of section 1.48 is amended to reflect current authority and citations and to remove expired authorities. 49 CFR 1.49 delegates to the Administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration

(FRA)the authority to carry out various functions and activities related to the mission of the agency vested or delegated to the Secretary. The Secretary has determined that certain authority vested in the Secretary under SAFETEA-LU including the authorization of funds for capital grant programs and other matters related to railroad projects, programs, and studies should be delegated to the Federal Railroad Administrator. This rulemaking revises subsection

(ee)and adds subsections

(mm)and

(nn)to section 1.49 to reflect these delegations. 49 CFR 1.50 delegates to the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) the authority to carry out various functions and activities related to the mission of the agency vested in or delegated to the Secretary. The Secretary has determined that certain authority vested in the Secretary under SAFETEA-LU concerning highway safety, motor vehicle safety, and other matters should be delegated to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator. This rulemaking adds subsection

(p)to section 1.50 to reflect these delegations. 49 CFR 1.51 delegates to the Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration

(FTA)the authority to carry out various functions and activities related to the mission of the agency vested in or delegated to the Secretary. The Secretary has determined that the authority vested in the Secretary under SAFETEA-LU concerning public transportation should be delegated to the Federal Transit Administrator. This rulemaking revises and amends section 1.51 to reflect these delegations. In addition, other paragraphs of section 1.51 are amended to reflect current authority and citations and to remove expired authorities. 49 CFR 1.53 delegates to the Administrator of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) the authority to carry out various functions and activities related to the mission of the agency vested in or delegated to the Secretary. The Secretary has determined that the authority vested in the Secretary under SAFETEA-LU concerning the transportation and inspection of hazardous materials should be delegated to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administrator. This rulemaking revises subsection (b)(1) of section 1.53 to reflect these delegations. 49 CFR 1.73 delegates to the Administrator of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) the authority to carry out various functions and activities related to the mission of the agency vested in or delegated to the Secretary. The Secretary has determined that the authority vested in the Secretary under Title IV of SAFETEA-LU, the “Motor Carrier Safety Reauthorization Act of 2005”, 49 U.S.C. 30101, should be delegated to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administrator. This rulemaking revises and amends section 1.73 to reflect these delegations. 49 CFR 1.74 delegates to the Under Secretary for Transportation Policy the authority to carry out various functions and activities related to the mission of the Office of the Under Secretary for Transportation Policy vested in or delegated to the Secretary. The Secretary has determined that the authority vested in the Secretary under SAFETEA-LU concerning the tax-exempt financing of highway projects and rail-truck facilities should be delegated to the Under Secretary for Transportation Policy. This rulemaking revises and amends section 1.74 to reflect this delegation. Since these amendments relate to departmental management, organization, procedure, and practice, notice and comment are unnecessary under 5 U.S.C. 553(b). Further, since the amendment expedites the Department's ability to meet the statutory intent of the applicable laws and regulations covered by this delegation, the Secretary finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) for the final rule to be effective on the date of publication in the **Federal Register** . Regulatory Analysis and Notices A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures The final rule is not considered a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Policies and Procedures of the Department of Transportation (44 FR 11034). There are no costs associated with this rule. B. Executive Order 13132 This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (“Federalism”). This final rule does not have a substantial direct effect on, or sufficient federalism implications for, the States, nor would it limit the policymaking discretion of the States. Therefore, the consultation requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply. C. Executive Order 13175 This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13175 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”). Because this final rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of the Indian tribal governments and does not impose substantial direct compliance costs, the funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply. D. Regulatory Flexibility Act Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this rule under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ) do not apply. We also do not believe this rule would impose any costs on small entities because it simply delegates authority from one official to another. Therefore, I certify this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. E. Paperwork Reduction Act This final rule contains no information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Department has determined that the requirements of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not apply to this rulemaking. List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 1 Authority delegations (Government agencies), Organization and functions (Government agencies). For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Office of the Secretary of Transportation amends 49 CFR part 1 as follows: PART 1—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 1 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322; 28 U.S.C. 2672; 31 U.S.C. 3711(a)(2); Public Law 101-552, 104 Stat. 2736; Public Law 106-159, 113 Stat. 1748; Public Law 107-71, 115 Stat. 597; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat 2065; Public Law 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135; 41 U.S.C. 414; Public Law 108-426, 118 Stat. 2423; Public Law 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144. 2. Revise § 1.4(f) to read as follows: § 1.4 General responsibilities.

(f)*The Federal Transit Administration.* Is responsible for:

(1)Exercising the authority vested in the Secretary for developing comprehensive and coordinated public transportation systems that serve the public.

(2)Administering Federal transportation assistance programs and functions; and

(3)Assuring appropriate liaison and coordination with other Federal agencies, state and local governmental authorities, with respect to the foregoing. 3. Amend § 1.23 as follows: a. Redesignate paragraphs

(h)through

(q)as paragraphs

(i)through (r), respectively; and b. Add new paragraph

(h)to read as follows: § 1.23 Spheres of primary responsibility.

(h)*Deputy Assistant Secretary for Tribal Government Affairs.* Plan, coordinate and implement the Department's policies and programs with respect to Indian tribes and tribal organizations. Coordinate intra-Departmental tribal transportation programs and activities. Serve as the Department's primary point of contact in relationships with public and private organizations and groups related to Indian tribes and tribal organizations. Participate in any negotiated rulemaking relating to, or having an impact on, projects, programs, or funding associated with the tribal transportation program. 4. Revise § 1.45(b) to read as follows: § 1.45 Delegations to all Administrators.

(b)Except as otherwise specifically provided, each official to whom authority is granted by § 1.45 through 1.53, 1.66, 1.68, and 1.73 may redelegate and authorize successive redelegations of that authority within the organization under that official's jurisdiction. 5. Revise § 1.46(c), (d), (e), (i),

(l)and

(m)to read as follows: § 1.46 Delegations to the Administrator of the Research and Innovative Technology Administration.

(c)*Advanced vehicle technology.* Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by section 5111 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (49 U.S.C. 5506), as extended by the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2004, Part V, Public Law 108-310, September 30, 2004, 118 Stat. 1144, and section 5513(j) of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, Title V, Subtitle E, Public Law 109-59, August 10, 2005, 119 Stat. 1144.

(d)*Remote sensing technology.* Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by section 5113 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (23 U.S.C. 502 Note), as extended by the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2004, Part V, Public Law 108-310, September 30, 2004, 118 Stat. 1144, and section 5506 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, Title V, Subtitle E, Public Law 109-59, August 10, 2005, 119 Stat. 1144.

(e)*University transportation research.* Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by section 5110 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (49 U.S.C. 5505), as extended by the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2004, Part V, Public Law 108-310, September 30, 2004, 118 Stat. 1144, and sections 5401 and 5402 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, Title V, Subtitle D, Public Law 109-59, August 10, 2005, 119 Stat. 1144.

(i)*Intermodalism.* Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by 49 U.S.C. 5503(d) and Section 4149 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, Title IV, Subtitle A and Section 5209, Title V, Subtitle B, Public Law 109-59, August 10, 2005, 119 Stat. 1144.

(l)*Research grants.* Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by section 5513(c), (d), (g), (h), (i), (l), and

(m)(as

(m)relates to (c), (d), (g), (h), (i), (j), and (l)) of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, Title V, Subtitle E, Public Law 109-59, August 10, 2005, 119 Stat. 1144.

(m)*Biobased transportation research.* Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by section 5201(m) of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, Title V, Subtitle B, Public Law 109-59, August 10, 2005, 119 Stat. 1144. 6. Revise § 1.48 to read as follows: § 1.48 Delegations to Federal Highway Administrator.

(a)Unless otherwise provided, the Federal Highway Administrator may further delegate authority provided under this section.

(b)The Federal Highway Administrator is delegated authority to administer the following provisions of title 23, Highways, U.S.C.:

(1)Chapter 1, Federal-Aid Highways, except for sections 142 (as it relates to matters within the primary responsibility of the Federal Transit Administrator), 153, 154, 158, 159, 161, and 164.

(2)Chapter 2, Other Highways.

(3)Chapter 3, General Provisions, except for section 322.

(4)Section 409 of chapter 4, Highway Safety.

(5)Chapter 5, Research, Technology, and Education, except for sections 508 and 509.

(6)Chapter 6, Infrastructure Finance.

(c)The Federal Highway Administrator is delegated authority to administer the following laws relating generally to highways:

(1)Section 502(c) of the General Bridge Act of 1946, as amended (60 Stat. 847, 33 U.S.C. 525(c)).

(2)Reorganization Plan No. 7 of 1949 (63 Stat. 1070).

(3)The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1954, as amended (Pub. L. 83-350, 68 Stat. 70).

(4)The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, as amended (Pub. L. 84-627, 70 Stat. 374).

(5)The Highway Revenue Act of 1956, as amended (Pub. L. 84-627, 70 Stat. 374, 387, 23 U.S.C.A. 120 note).

(6)The Alaska Omnibus Act, as amended (Pub. L. 86-70, 73 Stat. 141, 48 U.S.C.A. 21 note.).

(7)The Act of September 26, 1961, as amended (Pub. L. 87-307, 75 Stat. 670).

(8)The Act of April 27, 1962 (Pub. L. 87-441, 76 Stat. 59).

(9)The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1962, as amended (Pub. L. 87-866, 76 Stat. 1145).

(10)The Joint Resolution of August 28, 1965, as amended (Pub. L. 89-139, 79 Stat. 578, 23 U.S.C.A. 101 et seq., notes).

(11)The Highway Beautification Act of 1965, as amended (Pub. L. 89-285, 79 Stat. 1028, 23 U.S.C.A. 131 et seq., notes).

(12)The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1966, as amended (Pub. L. 889-574, 80 Stat. 766).

(13)The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968, as amended (Pub. L. 90-495, 82 Stat. 815).

(14)The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1970, as amended (except section 118) (Pub. L. 91-605, 84 Stat. 1713).

(15)Sections 103, 104, 111(b), 128(b), 131, 135, 136, 141, 147, 149, 154, 158 through 161, 163, 203, 206, 401, and 402 of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973, as amended (Pub. L. 93-87, 87 Stat. 250; Pub. L. 93-643, 88 Stat. 2281).

(16)Sections 102(b) (except subparagraph (2)) and (c); 105 (b)(1) and (c); 141; 146; 147; and 152 of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1976 (Pub. L. 94-280, 90 Stat. 425).

(17)Sections 105, 107(c) through (e), 123(a) and (b), 124(c), 126(d) through (g), 138(c), 140, 142 through 145, 147 through 154, 167, and 171, title IV, as amended (as it relates to matters within the primary responsibility of the Federal Highway Administrator), and sections 502-504 of title V of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-599, 92 Stat. 2689).

(18)The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1982 (Pub. L. 97-327, 96 Stat. 1611), except section 6 as it relates to matters within the primary responsibility of the Federal Transit Administrator.

(19)The Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982, as amended, (Pub. L. 97-424, 96 Stat. 2097) except,

(i)Sections 165 and 531 as they relate to matters within the primary responsibility of the Federal Transit Administrator;

(ii)Sections 105(f), 413; 414(b) (2); 421, 426, and title III; and

(iii)Section 414(b)(1), unless with the concurrence of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator.

(20)Sections 103(e), 105(a) through (g), 106(a), and (b), 110(b), 114(d), 117(f), 120(c) and (d), 123(g) and (i), 133(f), 134, 136, 137, 139 through 145, 146(b), 147(c), 149(a) through (f), (h), (i), (k), 151 through 157, 164, and 208 of the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 (Pub. L. 100-17, 101 Stat. 132).

(21)Sections 1002(c) and (e), 1003(c), 1004, 1006(h), 1009(c), 1012(b) and

(d)through (f), 1013(c), 1014(c), 1015, 1016(g), 1017(c), 1021(c) and (d), 1022(c), 1023(f) through (g), 1029(c), (f), and (g), 1032(d) and (e), 1038 through 1042, 1044, 1045, 1046(d), 1047, 1049, 1050, 1051, 1054, 1057 through 1063, 1065, 1067, 1069, 1072, 1073, 1074, 1076, 1077, 1086, 1088 through 1092, 1097, 1099 through 1108, 6012, and 6014 through 6016 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914).

(22)Sections 201 through 205, 327 through 336, 339, 340, 349, 352, 353, and 408 of the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-59, 109 Stat. 568).

(23)Sections 1101(a), 1102, 1103(m) and (n), 1106(a) and (d), 1107(c), 1108(f) and (g), 1110(d)(2) and (e), 1112(c) and (e), 1117(a), (b), and (d), 1118, 1119, 1202(b) and (e), 1204(i), 1207(c), 1210, 1211(i) and (l), 1212 (b),

(e)through (j), (l), (m), (o), and

(q)through (t), 1213(c), and

(f)through (j), 1214, 1215, 1216, 1217, 1220, 1223, 1224, 1225, 1307(d) through (f), 1308, 1309, 1311, 1402, 1511, 5001, 5112, 5116 through 5118, and 5203 through 5212 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (Pub. L. 105-178, 112 Stat. 107).

(24)Sections 1102, 1105(f), 1109(f), 1111(b)(4), 1112, 1115(c), 1116(a) and (b), 1117, 1119(n), 1120(c), 1201, 1301, 1302, 1303, 1304, 1305, 1306, 1308, 1310, 1401(e), 1402, 1403, 1404, 1405, 1408, 1409(a) and (b), 1410, 1411, 1502, 1603, 1604, 1801 (d), 1803, 1804, 1805, 1807, 1808(g) through (k), 1907, 1908, 1910, 1911, 1914, 1916, 1917, 1918, 1919, 1923, 1924, 1925, 1927, 1928, 1934, 1935, 1936, 1937, 1939, 1940, 1941, 1943, 1944, 1945, 1948, 1949, 1950, 1952, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1961, 1962, 1964, 2003(e), 4112, 4141, 4404 (as it relates to matters within the primary responsibility of the Federal Highway Administrator), 5101(b), 5202(b)(3)(B), (c), and (d), 5203(e) and (f), 5204(g) and (i), 5304, 5305, 5306, 5307, 5308, 5309 (except (c)(4)), 5501, 5502, 5504, 5507, 5508, 5511, 5512, 5513(b), (f), (k), and

(m)(as

(m)relates to (b), (f), and (k)), 5514, 6001(b), 6002(b), 6009(b) and

(c)(as they relate to matters within the primary responsibility of the Federal Highway Administrator), 6010 (as it relates to matters within the primary responsibility of the Federal Highway Administrator), 6017, 6018, 10210, and 10212 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144).

(d)The Federal Highway Administrator is delegated authority to:

(1)Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary of Transportation by section 601 of the Pipeline Safety Act of 1992 (Pub. L. 102-508, 106 Stat. 3289) relating to construction of the Page Avenue Extension Project in Missouri.

(2)Carry out the functions of the Secretary under the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965 (Pub. L. 89-4, 79 Stat. 5, 40 U.S.C. Subtitle IV) except section 208.

(3)Carry out the Act of September 21, 1966, Public Law 89-599, relating to certain approvals concerned with a compact between the States of Missouri and Kansas.

(4)Carry out the law relating to the Chamizal border highway (Pub. L. 89-795, 80 Stat. 1477).

(5)Carry out the Highway Safety Act of 1966, as amended (Pub. L. 89-564, 80 Stat. 731) and chapter 4 of title 23 U.S.C. as amended by section 207 of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1978 for highway safety programs, research and development relating to highway design, construction and maintenance, traffic control devices, identification and surveillance of accident locations, and highway-related aspects of pedestrian and bicycle safety.

(6)Exercise the authority vested in the Secretary by 49 U.S.C. 20134(a) with respect to the laws administered by the Federal Highway Administrator pertaining to highway safety and highway construction.

(7)Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by section 5 (as it relates to bridges, other than railroad bridges, not over navigable waters), and section 8(a) (as it relates to all bridges other than railroad bridges) of the International Bridge Act of 1972 (Pub. L. 92-434, 86 Stat. 731).

(8)Exercise the authority vested in the Secretary by sections 101, 118, 120(b), 123 and 124 of the Federal-Aid Highway Amendments of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-643, January 4, 1975, 88 Stat. 2281).

(9)Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by section 118 of the National Visitor Center Facilities Act of 1968 (Pub. L. 90-264, 82 Stat. 43), as added by the Union Station Redevelopment Act of 1981 (Pub. L. 97-125; 95 Stat. 1672), with respect to the completion of the parking facility and associated ramps at Union Station in Washington, DC (40 U.S.C. 818).

(10)Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by Public Law 98-229, 98 Stat. 55, insofar as it relates to apportioning certain funds for construction of the Interstate Highway System in Fiscal Year 1985, apportioning certain funds for Interstate substitute highway projects, and increasing amounts available for emergency highway relief.

(11)Prescribe regulations, as necessary, at parts 24 and 25 of this title, to implement Public Law 91-646, 84 Stat. 1894, and any amendments thereto, as appropriate, in coordination with the Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, and carry out all other functions vested in the Secretary by the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Public Law 91-646, 84 Stat. 1894, and any amendments thereto.

(12)Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary of Transportation by section 114 of Part C of the Paperwork Reduction Reauthorization Act of 1986 (contained in the Act Making Continuing Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1987 and for Other Purposes, Public Law 99-591, 100 Stat. 3341, 2241-349), relating to construction of Interstate Highway H-3 in Hawaii.

(13)Carry out all of the functions vested in the Secretary under section 324 of the Fiscal Year 1986 Department of Transportation Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 99-190, 99 Stat. 1288), notwithstanding the reservation of authority under Sec. 1.44(j) of this part.

(14)Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary of Transportation by section 505 of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976, as amended, (Pub. L. 94-210, 90 Stat. 31) relating to the Alameda Corridor Project in consultation with the Federal Railroad Administrator.

(15)Carry out the function of acting as the lead DOT agency in matters relating to the National Environmental Policy Act pertinent to the authority vested in the Secretary to establish, operate, and manage the Nationwide Differential Global Positioning System (NDGPS) by section 346 of the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998 (Pub. L. 105-66, 111 Stat. 1425).

(16)Exercise the responsibilities of the Secretary under 49 U.S.C. 303 as it relates to matters within the primary responsibility of the Federal Highway Administrator.

(17)Exercise the responsibilities of the Secretary under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and other Federal laws related to programs, projects, and activities administered by the Federal Highway Administration.

(18)Exercise the responsibilities of the Secretary under section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7506(c)), as amended by section 6011 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144), as it relates to matters within the primary responsibility of the Federal Highway Administrator.

(19)Exercise the responsibilities of the Secretary under 49 U.S.C. 309. 7. Amend § 1.49 as follows: a. Revise paragraph (ee); and b. Add paragraphs

(mm)and

(nn)to read as follows: § 1.49 Delegations to Federal Railroad Administrator.

(ee)Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by section 5701 of title 49 of the United States Code, with respect to transportation by railroad.

(mm)Carry out the functions and exercise the authority vested in the Secretary by sections 1307, 1946, 9004, 9006, and 9007 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (Pub. L. No. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144) as they relate to deployment of magnetic levitation transportation projects, the Gateway Rural Improvement Pilot Program, a study of the impact of public safety of train travel in communities without grade separation, capital grants to the Alaska Railroad, and a study of rail transportation and regulation.

(nn)Carry out the functions and exercise the authority vested in the Secretary by section 20154 of title 49, United States Code relating to capital grants for rail line relocation projects. 8. In § 1.50, add paragraph

(p)to read as follows: § 1.50 Delegations to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator.

(p)Carry out the functions and exercise the authority vested in the Secretary under the “Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users” or “SAFETEA-LU” (Pub. L. 109-59; August 10, 2005), as it relates to:

(1)Section 1906, the grant program to prohibit racial profiling;

(2)Section 2001(d), transfers;

(3)Section 2003(c), on-scene motor vehicle collision causation;

(4)Section 2003(d), research on distracted, inattentive, and fatigued drivers;

(5)Section 2003(f), refusal of intoxication testing;

(6)Section 2003(g), impaired motorcycle driving;

(7)Section 2003(h), reducing impaired driving recidivism;

(8)Section 2009(f), annual evaluation, in regard to high visibility enforcement program;

(9)Section 2010, motorcyclist safety;

(10)Section 2011, child safety and child booster seat incentive grants;

(11)Section 2012, safety data;

(12)Section 2013, drug-impaired driving enforcement;

(13)Section 2014, first responder vehicle safety program;

(14)Section 2015, driver performance study;

(15)Section 2016, rural state emergency medical services optimization pilot program;

(16)Section 2017, older driver safety; law enforcement training;

(17)Section 5513(e), automobile accident injury research;

(18)Section 5513(m) as it relates to section 513(e);

(19)Section 10202, emergency medical services;

(20)Section 10302, side-impact crash protection rulemaking;

(21)Section 10303, tire research;

(22)Section 10305(b), publication of nontraffic incident data collection;

(23)Section 10306, study of safety belt use technologies;

(24)Section 10307(b), regulations, in regard to safety labeling requirements;

(25)Section 10308, power window switches; and

(26)Section 10309(a), testing, in regard to 15-passenger van safety. 9. Amend § 1.51 as follows: a. Remove paragraphs (f), (g), (h), (j), (k), (l), (m), and (n); b. Redesignate paragraph

(i)as paragraph (f); c. Revise paragraphs

(a)and (b); and d. Add new paragraphs (g), (h), and

(i)to read as follows: § 1.51 Delegations to Federal Transit Administrator.

(a)The Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended (78 Stat. 302, 49 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.).

(b)Section 1 of Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1968 (5 U.S.C. app. 1).

(f)Title II of the National Mass Transportation Assistance Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-503, November 26, 1974), except sections 204 and 205.

(g)Title 49 United States Code, chapter 53 as amended by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (Pub. L. 109-59, August 10, 2005).

(h)49 U.S.C. 303 as it involves public

(mass)transportation projects.

(i)Sections 3040, 3041, 3044, 3045, 3046, 3048, 3049, and 3050 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat.1144); sections 6009

(b)and

(c)and 6010 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users as they relate to public

(mass)transit projects; and the following provisions as amended by SAFETEA-LU and as related to public

(mass)transportation projects:

(1)23 U.S.C. 139, 326, and 502(h); and

(2)42 U.S.C. 7506(c). 10. Amend § 1.53 as follows: a. Remove paragraph (d); b. Redesignate paragraph

(e)as paragraph (d); and c. Revise paragraph

(b)introductory text and (b)(1) to read as follows: § 1.53 Delegations to the Administrator of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.

(b)* * *

(1)Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by 49 U.S.C. 5121(a), (b), (c),

(d)and (e), 5122, 5123, and 5124 relating to investigations, records, inspections, emergency orders, penalties, and specific relief, with particular emphasis on the shipment of hazardous materials and the manufacture, fabrication, marking, maintenance, reconditioning, repair or test of multi-modal containers that are represented, marked, certified, or sold for use in the transportation of hazardous materials. 11. Amend § 1.73 as follows: a. Revise paragraph (a)(7), (8), and (9); b. Revise paragraphs

(g)and (h); and c. Add paragraphs

(q)through

(y)to read as follows: § 1.73 Delegation to the Administrator of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.

(a)* * *

(7)Chapter 145, sections 14501, 14502, 14504 and 14504a relating to Federal-State relations;

(8)Chapter 147, sections 14701 through 14708, 14710, and 14711, relating to enforcement remedies, investigations and motor carrier liability; and

(9)Chapter 149, sections 14901 through 14913, and 14915, relating to enforcement remedies, investigations and motor carrier liability.

(g)Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by subchapters I, III, and IV of chapter 311, title 49, U.S.C., relating to commercial motor vehicle programs, safety regulation, and international activities, except that the authority to promulgate safety standards for commercial motor vehicles and equipment subsequent to initial manufacture is limited to standards that are not based upon and similar to a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard promulgated under chapter 301 of title 49, U.S.C.

(h)Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by 49 U.S.C. 5701 relating to food transportation inspections of commercial motor vehicles; and 5113 and 31144 relating to safety fitness of owners and operators.

(q)Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by Public Law 109-59, 119 Stat. 1717, section 4105(b)(1) relating to the study concerning predatory tow truck operations.

(r)Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by Public Law 109-59, 119 Stat. 1738, section 4126 relating to the commercial vehicle information systems and networks program.

(s)Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by Public Law 109-59, 119 Stat. 1742, section 4128 relating to grants under the safety data improvement program.

(t)Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by Public Law 109-59, 119 Stat. 1744, section 4134 relating to the grant program for persons to train operators of commercial motor vehicles.

(u)Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by Public Law 109-59, 119 Stat. 1744, section 4135 relating to the task force concerning commercial drivers license program.

(v)Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by Public Law 109-59, 119 Stat. 1744, section 4139(a) and (b)(1) relating to the training and outreach to state personnel and a review concerning Canadian and Mexican commercial motor vehicles respectively.

(w)Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by Public Law 109-59, 119 Stat. 1759, section 4213 relating to the establishment of a working group for development of practices and procedures to enhance Federal-State relations.

(x)Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by Public Law 109-59, 119 Stat. 1821, section 5503 relating to the motor carrier efficiency study.

(y)Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by Public Law 109-59, 119 Stat. 1829, sections 5513(a) and (m), relating to the research grant for a thermal imaging inspection system demonstration project. 12. Revise § 1.74 to read as follows: § 1.74 Delegations to the Under Secretary for Transportation Policy. The Under Secretary for Transportation Policy is delegated authority:

(a)Under the Federal hazardous materials transportation law, 49 U.S.C. 5101 *et seq.* , to:

(1)Serve as the principal adviser to the Secretary on all intermodal and cross-modal hazardous materials matters;

(2)Act as the focal point for review of hazardous materials policies, priorities, and objectives;

(3)Provide oversight for planning and budgeting strategies for all departmental hazardous materials activities;

(4)Resolve disputes among Operating Administrations on hazardous materials issues;

(5)Provide external reviews and continual monitoring of all departmental hazardous materials activities;

(6)In coordination with the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs, direct that the Operating Administrations apply resources to specific cross-modal initiatives;

(7)Coordinate DOT-wide hazardous materials outreach and data activities; and

(8)Address other regulatory and programmatic cross-modal issues related to hazardous materials as warranted.

(b)Carry out the functions and exercise the authority vested in the Secretary by section 11143 of Public Law 109-59, Stat. 1144, titled “Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users” to manage the day-to-day activities associated with implementation of section 11143 regarding tax-exempt financing of highway projects and rail-truck facilities. The Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy may further delegate this authority. Issued this 16th day of May, 2006, at Washington, DC. Norman Y. Mineta, Secretary of Transportation. [FR Doc. 06-4854 Filed 5-30-06; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 65

Traces to 65 documents

U.S. Code