Proposed Rules. Notice of systematic review of current regulations
30,621 words·~139 min read·
/register/2006/06/07/06-5162A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION 16 CFR Chapter II Fiscal Year 2006 Program for Systematic Review of Commission Regulations; Request for Comments and Information AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission. ACTION: Notice of systematic review of current regulations. SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC or Commission) announces its fiscal year 2006 program for systematic review of its current substantive regulations to ensure, to the maximum practical extent, consistency among them and with respect to accomplishing program goals.
In fiscal year 2006, the following three regulations will be evaluated: Safety standard for matchbooks, 16 CFR part 1202; toy rattles, 16 CFR part 1500.18(a)(1); and baby bouncers, walker-jumpers, and baby walkers, 16 CFR part 1500.18(a)(6). The primary purpose of the review is to assess the degree to which the regulations under review remain consistent with the Commission's program policies. In addition, each regulation will be examined with respect to the extent that it is current and relevant to CPSC program goals.
Attention will also be given to whether the regulations can be streamlined, if possible, to minimize regulatory burdens, especially on small entities. To the degree consistent with other Commission priorities and subject to the availability of personnel and fiscal resources, specific regulatory or other projects may be undertaken in response to the results of the review. The Commission solicits written comments from interested persons concerning the designated regulations' currentness and consistency with Commission policies and goals, and suggestions for streamlining where appropriate.
In so doing, commenters are requested to specifically address how their suggestions for change could be accomplished within the statutory frameworks for Commission action under the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), 15 U.S.C. 2051-2084, and the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA), 15 U.S.C. 1261-1278. DATE: Comments and submissions in response to this notice must be received by August 7, 2006. ADDRESSES: Comments and other submissions should be captioned “Fiscal Year 2006 Regulatory Review Project” and be submitted by e-mail to *cpsc-os@cpsc.gov* or by facsimile to
(301)504-0127. Comments may also be submitted by mail or delivered to the Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 502, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Linda Edwards, Office of Hazard Identification and Reduction, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814; telephone
(301)504-7535; e-mail *eedwards@cpsc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. The Review Program The President's Office of Management and Budget has designed the Program Assessment Rating Tool
(PART)to provide a consistent approach to rating programs across the Federal government. A description of the PART process and associated program evaluation materials is available online at: *http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budintegration/part_assessing 2004.html.* Based on an evaluation of the Commission's regulatory programs using the PART, the recommendation was made that CPSC develop a plan to systematically review its current regulations to ensure consistency among them in accomplishing program goals. In FY 2004, the Commission conducted a pilot review program as the initial step in implementing that recommendation. The notice announcing the pilot program appeared in the **Federal Register** on January 28, 2004. 69 FR 4095. Based on the success of the pilot program, the Commission announced the continuation of the program for subsequent fiscal years. B. The Regulations Undergoing Review A summary of each of the regulations being reviewed in fiscal year 2006 is provided below. The full text of the regulations may be accessed at: *http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_03/16cfrv2_03.html.* 1. Safety Standard for Matchbooks The safety standard for matchbooks appears at 16 CFR part 1202. The standard prescribes the safety requirements, including labeling requirements, for matchbooks. It applies to all matchbooks manufactured in or imported into the United States and is intended to address certain burn and eye injuries. 2. Toy Rattles The standard for toy rattles appears at 16 CFR part 1500.18(a)(1). It applies to toy rattles containing, either internally or externally, rigid wires, sharp protrusions, or loose small objects that have the potential for causing lacerations, puncture wound injury, aspiration, ingestion, or other injury. Such toy rattles are included as banned toys and other banned articles intended for use by children. 3. Baby Bouncers, Walker-Jumpers, or Baby Walkers The standard for baby bouncers, walker-jumpers, and baby-walkers appears at 16 CFR part 1500.18(a)(6). The standard applies to any article known as a “baby bouncer,” walker-jumper,” or “baby walker,” and any other similar article which is intended to support very young children while sitting, walking, bouncing, jumping, and/or reclining, and which because of its design has any exposed parts capable of causing amputation, crushing, lacerations, fractures, hematomas, bruises, or other injuries to fingers, toes, or other parts of the anatomy of young children. Such articles are included as banned toys and other banned articles intended for use by children. C. Solicitation of Comments and Information The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on each of the regulations being reviewed in the fiscal year 2006 program. In particular, commenters are asked to address: 1. Whether the regulation is consistent with CPSC program goals. 2. Whether the regulation is consistent with other CPSC regulations. 3. Whether the regulation is current with respect to technology, economic, or market conditions, and other mandatory or voluntary standards. 4. Whether the regulation can be streamlined to minimize regulatory burdens, particularly any such burdens on small entities. For each regulation being reviewed, please provide any specific recommendations for change(s), if viewed as necessary, a justification for the recommended change(s), and, with respect to each suggested change, a statement of the way in which the change can be accomplished within the statutory framework of the CPSA, FHSA, FFA, or PPPA, as applicable. Comments and other submissions should be captioned “Fiscal Year 2006 Regulatory Review Project” and e-mailed to *cpsc-os@cpsc.gov* or faxed to
(301)504-0127. Comments or other submissions may also be mailed or delivered to the Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 502, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814. All comments and other submissions must be received by August 7, 2006. Dated: May 31, 2006. Todd A. Stevenson, Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission. [FR Doc. E6-8763 Filed 6-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6355-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [CGD08-06-005] RIN 1625-AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Arkansas Waterway, AR AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to change the operational language concerning the Rob Roy Drawbridge across the Arkansas Waterway at Mile 67.4 at Pine Bluff, Arkansas, the Baring Cross Railroad Drawbridge across the Arkansas Waterway at Mile 119.6 at Little Rock, Arkansas, and the Van Buren Railroad Drawbridge across the Arkansas Waterway at Mile 300.8 at Van Buren, Arkansas, to reflect the actual procedures currently being followed. The Coast Guard is also proposing to remove the regulations governing the following three bridges because they are locked in the open-to-navigation position and are no longer considered to be drawbridges: Missouri Pacific Railroad Drawbridge (Benzal Railroad Drawbridge) across the Arkansas Waterway at Mile 7.6 at Benzal, Arkansas, the Rock Island Railroad Drawbridge across the Arkansas Waterway at Mile 118.2 at Little Rock, Arkansas, and the Junction Railroad Drawbridge across the Arkansas Waterway at Mile 118.7 at Little Rock, Arkansas. These revisions will make the regulations concerning the Arkansas River clearer, thus the mariners transiting the river will be able to transit the river with greater ease. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before August 7, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, 1222 Spruce Street, St. Louis, MO 63103-2832. Commander
(dwb)maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room 2.107f in the Robert A. Young Federal Building, Eighth Coast Guard District, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Roger K. Wiebusch, Bridge Administrator,
(314)539-3900, extension 2378. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Request for Comments We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking [CGD08-06-005], indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them. Public Meeting We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to the Eighth Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that a meeting would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the **Federal Register** . Background and Purpose The Arkansas Waterway is a part of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System. The System rises in the vicinity of Catoosa, Oklahoma, and embraces improved natural waterways and a canal to empty into the Mississippi River in southeast Arkansas. The Arkansas Waterway Drawbridge Operation Regulations contained in § 117.123(a), state that the Cotton Belt Railroad (Rob Roy) Bridge, mile 67.4, requires the use of ship's horns and flashing lights on the bridge to communicate between mariners requesting openings and railroad dispatchers remotely operating the bridge. Although not stated in § 117.123(a), records indicate that the method of communication outlined in § 117.123(a) was to be used by mariners and the remote bridge operator as a back-up means of communications. The Coast Guard, however, has determined that the primary method of communications outlined in § 117.123(a) has not been used during the past 20 years. It is doubtful that the system of horns and flashing lights was ever used. Instead, mariners and remote bridge operators have communicated via VHF-FM radiotelephone for opening the Rob Roy Drawbridge. The Coast Guard also determined that editorial changes were needed to correct inaccuracies in the specific requirements for the Baring Cross Railroad Drawbridge and the Van Buren Railroad Drawbridge. Three bridges on the Arkansas Waterway: The Missouri Pacific Railroad Drawbridge (Benzal Railroad Drawbridge) at mile 7.6, the Rock Island Railroad Drawbridge at Mile 118.2, and the Junction Railroad Drawbridge at Mile 118.7, have all been removed from rail service. Meetings with the owners indicate that all three bridges have been permanently locked in the open-to-navigation position and that there are plans to convert them into fixed pedestrian bridges in the future. Therefore, they are considered fixed bridges and should not be included in the drawbridge regulations section of the CFR. Section
(a)of § 117.139 references the § 117.123 cite for the Missouri Pacific Railroad Drawbridge (Benzal Railroad Drawbridge), mile 7.6, so section
(a)also requires removal from the regulations. Therefore, sections
(b)and
(c)of § 117.139 will need to be re-alphabetized. Discussion of Proposed Rule The proposed changes to § 117.123 and § 117.139 will correct inaccuracies as follows:
(a)A complete rewrite of § 117.123(a) to show the proper operating procedures for the Rob Roy Bridge;
(b)A deletion of two bridges (Rock Island Railroad Drawbridge and the Junction Railroad Drawbridge) from § 117.123(b) that are no longer drawbridges and a rewrite of this section to accurately reflect the remote operation of the remaining bridge, the Baring Cross Railroad Bridge;
(c)Delete the Missouri Pacific Railroad Drawbridge (Benzal Railroad Drawbridge) from § 117.123(c) as it is no longer a drawbridge and make minor edits to § 117.123(c) for the Van Buren Railroad Drawbridge to make it consistent with the other drawbridges found in § 117.123; and
(d)Remove § 117.139(a) in its entirety as it is no longer applicable because the subject bridge is no longer a drawbridge. Regulatory Evaluation This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security. The Coast Guard expects that these changes will have a minimal economic impact on commercial traffic operating on the Arkansas Waterway. The procedures are already in place at the three active drawbridges, the other three drawbridges have been locked in the open-to-navigation position, and the changes to the CFR documents the procedures. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule is neutral to all business entities since it affects only how the vessel operators request bridge openings. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact Mr. Roger K. Wiebusch, Bridge Administrator, Eighth Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, at
(314)539-3900, extension 2378. Collection of Information This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for Federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for Federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This proposed rule would not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore this rule is categorically excluded under figure 2-1, paragraph 32(e) of the Instruction from further environmental documentation. Paragraph 32(e) excludes the promulgation of operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges from the environmental documentation requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Since this proposed regulation would alter the normal operating conditions of the drawbridge, it falls within this exclusion. A “Categorical Exclusion Determination” is available in the docket for inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 Bridges. Regulations For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows: PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); section 117.255 also issued under the authority of Public Law 102-587, 106 Stat. 5039. 2. Replace the current § 117.123 in full with an amended § 117.123 as follows: § 117.123 Arkansas Waterway—Automated Railroad Bridges.
(a)Across the Arkansas Waterway, the draw of the Rob Roy Drawbridge, mile 67.4 at Pine Bluff, Arkansas, is maintained in the closed position and is remotely operated. Any vessel requiring an opening of the draw shall establish contact by radiotelephone with the remote drawbridge operator on VHF-FM Channel 12 in Omaha, Nebraska. The remote drawbridge operator will advise the vessel whether the bridge can be immediately opened and maintain constant contact with the vessel until the span has opened and the vessel passage has been completed. The bridge is equipped with a Photoelectric Boat Detection System to prevent the span from lowering if there is an obstruction under the span. If the drawbridge cannot be opened immediately, the remote drawbridge operator shall notify the calling vessel and provide an estimated time for opening.
(b)Across the Arkansas Waterway, the draw of the Baring Cross Railroad Drawbridge, mile 119.6 at Little Rock, Arkansas, is maintained in the closed position and is remotely operated. Use the following procedures to request an opening of this bridge when necessary for transit:
(1)*Normal Flow Procedures* . Any vessel which requires an opening of the draw of this bridge shall establish contact by radiotelephone with the remote drawbridge operator on VHF-FM Channel 13 in North Little Rock, Arkansas. The remote drawbridge operator will advise the vessel whether the requested span can be immediately opened and maintain constant contact with the vessel until the requested span has opened and the vessel passage has been completed. If the drawbridge cannot be opened immediately, the remote drawbridge operator will notify the calling vessel and provide an estimated time for a drawbridge opening.
(2)*High Velocity Flow Procedures* . The area from mile 118.2 to mile 125.4 is a regulated navigation area
(RNA)as described in § 165.817. During periods of high velocity flow, which is defined as a flow rate of 70,000 cubic feet per second or greater at the Murray Lock and Dam, mile 125.4, downbound vessels which require that the draw of this bridge be opened for unimpeded passage shall contact the remote drawbridge operator on VHF-FM Channel 13 either before departing Murray Lock and Dam, or before departing the mooring cells at Mile 121.5 to ensure that the Baring Cross Railroad Drawbridge is opened. The remote drawbridge operator shall immediately respond to the vessel's call, ensure that the drawbridge is open for passage, and ensure that it remains in the open position until the downbound vessel has passed through. If it cannot be opened immediately for unimpeded passage in accordance with § 163.203, the remote drawbridge operator will immediately notify the downbound vessel and provide an estimated time for a drawbridge opening. Upbound vessels shall request openings in accordance with the normal flow procedures as set forth above. The remote drawbridge operator shall keep all approaching vessels informed of the position of the drawbridge span.
(c)Across the Arkansas Waterway, the draw of the Van Buren Railroad Drawbridge, mile 300.8 at Van Buren, Arkansas, is maintained in the open position except as follows:
(1)When a train approaches the bridge, amber lights attached to the bridge begin to flash and an audible signal on the bridge sounds. At the end of 10 minutes, the amber light continues to flash; however, the audible signal stops and the draw lowers and locks if the photoelectric boat detection system detects no obstruction under the span. If there is an obstruction, the draw opens to its full height until obstruction is cleared.
(2)After the train clears the bridge, the draw opens to its full height, the amber flashing light stops, and the mid channel lights change from red to green, indicating the navigation channel is open for the passage of vessels. § 117.139 [Amended] 3. In § 117.139(a) remove paragraph
(a)and redesignate paragraphs
(b)and
(c)as paragraphs
(a)and (b), respectively. Dated: May 16, 2006. Ronald W. Branch, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District, Acting. [FR Doc. E6-8847 Filed 6-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 60 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0199; FRL-8180-8] RIN 2060-AL98 Alternative Work Practice To Detect Leaks From Equipment AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of public comment period. SUMMARY: EPA is announcing that the comment period on the proposed rule amendment for numerous EPA air pollution standards which require specific work practices for equipment leak detection and repair (LDAR), published on April 6, 2006 (70 FR 17401) is being extended until July 5, 2006. DATES: The comment period has been extended from June 5, 2006 to on or before July 5, 2006. ADDRESSES: *Comments* . Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0199, by one of the following methods: • *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov,* Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0199. • *Fax:*
(202)566-1741, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0199. • *Mail:* U.S. Postal Service, send comments to: EPA Docket Center (6102T), Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0199, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of two copies. • *Hand Delivery:* In person or by courier, deliver comments to: EPA Docket Center (6102T), Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0199, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B-102, Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. Please include a total of two copies. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0199. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be confidential business information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. Send or deliver information identified as CBI to only the following address: Mr. Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer, EPA (C404-02), Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0199, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. The *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *http://www.regulations.gov,* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.* *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0199, EPA West Building, Room B-102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is
(202)566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is
(202)566-1742. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David Markwordt, EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Coatings and Chemicals Group, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number
(919)541-0837; facsimile number
(919)541-0246; e-mail address *markwordt.david@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Regulated Entities* . The regulated categories and entities affected by the proposed rule amendment include, but are not limited to: Category NAICS * Examples of regulated entities Industry 325 324 Chemical manufacturers. Petroleum refineries and manufacturers of coal products. * North American Information Classification System. This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by the national emission standards. To determine whether your facility would be affected by the national emission standards, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR parts 60, 61, 63, and 65, including, but not limited to: part 60, subparts A, Kb, VV, XX, DDD, GGG, KKK, QQQ, and WWW; part 61, subparts F, L, V, BB, and FF; part 63, subparts G, H, I, R, S, U, Y, CC, DD, EE, GG, HH, OO, PP, QQ, SS, TT, UU, VV, YY, GGG, HHH, III, JJJ, MMM, OOO, VVV, FFFF, and GGGGG; and part 65, subparts A, F, and G. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of the national emission standards to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. *Submitting CBI:* Do not submit information which you claim to be CBI to EPA through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information submitted on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. *Worldwide Web (WWW)* . In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this notice is also available on the WWW. Following the Administrator's signature, a copy of the proposed rule will be posted on EPA's Technology Transfer Network
(TTN)policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at *http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg* . The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. Comment Period We received a request to extend the public comment period to July 5, 2006. We agreed to this request, therefore the public comment period will now end on July 5, 2006, rather than June 5, 2006. How Can I Get Copies of the Proposed Amendments and Other Related Information? EPA has established the official public docket for the proposed rulemaking under docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0199. Information on how to access the docket is presented above in the ADDRESSES section. Dated: June 1, 2006. William L. Wehrum, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. [FR Doc. E6-8813 Filed 6-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 122 [EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0141; FRL-8180-7] RIN 2040-AE86 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Water Transfers Proposed Rule AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing an amendment to its Clean Water Act
(CWA)regulations to expressly exclude water transfers from regulation under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting program. The proposed rule would define water transfers as an activity that conveys waters of the United States to another water of the United States without subjecting the water to intervening industrial, municipal, or commercial use. This proposed rule focuses exclusively on water transfers and is not relevant to whether any other activity is subject to the CWA permitting requirement. DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 24, 2006. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0141 by one of the following methods:
(1)Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. EPA prefers to receive comments submitted electronically.
(2)E-mail: *ow-docket@epa.gov* , Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0141.
(3)Mail: Send the original and three copies of your comments to: Water Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode 4203M, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0141.
(4)Hand Delivery: Deliver your comments to: EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0141. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation and special arrangements should be made. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0141. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-mail. The federal regulations.gov Web sites are “anonymous access” systems, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the Regulations index at *http://www.regulations.gov/.* Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically at *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is
(202)566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is
(202)566-2426. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information contact Jeremy Arling, Water Permits Division, Office of Wastewater Management (4203M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-564-2218, e-mail address: *arling.jeremy@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does This Action Apply to Me? B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? II. Background III. Rationale A. Statutory Language and Structure B. Legislative History C. Conclusion IV. Scope of This Proposed Rule V. Designation Authority VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act C. Regulatory Flexibility Act D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act I. General Information A. Does This Action Apply to Me? This action applies to those involved in the transfer of waters of the United States. The following table provides a list of standard industrial codes for operations covered under this revised rule. Table 1.—Entities Potentially Regulated by This Rule Category NAICS Examples of potentially affected entities Resource management parties (includes state departments of fish and wildlife, state departments of pesticide regulation, state environmental agencies, and universities) 924110 Administration of Air and Water Resource and Solid Waste Management Programs Government establishments primarily engaged in the administration, regulation, and enforcement of water resource programs; the administration and regulation of water pollution control and prevention programs; the administration and regulation of flood control programs; the administration and regulation of drainage development and water resource consumption programs; and coordination of these activities at intergovernmental levels. 924120 Administration of Conservation Programs Government establishments primarily engaged in the administration, regulation, supervision and control of land use, including recreational areas; conservation and preservation of natural resources; erosion control; geological survey program administration; weather forecasting program administration; and the administration and protection of publicly and privately owned forest lands. Government establishments responsible for planning, management, regulation and conservation of game, fish, and wildlife populations, including wildlife management areas and field stations; and other administrative matters relating to the protection of fish, game, and wildlife are included in this industry. 237110 Water and Sewer Line and Related Structures Construction This category includes entities primarily engaged in the construction of water and sewer lines, mains, pumping stations, treatment plants and storage tanks. 237990 Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction This category includes dam Construction and management, flood control structure construction, drainage canal and ditch construction, flood control project construction, and spillway, floodwater, construction Public Water Supply 221310 Water Supply This category includes entities engaged in operating water treatment plants and/or operating water supply systems. The water supply system may include pumping stations, aqueducts, and/or distribution mains. The water may be used for drinking, irrigation, or other uses. This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware could potentially be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. EPA welcomes comment identifying those other entities. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 1. *Submitting Confidential Business Information.* Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 2. *Tips for Preparing Your Comments.* When submitting comments, remember to: i. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). ii. Follow directions—The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)part or section number. iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives. vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible. viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. II. Background Water transfers occur routinely and in many different contexts across the United States. Typically, water transfers route water through tunnels, channels, and/or natural stream water features, and either pump or passively direct it for uses such as providing public water supply, irrigation, power generation, flood control, and environmental restoration. Water transfers can be relatively simple, moving a small quantity of water a short distance on the same stream, or very complex, transporting substantial quantities of water over long distances, across both state and basin boundaries. There are thousands of water transfers currently in place in the United States, including 16 major diversion projects in the western States alone. Examples include the Colorado-Big Thompson Project in Colorado and the Central Valley Project in California. Water transfers are administered by various federal, State, and local agencies and other entities. The Bureau of Reclamation administers significant transfers in western States to provide approximately 140,000 farmers with irrigation water. With the use of water transfers, the Army Corps of Engineers keeps thousands of acres of agricultural and urban land in southern Florida from flooding in former areas of Everglades wetlands. Many large cities in the west and the east would not have adequate sources of water for their citizens were it not for the continuous redirection of water from outside basins. For example, both the cities of New York and Los Angeles are dependent on water transfers from distant watersheds to meet their municipal demand. In short, numerous States, localities, and residents are dependent upon water transfers, and these transfers are an integral component of U.S. infrastructure. Although there have been a few isolated instances where entities responsible for water transfers have been issued NPDES permits, EPA is aware of only one State that has a practice of issuing NPDES permits for water transfers. 1 Water transfers are not generally subject to section 402 of the Clean Water Act. However, the Act reserves the ability of States to regulate water transfers under State law and this proposed rulemaking does not affect this state prerogative. *See* CWA section 510. 1 For instance, courts required NPDES permits for water transfers associated with the expansion of a ski resort and the supply of drinking water. See *Dubois* v. *United States Dept. of Ag.,* 103 F.3d 1273 (1st Cir 1996) and *Catskill Mountains Chapter of Trout Unlimited, Inc.* v. *City of New York,* 273 F.3d 481 (2nd Cir 2001). Pennsylvania began issuing permits for water transfers in 1986, in response to a State court decision mandating the issuance of such permits. *DELAWARE Unlimited* v. *DER,* 508 A.2d 348 (Pa. Cmwlth, 1986). The question of whether or not an NPDES permit is required for water transfers has arisen because activities that result in the movement of waters of the U.S., such as trans-basin transfers of water to serve municipal, agricultural, and commercial needs, can also move pollutants from one waterbody (donor water) to another (receiving water). The Supreme Court recently discussed this issue in *South Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist.* v. *Miccosukee Tribe of Indians,* 541 U.S. 95 (2004), leaving the matter unresolved. In this case, the Supreme Court vacated a decision by the 11th Circuit, which had held that a Clean Water Act permit was required for transferring water from one navigable water into another, a Water Conservation Area in the Florida Everglades. The Court remanded the case for further fact-finding as to whether the two waters in question were “meaningfully distinct.” If they were not, no permit would be required. The Court declined to address legal arguments made by the parties because the arguments had not been raised in the lower court proceedings. The Court noted that EPA had not spoken to these legal issues in an administrative document. 541 U.S. at 107. On August 5, 2005, EPA issued a legal memorandum entitled “Agency Interpretation on Applicability of Section 402 of the Clean Water Act to Water Transfers.” (interpretive memorandum) The precise legal question addressed in the interpretive memorandum was whether the movement of pollutants from one water of the U.S. to another by a water transfer is the “addition” of a pollutant potentially subjecting the activity to the permitting requirement under section 402 of the Act. Based on the statute as a whole and consistent with the Agency's longstanding practice, the interpretive memorandum concluded that Congress intended for water transfers to be subject to oversight by water resource management agencies and State non-NPDES authorities, rather than the permitting program under section 402 of the CWA. Today, EPA is proposing an amendment to its Clean Water Act
(CWA)regulations to expressly exclude water transfers from regulation under section 402 of the CWA. The proposed rule would define water transfers as an activity that conveys waters of the United States to another water of the United States without subjecting the water to intervening industrial, municipal, or commercial use. This proposed rule focuses exclusively on water transfers and is not relevant to whether any other activity is subject to the CWA permitting requirement. This proposed rule is organized as follows. Section III discusses the rationale for this exclusion, based on the language, structure, and legislative history of the Clean Water Act; section IV describes the scope of this proposed rule; and section V describes “designation authority” as an additional element that the Agency chose not to propose but for which the Agency is interested in receiving public comment. III. Rationale As stated in EPA's August 5th interpretive memorandum (available at Docket No. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0141), based on the CWA as a whole, the Agency concludes that Congress intended to leave the oversight of water transfers to authorities other than the NPDES program. This proposed rule is based on the legal analysis contained in the interpretive memorandum and explained below. Statutory construction principles instruct that the Clean Water Act should be interpreted by analyzing the statute as a whole. *United States* v. *Boisdore's Heirs,* 49 U.S. 113, 122 (1850). The Supreme Court has long explained “in expounding a statute, we must not be guided by a single sentence or member of a sentence, but look to the provisions of the whole law, and its object and policy.” *Id. See also, Gustafond* v. *Alloyd Co., Inc.,* 513 U.S. 561, 570 (1995), *Smith* v. *United States,* 508 U.S. 223, 233 (1993), *United States Nat'l Bank of Or.* v. *Independent Ins. Agents of Am., Inc.,* 508 U.S. 439, 455 (1993). In general, the “whole statute” interpretation analysis means that “a statute is passed as a whole and not in parts or sections and is animated by one general purpose and intent. Consequently, each part or section should be construed in connection with every other part or section so as to produce a harmonious whole.” Norman J. Singer, *Statutes and Statutory Construction* vol. 2A § 46:05, 154 (6th ed., West Group 2000). As the Second Circuit has explained with regard to the CWA: Although the canons of statutory interpretation provide a court with numerous avenues for supplementing and narrowing the possible meaning of ambiguous text, most helpful to our interpretation of the CWA in this case are two rules. First, when determining which reasonable meaning should prevail, the text should be placed in the context of the entire statutory structure [quoting *United States* v. *Dauray,* 215 F.3d 257, 262 (2d Cir. 2000)]. Second, ‘absurd results are to be avoided and internal inconsistencies in the statute must be dealt with.' *United States* v. *Turkette,* 452 U.S. 576, 580 (1981). *Natural Res. Def. Council* v. *Muszynski,* 268 F.3d 91, 98 (2d Cir. 2001). *See also,* Singer, vol. 3B § 77:4, at 256-258. A holistic approach is needed here in particular because the heart of this matter is the balance Congress created between federal and State oversight of activities affecting the nation's waters. The purpose of the CWA is to protect water quality. Congress nonetheless recognized that programs already existed at the State and local levels for managing water quantity, and it recognized the delicate relationship between the CWA and State and local programs. Looking at the statute as a whole is necessary to ensure that the analysis here is consonant with Congress' overall policies and objectives in the management and regulation of the nation's water resources. The analysis below addresses in turn the statutory language and structure and the legislative history. A. Statutory Language and Structure The Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of a pollutant by any person except in compliance with specified statutory sections, including section 402. CWA section 301(a). The term “discharge of a pollutant” is defined as “any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source.” CWA section 502(12). Where discharges of pollutants occur, they are generally regulated by a permit under the NPDES program. Discharges of pollutants other than dredged or fill material may be authorized by permits issued under section 402 by EPA or States with approved permitting programs. Discharges of dredged or fill material may be authorized by permits issued by the Army Corps of Engineers and authorized States under section 404, and that provision is not addressed or affected by this Agency interpretation. While no one provision of the Act expressly addresses whether water transfers are subject to the NPDES program, the specific statutory provisions addressing the management of water resources—coupled with the overall statutory structure—support the conclusion that Congress did not intend for water transfers to be regulated under section 402. The Act establishes a variety of programs and regulatory initiatives in addition to the NPDES permitting program. It also recognizes that the States have primary responsibilities with respect to the “development and use (including restoration, preservation, and enhancement) of land and water resources.” CWA section 101(b). Congress also made clear that the Clean Water Act is to be construed in a manner that does not unduly interfere with the ability of States to allocate water within their boundaries, stating: It is the policy of Congress that the authority of each State to allocate quantities of water within its jurisdiction shall not be superseded, abrogated or otherwise impaired by [the Act]. It is the further policy of Congress that nothing in this chapter shall be construed to supersede or abrogate rights to quantities of water which have been established by any State. Federal agencies shall co-operate with State and local agencies to develop comprehensive solutions to prevent, reduce and eliminate pollution in concert with programs for managing water sources. CWA section 101(g). While section 101(g) does not prohibit EPA from taking actions under the CWA that it determines are needed to protect water quality, 2 it nonetheless establishes Congress' general direction against unnecessary Federal interference with State allocations of water rights. 2 *PUD No. 1 of Jefferson County.* v. *Wash. State Dep't. of Ecology,* 511 U.S. 700, 720
(1994)(“Sections 101(g) and 510(2) preserve the authority of each State to allocate water quantity as between users; they do not limit the scope of water pollution controls that may be imposed on users who have obtained, pursuant to state law, a water allocation.”). Water transfers are an essential component of the nation's infrastructure for delivering water that users are entitled to receive under State law. Because subjecting water transfers to a federal permitting scheme could unnecessarily interfere with State decisions on allocations of water rights, this section provides additional support for the Agency's interpretation that, absent a clear Congressional intent to the contrary, it is reasonable to read the statute as not requiring NPDES permits for water transfers. *See United States* v. *Bass,* 404 U.S. 336, 349
(1971)(“unless Congress conveys its purpose clearly, it will not be deemed to have significantly changed the federal-state balance.”) A second statutory provision, section 510(2), similarly provides: Except as expressly provided in this Act, nothing in this Act shall * * * be construed as impairing or in any manner affecting any right or jurisdiction of the States with respect to the waters (including boundary waters) of such States. Like section 101(g), this provision supports the notion that Congress did not intend administration of the CWA to unduly interfere with water resource allocation. Finally, one section of the Act—304(f)—expressly addresses water management activities. Mere mention of an activity in section 304(f) does not mean it is exclusively nonpoint source in nature. *See Miccosukee* at 106 (noting that section 304(f)(2)(F) does not explicitly exempt nonpoint sources if they also fall within the definition of point source). Nonetheless, section 304(f) is focused primarily on addressing pollution sources outside the scope of the NPDES program. *See* H.R. Rep. No. 92-911, at 109 (1972), *reprinted in* Legislative History of the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, Vol. 1 at 796 (Comm. Print 1973) (“[t]his section * * * on * * * *nonpoint sources* is among the most important in the 1972 Amendments”) (emphasis added)). This section directed EPA to issue guidelines for identifying and evaluating the nature and extent of nonpoint sources of pollutants, 3 as well as processes, procedures and methods to control pollution from, among other things, “changes in the *movement, flow or circulation of any navigable waters* or ground waters, including changes caused by the construction of *dams, levees, channels, causeways, or flow diversion facilities.* ” CWA 304(f)(2)(F) (emphasis added). 3 Sources not regulated under sections 402 or 404 are generically referred to as “nonpoint sources.” *See National Wildlife Fed'n* v. *Consumers Power Co.,* 862 F.2d 580, 582 (6th Cir. 1988) (“nonpoint source” is shorthand for and “includes all water quality problems not subject to section 402”) (quoting *National Wildlife Fed'n* v. *Gorsuch,* 693 F.2d 156,166) (D.C. Cir. 1982) (internal quotation marks omitted)). While section 304(f) does not exclusively address nonpoint sources of pollution, it nonetheless “concerns nonpoint sources” ( *Miccosukee,* 541 U.S. at 106) and reflects an understanding by Congress that water movement could result in pollution, and that such pollution would be managed by States under their nonpoint source program authorities, rather than the NPDES program. This proposed rule accords with the direction to EPA and other federal agencies in section 101(g) to work with State and local agencies to develop “comprehensive solutions” to water pollution problems “in concert with programs for managing water resources.” Thus, these sections of the Act together demonstrate that Congress was aware that there might be pollution associated with water management activities, but chose to defer to comprehensive solutions developed by State and local agencies for controlling such pollution. Because the NPDES program only focuses on water pollution from point source discharges, it is not the kind of comprehensive program that Congress believed was best suited to addressing pollution that may be associated with water transfers. In contrast with these provisions of the statute which expressly address water management activities, the general prohibition and definition sections of the statute do not explicitly discuss water management. Section 301(a) of the Act proscribes “the discharge of any pollutant by any person” except in compliance with specified sections of the CWA, including section 402. “Discharge of a pollutant” is defined as “any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source.” CWA section 502(12). While the statute does not define “addition,” sections 101(g), 102(b), 304(f) and 510(2) provide a strong indication that the term “addition” should be interpreted in accordance with those more specific sections of the statute. In light of Congress' clearly expressed policy not to unnecessarily interfere with water resource allocation and its inclusion of changes in the movement, flow or circulation of any water of the U.S. in a section of the Act addressing sources of pollutants that would not be subject to regulation under section 402, it is reasonable to interpret “addition” as not generally including the mere transfer of waters from one water of the U.S. to another. The overall structure of the statute further supports this conclusion. In several important ways, water transfers are unlike the types of discharges that were the primary focus of Congressional attention in 1972. Discharges of pollutants covered by section 402 are subject to “effluent” limitations. Water transfers, however, are not like effluent from an industrial, commercial or municipal operation. Rather than discharge effluent, water transfers release one water of the U.S. into another. The operators of water control facilities are generally not responsible for the presence of pollutants in the waters they transport. Rather, those pollutants often enter “the waters of the United States” through point and nonpoint sources located far from those facilities and beyond control of the project operators. Congress generally intended that pollutants be controlled at the source whenever possible. *See* S. Rep. No. 92-414, p. 77
(1972)(justifying the broad definition of navigable waters because it is “essential that discharge of pollutants be controlled at the source”). 4 The pollutants in transferred waters are more sensibly addressed through water resource planning and land use regulations, which attack the problem at its source. *See, e.g.,* CWA section 102(b) (reservoir planning); CWA section 208(b)(2)(F) (land use planning to reduce agricultural nonpoint sources of pollution); CWA section 319 (nonpoint source management programs); and CWA section 401 (state certification of federally licensed projects). Congress acknowledged this when it directed Federal agencies to co-operate with State and local agencies to develop comprehensive solutions to prevent, reduce and eliminate pollution in concert with programs for managing water sources. 4 Recognition of a general intent to control pollutants at the source does not mean that dischargers are responsible only for pollutants that they generate; rather, point sources need only convey pollutants into navigable waters to be subject to the Act. *See Miccosukee* at 105. Municipal separate storm sewer systems, for example, are clearly subject to regulation under the Act. CWA section 402(p). The Agency, therefore, concludes that, taken as a whole, the statutory language and structure of the Clean Water Act indicate that Congress did not generally intend to subject water transfers to the NPDES program. Rather, Congress intended to leave oversight of water transfers to water resource management agencies and the States in cooperation with Federal authorities. B. Legislative History The legislative history of the Clean Water Act also supports this conclusion. First, the legislative history of section 101(g) reveals that “[i]t is the purpose of this [provision] to insure that State [water] allocation systems are not subverted.” 3 Congressional Research Serv., U.S. Library of Congress, Serial No. 95-14, A Legislative History of the Clean Water Act of 1977, at 532 (1978); *see PUD No. 1 of Jefferson County* v. *Washington Dep't of Ecology,* 511 U.S. 700, 721 (1994). Notably, the legislative history of the Act discusses water flow management activities only in the context of the nonpoint source program. In discussing section 304(f), the House Committee Report specifically mentioned water flow management as an area where EPA would provide technical guidance to States for their nonpoint source programs, rather than an area to be regulated under section 402. This section and the information on such nonpoint sources is among the most important in the 1972 Amendments. * * * The Committee, therefore, expects the Administrator to be most diligent in gathering and distribution of the guidelines for the identification of nonpoint sources and the information on processes, procedures, and methods for control of pollution from such nonpoint sources as * * * *natural and manmade changes in the normal flow of surface and ground waters.* H.R. Rep. No. 92-911, at 109
(1972)(emphasis added). In the legislative history of section 208 of the Act, the House Committee report noted that in some States, water resource management agencies allocating stream flows are required to consider water quality impacts. The Report stated: [I]n some States water resource development agencies are responsible for allocation of stream flow and are required to give full consideration to the effects on water quality. To avoid duplication, the Committee believes that a State which has an approved program for the handling of permits under section 402, and which has a program for water resource allocation should continue to exercise the primary responsibility in both of these areas and thus provide a balanced management control system. H.R. Rep. No. 92-911, at 96 (1972). Thus, Congress recognized that the new section 402 permitting program was not the only viable approach for addressing water quality issues associated with State water resource management. The legislative history makes clear that Congress did not intend a wholesale transfer of responsibility for water quality away from water resource agencies to the NPDES authority. Rather, Congress encouraged States to obtain approval of authority to administer the NPDES program under section 402(b) so that the NPDES program could work in concert with water resource agencies' oversight of water management activities to ensure a “balanced management control system.” *Id.* C. Conclusion In sum, the language, structure, and legislative history of the statute all support the conclusion that Congress did not intend to subject water transfers to the NPDES program. Water transfers are an integral part of water resource management; they embody how States and resource agencies manage the nation's water resources and balance competing needs for water. Water transfers also physically implement State regimes for allocating water rights, many of which existed long before enactment of the Clean Water Act. Congress was aware of those regimes, and did not want to impair the ability of these agencies to carry them out. Finding the NPDES program generally inapplicable to water transfers is true to this intent and the structure of the Clean Water Act, and gives meaning to sections 101(g) and 304(f) of the Act. IV. Scope of This Proposed Rule This proposed rule would expressly exclude discharges from water transfers from requiring an NPDES permit. The rule would define a water transfer as an activity that conveys waters of the United States to another water of the United States without subjecting the water to intervening industrial, municipal, or commercial use. Waters of the U.S. are defined for purposes of the NPDES program in the Code of Federal Regulations in § 122.2. A water transfer occurs between two “waters of the United States.” Accordingly, the movement of water through a dam is not a water transfer because the dam merely conveys water from one location to another within the same waterbody. However, in both cases (water transfers between distinct water bodies and movement of waters within the same waterbody), an NPDES permit is not required because no “addition” of a pollutant has occurred. Water transfer facilities should be able to be operated and maintained in a manner which ensures that they do not add pollutants to the water being transferred. If no pollutants are added, a permit would not be required. However, where these point sources do add pollutants to water passing through the structure into the downstream water, NPDES permits are required. *Consumers Power,* 862 F.2d at 588; *Gorsuch,* 693 F.2d at 165, n. 22. Nothing in this rulemaking affects EPA's longstanding approach to regulation of such discharges under section 402. This proposed rule would not affect EPA's longstanding position that, if water is withdrawn from waters of the U.S. for an intervening industrial, municipal or commercial use, the reintroduction of the intake water and associated pollutants is an “addition” subject to NPDES permitting requirements. EPA has long imposed NPDES requirements on entities that withdraw process water or cooling water and then return some or all of the water through a point source. *See, e.g.,* 40 CFR 122.2 (definition of process wastewater); 40 CFR 125.80-125.89 (regulation of cooling towers); 40 CFR 122.45(g) (regulations governing intake pollutants for technology-based permitting); 40 CFR part 132, Appendix F, Procedure 5-D (containing regulations governing water quality-based permitting for intake pollutants in the Great Lakes). Moreover, a discharge from a waste treatment system, for example, to a water of the United States, would not constitute a water transfer (and would require an NPDES permit). *See* 40 CFR 122.2. These situations are distinguished from the water transfers that are the subject of this notice because if water is withdrawn from navigable waters for an intervening industrial, municipal or commercial use, the reintroduction of that intake water and associated pollutants physically introduces pollutants from the outside world into navigable waters and, therefore, is an “addition” subject to NPDES permitting requirements. The fact that some of the pollutants in the discharge may have been present in the source water does not remove the need for a permit, although, under some circumstances, permittees may receive “credit” in their effluent limitations for such pollutants. See, 40 CFR 122.45(g) (regulations governing intake pollutants for technology-based permitting); 40 CFR part 132, Appendix F, Procedure 5-D (containing regulations governing water quality-based permitting for intake pollutants in the Great Lakes). Similarly, an NPDES permit is normally required if a facility withdraws water from a water of the U.S., removes preexisting pollutants to purify the water, and then discharges the removed pollutants (perhaps in concentrated form) back into the water of the U.S. while retaining the purified water for use in the facility. An example of this situation is drinking water treatment facilities, which withdraw water from streams, rivers, and lakes. The withdrawn water typically contains suspended solids, which must be removed to make the water potable. The removed solids are a waste material from the treatment process and, if discharged into waters of the U.S., are subject to NPDES permitting requirements, even though that waste material originated in the withdrawn water. *See, e.g., In re City of Phoenix, Arizona Squaw Peak & Deer Valley Water Treatment Plants,* 9 E.A.D. 515, 2000 WL 1664964 (EPA Envtl. App. Bd. November 1, 2000) (rejecting, on procedural grounds, challenges to NPDES permits for two drinking water treatment plants that draw raw water from the Arizona Canal, remove suspended solids to purify the water, and discharge the solids back into the Canal; *Final NPDES General Permits for Water Treatment Facility Discharges in the State of Massachusetts and New Hampshire,* 65 FR 69,000
(2000)(NPDES permits for discharges of process wastewaters from drinking water treatment plants). Waters that are diverted and used for irrigation and then reintroduced to the waters of the U.S. are exempt from permitting requirements under the exemption for return flows from irrigated agriculture from the definition of “point source” in section 502(14) and this Agency interpretation does not affect that exemption. The activities addressed by this proposed rule also stand in sharp contrast to other activities that have long been subject to the Clean Water Act's permitting requirements. For example, section 402 subjects placer mining of ore deposits in streams and rivers to the NPDES permitting program because the process results in the excavation and point source discharge of dirt and gravel into waters of the U.S. *See Rybachek* v. *EPA,* 904 F.2d 1276, 1285 (9th Cir. 1990). Similarly, section 404 of the Clean Water Act subjects the deposit or redeposit of dredged or fill material to a specialized permitting program because that activity results in the point source discharge of those materials into navigable waters. *See* CWA section 404; *United States* v. *Deaton,* 209 F.3d 331, 335-336 (4th Cir. 2000); *United States* v. *M.C.C. of Fla., Inc.,* 772 F.2d 1501, 1503-1506 (11th Cir. 1985), vacated on other grounds, 481 U.S. 1034 (1987), readopted in relevant part, 848 F.2d 1133 (11th Cir. 1988); *Avoyelles Sportsmen's League, Inc.* v. *Marsh,* 715 F.2d 897, 923-925 (5th Cir. 1983). The Clean Water Act also clearly imposes permitting requirements on publicly owned treatment works, and large and medium municipal separate storm sewer systems. *See* CWA sections 402(a), 402(p)(1)-(4). Congress amended the Clean Water Act in 1987 specifically to add new section 402(p) to better regulate stormwater discharges from point sources. Water Quality Act of 1987, Public Law 100-4, 101 Stat. 7 (1987). Again, this interpretation does not affect EPA's longstanding regulation of such discharges. This proposed rule also would not change EPA's longstanding position, upheld by the Supreme Court in *Miccosukee,* that the definition of “discharge of a pollutant” in the CWA includes coverage of point sources that do not themselves generate pollutants. The Supreme Court stated, “A point source is, by definition, a ‘discernible, confined, and discrete *conveyance* ’ Section 1362(14) (emphasis added). That definition makes plain that a point source need not be the original source of the pollutant; it need only convey the pollutant to ‘navigable waters,’ which are, in turn, defined as ‘the waters of the United States.’ Section 1362(7).” *Miccosukee,* 541 U.S. at 105. EPA solicits comment on the proposed definition of a water transfer. Does the definition properly achieve the Agency's objective of excluding water transfers from NPDES permitting (as intended by Congress) while affirming section 402 jurisdiction over all other currently regulated activities? Does the proposed rule clearly distinguish between situations where the water transfer facility “adds” pollutants to the water being transferred and thus must obtain a permit, and those situations where waters merely pass through the facility without the addition of any pollutant? V. Designation Authority EPA considered, but ultimately did not propose, an additional provision allowing States to designate particular water transfers as subject to the NPDES program on a case-by-case basis. EPA did not select this option but is seeking comment on it. Under this approach, the permitting authority would have the discretion to issue a permit on a case-by-case basis if a transfer would cause a significant impairment of a designated use and no State authorities are being implemented to adequately address the problem. A significant impairment would occur when, as a result of the water transfer, the designated use of the receiving water could no longer be maintained. This designation would be at the sole discretion of the State NPDES authority, and would only apply in States authorized to implement the section 402 program. Again, the Agency is not proposing to establish designation authority, but EPA is interested in the programs States have to address water quality impacts from water transfers, how they are being implemented, and what is the best way to fill any gaps in how States address those impacts currently. EPA notes that, regardless of whether it includes this designation authority in the final rule or not, States retain the authority under State law to regulate water transfers as they see fit, including requiring permits for such transfers. Without designation authority, however, these permits could not be issued under NPDES program authority. VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)) the Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1)Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;
(2)Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3)Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4)Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been determined that this rule is a “significant regulatory action.” As such, this action was submitted to OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or recommendations will be documented in the public record. B. Paperwork Reduction Act This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* This proposed rulemaking would expressly exclude discharges from water transfers from requiring an NPDES permit. This rule does not seek to require potentially affected entities to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose information to or for a Federal agency and therefore would not impose any information collection burden. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA)generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, small entity is defined as:
(1)A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration's
(SBA)regulations at 13 CFR 121.201;
(2)a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and
(3)a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Because EPA is simply codifying the Agency's longtime position that Congress did not generally intend for the NPDES program to regulate the transfer of waters of the United States into another water of the United States, this proposed action will not impose any requirement on small entities. We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. EPA has determined that this proposed rule would not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. EPA is proposing to simply codify the Agency's longtime position that Congress did not generally intend for the NPDES program to regulate the transfer of a water of the United States into another water of the United States. Thus, today's proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. For the same reason, EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Thus, today's proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA. E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), 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.” Under section 6(b) of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. Under section 6(c) of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law, unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. EPA has concluded that this proposed rule does not have Federalism implications. It will not 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132. Today's proposed rule does not change the relationship between the government and the States or change their roles and responsibilities. Rather, this proposed rulemaking would confirm the Agency's longstanding practice that Congress generally intended for water transfers to be subject to oversight by water resource management agencies and State non-NPDES authorities, rather than the permitting program under section 402 of the CWA. In addition, EPA does not expect this rule to have any impact on local governments. Further, the revised regulations would not alter the basic State-Federal scheme established in the Clean Water Act under which EPA authorizes States to carry out the NPDES permitting program. EPA expects the revised regulations to have little effect on the relationship between, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among, the Federal and State governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. Consistent with EPA policy, EPA nonetheless consulted with representatives of State governments early in the process of developing the proposed regulation to permit them to have meaningful and timely input into its development. EPA asked States for data regarding the number of water transfers within their jurisdiction and the mechanisms under State law that could be utilized to address any possibly adverse water quality impacts from those transfers. In considering the designation authority provision, EPA also sought data from the States regarding their use of similar authorities in their stormwater phase II and Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations
(CAFO)rules. In addition to data collection, EPA sought States' opinions on water transfers generally, and designation, specifically. States varied in their concerns, with some opposed to NPDES permitting for water transfers and some supportive of an ability to use it. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule from State and local officials. F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175, entitled, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” “Policies that have tribal implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes.” This proposed rule does not have tribal implications. It 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. Today's proposed rule would clarify that Congress did not generally intend for the NPDES program to regulate the transfer of waters of the United States into another water of the United States. Nothing in this rule would prevent an Indian Tribe from exercising its own organic authority to deal with such matters. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. In the spirit of Executive Order 13175, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and tribal governments, EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from tribal officials. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks Executive Order 13045: “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that:
(1)Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under E.O. 12866, and
(2)concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This regulation is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined under E.O. 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to believe that it addresses environmental health and safety risks that present a disproportionate risk to children. Today's proposed rule would simply clarify Congress's intent that water transfers generally be subject to oversight by water resource management agencies and State non-NPDES authorities, rather than the permitting program under section 402 of the CWA. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This proposed rule would not be subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not an economically significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 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) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standard bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 122 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution control. Dated: June 1, 2006. Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 122 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 122—EPA ADMINISTERED PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM 1. The authority citation for part 122 continues to read as follows: Authority: The Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 *et seq.* 2. Section 122.3 is amended by adding paragraph
(i)to read as follows: § 122.3 Exclusions.
(i)*Discharges from a water transfer* . Water transfer means an activity that conveys waters of the United States to another water of the United States without subjecting the water to intervening industrial, municipal, or commercial use. This exclusion does not apply to pollutants added by the water transfer activity itself to the water being transferred. [FR Doc. E6-8814 Filed 6-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0493; FRL-8072-4] Inert Ingredient; Revocation of a Tolerance Exemption with Insufficient Data for Reassessment AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This document proposes under section 408(e)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) to revoke the existing exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of one inert ingredient because there are insufficient data to make the determination of safety required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2). The inert ingredient tolerance exemption under 40 CFR 180.920 is “α-Alkyl (C <sup>10</sup> -C <sup>16</sup> )-ω-hydroxypoly(oxyethylene) mixture of dihydrogen phosphate and monohydrogen phosphate esters and the corresponding ammonium, calcium, magnesium, monoethanolamine, potassium, sodium, and zinc salts of the phosphate esters; the poly(oxyethylene) content averages 3-20 moles.” The revocation action in this document contributes towards the Agency's tolerance reassessment requirements under FFDCA section 408(q), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act
(FQPA)of 1996. By law, EPA is required by August 2006 to reassess the tolerances that were in existence on August 2, 1996. The regulatory action in this document pertains to the revocation of one tolerance exemption which is counted as tolerance reassessment toward the August 2006 review deadline. DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 7, 2006. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0493, 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 Docket telephone number is
(703)305-5805. *Instructions* : Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0493. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-mail. The Federal regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket* : All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either in the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone number is
(703)305-5805. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kerry Leifer, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703)308-8811; e-mail address: *leifer.kerry@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to: • Crop production (NAICS code 111). • Animal production (NAICS code 112). • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311). • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532). This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. To determine whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability provisions in Unit II. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . II. Background and Statutory Findings A. What Action is the Agency Taking? On May 3, 2006, EPA published a proposed rule in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 25993; FRL-8060-9) to revoke exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance for certain inert ingredients used in pesticide products. Unfortunately, one inert ingredient tolerance exemption was inadvertently omitted from this **Federal Register** proposed rule: “α-Alkyl (C <sup>10</sup> -C <sup>16</sup> )-ω-hydroxypoly(oxyethylene) mixture of dihydrogen phosphate and monohydrogen phosphate esters and the corresponding ammonium, calcium, magnesium, monoethanolamine, potassium, sodium, and zinc salts of the phosphate esters; the poly(oxyethylene) content averages 3-20 moles.” Therefore, in this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to revoke this one inert ingredient tolerance exemption because sufficient data are not available to the Agency to make the safety determination required by FFDCA section 408(c)(2). As described in the **Federal Register** of May 3, 2006, described in this unit, EPA is now in the process of reassessing all inert ingredient exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance (“tolerance exemptions”) established prior to August 2, 1996, as required by FFDCA section 408(q). Under FFDCA section 408(q), tolerance reassessment may lead to regulatory action under FFDCA section 408(e)(1). When taking action under FFDCA section 408(e)(1), EPA may leave a tolerance exemption in effect only if the Agency determines that the tolerance exemption is safe. As is the case for the inert ingredient tolerance exemptions identified in the May 3 **Federal Register** , EPA has insufficient data available to make the safety determination required by FFDCA section 408(c)(2) for this one inert ingredient and is proposing to revoke the tolerance exemption. In making the FFDCA reassessment safety determination, EPA considers the validity, completeness, and reliability of the data that are available to the Agency, FFDCA section 408 (b)(2)(D), and the available information concerning the special susceptibility of infants and children (including developmental effects from *in utero* exposure), FFDCA section 408 (b)(2)(C). Data gaps exist for this inert ingredient in areas critical to reassessment. Without these data, the assessment of possible effects to infants and children cannot be made. Thus, EPA has insufficient data to make the safety finding of FFDCA section 408(c)(2) and is revoking the inert ingredient tolerance exemption identified in this document. In developing risk assessment documents for inert ingredient tolerance exemptions, EPA currently reviews data submitted to the Agency as well as information from reputable, publicly available sources. For example, studies may be available in professional (peer-reviewed) journals, and chemical assessments may be available on the Internet from U.S. Government agencies (e.g., EPA, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, National Institutes of Health, Food and Drug Administration (FDA)) and international organizations (e.g., World Health Organization, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)). In some cases, representatives from chemical and pesticide manufacturing industry associations endeavored to locate data to support reassessment of surfactant chemicals. Nonetheless, sufficient valid and reliable data were not available to make the requisite FFDCA safety finding. EPA could not have made the requisite FFDCA safety finding unless, at the very least, a set of basic toxicity studies had been available to the Agency. It is possible that the tests agreed to under OECD's Screening Information Data Set
(SIDS)program would have sufficed. Especially important to inert ingredient reassessment is an acceptable repeat-dose study. The preferred test for repeat-dose toxicity is the “Combined Repeated Dose Toxicity Study with the Reproduction/Developmental Toxicity Screening Test” (OECD Test Guideline 422). More information about the OECD SIDS and EPA's High Production Volume
(HPV)programs is found at *http://www.epa.gov/oppt/chemrtk/sidsappb.htm* . For the inert ingredient subject to this proposed rule and the inert ingredients identified in the May 3 **Federal Register** , the full OECD SIDS may not have been necessary in some cases because EPA has available a limited number of studies and information on the inert ingredient in question (e.g., acute toxicity studies). In other cases, the limited toxicity information available to the Agency may indicate a need for further testing. EPA always recommends that parties interested in supporting an inert ingredient consult with the Agency prior to embarking on a testing strategy in order to determine existing data gaps and if testing certain chemicals within a multi-chemical exemption would serve to represent the entire exemption. In summary, the safety finding required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2) cannot be made for the one inert ingredient tolerance exemption due to insufficient data. Therefore, EPA is revoking under FFDCA section 408(e)(1) the tolerance exemption identified at the end of this document under 40 CFR 180.920 with the revocation effective 2 years after the date of publication of the final rule in the **Federal Register** . The inert ingredient tolerance exemption that is the subject of this revocation proposal is found in 40 CFR 180.920 and reads as follows: “α-Alkyl (C <sup>10</sup> -C <sup>16</sup> )-ω-hydroxypoly(oxyethylene) mixture of dihydrogen phosphate and monohydrogen phosphate esters and the corresponding ammonium, calcium, magnesium, monoethanolamine, potassium, sodium, and zinc salts of the phosphate esters; the poly(oxyethylene) content averages 3-20 moles.” It is noted that the chemical described in this tolerance exemption is included in a broader tolerance exemption also found in 40 CFR 180.920 that was proposed for revocation for insufficient data in the May 3 **Federal Register** , which reads as follows: “α-Alkyl (C <sup>10</sup> -C <sup>16</sup> )-ω-hydroxypoly (oxyethylene)poly(oxypropylene) mixture of di- and monohydrogen phosphate esters and the corresponding ammonium, calcium, magnesium, monoethanolamine, potassium, sodium, and zinc salts of the phosphate esters; the combined poly(oxyethylene) poly(oxypropylene) content averages 3-20 moles.” The public has had an opportunity to comment on the proposed revocation of the broader tolerance exemption since May 3. Because the public has had an opportunity since May 3 to comment on the broader exemption that encompasses this more narrow tolerance exemption, a 30-day comment period is provided for this proposed revocation of the more narrow tolerance exemption. B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action? A “tolerance” represents the maximum level for residues of pesticide chemicals legally allowed in or on raw agricultural commodities and processed foods. Section 408 of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a, as amended by FQPA, Public Law 104-170, authorizes the establishment of tolerances, exemptions from tolerance requirements, modifications in tolerances, and revocation of tolerances for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on raw agricultural commodities and processed foods. Without a tolerance or exemption, food containing pesticide residues is considered to be unsafe and therefore “adulterated” under FFDCA section 402(a), 21 U.S.C. 342(a). Such food may not be distributed in interstate commerce (21 U.S.C. 331(a)). For a food-use pesticide to be sold and distributed, the pesticide must not only have appropriate tolerances under FFDCA, but also must be registered under Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 136 *et seq* .). Food-use pesticides not registered in the United States must have tolerances in order for commodities treated with those pesticides to be imported into the United States. C. When do These Actions Become Effective? EPA is revoking the tolerance exemption identified in this proposed rule that has insufficient data effective 2 years after the date of publication of the final rule in the **Federal Register** . Any commodities listed in this rule treated with pesticide products containing the inert ingredient and in the channels of trade following the tolerance revocation shall be subject to FFDCA section 408(1)(5), as established by FQPA. Under this section, any residues of this pesticide chemical in or on such food shall not render the food adulterated so long as it is shown to the satisfaction of FDA that: 1. The residue is present as the result of an application or use of the pesticide at a time and in a manner that was lawful under FIFRA. 2. The residue does not exceed the level that was authorized at the time of the application or use to be present on the food under a tolerance or exemption from tolerance. Evidence to show that food was lawfully treated may include records that verify the dates when the pesticide was applied to such food. D. What is the Contribution to Tolerance Reassessment? By law, EPA is required by August 2006 to reassess the tolerances and exemptions from tolerances that were in existence on August 2, 1996. This document revokes one inert ingredient tolerance exemption, which counts as a tolerance reassessment toward the August 2006 review deadline under FFDCA section 408(q), as amended by FQPA in 1996. III. Are the Actions Consistent with International Obligations? The tolerance revocation in this rule is not discriminatory and is designed to ensure that both domestically produced and imported foods meet the food safety standard established by FFDCA. The same food safety standards apply to domestically produced and imported foods. EPA is working to ensure that the U.S. tolerance reassessment program under FQPA does not disrupt international trade. EPA considers Codex Maximum Residue Limits
(MRLs)in setting U.S. tolerances and in reassessing them. MRLs are established by the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues, a committee within the Codex Alimentarius Commission, an international organization formed to promote the coordination of international food standards. It is EPA's policy to harmonize U.S. tolerances with Codex MRLs to the extent possible, provided that the MRLs achieve the level of protection required under FFDCA. EPA's effort to harmonize with Codex MRLs is summarized in the tolerance reassessment section of individual Reregistration Eligibility Decision
(RED)documents. EPA has developed guidance concerning submissions for import tolerance support which was published in the **Federal Register** of June 1, 2000 (65 FR 35069) (FRL-6559-3). This guidance will be made available to interested persons. Electronic copies are available on the Internet at *http://www.epa.gov* . On the Home Page select “Laws, Regulations, and Dockets,” then select “Regulations and Proposed Rules” and then look up the entry for this document under “ **Federal Register** —Environmental Documents.” You can also go directly to the “ **Federal Register** ” listings at *http:// www.epa.gov/fedrgstr.* IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has exempted this type of action 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 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). Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA)(5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq* .), the Agency previously assessed whether establishment of tolerances, exemptions from tolerances, raising of tolerance levels, expansion of exemptions, or revocations might significantly impact a substantial number of small entities and concluded that, as a general matter, these actions do not impose a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. These analyses for tolerance establishments and modifications, and for tolerance revocations were published on May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950) and on December 17, 1997 (62 FR 66020) (FRL-5753-1), respectively, and were provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. Taking into account this analysis, and available information concerning the pesticide chemical listed in this rule, the Agency hereby certifies that this action will not have a significant negative economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Specifically, the Agency has concluded in a memorandum dated May 25, 2001 that for import tolerance revocation there is a negligible joint probability of certain defined conditions holding simultaneously which would indicate an RFA/Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) concern and require more analysis. (This Agency document is available in the docket of this rule). Furthermore, for the pesticide chemical named in this rule, the Agency knows of no extraordinary circumstances that exist as to the present rule that would change the EPA's previous analysis. 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 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. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: May 31, 2006. Donald R. Stubbs, Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows: PART 180—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. 2. In § 180.920, the table is amended by revising the entry in the table to read as follows: § 180.920 Inert ingredients used pre-harvest; exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance. Inert Ingredients Limits Uses * * * * * α-Alkyl (C <sup>10</sup> -C <sup>16</sup> )-ω-hydroxypoly(oxyethylene) mixture of dihydrogen phosphate and monohydrogen phosphate esters and the corresponding ammonium, calcium, magnesium, monoethanolamine, potassium, sodium, and zinc salts of the phosphate esters; the poly(oxyethylene) content averages 3-20 moles Expires June 9, 2008 Surfactant; related adjuvants of surfactants * * * * * [FR Doc. E6-8826 Filed 6-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0036; FRL-8062-7] p-Chlorophenoxyacetic acid, Glyphosate, Difenzoquat, and Hexazinone; Proposed Tolerance Actions AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to revoke certain tolerances for the plant growth regulator p-chlorophenoxyacetic acid and the herbicide hexazinone. Also, EPA is proposing to modify certain tolerances for the plant growth regulator p-chlorophenoxyacetic acid and the herbicides glyphosate, difenzoquat, and hexazinone. In addition, EPA is proposing to establish new tolerances for the herbicides difenzoquat and hexazinone. The regulatory actions proposed in this document are part of the Agency's reregistration program under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and the tolerance reassessment requirements of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) section 408(q), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act
(FQPA)of 1996. By law, EPA is required by August 2006 to reassess the tolerances that were in existence on August 2, 1996. No tolerance reassessments will be counted at the time of a final rule because tolerances in existence on August 2, 1996 that are associated with actions proposed herein were previously counted as reassessed at the time of the completed Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED), Report of the FQPA Tolerance Reassessment Progress and Risk Management Decision (TRED), or **Federal Register** action. DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 7, 2006. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification
(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0036. 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 Docket telephone number is
(703)305-5805. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane Smith, Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703)308-0048; e-mail address: *smith.jane-scott@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to: • Crop production (NAICS code 111). • Animal production (NAICS code 112). • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311). • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532). This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. To determine whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability provisions in Unit IIA. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 1. *Submitting CBI* . Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 2. *Tips for preparing your comments* . When submitting comments, remember to: i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)part or section number. iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives. vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. C. What Can I do if I Wish the Agency to Maintain a Tolerance that the Agency Proposes to Revoke? This proposed rule provides a comment period of 60 days for any person to state an interest in retaining a tolerance proposed for revocation. If EPA receives a comment within the 60-day period to that effect, EPA will not proceed to revoke the tolerance immediately. However, EPA will take steps to ensure the submission of any needed supporting data and will issue an order in the **Federal Register** under FFDCA section 408(f) if needed. The order would specify data needed and the time frames for its submission, and would require that within 90 days some person or persons notify EPA that they will submit the data. If the data are not submitted as required in the order, EPA will take appropriate action under FFDCA. EPA issues a final rule after considering comments that are submitted in response to this proposed rule. In addition to submitting comments in response to this proposal, you may also submit an objection at the time of the final rule. If you fail to file an objection to the final rule within the time period specified, you will have waived the right to raise any issues resolved in the final rule. After the specified time, issues resolved in the final rule cannot be raised again in any subsequent proceedings. II. Background A. What Action is the Agency Taking? EPA is proposing to revoke, remove, modify, and establish specific tolerances for residues of the plant growth regulator p-chlorophenoxyacetic acid and the herbicides glyphosate, difenzoquat, and hexazinone in or on commodities listed in the regulatory text. EPA is proposing these tolerance actions to implement the tolerance recommendations made during the reregistration and tolerance reassessment processes (including follow-up on canceled or additional uses of pesticides). As part of these processes, EPA is required to determine whether each of the amended tolerances meets the safety standard of the FQPA. The safety finding determination of “reasonable certainty of no harm” is discussed in detail in each RED and report of the FQPA Tolerance Reassessment Progress and Risk Management Decision
(TRED)for the active ingredient. REDs and TREDs recommend the implementation of certain tolerance actions, including modifications to reflect current use patterns, meet safety findings, and change commodity names and groupings in accordance with new EPA policy. Printed copies of many REDs and TREDs may be obtained from EPA's National Service Center for Environmental Publications, P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, OH 45242-2419, telephone 1-00-490-9198; fax 1-513-489-8695; internet at *http://www.epa.gov/ncepihom/* and from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161, telephone 1-800-553-6847 or 703-605-6000; internet at *http://www.ntis.gov/* . Electronic copies of REDs and TREDs are available on the internet for glyphosate at *http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/status.htm* , and p-chlorophenoxyacetic acid, difenzoquat, and hexazinone in public dockets EPA-HQ-OPP-2003-0124, EPA-HQ-OPP-2002-0097, and EPA-HQ-OPP-2002-0188, respectively, at *http://www.regulations.gov* . The selection of an individual tolerance level is based on crop field residue studies designed to produce the maximum residues under the existing or proposed product label. Generally, the level selected for a tolerance is a value slightly above the maximum residue found in such studies. The evaluation of whether a tolerance is safe is a separate inquiry. EPA recommends the raising of a tolerance when data show that
(1)lawful use (sometimes through a label change) may result in a higher residue level on the commodity, and
(2)the tolerance remains safe, notwithstanding increased residue level allowed under the tolerance. In REDs, Chapter IV on “Risk management, Reregistration, and Tolerance Reassessment” typically describes the regulatory position, FQPA assessment, cumulative safety determination, determination of safety for U.S. general population, and safety for infants and children. In particular, the human health risk assessment document which supports the RED describes risk exposure estimates and whether the Agency has concerns. In TREDs, the Agency discusses its evaluation of the dietary risk associated with the active ingredient and whether it can determine that there is a reasonable certainty (with appropriate mitigation) that no harm to any population subgroup will result from aggregate exposure. Explanations for proposed modifications in tolerances can be found in the RED and TRED document and in more detail in the Residue Chemistry Chapter document which supports the RED and TRED. Copies of the Residue Chemistry Chapter documents are found in the Administrative Record and paper copies for difenzoquat and hexazinone can be found under their respective public docket numbers, identified above. Paper copies for p-chlorophenoxyacetic acid and glyphosate are available in the public docket for this rule. Electronic copies are available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, regulations.gov at *http://www.regulations.gov/* . You may search for this rule under docket number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0036, or for an individual chemical under its respective docket number, then click on that docket number to view its contents. The aggregate exposures and risks are not of concern for the above mentioned pesticide active ingredients based upon the data identified in the RED or TRED which lists the submitted studies that the Agency found acceptable. EPA has found that the tolerances that are proposed in this document to be established or modified, are safe, i.e., that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residues, in accordance with section 408(b)(2)(C). (Note that changes to tolerance nomenclature do not constitute modifications of tolerances). These findings are discussed in detail in each RED or TRED. The references are available for inspection as described in this document under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION . In addition, EPA is proposing to revoke certain specific tolerances because either they are no longer needed or are associated with food uses that are no longer registered under FIFRA. Those instances where registrations were canceled were because the registrant failed to pay the required maintenance fee and/or the registrant voluntarily canceled one or more registered uses of the pesticide. It is EPA's general practice to propose revocation of those tolerances for residues of pesticide active ingredients on crop uses for which there are no active registrations under FIFRA, unless any person in comments on the proposal indicates a need for the tolerance to cover residues in or on imported commodities or domestic commodities legally treated. 1. *p-Chlorophenoxyacetic acid* . The Agency canceled the last registered uses for p-chlorophenoxyacetic acid on tomato in May 1995. Therefore, the Agency is proposing to revoke the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.202(a)(1) for combined residues of the plant regulator p-chlorophenoxyacetic acid and its metabolite p-chlorophenol in or on tomato, remove paragraph (a)(1), and recodify existing paragraph (a)(2) as paragraph (a). Based on the available data that indicate combined residues of p-chlorophenoxyacetic acid and its metabolite p-chlorophenol in or on mung bean sprouts will not exceed 0.2 ppm, the Agency determined that the tolerance should be lowered to 0.2 ppm. Therefore, EPA is proposing to decrease the tolerance for combined residues of the plant regulator p-chlorophenoxyacetic acid and its metabolite p-chlorophenol to inhibit embryonic root development in or on bean, mung, sprouts from 2.0 to 0.2 ppm in newly recodified 40 CFR 180.202(a). 2. *Glyphosate* . A RED was completed on glyphosate in September 1993 before the passage of the FQPA. On April 11, 1997 (62 FR 17723) (FRL-5598-6) EPA published a notice in the **Federal Register** which established new uses for glyphosate. Existing tolerances for glyphosate in 40 CFR 180.364 were considered by the Agency to be reassessed at that time. Although the glyphosate RED recommended revocation of tolerances based on no registered uses for the following food commodities; bread fruit, canistel, cherimoya, cacao bean, date, marmaladebox (formerly genip), jaboticaba, jackfruit, persimmon, sapote (black and white), soursop, and tamarind at 0.2 ppm and coconut at 0.1 ppm; these food uses are currently active and have existed for years since the RED. Canistel, cacao bean, jackfruit, and sapote have existed since 2003; bread fruit, cherimoya, marmaladebox, jaboticaba, soursop, and tamarind since 2000, and persimmon and dates since 1998. Therefore, EPA will maintain these tolerances in 40 CFR 180.364. Data on glyphosate residues in or on both tea leaves and instant tea were available at the time of the RED. Nevertheless, instant tea was also recommended for revocation in the RED because the Agency at that time did not consider it to be a significant item in the daily dietary risk assessment of the population of the United States from pesticide use on that processed commodity. However, instant tea is now considered to be a processed commodity according to the “Table 1.—Raw Agricultural and Processed Commodities and Feedstuffs Derived from Crops” which is found in Residue Chemistry Test Guidelines OPPTS 860.1000 dated August 1996, available at *http://www.epa.gov/opptsfrs/publications/OPPTS_Harmonized/860_Residue_Chemistry_Test_Guidelines/Series/* . As stated above, existing tolerances for glyphosate in 40 CFR 180.364, including instant tea, were reassessed at the time of new use approvals on (April 11, 1997, 62 FR 17723). Therefore, EPA will maintain the tolerance on “tea, instant” in 40 CFR 180.364. In the RED, it was recommended that tolerances be established for potato chips, granules, flakes and processed potato waste; however, the quality of the data for potato chips, granules and processed potato waste was in question. In 1996 new residue data on potatoes and processed potato foods and feeds were provided to the Agency. These data indicated that at the 10x rate residues were < 0.01 ppm glyphosate in or on fresh potato chips, dry peel, and wet peel; and 0.02 - 0.049 ppm glyphosate on fresh flakes. Based on these data the Agency has determined that the established tolerance of 0.2 ppm for “vegetable, root and tuber, group 1, except sugar beet” is sufficient to cover all measured and anticipated residues of glyphosate in raw tubers and in potato peels, chips, flakes or granules. Therefore, tolerances for potato chips, granules, flakes and processed potato waste are no longer needed. In an effort to achieve compatibility with Codex Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs), EPA is proposing to decrease the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.364
(a)for residues of glyphosate -(phosphonomethyl)glycine resulting from the application of glyphosate, the isopropylamine salt of glyphosate, the ethanolamine salt of glyphosate, the ammonium salt of glyphosate, and the potassium salt of glyphosate in or on kiwifruit from 0.2 ppm to 0.1 ppm. In an effort to achieve compatibility with Codex MRLs, EPA is proposing to increase the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.364
(a)for residues of glyphosate -(phosphonomethyl)glycine resulting from the application of glyphosate, the isopropylamine salt of glyphosate, the ethanolamine salt of glyphosate, the ammonium salt of glyphosate, and the potassium salt of glyphosate in or on cattle, liver and hog, liver from 0.5 ppm to 1.0 ppm. The Agency has determined that the increased tolerances are safe; i.e., there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. EPA is proposing to revise commodity terminology in 40 CFR 180.364 to conform to current Agency practice as follows: Hop, dried cone to hop, dried cones; wheat, milling fractions, (except flour) to wheat, bran, wheat, middlings, and wheat, shorts; grain, cereal, stover and straw, group to grain, cereal, forage, fodder and straw, group 16; vegetable, bulb, group to vegetable, bulb, group 3; vegetable, foliage of legume except soybean, subgroup 7A to vegetable, foliage of legume, subgroup 7A, except soybean; vegetable, legume, group 6 except soybean to vegetable, legume, group 6, except soybean; vegetable, fruiting, group to vegetable, fruiting, group 8; vegetable, leafy, group to vegetable, leafy, group 4, and vegetable, leaves of root and tuber, group (except sugar beet tops) to vegetable, leaves of root and tuber, group 2, except sugar beet tops. The tolerance reassessment in the RED proposed that alfalfa (fresh and hay), clover and other non-grass animal feeds be consolidated in the corresponding crop group “animal feed, nongrass, group 18” at 100 ppm. Since the RED was published, the “animal feed, nongrass, group 18” was established; however, due to changes in the use patterns and grazing intervals the corresponding tolerance level is 400 ppm. Also, the existing and conflicting tolerances for “alfalfa, hay” (400 ppm) and “alfalfa, forage” (175 ppm), respectively, should be removed since the existing tolerance on “animal feed, nongrass, group 18” (400 ppm) covers these animal feed items. This was originally proposed by the EPA June 18, 2003 (68 FR 36472) (FRL-7308-8). Therefore, EPA is proposing to remove the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.364 on alfalfa, forage at 175 ppm and alfalfa, hay at 400 ppm, because they are no longer needed and their commodity uses are covered by the existing group tolerance. The RED recommended that a crop group tolerance for, “grass forage, fodder and hay, group 17” be established at 200 ppm. Since then, the tolerance “grass forage, fodder and hay, group 17” was established and increased to 300 ppm on September 27, 2002 due to changes in the use patterns and pre-grazing intervals (67 FR 60934, FRL-7200-2), and (65 FR 57957, FRL-6746-6). Since the 1993 RED tolerance recommendations, multiple tolerance actions have occurred to affect those original recommendations. The tolerance levels and commodity names have changed due to commodity terminology updates, crop group composition changes, adjustments in use patterns or intervals of use, additional data submissions, and changes in the tolerance expression in 40 CFR 180.364 for glyphosate (60 FR 45062, FRL-4962-1), (61 FR 7729, FRL-5351-5), (61 FR 15192, FRL-5351-1), (62 FR 17723, FRL-5598-6), (63 FR 54058, FRL-6036-1), (64 FR 18360, FRL-6073-5), (64 FR 41818, FRL-6096-2), (64 FR 66108, FRL-6390-5), (65 FR 57957, FRL-6746-6), (67 FR 60934, FRL-7200-2), (68 FR 36472, FRL-7308-8), (68 FR 39460, FRL-7316-5, (69 FR 65081, FRL-7683-9), and (70 FR 7861, FRL-7697-7). 3. *Difenzoquat* . Based on available field trial data that indicate residues of difenzoquat in or on barley grain were non-detectable ( < 0.05 ppm), barley straw were as high as 4.0 ppm, and wheat straw were as high as 4.2 ppm, the Agency determined that these tolerances should be decreased to 0.05 ppm, 5.0 ppm, and 5.0 ppm, respectively. Therefore, EPA is proposing to decrease the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.369 for residues of difenzoquat in or on barley, grain from 0.2 to 0.05 ppm; barley, straw from 20 to 5.0 ppm; and wheat, straw from 20 to 5.0 ppm. Processing data for wheat grain and aspirated grain fractions indicate that residues of difenzoquat concentrated 4-fold in wheat bran and 4.6-fold in shorts, and minimal concentration occurred in middlings. Residues did not concentrate in flour. The wheat processing data are also applicable to barley. Based on those concentration factors and the reassessed tolerance of 0.05 ppm for wheat grain, the Agency determined that tolerances for both wheat bran and shorts should be established at 0.25 ppm. Therefore, EPA is proposing to establish tolerances in 40 CFR 180.369 at 0.25 ppm for residues of difenzoquat in or on wheat, bran and wheat, shorts. In addition, because the wheat processing data are translated to barley, EPA is proposing to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.369 for residues of difenzoquat in or on barley, bran at 0.25 ppm. 4. *Hexazinone* . The TRED mentions the need for additional method validation of Method AMR 3783-6 for determining hexazinone (parent and metabolite) levels in milk and livestock tissues. The method has undergone successful independent validation and radiovalidation studies. Additional validation by EPA laboratories is not required. The method is considered adequate for enforcement purposes for residues of hexazinone (and metabolites) in milk and livestock tissues. According to the TRED, the tolerance expression, which is currently expressed as hexazinone and its metabolites (calculated as hexazinone) in 40 CFR 180.396(a) for plant, animal, and milk commodities for general tolerances, and in plant commodities for regional tolerances in 40 CFR 180.396(c), should be modified to include all the specific metabolites in plants, animal tissue and milk. Consequently, EPA is proposing to separate and recodify plant, animal, and milk tolerances from 180.396(a) to (a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3), respectively. Therefore, EPA is proposing that the tolerance expressions in 40 CFR 180.396 read as follows: (a)(1) *General* . Tolerances are established for the combined residues of hexazinone (3-cyclohexyl-6-(dimethylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-(1H,3H)-dione and its plant metabolites; A [3-(4-hydroxycyclohexyl)-6-(dimethylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4(1H,3H)-dione], B [3-cyclohexyl-6-(methylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-(1H,3H)-dione], C [3-(4-hydroxycyclohexyl)-6-(methylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-(1H,3H)-dione], D [3-cyclohexyl)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4,6-(1H,3H,5H)-trione], and E [3-(4-hydroxycyclohexyl)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4,6-(1H,3H,5H)-trione] (calculated as hexazinone) in the following food commodities: (a)(2) Tolerances are established for the combined residues of hexazinone (3-cyclohexyl-6-(dimethylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-(1H,3H)-dione and its animal tissue metabolites; B [3-cyclohexyl-6-(methylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-(1H,3H)-dione] and F [3-cyclohexyl-6-amino-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-(1H,3H)-dione (calculated as hexazinone) in the following food commodities: (a)(3) Tolerances are established for the combined residues of hexazinone (3-cyclohexyl-6-(dimethylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-(1H,3H)-dione and its metabolites; B [3-cyclohexyl-6-(methylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-(1H,3H)-dione], C [3-(4-hydroxycyclohexyl)-6-(methylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-(1H,3H)-dione] , C-1 [3-(2-hydroxycyclohexyl)-6-(methylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4(1H,3H)-dione], C-2 [3-(3-hydroxycyclohexyl)-6-(methylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4(1H,3H)-dione] and F (calculated as hexazinone) in milk: and
(c)*Tolerances with regional registrations* . Tolerances with regional registration, as defined in §180.1(n) and which excludes use of hexazinone on sugarcane in Florida, are established for the combined residues of hexazinone (3-cyclohexyl-6-(dimethylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-(1H,3H)-dione and its plant metabolites; A [3-(4-hydroxycyclohexyl)-6-(dimethylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4(1H,3H)-dione], B [3-cyclohexyl-6-(methylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-(1H,3H)-dione], C [3-(4-hydroxycyclohexyl)-6-(methylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-(1H,3H)-dione], D [3-cyclohexyl)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4,6-(1H,3H,5H)-trione], and E [3-(4-hydroxycyclohexyl)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4,6-(1H,3H,5H)-trione] (calculated as hexazinone) in the following commodities. Based on available ruminant feeding data at exaggerated pesticide dose levels and the maximum theoretical dietary burden, EPA determined that there is no reasonable expectation of finite hexazinone residues of concern in livestock from treated feed. At an exaggerated (62.5x) feeding level, residues of hexazinone and its metabolites were non-detectable; i.e., were below the combined limit of quantitation
(LOQs)of 0.1 ppm in fat. Therefore, the Agency determined that tolerances for fat of cattle, goats, hogs, horses, and sheep are no longer needed under 40 CFR 180.6(a)(3). As a result, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.396 for combined hexazinone residues of concern in or on cattle, fat; goat, fat; hog, fat; horse, fat; and sheep, fat. After correction of the exaggerated feeding dose (62.5x) for cattle, goats, horses, and sheep, the Agency determined that residue levels of hexazinone and its metabolites ranged as high as 0.09 ppm (just below the sum of the LOQs or 0.1 ppm), and therefore meat and meat byproduct tolerances should be maintained in newly recodified 40 CFR 180.396(a)(2) at 0.1 ppm for cattle, goats, horses, and sheep. After correction of the exaggerated feeding dose
(640x)for hogs, the Agency determined that residue levels of hexazinone and its metabolites were non-detectable; i.e., were below the combined LOQs of 0.1 ppm in tissue. Therefore, the tolerances on hog meat and meat byproducts are no longer needed under 40 CFR 180.6(a)(3). As a result of the available ruminant feeding data and the enforcement method, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.396 for combined hexazinone residues of concern in or on hog, meat and hog, meat byproducts. In addition, after correction of the exaggerated feeding dose (62.5x) for cattle, the Agency determined that residue levels of hexazinone and its metabolites in whole milk ranged as high as 0.164 ppm. Based on the enforcement method, the sum of the combined LOQs for hexazinone and its metabolites, EPA is proposing to increase the tolerance in the newly recodified 40 CFR 180.396(a)(3) for the combined hexazinone residues of concern in or on milk from 0.1 to 0.2 ppm. The Agency determined that the increased tolerance is safe; i.e., there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. Available data indicate combined residues of hexazinone and its regulated metabolites were < 0.3 ppm in or on blueberries and < 0.35 ppm in or on pineapples. Based on the combined LOQs (0.55 ppm) of the enforcement method for parent plus metabolites, EPA is proposing to increase the tolerances in newly recodified 40 CFR 180.396(a)(1) for combined hexazinone residues of concern in or on blueberry from 0.2 to 0.6 ppm and pineapple (whole fruit) from 0.5 to 0.6 ppm, and revise pineapple (whole fruit) to pineapple. The Agency determined that the increased tolerance is safe; i.e., there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. Available data indicate combined residues of hexazinone and its regulated metabolites were < 0.35 ppm in or on sugarcane. Based on the combined LOQs (0.55 ppm) of the enforcement method for parent plus metabolites, the Agency determined that the tolerance for sugarcane, cane should be increased to 0.6 ppm. Also, based on available sugarcane processing data, the Agency determined that residues of hexazinone and its metabolites concentrated 32-fold to final (blackstrap) molasses, the form of molasses typically fed to livestock. After adjusting for the 2.0x degree of exaggeration used in the processing study, the Agency determined that while the calculated residue was greater than the recommended tolerance for the raw agricultural commodity (sugarcane, cane), it was below the current tolerance level for sugarcane molasses and should be decreased to 4.0 ppm. Therefore, EPA is proposing to increase the tolerance for sugarcane, cane and decrease the tolerance for sugarcane, molasses with regional registration in 40 CFR 180.396(c), as defined in 180.1(n) and which excludes use of hexazinone on sugarcane in Florida, for combined hexazinone residues of concern in or on sugarcane, cane from 0.2 to 0.6 ppm and sugarcane molasses from 5.0 to 4.0 ppm, and revise sugarcane molasses to sugarcane, molasses. The Agency determined that the increased tolerance is safe; i.e., there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. Based on the available residue data, the TRED recommended decreasing the tolerance in/on alfalfa hay contingent upon previously requested label revisions by the registrant related to the pre-harvest and pre-grazing intervals. The tolerance decrease is solely a reflection of changes in the use pattern; the decrease is not required for the tolerance to be safe. The Agency is in the process of following up with the registrant and will address the tolerance modification in a future **Federal Register** notice. Based on available data that indicate combined residues of hexazinone and its regulated metabolites as high as 1.46 ppm in or on alfalfa seed, the Agency determined that a tolerance should be established at 2.0 ppm. Therefore, EPA is proposing to establish a tolerance in newly recodified 40 CFR 180.396(a)(1) for combined hexazinone residues of concern in or on alfalfa, seed at 2.0 ppm. In addition, EPA is proposing to revise commodity terminology to conform to current Agency practice as follows: In 40 CFR 180.396(a) alfalfa green forage to alfalfa, forage; grass, range to grass, forage; and grass, pasture to grass, hay. B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action? A “tolerance” represents the maximum level for residues of pesticide chemicals legally allowed in or on raw agricultural commodities and processed foods. Section 408 of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a, as amended by the FQPA of 1996, Public Law 104-170, authorizes the establishment of tolerances, exemptions from tolerance requirements, modifications in tolerances, and revocation of tolerances for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on raw agricultural commodities and processed foods. Without a tolerance or exemption, food containing pesticide residues is considered to be unsafe and therefore, “adulterated” under section 402(a) of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 342(a). Such food may not be distributed in interstate commerce (21 U.S.C. 331(a)). For a food-use pesticide to be sold and distributed, the pesticide must not only have appropriate tolerances under the FFDCA, but also must be registered under FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136 *et seq.* ). Food-use pesticides not registered in the United States must have tolerances in order for commodities treated with those pesticides to be imported into the United States. EPA is proposing these tolerance actions to implement the tolerance recommendations made during the reregistration and tolerance reassessment processes (including follow-up on canceled or additional uses of pesticides). As part of these processes, EPA is required to determine whether each of the amended tolerances meets the safety standard of the FQPA. The safety finding determination is discussed in detail in each Post-FQPA RED and TRED for the active ingredient. REDs and TREDs recommend the implementation of certain tolerance actions, including modifications to reflect current use patterns, to meet safety findings, and change commodity names and groupings in accordance with new EPA policy. Printed and electronic copies of the REDs and TREDs are available as provided in Unit II.A. EPA has issued TREDs for p-chlorophenoxyacetic acid, difenzoquat, and hexazinone. Glyphosate tolerances were reassessed post-FQPA as part of the Agency's determinations on April 11, 1997 (62 FR 17723) to establish new glyphosate uses and therefore a TRED to reassess its tolerances was not needed. All of these active ingredients had REDs which were completed prior to FQPA. REDs and TREDs contain the Agency's evaluation of the data base for these pesticides, including requirements for additional data on the active ingredients to confirm the potential human health and environmental risk assessments associated with current product uses, and in REDs state conditions under which these uses and products will be eligible for reregistration. The REDs and TREDs recommended the establishment, modification, and/or revocation of specific tolerances. RED and TRED recommendations such as establishing or modifying tolerances, and in some cases revoking tolerances, are the result of assessment under the FQPA standard of “reasonable certainty of no harm.” However, tolerance revocations recommended in REDs and TREDs that are proposed in this document do not need such assessment when the tolerances are no longer necessary. EPA's general practice is to propose revocation of tolerances for residues of pesticide active ingredients on crops for which FIFRA registrations no longer exist and on which the pesticide may therefore no longer be used in the United States. EPA has historically been concerned that retention of tolerances that are not necessary to cover residues in or on legally treated foods may encourage misuse of pesticides within the United States. Nonetheless, EPA will establish and maintain tolerances even when corresponding domestic uses are canceled if the tolerances, which EPA refers to as “import tolerances,” are necessary to allow importation into the United States of food containing such pesticide residues. However, where there are no imported commodities that require these import tolerances, the Agency believes it is appropriate to revoke tolerances for unregistered pesticides in order to prevent potential misuse. Furthermore, as a general matter, the Agency believes that retention of import tolerances not needed to cover any imported food may result in unnecessary restriction on trade of pesticides and foods. Under section 408 of the FFDCA, a tolerance may only be established or maintained if EPA determines that the tolerance is safe based on a number of factors, including an assessment of the aggregate exposure to the pesticide and an assessment of the cumulative effects of such pesticide and other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity. In doing so, EPA must consider potential contributions to such exposure from all tolerances. If the cumulative risk is such that the tolerances in aggregate are not safe, then every one of these tolerances is potentially vulnerable to revocation. Furthermore, if unneeded tolerances are included in the aggregate and cumulative risk assessments, the estimated exposure to the pesticide would be inflated. Consequently, it may be more difficult for others to obtain needed tolerances or to register needed new uses. To avoid potential trade restrictions, the Agency is proposing to revoke tolerances for residues on crops uses for which FIFRA registrations no longer exist, unless someone expresses a need for such tolerances. Through this proposed rule, the Agency is inviting individuals who need these import tolerances to identify themselves and the tolerances that are needed to cover imported commodities. Parties interested in retention of the tolerances should be aware that additional data may be needed to support retention. These parties should be aware that, under FFDCA section 408(f), if the Agency determines that additional information is reasonably required to support the continuation of a tolerance, EPA may require that parties interested in maintaining the tolerances provide the necessary information. If the requisite information is not submitted, EPA may issue an order revoking the tolerance at issue. When EPA establishes tolerances for pesticide residues in or on raw agricultural commodities, consideration must be given to the possible residues of those chemicals in meat, milk, poultry, and/or eggs produced by animals that are fed agricultural products (for example, grain or hay) containing pesticides residues (40 CFR 180.6). When considering this possibility, EPA can conclude that: 1. Finite residues will exist in meat, milk, poultry, and/or eggs. 2. There is a reasonable expectation that finite residues will exist. 3. There is a reasonable expectation that finite residues will not exist. If there is no reasonable expectation of finite pesticide residues in or on meat, milk, poultry, or eggs, tolerances do not need to be established for these commodities (40 CFR 180.6(b) and (c)). EPA has evaluated certain specific meat, milk, poultry, and egg tolerances proposed for revocation in this rule and has concluded that there is no reasonable expectation of finite pesticide residues of concern in or on those commodities. C. When do These Actions Become Effective? EPA is proposing that these revocations, modifications, establishments of tolerances, and commodity terminology revisions become effective on the date of publication of the final rule in the **Federal Register** . For this rule, proposed revocations will affect tolerances for uses which have been canceled for many years or are no longer needed. The Agency believes that treated commodities have had sufficient time for passage through the channels of trade. However, if EPA is presented with information that existing stocks would still be available and that information is verified, the Agency will consider extending the expiration date of the tolerance. If you have comments regarding existing stocks and whether the effective date allows sufficient time for treated commodities to clear the channels of trade, please submit comments as described under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION . Any commodities listed in this proposal treated with the pesticides subject to this proposal, and in the channels of trade following the tolerance revocations, shall be subject to FFDCA section 408(1)(5), as established by FQPA. Under this section, any residues of these pesticides in or on such food shall not render the food adulterated so long as it is shown to the satisfaction of the Food and Drug Administration that:
(1)The residue is present as the result of an application or use of the pesticide at a time and in a manner that was lawful under FIFRA, and
(2)the residue does not exceed the level that was authorized at the time of the application or use to be present on the food under a tolerance or exemption from tolerance. Evidence to show that food was lawfully treated may include records that verify the dates when the pesticide was applied to such food. D. What Is the Contribution to Tolerance Reassessment? By law, EPA is required by August 3, 2006 to reassess the tolerances in existence on August 2, 1996. As of April 19, 2006, EPA has reassessed over 8,070 tolerances. Regarding tolerances mentioned in this proposed rule, tolerances in existence as of August 2, 1996 were previously counted as reassessed at the time of the signature completion of a post-FQPA RED or TRED for each active ingredient. Therefore, no further tolerance reassessments would be counted toward the August 2006 review deadline. III. Are The Proposed Actions Consistent with International Obligations? The tolerance revocations in this proposal are not discriminatory and are designed to ensure that both domestically-produced and imported foods meet the food safety standard established by the FFDCA. The same food safety standards apply to domestically produced and imported foods. EPA is working to ensure that the U.S. tolerance reassessment program under FQPA does not disrupt international trade. EPA considers Codex MRLs in setting U.S. tolerances and in reassessing them. MRLs are established by the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues, a committee within the Codex Alimentarius Commission, an international organization formed to promote the coordination of international food standards. It is EPA's policy to harmonize U.S. tolerances with Codex MRLs to the extent possible, provided that the MRLs achieve the level of protection required under FFDCA. EPA's effort to harmonize with Codex MRLs is summarized in the tolerance reassessment section of individual Reregistration Eligibility Decision documents. EPA has developed guidance concerning submissions for import tolerance support in the **Federal Register** of June 1, 2000 (65 FR 35069) (FRL-6559-3). This guidance will be made available to interested persons. Electronic copies are available on the internet at *http://www.epa.gov/* . On the Home Page select “Laws, Regulations, and Dockets,” then select “Regulations and Proposed Rules” and then look up the entry for this document under “ **Federal Register** ”—Environmental Documents.” You can also go directly to the “ **Federal Register** ” listings at *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/* . IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews In this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to establish tolerances under FFDCA section 408(e), and also modify and revoke specific tolerances established under FFDCA section 408. The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has exempted these types of actions (i.e., establishment and modification of a tolerance and tolerance revocation for which extraordinary circumstances do not exist) from review under Executive Order 12866,entitled *Regulatory Planning and Review* (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this proposed rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of significance, this proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, *Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use* (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This proposed rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* , or impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA)(Public Law 104-4). Nor does it require any special considerations as required by Executive Order 12898, entitled *Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations* (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994); or OMB review or any other Agency action under Executive Order 13045, entitled *Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks* (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA)(5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ), the Agency previously assessed whether establishment of tolerances, exemptions from tolerances, raising of tolerance levels, expansion of exemptions, or revocations might significantly impact a substantial number of small entities and concluded that, as a general matter, these actions do not impose a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. These analyses for tolerance establishments and modifications, and for tolerance revocations were published on May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950) and on December 17, 1997 (62 FR 66020), respectively, and were provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. Taking into account this analysis, and available information concerning the pesticides listed in this proposed rule, the Agency hereby certifies that this proposed action will not have a significant negative economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In a memorandum dated May 25, 2001, EPA determined that eight conditions must all be satisfied in order for an import tolerance or tolerance exemption revocation to adversely affect a significant number of small entity importers, and that there is a negligible joint probability of all eight conditions holding simultaneously with respect to any particular revocation. (This Agency document is available in the docket of this proposed rule). Furthermore, for the pesticide named in this proposed rule, the Agency knows of no extraordinary circumstances that exist as to the present proposal that would change the EPA's previous analysis. Any comments about the Agency's determination should be submitted to the EPA along with comments on the proposal, and will be addressed prior to issuing a final rule. In addition, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132,entitled *Federalism* (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” This proposed rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers and food retailers, not States. This action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of section 408(n)(4) of the FFDCA. For these same reasons, the Agency has determined that this proposed rule does not have any “tribal implications” as described in Executive Order 13175, entitled *Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments* (65 FR 67249, November 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 proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: May 30, 2006. James Jones, Director, Office of Pesticide Programs. Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR chapter I be amended as follows: PART 180—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. 2. In §180.202, paragraph
(a)is revised to read as follows: § 180.202 p-Chlorophenoxyacetic acid; tolerances for residues.
(a)*General* . A tolerance is established for the combined residues of the plant regulator p-chlorophenoxyacetic acid and its metabolite p-chlorophenol to inhibit embryonic root development in or on the following food commodity: Commodity Parts per million Bean, mung, sprouts 0.2 3. In §180.364, the table in paragraph
(a)is revised to read as follows: § 180.364 Glyphosate; tolerances for residues.
(a)*General* . * * * Commodity Parts per million Acerola 0.2 Alfalfa, seed 0.5 Almond, hulls 25 Animal feed, nongrass, group 18 400 Aloe vera 0.5 Ambarella 0.2 Artichoke, globe 0.2 Asparagus 0.5 Atemoya 0.2 Avocado 0.2 Bamboo, shoots 0.2 Banana 0.2 Barley, bran 30 Barley, grain 20 Beet, sugar, dried pulp 25 Beet, sugar, roots 10 Beet, sugar, tops 10 Berry group 13 0.2 Betelnut 1.0 Biriba 0.2 Blimbe 0.2 Borage, seed 0.1 Breadfruit 0.2 Cactus, fruit 0.5 Cactus, pads 0.5 Canistel 0.2 Canola, meal 15 Canola, seed 10 Cattle, kidney 4.0 Cattle, liver 1.0 Chaya 1.0 Cherimoya 0.2 Citrus, dried pulp 1.5 Cacao bean 0.2 Coconut 0.1 Coffee, bean 1.0 Corn, field, forage 6.0 Corn, field, grain 1.0 Cotton, gin byproducts 175 Cotton, undelinted seed 35 Cranberry 0.2 Crambe, seed 0.1 Custard apple 0.2 Date 0.2 Dokudami 2.0 Durian 0.2 Egg 0.05 Epazote 1.3 Feijoa 0.2 Fig 0.2 Fish 0.25 Flax, meal 8.0 Flax, seed 4.0 Fruit, citrus, group 10 0.5 Fruit, pome, group 11 0.2 Fruit, stone, group 12 0.2 Galangal, root 0.2 Ginger, white, flower 0.2 Goat, kidney 4.0 Goat, liver 0.5 Gourd, buffalo, seed 0.1 Governor's plum 0.2 Gow kee, leaves 0.2 Grain, aspirated fractions 100.0 Grain, cereal, forage, fodder and straw, group 16 100 Grain, cereal, group 15, except barley, field corn, grain sorghum, oat and wheat 0.1 Grape 0.2 Grass, forage, fodder and hay, group 17 300 Guava 0.2 Herbs subgroup 19A 0.2 Hog, kidney 4.0 Hog, liver 1.0 Hop, dried cones 7.0 Horse, kidney 4.0 Horse, liver 0.5 Ilama 0.2 Imbe 0.2 Imbu 0.2 Jaboticaba 0.2 Jackfruit 0.2 Jojoba, seed 0.1 Juneberry 0.2 Kava, roots 0.2 Kenaf, forage 200 Kiwifruit 0.1 Lesquerella, seed 0.1 Leucaena, forage 200 Lingonberry 0.2 Longan 0.2 Lychee 0.2 Mamey apple 0.2 Mango 0.2 Mangosteen 0.2 Marmaladebox 0.2 Meadowfoam, seed 0.1 Mioga, flower 0.2 Mustard, seed 0.1 Nut, pine 1.0 Nut, tree, group 14 1.0 Oat, grain 20 Okra 0.5 Olive 0.2 Oregano, Mexican, leaves 2.0 Palm heart 0.2 Palm heart, leaves 0.2 Palm, oil 0.1 Papaya 0.2 Papaya, mountain 0.2 Passionfruit 0.2 Pawpaw 0.2 Peanut 0.1 Peanut, forage 0.5 Peanut, hay 0.5 Pepper leaf, fresh leaves 0.2 Peppermint, tops 200 Perilla, tops 1.8 Persimmon 0.2 Pineapple 0.1 Pistachio 1.0 Pomegranate 0.2 Poultry, meat 0.1 Poultry, meat byproducts 1.0 Pulasan 0.2 Quinoa, grain 5.0 Rambutan 0.2 Rapeseed, meal 15 Rapeseed, seed 10 Rose apple 0.2 Safflower, seed 0.1 Salal 0.2 Sapodilla 0.2 Sapote, black 0.2 Sapote, mamey 0.2 Sapote, white 0.2 Sesame, seed 0.1 Sheep, kidney 4.0 Sheep, liver 0.5 Shellfish 3.0 Sorghum, grain, grain 15 Soursop 0.2 Soybean, seed 20 Soybean, forage 100 Soybean, hay 200 Soybean, hulls 100 Spanish lime 0.2 Spearmint, tops 200 Spice subgroup 19B 7.0 Star apple 0.2 Starfruit 0.2 Stevia, dried leaves 1.0 Strawberry 0.2 Sugar apple 0.2 Sugarcane, cane 2.0 Sugarcane, molasses 30 Sunflower, seed 0.1 Surinam cherry 0.2 Tamarind 0.2 Tea, dried 1.0 Tea, instant 7.0 Teff, grain 5.0 Ti, leaves 0.2 Ti, roots 0.2 Ugli fruit 0.5 Vegetable, brassica, leafy, group 5 0.2 Vegetable, bulb, group 3 0.2 Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 0.5 Vegetable, foliage of legume, subgroup 7A, except soybean 0.2 Vegetable, fruiting, group 8 0.1 Vegetable, leafy, group 4 0.2 Vegetable, leaves of root and tuber, group 2, except sugar beet tops 0.2 Vegetable, legume, group 6, except soybean 5.0 Vegetable, root and tuber, group 1, except sugar beet 0.2 Wasabi, roots 0.2 Water spinach, tops 0.2 Watercress, upland 0.2 Wax jambu 0.2 Wheat, bran 20 Wheat, grain 5.0 Wheat, middlings 20 Wheat, shorts 20 Yacon, tuber 0.2 4. Section 180.369 is amended by designating the current text as paragraph
(a)and adding the heading; by revising the table; and by adding and reserving paragraphs (b), (c), and
(d)with headings to read as follows: § 180.369 Difenzoquat; tolerances for residues.
(a)*General* * * * Commodity Parts per million Barley, bran 0.25 Barley, grain 0.05 Barley, straw 5.0 Cattle, fat 0.05 Cattle, meat 0.05 Cattle, meat byproducts 0.05 Goat, fat 0.05 Goat, meat 0.05 Goat, meat byproducts 0.05 Hog, fat 0.05 Hog, meat 0.05 Hog, meat byproducts 0.05 Horse, fat 0.05 Horse, meat 0.05 Horse, meat byproducts 0.05 Poultry, fat 0.05 Poultry, meat 0.05 Poultry, meat byproducts 0.05 Sheep, fat 0.05 Sheep, meat 0.05 Sheep, meat byproducts 0.05 Wheat, bran 0.25 Wheat, grain 0.05 Wheat, shorts 0.25 Wheat, straw 5.0
(b)*Section emergency exemptions* . [Resereved]
(c)*Tolerances with regional registrations* . [Reserved]
(d)*Indirect or inavertant residues* . [Reserved] 5. In §180.396, paragraphs
(a)and
(c)are revised to read as follows: § 180.396 Hexazinone; tolerances for residues.
(a)*General* .
(1)Tolerances are established for the combined residues of hexazinone (3-cyclohexyl-6-(dimethylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-(1H,3H)-dione and its plant metabolites; A [3-(4-hydroxycyclohexyl)-6-(dimethylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4(1H,3H)-dione], B [3-cyclohexyl-6-(methylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-(1H,3H)-dione], C [3-(4-hydroxycyclohexyl)-6-(methylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-(1H,3H)-dione], D [3-cyclohexyl)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4,6-(1H,3H,5H)-trione], and E [3-(4-hydroxycyclohexyl)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4,6-(1H,3H,5H)-trione] (calculated as hexazinone) in the following commodities: Commodity Parts per million Alfalfa, forage 2.0 Alfalfa, hay 8.0 Alfalfa, seed 2.0 Blueberry 0.6 Grass, hay 10.0 Grass, forage 10.0 Pineapple 0.6
(2)Tolerances are established for the combined residues of hexazinone (3-cyclohexyl-6-(dimethylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-(1H,3H)-dione and its animal tissue metabolites; B [3-cyclohexyl-6-(methylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-(1H,3H)-dione], and F [3-cyclohexyl-6-amino-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-(1H,3H)-dione] (calculated as hexazinone) in the following food commodities: Commodity Parts per million Cattle, meat 0.1 Cattle, meat byproducts 0.1 Goat, meat 0.1 Goat, meat byproducts 0.1 Horse, meat 0.1 Horse, meat byproduct 0.1 Sheep, meat 0.1 Sheep, meat byproducts 0.1
(3)Tolerances are established for the combined residues of hexazinone (3-cyclohexyl-6-(dimethylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-(1H,3H)-dione and its metabolites; B [3-cyclohexyl-6-(methylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-(1H,3H)-dione], C [3-(4-hydroxycyclohexyl)-6-(methylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-(1H,3H)-dione], C-1 [3-(2-hydroxycyclohexyl)-6-(methylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4(1H,3H)-dione], C-2 [3-(3-hydroxycyclohexyl)-6-(methylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4(1H,3H)-dione] and F [3-cyclohexyl-6-amino-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-(1H,3H)-dione] (calculated as hexazinone) in milk: Commodity Parts per million Milk 0.2
(c)*Tolerances with regional registrations* . Tolerances with regional registration, as defined in §180.1(n) and which excludes use of hexazinone on sugarcane in Florida, are established for the combined residues of hexazinone (3-cyclohexyl-6-(dimethylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-(1H,3H)-dione and its plant metabolites; A [3-(4-hydroxycyclohexyl)-6-(dimethylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4(1H,3H)-dione], B [3-cyclohexyl-6- (methylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-(1H,3H)-dione], C [3-(4-hydroxycyclohexyl)-6-(methylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-(1H,3H)-dione], D [3-cyclohexyl)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4,6-(1H,3H,5H)-trione], and E [3-(4-hydroxycyclohexyl)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4,6-(1H,3H,5H)-trione] (calculated as hexazinone) in the following commodities: Commodity Parts per million Sugarcane, cane 0.6 Sugarcane, molasses 4.0 [FR Doc. E6-8827 Filed 6-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 73 [DA 06-1052; MB Docket No. 05-145, RM-11212] Radio Broadcasting Services; Hermitage and Mercer, PA AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule, dismissal. SUMMARY: This document dismisses a pending petition for rule making, as requested by Petitioner Cumulus Licensing LLC, licensee of Station WWIZ(FM), Mercer, Pennsylvania, which proposed to reallot Channel 280A from Mercer to Hermitage, Pennsylvania, and modify the license of WWIZ accordingly. The document therefore terminates the proceeding. ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. 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. 05-145, adopted May 17, 2006, and released May 19, 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 This document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractors, 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.* This document is not subject to the Congressional Review Act. (The Commission, is, therefore, not required to submit a copy of this Report and Order to Government Accountability Office, pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, *see* 5 U.S.C. Section 801(a)(1)(A) since this proposed rule is dismissed, herein.) Federal Communications Commission. John A. Karousos, Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau. [FR Doc. E6-8732 Filed 6-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 173 [Docket No. PHMSA-99-6223 (HM-213B)] RIN 2137-AD36 Hazardous Materials: Safety Requirements for External Product Piping on Cargo Tanks Transporting Flammable Liquids AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT. ACTION: Withdrawal of notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: PHMSA is closing this rulemaking proceeding, having considered and declined to adopt proposals for further regulating the transportation of flammable liquids in the product piping on cargo tank motor vehicles. On the basis of public comments and additional data and analysis, PHMSA has concluded that further regulation would not produce the level of benefits we originally expected and that the quantifiable benefits of proposed regulatory approaches would not justify the corresponding costs. Although PHMSA is withdrawing its rulemaking proposal, the agency will develop and implement an outreach program to educate the industry, first responder community, and the public about potential risks associated with unprotected product pipelines on these vehicles and will continue to collect data and other information in order to address the issue further if warranted. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben Supko, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, telephone
(202)366-8553; or Michael Stevens, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, telephone
(202)366-8553. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background On December 30, 2004 the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA, we) published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)(69 FR 78375) inviting comments on a proposal to amend the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171-180) to prohibit the carriage of flammable liquids in the product piping (wetlines) on cargo tank motor vehicles (CTMVs), unless the CTMV is equipped with bottom damage protection devices. We proposed a quantity limit of one liter or less in each pipe. We did not propose a specific method for achieving this standard. The NPRM included an exception from the proposed requirements for truck-mounted ( *e.g.,* straight truck) DOT specification CTMVs. We proposed to make the changes effective two years after the effective date of a final rule and to permit CTMV operators five years to phase in requirements applicable to existing CTMVs. II. Comments on the NPRM We received thirty sets of public comments on the NPRM from a variety of stakeholders, including industry associations, companies, governmental entities, individuals and members of Congress, as follows: Commenter Document number Maurice R. Tetreault RSPA-1999-6223-28 American Petroleum Institute
(API)RSPA-1999-6223-32 Georgia Department of Motor Vehicle Safety RSPA-1999-6223-33 Southwest Research Institute RSPA-1999-6223-34 David M. Lawler RSPA-1999-6223-35 Dale L. Botkin RSPA-1999-6223-37 Public Utilities Commission of Ohio RSPA-1999-6223-38 National Transportation Safety Board
(NTSB)RSPA-1999-6223-39 California Air Resources Board RSPA-1999-6223-41 Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. RSPA-1999-6223-42 Laura E. Herman RSPA-1999-6223-45 National Tank Truck Carriers, Inc.
(NTTC)RSPA-1999-6223-46 API RSPA-1999-6223-47 Great Lakes Transport, LLC RSPA-1999-6223-48 Anthony C. Pitfield RSPA-1999-6223-49 The Dow Chemical Company
(Dow)RSPA-1999-6223-50 Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association
(TTMA)RSPA-1999-6223-51 Petroleum Marketers Association of America
(PMAA)RSPA-1999-6223-52 Dangerous Goods Advisory Council RSPA-1999-6223-53 Saraguay Petroleum Corp (Saraguay Petroleum) RSPA-1999-6223-54 Petroleum Transportation and Storage Association
(PTSA)RSPA-1999-6223-55 Baltimore Cargo Tank Services, Inc. RSPA-1999-6223-56 American Trucking Associations
(ATA)RSPA-1999-6223-57 Cargo Tank Concepts, Ltd.
(CTC)RSPA-1999-6223-58 Minnesota Trucking Association RSPA-1999-6223-59 Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America (SIGMA) RSPA-1999-6223-60 Brenner Tank LLC RSPA-1999-6223-61 Denny Rehberg, Member of Congress RSPA-1999-6223-62 TTMA RSPA-1999-6223-63 ATA RSPA-1999-6223-64 The Honorable Thomas E. Petri RSPA-1999-6223-65 The Honorable Conrad Burns RSPA-1999-6223-66 The Honorable Michael Sodrel RSPA-1999-6223-67 The comments are available for review through DOT's electronic Docket Management System (on the Web site *http://dms.dot.gov* ). Many of the commenters took issue with our original estimates of costs and benefits in the regulatory evaluation prepared in support of the NPRM. Generally, these commenters assert we underestimated the number of cargo tanks affected and the cost of retrofits and over-estimated the number and severity of wetlines incidents. Commenters also question the effectiveness, reliability, efficiency, and functionality of currently available technology to purge lading from wetlines. III. Revised Regulatory Evaluation Based on comments received in response to the NPRM, we re-evaluated the data and information concerning potential costs and benefits of regulatory alternatives to ensure that any final rule prohibiting the transportation of flammable liquids in unprotected wetlines would maximize the net benefit to society. Our revised regulatory review included reassessment of the number of accidents involving wetlines and fatalities, injuries, and property damage resulting from those accidents. We also revised our estimate of the number of vehicles potentially affected by rulemaking action and the technology currently available to purge flammable liquids from wetlines to ascertain its effectiveness and practicability in the transportation environment. The following table summarizes the overall costs and benefits, calculated over a 20-year period using a seven percent discount rate, for the three options considered in the 2006 regulatory evaluation: Present Value Costs and Benefits of Rule Alternatives P.V. total cost P.V. total benefit Benefit-cost ratio Purging System on New Trucks $23,847,613 $25,377,985 1.06 Purging System on Trucks Manufactured on or After January 1, 2002 35,968,401 38,902,738 1.08 Purging System on New and Existing Trucks 53,595,422 50,945,401 0.95 The revised regulatory evaluation assumes a total of 27,000 vehicles would be affected by a final rule, and the cost to install a purging system would be $1,600 per tank on newly manufactured CTMVs and $1,760 to retrofit existing CTMVs. We also assumed the average service life for a CTMV in flammable liquid service is 20 years; thus, five percent of the fleet would be retired each year. In measuring the benefits of wetlines regulation, we considered avoided injuries, property damage, traffic delays, evacuations, emergency response, and environmental damage. These benefits are scaled to account for underreporting of wetlines incidents, particularly for the period prior to October 1998, when DOT incident reporting requirements were extended to intrastate operations. In response to concerns expressed by commenters, we reexamined available data for each of the 190 incidents that had been attributed to wetlines in the original regulatory analysis, applying revised criteria to isolate those that, by virtue of their circumstances, could be verified as wetlines incidents. In 42 of these cases, we found that the incident-related injuries, property damage, and other costs could not be attributed to the risk associated with unprotected wetlines. For instance, the revised regulatory analysis excludes incidents in which both the wetline and the cargo tank were breached and does not include incidents involving spills of more than 50 gallons, unless a fire resulted from the spill. Using incident data reported to DOT from January 1, 1990 through December 31, 2001, we identified 148 CTMV incidents involving wetlines. These incidents resulted in seven fatalities, three injuries, and over $7 million in property damage. Because of commenters' questions and concerns about many of the assumptions used to develop the regulatory evaluation for the NPRM, we performed a sensitivity analysis to calculate the benefits and costs of the three identified options by changing the variables used, including the number of affected vehicles, the installation costs for a non-welded purging system, and the number of wetlines incidents. PHMSA concludes from the sensitivity analysis that the benefit-cost ratios for the new-construction-only option could range from a low of .73/1 (assuming the highest possible costs and lowest possible benefits) to a high of 1.20/1 (assuming the lowest possible costs and highest possible benefits). A complete discussion of the sensitivity analysis is included in the regulatory evaluation in the public docket for this proceeding. For purposes of the analysis in the regulatory evaluation, we identified an on-truck purging system as the low-cost alternative for compliance with the performance standard at issue in this rulemaking proceeding. The purging system utilizes 5 psi of air pressure from the CTMV's compressed air tanks to purge the loading lines. The system routes the product from the lowest point in the piping to the tank shell through 0.5 inch braided stainless steel lines. Purging the loading lines on a four-compartment cargo tank takes six minutes. The purging system represents the lowest cost, most efficient solution available for the elimination of wetlines. However, as noted above, many commenters question the effectiveness, reliability, efficiency, and functionality of purging systems. We agree with commenters that the current technology may cause problems unrelated to the wetlines issue it is designed to address. Although most of these problems may be corrected or avoided, we have determined that the benefits of imposing solutions through regulation would not justify the costs of such action. Finally, we note that the industry is taking action voluntarily to limit the safety risks associated with the transportation of flammable liquids in unprotected wetlines. One large gasoline distributor has installed purging systems on its CTMVs. Another large gasoline distributor has installed damage protection equipment on its CTMVs that could help to mitigate the consequences of a collision with an automobile or other vehicle. We urge the regulated community to continue its efforts voluntarily to identify and implement measures to address this issue. We also plan to develop and implement an outreach program to educate the industry, first responder community, and the public about the potential risks associated with wetlines. We will continue to collect relevant information concerning wetlines incidents and technological developments affecting wetlines transportation. IV. Conclusion In the final analysis, we did not identify a cost-effective approach for addressing the risk of wetlines transportation through regulatory action. Based on the revised regulatory evaluation, we believe the benefits of a final rule prohibiting the transportation of flammable liquids in wetlines only on newly constructed CTMVs may slightly outweigh the costs. However, given the sensitivity of the benefit-cost determinations to variations in the data and the inherent margin for error in the overall analysis, it is possible, even for newly constructed CTMVs, the costs of a regulatory solution will outweigh potential benefits. Accordingly, PHMSA is withdrawing the December 30, 2004 NPRM and terminating this rulemaking proceeding. Issued in Washington, DC, on May 31, 2006, under authority delegated in 49 CFR part 1. Brigham A. McCown, Acting Administrator. [FR Doc. E6-8782 Filed 6-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-60-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 665 [I.D. 052506A] RIN 0648-AT95 Fisheries in the Western Pacific; Omnibus Amendment for the Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Fisheries, Crustacean Fisheries, and Precious Coral Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of availability of FMP amendments; request for comments. SUMMARY: NMFS announces that the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (WPFMC) proposes to amend three fishery management plans (western Pacific omnibus amendment) to include fisheries in waters around the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
(CNMI)and Pacific Remote Island Areas (PRIA). These amendments would establish new permitting and reporting requirements for vessel operators targeting bottomfish species around the PRIA to improve understanding of the ecology of these species and the activities and harvests of the vessel operators that target them. It would also establish new permitting and reporting requirements for vessel operators targeting crustacean species and precious coral around the CNMI and PRIA. DATES: Comments on the amendment must be received by August 7, 2006. ADDRESSES: Comments on the western Pacific omnibus amendment, identified by 0648-AT95, should be sent to any of the following addresses: • E-mail: *AT95Omnibus@noaa.gov* . Include in the subject line of the e-mail comment the following document identifier “AT95 Omnibus.” Comments sent via e-mail, including all attachments, must not exceed a 5 megabyte file size. • Federal e-Rulemaking portal: *www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • Mail: William L. Robinson, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Pacific Islands Region (PIR), 1601 Kapiolani Boulevard, Suite 1110, Honolulu, HI 96814-4700. Copies of the western Pacific omnibus amendment, the Environmental Assessment, and related analyses may be obtained from Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Director, WPFMC, 1164 Bishop Street, Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813, or on the internet at *www.wpcouncil.org* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Harman, NMFS PIR, 808-944-2271. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The western Pacific omnibus amendment, developed by the WPFMC, has been submitted to NMFS for review under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. This document announces that the amendment is available for public review and comment for 60 days. NMFS will consider public comments received during the comment period described above in determining whether to approve, partially approve, or disapprove the western Pacific omnibus amendment. The Pacific Islands region encompasses Federal waters, i.e., the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), around the Territories of Guam and American Samoa, the State of Hawaii, the CNMI, and the PRIA. The inner boundary of the EEZ is the seaward limit of each coastal state, commonwealth, territory and possession. The EEZ extends from this inner boundary to 200 nautical miles
(nm)offshore. The WPFMC has developed, and NMFS has approved and implemented, five fishery management plans covering pelagic species, crustaceans, bottomfish and seamount groundfish, precious corals, and coral reef ecosystems fisheries. Federal waters around the CNMI are currently not included in the Fishery Management Plans for the Bottomfish, Crustaceans, or Precious Corals Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region (Bottomfish FMP), Crustaceans FMP), and (Precious Corals FMP). Federal waters around the PRIAs are not included in the Bottomfish or Crustaceans FMP, except for Midway Atoll. Therefore, Federal fisheries management, including data collection, is limited for these areas. New fishery developments suggest to the WPFMC that the preliminary step of including these waters under the FMPs is necessary to facilitate further steps to monitor fish catches, and to implement other management measures if needed in the future. Amendment 8 to the Bottomfish FMP, Amendment 12 to the Crustaceans FMP, and Amendment 6 to the Precious Corals FMP would include the fisheries operating in these areas under the FMPs. The omnibus amendment has the following objectives: 1. To improve the database for future bottomfish management decisions through data reporting requirements (Bottomfish FMP); 2. To collect and analyze biological and economic information about lobster fisheries and improve the statistical base for conservation and management in the future (Crustaceans FMP); and 3. To encourage the acquisition and analysis of new information concerning the distribution, abundance and ecology of precious corals (Precious Corals FMP). After considering a wide range of management options, including many options suggested by the public during a public scoping process, the WPFMC recommended the following management measures. CNMI Management Measures 1. Include the CNMI EEZ as a management area in the Bottomfish FMP, with regulations applied only to the offshore area (3 to 200 nm, again the EEZ around the CNMI extends from the shoreline to 200 nm, but the WPFMC recommends deferring regulatory control for fishing by CMNI citizens in waters 0 to 3 nm of the EEZ around CNMI; however, the FMP amendments do not confer authority to CNMI over EEZ resources), and with no new Federal permitting or reporting requirements; 2. Include the CNMI EEZ under the Crustaceans FMP, with regulations applied to the offshore area (3 to 200 nm), and include existing permit and reporting requirements; and 3. Include the CNMI EEZ in the Precious Corals FMP, with regulations applied to the offshore area (3 to 200 nm), and include existing exploratory area permit and reporting and quota requirements. PRIA Management Measures 1. Include the PRIA EEZ (0-200 nm) in the Bottomfish FMP, and implement new Federal permitting and reporting requirements for all vessels targeting bottomfish management unit species; and 2. Include the PRIA EEZ under the Crustaceans FMP, and include existing Federal permitting and reporting requirements. This action is designed to establish mechanisms to implement specific regulatory controls should the need arise; specific management measures (such as time and area closures, or effort and landing limits) are not included. Public comments on the western Pacific omnibus amendment must be received by August 7, 2006, to be considered by NMFS in the decision to approve, partially approve, or disapprove the amendment. A proposed rule to implement the amendment has been submitted for Secretarial review and approval. NMFS expects to publish and request public comment on the proposed regulation in the near future. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: June 1, 2006. Alan D. Risenhoover, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-8860 Filed 6-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 71 109 Wednesday, June 7, 2006 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request June 1, 2006. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding
(a)whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), *OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV* or fax
(202)395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling
(202)720-8681. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Rural Utilities Service *Title:* Request for Approval to Sell Capital Assets. *OMB Control Number:* 0572-0020. *Summary of Collection:* The Rural Utilities Service
(RUS)is a credit agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). It makes mortgage loans and loan guarantees to finance electric, telecommunications, and water and waste facilities in rural areas. In addition to providing loans and loan guarantees, one of RUS' main objectives is to safeguard loan security until the loan is repaid. Accordingly, RUS manages loan programs in accordance with the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, 7 U.S.C. 901 *et seq.,* as amended, (RE ACT) and as prescribed by Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)Circular A-129, Policies for Federal Credit Programs and Non-Tax Receivables, which states that agencies must, based on a review of a loan application, determine that an applicant complies with statutory, regulatory, and administrative eligibility requirements for loan assistance. *Need and Use of the Information:* RUS borrower will use form 369, *Request for Approval to sell capital assets,* to seek agency permission to sell some of its assets. The form is used to collect detailed information regarding the proposed sale of a portion of the borrower's systems. RUS will collect information to determine whether or not the agency should approve a sale and also to keep track of what property exists to secure the loan. If the information in Form 369 is not collected when capital assets are sold, the capital assets securing the Government's loans could be liquidated and the Government's security either eliminated entirely or diluted to an undesirable level. *Description of Respondents:* Not-for-profit institutions; Business or other for-profit. *Number of Respondents:* 5. *Frequency of Responses:* Recordkeeping; Reporting: On occasion. *Total Burden Hours:* 15. Rural Utility Service *Title:* 7 CFR part 1755, Telecommunications Standards and Specifications. *OMB Control Number:* 0572-0132. *Summary of Collection:* 7 CFR part 1755 establishes Agency policy that materials and equipment purchased by RUS telecommunications borrowers or accepted as contractor-furnished material must conform to RUS standards and specifications where they have been established and, if included in RUS IP 344-02, “List of Materials Acceptable for Use on Telecommunications System of RUS Borrowers”, must be selected from that list or must have received technical acceptance from RUS. To protect the security of loans it makes and to ensure that the telecommunications services provided to rural Americans are comparable to those offered in urban and suburban areas, RUS establishes the minimum acceptable performance criteria for materials and equipment to be employed on telecommunications system financed by RUS. Manufacturers wishing to sell their products to RUS borrowers, request RUS' consideration for acceptance of their products and submit data demonstrating their products' compliance with RUS specification. *Need and Use of the Information:* RUS will evaluate the data to determine that the quality of the products is acceptable and that their use will not jeopardize loan security. The information is closely reviewed to be certain that test data, product dimensions and product material compositions fully comply with RUS technical standards and specifications that have been established for the particular product. *Description of Respondents:* Business or other for-profit; Not-for-profit institutions. *Number of Respondents:* 50. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: On occasion. *Total Burden Hours:* 1,400. Rural Utility Service *Title:* Telecommunications Field Trials. *OMB Control Number:* 0572-0133. *Summary of Collection:* Title 7 CFR part 1755.3 prescribes the conditions and provision of a field trial. Field trials are contractual obligations that a manufacturer and Rural Utility Service
(RUS)telecommunications borrower enter into. They consist of limited field installation of a qualifying product in closely monitored situations designed to determine, to RUS' satisfaction, the products effectiveness under actual field conditions. RUS will use field trials as a means for determining the operational effectiveness of a new or revised product where such experience does not already exist. Field trial process allows: Manufacturers a means of immediate access to the RUS borrower market, RUS borrowers opportunity to immediately utilize advance products, and provides for RUS a means to safely obtain necessary information on technically advanced products which will address the products suitability for use in the harsh environment of rural America. *Need and Use of the Information:* RUS will use various forms to enter into contractual obligations, to establish an agreement by RUS, the manufacturer and a borrower, or identify the product(s) that are under field trial. Telecommunication borrowers participate in field trials do so on a voluntary basis. The information is closely reviewed to determine that the products comply with the established RUS standards and specifications and that the products are otherwise acceptable for use on rural telecommunications systems. Without this information, RUS has no means of determining the acceptability of advanced technology in a manner that is timely enough for RUS borrowers to take advantage of the improved benefits and promise that such products may provide for rural America. *Description of Respondents:* Business or other for-profit; Not-for-profit institutions. *Number of Respondents:* 3. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: On occasion. *Total Burden Hours:* 54. Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E6-8786 Filed 6-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-15-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request June 1, 2006. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding
(a)whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), *OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV* or fax
(202)395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling
(202)720-8958. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. National Agriculture Statistics Service *Title:* NIOSH Farm Hazard Survey. *OMB Control Number:* 0535-New. *Summary of Collection:* Primary function of the National Agricultural Statistics Services
(NASS)is to prepare and issue state and national estimates of crop and livestock production under the authority of 7 U.S.C. 2204(a). NASS has been asked by the National Institute of Occupational Safety Health (NIOSH) to conduct a national farm hazard, injury, and illness survey. The survey is designed to provide estimates of the frequency of injury and illness hazards on farms; the number of farm operators, workers, and farm youth potentially exposed to these hazards; the association between hazards and the type of farming operation; and the annual occupational nonfatal injury and illness incidence rates for farm operators. *Need and Use of the Information:* Data from this survey will provide source of consistent information that NIOSH can use to target funds appropriated by Congress for the prevention of childhood agricultural injuries and adult occupational injuries. In particular, it will provide information on which farm hazards and health outcomes most need to be addressed. No source of data on childhood injuries or adult occupational farm injuries exists that covers all aspects of the agricultural production sector. *Description of Respondents:* Farms. *Number of Respondents:* 25,500. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: Other: One-time. *Total Burden Hours:* 8,496. Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E6-8787 Filed 6-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-20-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Glenn/Colusa County Resource Advisory Committee AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: The Glenn/Colusa County Resource Advisory Committee
(RAC)will meet in Willows, California. Agenda items to be covered include:
(1)Introductions,
(2)Approval of Minutes,
(3)Public Comment,
(4)Project Proposals/Possible Action,
(5)General Discussion,
(6)Next Agenda. DATES: The meeting will be held on June 26, 2006, from 1:30 p.m. and end at approximately 4:30 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Mendocino National Forest Supervisor's Office, 825 N. Humboldt Ave., Willows, CA 95988. Individuals wishing to speak or propose agenda items must send their names and proposals to Janet Flanagan, Acting DFO, 825 N. Humboldt Ave., Willows, CA 95988. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bobbin Gaddini, Committee Coordinator, USDA, Mendocino National Forest, Grindstone Ranger District, 825 N. Humboldt Ave., Willows, CA 95939.
(530)934-1268; E-mail *ggaddini@fs.fed.us.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting is open to the public. Committee discussion is limited to Forest Service staff and Committee members. However, persons who wish to bring matters to the attention of the Committee may file written statements with the Committee staff before or after the meeting. Public input sessions will be provided and individuals who made written requests by June 23, 2006 will have the opportunity to address the committee at those sessions. Dated: June 1, 2006. Janet Flanagan, Acting Designated Federal Official. [FR Doc. 06-5162 Filed 6-6-06; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 25
Traces to 25 documents
CFR
register
U.S. Code
- Avoidance of duplicative or unnecessary analyses§ 605
- Establishment, functions, and activities§ 272
- Regulations for drawbridges§ 499
- Purposes§ 3501
- Congressional declaration of goals and policy§ 1251
- Tolerances and exemptions for pesticide chemical residues§ 346a
- Adulterated food§ 342
- Prohibited acts§ 331
- Definitions§ 136
- Definitions§ 601
- Definitions; generally§ 321
- SHORT TITLE.§ 801
- Findings, purposes and policy§ 1801
- Short title§ 901
- General duties of Secretary; advisory functions; research and development§ 2204
statutes-at-large
65 references not yet in our index
- 16 CFR 1202
- 15 USC 2051-2084
- 15 USC 1261-1278
- 33 CFR 117
- 5 USC 601-612
- Pub. L. 104-121
- 44 USC 3501-3520
- 2 USC 1531-1538
- 42 USC 4321-4370f
- Pub. L. 102-587
- 106 Stat. 5039
- 40 CFR 60
- 40 CFR 2
- 40 CFR 122
- 103 F.3d 1273
- 273 F.3d 481
- 541 U.S. 95
- 49 U.S. 113
- 513 U.S. 561
- 508 U.S. 223
- 508 U.S. 439
- 215 F.3d 257
- 452 U.S. 576
- 268 F.3d 91
- 511 U.S. 700
- 404 U.S. 336
- 862 F.2d 580
- 693 F.2d 156
- 40 CFR 122.2
- 40 CFR 125.80-125
- 40 CFR 122.45(g)
- 40 CFR 132
- 904 F.2d 1276
- 209 F.3d 331
- 772 F.2d 1501
- 481 U.S. 1034
- 848 F.2d 1133
- 715 F.2d 897
- Pub. L. 100-4
- 40 CFR 9
+ 25 more
Citation graph
cites case law
Proposed Rules
Notice of systematic review of current regulations
F. App'x103 F.3d 1273
F. App'x273 F.3d 481
SCOTUS541 U.S. 95
Cites 90 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources