Rules and Regulations. Final rule; correcting amendment
42,936 words·~195 min read·
/register/2006/07/06/06-5969A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 300 [Docket No. 060215036-6178-02; I.D. 101501A] RIN 0648-AU30 Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Guideline Harvest Levels for the Guided Recreational Halibut Fishery; Correction AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Final rule; correcting amendment. SUMMARY: This action corrects the regulatory text of a final rule published August 8, 2003, (FR Doc. 03-20285) that implemented the guideline harvest level
(GHL)for the charter sport fishery for Pacific halibut in waters off Alaska. This action is necessary to correct a typographical error in regulations implementing the GHL. DATES: July 6, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jason Gasper, NMFS, 907-586-7228 or email at *jason.gasper@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A final rule published August 8, 2003, (68 FR 47256) implemented guideline harvest level
(GHL)measures for managing the harvest of Pacific halibut ( *Hippoglossus stenolepis* ) in the charter sport fishery in International Pacific Halibut Commission (Commission) management Area 2C and Area 3A in and off Alaska. This correcting amendment revises the regulation at 50 CFR 300.65(c)(2) to change the reference to Commission management from Area 3B to Area 3A. Paragraph (c)(2) is set out as paragraph (i)(2) in the August 8, 2003, rule and was redesignated as paragraph (c)(2) on April 1, 2005 (70 FR 16742). Need for Correction Current text at § 300.65(c)(2) incorrectly indicates that the GHL will be established for Commission Area 3B. This regulation states that “NMFS will publish a notice in the **Federal Register** on an annual basis establishing the GHL for Area 2C and Area 3B for that Calendar year within 30 days of receiving information from the Commission which establishes the constant exploitation yield for that year.” This regulation is not consistent with § 300.65(c)(1), which provides for the annual determination of GHLs for Area 2C and Area 3A based on the constant exploitation yield
(CEY)for halibut in Area 2C and Area 3A. When the Commission establishes the annual CEY, § 300.65(c)(2) provides that NMFS must notify the public of the GHLs by publication of a notice in the **Federal Register** , presumably for Area 2C and Area 3A as prescribed in § 300.65(c)(1) rather than for Area 2C and Area 3B as currently stated in § 300.65(c)(2). The regulation also is not consistent with § 300.65(c)(3) which codifies procedures that NMFS takes if the GHL is exceeded in Area 2C and Area 3A. Therefore, the reference to Area 3B at § 300.65(c)(2) is not consistent with the Commission areas outlined in all other GHL regulations at § 300.65(c). In addition, the GHL was not intended to apply in Area 3B as it was described in the proposed rule (67 FR 3867, January 28, 2002), or in the preamble to the final rule implementing the GHL (68 FR 47256, August 8, 2003). Reference to Area 3B at § 300.65(c)(2) is a typographical mistake. This rule issues a correcting amendment to correct the typographical error at § 300.65(c)(2) to indicate Commission management Area 3A instead of Area 3B. Classification Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this correcting amendment to the GHL regulations, as such procedures would be unnecessary. Notice and comment is unnecessary because this action makes a minor, non-substantive change correcting a Commission area in § 300.65(c)(2), which is itself a ministerial provision requiring NOAA to publish in the **Federal Register** notice to the public of the GHLs set for Areas 2C and 3A pursuant to § 300.65(c)(1). The rule does not make any substantive change in the rights and obligations of charter sport fishermen managed under the GHL halibut regulations. No aspect of this action is controversial and no change in operating practices in the fishery is required. Because this action makes only the minor, non-substantive changes to § 300.65(c)(2) described above, this rule is not subject to the 30-day delay in effective date requirement of 5 U.S.C. 553(d). List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 300 Administrative practice and procedure, Antarctica, Canada, Exports, Fish, Fisheries, Fishing, Imports, Indians, Labeling, Marine resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Russian Federation, Transportation, Treaties, Wildlife. Dated: June 29, 2006. William T. Hogarth, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. Accordingly, 50 CFR part 300 is corrected by making the following correcting amendment: PART 300—INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES REGULATIONS Subpart E—Pacific Halibut Fisheries 1. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 300, subpart E, continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773-773k. 2. In § 300.65, paragraph (c)(2) is revised to read as follows: § 300.65 Catch sharing plan and domestic management measures in waters in and off Alaska.
(c)* * *
(2)NMFS will publish a notice in the **Federal Register** on an annual basis establishing the GHL for Area 2C and Area 3A for that Calendar year within 30 days of receiving information from the Commission which establishes the constant exploitation yield for that year. [FR Doc. E6-10556 Filed 7-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 680 [Docket No. 060404093-6177-02; I.D. 033106A] RIN 0648-AU24 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Allocating Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crab Fishery Resources AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: NMFS issues a final rule implementing changes to the regulations for the Crab Rationalization Program. This action is necessary to correct two discrepancies in the scope of the sideboard protections for Gulf of Alaska
(GOA)groundfish fisheries provided in a previous rulemaking. Specifically, this action would remove the sideboard restrictions from vessels that did not generate Bering Sea snow crab ( *Chionoecetes opilio* ) quota share and would apply the sideboards to federally permitted vessels operating in the State of Alaska (State) parallel fisheries. This action is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Fishery Management Plan for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs (FMP), the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), and other applicable law. DATES: Effective on August 7, 2006. ADDRESSES: Copies of the regulatory impact review/initial regulatory flexibility analysis (RIR/IRFA) and Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(FRFA)prepared for this action, and copies of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab Fisheries Final Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS)prepared for the Crab Rationalization Program may be obtained from the NMFS Alaska Region, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802, Attn: Ellen Walsh, Records Officer, and from the NMFS Alaska Region website at *http://www.fakr.noaa.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gretchen Harrington, 907-586-7228 or *gretchen.harrington@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In January 2004, the U.S. Congress amended section 313(j) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act through the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-199, section 801). As amended, section 313(j)(1) requires the Secretary of Commerce to approve and implement by regulation the Crab Rationalization Program (Program), as it was approved by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council). In June 2004, the Council consolidated its actions on the Program into Amendment 18 to the FMP. Additionally, in June 2004, the Council developed Amendment 19 to the FMP, which represents minor changes necessary to implement the Program. NMFS published a final rule to implement Amendments 18 and 19 on March 2, 2005 (70 FR 10174). NMFS published the proposed rule for the sideboard restriction regulatory change in the **Federal Register** on April 24, 2006 (71 FR 20966), with a public comment period through May 9, 2006. NMFS received no public comments on the proposed rule. This final rule corrects two aspects of the sideboard provisions in the regulations implementing the Program. One change removes the sideboard limits from vessels that did not generate Bering Sea snow crab quota share under the Program. The second change clarifies that the sideboard protections apply to federally permitted vessels that fish in the State parallel groundfish fisheries. These changes are necessary to implement the Program's sideboard provisions. A description of this action is provided in the preamble to the proposed rule and is briefly summarized here. State parallel fisheries occur in State waters but are opened at the same time as Federal fisheries in Federal waters. State parallel fishery harvests are considered part of the Federal total allowable catch
(TAC)and federally permitted vessels move between State and Federal waters during the concurrent parallel and Federal fisheries. The State opens the parallel fisheries through emergency order by adopting the groundfish seasons, bycatch limits, and allowable gear types that apply in the adjacent Federal fisheries. Sideboard limits restrict the ability of vessels whose histories resulted in Bering Sea snow crab quota share, or fishing under License Limitation Program
(LLP)licenses derived from those vessels, to participate in GOA groundfish fisheries. The purpose of the sideboard limits is to prevent vessels that traditionally participated in the Bering Sea snow crab fishery from using the flexibility of the Program to increase their participation in the GOA groundfish fisheries, and primarily the GOA Pacific cod fishery. Historically, the Bering Sea snow crab fishery and GOA groundfish fisheries operated concurrently from January through March, meaning that a crab vessel owner had to decide whether to fish for Bering Sea snow crab or GOA groundfish but could not participate fully in both fisheries. With crab rationalization, vessel owners have the flexibility to fish for snow crab during a greatly extended season, or to lease their crab individual fishing quota
(IFQ)and not fish at all. This increased flexibility for crab fishermen could lead to increases in fishing effort in GOA groundfish fisheries, especially the Pacific cod fishery, and could negatively affect the other participants in those fisheries. Need for Regulatory Changes This action makes two changes to the regulations governing sideboard provisions for the GOA groundfish fisheries at 50 CFR 680.22. The first change removes the sideboard restrictions from vessels whose histories did not generate Bering Sea snow crab quota share. The second change clarifies that the sideboard restrictions apply to federally permitted vessels that fish in the State parallel groundfish fisheries. The Council intended the sideboards to apply to vessels that qualify for Bering Sea snow crab quota share under the Program. The proposed rule for the Program included regulatory language to this effect (69 FR 63200, October 29, 2004). However, this language was changed in the final rule to apply the sideboards to vessels that had snow crab landings during the qualifying period. This change has the unintended consequence of applying the sideboards to vessels that did not qualify for quota share. This final rule changes the regulatory language to reflect the original language in the Program's proposed rule. NMFS received no public comments on this aspect of the Program's proposed rule. The existing regulations restrict participation in Federal fisheries but not in the adjacent State waters fisheries. This omission in the regulations would allow vessels whose history generated quota share to increase their participation in the groundfish fisheries. This final rule changes the regulations to clarify that the GOA groundfish sideboard directed fishing closures apply to federally permitted vessels while fishing in the State parallel fisheries. NMFS finds it necessary to apply the sideboard limits to federally permitted vessels fishing in State parallel fisheries in order to implement the FMP. Without this regulatory change, vessels that traditionally participated in the Bering Sea snow crab fishery could use the flexibility of the Program to increase their participation in the GOA groundfish fisheries, and primarily the GOA Pacific cod fishery, because they could circumvent the directed fishing closures by fishing in State waters. NMFS has notified the public that it will implement the sideboard limits in the State parallel fisheries in the preamble to the proposed and final rules for the Program and in the notice of availability for Amendments 18 and 19. Changes from the Proposed Rule One non-substantive change was made from the proposed rule to the final rule. In § 680.22(f), the phrase “that are required to have” was changed to “with” because the term “required” implied that a Federal Fisheries Permit or LLP license was required in State waters. The term “with” clarifies that Federal regulations apply to vessels operating under Federal permits. Classification NMFS has determined that the final rule is consistent with the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws. This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. NMFS prepared a final regulatory flexibility analysis
(FRFA)as required by section 604(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The FRFA describes the economic impact this rule will have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for it are included at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. A summary of the analysis follows. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ). Issues Raised by Public Comments on the IRFA NMFS received no public comments on the IRFA. Need for and Objectives of this Action This action is necessary to correct two aspects of the sideboard provisions in the regulations implementing the Program that were inadvertently misstated at 50 CFR 680.22. Number and Description of Small Entities Directly Regulated by the Rule One hundred and ninety five entities are subject to the sideboard regulations and fish in the GOA groundfish fisheries. A fishing operation is considered to be a small entity for RFA purposes if its total annual gross receipts, from all sources, is less than $4 million. The 2004 gross revenue data from the State fishticket database is readily available and includes revenue from all fishing operations in Alaska and adjacent EEZ waters. Based on these data, as many as 189 of the 195 entities may be considered small. Description of Significant Alternatives and a Description of Steps Taken to Minimize the Significant Economic Impacts on Small Entities No significant alternatives to the proposed rule exist that accomplish the stated objectives, are consistent with applicable statutes, and would minimize the economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities. A no action alternative was considered, but was rejected because it did not meet the objectives of the Program's sideboard provisions. No significant adverse effects are shown for this action. The Council created the sideboards with the expressed purpose of restricting the owners of vessels acquiring snow crab quota share from using the resulting increased operational flexibility to expand their participation in the already fully subscribed GOA groundfish fisheries. The proposed regulatory changes are necessary owing to the introduction of two inconsistencies that exist between the Program provisions and the language in the implementing regulations. These corrections will implement the sideboards as intended by the Council. Sideboards on Vessels Without Quota Share Six small entities, as defined for RFA purposes, would be directly regulated by the removal of the sideboard provisions from vessels that did not generate snow crab quota shares. These entities are currently, although inadvertently, subject to the economic burden of the sideboard restrictions, despite not having qualified for snow crab quota shares. The proposed action would lift this uncompensated burden from these six small entities by removing their sideboard restrictions. Sideboards in the State Parallel Groundfish Fisheries As promulgated, the current regulatory language may allow federally permitted vessels to circumvent the Program's sideboards by fishing only in the State parallel groundfish fisheries in the GOA. Since the start of the 2006 A season Pacific cod fishery (the first GOA groundfish opening following implementation of the current Program provisions), no vessels prohibited by these sideboard provisions from fishing for Pacific cod have fished in the State parallel fisheries. The fact that no vessels currently are exploiting this loophole in the regulations is testament to the clear intent that the sideboards apply to the State parallel fisheries, and the plain language understanding of the term “GOA.” This action proposes to correct the sideboard provisions of the Program's implementing regulations, by applying them to federally permitted vessels fishing in State parallel groundfish fisheries. Therefore, the preferred action has no economic effects beyond those considered in the EIS prepared for the Program (see ADDRESSES ). Sideboard restrictions prevent adverse spillover effects in other fisheries from an influx of effort from the rationalized crab fisheries. The Crab Rationalization Program, because it issued quota share to vessel owners and provided them the ability to form cooperatives, provides these directly regulated entities substantial economic benefits, as discussed in the EIS prepared for the Program (see ADDRESSES ). As discussed in that analysis, the sideboard limits prevent these participants from using these benefits to increase their effort in the GOA groundfish fisheries. The sideboard restrictions provide the sideboarded vessels the ability to maintain their historic harvest levels in GOA groundfish fisheries, and therefore, do not make the sideboarded vessels worse-off economically. Vessels with minimal harvests in the snow crab fisheries and substantial harvests in the Pacific cod fishery would be exempt from the sideboard restrictions, since these vessels have little dependence on the crab fisheries. In addition, vessels with less than a minimum historic harvest from GOA groundfish fisheries are not permitted to participate in GOA groundfish fisheries. The proposed action does not likely have the potential to impose disproportionate impacts on small entities, relative to large entities. The regulatory change applying the sideboard constraints to State waters during the parallel fisheries would provide all qualifying vessels, large and small, a level playing field upon which to operate, as had been the intention of the Council from the outset. Because this change merely rescinds an unintentional and unexploited regulatory loophole, the only possible effect is to codify the commonly held understanding among the fishing industry of the sideboard rule. This rule does not have the potential to significantly reduce profits for small entities. The absence of cost data precludes quantitative estimation of potential impacts on profitability, although these would be expected to be minimal, because no vessels chose to exploit this loophole in the 2006 A season (the first groundfish fishery after sideboard implementation). This regulation does not impose new recordkeeping and reporting requirements on any directly regulated small entities. Small Entity Compliance Guide NMFS has posted a small entity compliance guide on the Internet at *http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/sustainablefisheries/crab/rat/progfaq.htm* to satisfy the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, which requires a plain language guide to assist small entities in complying with this rule. Contact NMFS to request a hard copy of the guide (see ADDRESSES ). List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 680 Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: June 29, 2006. William T. Hogarth, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS amends 50 CFR part 680 as follows: PART 680—SHELLFISH FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA 1. The authority citation for part 680 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1862. 2. In § 680.22, paragraph (a)(1)(i) is revised and paragraph
(f)is added to read as follows: § 680.22 Sideboard protections for GOA groundfish fisheries.
(a)* * *
(1)* * *
(i)Any non-AFA vessel that made a legal landing of Bering Sea snow crab ( *C. opilio* ) between January 1, 1996, and December 31, 2000, that generated any amount of Bering Sea snow crab ( *C. opilio* ) fishery QS; and
(f)*Sideboard protections in the State of Alaska parallel groundfish fisheries.* Vessels subject to the sideboard restrictions under paragraph
(a)of this section, with a Federal Fisheries Permit or LLP license, shall be subject to the regulations of this section while participating in any groundfish fishery in State waters adjacent to the GOA opened by the State of Alaska and for which the State of Alaska adopts a Federal fishing season. [FR Doc. E6-10554 Filed 7-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 71 129 Thursday, July 6, 2006 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 7 CFR Part 319 [Docket No. APHIS-2006-0073] Importation of Shelled Garden Peas From Kenya AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend the fruits and vegetables regulations to allow the importation of shelled garden peas from Kenya into the continental United States. In order to be eligible for importation, the peas would have to be shelled, washed, and inspected and accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Service. This action would allow for the importation of shelled peas from Kenya into the continental United States while continuing to protect against the introduction of quarantine pests. DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before September 5, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and, in the lower “Search Regulations and Federal Actions” box, select “Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service” from the agency drop-down menu, then click on “Submit.” In the Docket ID column, select APHIS-2006-0073 to submit or view public comments and to view supporting and related materials available electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket after the close of the comment period, is available through the site's “User Tips” link. • Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Please send four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to APHIS-2006-0073, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to APHIS-2006-0073. *Reading Room:* You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call
(202)690-2817 before coming. *Other Information:* Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the Internet at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Sharon Porsche, Import Specialist, Commodity Import Analysis and Operations, Plant Health Programs, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231;
(301)734-8758. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The regulations in “Subpart—Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56 through 319.56-8, referred to below as the regulations) prohibit or restrict the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world to prevent the introduction and dissemination of plant pests that are new to or not widely distributed within the United States. The Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Service (KEPHIS) has requested that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) amend the regulations to allow shelled garden peas from Kenya to be imported into the United States. As part of our evaluation of Kenya's request, we prepared a pest risk assessment
(PRA)and a risk management document. Copies of the PRA and risk management document may be obtained from the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or viewed on the Regulations.gov Web site (see ADDRESSES above for instruction for accessing Regulations.gov). The PRA, titled “Importation of Garden Peas, Shelled *Pisum sativum* L. from Kenya into the Continental United States, a Qualitative Pathway-Initiated Risk Assessment” (May 2006), evaluates the risks associated with the importation of shelled garden peas into the continental United States (the lower 48 States and Alaska) from Kenya. The PRA identified 13 pests of quarantine significance present in garden peas ( *Pisum sativum* ) in Kenya: The weevils *Callosobruchus analis, C. chinensis, C. maculates* , and *C. phaseoli* ; the borers *Crocidosema aporema, Leucinodes orbonalis* , and *Maruca vitrata* ; the grasshopper *Diabolocatantops axillaris* ; the bollworm *Helicoverpa armigera;* the caterpillar *Lampides boeticus;* the leafworm *Spodoptera littoralis;* the flower thrips *Thrips flavus;* and the looper *Thysanoplusia orichalcea.* However, the assessment took into account the post-harvest handling that the peas would be subjected to in Kenya and further determined that none of the 13 quarantine significant pests identified may be reasonably expected to follow the pathway of shelled garden pea shipments from Kenya. As a result of these findings, the 13 pests of quarantine significance were listed as not following the pathway, and, therefore, were not analyzed further. The specific post-harvest processing procedures suggested by KEPHIS that were considered in the PRA and that would be required under this proposed rule are described in the following paragraphs. The imports of garden peas would be limited to peas that have been removed from their shell. Shelling allows for visual inspection and removes most of the larval pests that may be feeding on the pods and exposes pests that feed on the pea. These pests are highly visible and easily detected during the shelling process. The shelled peas would then have to be washed in a disinfectant wash in water at 3 to 5 °C containing 50 ppm of chlorine. The washing of the shelled peas further aids in the removal of any insects that might feed on individual peas. In addition, we would require that KEPHIS inspect the shelled peas and issue a phytosanitary certificate for each consignment of peas. The phytosanitary certificate would have to bear an additional declaration confirming that the required post-harvest shelling and washing procedures have been followed, as well as a statement confirming that the peas have been inspected and found free of pests. We have determined that these proposed measures would prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United States. The proposed conditions described above for the importation of shelled garden peas from Kenya into the United States would be added to the fruits and vegetables regulations as a new § 319.56-2ss. Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. The rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. We are proposing to amend the fruits and vegetables regulations to allow the importation of shelled garden peas from Kenya into the continental United States. In order to be eligible for importation, the peas would have to be shelled, washed, and inspected and accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by KEPHIS. This action would allow for the importation of shelled peas from Kenya into the continental United States while continuing to protect against the introduction of quarantine pests. The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to consider the economic impact of their regulations on small entities and to use flexibility to provide regulatory relief when regulations create economic disparities between differently sized entities. In accordance with the Act, APHIS has performed an initial regulatory flexibility analysis regarding the economic effects of this proposed rule on small entities. We do not have all the data necessary for a comprehensive analysis of the effects of this proposed rule on small entities that may incur benefits or costs from the implementation of this proposed rule. However, based on the information we do have, we believe that most, if not all, of the businesses affected by the proposed rule would be small, and there is no reason to conclude that adoption of this proposed rule would result in any significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. The United States is the third largest producer of garden peas after India and China. However, less than 1 percent of U.S. production goes into the fresh market, the reason being that fresh garden peas require harvesting by hand, whereas peas destined for processing can be machine-harvested. The cost of farm labor is considerably higher in the United States than in many other countries. According to industry sources, fresh garden peas grown in the United States are mainly produced in California (more than 85 percent), with the rest grown mainly in Florida. Published data on domestic production of fresh garden peas exist only for two counties in California, San Luis Obispo County and Santa Barbara County. 1 Based on the 2000-2004 data for these two counties, California snow pea production declined over that 5-year period, while green pea production has expanded. The value of pea production in those two counties in 2004 was $29 million. 1 Annual County Agricultural Commissioner Report Data (Sacramento: California Department of Food and Agriculture, 2000-2004). The United States is a net importer of fresh/chilled peas, and our major foreign supplier of fresh garden peas in 2005 was Guatemala, with a 45 percent share (by value) of U.S. imports, followed by Peru (29 percent) and Mexico (24 percent). Nearly all U.S. fresh pea exports go to Canada. Our reported domestic supply of fresh garden peas (California production plus net U.S. imports) in 2004 totaled about 39,700 metric tons, valued at $42.7 million. These totals exclude U.S. production that may have taken place outside of San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties. If we include the 15 percent of unreported U.S. production of fresh garden peas thought to occur outside of the two California counties, then the 2004 domestic supply would total about 42,800 metric tons, with roughly 65 percent imported and 35 percent supplied by U.S. producers. U.S. entities that could be affected by the proposed rule are domestic producers of fresh garden peas and wholesalers who import fresh garden peas. Businesses producing green peas and snow peas are classified in the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) within the category of Other Vegetable (except Potato) and Melon Farming (NAICS code 111219). The Small Business Administration's
(SBA)small entity definition for these producers is annual receipts of not more than $750,000. Firms that would import fresh, shelled garden peas from Kenya are defined as small entities if they have 100 or fewer employees (NAICS code 424480, Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Merchant Wholesalers). 2 2 The wholesale sector comprises two types of wholesalers: Those that sell goods on their own account and those that arrange sales and purchases for others for a commission or fee. Importers are included in both cases. In general, firms engaged in production or importation of agricultural commodities are predominantly small. We believe that most if not all of the businesses affected by the proposed rule would be small. We do not know the number of U.S. producers of fresh garden peas. According to the 2002 Census of Agriculture for California Counties, there were 327 vegetable farms in San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties, the two counties for which there are published fresh garden pea production data. We do not know how many of these vegetable farms produce fresh garden peas. Also, we do not know their size, but in general, such entities are predominantly small. We welcome information that the fresh vegetable industry or general public may provide on the number and size of entities that could be affected by the proposed rule. Alternatives An alternative to the proposed rule would be to require that a different set of phytosanitary measures be satisfied. Risk assessment and risk management documents prepared by APHIS identify 13 quarantine pests for fresh garden peas from Kenya. For the current proposed rule, the commodity would be subject to certain risk mitigations, including removal of the seeds from the pod, washing of the shelled peas in water at 3 to 5 °C containing 50 ppm chlorine, phytosanitary certification by KEPHIS, and U.S. port-of-entry inspection. These conditions are expected to successfully mitigate risks posed to U.S. agriculture. Import requirements less or more stringent than those proposed would, respectively, either not provide an appropriate level of phytosanitary protection or impose unduly burdensome measures. We would appreciate any comments on the potential economic effects of allowing the importation into the continental United States of garden peas from Kenya, and on how the proposed rule could be modified to reduce expected costs or burdens for small entities consistent with its objectives. This proposed rule contains certain reporting and recordkeeping requirements (see “Paperwork Reduction Act” below). Executive Order 12988 This proposed rule would allow shelled garden peas to be imported into the continental United States from Kenya. If this proposed rule is adopted, State and local laws and regulations regarding shelled garden peas imported under this rule would be preempted while the fruit is in foreign commerce. Fresh fruits and vegetables are generally imported for immediate distribution and sale to the consuming public and would remain in foreign commerce until sold to the ultimate consumer. The question of when foreign commerce ceases in other cases must be addressed on a case-by-case basis. If this proposed rule is adopted, no retroactive effect will be given to this rule, and this rule will not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule. Paperwork Reduction Act In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), the information collection or recordkeeping requirements included in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Please send written comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for APHIS, Washington, DC 20503. Please state that your comments refer to APHIS-2006-0073. Please send a copy of your comments to:
(1)APHIS-2006-0073, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238, and
(2)Clearance Officer, OCIO, USDA, room 404-W, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250. A comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication of this proposed rule. This proposed rule would amend the fruits and vegetables regulations to allow the importation of shelled garden peas from Kenya into the continental United States. In order to be eligible for importation, the peas would have to be shelled, washed, and inspected and accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by KEPHIS. The phytosanitary certificate would have to bear an additional declaration stating that the peas had been shelled and washed in accordance with the proposed requirements and had been inspected and found free of pests. We are soliciting comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our proposed information collection and recordkeeping requirements. These comments will help us:
(1)Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper performance of our agency's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2)Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who are to respond (such as through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology; *e.g.* , permitting electronic submission of responses). *Estimate of burden:* Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.15 hour per response. *Respondents:* Importers of peas, KEPHIS. *Estimated annual number of respondents:* 2. *Estimated annual number of responses per respondent:* 20. *Estimated annual number of responses:* 40. *Estimated total annual burden on respondents:* 6 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.) Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at
(301)734-7477. Government Paperwork Elimination Act Compliance The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to compliance with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA), which requires Government agencies in general to provide the public the option of submitting information or transacting business electronically to the maximum extent possible. For information pertinent to GPEA compliance related to this proposed rule, please contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at
(301)734-7477. List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 319 Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Imports, Logs, Nursery stock, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rice, Vegetables. Accordingly, we propose to amend 7 CFR part 319 as follows: PART 319—FOREIGN QUARANTINE NOTICES 1. The authority citation for part 319 would continue to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450, 7701-7772, and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. 2. A new § 319.56-2ss would be added to read as follows: § 319.56-2ss Conditions governing the entry of shelled garden peas from Kenya. Garden peas ( *Pisum sativum* ) may be imported into the continental United States from Kenya only under the following conditions:
(a)The peas must be shelled from the pod.
(b)The peas must be washed in disinfectant water at 3 to 5 °C containing 50 ppm chlorine.
(c)Each shipment of peas must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate of inspection issued by the national plant protection organization of Kenya bearing the following additional declaration: “These peas have been shelled and washed in accordance with 7 CFR 319.56-2ss and have been inspected and found free of pests.” Done in Washington, DC, this 29th day of June 2006. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E6-10551 Filed 7-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2005-20351; Directorate Identifier 2003-NM-269-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 767 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of comment period. SUMMARY: The FAA is revising an earlier proposed airworthiness directive
(AD)for all Boeing Model 767 airplanes. The original NPRM would have required an inspection of each main tank fuel boost pump for the presence of a pump shaft flame arrestor, and if the flame arrestor is missing, replacement of that pump with a pump having a pump shaft flame arrestor. The original NPRM would also have required repetitive measurements of the flame arrestor's position in the pump, and corrective actions if necessary. The original NPRM resulted from reports that certain fuel boost pumps may not have flame arrestors installed in the pump shaft and reports that the pin that holds the flame arrestor in place can break due to metal fatigue. This action revises the original NPRM by proposing the replacement of the pump with a new or modified pump, which would end the repetitive measurements. This action also revises the compliance times for certain airplanes. We are proposing this supplemental NPRM to prevent the possible migration of a flame from a main tank fuel boost pump inlet to the vapor space of that fuel tank, and consequent ignition of fuel vapors, which could result in a fire or explosion. DATES: We must receive comments on this supplemental NPRM by July 31, 2006. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this supplemental NPRM. • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, for service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Vann, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone
(425)917-6513; fax
(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this supplemental NPRM. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2005-20351; Directorate Identifier 2003-NM-269-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this supplemental NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this supplemental NPRM in light of those comments. We will post all comments submitted, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this supplemental NPRM. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov* . Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* , or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone
(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level in the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in ADDRESSES. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion We proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)for an AD (the “original NPRM”) for all Boeing Model 767 series airplanes. The original NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on February 15, 2005 (70 FR 7678). The original NPRM proposed to require an inspection of each main tank fuel boost pump for the presence of a pump shaft flame arrestor, and if the flame arrestor is missing, replacement of that pump with a pump having a pump shaft flame arrestor. The original NPRM also proposed to require repetitive measurements of the flame arrestor's position in the pump, and corrective actions if necessary. Actions Since Original NPRM Was Issued The preamble to the original NPRM explains that we consider the proposed requirements “interim action” and were considering further rulemaking. Since we issued the original NPRM, the manufacturer has issued new service information, which specifies actions that terminate the repetitive measurements proposed in the original NPRM. This supplemental NPRM follows from the determination that the additional actions are necessary. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletins 767-28A0088 (for Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes) and 767-28A0089 (for Model 767-400ER series airplanes), both dated February 24, 2005. The alert service bulletins describe procedures for replacing the left and right main tank fuel boost pumps with new or modified pumps that have a better flame arrestor installation. Doing the replacements ends the inspections specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-28A0077 (for Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes) or 767-28A0081 (for Model 767-400ER series airplanes), both Revision 1, both dated July 8, 2004, as applicable. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. Boeing Alert Service Bulletins 767-28A0088 and 767-28A0089 reference Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin 5006003-28-3, dated December 8, 2004, as the appropriate source of service information for modifying the pump. Comments We have considered the following comments on the original NPRM. Support for the Original NPRM The Air Line Pilots Association agrees with the original NPRM. Request To Allow Credit ABX Air requests that actions done in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-28A0077, dated March 6, 2003, be accepted as a method of compliance with the requirements of the original NPRM. The commenter indicates that there are no substantive differences between the actions of the original version and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-28A0077, Revision 1, dated July 8, 2004 (Revision 1 is listed as the appropriate source of service information for doing the actions specified in paragraph
(g)of the original NPRM for Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes). We agree that any work done before the effective date of the AD in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-28A0077, dated March 6, 2003, is acceptable for compliance with the actions specified in paragraphs
(f)and
(g)of this supplemental NPRM (specified as paragraph
(g)in the original NPRM) for Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes. In addition, we have determined that any work done before the effective date of the AD in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-28A0081, dated March 6, 2003, is acceptable for compliance with the actions specified in paragraphs
(f)and
(g)of this supplemental NPRM for Model 767-400ER series airplanes (Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-28A0081, Revision 1, dated July 8, 2004, is listed as the appropriate source of service information for doing the actions specified in paragraph
(g)of the original NPRM for Model 767-400ER series airplanes). We have added new paragraph
(j)to this supplemental NPRM to give credit for actions done before the effective date of the AD in accordance with these service bulletins. We have also removed the service bulletin reference paragraph from this supplemental NPRM (specified as paragraph
(f)in the original NPRM) and we have included the service bulletin information in paragraphs
(f)and
(g)of this supplemental NPRM (specified as paragraph
(g)in the original NPRM). Request To Add Terminating Action ABX Air, Continental Airlines, All Nippon Airways (ANA), UPS, and Boeing state that there is now a terminating action for the repetitive inspections (measurements) specified in paragraph
(g)of original NPRM since Boeing has issued Alert Service Bulletins 767-28A0088 and 767-28A0089, both dated February 24, 2005, which replace the main tank fuel boost pumps with new or modified pumps. Several commenters request that a statement be added to the original NPRM that the incorporation of the above service bulletins constitutes an optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections of paragraph
(g)of the original NPRM. ANA also requests clarification that the new pumps are not subject to the repetitive inspections. Several commenters also point out that Note 3 of the original NPRM specifies that there is no terminating action available for the actions in paragraph
(g)and request that Note 3 be deleted because there is an optional terminating action. We agree with the commenters that the replacements specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletins 767-28A0088 and 767-28A0089 are terminating action for the repetitive measurements specified in paragraphs
(f)and
(g)of this supplemental NPRM. However, we do not agree that the replacement should be optional. Paragraph
(i)of this supplemental NPRM would require replacing the fuel pumps and is a terminating action for the repetitive measurements specified in paragraphs
(f)and
(g)of this supplemental NPRM. We have also removed Note 3 from this supplemental NPRM because there is now terminating action. Request To Exclude Part From Requirements of Paragraph
(h)ABX Air requests that pump assembly part number (P/N) 5006003D be excluded from the requirements of paragraph
(h)of the original NPRM. The commenter indicates that P/N 5006003D is approved to be installed on Model 767 airplanes per Boeing Alert Service Bulletins 767-28A0088 and 767-28A0089. We agree. We have revised paragraph
(k)of this supplemental NPRM (specified as paragraph
(h)in the original NPRM) to allow the installation of the main fuel tank boost pump P/N 5006003D. Request To Revise Compliance Times To Match Service Bulletins ANA requests that the compliance times for the original NPRM follow the compliance times specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletins 767-28A0077 and 767-28A0081. The commenter notes that the original NPRM specifies that “prior to the accumulation of 15,000 total flight hours, or within 365 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever is later; do a detailed inspection * * *.” The commenter contends that this is different from the alert service bulletins. The commenter notes that it is performing the inspections in accordance with the alert service bulletins. We agree with the commenter's request to follow the compliance times in the alert service bulletins. For certain airplanes specified in the alert service bulletins, the initial inspections should be done within 365 days after the airplane has accumulated 15,000 total flight hours. We recognize that the compliance times in the original NPRM penalize the operators with airplanes that have accumulated fewer flight hours, and that the start of the repetitive inspections should be based on the number of hours the airplane has accumulated. Therefore, we have revised the compliance times in this supplemental NPRM to align with the compliance times specified in the alert service bulletins. Request To Extend Initial Compliance Times to Within 24 Months The Air Transport Association requests that the compliance time for the initial inspections be extended to 24 months. The commenter indicates that a compliance time of 24 months would better align with the scheduled maintenance of operators of Model 767 airplanes and would align with other fuel tank system actions that may be required as a result of Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (“SFAR 88,” Amendment 21-78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83). The commenter also contends that dry running pumps in the main tanks does not present a meaningful risk during ground or flight operations because those concerns would be eclipsed by fuel starvation of the engine. The commenter also states that although there is the risk of dry running pumps during defueling operations, it looks to proper maintenance procedures for mitigation. The commenter concludes that allowing 24 months to do the initial inspection would not impair the intended level of safety. We do not agree with the commenter to allow the initial inspections within 24 months after the effective date of the AD. A study made by Hamilton Sundstrand, the manufacturer of the affected fuel pumps, shows that up to 25% of the pumps could have loose or missing flame arrestors. For this reason, it is necessary to divide the airplanes into two groups. For airplanes having line numbers (L/Ns) 1 through 914, an investigation has indicated that the subject fuel pumps might not have flame arrestors. These airplanes would need to be inspected for missing flame arrestors within 365 days as specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletins 767-28A0077 and 767-28A0081. For airplanes having L/Ns 915 and subsequent: The inspection would need to done within 365 days on airplanes that have accumulated more than 15,000 total flight hours; and on airplanes that accumulated less than 15,000 total flight hours, the inspection would need to be done within 365 days after the airplane accumulates 15,000 total flight hours. As there are many Model 767 airplanes in the world fleet that have accumulated more than 15,000 flight hours, we find that the compliance time of 365 days would provide an adequate level of safety. We also do not agree that dry running pumps in the main tank does not present a meaningful risk during ground or flight operations. We are concerned that dry running pumps without flame arrestors are hazardous due to the lack of data on the ability of the flame front to propagate to the ullage through some depth of fuel prior to fuel starvation of the engine. Additionally, airplane attitude variation during flight operations can uncover at least one of the fuel pump inlets prior to fuel starvation, especially during a low fuel go around on approach. Proper maintenance procedures mitigate the risk during defueling operations; however, defueling can occur with passengers on board and we have concerns with improperly conducted maintenance procedures. The basis for the compliance times specified by this supplemental NPRM includes the fact that a missing flame arrestor does not present a very high risk for most flight conditions when there is enough fuel to cover the pump inlet as the probability of a flame reaching the fuel tank is significantly reduced if fuel covers the pump inlet. In developing appropriate compliance times for this supplemental NPRM, we considered the manufacturer's recommendation specified in the alert service bulletins, the degree of urgency associated with the subject unsafe condition, the average utilization of the affected fleet and the time necessary to perform the actions. In light of all of these factors, we find that the compliance times specified in this supplemental NPRM represent an appropriate interval of time for affected airplanes to continue to operate without compromising safety. However, an operator may request an alternative method of compliance
(AMOC)to extend the compliance time in accordance with paragraph
(l)of this supplemental NPRM. Request To Revise Applicability and Compliance Times Boeing recommends that the compliance times for airplanes having L/Ns 915 through 926 be revised to match the compliance times specified in the alert service bulletins for airplanes having L/Ns 1 through 914. The commenter notes that the applicability of L/Ns 1 through 914 for the one set of compliance times was based on Hamilton Sundstrand determining which pumps had the missing flame arrestors. However, the commenter states that the terminating action design was incorporated at L/N 927 with the new main boost pump part number specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletins 767-28A0088 and 767-28A0089. Therefore, the commenter notes that including airplanes having L/Ns 915 through 926 in the compliance times for L/Ns 1 through 914 would clarify when the new pump number was installed. The commenter recommends the following compliance times for the original NPRM: “For aircraft having L/N 1-926, do an initial inspection within 365 days. For those aircraft with more than 15,000 hours, do the inspection again at each 6,000 flight interval or 24 months whichever comes first. For those aircraft with less than 15,000 hours, do the inspection again within 365 days from the date the aircraft reaches 15,000 hours. Repeat the inspection at each 6,000 flight interval or 24 months whichever comes first.” Since Boeing's comments were not consistent with its own service bulletin recommendation, we contacted the manufacturer for clarification on its position. Boeing revised its position to be consistent with Boeing Alert Service Bulletins 767-28A0077 and 767-28A0081 for airplanes having L/Ns 1 through 926 and further recommended that for airplanes having L/N 927 and on, an inspection is not required since the airplane already has the new part number installed. While we acknowledge that airplanes having L/N 927 and subsequent have been equipped with the new pumps in production, the pumps may have been replaced since then. Therefore, all airplanes must be inspected. However, operators may examine their records to determine if the new fuel pumps are installed. If it is conclusively determined that the new pumps are installed, no further action is necessary. We have added new paragraph
(h)to allow a records review to determine if the new pump is installed. Request To Reference Future Revision of Service Bulletin ATA, on behalf of its members, American Airlines and United Airlines, requests that the original NPRM reference Revision 2 of the Boeing Alert Service Bulletins 767-28A0077 and 767-28A0081. The commenter states that Revision 2 will cite Hamilton-Sundstrand Service Bulletin 5006003-28-3, which would provide the instructions to incorporate into the subject fuel pumps a new shaft and rotor assembly designed to correct the problem. We do not agree. We have confirmed with Boeing that Alert Service Bulletins 767-28A0077 and 767-28A0081 will not be revised to provide a terminating action. As discussed previously, Boeing has issued Alert Service Bulletins 767-28A0088 and 767-28A0089, which constitute terminating actions for the repetitive actions of paragraphs
(f)and
(g)of this supplemental NPRM. Request To Revise Cost ATA, on behalf of its member United Airlines, requests that the cost analysis be revised. ATA requests that the cost analysis include items such as the impact of airplanes rerouting to a maintenance facility, aircraft preparation, access, correction of discrepancies found, aircraft close-up, and any additional test necessary to put the airplane back in operation. United Airlines states that the repair cost of pumps should be included because Hamilton-Sundstrand quoted a 25% failure rate. United Airlines also notes that 60% of the pumps it has inspected had inlet diffuser struts eroded beyond the specified limits and therefore, pump repairs and replacement sleeve costs should be included. We do not agree to revise the cost analysis. In establishing the requirements of all ADs, we do consider cost impact to operators beyond the estimates of parts and labor costs contained in AD preambles. For example, where safety considerations allow, we attempt to set compliance times that generally coincide with operators' maintenance schedules. However, because operators' schedules vary substantially, we cannot accommodate every operator's optimal scheduling in each AD. Each AD does allow individual operators to obtain approval for extensions of compliance times, based on a showing that the extension will not affect safety adversely. Therefore, we do not consider it appropriate to attribute to this supplemental NPRM the costs associated with the type of special scheduling that might otherwise be required. Furthermore, we do not consider it appropriate to attribute the costs associated with aircraft “down time” to this supplemental NPRM. Normally, compliance with an AD will not necessitate any additional down time beyond that of a regularly scheduled maintenance hold. Even if additional down time is necessary for some airplanes in some cases, we do not have sufficient information to evaluate the number of airplanes that may be so affected or the amount of additional down time that may be required as this may vary from operator to operator. Therefore, attempting to estimate such costs is not appropriate. In addition, the economic analysis does not consider the costs of conditional actions, such as repairing a crack detected during a required inspection (“repair, if necessary”). Such conditional repairs would be required, regardless of AD direction, to correct an unsafe condition identified in an airplane and to ensure that the airplane is operated in an airworthy condition, as required by the Federal Aviation Regulations. The compliance times presented in this supplemental NPRM were developed to minimize the economic impact on operators as much as possible while being consistent with the safety objectives associated with this supplemental NPRM and the referenced alert service bulletins. We have not revised this supplemental NPRM in this regard. Request for SFAR 88 Information ATA questions if the original NPRM originated from the SFAR 88 fuel tank system safety review. We confirm that this supplemental NPRM did not originate from the SFAR 88 fuel tank system safety review. Request To Remove Repetitive Inspections Delta Airlines states that it is not convinced the repetitive inspections specified in the original NPRM are necessary. We infer that the commenter requests that the repetitive inspections be removed. The commenter states that the risk of problems associated with missing or loose boost pump flame arrestors is not great enough to justify repetitive inspections fleetwide. The commenter also states that the pump flame arrestors have been found loose but not missing, and that they retain their flame arresting qualities if loose. In addition, the commenter states that if a sheared roll pin is going to cause a problem, it is going to occur immediately after the pin fails; since the roll pin can shear at any time, no amount of inspections would prevent pin failures. The commenter believes that the more likely scenario, dry running pumps in the main tanks during ground or flight operations, is not a meaningful risk because those concerns would be eclipsed by fuel starvation of the engines. The commenter notes that it looks to proper maintenance procedures for mitigation of the risk of dry running pumps during defueling operations. The commenter suggests that installation of an improved pin or a pin replacement program would solve the problem better than repetitive inspections. We understand Delta's concerns; however, we do not agree to remove the repetitive inspections. The objective of the flame arrestor is to preclude a flame originated in the reprime unit or beyond from moving to the fuel tank. The flame arrestor may drop into the reprime unit area if the flame arrestor pin is broken and contacts rotating parts; in this position, a flame arrestor might create sparks that ignite the fuel vapors. A misplaced or missing flame arrestor represents a latent failure that leaves the airplane one failure away from a fuel tank ignition. The probability of a flame reaching the fuel tank is significantly reduced if fuel covers the pump inlet. The compliance times specified by this supplemental NPRM recognize the fact that a missing flame arrestor does not present a very high risk for most flight conditions when there is enough fuel to cover the pump inlet. We find that, to achieve an adequate level of safety for the affected fleet, repetitive inspections are necessary. We have not revised this supplemental NPRM in this regard. Request To Reference Part Numbers The Modification and Replacement Parts Association (MARPA) requests that we identify the affected fuel pumps in the original NPRM by either Boeing or Hamilton Sundstrand (or both) part numbers. The MARPA also requests that we include any possible defective parts manufacturer approval
(PMA)alternative parts so that any defective PMA parts are also subject to the original NPRM. The commenter asserts that, under 14 CFR 21.303, there may be fuel pumps that could be approved replacement parts for the affected fuel pumps. If replacement parts do exist, the MARPA states that the PMA fuel pumps may have a different part number from the affected fuel pumps and therefore will not likely be addressed by model or serial number in the service information. Therefore, the MARPA asserts that a regulatory loophole is created if a “defective” PMA part is installed, because only the original equipment manufacturer
(OEM)part will be identified in the manufacturer service information. In addition, the MARPA states that the affected fuel pumps are identified in proprietary service information that is not available to the general public and that the proprietary service information may also not be available to supplier or repair facilities. Therefore, the MARPA concludes that repair and supply facilities might have defective OEM or PMA parts in stock that could be put into service unless such parts are identified as subject to the requirements of the original NPRM. We acknowledge the MARPA's concerns; however, we do not agree that it is necessary to identify the manufacturer and part numbers of the subject fuel pumps. At this time, we are not aware of other PMA parts equivalent to the affected fuel pumps. Also, this supplemental NPRM would require that all fuel pumps be inspected, regardless of origin. Since the part numbers of the affected fuel pumps are identified in the applicable Boeing and Hamilton Sundstrand service bulletins specified in the supplemental NPRM, it is unnecessary to specify part numbers in the supplemental NPRM. We concur with the MARPA's general request that, if we know that an unsafe condition also exists in PMA parts, the AD should address those parts, as well as the original parts. The MARPA's remarks are timely in that the Transport Airplane Directorate currently is in the process of reviewing this issue as it applies to transport category airplanes. We acknowledge that there may be other ways of addressing this issue to ensure that unsafe PMA parts are identified and addressed. Once we have thoroughly examined all aspects of this issue, including input from industry, and have made a final determination, we will consider whether our policy regarding addressing PMA parts in ADs needs to be revised. In response to the commenter's statement regarding a “regulatory loophole,” this statement appears to reflect a misunderstanding of the relationship between ADs and the certification procedural regulations of part 21 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 21). Those regulations, including section 21.303 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.203), are intended to ensure that aeronautical products comply with the applicable airworthiness standards. But ADs are issued when, notwithstanding those procedures, we become aware of unsafe conditions in these products or parts. Therefore, an AD takes precedence over design approvals when we identify an unsafe condition. Since we have determined that an unsafe condition exists and that replacement of certain parts must be accomplished to ensure continued safety, no additional change has been made to the supplemental NPRM in this regard. Request To Reference PMA Parts The MARPA requests that the language in the original NPRM be changed to embrace any PMA alternatives. We infer that the MARPA would like the original NPRM to permit installation of any equivalent PMA parts so that it is not necessary for an operator to request approval of an AMOC in order to install an “equivalent” PMA part. Whether an alternative part is “equivalent” in adequately resolving the unsafe condition can only be determined on a case-by-case basis based on a complete understanding of the unsafe condition. We are not currently aware of any such parts. Our policy is that, in order for operators to replace a part with one that is not specified in an AD, they must request an AMOC. This is necessary so that we can make a specific determination that an alternative part is or is not susceptible to the same unsafe condition. An AD provides a means of compliance for operators to ensure that the identified unsafe condition is addressed appropriately. For an unsafe condition attributable to a part, an AD normally identifies the replacement parts necessary to obtain that compliance. As stated in section 39.7 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 39.7), “Anyone who operates a product that does not meet the requirements of an applicable airworthiness directive is in violation of this section.” Unless an operator obtains approval for an AMOC, replacing a part with one not specified by an AD would make the operator subject to an enforcement action and result in a civil penalty. No change to this supplemental NPRM is necessary in this regard. Request To Allow Doing Actions on the Main Fuel Tanks Separately ANA requests that we permit operators to do the inspection of each main fuel tank separately and not require operators to do an inspection of all main fuel tanks on an airplane at the same maintenance stop. Also, the commenter requests that we permit operators to do any terminating action for each main fuel tank independent of the other. The commenter states that this will provide flexibility to operators. The commenter notes that it does not have many spare pumps. We acknowledge that doing the actions in the supplemental NPRM at a separate time for each main fuel tank would provide flexibility to the operators. Operators may do the actions for each pump separately provided that operators have done the actions on all pumps within the applicable compliance times specified in the supplemental NPRM. We have added Note 1, Note 4, and Note 5 to this supplemental NPRM to clarify that the actions may be done separately provided that all actions are done within the applicable compliance times. FAA's Determination and Proposed Requirements of the Supplemental NPRM Certain changes discussed above expand the scope of the original NPRM; therefore, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for public comment on this supplemental NPRM. Explanation of Change to Applicability We have revised the applicability of the original NPRM to identify model designations as published in the most recent type certificate data sheet for the affected models. Clarification of Unsafe Condition Statement The original NPRM specified the unsafe condition as “the possible migration of a flame from a main tank fuel boost pump inlet to the vapor space of that fuel tank, and consequent ignition of fuel vapors, which could result in a fire or explosion, should the pump inlets become uncovered.” We have revised the unsafe condition statement in this supplemental NPRM by removing the phrase “should the pump inlets become uncovered.” The pump inlet does not need to be uncovered for ignited vapors in the pump to cause a tank explosion. Clarification of AMOC Paragraph We have revised this action to clarify the appropriate procedure for notifying the principal inspector before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies. Costs of Compliance This supplemental NPRM affects about 915 airplanes worldwide, and 400 airplanes of U.S. registry. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this supplemental NPRM. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Average labor rate per hour Parts Cost per airplane Fleet cost Inspection of flame arrestor presence/Position 5 $80 None $400, per inspection cycle $160,000, per inspection cycle. Replacement 3 80 $25,004 $25,244 $10,097,600. 1 1 However, the parts manufacturer states that it may cover the cost of replacement parts associated with this supplemental NPRM for certain affected airplanes, subject to warranty conditions. As a result, the costs attributable to the supplemental NPRM may be less than stated above. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect 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. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this supplemental NPRM and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Boeing:** Docket No. FAA-2005-20351; Directorate Identifier 2003-NM-269-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by July 31, 2006. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to all Boeing Model 767-200, -300, -300F, and -400ER series airplanes, certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from reports that certain fuel boost pumps may not have flame arrestors installed in the pump shaft and reports that the pin that holds the flame arrestor in place can break due to metal fatigue. We are issuing this AD to prevent the possible migration of a flame from a main tank fuel boost pump inlet to the vapor space of that fuel tank, and consequent ignition of fuel vapors, which could result in a fire or explosion. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Inspection for Presence/Position of Flame Arrestor in Main Tank Fuel Boost Pumps
(f)For airplanes having line numbers (L/Ns) 1 through 914 inclusive, except as provided by paragraph
(h)of this AD: Within 365 days after the effective date of this AD, do a detailed inspection of each main tank fuel boost pump to determine if the pump shaft flame arrestor is installed, a measurement of the flame arrestor's position in the pump, and all applicable corrective actions, by accomplishing all the actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-28A0077 (for Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes) or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-28A0081 (for Model 767-400ER series airplanes), both Revision 1, both dated July 8, 2004, as applicable. Repeat the measurement of the flame arrestor's position in the pump thereafter at intervals not to exceed the applicable time specified in paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this AD, until the replacement required by paragraph
(i)of this AD is accomplished. All applicable corrective actions must be done before further flight. Note 1: Any inspection/measurement of the pumps on the left and right main fuel tanks may be done separately provided that the actions are done on all pumps within the compliance time specified in paragraph
(f)of this AD.
(1)For airplanes that have accumulated more than 15,000 total flight hours as of the date the initial actions are done in accordance with paragraph
(f)of this AD: Repeat the measurement thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight hours or 24 months, whichever comes first.
(2)For airplanes that have accumulated 15,000 total flight hours or fewer as of the date the initial actions are done in accordance with paragraph
(f)of this AD: Do the measurement specified in paragraph
(f)of this AD within 365 days after the date on which the airplane accumulates 15,000 total flight hours. Repeat the measurement thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight hours or 24 months, whichever comes first. Note 2: The Boeing alert service bulletins reference Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin 5006003-28-2, dated October 25, 2002, as an additional source of service information for accomplishment of the inspection and corrective actions. Although the Hamilton Sundstrand service bulletin specifies to return main tank fuel boost pumps with damaged, broken, or out-of-position flame arrestors to a repair shop, that action is not required by this AD. Note 3: For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is: “An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface cleaning and elaborate procedures may be required.”
(g)For airplanes having L/Ns 915 and on, except as provided by paragraph
(h)of this AD: At the applicable time specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, do a detailed inspection of each main tank fuel boost pump to determine if the pump shaft flame arrestor is installed, a measurement of the flame arrestor's position in the pump, and all applicable corrective actions, by accomplishing all the actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-28A0077 (for Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes) or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-28A0081 (for Model 767-400ER series airplanes), both Revision 1, both dated July 8, 2004, as applicable. Repeat the measurement of the flame arrestor's position in the pump thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight hours or 24 months, whichever comes first, until the replacement required by paragraph
(i)of this AD is accomplished. All applicable corrective actions must be done before further flight. Note 4: Any inspection/measurement of the pumps on the left and right main fuel tanks may be done separately provided that the actions are done on all pumps within the compliance time specified in paragraph
(g)of this AD.
(1)For airplanes that have accumulated more than 15,000 total flight hours as of the effective date of this AD, do the actions within 365 days after the effective date of this AD.
(2)For airplanes that have accumulated 15,000 total flight hours or fewer as of the effective date of this AD, do the actions within 365 days after the date on which the airplane accumulates 15,000 total flight hours. Optional Terminating Action—Records Review
(h)For any period when the part number (P/N) of a main tank fuel boost pump installed on any airplane, as conclusively determined from a review of airplane maintenance records, is P/N 5006003D, no further action is required by paragraphs (f), (g), and
(i)of this AD for that pump only. Replacement of the Main Tank Fuel Boost Pumps
(i)Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, replace the left and right main tank fuel boost pumps with new or modified pumps in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-28A0088 (for Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes) or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-28A0089 (for Model 767-400ER series airplanes), both dated February 24, 2005, as applicable. Accomplishment of the replacement terminates the repetitive measurement requirements of paragraphs
(f)and
(g)of this AD for that pump only. Note 5: Any replacement of the pumps on the left and right main fuel tanks may be done separately provided that all pumps are replaced within the compliance time specified in paragraph
(i)of this AD. Note 6: The Boeing alert service bulletins reference Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin 5006003-28-3, dated December 8, 2004, as the appropriate source of service information for modifying the pump. Inspections Accomplished According to Previous Issue of Service Bulletin
(j)Inspections accomplished before the effective date of this AD according to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-28A0077, dated March 6, 2003; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-28A0081, dated March 6, 2003; are considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding action specified in paragraphs
(f)and
(g)of this AD. Parts Installation
(k)As of the effective date of this AD, only main tank fuel boost pumps identified in paragraphs (k)(1) and (k)(2) of this AD may be installed on any airplane.
(1)Any main tank fuel boost pump that has been inspected, and on which all applicable corrective actions have been performed, in accordance with paragraph
(f)or
(g)of this AD.
(2)Any main tank fuel boost pump having P/N 5006003D. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (l)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office. Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 13, 2006. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-10536 Filed 7-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-25271; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-067-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Saab Model SAAB-Fairchild SF340A (SAAB/SF340A) and SAAB 340B Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede an existing airworthiness directive
(AD)that applies to certain Model SAAB-Fairchild SF340A and SAAB 340B airplanes. The existing AD currently requires repetitive inspections for wear of the brushes and leads and for loose rivets of the direct current
(DC)starter generator, and related investigative/corrective actions if necessary. This proposed AD would require installing new improved generator control units (GCUs). Installing the GCUs would end the repetitive inspection requirements of the existing AD. This proposed AD results from reports of premature failures of the DC starter generator prior to scheduled overhaul. We are proposing this AD to prevent failure of the starter generator, which could cause a low voltage situation in flight and result in increased pilot workload and reduced redundancy of the electrical powered systems. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 7, 2006. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Saab Aircraft AB, SAAB Aircraft Product Support, S-581.88, Linko ping, Sweden, for service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Borfitz, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone
(425)227-2677; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “Docket No. FAA-2006-25271; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-067-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov* . Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* , or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone
(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion On February 11, 2005, we issued AD 2005-04-12, amendment 39-13984 (70 FR 9215, February 25, 2005), for certain Saab Model SAAB SF340A and SAAB 340B series airplanes. That AD requires repetitive inspections for wear of the brushes and leads and for loose rivets of the direct current
(DC)starter generator, and related investigative/corrective actions if necessary. That AD resulted from reports of premature failures of the DC starter generator prior to scheduled overhaul. We issued that AD to prevent failure of the starter generator, which could cause a low voltage situation in flight and result in increased pilot workload and reduced redundancy of the electrical powered systems. Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued The preamble to AD 2005-04-12 explains that we considered the requirements “interim action” and were considering further rulemaking if a final action is identified. The manufacturer has now designed a new improved generator control unit (GCU), and we have determined that further rulemaking is indeed necessary; this proposed AD follows from that determination. Relevant Service Information Saab has issued Saab 340 Service Bulletin 340-24-026, Revision 03, dated December 20, 2004. The service bulletin describes procedures for installing new improved GCUs. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. The Luftfartsverket (LFS), which is the airworthiness authority for Sweden, mandated the service information and issued Swedish airworthiness directive 1-197, dated November 5, 2004, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in Sweden. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD These airplane models are manufactured in Sweden and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the LFS has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined the LFS's findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that AD action is necessary for airplanes of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. This proposed AD would supersede AD 2005-04-12 and would continue to require repetitive inspections for wear of the brushes and leads and for loose rivets of the direct current
(DC)starter generator, and related investigative/corrective actions if necessary. This proposed AD would also require installing new improved GCUs. Installing the GCUs would end the repetitive inspection requirements of AD 2005-04-12. Changes to Existing AD This proposed AD would retain all requirements of AD 2005-04-12. Since AD 2005-04-12 was issued, the AD format has been revised, and certain paragraphs have been rearranged. As a result, the corresponding paragraph identifiers have changed in this proposed AD, as listed in the following table: Revised Paragraph Identifiers Requirement in AD 2005-04-12 Corresponding requirement in this proposed AD paragraph
(e)paragraph (f). paragraph
(f)paragraph (g). paragraph
(g)paragraph (h). We have revised the applicability to identify model designations as published in the most recent type certificate data sheet for the affected models. We have also revised this action to clarify the appropriate procedure for notifying the principal inspector before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies. For clarification, we have revised the definition of a “general visual inspection” in Note 1 of this proposed AD. Explanation of Change to Costs of Compliance After AD 2005-04-12 was issued, we reviewed the figures we have used over the past several years to calculate AD costs to operators. To account for various inflationary costs in the airline industry, we find it necessary to increase the labor rate used in these calculations from $65 per work hour to $80 per work hour. The cost impact information, below, reflects this increase in the specified hourly labor rate. Costs of Compliance This proposed AD would affect about 170 airplanes of U.S. registry. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Average labor rate per hour Parts Cost per airplane Fleet cost Inspections (required by AD 2005-04-02) 1 $80 $0 $80, per inspection cycle $13,600, per inspection cycle. Installation (new proposed action) 1 80 7,598 7,678 $1,305,260. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect 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. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by removing amendment 39-13984 (70 FR 9215, February 25, 2005) and adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **SAAB Aircraft AB:** Docket No. FAA-2006-25271; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-067-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by August 7, 2006. Affected ADs
(b)This AD supersedes AD 2005-04-12. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Saab Model SAAB-Fairchild SF340A (SAAB/SF340A) airplanes having serial numbers 004 through 159 inclusive, and Model SAAB 340B airplanes having serial numbers 160 through 367 inclusive; certificated in any category; on which Saab Modification 2533 has not been implemented. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from reports of premature failures of the direct current
(DC)starter generator prior to scheduled overhaul. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the starter generator, which could cause a low voltage situation in flight and result in increased pilot workload and reduced redundancy of the electrical powered systems. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Restatement of the Requirements of AD 2005-04-12 Inspections for Wear of the DC Starter Generator Brushes and Leads
(f)For generators overhauled in accordance with Maintenance Review Board
(MRB)Task 243104: Before 800 flight hours since last overhaul, or within 100 flight hours after April 1, 2005 (the effective date of AD 2005-04-12), perform a general visual inspection for wear of the DC starter generator brushes and leads, in accordance with Saab Service Bulletin 340-24-035, dated July 5, 2004. Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a general visual inspection is: “A visual examination of an interior or exterior area, installation, or assembly to detect obvious damage, failure, or irregularity. This level of inspection is made from within touching distance unless otherwise specified. A mirror may be necessary to ensure visual access to all surfaces in the inspection area. This level of inspection is made under normally available lighting conditions such as daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight, or droplight and may require removal or opening of access panels or doors. Stands, ladders, or platforms may be required to gain proximity to the area being checked.” Note 2: Saab Service Bulletin 340-24-035, dated July 5, 2004, references Goodrich Service Information Letter 23080-03X-24-01, dated July 1, 2004, as an additional source of service information.
(1)If the tops of the brush sets are above the top of the brush box, repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 800 flight hours until paragraph
(i)of this AD is done.
(2)If the tops of the brush sets are below the top of the brush box, before further flight, measure the brushes and determine the remaining amount of brush life remaining, in accordance with the service bulletin.
(i)If the brush wear is within the limits specified in the service bulletin, repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 800 flight hours until paragraph
(i)of this AD is done.
(ii)If the brush wear is outside the limits specified in the service bulletin, before further flight, replace the starter generator with a new or serviceable starter generator, in accordance with the service bulletin. Inspections for Loose Rivets
(g)For generators overhauled in accordance with MRB Task 243104: Before 800 flight hours since last overhaul, or within 100 flight hours after April 1, 2005, whichever occurs later, perform a general visual inspection of each leading wafer brush for loose rivets, in accordance with Saab Service Bulletin 340-24-035, dated July 5, 2004. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 800 flight hours until paragraph
(i)of this AD is done. If any rivet is loose, before further flight, replace the DC starter generator with a new or serviceable starter generator, in accordance with the service bulletin. MRB Task 243103 or 243101
(h)For generators overhauled or with brush replacement accomplished in accordance with MRB Task 243103 or 243101, no action is required by paragraphs
(f)and
(g)of this AD. New Requirements of This AD Installation
(i)For all generators: Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, install new improved generator control units
(GCUs)in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Saab Service Bulletin 340-24-026, Revision 03, dated December 20, 2004. Installing the GCUs terminates the repetitive inspection requirements of paragraphs
(f)and
(g)of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (j)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office. Related Information
(k)Swedish airworthiness directive 1-197, dated November 5, 2004, also addresses the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 28, 2006. Kalene C. Yanamura, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-10537 Filed 7-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security 15 CFR Parts 740, 742, 744 and 748 [Docket No. 060622180-6180-01] RIN 0694-AD75 Revisions and Clarification of Export and Reexport Controls for the People's Republic of China (PRC); New Authorization Validated End-User AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: It is the policy of the United States Government to prevent exports that would make a material contribution to the military capability of the People's Republic of China (PRC), while facilitating U.S. exports to legitimate civil end-users in the PRC. Consistent with this policy, the Bureau of Industry and Security
(BIS)proposes to amend the Export Administration Regulations
(EAR)by revising and clarifying United States licensing requirements and licensing policy on exports and reexports of goods and technology to the PRC. The proposed amendments include a revision to the licensing review policy for items controlled on the Commerce Control List
(CCL)for reasons of national security, including a new control based on knowledge of a military end-use on exports to the PRC of certain CCL items that otherwise do not require a license to the PRC. The items subject to this license requirement will be set forth in a list. This rule further proposes to revise the licensing review policy for items controlled for reasons of chemical and biological proliferation, nuclear nonproliferation, and missile technology for export to the PRC, requiring that applications involving such items be reviewed in conjunction with the revised national security licensing policy. This rule proposes the creation of a new authorization for validated end-users in certain destinations, including the PRC, to whom certain, specified items may be exported or reexported. Such validated end-users would be placed on a list in the EAR after review and approval by the United States Government. Finally, this rule proposes to require exporters to obtain an End-User Certificate, issued by the PRC Ministry of Commerce, for all items that both require a license to the PRC for any reason and exceed a total value of $5,000. The current PRC End-Use Certificate applies only to items controlled for national security reasons. This rule also proposes to eliminate the current requirement that exporters submit PRC End-User Certificates to BIS with their license applications but provides that they must retain them for five years. DATES: Comments must be received by November 3, 2006. ADDRESSES: Written comments on this rule may be sent to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov,* or by e-mail to *publiccomments@bis.doc.gov.* . Include RIN 0694-AD75 in the subject line of the message. Comments may be submitted by mail or hand delivery to Sheila Quarterman, Office of Exporter Services, Regulatory Policy Division, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce, 14th St. & Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 2705, Washington, D.C. 20230, ATTN: RIN 0694-AD75; or by fax to
(202)482-3355. Send comments regarding the collection of information to David Rostker, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), by e-mail to *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* , or by fax to
(202)395-7285; and to the Regulatory Policy Division, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce, P.O. Box 273, Washington, DC 20044. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bernard Kritzer, Director, Office of National Security and Technology Transfer Controls, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce, P.O. Box 273, Washington, DC 20044; telephone:
(202)482-0092, or e-mail: *bkritzer@bis.doc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Background This rule proposes revisions and clarifications to United States policy on exports to the People's Republic of China
(PRC)of goods and technologies controlled for national security and foreign policy reasons. As the PRC has increased its participation in the global economy, bilateral trade between the PRC and the United States has grown rapidly, and the PRC has emerged as a major market for U.S. exports. In addition, as the PRC also increasingly has allowed foreign investment, many U.S. companies have established significant business operations there. This greatly expanded economic relationship is beneficial for both nations. The United States and China share an interest in expanding free and fair trade, which has increased the prosperity of both the American and Chinese people. At the same time, the United States has a long standing policy of not permitting exports that would make a material contribution to the PRC's military capability. Thus, the United States seeks to facilitate trade for confirmed civil end-uses and end-users in the PRC, while preventing trade that would serve military end-uses. In 2005, U.S. companies exported approximately $41 billion worth of items to the PRC. During the same period, approximately $2.4 billion worth of exports were licensed for export to the PRC, while $12.5 million worth of exports were denied. In order to strengthen U.S. Government confidence that these U.S. exports conform to U.S. policy and to determine the *bona fides* of potential and actual end-users, the U.S. Government conducts end-use visits, consisting of Pre-License Checks
(PLCs)and Post-Shipment Verifications (PSVs). In April 2004, the Vice Minister of Commerce of the PRC and the U.S. Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security exchanged letters transmitting an understanding on strengthened procedures for conducting such end-use visits. This end-use visit understanding has facilitated exports of items on the Commerce Control List
(CCL)in Supplement No. 1 to Part 774 of the Export Administration Regulations
(EAR)by providing greater assurance that U.S. exports of controlled dual-use items are being used by their intended recipients for their intended purposes. This rule proposes certain revisions and clarifications to licensing requirements and policies with regard to the PRC to more precisely reflect U.S. export control policy. Revision of Licensing Review Policy and License Requirements To strengthen U.S. efforts to prevent U.S. exports to the PRC that would make a material contribution to the PRC's military capabilities, this rule proposes revisions to the licensing review policy for items controlled on the CCL for reasons of national security (i.e., controlled pursuant to the Wassenaar Arrangement), set forth in section 742.4(b)(7) of the EAR. Specifically, this rule amends section 742.4(b)(7) to reaffirm that the overall policy of the United States for exports to the PRC of these items is to approve exports for civil applications but generally to deny exports that will contribute to the advancement of Chinese military capabilities. Consistent with this revised policy and U.S. commitments as a Participating State in the Wassenaar Arrangement regarding review of items not on that regime's dual use list that are destined for military end-use in a country subject to an arms embargo, this rule proposes to implement a new control on exports to the PRC of certain CCL items that otherwise do not require a license to the PRC when the exporter has knowledge, as defined in section 772.1 of the EAR, that such items are destined for military end-use in the PRC or is informed that such items are destined for such an end-use. The additional items that would be subject to this military end-use restriction are based on careful interagency review of items listed on the CCL that currently do not require a license for export to the PRC but have the potential to advance the military capabilities of the PRC. For purposes of serving this revised policy and U.S. commitments as a Participating State in the Wassenaar Arrangement, this rule proposes to define “military end-use” as: incorporation into, or use for the production , design, development, maintenance, operation, installation, or deployment, repair, overhaul, or refurbishing of items
(1)described on the U.S. Munitions List
(USML)(22 CFR Part 121, International Traffic in Arms Regulations);
(2)described on the Munitions List
(IML)(as set out on the Wassenaar Arrangement Web site at *http://www.wassenaar.org* ); or
(3)listed under Export Control Classification Numbers (ECCNs) ending in “A018” on the CCL in Supplement No. 1 to Part 774 of the EAR. This new control would be set forth in new section 744.21 of the EAR. Applications to export, reexport, or transfer items controlled pursuant to proposed section 744.21 would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the export, reexport, or transfer would make a material contribution to the military capabilities of the PRC and would result in advancing the country's military activities contrary to the national security interests of the United States. Other end-use controls in part 744 of the EAR will continue to apply. In addition, BIS proposes to also review license applications for items controlled for chemical and biological proliferation, nuclear nonproliferation and missile technology under sections 742.2, 742.3 and 742.5, respectively, of the EAR, in accordance with the licensing policies in both paragraph
(b)of the particular proliferation section and section 742.4(b)(7) of the EAR when those items are destined to the PRC. Items primarily affected by the revisions discussed in this section are items controlled for anti-terrorism reasons under the EAR. The specific items that are subject to the military end-use license requirement will be set forth, by ECCN, including specific parameters, in a list in Supplement No. 2 to Part 744 of the EAR. See sections 744.6 (Restrictions on certain activities of U.S. persons), 744.21 (Restrictions on Certain Military End-uses in the People's Republic of China (PRC)), and Supplement No. 2 to Part 744 (Supplement No. 2 to Part 744—List of Items Subject to the Military End-Use License Requirement of Section 744.21) of the EAR. Revision of End-User Certificate Requirements To strengthen implementation of the April 2004 end-use visit understanding between the Vice Minister of Commerce of the PRC and the U.S. Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security, this rule proposes that the requirement for exporters to obtain PRC End-User Certificates from the Ministry of Commerce of the PRC be expanded to apply to all exports of controlled goods and technologies over a specific value threshold (and not merely to those exports controlled for national security reasons, as currently set forth in section 748.10 of the EAR). Specifically, exporters would be required to obtain an End-User Certificate, issued by the PRC Ministry of Commerce, for all items that require a license to the PRC for any reason and exceed a total value of $5,000 per single ECCN entry. Consistent with the existing Regulations, BIS will continue to require End-User Certificates for all computer exports to the PRC that require license applications, regardless of the dollar value of the export. BIS anticipates that this expansion of the End-Use Certificate requirement will facilitate BIS's ability to conduct end-use checks on exports or reexports of controlled goods and technologies to the PRC, consistent with the existing end-use visit understanding with the Government of the PRC. Facilitation of end-use checks should facilitate increased U.S. exports to the PRC. This revised requirement would be set forth in revised section 748.10 of the EAR. To minimize the impact that this expanded support documentation requirement will have on exporters, this rule also proposes to eliminate the requirement that exporters submit PRC End-User Certificates to BIS as required support documentation provided with the license application. Instead, this rule would require exporters to include the serial number of the PRC End-User Certificate in an appropriate field of the license application, and to retain the PRC End-User Certificate in accordance with the recordkeeping provisions of the EAR. See section 762.3 (Records exempt from recordkeeping requirements) of the EAR. These changes would be set forth in sections 748.9 (Support Documents for License Applications), 748.10 (Import and End-User Certificates), and 748.12 (Special Provisions for Support Documents) of the EAR. New Authorization Validated End-User
(VEU)To facilitate legitimate exports to civilian end-users, BIS proposes to establish a new authorization for validated end-users in section 748.15 of the EAR. This proposed authorization would allow the export, reexport, and transfer of eligible items to specified end-users in an eligible destination, including the PRC. These validated end-users would be those who meet a number of criteria, including a demonstrated record of engaging only in civil end-use activities and not contributing to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or otherwise engaged in activity contrary to U.S. national security or foreign policy interests. In conjunction with other relevant agencies, BIS proposes to evaluate prospective validated end-users on the basis of a range of specific factors, which include the party's record of exclusive engagement in civil end-use activities; the party's compliance with U.S. export controls; the party's capability to comply with the requirements for VEU; the party's agreement to on-site compliance reviews by representatives of the United States Government; and the party's relationships with U.S and foreign companies. In addition, when evaluating the eligibility of an end-user, agencies would consider the status of export controls in the eligible destination and the support and adherence to multilateral export control regimes of the government of the eligible destination. The proposed rule states that requests to be listed as a validated end-user should be submitted in the form of an advisory opinion request as set forth in new section 748.15(a)(2) (Eligible end-users) of the EAR. In addition, requests would have to include a list of items identified by ECCN that would be exported, reexported or transferred to an eligible end-user. Those items would have to be specified to the extent of the applicable subparagraph of the ECCN entry. The request also should include a description of how each item would be used by the eligible end-user in an eligible destination. Such requests would be accepted from exporters, reexporters and end-users. A list of validated end-users, respective eligible items, and eligible destinations would appear in proposed Supplement No. 7 to Part 748 (Supplement No. 7 to Part 748—Authorization Validated End-User (VEU): List of Validated End-Users, Respective Eligible Items and Eligible Destinations) of the EAR. The proposed rule also provides, as set forth in proposed section 748.15(c) (Item restrictions), that some items would not be eligible for export, reexport, or transfer under this authorization. Ineligible items are those restricted by statute. Finally, under new section 748.15, exporters, reexporters and end-users who use authorization VEU would be required to comply with recordkeeping and reporting requirements, as described in sections 748.15(e) (Certification and recordkeeping) and
(f)(Reporting and auditing requirements) of the EAR. As required in proposed section 748.15(e), prior to the initial export or reexport under authorization VEU, exporters or reexporters would be required to receive and retain certifications from eligible end-users that state that they are informed of and will abide by all VEU end-use restrictions; they have procedures in place to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of VEU; they will not use items obtained under VEU in any of the prohibited activities described in part 744 of the EAR; and they agree to allow on-site visits by U.S. Government officials to verify their compliance with the conditions of VEU. Validated end-users found to be not in compliance with the requirements of VEU as set forth in section 748.15 will be subject to removal from the list of validated end-users and other action, as appropriate. In addition, as described in proposed section 748.15(f)(1), exporters and reexporters who use authorization VEU would be required to submit annual reports to BIS. These reports must include specific information regarding the export or reexport of eligible items to each validated end-user. Exporters, reexporters, and end-users who avail themselves of VEU also would be audited on a routine basis, as described in proposed section 748.15(f)(2) (Audits). Upon request by BIS, exporters, reexporters, and validated end-users would be required to allow inspection of records or on-site compliance review. For audit purposes, this rule would require records and information identified in proposed section 748.15 to be retained in accordance with the recordkeeping requirements set forth in part 762 of the EAR. Although the Export Administration Act expired on August 20, 2001, the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002)), as extended by the Notice of August 2, 2005, 70 FR 45273 (August 5, 2005), has continued the Export Administration Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. BIS proposes to amend the EAR in this rule under the provisions of the EAA as continued in effect under IEEPA and Executive Order 13222. Expansion of Foreign Policy-Based Controls [The following language will apply at the point the rule passes the proposed stage: This action is taken after consultation with the Secretary of State. This rule imposes new export controls for foreign policy reasons. As required by section 6 of the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended (the Act), a report on the imposition of these controls was delivered to the Congress on *[INSERT DATE OF DELIVERY TO THE CONGRESS.]]. Although the Act expired on August 20, 2001, Executive Order 1322 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002), as extended by the Notice of August 2, 2005, 70 FR 45273 (August 5, 2005), has continued the Export Administration Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.]* Rulemaking Requirements 1. This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ) (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)Control Number. This proposed rule contains collections of information subject to the requirements of the PRA. These collections have been approved by OMB under Control Numbers 0694-0088 (Multi-Purpose Application), which carries a burden hour estimate of 58 minutes to prepare and submit form BIS-748, and 0694-0093, “Import Certificates and End-User Certificates,” which carries a burden of 15 minutes per submission. This proposed rule also contains a proposed revision to the existing collection under Control Number 0694-0088 for recordkeeping, reporting and auditing requirements, which would be submitted in connection with proposed authorization Validated End-User and would carry an estimated burden of 30 minutes per submission. An amendment to the existing collection under Control Number 0694-0088 will be submitted to OMB for approval. Public comment will be sought regarding the burden of the collection of information associated with preparation and submission of these proposed requirements. This proposed rule is not expected to result in a significant increase in license applications or other documentation submitted to BIS. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to David Rostker, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and to the Regulatory Policy Division, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce, as indicated in the ADDRESSES section of this rule. 3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined under Executive Order 13132. 4. The provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking and the opportunity for public participation are inapplicable because this regulation involves a military or foreign affairs function of the United States (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1)). Further, no other law requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment be given for this rule. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* , are not applicable. However, in order to obtain the benefit of a variety of viewpoints before publishing any final rule, BIS is issuing this proposed rule with a request for comments. The period for submission of comments will close on November 3, 2006. In developing a final rule, BIS will consider all comments on all aspects of this proposed rule that are received before the close of the comment period. Comments received after the end of the comment period will be considered if possible, but their consideration cannot be assured. BIS will not accept public comments accompanied by a request that a part or all of the material be treated confidentially because of its business proprietary nature or for any other reason. BIS will return such comments and materials to the persons submitting the comments and will not consider them in the development of the final rule. All public comments on this proposed rule must be in writing (including fax or e-mail) and will be a matter of public record, available for public inspection and copying at the Federal eRulemaking Portal at *http://www.regulations.gov* and on the BIS Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA)web site at *http://www.bis.doc..gov/foia* . BIS does not maintain a separate public inspection facility. If you have technical difficulties accessing this web site, please call BIS's Office of Administration at
(202)482-0500 for assistance. List of Subjects 15 CFR Parts 740 and 748 Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Foreign trade, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 15 CFR Part 742 Exports, Terrorism. 15 CFR Part 744 Exports, Foreign trade, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, parts 740, 742, 744 and 748 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-799) are proposed to be amended as follows: PART 742—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 742 continues to read as follows: Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 *et seq.;* 50 U.S.C. 1701 *et seq.;* 18 U.S.C. 2510 *et seq.;* 22 U.S.C. 3201 *et seq.;* 42 U.S.C. 2139a; Sec. 901-911, Pub. L. 106-387; Sec. 221, Pub. L. 107-56; Sec 1503, Pub. L. 108-11,117 Stat. 559; E.O. 12058, 43 FR 20947, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 179; E.O. 12851, 58 FR 33181, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p. 608; E.O. 12938, 59 FR 59099, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 950; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Presidential Determination 2003-23 of May 7, 2003, 68 FR 26459, May 16, 2003; Notice of August 2, 2005, 70 FR 45273 (August 5, 2005); Notice of October 25, 2005, 70 FR 62027 (October 27, 2005). 2. Amend § 742.2 by adding paragraph (b)(4) to read as follows: § 742.2 Proliferation of Chemical and Biological Weapons.
(b)* * *
(4)BIS will review license applications for items described in paragraph
(a)of this section in accordance with the licensing policies described in paragraph
(b)of this section and the licensing policies in both paragraph
(b)of this section and § 742.4(b)(7) when those items are destined to the People's Republic of China. 3. Amend § 742.3 by adding paragraph (b)(4) to read as follows: § 742.3 Nuclear nonproliferation.
(b)* * *
(4)BIS will also review license applications for items described in paragraph
(a)of this section in accordance with the licensing policies described in paragraph
(b)of this section and the licensing policies in both paragraph
(b)of this section and § 742.4(b)(7) when those items are destined to the People's Republic of China. 4. Amend § 742.4 by revising paragraph (b)(7) to read as follows: § 742.4 National Security.
(b)* * *
(7)For the People's Republic of China, there is a general policy of approval for license applications to export, reexport, or transfer items to civil end-uses. There is a presumption of denial for items that would make a material contribution to the military capabilities of the People's Republic of China. Thus, all license applications for exports, reexports, and transfers to the People's Republic of China will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the export, reexport, or transfer would make a material contribution to the military capabilities of the People's Republic of China. In addition, license applications may be reviewed under missile technology, nuclear nonproliferation, or chemical and biological weapons review policies, to determine if the end-user may be involved in proliferation activities. 5. Amend § 742.5 by adding paragraph (b)(4) to read as follows: § 742.5 Missile Technology.
(b)* * *
(4)BIS will also review license applications for items described in paragraph
(a)of this section in accordance with the licensing policies described in paragraph
(b)of this section and the licensing policies in both paragraph
(b)of this section and section 742.4(b)(7) of the EAR when those items are destined to the People's Republic of China. PART 744—[AMENDED] 6. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 744 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 *et seq.* ; 50 U.S.C. 1701 *et seq.;* 22 U.S.C. 3201 *et seq.* ; 42 U.S.C. 2139a; Sec. 901-911, Pub. L. 106-387; Sec. 221, Pub. L. 107-56; E.O. 12058, 43 FR 20947, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 179; E.O. 12851, 58 FR 33181, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p. 608; E.O. 12938, 59 FR 59099, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 950; E.O. 12947, 60 FR 5079, 3 CFR, 1995 Comp., p. 356; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13099, 63 FR 45167, 3 CFR, 1998 Comp., p. 208; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; E.O. 13224, 66 FR 49079, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 786; Notice of August 2, 2005, 70 FR 45273 (August 5, 2005); Notice of October 25, 2005, 70 FR 62027 (October 27, 2005). 7. Amend § 744.6 by revising paragraph (a)(1)(ii) to read as follows: § 744.6 Restrictions on certain activities of U.S. persons.
(a)* * *
(1)* * *
(ii)No U.S. person, as defined in paragraph
(c)of this section, shall, without a license from BIS, knowingly support an export or reexport, or transfer that does not have a license as required by this section or by § 744.21. Support means any action, including financing, transportation, and freight forwarding, by which a person facilitates an export, reexport, or transfer without being the actual exporter or reexporter. 8. Section 744.21 is added to read as follows: § 744.21 Restrictions on Certain Military End-uses in the People's Republic of China (PRC).
(a)*General prohibition.* In addition to the license requirements for items specified on the Commerce Control List (CCL), you may not export, reexport, or transfer any item listed in Supplement No. 2 to Part 744 to the PRC without a license or under a license exception described in paragraph
(c)of this section if, at the time of the export, reexport, or transfer, you know, meaning either:
(1)You have knowledge that the item is intended, entirely or in part, for a “military end-use,” as defined in paragraph
(f)of this section, in the PRC; or
(2)You have been informed by BIS that the item is or may be intended, entirely or in part, for a “military end-use” in the PRC.
(b)*Additional prohibition on those informed by BIS.* BIS may inform you either individually by specific notice, through amendment to the EAR published in the **Federal Register** , or through a separate notice published in the **Federal Register** , that a license is required for specific exports, reexports, or transfers of any item because there is an unacceptable risk of use in or diversion to military end-use activities in the PRC. Specific notice will be given only by, or at the direction of, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Administration. When such notice is provided orally, it will be followed by written notice within two working days signed by the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Administration or the Deputy Assistant Secretary's designee. The absence of BIS notification does not excuse the exporter from compliance with the license requirements of paragraph
(a)of this section.
(c)*License Exception.* The only License Exception that may apply to the prohibitions described in paragraphs
(a)and
(b)of this section are the provisions of License Exception GOV set forth in § 740.11(b)(2)(i) or
(ii)of the EAR.
(d)*License application procedure.* When submitting a license application pursuant to this section, you must state in the “additional information” section of the BIS-748P “Multipurpose Application” or its electronic equivalent that “this application is submitted because of the license requirement in § 744.21 of the EAR (Restrictions on Certain Military End-uses in the People's Republic of China).” In addition, either in the additional information section of the application or in an attachment to the application, you must include all known information concerning the military end-use of the item(s). If you submit an attachment with your license application, you must reference the attachment in the additional information section.
(e)*License review standards.*
(1)Applications to export, reexport, or transfer items described in paragraph
(a)of this section will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the export, reexport, or transfer would make a material contribution to the military capabilities of the PRC and would result in advancing the country's military activities contrary to the national security interests of the United States.
(2)Applications may be reviewed under missile technology, nuclear nonproliferation, or chemical and biological weapons review policies if the end-user may be involved in certain proliferation activities.
(3)Applications for items requiring a license for other reasons that are destined to the PRC for a military end-use also will be subject to the review policy stated in paragraph
(e)of this section.
(f)In this section, “military end-use” means: incorporation into, or use for the production, design, development, maintenance, operation, installation, or deployment, repair, overhaul, or refurbishing of items:
(1)Described on the U.S. Munitions List
(USML)(22 CFR Part 121, International Traffic in Arms Regulations);
(2)Described on the International Munitions List
(IML)(as set out on the Wassenaar Arrangement Web site at *http://www.wassenaar.org* ); or
(3)Listed under ECCNs ending in “A018” on the Commerce Control List
(CCL)in Supplement No. 1 to Part 774 of the EAR. Note to paragraph
(f)of this section: For purposes of this section: “production” means integration, assembling, inspection, or testing; “development” means design, and includes testing and building of prototypes; “maintenance” means performing work to bring an item to its original or designed capacity and efficiency for its intended purpose, and includes testing, measuring, adjusting, inspecting, replacing parts, restoring, calibrating, overhauling; “operation” means to cause to function as intended; “installation” means to make ready for use, and includes connecting, integrating, incorporating, loading software, and testing; “deployment” means placing in battle formation or appropriate strategic position. 9. Supplement No. 2 to Part 744 is added to read as follows: Supplement No. 2 to Part 744—List of Items Subject to the Military End-Use License Requirment of § 744.21 The following items are subject to the military end-use license requirement in § 744.21.
(1)Category 1—Materials, Chemicals, Microorganisms, and Toxins
(i)1A290 Depleted uranium (any uranium containing less than 0.711% of the isotope U-235) in shipments of more than 1,000 kilograms in the form of shielding contained in X-ray units, radiographic exposure or teletherapy devices, radioactive thermoelectric generators, or packaging for the transportation of radioactive materials.
(ii)1B999 Equipment controlled by 1B999.e specially designed for the production of structural composites, fibers, prepregs and preforms controlled in Category 1, n.e.s.
(iii)1C990 Fibrous and filamentary materials, not controlled by 1C010 or 1C210, for use in “composite” structures and with a specific modulus of 3.18 x 10 6 m or greater and a specific tensile strength of 7.62 x 10 4 m or greater.
(iv)1C995 Mixtures not controlled by 1C350, 1C355 or 1C395 that contain chemicals controlled by 1C350 or 1C355 and medical, analytical, diagnostic, and food testing kits not controlled by 1C350 or 1C395 that contain chemicals controlled by 1C350.d, as follows (see List of Items Controlled), except 1C995.c “Medical, analytical, diagnostic, and food testing kits.”
(v)1C996 Hydraulic fluids containing synthetic hydrocarbon oils, having all the following characteristics (see List of Items Controlled).
(vi)1D999 Specific software controlled by 1D999.b for equipment controlled by 1B999.e specially designed for the production of structural composites, fibers, prepregs and preforms controlled in Category 1, n.e.s.
(vii)1D993 “Software” specifically designed for the “development”, “production”, or “use” of equipment or materials controlled by 1C210.b, or 1C990.
(viii)1E994 “Technology” for the “development”, “production”, or “use” of fibrous and filamentary materials controlled by 1C990.
(2)Category 2—Materials Processing
(i)2A991 Bearings and bearing systems not controlled by 2A001.
(ii)2B991 Limited to machine tools controlled under 2B991 having “positioning accuracies”, with all compensations available, better than 0.010 mm along any linear axis; and machine tools having the characteristic of one or more contouring “tilting spindles” controlled by 2B991.d.1.a.
(iii)2B992 Non-”numerically controlled” machine tools for generating optical quality surfaces, and specially designed components therefor.
(iv)2B993 Limited to gear making and/or finishing machinery not controlled by 2B003 capable of producing gears to a quality level of better than AGMA 12.
(v)2B996 Dimensional inspection or measuring systems or equipment not controlled by 2B006.
(3)Category 3—Electronics Design, Development and Production
(i)3A292 Oscilloscopes and transient recorders other than those controlled by 3A002.a.5, and specially designed components therefor.
(ii)3A999 Limited to items controlled by 3A999.c.
(iii)3B991 Equipment not controlled by 3B001 for the manufacture of electronic components and materials, and specially designed components and accessories therefor.
(iv)3B992 Equipment not controlled by 3B002 for the inspection or testing of electronic components and materials, and specially designed components and accessories therefor.
(v)3D991 “Software” specially designed for the “development”, “production”, or “use” of electronic devices or components controlled by 3A991, general purpose electronic equipment controlled by 3A992, or manufacturing and test equipment controlled by 3B991 and 3B992.
(vi)3E292 “Technology” according to the General Technology Note for the “development', “production”, or “use” of equipment controlled by 3A292.
(vii)3E991 “Technology” for the “development”, “production”, or “use” of electronic devices or components controlled by 3A991, general purpose electronic equipment controlled by 3A992, or manufacturing and test equipment controlled by 3B991 or 3B992.
(4)Category 4—Computers
(i)4A994 Limited to computers not controlled by 4A003, with an Adjusted Peak Performance (“APP”) exceeding 0.1 Weighted TeraFLOPS ( WT).
(ii)4D993 “Program” proof and validation “software”, “software” allowing the automatic generation of “source codes”, and operating system “software” not controlled by 4D003 that are specially designed for real time processing equipment.
(iii)4D994 “Software” specially designed or modified for the “development”, “production” or “use” of equipment controlled by 4A101, 4A994 with an Adjusted Peak Performance (“APP”) exceeding 0.1 Weighted TeraFLOPS (WT), 4B994 and materials controlled by 4C994.
(iv)4E992 “Technology” for the “development”, “production”, or “use” of equipment controlled by 4A994, as described in this Supplement No. 2 to Part 744, and 4B994, materials controlled by 4C994, or “software” controlled by 4D993 or 4D994.
(5)Category 5—(Part 1) Telecommunications
(i)5A991 Limited to items controlled by 5A991.a., 5A991.b.5., 5A991.b.7. and 5A991.f.
(ii)5B991 Telecommunications test equipment, n.e.s.
(iii)5C991 Preforms of glass or of any other material optimized for the manufacture of optical fibers controlled by 5A991.
(iv)5D991 “Software” specially designed or modified for the “development”, “production”, or “use” of equipment controlled by 5A991 and 5B991.
(v)5E991 “Technology” for the “development”, “production” or “use” of equipment controlled by 5A991 or 5B991, or “software” controlled by 5D991, and other “technologies” as follows (see List of Items Controlled).
(6)Category 5—(Part 2) Information Security
(i)5A992 Equipment not controlled by 5A002, except mass market encryption commodities and software described in §§ 742.15(b)(1)(i) and 742.15(b)(2); certain “short-range wireless” commodities and software described in § 742.15(b)(3)(ii); and commodities and software with limited cryptographic functionally described in § 742.15(b)(3)(iii).
(ii)5D992 “Information Security” “software” not controlled by 5D002, except mass market encryption commodities and software described in §§ 742.15(b)(1)(i) and 742.15(b)(2); certain “short-range wireless” commodities and software described in § 742.15(b)(3)(ii); and commodities and software with limited cryptographic functionality described in § 742.15(b)(3)(iii).
(iii)5E992 “Information Security” “technology”, not controlled by 5E002.
(7)Category 6—Sensors and Lasers
(i)6A995 “Lasers”, not controlled by 6A005 or 6A205.
(ii)6C992 Optical sensing fibers not controlled by 6A002.d.3 which are modified structurally to have a “beat length” of less than 500 mm (high birefringence) or optical sensor materials not described in 6C002.b and having a zinc content of equal to or more than 6% by mole fraction.
(8)Category 7—Navigation and Avionics
(i)7A994 Other navigation direction finding equipment, airborne communication equipment, all aircraft inertial navigation systems not controlled under 7A003 or 7A103, and other avionic equipment, including parts and components, n.e.s.
(ii)7B994 Other equipment for the test, inspection, or “production” of navigation and avionics equipment.
(iii)7D994 “Software”, n.e.s., for the “development”, “production”, or “use” of navigation, airborne communication and other avionics.
(iv)7E994 “Technology”, n.e.s., for the “development”, “production”, or “use” of navigation, airborne communication, and other avionics equipment.
(9)Category 8—Marine
(i)8A992 Underwater systems or equipment, not controlled by 8A002, and specially designed parts therefor.
(ii)8D992 “Software” specially designed or modified for the “development”, “production” or “use” of equipment controlled by 8A992.
(iii)8E992 “Technology” for the “development”, “production” or “use” of equipment controlled by 8A992.
(10)Category 9—Propulsion Systems, Space Vehicles and Related Equipment
(i)9A991 “Aircraft”, n.e.s., and gas turbine engines not controlled by 9A001 or 9A101 and parts and components, n.e.s.
(ii)9B990 Vibration test equipment and specially designed parts and components, n.e.s.
(iii)9D990 “Software”, n.e.s., for the “development” or “production” of equipment controlled by 9A990 or 9B990.
(iv)9D991 “Software”, for the “development” or “production” of equipment controlled by 9A991 or 9B991.
(v)9E990 “Technology”, n.e.s., for the “development” or “production” or “use” of equipment controlled by 9A990 or 9B990.
(vi)9E991 “Technology”, for the “development”, “production” or “use” of equipment controlled by 9A991 or 9B991. PART 748—[AMENDED] 10. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 748 continues to read as follows: Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 *et seq.* ; 50 U.S.C. 1701 *et seq.* ; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of August 2, 2005, 70 FR 45273 (August 5, 2005). 11. Section 748.9 is amended: a. By revising paragraph (b)(1) introductory text; b. By revising paragraph (b)(2) introductory text before the list of countries; c. By revising paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (b)(2)(ii); and d. By revising paragraph (c)(1). The revisions read as follows: § 748.9 Support Documents for License Applications.
(b)* * *
(1)Does your transaction involve items controlled for national security reasons? Does your transaction involve items destined for the People's Republic of China (PRC)?
(2)Does your transaction involve items controlled for national security reasons destined for one of the following countries? (This applies only to those overseas destinations specifically listed.) If your item is destined for the PRC, does your transaction involve items that require a license to the PRC for any reason?
(i)If *yes* , your transaction may require an Import or End-User Certificate. If your transaction involves items destined for the PRC that are controlled to the PRC for any reason, your transaction may require a PRC End-User Certificate. Note that if the destination is the PRC, a Statement of Ultimate Consignee and Purchaser may be substituted for a PRC End-User Certificate when the item to be exported (i.e., replacement parts and sub-assemblies) is for servicing previously exported items and is valued at $75,000 or less.
(ii)If no, your transaction may require a Statement by Ultimate Consignee and Purchaser. Read the remainder of this section, then proceed to § 748.11 of the EAR.
(c)*License Applications Requiring Support Documents.* * * *
(1)License applications supported by an Import or End-User Certificate. You may submit your license application upon receipt of a facsimile or other legible copy of the Import or End-User Certificate, provided that no shipment is made against any license issued based upon the Import or End-User Certificate prior to receipt and retention of the original statement by the applicant. 12. Section 748.10 is amended: a. By revising the fourth sentence in paragraph (a); b. By redesignating paragraph (b)(4) as paragraph (b)(5) and by adding a new paragraph (b)(4) and revising newly designated paragraph (b)(5); c. By revising paragraph (c)(1); d. By revising paragraph
(3)introductory text; and e. By revising paragraph (g). The additions and revisions read as follows: § 748.10 Import and End-User Certificates.
(a)*Scope.* * * * This section describes exceptions and relationships true for both Import and End-User Certificates, and applies only to transactions involving national security controlled items destined for one of the countries identified in § 748.9(b)(2) of this part, or, in the case of the PRC, for all items that require a license to the PRC for any reason.
(b)* * *
(4)Your transaction involves an export to the People's Republic of China
(PRC)of commodities and software classified in a single entry on the CCL, the total value of which exceeds $5,000. Note that this $5,000 threshold does not apply to exports to the PRC of computers, which are subject to the provisions of § 748.10(b)(3).
(i)Your license application may list several separate CCL entries. If the total value of entries that require a license to the PRC for any reason on the CCL on a license application exceeds $5,000, then a PRC End-User Certificate covering all controlled items on your license application must be obtained;
(ii)You may be specifically requested by BIS to obtain an End-User Certificate for a transaction valued under $5,000 or for a transaction that requires a license to the PRC for reasons in the EAR other than those listed on the CCL.
(5)Your transaction involves a destination other than the PRC and your license application involves the export of commodities and software classified in a single entry on the CCL, the total value of which exceeds $5,000.
(i)Your license application may list several separate CCL entries. If any entry controlled for national security reasons exceeds $5,000, then an Import Certificate must be obtained covering all items controlled for national security reasons on your license application;
(ii)If your license application involves a lesser transaction that is part of a larger order for items controlled for national security reasons in a single ECCN exceeding $5,000, an Import Certificate must be obtained.
(iii)You may be specifically requested by BIS to obtain an Import Certificate for a transaction valued under $5,000.
(c)*How to obtain an Import or End-User Certificate.*
(1)Applicants must request that the importer (e.g., ultimate consignee or purchaser) obtain the Import or End-User Certificate, and that it be issued covering only those items that are controlled for national security reasons. Note that in the case of the PRC, applicants must request that the importer obtain an End-User Certificate for all items on a license application that are controlled to the PRC for any reason on the CCL. Importers should not be requested, except in the case of the PRC, to obtain an Import or End-User Certificate for items that are controlled for reasons other than national security. Applicants must obtain original Import or End-User Certificates from importers.
(3)If your transaction requires the support of a PRC End-User Certificate, you must ensure that the following information is included on the PRC End-User Certificate signed by an official of the Department of Scientific and Technological Development and Trade in Technology of the PRC Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM), with MOFCOM's seal affixed to it:
(g)*Submission of Import and End-User Certificates.* Certificates must be retained on file by the applicant in accordance with the recordkeeping provisions of part 762 of the EAR, and should not be submitted with the license application. For more information on what Import and End-user Certificate information must be included in license applications, refer to § 748.9(c) of the EAR. In addition, as set forth in § 748.12(e), to assist in license reviews, BIS will require applicants, on a random basis, to submit specific original Import and End-user Certificates. § 748.12 [Amended] 13. Section 748.12 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (a). 14. Supplement No. 4 to Part 748, is amended by revising the entry for “China, People's Republic of”, to read as follows: Supplement No. 4 to Part 748—Authorities Administering Import Certificate/Delivery Verification (IC/DV) and End-Use Certificate Systems in Foreign Countries Country IC/DV authorities System administered * * * * * * * China, People's Republic of Export Control Division I Department of S&T No. 2 Dong Chang An Street Beijing Phone: 8610-6519-7366 Fax: 8610-6519-7926 PRC End-User Certificate. * * * * * * * 15. Section 748.15 is added to read as follows: § 748.15 Authorization Validated End-User (VEU). Authorization Validated End-User
(VEU)permits the export, reexport, and transfer to validated end-users of any eligible items that will be used in an eligible destination. Validated end-users are those who have been approved in advance pursuant to the requirements of this section. To be eligible for authorization VEU, exporters, reexporters, and potential validated end-users must adhere to the conditions and restrictions set forth in paragraphs
(a)through
(f)of this section.
(a)*Eligible end-users.* The only end-users to whom eligible items may be exported, reexported, or transferred under VEU are those validated end-users identified in Supplement No. 7 to Part 748.
(1)In evaluating an end-user for eligibility under this authorization, BIS, in consultation with the Departments of State, Energy, and Defense and other agencies, as appropriate, will consider a range of information, including such factors as: The party's record of exclusive engagement in civil end-use activities; the party's compliance with U.S. export controls; the party's capability to comply with the requirements of authorization VEU; the party's agreement to on-site compliance reviews by representatives of the United States Government; and the party's relationships with U.S and foreign companies. In addition, when evaluating the eligibility of an end-user, agencies will consider the status of export controls and the support and adherence to multilateral export control regimes of the government of the eligible destination.
(2)Requests for authorization must be submitted in the form of an advisory opinion request, as described in § 748.3(c), and should include a list of items, identified by Export Control Classification Number (ECCN), that exporters or reexporters intend to export, reexport or transfer to an eligible end-user. In addition to the information described in § 748.3, the items identified by ECCN should be specified to the extent of the applicable subparagraph of the ECCN entry. The request also should include a description of how each item would be used by the eligible end-user in an eligible destination. Requests for authorization will be accepted from exporters, reexporters and end-users. Submit the request to: The Office of Exporter Services, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 2075, Washington, DC 20230; or to The Office of Exporter Services, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, P.O. Box 273, Washington, DC 20044. Mark the package sent to either address “Request for Authorization Validated End-User”.
(3)Exports, reexports, or transfers made under authorization VEU may only be made to an end-user listed in Supplement No. 7 to Part 748 if the items will be consigned to and for use by the validated end-user.
(b)*Eligible destinations.* Authorization VEU may be used for the following destinations:
(1)The People's Republic of China.
(2)[Reserved].
(c)*Item restrictions.*
(1)Items controlled under the EAR for missile technology
(MT)and crime control
(CC)reasons may not be exported or reexported under this authorization.
(d)*End-use restrictions.* Items obtained under authorization VEU may not be used for any activities described in part 744. Eligible end-users who obtain items under VEU may only:
(1)Use such items at the end-user's own facility located in an eligible destination or at a facility located in an eligible destination over which the end-user demonstrates effective control;
(2)Consume such items during use; or
(3)Transfer or reexport such items only as authorized by BIS.
(e)*Certification and recordkeeping.* Prior to the initial export or reexport under authorization VEU, exporters or reexporters must receive and retain end-use certifications from eligible end-users stating that:
(1)They are informed of and will abide by all authorization VEU end-use restrictions;
(2)They have procedures in place to ensure compliance with authorization VEU destination and end-use restrictions;
(3)They will not use items obtained under authorization VEU in any of the prohibited activities described in part 744 of the EAR; and
(4)They agree to allow on-site visits by U.S. Government officials to verify the end-users' compliance with the conditions of authorization VEU. Note to paragraph
(e)of this section: These certifications must be retained by exporters or reexporters in accordance with the recordkeeping requirements set forth in part 762 of the EAR.
(f)*Reporting and auditing requirements* —(1)(i) *Reports.* Exporters and reexporters who use authorization VEU are required to submit annual reports to BIS. These reports must include, for each validated end-user to whom the exporter or reexporter exported or reexported eligible items:
(A)The name and address of any validated end-users to whom the exporters or reexporters exported or reexported eligible items;
(B)The eligible destination to which the items were exported or reexported;
(C)The quantity of such items;
(D)The value of such items; and
(E)The ECCN(s) of such items.
(ii)Reports are due by February 15 of each year, and must cover the period of January 1 through December 31 of the prior year. Packages containing such reports should be marked “Authorization Validated End-User Reports.” Reports should be sent to: Office of Export Enforcement, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Room H-4520, Washington, DC 20230.
(2)*Audits.* Users of authorization VEU will be audited on a routine basis. Upon request by BIS, exporters, reexporters, and validated end-users must allow inspection of records or on-site compliance reviews. For audit purposes, records, including information identified in paragraphs (e), (f)(1) and the note to paragraph
(c)of this section, should be retained in accordance with the recordkeeping requirements set forth in part 762 of the EAR. 12. Supplement No. 7 to Part 748 is added to read as follows: Supplement No. 7 to Part 748—Authorization Validated End-User (VEU): List of Validated End-Users, Respective Eligible Items and Eligible Destinations Validated End-Users, Respective Eligible Items and Eligible Destinations for Exports and Reexports Under Authorization VEU: *Certified End-User* *Eligible Items* *Eligible Destination* Dated: June 29, 2006. Matthew S. Borman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Administration. [FR Doc. E6-10504 Filed 7-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-33-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security 15 CFR Parts 764 and 766 [Docket No. 060511128-6128-01] RIN 0694-AD63 Antiboycott Penalty Guidance AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce. ACTION: Proposed rule; correction. SUMMARY: This notice corrects a transposition error in the Regulatory Identification Number
(RIN)in the preamble to a proposed rule that the Bureau of Industry and Security published on June 30, 2006 (71 FR 37571). The correct RIN is 0694-AD63. The RIN was incorrectly listed as 0694-AD36. In addition this notice corrects that same transposition error that appeared in the final sentence of the ADDRESSES paragraph of the preamble of that propose rule. As corrected, the final sentence of the ADDRESSES paragraph reads: ADDRESSES: * * * Please refer to RIN 0694-AD63 in all comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward O. Weant III, Acting Director, Office of Antiboycott Compliance, Bureau of Industry and Security, United States Department of Commerce, at
(202)482-2381. Dated: June 30, 2006. Eileen Albanese, Director, Office of Export Services. [FR Doc. E6-10560 Filed 7-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-33-P FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 16 CFR Part 311 Test Procedures and Labeling Standards for Recycled Oil AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. ACTION: Request for public comments. SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) requests public comment on the overall costs, benefits, and regulatory and economic impact of its rule specifying Test Procedures and Labeling Standards for Recycled Oil (“Recycled Oil Rule” or “Rule”), as part of the Commission's systematic review of all current FTC rules and guides. DATES: Written comments will be accepted until September 5, 2006. ADDRESSES: Interested parties are invited to submit written comments. Comments should refer to “16 CFR Part 311 Comment—Recycled Oil Rule, Matter No. R511036” to facilitate the organization of comments. A comment filed in paper form should include this reference both in the text and on the envelope, and should be mailed or delivered to the Office of the Secretary, Federal Trade Commission, Room H-135 (Annex P), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580. Comments containing confidential material, however, must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with Commission Rule 4.9(c). 1 The FTC is requesting that any comment filed in paper form be sent by courier or overnight service, if possible, because postal mail in the Washington area and at the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security precautions. Comments filed in electronic form should be submitted by clicking on the following: *https://secure.commentworks.com/ftc-recycledoil* and following the instructions on the web-based form. 1 The comment must be accompanied by an explicit request for confidential treatment, including the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record. The request will be granted or denied by the Commission's General Counsel, consistent with applicable law and the public interest. See Commission Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c). The FTC Act and other laws the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives, whether filed in paper or electronic form. Comments received will be available to the public on the FTC Web site, to the extent practicable, at *http://www.ftc.gov* . As a matter of discretion, the FTC makes every effort to remove home contact information for individuals from the public comments it receives before placing those comments on the FTC Web site. More information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, may be found in the FTC's privacy policy, at *http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janice Podoll Frankle, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC 20580;
(202)326-3022. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background Section 383 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (“EPCA”), 42 U.S.C. 6363, mandated that the FTC promulgate a rule prescribing testing procedures and labeling standards for recycled oil. This section of EPCA is intended to encourage the recycling of used oil, promote the use of recycled oil, reduce consumption of new oil by promoting increased utilization of recycled oil, and reduce environmental hazards and wasteful practices associated with the disposal of used oil. 42 U.S.C. 6363(a). EPCA also mandated that the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) develop (and report to the FTC) test procedures to determine whether processed used oil is substantially equivalent to new oil for a particular end use. 42 U.S.C. 6363(c). EPCA required that, within 90 days after receiving NIST's test procedures, the FTC issue a rule that permits any processed used oil container to bear a label indicating a particular end use ( *e.g.* , engine lubricating oil), as long as a determination of “substantial equivalency” with new oil has been made in accordance with NIST test procedures. 42 U.S.C. 6363(d)(1)(B). On July 27, 1995, NIST reported to the FTC test procedures for determining the substantial equivalence of processed used engine oil with new engine oil. The FTC's Rule, which was issued on October 31, 1995 (60 FR 55421), implements EPCA's requirements by permitting a manufacturer or other seller to label recycled engine oil as substantially equivalent to new engine oil, as long as that determination is made in accordance with the test procedures entitled “Engine Oil Licensing and Certification System,” American Petroleum Institute Publication 1509, Thirteenth Edition, January 1995. II. Regulatory Review Program The Commission reviews all current Commission rules and guides periodically. These reviews seek information about the costs and benefits of the Commission's rules and guides and their regulatory and economic impact. The information obtained assists the Commission in identifying rules and guides that warrant modification or rescission. Therefore, the Commission solicits comment on, among other things, the economic impact of its Recycled Oil Rule; possible conflict between the Rule and state, local, or other federal laws; and the effect on the Rule of any technological, economic, or other industry changes. III. Request for Comment The Commission solicits written public comment on the following questions:
(1)Is there a continuing need for the Rule as currently promulgated?
(2)What benefits has the Rule provided to purchasers of the products or services affected by the Rule?
(3)Has the Rule imposed costs on purchasers?
(4)What changes, if any, should be made to the Rule to increase the benefits of the Rule to purchasers? How would these changes affect the costs the Rule imposes on firms subject to its requirements? How would these changes affect the benefits to purchasers?
(5)What significant burdens or costs, including costs of compliance, has the Rule imposed on firms subject to its requirements? Has the Rule provided benefits to such firms? If so, what benefits?
(6)What changes, if any, should be made to the Rule to reduce the burdens or costs imposed on firms subject to its requirements? How would these changes affect the benefits provided by the Rule?
(7)Does the Rule overlap or conflict with other federal, state, or local laws or regulations?
(8)Since the Rule was issued, what effects, if any, have changes in relevant technology or economic conditions had on the Rule?
(9)Since the Rule was issued, the American Petroleum Institute has published the Fifteenth Edition of Publication 1509. Should this updated version of Publication 1509 be incorporated by reference into the Rule? List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 311 Energy conservation, Incorporation by reference, Labeling, Recycled oil, Trade practices. Authority: 15 U.S.C. 41-58. By direction of the Commission. C. Landis Plummer, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-10503 Filed 7-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [REG-139059-02] RIN 1545-BB86 Expenses for Household and Dependent Care Services Necessary for Gainful Employment; Correction AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Correction to notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: This document contains a correction to notice of proposed rulemaking that was published in the **Federal Register** on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 (71 FR 29847) regarding the credit for expenses for household and dependent care services necessary for gainful employment. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara Shepherd,
(202)622-4960 (not a toll-free call). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-139059-02) that is the subject of this correction is under section 21 of the Internal Revenue Code. Need for Correction As published, the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-139059-02) contains an error that may prove to be misleading and is in need of correction. List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1 Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Correction of Publication Accordingly, the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-139059-02), that was the subject of FR Doc. E6-7390, is corrected as follows: PART 1—INCOME TAXES **Paragraph 1.** The authority citation for part 1 continues to read in part as follows: Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * § 1.21-1 [Corrected] **Par. 2.** On page 29851, column 1, § 1.21-1 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(5)(ii) to read as follows: § 1.21-1 Expenses for household and dependent care services necessary for gainful employment.
(b)* * *
(5)* * *
(ii)*Custodial parent allowed the credit.* A child to whom this paragraph (b)(5) applies is the qualifying individual of only one parent in any taxable year and is the qualifying child of the custodial parent even if the noncustodial parent may claim the dependency exemption for that child for that taxable year. See section 152(e). The custodial parent is the parent with whom a child shared the same principal place of abode the greater portion of the calendar year. See section 152(e)(4)(A). Guy R. Traynor, Branch Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration). [FR Doc. E6-10132 Filed 7-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Parts 1 and 602 [REG-139059-02] RIN 1545-BB86 Expenses for Household and Dependent Care Services Necessary for Gainful Employment; Correction AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Correction to notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: This document contains a correction to notice of proposed rulemaking that was published in the **Federal Register** on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 (71 FR 29847) regarding the credit for expenses for household and dependent care services necessary for gainful employment. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara Shepherd,
(202)622-4960 (not a toll-free call). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-139059-02) that is the subject of this correction is under section 21 of the Internal Revenue Code. Need for Correction As published, the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-139059-02) contains an error that may prove to be misleading and is in need of correction. Correction of Publication Accordingly, the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-139059-02), that was the subject of FR Doc. E6-7390, is corrected as follows: 1. On page 29848, column 2, in the preamble under the paragraph heading “ *3. Special Rule for Children of Separated or Divorced Parents* ”, line 4 from the bottom of the paragraph, the language “section 152(e)(3)(A) as the parent with” corrected to read “section 152(e)(4)(A) as the parent with.” Guy R. Traynor, Branch Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration). [FR Doc. E6-10141 Filed 7-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 301 [REG-148864-03] RIN 1545-BC93 Disclosure of Return Information to the Bureau of Economic Analysis AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations. SUMMARY: In the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the **Federal Register** , the IRS is issuing temporary regulations regarding additional items of return information disclosable to the Bureau of Economic Analysis (Bureau) of the Department of Commerce for purposes related to measuring economic change in the U.S. national economic accounts. These temporary regulations provide guidance to IRS personnel responsible for disclosing the information. The text of these temporary regulations published in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the **Federal Register** serves as the text of the proposed regulations. DATES: Written and electronic comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by October 4, 2006. ADDRESSES: Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-148864-03), room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-148864-03), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, or sent electronically, via the IRS Internet site at *www.irs.gov/regs* , or via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at *www.regulations.gov* (IRS and REG-148864-03). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Concerning submission of comments, Richard A. Hurst at *Richard.A.Hurst@irscounsel.treas.gov* or
(202)622-7180; concerning the temporary regulations, Joel D. McMahan at
(202)622-4580 (not toll-free numbers). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Under section 6103(j)(1), upon written request from the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of the Treasury must furnish to the Bureau return information that is prescribed by Treasury regulations for purposes related to measuring economic change in the U.S. national economic accounts. Section 301.6103(j)(1)-1(c) of the regulations provides an itemized description of the return information authorized to be disclosed for this purpose. Periodically, the disclosure regulations are amended to reflect the changing needs of the Bureau for data for its statutorily authorized statistical activities. This document contains proposed regulations authorizing IRS personnel to disclose additional items of return information that have been requested by the Secretary of Commerce. Temporary regulations in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the **Federal Register** amend the Procedure and Administration Regulations (26 CFR Part 301) relating to Internal Revenue Code
(Code)section 6103(j). The temporary regulations contain rules relating to the disclosure of return information reflected on returns to officers and employees of the Department of Commerce for structuring censuses and national economic accounts and conducting related statistical activities authorized by law. The text of the temporary regulations also serves as the text of these proposed regulations. The preamble to the temporary regulations explains the proposed regulations. Special Analyses It has been determined that this notice of proposed rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations, and because the regulations do not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, these proposed regulations will be submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on their impact on small business. Comments and Requests for a Public Hearing Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any electronic and written comments (a signed original and eight
(8)copies) that are submitted timely to the IRS. The IRS and Treasury Department specifically request comments on the clarity of the proposed regulations and how they can be made easier to understand. All comments will be available for public inspection and copying. A public hearing may be scheduled if requested in writing by a person who timely submits comments. If a public hearing is scheduled, notice of the date, time, and place for the hearing will be published in the **Federal Register** . Drafting Information The principal author of these regulations is Joel D. McMahan, Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure & Administration), Disclosure and Privacy Law Division. List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 301 Employment taxes, Estate taxes, Excise taxes, Gift taxes, Income taxes, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Proposed Amendments to the Regulations Accordingly, 26 CFR part 301 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 301—PROCEDURE AND ADMINISTRATION **Paragraph 1.** The authority citation for part 301 is amended in part, by adding an entry in numerical order to read as follows: Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * Section 301.6103(j)(1)-1 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6103(j)(1); * * * **Par. 2.** In § 301.6103(j)(1)-1 paragraphs
(c)and
(f)are revised to read as follows: § 301.6103(j)(1)-1 Disclosure of return information to officers and employees of the Department of Commerce for certain statistical purposes and related activities.
(c)[The text of this proposed paragraph is the same as the text of § 301.6103(j)(1)-1T(c) published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** ].
(f)[The text of this proposed paragraph is the same as the text of § 301.6103(j)(1)-1T(f) published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** ]. Mark E. Matthews, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement. [FR Doc. E6-9555 Filed 7-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD 36 CFR Parts 1193 and 1194 [Docket No. 2006-1] Telecommunications Act Accessibility Guidelines; Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility Standards AGENCY: Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board. ACTION: Notice of establishment; appointment of members; date of first meeting. SUMMARY: The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) has decided to establish an advisory committee to assist it in revising and updating accessibility guidelines for telecommunications products and accessibility standards for electronic and information technology. The Telecommunications and Electronic and Information Technology Advisory Committee (Committee) includes organizations which represent the interests affected by these accessibility guidelines and standards. This notice also announces the time and place of the first Committee meeting, which will be open to the public. DATES: The first meeting of the Committee is scheduled for September 27, 2006 through September 29, 2006 beginning at 1 p.m. on September 27, and 9 a.m. on the subsequent days. Decisions with respect to future meetings will be made at the first meeting and from time to time thereafter. Notices of future meetings will be published in the **Federal Register** . ADDRESSES: The first meeting of the Committee will be held at the National Science Foundation, Room II-555, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Timothy Creagan, Office of Technical and Information Services, Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, 1331 F Street, NW., suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004-1111. Telephone number
(202)272-0016 (Voice);
(202)272-0082 (TTY). Electronic mail address: *creagan@access-board.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On April 18, 2006, the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) published a notice of intent to establish an advisory committee to provide recommendations for revisions and updates to accessibility guidelines for telecommunications products and accessibility standards for electronic and information technology (71 FR 19839; April 18, 2006). The notice identified the interests that are likely to be significantly affected by this rulemaking: • Federal agencies; • The telecommunications and electronic and information technology industry, including manufacturers; • Organizations representing the access needs of individuals with disabilities; • Representatives from other countries and international standards setting organizations; and • Other organizations affected by these accessibility guidelines and standards. For the reasons stated in the notice of intent, the Access Board has determined that establishing the Telecommunications and Electronic and Information Technology Advisory Committee (Committee) is necessary and in the public interest. The Access Board has appointed the following organizations as members to the Committee: • Adobe Systems, Inc. • American Association of People with Disabilities • American Council of the Blind • American Foundation for the Blind • Apple Computer, Inc. • Association of Assistive Technology Act Programs • Assistive Technology Industry Association • AT&T • Avaya, Inc. • Canon USA, Inc. • Cingular Wireless • Communication Service for the Deaf • CTIA—The Wireless Association • Dell, Inc. • Easter Seals • European Commission • Hearing Loss Association of America • Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (Australia) • IBM • Inclusive Technologies • Industry Canada • Information Technology Association of America • Information Technology Industry Council • Microsoft Corporation • National Association of State Chief Information Officers • National Center on Disability and Access to Education • National Federation of the Blind • National Network of Disability and Business Technical Assistance Centers • Panasonic Corporation of North America • Paralyzed Veterans of America • SRA International, Inc. • Sun Microsystems, Inc. • Telecommunications Industry Association • The Paciello Group, LLP • Trace Research and Development Center • Usability Professionals' Association • U.S. Department of Homeland Security • U.S. Social Security Administration • WGBH National Center for Accessible Media • World Wide Web Consortium—Web Accessibility Initiative The Access Board regrets being unable to accommodate all requests for membership on the Committee. In order to keep the Committee to a size that can be effective, it was necessary to limit membership. It is also desirable to have balance among members of the Committee representing different clusters of interest, such as disability organizations and the technology industry. The Committee membership identified above provides representation for each interest affected by the issues to be discussed. Committee meetings will be open to the public and interested persons can attend the meetings and communicate their views. Members of the public will have an opportunity to address the Committee on issues of interest to them and the Committee. Members of groups or individuals who are not members of the Committee may also have the opportunity to participate with subcommittees of the Committee. The Access Board believes that participation of this kind can be very valuable for the advisory committee process. Additionally, all interested persons will have the opportunity to comment when proposed rules are issued in the **Federal Register** by the Access Board. The meeting site is accessible to individuals with disabilities. Sign language interpreters and real-time captioning will be provided. Notices of future meetings will be published in the **Federal Register** . Due to security measures at the National Science Foundation, it is advisable that members of the public notify Timothy Creagan of their intent to attend the meeting (see Contact Information, above). This will ensure that a name badge is available at the National Science Foundation check-in desk to facilitate efficient building entry and will enable the Board to provide additional information about technology screening processes. David L. Bibb, Chairman, Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board. [FR Doc. E6-10562 Filed 7-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8150-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 82 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0538; FRL-8190-4] RIN 2060-AN54 Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: The 2007 Critical Use Exemption From the Phaseout of Methyl Bromide AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing an exemption to the phaseout of methyl bromide to meet the needs of 2007 critical uses. Specifically, EPA is proposing uses that will qualify for the 2007 critical use exemption and the amount of methyl bromide that may be produced, imported, or supplied from stocks for those uses in 2007. EPA is taking action under the authority of the Clean Air Act to reflect recent consensus Decisions taken by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (Protocol) at the 17th Meeting of the Parties (MOP). EPA is seeking comment on the list of critical uses and on EPA's determination of the amounts of methyl bromide needed to satisfy those uses. DATES: Comments must be submitted by August 7, 2006. Any party requesting a public hearing must notify the contact person listed below by 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on July 11, 2006. If a hearing is requested it will be held on July 21, 2006, and comments will be due to the Agency August 21, 2006. EPA will post information regarding a hearing, if one is requested, on the Ozone Protection Web site *www.epa.gov/ozone* . Persons interested in attending a public hearing should consult with the contact person below regarding the location and time of the hearing. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0538, by one of the following methods: • *www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail:* *A-and-R-docket@epa.gov* • *Fax:* 202-343-2337, attn: Hodayah Finman. • *Mail:* Air Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. • *Hand Delivery or Courier:* Deliver your comments to: EPA Air Docket, EPA West, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B108, Mail Code 6102T, Washington, DC 20460. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0538. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *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 *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *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 *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 *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 *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. This Docket Facility 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 Air Docket is
(202)566-1742. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information about this proposed rule, contact Hodayah Finman by telephone at
(202)343-9246, or by e-mail at *mebr.allocation@epa.gov* or by mail at Hodayah Finman, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Stratospheric Protection Division, Stratospheric Program Implementation Branch (6205J), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. You may also visit the Ozone Depletion Web site of EPA's Stratospheric Protection Division at *www.epa.gov/ozone* for further information about EPA's Stratospheric Ozone Protection regulations, the science of ozone layer depletion, and other related topics. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposed rule concerns Clean Air Act
(CAA)restrictions on the consumption, production, and use of methyl bromide (a class I, Group VI controlled substance) for critical uses during calendar year 2007. Under the Clean Air Act, methyl bromide consumption (consumption is defined under the CAA as production plus imports minus exports) and production was phased out on January 1, 2005 apart from allowable exemptions, namely the critical use exemption and the quarantine and pre-shipment exemption. With this action, EPA is proposing and seeking comment on the uses that will qualify for the 2007 critical use exemption as well as specific amounts of methyl bromide that may be produced, imported, or made available from stocks for proposed critical uses in 2007. Table of Contents I. General Information A. Regulated Entities B. What Should I Consider When Preparing My Comments? II. What is the Background to the Phaseout Regulations for Ozone-Depleting Substances? III. What Is Methyl Bromide? IV. What Is the Legal Authority for Exempting the Production and Import of Methyl Bromide for Critical Uses Authorized by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol? V. What Is the Critical Use Exemption Process? A. Background of the Process B. How Does This Proposed Rulemaking Relate to Previous Critical Use Exemption Rulemakings? C. Proposed Critical Uses and Adjustment to Critical Use Amounts D. The Criteria in Decisions IX/6 and Ex. I/4 E. Emissions Minimization F. Critical Use Allowance Allocations G. Critical Stock Allowance Allocations and Total Volumes of Critical Use Methyl Bromide H. Stocks of Methyl Bromide VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order No. 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act C. Regulatory Flexibility Act D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act E. Executive Order No. 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order No. 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order No. 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks H. Executive Order No. 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act I. General Information A. Regulated Entities Entities potentially regulated by this proposed action are those associated with the production, import, export, sale, application, and use of methyl bromide covered by an approved critical use exemption. Potentially regulated categories and entities include: Category Examples of regulated entities Industry Producers, Importers and Exporters of methyl bromide; Applicators, Distributors of methyl bromide; Users of methyl bromide, e.g., farmers of vegetable crops, fruits and seedlings; and owners of stored food commodities and structures such as grain mills and processors, agricultural researchers. The above table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this proposed action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is aware could potentially be regulated by this proposed action. To determine whether your facility, company, business, or organization is regulated by this proposed action, you should carefully examine the regulations promulgated at 40 CFR Part 82, Subpart A. 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 When Preparing My Comments? 1. *Confidential Business Information.* Do not submit this information to EPA through *www.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: • Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). • 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. • Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. • Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. • If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. • Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives. • Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. • Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. II. What Is the Background to the Phaseout Regulations for Ozone-Depleting Substances? The current regulatory requirements of the Stratospheric Ozone Protection Program that limit production and consumption of ozone-depleting substances can be found at 40 CFR Part 82, Subpart A. The regulatory program was originally published in the **Federal Register** on August 12, 1988 (53 FR 30566), in response to the 1987 signing and subsequent ratification of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (Protocol). The Protocol is the international agreement aimed at reducing and eliminating the production and consumption of stratospheric ozone depleting substances. The U.S. was one of the original signatories to the 1987 Montreal Protocol and the U.S. ratified the Protocol on April 12, 1988. Congress then enacted, and President George H.W. Bush signed into law, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA of 1990) which included Title VI on Stratospheric Ozone Protection, codified as 42 U.S.C. Chapter 85, Subchapter VI, to ensure that the United States could satisfy its obligations under the Protocol. EPA issued new regulations to implement this legislation and has made several amendments to the regulations since that time. III. What Is Methyl Bromide? Methyl bromide is an odorless, colorless, toxic gas which is used as a broad-spectrum pesticide and is controlled under the CAA as a class I ozone-depleting substance (ODS). Methyl bromide is used in the U.S. and throughout the world as a fumigant to control a wide variety of pests such as insects, weeds, rodents, pathogens, and nematodes. Additional characteristics and details about the uses of methyl bromide can be found in the proposed rule on the phaseout schedule for methyl bromide published in the **Federal Register** on March 18, 1993 (58 FR 15014) and the final rule published in the **Federal Register** on December 10, 1993 (58 FR 65018). The phaseout schedule for methyl bromide production and consumption was revised in a direct final rulemaking on November 28, 2000 (65 FR 70795), which allowed for the phased reduction in methyl bromide consumption and extended the phaseout to 2005. The revised phaseout schedule was again amended to allow for an exemption for quarantine and preshipment purposes on July 19, 2001 (66 FR 37751) with an interim final rule and with a final rule on January 2, 2003 (68 FR 238). Information on methyl bromide can be found at *http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr* and *http://www.unep.org/ozone* or by contacting the Stratospheric Ozone Hotline at 1-800-296-1996. Because it is a pesticide, methyl bromide is also regulated by EPA under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and other statutes and regulatory authority, as well as by States under their own statutes and regulatory authority. Under FIFRA, methyl bromide is a restricted use pesticide. Because of this status, a restricted use pesticide is subject to certain Federal and State requirements governing its sale, distribution, and use. Nothing in this proposed rule implementing the Clean Air Act is intended to derogate from provisions in any other Federal, State, or Local laws or regulations governing actions including, but not limited to, the sale, distribution, transfer, and use of methyl bromide. All entities that would be affected by provisions of this proposal must continue to comply with FIFRA and other pertinent statutory and regulatory requirements for pesticides (including, but not limited to, requirements pertaining to restricted use pesticides) when importing, exporting, acquiring, selling, distributing, transferring, or using methyl bromide for critical uses. The regulations in this proposed action are intended only to implement the CAA restrictions on the production, consumption and use of methyl bromide for critical uses exempted from the phaseout of methyl bromide. IV. What Is the Legal Authority for Exempting the Production and Import of Methyl Bromide for Critical Uses Authorized by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol? Methyl bromide was added to the Protocol as an ozone-depleting substance in 1992 through the Copenhagen amendment to the Protocol. The Parties authorize critical use exemptions through their Decisions. The Parties agreed that each industrialized country's level of methyl bromide production and consumption in 1991 should be the baseline for establishing a freeze in the level of methyl bromide production and consumption for industrialized countries. EPA published a final rule in the **Federal Register** on December 10, 1993 (58 FR 65018), listing methyl bromide as a class I, Group VI controlled substance, freezing U.S. production and consumption at this 1991 level, and, in Section 82.7 of the rule, setting forth the percentage of baseline allowances for methyl bromide granted to companies in each control period (each calendar year) until the year 2001, when the complete phaseout would occur. This phaseout date was established in response to a petition filed in 1991 under sections 602(c)(3) and 606(b) of the CAAA of 1990, requesting that EPA list methyl bromide as a class I substance and phase out its production and consumption. This date was consistent with section 602(d) of the CAAA of 1990, which for newly listed class I ozone-depleting substances provides that “no extension [of the phaseout schedule in section 604] under this subsection may extend the date for termination of production of any class I substance to a date more than 7 years after January 1 of the year after the year in which the substance is added to the list of class I substances.” EPA based its action on scientific assessments and actions by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol to freeze the level of methyl bromide production and consumption for industrialized countries at the 1992 Meeting of the Parties in Copenhagen. At their 1995 meeting, the Parties made adjustments to the methyl bromide control measures and agreed to reduction steps and a 2010 phaseout date for industrialized countries with exemptions permitted for critical uses. At that time, the U.S. continued to have a 2001 phaseout date in accordance with the CAAA of 1990 language. At their 1997 meeting, the Parties agreed to further adjustments to the phaseout schedule for methyl bromide in industrialized countries, with reduction steps leading to a 2005 phaseout for industrialized countries. In October 1998, the U.S. Congress amended the CAA to prohibit the termination of production of methyl bromide prior to January 1, 2005, to require EPA to bring the U.S. phaseout of methyl bromide in line with the schedule specified under the Protocol, and to authorize EPA to provide exemptions for critical uses. These amendments were contained in Section 764 of the 1999 Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 105-277, October 21, 1998) and were codified in Section 604 of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7671c. The amendment that specifically addresses the critical use exemption appears at Section 604(d)(6), 42 U.S.C. 7671c(d)(6). On November 28, 2000, EPA issued regulations to amend the phaseout schedule for methyl bromide and extend the complete phaseout of production and consumption to 2005 (65 FR 70795). On December 23, 2004 (69 FR 76982), EPA published a final rule (the “Framework Rule”) in the **Federal Register** that established the framework for the critical use exemption; set forth a list of approved critical uses for 2005; and specified the amount of methyl bromide that could be supplied in 2005 from available stocks and new production or import to meet the needs of approved critical uses. EPA then published a second final rule that added additional uses to the exemption program for 2005 and allocated additional stock allowances (70 FR 73604). EPA published a final rule on February 6, 2006 to exempt production and import of methyl bromide for 2006 critical uses and indicate which uses met the criteria for the exemption program for that year (71 FR 5985). Under authority of section 604(d)(6) of the CAA, EPA is proposing the uses that will qualify as approved critical uses in 2007 and the amount of methyl bromide required to satisfy those uses. This proposed action reflects Decision XVII/9, taken at the Parties’ Seventeenth Meeting in December 2005. In accordance with Article 2H(5), the Parties have issued several Decisions pertaining to the critical use exemption. These include Decisions IX/6 and Ex. I/4, which set forth criteria for review of proposed critical uses. The December 23, 2004 Framework Rule (69 FR 76984) discusses the relationship between the relevant provisions of the CAA and Article 2H of the Protocol, and the Decisions of the Parties that interpret Article 2H. Briefly, EPA regards certain provisions of Decisions IX/6, Ex I/4, and XVII/9 as subsequent consensus agreements of the Parties that address the interpretation and application of the critical use provision in Article 2H(5) of the Protocol. This proposed action follows the terms of these provisions to ensure consistency with the Montreal Protocol and satisfy the requirements of sections 604(d)(6) and 614(b) of the Clean Air Act. V. What Is the Critical Use Exemption Process? A. Background of the Process Starting in 2002, EPA began notifying applicants of the process for obtaining a critical use exemption to the methyl bromide phaseout. On May 8, 2003, the Agency published its first notice in the **Federal Register** (68 FR 24737) announcing the availability of the application for a critical use exemption and the deadline for submission of the requisite data. Applicants were informed that they may apply as individuals or as part of a group of users (a “consortium”) who face the same limiting critical conditions (i.e. specific conditions that establish a critical need for methyl bromide). EPA has repeated this process annually since then. The critical use exemption is designed to permit production and import of methyl bromide for uses that do not have technically and economically feasible alternatives. The criteria for the exemption are delineated in Decision IX/6 of the Parties to the Protocol. In that Decision, the Parties agreed that “a use of methyl bromide should qualify as ‘critical’ only if the nominating Party determines that:
(i)The specific use is critical because the lack of availability of methyl bromide for that use would result in a significant market disruption; and
(ii)there are no technically and economically feasible alternatives or substitutes available to the user that are acceptable from the standpoint of environment and public health and are suitable to the crops and circumstances of the nomination.” These criteria are reflected in EPA's definition of “critical use” at 40 CFR 82.3. In response to the yearly requests for critical use exemption applications published in the **Federal Register** , applicants have provided data on the technical and economical feasibility of using alternatives to methyl bromide. Applicants further submit data on their use of methyl bromide, on research programs into the use of alternatives to methyl bromide, and on efforts to minimize use and emissions of methyl bromide. EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs reviews the data submitted by applicants, as well as data from governmental and academic sources, to establish whether there are technically and economically feasible alternatives available for a particular use of methyl bromide and whether there would be significant market disruption if no exemption were available. In addition, EPA reviews other parameters of the exemption applications such as dosage and emissions minimization techniques and applicants’ research or transition plans. This assessment process culminates with the development of a document referred to as the “Critical Use Nomination” or CUN. The CUN is submitted annually by the U.S. Department of State to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)'s Ozone Secretariat. The CUNs of various countries are subsequently reviewed by the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee (MBTOC) and the Technical and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP), which are independent advisory bodies to Parties to the Montreal Protocol. These bodies make recommendations to the Parties on the nominations. The Parties then take a Decision to authorize a critical use exemption for a particular country. The Decision also identifies how much methyl bromide may be supplied for the exempted critical uses. Finally, for each exemption period, EPA provides an opportunity such as this for comment on the amounts of methyl bromide that the Agency has determined to be necessary for critical uses and the uses that the Agency has determined meet the criteria of the critical use exemption. For more information on the domestic review process and methodology employed by the Office of Pesticide Programs, please refer to a detailed memo titled “Development of 2003 Nomination for a Critical Use Exemption for Methyl Bromide for the United States of America” available on the docket for this rulemaking. While the particulars of the data continue to evolve and clerical matters are further streamlined, the technical review itself has remained the same since the inception of the exemption of the program. On January 31, 2005, the U.S. Government submitted the third U.S. Nomination for a Critical Use Exemption for Methyl Bromide to the Ozone Secretariat of the United Nations Environment Programme. This third nomination contained the request for 2007 critical uses. On March 16 and 18, 2005, and June 10 and 13, 2005, MBTOC sent questions to the U.S. Government concerning technical and economic issues in the nomination. The U.S. Government transmitted responses to these requests for clarification on April 8, 2005 and August 18, 2005. These documents, together with reports by the advisory bodies noted above, can be accessed in the docket for this rulemaking. The determination in this proposed rule reflects the analysis contained in those documents. B. How Does This Proposed Rulemaking Relate to Previous Critical Use Exemption Rulemakings? The December 23, 2004 Framework Rule (69 FR 76982) established the bulk of the framework for the critical use exemption in the U.S. including trading provisions and recordkeeping and reporting obligations. In this action, EPA is not proposing to change the framework of the exemption program but rather to establish a list of approved critical uses for 2007 and issue allowances that will determine the amount of methyl bromide available for those uses consistent with the Framework Rule. C. Proposed Critical Uses and Adjustments to Critical Use Amounts In Decision XVII/9, taken in December 2005, the Parties to the Protocol agreed as follows: “for the agreed critical-use categories for 2007, set forth in table C to the annex to the present decision for each Party, to permit, subject to the conditions set forth in the present decision and decision Ex. I/4, the levels of production and consumption for 2007 set forth in table D of the annex to the present decision which are necessary to satisfy critical uses * * *” The following uses are those set forth in table C of the annex to Decision XVII/9: Cucurbits; dry commodities/structures cocoa beans; dried fruit and nuts; NPMA dry commodities/structures (processed foods, herbs & spices, dried milk and cheese processing facilities); dry cure pork products (building and product); eggplant (field); forest nursery seedlings; mills and processors; nursery stock-fruit trees, raspberries, roses; orchard replant; ornamentals; peppers (field); strawberry fruit (field); strawberry runners; tomato (field) and turf grass. When added together, the agreed critical-use levels for 2007 total 6,749,060 kilograms, which is equivalent to 26.4% of the U.S. 1991 methyl bromide consumption baseline of 25,528,000 kilograms. However, the maximum amount of allowable new production or import as set forth in table D of Decision XVII/9 is 5,149,060 kgs, which is equivalent to 20% of the 1991 methyl bromide consumption baseline. The difference between allowable new production or import and total critical use exemption will be made up from available stocks. EPA further discusses the breakout between new production or import and stocks in sections V.G. and V.H. of this preamble. EPA is proposing to make the following reductions to the amount of newly produced or imported methyl bromide authorized in Decision XVII/9 to satisfy critical uses:
(a)Reductions to accommodate uptake of sulfuryl fluoride in 2007.
(b)Reductions to account for unused critical use methyl bromide at the end of 2005.
(c)Reductions equivalent to the amount authorized for research purposes.
(d)Reductions to accommodate increased allocation of critical stock allowances (CSAs). In the 2006 CUE Rule (71 FR 5985), EPA allocated less methyl bromide for critical uses than was authorized by the Parties, in order to account for the recent registration of sulfuryl fluoride. The Agency based those reductions on the data contained in the 2008 Critical Use Nomination (CUN), which was submitted to the Ozone Secretariat in January 2006. The 2008 CUN is available in the docket for this proposed rule. The nomination indicated that sulfuryl fluoride is registered to control the relevant pests in all post-harvest sectors except for cheese and dry cured ham use categories and that between 12 percent and 18 percent of the industry, depending on the use category, could feasibly transition to this alternative each year. This analysis still represents the best available data on the transition to sulfuryl fluoride including factors such as potential obstacles in the export of treated commodities. The report of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee (MBTOC) indicated that the MBTOC did not make any reductions in these use categories for the uptake of sulfuryl fluoride in 2007 because the United States Government indicated that it would do so in its domestic allocation procedures. Therefore, EPA is proposing to reduce the total volume of critical use methyl bromide by 68,170 kilograms to reflect the continuing transition to sulfuryl fluoride. The Agency seeks comment on the transition rates for sulfuryl fluoride described in the 2008 CUN and used in this proposed rule. In particular, the Agency continues to seek comment on the ability of certain end users, such as dried fruit and nut processors, to be able to use sulfuryl fluoride given the progress made by importing countries in establishing and approving tolerance levels for the use of sulfuryl fluoride. A copy of the 2008 analysis is available in the rulemaking docket for comment. As described in the December 23, 2004 Framework Rule (69 FR 76997), EPA is not permitting entities to build stocks of methyl bromide produced or imported under the critical use exemption program. To prevent the unintended build up of such stocks, the Agency indicated that any volumes of methyl bromide produced or imported under the critical use exemption in a calendar year, but not used in that year, must be reported to EPA the following year. These reporting requirements appear at §§ 82.13(f)(3)(xvi), 82.13(g)(4)(xviii), and 82.13(bb)(2)(iii). An amount equivalent to this “carry-over,” whether pre-plant or post-harvest, would then be deducted from the total level of allowable new production and import in the year following the year of the data report. For example, all carry-over methyl bromide that was produced or imported under the critical use exemption in 2005 was reported to EPA in 2006 and would be reduced from the total allowable levels of new production/import in 2007. Therefore, in this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to reduce the total level of new production and import for critical uses by 443,000 kilograms to reflect the total level of carry-over material available at the end of 2005. As described in the Framework Rule, after applying this reduction to the total volumes of allowable new production or import, EPA is pro-rating critical use allowances
(CUAs)to each company based on their 1991 baseline market share. Decision XVII/9, paragraph 7, “request[s] Parties to endeavor to use stocks, where available, to meet any demand for methyl bromide for the purposes of research and development.” In response to this Decision, EPA is reducing the total supply of new production and import for critical uses by an amount equivalent to the total amount authorized for research purposes, which is 21,702 kilograms. The calculations used by the Agency for the research adjustment are available for public comment in the docket for this action. Further, EPA is encouraging methyl bromide suppliers to sell stocks to researchers and is encouraging researchers to purchase stocks of methyl bromide. Lastly, the Agency is considering increasing the amount of critical stock allowances
(CSAs)to allocate for 2007 critical uses from 6.2% of baseline as specified in Decision XVII/9 to 7.5% of baseline consistent with the amount allocated for 2005 critical uses. In section V.H. of this preamble, the Agency describes the rationale for proposing and seeking comment on two different amounts of CSAs to allocate. In allocating additional CSAs, the Agency must make a corresponding reduction in the amount of new production and import under the exemption program. In this proposed action, EPA will list two tables of CUA and CSA allocations reflecting both the lower and upper CSA scenarios. On February 6, 2006, EPA amended the label for 1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D) regarding karst restrictions and copies of the amended labels are available in the docket for this proposed rule . The previous label states “Do not apply in areas overlying karst geology” whereas the new label states “Do not apply this product within 100 feet of karst topographical features.” The new label language is more instructive on the use of 1,3-D in areas with karst topography, while still protecting the environment, than the previous label language. EPA's assessment of the amount of methyl bromide that may be displaced by the use of 1,3-D over karst areas in the 2007 technical analysis is already based on the revised label language now in place. Therefore, EPA is not proposing to make further reductions to the volumes of pre-plant methyl bromide based on the label change. EPA refers commenters to the more detailed explanation of this matter in the responses to the MBTOC available in the docket for this rulemaking. A copy of the label amendment is available in the docket as well. In this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to modify Columns B and C of Appendix L to 40 CFR Part 82, Subpart A to reflect the agreed critical-use categories identified in Decision XVII/9 for the 2007 control period (calendar year). The Agency is proposing to amend the table of critical uses based, in part, on the technical analysis contained in the 2007 U.S. nomination that assesses data submitted by applicants to the critical use exemption program as well as public and proprietary data on the use of methyl bromide and its alternatives. EPA is seeking comment on the aforementioned analysis and, in particular, any information regarding changes to the registration or use of alternatives that may have transpired after the 2007 U.S. nomination was written. Such information has the potential to alter the technical or economic feasibility of an alternative and could thus cause EPA to modify the analysis that underpins EPA's determination as to which uses and what amounts of methyl bromide qualify for the critical use exemption. EPA notes that while we may, in response to comments, reduce the proposed quantities of critical use methyl bromide, or decide not to approve uses authorized by the Parties, we do not intend to increase the quantities or add new uses in the final rule beyond those authorized by the Parties. Therefore, if there has been a change in registration of an alternative that results in that alternative no longer being available to a particular use, EPA does not intend to add uses or amounts of methyl bromide to the critical use exemption program beyond those identified here. Under such circumstances, the user should apply to EPA, requesting that the U.S. nominate its use for a critical use exemption in the future. Based on the information described above, EPA is proposing that the uses in Table I: Approved Critical Uses, with the limiting critical conditions specified, qualify to obtain and use critical use methyl bromide in 2007. Table I.—Approved Critical Uses Column A Approved critical uses Column B Approved critical user and location of use Column C Limiting critical conditions that either exist, or that the approved critical user reasonably expects could arise without methyl bromide fumigation Pre-Plant Uses: Cucurbits
(a)Michigan growers Moderate to severe soilborne fungal disease infestation. Moderate to severe disease infestation. A need for methyl bromide for research purposes.
(b)Southeastern U.S. limited to growing locations in Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation. Moderate to severe fungal disease infestation. Moderate to severe root knot nematodes. A need for methyl bromide for research purposes.
(c)Georgia growers Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation. Moderate to severe fungal disease infestation. Moderate to severe root knot nematodes. A need for methyl bromide for research purposes. Eggplant
(a)Florida growers Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation. Moderate to severe nematodes. Moderate to severe disease infestation. Restrictions on alternatives due to karst geology. A need for methyl bromide for research purposes.
(b)Georgia growers Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation. Moderate to severe nematodes. Moderate to severe pythium root, collar, crown and root rot. Moderate to severe disease infestation. Moderate to severe southern blight infestation. Restrictions on alternatives due to karst geology. A need for methyl bromide for research purposes.
(c)Michigan growers Moderate to severe soilborne fungal disease infestation. A need for methyl bromide for research purposes. Forest Nursery Seedlings
(a)Growers in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation. Moderate to severe disease infestation.
(b)International Paper and its subsidiaries limited to growing locations in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, South Carolina, and Texas Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation. Moderate to severe disease infestation.
(c)Public (government-owned) seedling nurseries in Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Wisconsin Moderate to severe weed infestation including purple and yellow nutsedge infestation. Moderate to severe Canada thistle infestation. Moderate to severe nematodes. Moderate to severe fungal disease infestation.
(d)Weyerhaeuser Company and its subsidiaries limited to growing locations in Alabama, Arkansas, North Carolina, and South Carolina Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation. Moderate to severe disease infestation. Moderate to severe nematodes and worms.
(e)Weyerhaeuser Company and its subsidiaries limited to growing locations in Oregon and Washington Moderate to severe yellow nutsedge infestation. Moderate to severe fungal disease infestation.
(f)Michigan growers Moderate to severe disease infestation. Moderate to severe Canada thistle infestation. Moderate to severe nutsedge infestation. Moderate to severe nematodes.
(g)Michigan herbaceous perennials growers Moderate to severe nematodes. Moderate to severe fungal disease infestation. Moderate to severe yellow nutsedge and other weed infestation. Orchard Nursery Seedlings
(a)Members of the Western Raspberry Nursery Consortium limited to growing locations in California and Washington (Driscoll's Raspberries and their contract growers in California and Washington) Moderate to severe nematode infestation. Presence of medium to heavy clay soils. Prohibition on use of 1,3-dichloropropene products because local township limits on use of this alternative have been reached. A need for methyl bromide for research purposes.
(b)Members of the California Association of Nurserymen-Deciduous Fruit and Nut Tree Growers Moderate to severe nematode infestation. Presence of medium to heavy clay soils. Prohibition on use of 1,3-dichloropropene products because local township limits on use of this alternative have been reached. A need for methyl bromide for research purposes.
(c)California rose nurseries Moderate to severe nematode infestation. Prohibition on use of 1,3-dichloropropene products because local township limits on use of this alternative have been reached. A need for methyl bromide for research purposes. Strawberry Nurseries
(a)California growers Moderate to severe disease infestation. Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation. Moderate to severe nematodes. A need for methyl bromide for research purposes.
(b)Maryland, North Carolina, and Tennessee growers Moderate to severe black root rot. Moderate to severe root-knot nematodes. Moderate to severe yellow and purple nutsedge infestation. A need for methyl bromide for research purposes. Orchard Replant
(a)California stone fruit growers Moderate to severe nematodes. Moderate to severe fungal disease infestation. Replanted (non-virgin) orchard soils to prevent orchard replant disease. Presence of medium to heavy soils. Prohibition on use of 1,3-dichloropropene products because local township limits on use of this alternative have been reached. A need for methyl bromide for research purposes.
(b)California table and raisin grape growers Moderate to severe nematodes. Moderate to severe fungal disease infestation. Replanted (non-virgin) orchard soils to prevent orchard replant disease. Medium to heavy soils. Prohibition on use of 1,3-dichloropropene products because local township limits for this alternative have been reached. A need for methyl bromide for research purposes.
(c)California wine grape growers Moderate to severe nematodes. Moderate to severe fungal disease infestation. Replanted (non-virgin) orchard soils to prevent orchard replant disease. Medium to heavy soils. Prohibition on use of 1,3-dichloropropene products because local township limits for this alternative have been reached. A need for methyl bromide for research purposes.
(d)California walnut growers Moderate to severe nematodes. Moderate to severe fungal disease infestation. Replanted (non-virgin) orchard soils to prevent orchard replant disease. Medium to heavy soils. Prohibition on use of 1,3-dichloropropene products because local township limits for this alternative have been reached. A need for methyl bromide for research purposes.
(e)California almond growers Moderate to severe nematodes. Moderate to severe fungal disease infestation. Replanted (non-virgin) orchard soils to prevent orchard replant disease. Medium to heavy soils. Prohibition on use of 1,3-dichloropropene products because local township limits for this alternative have been reached. A need for methyl bromide for research purposes. Ornamentals
(a)California growers Moderate to severe disease infestation. Moderate to severe nematodes. Prohibition on use of 1,3-dichloropropene products because local township limits for this alternative have been reached. A need for methyl bromide for research purposes.
(b)Florida growers Moderate to severe weed infestation. Moderate to severe disease infestation. Moderate to severe nematodes. Karst topography A need for methyl bromide for research purposes. Peppers
(a)California growers Moderate to severe disease infestation. Moderate to severe nematodes. Prohibition on use of 1,3-dichloropropene products because local township limits for this alternative have been reached. A need for methyl bromide for research purposes.
(b)Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia growers Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation. Moderate to severe nematodes. Moderate to severe pythium root, collar, crown and root rots. Presence of an occupied structure within 100 feet of a grower's field the size of 100 acres or less. A need for methyl bromide for research purposes.
(c)Florida growers Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation. Moderate to severe disease infestation. Moderate to severe nematodes. Karst topography. A need for methyl bromide for research purposes.
(d)Georgia growers Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation. Moderate to severe nematodes, or moderate to severe pythium root and collar rots. Moderate to severe southern blight infestation, crown or root rot. A need for methyl bromide for research purposes.
(e)Michigan growers Moderate to severe fungal disease infestation. A need for methyl bromide for research purposes. Strawberry Fruit
(a)California growers Moderate to severe black root rot or crown rot. Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation. Moderate to severe nematodes. Prohibition on use of 1,3-dichloropropene products because local township limits for this alternative have been reached. Time to transition to an alternative. A need for methyl bromide for research purposes.
(b)Florida growers Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge. Moderate to severe nematodes. Moderate to severe disease infestation. Carolina geranium or cut-leaf evening primrose infestation. Karst topography and to a lesser extent a need for methyl bromide for research purposes.
(c)Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia growers Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge. Moderate to severe nematodes. Moderate to severe black root and crown rot. Presence of an occupied structure within 100 feet of a grower's field the size of 100 acres or less. A need for methyl bromide for research purposes. Tomatoes
(a)Michigan growers Moderate to severe disease infestation. Moderate to severe fungal pathogen infestation. A need for methyl bromide for research purposes.
(b)Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia growers Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation. Moderate to severe disease infestation. Moderate to severe nematodes . Presence of an occupied structure within 100 feet of a grower's field the size of 100 acres or less. Karst topography. A need for methyl bromide for research purposes. Turfgrass
(a)U.S. turfgrass sod nursery producers who are members of Turfgrass Producers International
(TPI)Production of industry certified pure sod. Moderate to severe bermudagrass. Moderate to severe nutsedge. Moderate to severe white grub infestation. Control of off-type perennial grass infestation. A need for methyl bromide for research purposes. Post-Harvest Uses: Food Processing
(a)Rice millers in all locations in the U.S. who are members of the USA Rice Millers Association Moderate to severe infestation of beetles, weevils or moths. Older structures that can not be properly sealed to use an alternative to methyl bromide. Presence of sensitive electronic equipment subject to corrosivity. Time to transition to an alternative.
(b)Pet food manufacturing facilities in the U.S. who are active members of the Pet Food Institute (For this proposed rule, “pet food” refers to domestic dog and cat food) Moderate to severe infestation or beetles, moths, or cockroaches. Older structures that can not be properly sealed to use an alternative to methyl bromide. Presence of sensitive electronic equipment subject to corrosivity. Time to transition to an alternative.
(c)Kraft Foods in the U.S. Older structures that can not be properly sealed to use an alternative to methyl bromide. Presence of sensitive electronic equipment subject to corrosivity. Time to transition to an alternative.
(d)Members of the North American Millers” Association in the U.S Moderate to severe beetle infestation. Older structures that can not be properly sealed to use an alternative to methyl bromide. Presence of sensitive electronic equipment subject to corrosivity. Time to transition to an alternative.
(e)Members of the National Pest Management Association associated with dry commodity structure fumigation (cocoa) and dry commodity fumigation (processed food, herbs and spices, dried milk and cheese processing facilities) Moderate to severe beetle or moth infestation. Older structures that can not be properly sealed to use an alternative to methyl bromide. Presence of sensitive electronic equipment subject to corrosivity. Time to transition to an alternative. Commodity Storage
(a)California entities storing walnuts, beans, dried plums, figs, raisins, dates (in Riverside county only), and pistachios in California Rapid fumigation is required to meet a critical market window, such as during the holiday season, rapid fumigation is required when a buyer provides short (2 working days or less) notification for a purchase or there is a short period after harvest in which to fumigate and there is limited silo availability for using alternatives. A need for methyl bromide for research purposes. Dry Cured Pork Products
(a)Members of the National Country Ham Association Moderate to severe red legged ham beetle infestation. Moderate to severe cheese/ham skipper infestation. Moderate to severe dermested beetle infestation. Ham mite infestation.
(b)Members of the American Association of Meat Processors Moderate to severe red legged ham beetle infestation. Moderate to severe cheese/ham skipper infestation. Moderate to severe dermested beetle infestation. Ham mite infestation.
(c)Nahunta Pork Center (North Carolina) Moderate to severe red legged ham beetle infestation. Moderate to severe cheese/ham skipper infestation. Moderate to severe dermested beetle infestation. Ham mite infestation. In the December 23, 2004 Framework Rule, EPA restricted access to stocks for approved critical users as a condition of obtaining new production and import (69 FR 76987). Decision XVII/9 establishes two distinct caps on the supply of methyl bromide for critical uses: a limit on the maximum allowable level of production or import and a limit on the maximum allowable amount of methyl bromide to be used for critical uses. It further indicates that the difference between the two levels is to be made up “by using quantities of methyl bromide from stocks that the Party has recognized to be available.” EPA continues to view promulgated restrictions on the use of stocks by critical uses (69 FR 76987) as an appropriate means of ensuring that total critical use does not exceed the level agreed to by the Parties. The Agency also believes that the restriction on access to stocks for critical uses is an expression of the United States' “renewed commitment” to take stocks into account as expressed in Decision XVII/9(5). EPA is proposing to amend the table in 40 CFR part 82, subpart A, Appendix L, as reflected above. Specifically, EPA is adding one and deleting seven references to and from column B. The changes are as follows: adding cheese processing facilities to NPMA dry commodities to reflect the authorization of this use in Decision XVII/9; removing Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, Oregon, Utah, and Washington from the approved public nursery locations in the Forest Nursery Sector because a 2007 application for these locations was not submitted to EPA; and removing California growers from the tomato sector because this use was not authorized by the Parties for 2007. The categories listed in Table I above have been designated critical uses for 2007 in Decision XVII/9 of the Parties. The amount of methyl bromide approved for research purposes is included in the amount of methyl bromide approved by the Parties for the commodities for which “research” is indicated as a limiting critical condition in the table above. However, consistent with the approach taken in the 2006 CUE Rule, the Agency is not setting aside a specific quantity of methyl bromide to be associated with research activities. Methyl bromide is needed for research purposes including experiments that require methyl bromide as a standard control treatment with which to compare the trial alternatives' results. EPA is proposing that the following sectors be allowed to use critical use methyl bromide for research purposes: cucurbits, dried fruit and nuts, nursery stock, strawberry nurseries, turfgrass, eggplant, peppers, strawberry fruit, tomatoes, and orchard replant. In their applications to EPA, these sectors identified research programs that require the use of methyl bromide. D. The Criteria in Decisions IX/6 and Ex. I/4 Paragraphs 2 and 5 of Decision XVII/9 request parties to ensure that the conditions or criteria listed in Decisions Ex. I/4 and IX/6, paragraph 1, are applied to exempted critical uses for the 2007 control period. A discussion of the Agency's application of the criteria in paragraph 1 of Decision IX/6 appears in sections V.A. and V.C. of this preamble. In section V.C., the Agency is soliciting comments from the public on the technical basis for determining that the uses listed in this proposed rule meet the criteria of the critical use exemption. The CUNs detail how each proposed critical use meets the criteria listed in paragraph 1 of Decision IX/6, apart from the criterion located at (b)(ii), as well as the criteria in paragraphs 5 and 6 of Decision Ex. I/4. The criterion in Decision IX/6(1)(b)(ii), which refers to the use of available stocks of methyl bromide, is addressed in sections V.G. and V.H. of this preamble. The Agency has previously provided its interpretation of the criterion in Decision IX/6(1)(a)(i) regarding the presence of significant market disruption in the absence of an exemption, and EPA refers readers to the 2006 CUE final rule (71 FR 5989) as well as to the memo on the docket on the CUE process for further elaboration. The remaining considerations, including the lack of available technically and economically feasible alternatives under the circumstance of the nomination, efforts to minimize use and emissions of methyl bromide where technically and economically feasible, the development of research and transition plans, and the requests in Decision Ex. I/4(5) that Parties consider and implement MBTOC recommendations, where feasible, on reductions in the critical use of methyl bromide and in paragraph 6 for Parties that submit critical use nominations to include information on the methodology they use to determine economic feasibility are all addressed in the nomination documents. Some of these criteria are evaluated in other documents as well. For example, the U.S. has further considered matters regarding the adoption of alternatives and research into methyl bromide alternatives, criterion (1)(b)(iii) in Decision IX/6, in the development of the National Management Strategy
(NMS)submitted to the Ozone Secretariat in December 2005 and in on-going consultations with industry. The NMS addresses all of the aims specified in Decision Ex.I/4(3) to the extent feasible and is available in the docket for this rulemaking. E. Emissions Minimization EPA notes for the regulated community the reference to emission minimization techniques in paragraph 6 of Decision XVII/9, which states that Parties shall request critical users to employ “emission minimization techniques such as virtually impermeable films, barrier film technologies, deep shank injection and/or other techniques that promote environmental protection, whenever technically and economically feasible.” In addition, EPA understands that research is being conducted on the potential to reduce rates and emissions using newly available high-barrier films and that these studies show promising results. Users of methyl bromide should make every effort to decrease overall emissions of methyl bromide by implementing measures such as the ones listed above, to the extent consistent with state and local laws and regulations. The Agency encourages researchers and users who are successfully utilizing such techniques to inform EPA of their experiences as part of their comments on this proposed rule and to provide such information with their critical use applications. In addition, the Agency welcomes comments on the implementation of emission minimization techniques and whether and how further emission minimization could be achieved. F. Critical Use Allowance Allocations EPA is proposing to allow limited amounts of new production or import of methyl bromide for critical uses for 2007 up to the amount of 4,616,188 kilograms (18.08% of baseline) or in the alternative 4,301,588 kilograms (16.85% of baseline) as shown in Tables IIa and IIb respectively below, depending on the volume of critical stocks the Agency allocates. In section V.C. of this preamble, the Agency indicated that if we allocate a larger amount from stocks, EPA would make a corresponding reduction to the volume of allowable new production/import. EPA is seeking comment on the total levels of exempted new production or import for pre-plant and post-harvest critical uses in 2007. Each critical use allowance
(CUA)is equivalent to 1 kg of critical use methyl bromide. These allowances expire at the end of the control period and, as explained in the Framework Rule, are not bankable from one year to the next. This proposal for allocating the following number of pre-plant and post-harvest CUAs to the entities listed below is subject to the trading provisions at 40 CFR 82.12, which are discussed in section V.G. of the preamble to the Framework Rule (69 FR 76982). Table II a. —Proposed Allocation of Critical Use Allowances Based on 1,621,702 kg From Stocks Company 2007 Critical use allowances for pre-plant uses* (kilograms) 2007 Critical use allowances for post-harvest uses* (kilograms) Great Lakes Chemical Corp 2,573,764 231,494 Albemarle Corp 1,058,390 95,196 Ameribrom, Inc 584,889 52,607 TriCal, Inc 18,212 1,638 Total 4,235,254 380,935 Table II b. —Proposed Allocation of Critical Use Allowances Based on 1,936,302 kgs From Stocks Company 2007 Critical use allowances for pre-plant uses* (kilograms) 2007 Critical use allowances for post-harvest uses* (kilograms) Great Lakes Chemical Corp 2,401,699 212,376 Albemarle Corp 987,633 87,334 Ameribrom, Inc 545,787 48,262 TriCal, Inc 16,994 1,503 Total 3,952,114 349,475 * For production or import of class I, Group VI controlled substance exclusively for the Pre-Plant or Post-Harvest uses specified in Appendix L to 40 CFR Part 82. Paragraph four of Decision XVII/9 states “that Parties shall endeavor to license, permit, authorize, or allocate quantities of critical use methyl bromide as listed in tables A and C of the annex to the present decision.” This is similar to language in Decisions Ex. I/3(4) and Ex. II/1(4) regarding 2005 and 2006 critical uses, respectively. The language from these Decisions calls on Parties to endeavor to allocate critical use methyl bromide on a sector basis. In establishing the critical use exemption program, the Agency endeavored to allocate directly on a sector-by-sector basis by analyzing and proposing this option among others in the August 2004 Framework Rule notice (69 FR 52366). EPA solicited comment on both universal and sector-based allocation of critical use allowances. The Agency evaluated the various options based on their economic, environmental and practical effects. After receiving comments, EPA determined in the final Framework Rule (69 FR 76989) that a lump-sum, or universal, allocation, modified to include distinct caps for pre-plant and post-harvest uses, was the most efficient and least burdensome approach that would achieve the desired environmental results, and that a sector-specific approach would pose significant administrative and practical difficulties. Although the approach adopted in the Framework Rule does not directly allocate allowances to each category of use, the Agency anticipates that reliance on market mechanisms will achieve similar results indirectly. The TEAP recommendations are based on data submitted by the U.S. which in turn are based on recent historic use data in the current methyl bromide market. In other words, the TEAP recommendations agreed to by the Parties are based on current use and the current use patterns take place in a market where all pre-plant and post-harvest methyl bromide uses compete for a lump sum supply of critical use material. Therefore, the Agency believes that under a system of universal allocations, divided into pre-plant and post-harvest sectors, the actual critical use will closely follow the sector breakout listed by the TEAP. These issues were addressed in the previous rule and EPA is not aware of any factors that would alter the analysis performed during the development of the Framework Rule. EPA is not proposing to change the approach adopted in the Framework Rule for the allocation of CUAs but, in an endeavor to address Decision XVII/9(4), EPA will consider additional comment on the Agency's allocation of CUAs in the two groupings (pre-plant and post-harvest) that the Agency has employed in the past. A summary of the options analysis conducted by EPA is available in the docket for this rulemaking. G. Critical Stock Allowance Allocations and Total Volumes of Critical Use Methyl Bromide EPA is proposing to allocate critical stock allowances
(CSAs)to the entities listed below in Table III for the control period of 2007 in the range of between 1,621,702 kilograms (6.2% of U.S. 1991 baseline) and 1,936,302 kilograms (7.5% of U.S. 1991 baseline). EPA is employing the same methodology and baselines for allocating CSAs as in previous critical use rulemakings (69 FR 76982). If the Agency allocates 1,621,702 kg of CSAs, then it would also allocate 4,616,188 kg of allowances for new production/import, bringing the total volume of critical use methyl bromide to 6,237,890 kg (24.4% of baseline) for 2007 U.S. critical uses. If the Agency allocates 1,936,302 kg of CSAs, then it would also allocate 4,301,588 kg of allowances for new production/import, bringing the total volume of critical use methyl bromide to 6,237,890 kgs (24.4% of baseline) for 2007 U.S. critical uses as well. The Agency is seeking comment on the amount of critical use methyl bromide to come from stocks. EPA currently possesses information on existing stocks of methyl bromide that has been claimed as confidential. With regard to data for 2003, EPA has determined that the aggregate stock information is not confidential business information but, in accordance with EPA regulations, is withholding that information due to the filing of complaints by affected businesses seeking to enjoin the Agency from its release (40 CFR 2.205). The United States District Court for the District of Columbia recently ruled that EPA has properly withheld the aggregate information in this circumstance. In addition, the court upheld EPA's treatment of the company-specific information as confidential. NRDC v. Leavitt, 2006 WL 667327 (D.D.C. March 14, 2006). Therefore, the documentation regarding company-specific allocation of CSAs is in the confidential portion of the rulemaking docket and is not listed in the table below. EPA will inform the listed companies of their CSA allocations in a letter following publication of the final rule. EPA continues to follow its own regulations with respect to the treatment of information claimed as confidential. Table III.—Allocation of Critical Stock Allowances Company Albemarle Ameribrom, Inc. Bill Clark Pest Control, Inc. Blair Soil Fumigation Burnside Services, Inc. Cardinal Professional Products Carolina Eastern, Inc. Degesch America, Inc. Dodson Bros. Great Lakes Chemical Corp. Harvey Fertilizer & Gas Helena Chemical Co. Hendrix & Dail Hy Yield Bromine Industrial Fumigation Company J.C. Ehrlich Co. Pacific Ag Pest Fog Sales Corp. Prosource One Reddick Fumigants Royster-Clark, Inc. Southern State Cooperative, Inc. Trical Inc. Trident Agricultural Products UAP Southeast
(NC)UAP Southeast
(SC)Univar Vanguard Fumigation Co. Western Fumigation Total—1,621,702 kilograms or 1,936,302 kilograms. Several companies that receive very small amounts of CSAs from EPA have contacted the Agency and requested that they be permitted to permanently retire their allowances. Some companies receive as few as 3 allowances which allow the holder to sell up to 3 kilograms of methyl bromide to critical uses. Due to the small allocation and because they typically do not sell critical use methyl bromide, they find the allocation of CSAs, and associated recordkeeping and reporting requirements, to be unduly burdensome. In response to this concern, EPA is proposing to allow CSA holders, on a voluntary basis, to permanently relinquish their allowances through written notification to the person indicated in the addresses section of this preamble during the comment period for this rulemaking. Such companies would not receive CSA allocations and would be excluded from future allocations. All allowances forfeited by companies through the written notification process will be reallocated to the remaining companies on a pro-rata basis. H. Stocks of Methyl Bromide As discussed above and in the December 23, 2004 Framework Rule, an approved critical user may obtain access to exempted production/import of methyl bromide and to limited inventories of pre-phaseout methyl bromide, the combination of which constitute the supply of “critical use methyl bromide” intended to meet the needs of agreed critical uses. In developing this proposed action, the Agency notes that Decision XVII/9 (para. 5) contains the following language: “that each Party which has an agreed critical use renews its commitment to ensure that the criteria in paragraph 1 of decision IX/6 are applied when licensing, permitting or authorizing critical use of methyl bromide and that such procedures take into account available stocks of banked or recycled methyl bromide.” This language is similar to language in Decision XVI/2 authorizing 2006 critical uses. Language calling on Parties to address stocks also appears in Decision Ex. I/3, which authorized 2005 critical uses. In the Framework Rule, which established the architecture of the critical use exemption program and set out the exempted levels of critical use for 2005, EPA interpreted paragraph 5 of Decision Ex. I/3 “as meaning that the U.S. should not authorize critical use exemptions without including provisions addressing drawdown from stocks for critical uses” (69 FR 76987). The Framework Rule established provisions governing the sale of pre-phaseout inventories for critical uses, including the concept of CSAs and a prohibition on sale of pre-phaseout inventories for critical uses in excess of the amount of CSAs held by the seller. In addition, EPA noted that stocks were further taken into account through the trading provisions that allow critical use allowances to be converted into CSAs. Under this proposed action, no significant changes would be made to those provisions. In the February 6, 2006 final rule that determined the amount to come from stocks during the 2006 control period, EPA stated that “bearing in mind the United States' ‘renewed commitment’ as stated in Decision Ex II/1, and its experience with the 2005 critical use nomination,” EPA would exercise its discretion to reduce production/import and authorize and additional amount from inventory (71 FR 5998). For the 2006 control period, EPA authorized 1,136,008 kilograms (5% of baseline) to be supplied from pre-phaseout methyl bromide inventories. EPA noted that “continued drawdown of inventory for critical uses at the level authorized in the Framework Rule for 2005” (i.e., 5% of baseline) was an appropriate means, for the 2006 control period, “of continuing the commitment previously made, in light of our understanding of current inventory and our analysis of the current needs of users.” In addition, EPA responded to stakeholder concerns that taking 5% of baseline from inventory in 2006 and 6.2% in 2007 would result in shortages. EPA reported that the Agency “has re-examined the available inventory data and has projected multiple scenarios concerning levels of consumption of existing inventory. Based on these efforts, EPA believes that critical users will continue to be able to meet their needs throughout 2006 and 2007 through the anticipated combination of new production and import and inventory drawdown” (71 FR 6000). After EPA published the 2006 final rule, it collected data on holdings of pre-2005 stocks from methyl bromide suppliers as part of its routine reporting under the CUE program. For 2007, EPA is proposing that the amount to come from stocks be either the difference between the agreed U.S. critical-use level (6,749,060 kg) and the amount of allowable new production or import (5,149,060 kg) (the difference between these amounts is 1,600,000 kg, or 6.2% of baseline) or 1,914,600 kgs (7.5% of baseline) as it was for critical uses in 2005, plus an additional amount for the adjustment for amounts for research purposes. Both amounts are larger than the amounts taken from stocks in the preceding year of the exemption program and represent the continued regulatory implementation of U.S. commitments expressed in relevant Decisions of the Parties including Decision XVII/9(5). EPA is also seeking comment on whether some other number in this range would be appropriate. In light of the possibility that EPA will authorize a lower amount of production/import than allowed in Decision XVII/9 and therefore that the regulated community may have concerns regarding shortages of methyl bromide, the Agency would like to reiterate its commitment to closely monitor CUA and CSA data. Further, as stated in the final 2006 CUE rule, if an inventory shortage occurs, EPA may consider various options including, but not limited to, promulgating a final version of the petition process proposed on October 27, 2005 (70 FR 62030), taking into account comments received on that proposal; proposing a different administrative mechanism to serve the same purpose; or authorizing conversion of a limited number of CSAs to CUAs through a rulemaking, bearing in mind the upper limit on U.S. production/import for critical uses. An alternative means of addressing stocks appeared in a recent **Federal Register** notice relating to the essential use exemption program (71 FR 18264). In that context, the relevant Decision stated that “Parties shall take into account * * * stocks of controlled substances * * * such that no more than a one-year operational supply is maintained by that manufacturer.” This Decision refers to another exemption program, one that is analogous but differently structured from the CUE, and operating for different applications and circumstances. EPA seeks comment on whether, in the critical use exemption context, it would be appropriate to adjust the level of new production and import with the goal of maintaining a stockpile of some specified duration and seeks comment on how many months of inventory of methyl bromide may be appropriate to maintain non-disruptive management of this chemical in the supply chain for purposes of determining availability as inventories are reduced over time. In sections V.F. and V.G. of this preamble, EPA seeks comment on the amount of critical use methyl bromide to come from stocks compared to new production and import. VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order No. 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order No. 12866, (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) the Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to 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. It has been determined that this is a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order No. 12866 and EPA has submitted it 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 proposed action does not add any information collection requirements or increase burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has previously approved the information collection requirements contained in the existing regulations, 40 CFR Part 82, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0564, EPA ICR number 2179.02 and 2179.03. A copy of the OMB approved Information Collection Request
(ICR)may be obtained from Susan Auby, Collection Strategies Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460 or by calling
(202)566-1672. 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 are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act The 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 this proposed rule on small entities, small entity is defined as:
(1)A small business that is identified by the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code in the Table below;
(2)a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less that 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. Category NAICS code SIC code NAICS small business size standard (in number of employees or millions of dollars) Agricultural Production 1112—Vegetable and Melon farming 1113—Fruit and Nut Tree Farming 1114—Greenhouse, Nursery, and Floriculture Production 0171—Berry Crops 0172—Grapes 0173—Tree Nuts 0175—Deciduous Tree Fruits (except apple orchards and farms) 0179—Fruit and Tree Nuts, NEC 0181—Ornamental Floriculture and Nursery Products 0831—Forest Nurseries and Gathering of Forest Products $0.75 million. Storage Uses 115114—Postharvest Crop activities (except Cotton Ginning) 311211—Flour Milling 2041—Flour and Other Grain Mill Products 2044—Rice Milling 4221—Farm Product Warehousing and Storage $6 million. 311212—Rice Milling 493110—General Warehousing and Storage 493130—Farm Product Warehousing and Storage 4225—General Warehousing and Storage $21.5 million. Distributors and Applicators 115112—Soil Preparation, Planting and Cultivating 0721—Crop Planting, Cultivation, and Protection $6 million. Producers and Importers 325320—Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing 2879—Pesticides and Agricultural Chemicals, NEC 500 employees. Agricultural producers of minor crops and entities that store agricultural commodities are categories of affected entities that contain small entities. This proposed rule will only affect entities that applied to EPA for a de-regulatory exemption. In most cases, EPA received aggregated requests for exemptions from industry consortia. On the exemption application, EPA asked consortia to describe the number and size distribution of entities their application covered. EPA estimated that 3,218 entities petitioned EPA for an exemption for the 2005 control period. EPA received requests from a comparable number of entities for the 2006 control period. Since many applicants did not provide information on the distribution of sizes of entities covered in their applications, EPA estimated that, based on the above definition, between one-fourth and one-third of the entities may be small businesses. In addition, other categories of affected entities do not contain small businesses based on the above description. After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on small entities, EPA certifies that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify and address regulatory alternatives “which minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.” (5 U.S.C. 603-604). Thus, an Agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves a regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on all of the small entities subject to the rule. Since this rule exempts methyl bromide for approved critical uses after the phaseout date of January 1, 2005, this is a de-regulatory action which will confer a benefit to users of methyl bromide. EPA believes the estimated de-regulatory value for users of methyl bromide is between $20 million and $30 million annually. We have therefore concluded that this proposed rule will relieve regulatory burden for all small entities. 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 by State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. If a written statement is required under Section 202, Section 205 of the 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, unless the Agency explains why this alternative is not selected or the selection of this alternative is inconsistent with law. Section 203 of the UMRA requires the Agency to establish a plan for obtaining input from and informing, educating, and advising any small governments that may be significantly or uniquely affected by the rule. Section 204 of the UMRA requires the Agency to develop a process to allow elected state, local, and tribal government officials to provide input in the development of any proposal containing a significant Federal intergovernmental mandate. This proposed rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. This action is deregulatory and does not impose any new requirements on any entities. Thus, this proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. Further, EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. E. Executive Order No. 13132: Federalism Executive Order No. 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.” The phrase “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 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 No. 13132. This proposed rule is expected to primarily affect producers, suppliers, importers and exporters and users of methyl bromide. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this proposed rule. F. Executive Order No. 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order No. 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.” This proposed rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order No. 13175. This proposed rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. The proposed rule does not impose any enforceable duties on communities of Indian tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order No. 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule. G. Executive Order No. 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks Executive Order No. 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 Executive Order 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. EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under Section 5-501 of the Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks. H. Executive Order No. 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This proposed rule is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order No. 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. This proposed rule does not pertain to any segment of the energy production economy nor does it regulate any manner of energy use. Therefore, we have concluded that this proposed rule is not likely to have any adverse energy effects. 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 standards 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 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 82 Environmental protection, Ozone depletion, Chemicals, Exports, Imports. Dated: June 23, 2006. Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator. For the reasons stated in the preamble, 40 CFR part 82 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 82—PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE 1. The authority citation for part 82 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671-7671q. 2. Section 82.8 is amended by revising the table in paragraph (c)(1) and paragraph (c)(2) to read as follows: § 82.8 Grant of essential use allowances and critical use allowances.
(c)* * *
(1)* * * Company 2007 Critical use allowances for pre-plant uses* (kilograms) 2007 Critical use allowances for post-harvest uses* (kilograms) Great Lakes Chemical Corp 2,573,764 231,494 Albemarle Corp 1,058,390 95,196 Ameribrom, Inc 584,889 52,607 TriCal, Inc 18,212 1,638 Total 4,235,254 380,935 *For production or import of class I, Group VI controlled substance exclusively for the Pre-Plant or Post-Harvest uses specified in appendix L to this subpart.
(2)Allocated critical stock allowances granted for specified control period. The following companies are allocated critical stock allowances for 2007 on a pro-rata basis in relation to the inventory held by each. Company Albemarle Ameribrom, Inc. Bill Clark Pest Control, Inc. Blair Soil Fumigation Burnside Services, Inc. Cardinal Professional Products Carolina Eastern, Inc. Degesch America, Inc. Dodson Bros. Great Lakes Chemical Corp. Harvey Fertilizer & Gas Helena Chemical Co. Hendrix & Dail Hy Yield Bromine Industrial Fumigation Company J.C. Ehrlich Co. Pacific Ag Pest Fog Sales Corp. Prosource One Reddick Fumigants Royster-Clark, Inc. Southern State Cooperative, Inc. Trical Inc. Trident Agricultural Products UAP Southeast
(NC)UAP Southeast
(SC)Univar Vanguard Fumigation Co. Western Fumigation Total—1,621,702 kilograms. 3. Appendix L to Subpart A is revised to read as follows: Appendix L to Subpart A of Part 82.—Approved Critical Uses and Limiting Critical Conditions for Those uses for the 2007 Control Period Column A Approved critical uses Column B Approved critical user and location of use Column C Limiting critical conditions that either exist, or that the approved critical user reasonably expects could arise without methyl bromide fumigation Pre-Plant Uses: Cucurbits
(a)Michigan growers Moderate to severe soilborne fungal disease infestation. Moderate to severe disease infestation. A need for methyl bromide for research purposes.
(b)Southeastern U.S. limited to growing locations in Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation. Moderate to severe fungal disease infestation. Moderate to severe root knot nematodes. A need for methyl bromide for research purposes.
(c)Georgia growers Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation Moderate to severe fungal disease infestation. Moderate to severe root knot nematodes. A need for methyl bromide for research purposes. Eggplant
(a)Florida growers Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation. Moderate to severe nematodes. Moderate to severe disease infestation. Restrictions on alternatives due to karst geology. A need for methyl bromide for research purposes.
(b)Georgia growers Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation. Moderate to severe nematodes. Moderate to severe pythium root, collar, crown and root rot. Moderate to severe disease infestation. Moderate to severe southern blight infestation. Restrictions on alternatives due to karst geology. A need for methyl bromide for research purposes.
(c)Michigan growers Moderate to severe soilborne fungal disease infestation. A need for methyl bromide for research purposes. Forest Nursery Seedlings
(a)Growers in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation. Moderate to severe disease infestation.
(b)International Paper and its subsidiaries limited to growing locations in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, South Carolina, and Texas Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation. Moderate to severe disease infestation.
(c)Public (government-owned) seedling nurseries in Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Wisconsin Moderate to severe weed infestation including purple and yellow nutsedge infestation. Moderate to severe Canada thistle infestation. Moderate to severe nematodes. Moderate to severe fungal disease infestation.
(d)Weyerhaeuser Company and its subsidiaries limited to growing locations in Alabama, Arkansas, North Carolina, and South Carolina Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation. Moderate to severe disease infestation. Moderate to severe nematodes and worms.
(e)Weyerhaeuser Company and its subsidiaries limited to growing locations in Oregon and Washington Moderate to severe yellow nutsedge infestation. Moderate to severe fungal disease infestation.
(f)Michigan growers Moderate to severe disease infestation. Moderate to severe Canada thistle infestation. Moderate to severe nutsedge infestation. Moderate to severe nematodes.
(g)Michigan herbaceous perennials growers Moderate to severe nematodes. Moderate to severe fungal disease infestation. Moderate to severe yellow nutsedge and other weed infestation. Orchard Nursery Seedlings
(a)Members of the Western Raspberry Nursery Consortium limited to growing locations in California and Washington (Driscoll's Raspberries and their contract growers in California and Washington) Moderate to severe nematode infestation Presence of medium to heavy clay soils Prohibition on use of 1,3-dichloropropene products because local township limits on use of this alternative have been reached. A need for methyl bromide for research purposes.
(b)Members of the California Association of Nurserymen-Deciduous Fruit and Nut Tree Growers Moderate to severe nematode infestation. Presence of medium to heavy clay soils. Prohibition on use of 1,3-dichloropropene products because local township limits on use of this alternative have been reached. A need for methyl bromide for research purposes.
(c)California rose nurseries Moderate to severe nematode infestation. Prohibition on use of 1,3-dichloropropene products because local township limits on use of this alternative have been reached. A need for methyl bromide for research purposes. Strawberry Nurseries
(a)California growers Moderate to severe disease infestation. Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation. Moderate to severe nematodes. A need for methyl bromide for research purposes.
(b)Maryland, North Carolina, and Tennessee growers Moderate to severe black root rot. Moderate to severe root-knot nematodes. Moderate to severe yellow and purple nutsedge infestation. A need for methyl bromide for research purposes. Orchard Replant
(a)California stone fruit growers Moderate to severe nematodes. Moderate to severe fungal disease infestation. Replanted (non-virgin) orchard soils to prevent orchard replant disease. Presence of medium to heavy soils. Prohibition on use of 1,3-dichloropropene products because local township limits for this alternative have been reached. A need for methyl bromide for research purposes.
(b)California table and raisin grape growers Moderate to severe nematodes. Moderate to severe fungal disease infestation. Replanted (non-virgin) orchard soils to prevent orchard replant disease. Medium to heavy soils. Prohibition on use of 1,3-dichloropropene products because local township limits for this alternative have been reached. A need for methyl bromide for research purposes.
(c)California wine grape growers Moderate to severe nematodes. Moderate to severe fungal disease infestation. Replanted (non-virgin) orchard soils to prevent orchard replant disease. Medium to heavy soils. Prohibition on use of 1,3-dichloropropene products because local township limits for this alternative have been reached. A need for methyl bromide for research purposes.
(d)California walnut growers Moderate to severe nematodes. Moderate to severe fungal disease infestation. Replanted (non-virgin) orchard soils to prevent orchard replant disease. Medium to heavy soils. Prohibition on use of 1,3-dichloropropene products because local township limits for this alternative have been reached. A need for methyl bromide for research purposes.
(e)California almond growers Moderate to severe nematodes. Moderate to severe fungal disease infestation. Replanted (non-virgin) orchard soils to prevent orchard replant disease. Medium to heavy soils. Prohibition on use of 1,3-dichloropropene products because local township limits for this alternative have been reached. A need for methyl bromide for research purposes. Ornamentals
(a)California growers Moderate to severe disease infestation. Moderate to severe nematodes. Prohibition on use of 1,3-dichloropropene products because local township limits for this alternative have been reached. A need for methyl bromide for research purposes.
(b)Florida growers Moderate to severe weed infestation. Moderate to severe disease infestation. Moderate to severe nematodes. Karst topography. A need for methyl bromide for research purposes. Peppers
(a)California growers Moderate to severe disease infestation. Moderate to severe nematodes. A prohibition on the use of 1,3-dichloropropene products because local township limits for this alternative have been reached. A need for methyl bromide for research purposes.
(b)Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia growers Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation Moderate to severe nematodes. Moderate to severe pythium root, collar, crown and root rots. Presence of an occupied structure within 100 feet of a grower's field the size of 100 acres or less. A need for methyl bromide for research purposes.
(c)Florida growers Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation. Moderate to severe disease infestation. Moderate to severe nematodes. Karst topography. A need for methyl bromide for research purposes.
(d)Georgia growers Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation. Moderate to severe nematodes, or moderate to severe pythium root and collar rots. Moderate to severe southern blight infestation, crown or root rot. A need for methyl bromide for research purposes.
(e)Michigan growers Moderate to severe fungal disease infestation. A need for methyl bromide for research purposes. Strawberry Fruit
(a)California growers Moderate to severe black root rot or crown rot. Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation. Moderate to severe nematodes. Prohibition on use of 1,3-dichloropropene products because local township limits for this alternative have been reached. Time to transition to an alternative. A need for methyl bromide for research purposes.
(b)Florida growers Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge. Moderate to severe nematodes. Moderate to severe disease infestation. Carolina geranium or cut-leaf evening primrose infestation. Karst topography and to a lesser extent a need for methyl bromide for research purposes.
(c)Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia growers Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge. Moderate to severe nematodes. Moderate to severe black root and crown rot. Presence of an occupied structure within 100 feet of a grower's field the size of 100 acres or less. A need for methyl bromide for research purposes. Tomatoes
(a)Michigan growers Moderate to severe disease infestation. Moderate to severe fungal pathogen infestation. A need for methyl bromide for research purposes.
(b)Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia growers Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation. Moderate to severe disease infestation. Moderate to severe nematodes. Presence of an occupied structure within 100 feet of a grower's field the size of 100 acres or less. Karst topography. A need for methyl bromide for research purposes. Turfgrass
(a)U.S. turfgrass sod nursery producers who are members of Turfgrass Producers International
(TPI)Production of industry certified pure sod. Moderate to severe bermudagrass. Moderate to severe nutsedge. Moderate to severe white grub infestation. Control of off-type perennial grass infestation. A need for methyl bromide for research purposes. Post-Harvest Uses: Food Processing
(a)Rice millers in all locations in the U.S. who are members of the USA Rice Millers Association. Moderate to severe infestation of beetles, weevils, or moths. Older structures that can not be properly sealed to use an alternative to methyl bromide. Presence of sensitive electronic equipment subject to corrosivity. Time to transition to an alternative.
(b)Pet food manufacturing facilities in the U.S. who are active members of the Pet Food Institute (For this proposed rule, “pet food” refers to domestic dog and cat food). Moderate to severe infestation or beetles, moths, or cockroaches. Older structures that can not be properly sealed to use an alternative to methyl bromide. Presence of sensitive electronic equipment subject to corrosivity. Time to transition to an alternative.
(c)Kraft Foods in the U.S. Older structures that can not be properly sealed to use an alternative to methyl bromide. Presence of sensitive electronic equipment subject to corrosivity. Time to transition to an alternative.
(d)Members of the North American Millers’ Association in the U.S. Moderate to severe beetle infestation. Older structures that can not be properly sealed to use an alternative to methyl bromide. Presence of sensitive electronic equipment subject to corrosivity. Time to transition to an alternative.
(e)Members of the National Pest Management Association associated with dry commodity structure fumigation (cocoa) and dry commodity fumigation (processed food, herbs and spices, dried milk and cheese processing facilities) Moderate to severe beetle or moth infestation. Older structures that can not be properly sealed to use an alternative to methyl bromide. Presence of sensitive electronic equipment subject to corrosivity. Time to transition to an alternative. Commodity Storage
(a)California entities storing walnuts, beans, dried plums, figs, raisins, dates (in Riverside county only), and pistachios in California Rapid fumigation is required to meet a critical market window, such as during the holiday season, rapid fumigation is required when a buyer provides short (2 working days or less) notification for a purchase or there is a short period after harvest in which to fumigate and there is limited silo availability for using alternatives. A need for methyl bromide for research purposes. Dry Cured Pork Products
(a)Members of the National Country Ham Association Moderate to severe red legged ham beetle infestation. Moderate to severe cheese/ham skipper infestation. Moderate to severe dermested beetle infestation. Ham mite infestation.
(b)Members of the American Association of Meat Processors Moderate to severe red legged ham beetle infestation. Moderate to severe cheese/ham skipper infestation. Moderate to severe dermested beetle infestation. Ham mite infestation.
(c)Nahunta Pork Center (North Carolina) Moderate to severe red legged ham beetle infestation. Moderate to severe cheese/ham skipper infestation. Moderate to severe dermested beetle infestation. Ham mite infestation. [FR Doc. 06-5969 Filed 7-5-06; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 29
Traces to 29 documents
U.S. Code
- Rule making§ 553
- North Pacific fisheries conservation§ 1862
- Purposes§ 3501
- Transferred§ 450
- Additional inspection services§ 136
- Federal Aviation Administration§ 106
- Definitions§ 601
- Unusual and extraordinary threat; declaration of national emergency; exercise of Presidential authorities§ 1701
- Definitions§ 2510
- Congressional declaration of policy§ 3201
- Regulations implementing requirements relating to licensing for components and other parts of facilities§ 2139a
- Federal actions with respect to recycled oil§ 6363
- Rules and regulations§ 7805
- Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information§ 6103
- Phase-out of production and consumption of class I substances§ 7671c
- Establishment, functions, and activities§ 272
- Recordkeeping, inspections, monitoring, and entry§ 7414
register
CFR
- Application.§ 21.303
- What is the legal effect of failing to comply with an airworthiness directive?§ 39.7
- May I address the unsafe condition in a way other than that set out in the airworthiness directive?§ 39.19
- Issue of type certificate: import products.§ 21.29
- The public record.§ 4.9
- Final confidentiality determination by EPA legal office.§ 2.205
35 references not yet in our index
- 50 CFR 300
- 50 CFR 300.65(c)(2)
- 16 USC 773-773k
- 50 CFR 680
- Pub. L. 108-199
- 50 CFR 680.22
- 7 CFR 319
- 7 CFR 319.56
- 7 CFR 2.22
- 7 CFR 319.56-2
- 14 CFR 39
- 14 CFR 21
- 14 CFR 21.203
- 22 CFR 121
- EO 1322
- 15 CFR 742
- 15 CFR 744
- Pub. L. 106-387
- Pub. L. 107-56
- Pub. L. 108-11
- 117 Stat. 559
- 15 CFR 748
- 16 CFR 311
- 15 USC 41-58
- 26 CFR 1
- 26 CFR 301
- 40 CFR 82
- 40 CFR 2
- Pub. L. 105-277
- 40 CFR 82.3
- 40 CFR 82.12
- 40 CFR 9
- 5 USC 603-604
- Pub. L. 104-4
- Pub. L. 104-113
Citation graph
cites case law
Rules and Regulations
Final rule; correcting amendment
Cite50 CFR 300
Cite50 CFR 300.65(c)(2)
Cite16 USC 773-773k
Cites 64 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources