Proposed Rules. Proposed rule

14,132 words·~64 min read·/register/2006/07/14/06-6222·

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

BILLING CODE 9111-14-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2005-0549; FRL-8196-9] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Additional NO X Emission Reductions To Support the Philadelphia-Trenton-Wilmington One-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area, and Remaining NO X SIP Call Requirements AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve State Implementation Plan

(SIP)revisions submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. These revisions pertain to additional nitrogen oxides (NO X ) reductions that are required for the Commonwealth to support its approved attainment demonstration for the Philadelphia-Trenton-Wilmington one-hour ozone nonattainment area (the Philadelphia Area); NO X reductions from stationary internal combustion

(IC)engines required to meet the NO X SIP Call Phase II (Phase II); and NO X reductions from cement kilns to meet the NO X SIP Call. The revisions also include provisions for emission credits for sources that generate zero-emission renewable energy. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 14, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marilyn Powers

(215)814-2308, or by e-mail at *powers.marilyn@epa.gov.* ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R037-OAR-2005-0549 by one of the following methods: A. *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. B. *E-mail:* *morris.makeba@epa.gov* C. *Mail:* EPA-R03-OAR-2005-0549, Makeba Morris, Chief, Air Quality Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. D. *Hand Delivery:* At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. 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-R03-OAR-2005-0549. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through * www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *www.regulations.gov* website is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *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. *Docket:* All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the *www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, *i.e.* , CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 29, 2005, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) submitted SIP revisions that amended Chapters 121, 129, and 145 of PADEP's air quality regulations under 25 Pa. Code Article III (Air Resources). Chapter 121 is amended to include new definitions associated with the revisions to Chapters 129 and 145. Chapter 129 is amended to include new Sections 129.201 through 129.204, which establishes ozone season NO X emission limits for certain boilers, turbines, and stationary internal combustion engines that are small sources of NO X in Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, and Philadelphia counties (the five-county Southeast Pennsylvania Area). Chapter 129 also includes new § 129.205, which allows sources subject to § 129.201 through 129.203 to get emission credits for generating zero-emission renewable energy. Chapter 145 is amended to establish ozone season NO X emission limits for large stationary IC engines and large cement kilns to satisfy the Commonwealth's remaining statewide obligations under the NO X SIP Call (63 FR 57356, October 27, 1998). On February 6, 2006, PADEP submitted a supplementary letter clarifying certain provisions of the March 29, 2005 submission. I. Background A. Pennsylvania's Additional NO X Emission Reduction Requirements for the Philadelphia Area Pennsylvania's approved attainment demonstration for the Philadelphia Area included commitments for additional NO X reductions, see 64 FR 70428, December 16, 1999 and 66 FR 54143, October 26, 2001. Revisions to Chapter 129 establish additional NO X requirements for small sources of NO X in the five-county Southeast Pennsylvania area. These requirements are based, in part, on a model rule developed by the Ozone Transport Commission

(OTC)to address ozone problems in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR). B. Pennsylvania's NO X SIP Call Requirements EPA issued the NO X SIP Call (63 FR 57356, October 27, 1998) to require 22 Eastern states and the District of Columbia to reduce specified amounts of one of the main precursors of ground-level ozone, NO X , in order to reduce interstate ozone transport. EPA found that the sources in these states emit NO X in amounts that contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 1-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) in downwind states. In the NO X SIP Call, the amount of reductions required by states was calculated based on application of available, highly cost-effective controls on specific source categories of NO X . The NO X SIP Call, including the Technical Amendments which addressed the 2007 electric generating units

(EGU)budgets (64 FR 26298, May 14, 1999 and 65 FR 11222, March 2, 2000), was challenged by a number of state, industry, and labor groups. A summary of the NO X SIP Call requirements, including details of the court decisions that were made in response to challenges to the rule and impacts of the court decisions on certain aspects of the rule may be found in EPA's rulemaking dated April 21, 2004 (69 FR 21604) entitled, “Interstate Ozone Transport: Response to Court Decisions on the NO X SIP Call, NO X SIP Call Technical Amendments, and Section 126 Rules.” This rulemaking established States' requirements under Phase II of the NO X SIP Call. The relevant portions of the April 21, 2004 rulemaking that affect Pennsylvania's obligations under the NO X SIP Call, and that pertain to the State's requirements for Phase II, are discussed in this document to provide background on the March 29, 2005 SIP revision submitted by the PADEP. On March 3, 2000, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (DC Circuit) issued its decision on the NO X SIP Call. *Michigan* v. * EPA* , 213 F.3rd 663 (DC Dir. 2000). While the DC Circuit ruled largely in favor of EPA in support of its requirements under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, it also ruled, in part, against EPA on certain issues. The rulings against EPA included two areas of the NO X SIP Call that were remanded and vacated and two areas in which EPA was found to have failed to provide adequate notice of changes in the rule. In the latter case, the rulings included a failure to provide adequate notice of the change in the definition of EGU as applied to cogeneration (cogen) units that supply electricity to a utility power distribution system for sale in certain specified amounts, and a failure to provide adequate notice of the change in the control level EPA assumed for large stationary internal combustion

(IC)engines. The portions of the NO X SIP Call that were upheld by the Court, including emission reductions associated with cement manufacturing, were termed “Phase I” of the rule. With the exception of the remand of the EGU growth factors used in the NO X SIP Call and the requirements for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS (which EPA stayed due to uncertainty created by the court rulings), those portions of the NO X SIP Call that had been remanded back to EPA were finalized in the April 21, 2004 rulemaking (69 FR 21604) and termed “Phase II” of the rule. The Phase II rulemaking of April 21, 2004 finalized specific changes to the definition of EGUs as applied to cogen units, finalized the control levels assumed for large stationary IC engines in the NO X SIP Call, adjusted states' total budgets downward to reflect emission reductions based upon the application of cost effective controls on stationary IC engines that emitted more than 153 tons of NO X during the 1995 ozone season, (see 65 FR 1222, March 2, 2000), established a SIP submittal date of April 1, 2005 for states to address the Phase II portion of the budget, and set a compliance date of May 1, 2007 for affected sources to meet Phase II. This rulemaking established an incremental amount of additional NO X reductions for each state based upon control levels of 82 percent for lean burn engines and 90 percent for rich burn, diesel and dual fuel engines. The change to the definition of cogen units did not have an impact on the Phase I budget previously established for Pennsylvania. Therefore, in order to meet its NO X SIP Call Phase II obligations, the State was required only to achieve the incremental reductions that EPA calculated based on controlling large, stationary IC engines to the prescribed levels. In addition, as part of Phase I, cement manufacturing was determined to be one of the source categories having large contributions to transported emissions, with available, highly cost effective controls that can achieve NO X reductions of 30 percent. Each State's overall NO X budget reflected this level of control on cement kilns that emitted more than 153 tons of NO X during the 1995 ozone season, although a State has flexibility regarding which sources to control to meet the reductions. C. Pennsylvania's Remaining Obligations Under the NO X SIP Call Pennsylvania's NO X SIP Call Phase I trading program was approved as part of the Pennsylvania SIP on August 21, 2001 (66 FR 43795). The NO X SIP Call reductions associated with cement manufacturing facilities and stationary internal combustion engines were not addressed in that rulemaking, therefore the Commonwealth was required to submit SIP revisions to address any additional emission reductions required to meet its overall emissions budget. On March 29, 2005, the Commonwealth submitted a revision to its SIP to satisfy its remaining obligations under the NO X SIP Call. The SIP revision requires NO X emission reductions from large internal combustion engines and large cement kilns statewide. II. Summary of SIP Revisions A. Pennsylvania's Additional NO X Emission Reductions in the Philadelphia Area Amendments to Chapter 121 add definitions of megawatt-hour (MWH), parts per million dry volume (ppmvd), stationary internal combustion engine, tradable renewable certificate, and tradable renewable certificate issuing body. Amendments to Chapter 129 are additional NO X requirements submitted to satisfy the Commonwealth's commitments under the EPA-approved SIP revision for the Philadelphia area. These NO X requirements establish additional emission reductions to support the attainment demonstration for the Philadelphia Area (64 FR 70428, December 16, 1999 and 66 FR 54143, October 26, 2001). The requirements of Chapter 129 are based, in part, on the model rule for additional NO X control measures developed by the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC), of which Pennsylvania is a member. The OTC was created to address ozone problems in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR). Chapter 129 establishes ozone season (May 1 through September 30) emission limits for NO X from boilers with a rated capacity of greater than 100 million Btu/hour but less than or equal to 250 million Btu/hour; turbines with rated capacity of greater than 100 million Btu/hour; and stationary internal combustion engines rated at greater than 1,000 horsepower located at industrial, utility and commercial sites in the five-county Southeast Pennsylvania area. The emission limits are required to be implemented by May 1, 2005 and shall comply with Section 129.204 (relating to emission accountability). Chapter 129 does not affect the large sources that are regulated under Chapter 145, Subchapter B (relating to emissions of NO X from stationary internal combustion engines) and does not apply to the naval marine combustion units operated by the United States Navy for the purposes of testing and operational training, or to units permitted as resource recovery facilities. In addition, Chapter 129 establishes methods for determining NO X allowable emissions for certain boilers, stationary combustion turbines and stationary internal combustion engines (relating to Sections 129.201-129.203). The owner or operator of a unit covered by these sections under Chapter 129 must calculate the difference between NO X allowable emissions and NO X actual emissions under § 129.204. Some boilers and turbines may demonstrate compliance though the opt-in process provisions of §§ 145.80-145.88. The regulation states that an owner or operator may apply unused allowable emissions to its other facilities in the state, but if actual emissions exceed allowable emissions, NO X allowances must be surrendered to the State by November 1 of each year starting in 2005. Failure to surrender the required allowances by this date triggers a requirement to surrender three allowances for every ton of excess NO X emitted. These small NO X sources are not part of the State's NO X Budget Trading Program, do not receive allowances from the State's NO X budget, and must therefore secure NO X allowances on the open market. Section 129.205 establishes provisions for zero-emission renewable energy production credits. It applies in the five-county Southeast Pennylvania area to an owner or operator of small sources of NO X who generate zero-emission renewable energy. An owner or operator may deduct, from its actual emissions, an equivalent amount of NO X emissions that would otherwise be emitted from thermal energy generated by conventional means, subject to conditions stipulated in this section, which the owner or operator must certify have been met. For each ton of NO X deducted under Section 129.205 (i.e., the credit for zero-emissions renewable energy produced), the Commonwealth will retire one NO X allowance from its new source set-aside pool (under its NO X Budget Trading Program) for the subsequent ozone season. B. Pennsylvania's Emission Reductions Under Phase II of the NO X SIP Call Chapter 145, Interstate Pollution Transport Reduction Requirements (Pennsylvania's approved cap and trade program under the NO X SIP Call), is revised by adding new Subchapter B, which establishes statewide ozone season NO X emission limits for large stationary IC engines. Subchapter B, entitled Emissions of NO X From Stationary Internal Combustion Engines, applies to the following types of engines that emitted 153 tons or more of NO X from May 1 through September 30 in any year from 1995 through 2004. As of May 1, 2005, these sources must comply with the following emission limits from May 1 through September 30 of each year:

(1)For rich-burn stationary internal combustion engines having an engine rating equal to or greater than 2,400 brake horsepower, 1.5 grams NO X per brake horsepower-hour,

(2)For lean burn stationary internal combustion engines having an engine rating equal to or greater than 2,400 brake horsepower, 3.0 grams per brake horsepower-hour, and

(3)For diesel stationary internal combustion engines with an engine rating equal to or greater than 3,000 brake horsepower and for dual-fuel stationary internal combustion engines with an engine rating equal to or greater than 4,400 brake horsepower, 2.3 grams NO X per brake horsepower-hour. These emission limits are consistent with the control levels established in Phase II, and achieve the incremental reductions required from this source category. Subchapter B also includes definitions, monitoring requirements, methods for calculating actual and allowable NO X emissions, and includes requirements for surrender of NO X allowances to the State when a unit has excess emissions. C. Emission Reductions From Cement Manufacturing To meet NO X SIP Call reductions associated with cement manufacturing, Chapter 145 is revised by adding new Subchapter C, which establishes NO X emission limits for cement kilns from May 1 through September 30 of each year, starting in 2005. The requirements apply statewide, and establish an emission limit of 6 pounds of NO X per ton of clinker produced. As of October 31, 2005, it applies to any kiln that emitted 153 tons or more of NO X from May 1 through September 30 in any year from 1995 through 2004. EPA's analysis of Pennsylvania's rule showed that this emission level, considered together with the shut down of one kiln (Kosmos) and the emission reductions previously required on certain other kilns, meets the requirements of the NO X SIP Call (see Technical Support Document for a detailed discussion and analysis of emission reductions from affected cement kilns in the Commonwealth). Subchapter C also includes applicability, new definitions, standard requirements for compliance monitoring, requirements for determining allowable and actual emissions, and includes requirements for surrender of NO X allowances to the State when a unit has excess emissions. III. Proposed Action EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revisions submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on March 29, 2005, and supplemented on February 6, 2006. EPA's review of the submittal indicates that the revisions to Chapter 121, addition of new Sections 129.201 though 129.205 (Additional NO X Requirements), revision of Section 145.42 (pertaining to accountability of NO X credit under Section 129.205), and addition of Subchapters B and C to Chapter 145 (pertaining to the State's remaining NO X SIP Call obligations for IC engines and cement kilns, respectively), are approvable. These revisions strengthen the Pennsylvania SIP. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)). This action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This proposed rule also does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal requirement, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this proposed rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order. This proposed rule to approve Pennsylvania's additional NO X emission reductions for the Philadelphia Area and its remaining NO X SIP Call requirements does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Dated: July 6, 2006 William T. Wisniewski, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. [FR Doc. E6-11109 Filed 7-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-2006-0056; FRL-8075-4] Bentazon, Carboxin, Dipropyl Isocinchomeronate, and Oil of Lemongrass (Oil of Lemon) and Oil of Orange; Proposed Tolerance Actions AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to revoke certain tolerances for the fungicide carboxin, the insecticide dipropyl isocinchomeronate, and the fungicide/animal repellent oil of lemon (oil of lemongrass) and oil of orange. Also, EPA is proposing to modify certain tolerances for the herbicide bentazon and the fungicide carboxin. In addition, EPA is proposing to establish new tolerances for the herbicide bentazon. The regulatory actions proposed in this document are part of the Agency's reregistration program under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and the tolerance reassessment requirements of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) section 408(q), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act

(FQPA)of 1996. By law, EPA is required by August 2006 to reassess the tolerances that were in existence on August 2, 1996. No tolerance reassessments will be counted at the time of a final rule because tolerances in existence on August 2, 1996 that are associated with actions proposed herein were previously counted as reassessed at the time of the completed Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED), Report of Food Quality Protection Act

(FQPA)Tolerance Reassessment Progress and Risk Management Decision (TRED), or **Federal Register** . DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 12, 2006. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification

(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0056, by one of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail* : Office of Pesticide Programs

(OPP)Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. • *Delivery* : OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Building); 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The docket telephone number is

(703)305-5805. *Instructions* : Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0056. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-mail. The Federal regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket* : All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. The hours of operation for this docket facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is

(703)305-5805. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Monisha Dandridge, Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:

(703)308-0410; e-mail address: *dandridge.monisha@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to: • Crop production (NAICS code 111) • Animal production (NAICS code 112) • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311) • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532) This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. To determine whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability provisions in Unit II.A. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 1. *Submitting CBI* . Do not submit this information to EPA through 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: i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). ii. Follow directions. The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)part or section number. iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives. vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. C. What Can I do if I Wish the Agency to Maintain a Tolerance that the Agency Proposes to Revoke? This proposed rule provides a comment period of 60 days for any person to state an interest in retaining a tolerance proposed for revocation. If EPA receives a comment within the 60-day period to that effect, EPA will not proceed to revoke the tolerance immediately. However, EPA will take steps to ensure the submission of any needed supporting data and will issue an order in the **Federal Register** under FFDCA section 408(f) if needed. The order would specify data needed and the time frames for its submission, and would require that within 90 days some person or persons notify EPA that they will submit the data. If the data are not submitted as required in the order, EPA will take appropriate action under FFDCA. EPA issues a final rule after considering comments that are submitted in response to this proposed rule. In addition to submitting comments in response to this proposal, you may also submit an objection at the time of the final rule. If you fail to file an objection to the final rule within the time period specified, you will have waived the right to raise any issues resolved in the final rule. After the specified time, issues resolved in the final rule cannot be raised again in any subsequent proceedings. II. Background A. What Action is the Agency Taking? EPA is proposing to revoke, modify and establish specific tolerances for residues of the herbicide bentazon, the fungicide carboxin, the insecticide dipropyl isocinchomeronate, and the fungicide/animal repellent oil of lemon (oil of lemongrass) and oil of orange in or on commodities listed in the regulatory text. EPA is proposing these tolerance actions to implement the tolerance recommendations made during the reregistration and tolerance reassessment processes (including follow-up on canceled or additional uses of pesticides). As part of these processes, EPA is required to determine whether each of the amended tolerances meets the safety standard of the FQPA. The safety finding determination of “reasonable certainty of no harm” is discussed in detail in each Reregistration Eligibility Decision

(RED)and Report of the FQPA Tolerance Reassessment Progress and Risk Management Decision

(TRED)for the active ingredient. REDs and TREDs recommend the implementation of certain tolerance actions, including modifications to reflect current use patterns, meet safety findings, and change commodity names and groupings in accordance with new EPA policy. Printed copies of many REDs and TREDs may be obtained from EPA's National Service Center for Environmental Publications (EPA/NSCEP), P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, OH 45242-2419, telephone 1-800-490-9198; fax 1-513-489-8695; internet at *http://www.epa.gov/ncepihom* and from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161, telephone 1-800-553-6847 or

(703)605-6000; internet at *http://www.ntis.gov* . Electronic copies of REDs and TREDs are available on the internet for bentazon, carboxin, dipropyl isocinchomeronate, and flower and vegetable oils (this refers to oil of lemongrass (oil of lemon) and oil of orange) at *http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/status.htm* , and also for carboxin and dipropyl isocinchomeronate in public dockets EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0233, EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0124 and, EPA-HQ-OPP-2003-0123, respectively. Paper copies for bentazon and flower and vegetable oils, which includes oil of lemon (oil of lemongrass) and oil of orange, available in the public docket for this rule. The selection of an individual tolerance level is based on crop field residue studies designed to produce the maximum residues under the existing or proposed product label. Generally, the level selected for a tolerance is a value slightly above the maximum residue found in such studies. The evaluation of whether a tolerance is safe is a separate inquiry. EPA recommends the raising of a tolerance when data show that

(1)lawful use (sometimes through a label change) may result in a higher residue level on the commodity and

(2)the tolerance remains safe, notwithstanding increased residue level allowed under the tolerance. In REDs, Chapter IV on “Risk Management, Reregistration, and Tolerance Reassessment” typically describes the regulatory position, FQPA assessment, cumulative safety determination, determination of safety for U.S. general population, and safety for infants and children. In particular, the human health risk assessment document which supports the RED describes risk exposure estimates and whether the Agency has concerns. In TREDs, the Agency discusses its evaluation of the dietary risk associated with the active ingredient and whether it can determine that there is a reasonable certainty (with appropriate mitigation) that no harm to any population subgroup will result from aggregate exposure. Explanations for proposed modifications in tolerances can be found in the RED and TRED document and in more detail in the Residue Chemistry Chapter document which supports the RED and TRED. Copies of the Residue Chemistry Chapter documents are found in the Administrative Record and paper copies for carboxin can be found under its respective public docket number EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0124, identified above. Paper copies for bentazon are available in the public docket for this rule. Because food use registrations have not existed for oil of lemon (oil of lemongrass), oil of orange, and dipropyl isocinchomeronate, the Agency residue assessment was not needed. Electronic copies are available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, regulations.gov at *http://www.regulations.gov* . You may search for this rule under docket number EPA-HQ-OPP--2006-0056, or for an individual chemical under its respective docket number, then click on that docket number to view its contents. The aggregate exposures and risks are not of concern for the pesticide active ingredient bentazon, carboxin, dipropyl isocinchomeronate, and oil of lemon (oil of lemongrass) and oil of orange based upon the data identified in the RED or TRED, which lists the submitted studies that the Agency found acceptable. EPA has found that the tolerances that are proposed in this document to be established or modified, are safe, i.e., that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residues, in accordance with section 408(b)(2)(C). (Note that changes to tolerance nomenclature do not constitute modifications of tolerances). These findings are discussed in detail in each RED or TRED. The references are available for inspection as described in this document under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION . In addition, EPA is proposing to revoke certain specific tolerances because either they are no longer needed or are associated with food uses that are no longer registered under FIFRA. Those instances where registrations were canceled were because the registrant failed to pay the required maintenance fee and/or the registrant voluntarily canceled one or more registered uses of the pesticide. It is EPA's general practice to propose revocation of those tolerances for residues of pesticide active ingredients on crop uses for which there are no active registrations under FIFRA, unless any person in comments on the proposal indicates a need for the tolerance to cover residues in or on imported commodities or domestic commodities legally treated. 1. *Bentazon* . The available residue data for bentazon indicate that the established tolerances for cowpea, forage; pea, dry, seed; pea, field, hay; soybean, forage; and soybean, hay should be increased. Therefore, EPA is proposing to increase tolerances in 40 CFR 180.355(a)(1) for the residues of bentazon in or on cowpea, forage from 3.0 to 10.0 ppm; pea, dry, seed from 0.05 to 1.0 ppm; pea, field, hay from 3.0 to 8.0; soybean, forage from 3.0 to 8.0 ppm and soybean, hay from 3.0 to 8.0 ppm. The Agency has determined that the increased tolerances are safe; i.e., there is no reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. The Agency determined that the tolerance on pepper, nonbell should be decreased to 0.05 ppm, which is the limit of detection for bentazon residues of concern. Therefore, the Agency is proposing to decrease the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.355(a)(1) for the combined residues of bentazon and its metabolites in or on pepper, nonbell to 0.05 ppm. The processing data on rice indicate the residues concentrate in hulls. Therefore, EPA is proposing to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.355(a)(1) for the combined residues of bentazon and its metabolites in or on rice, hulls at 0.25 ppm. In order to conform to current Agency policy on commodity terminology, EPA is proposing to modify the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.355(a)(1), for residues of bentazon in or on mint to peppermint, tops and spearmint, tops and maintain the tolerance level at 1.0 ppm. 2. *Carboxin* . According to the TRED, the tolerance expression, which is currently expressed as “combined residues of the fungicide carboxin (5,6-dihydro-2-methyl-1,4-oxathiin-3-carboxanilide) and its metabolite 5,6-dihydro-3-carboxanilide-2-meth yl-1,4-oxathiin-4-oxide (calculated as carboxin) (from treatment of seed prior to planting) in or on raw agricultural commodities as follows” in 40 CFR 180.301(a) should be modified. The residue chemistry data indicates that as crops mature, insoluble anilide complexes as well as polar metabolites increased. These complexes of carboxin or carboxin derivatives with macromolecules such as lignin are insoluble in water and organic solvents and liberate aniline upon hydrolysis. Further, analytical methods for detection of carboxin regulated residues produce aniline (convert carboxin and carboxin derived metabolite to aniline), which is determined either spectrophotometrically or by gas-liquid chromatography (GLC). Therefore, the residues of concern are carboxin, carboxin sulfoxide, and insoluble anilide complexes. Consequently, EPA is proposing that the tolerance expression in 40 CFR 180.301(a) read as follows: “(a) General. Tolerances are established for the combined residues of the fungicide carboxin (5,6-dihydro-2-methyl-1,4-oxathiin-3-carboxanilide) and its metabolites determined as aniline and expressed as parent compound, in or on food commodities as follows:” Because bean forage, hay, and straw are no longer considered significant livestock feed stuffs and have been deleted from Table OPPTS 860.1000 (available at *http://www.epa.gov/opptsfrs/OPPTS_Harmonized/ 860_Residue_Chemistry_Test_Guidelines/Series);* the tolerances are no longer needed. Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.301(a) on bean, forage; bean, hay; and bean, straw. Carboxin has had no active registrations for uses on sorghum over a period of many years. Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.301(a) for residues of carboxin in or on sorghum are no longer needed, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.301(a) for sorghum, forage; sorghum, grain; and sorghum, grain, stover. Based on the ruminant feeding study, the lack of residues detected on the poultry feedstuff produced from treated seeds and the use of carboxin only as a fungicide on seeds indicate there is no propensity for residues to accumulate in animal tissues, the tolerance should be established at the level of quantitation of the analytical method of 0.05 ppm rather than the current tolerance level of 0.01 ppm. Therefore, EPA is proposing to increase the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.301(a) for combined residues of carboxin and its metabolites in or on egg from 0.01 to 0.05 ppm. The Agency has determined that the increased tolerances are safe; i.e., there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. Based on 14 C-radiolabeled dairy cattle feeding data at an exaggerated 1.15x feeding level, milk showed combined carboxin residues of concern. The 14 C-radiolabeled feeding study had a lower limit of quantitation

(LOQ)than the enforcement method and therefore the tolerance should be established at the LOQ of the enforcement analytical method (0.05 ppm). Therefore, EPA is proposing to increase the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.301(a) for combined residues of carboxin and its metabolites in or on “milk” from 0.01 to 0.05 ppm. The Agency has determined that the increased tolerances are safe; i.e., there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. A dairy cattle feeding study conducted at an exaggerated (1.15x) feeding level, shows combined carboxin regulated residues were as low as 0.023 and 0.007 ppm in meat and fat. Therefore, EPA is proposing to decrease the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.301(a) for residues of carboxin in or on the meat and fat of cattle, goats, hogs, horses, and sheep from 0.01 to 0.05 ppm, respectively. In order to conform to current Agency practice, EPA is proposing to revise the commodity terminology in 40 CFR 180.301(a), for residues of carboxin in or on corn, stover to read corn, field, stover; corn, pop, stover and corn, sweet, stover; corn, forage to corn, field, forage; and, corn, sweet, forage; “corn, fresh, including sweet corn, kernel plus cob with husks removed to read corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed; corn, grain to corn, field, grain and corn, pop, grain; oat, seed to read oat, grain; rice to rice, grain; and soybean to read soybean, seed. 3. *Dipropyl isocinchomeronate (MGK 326)* . There have been no active registrations for uses associated with livestock or milk commodities since 1996, such that these tolerances are no longer needed, and therefore EPA is proposing to revoke the commodity tolerances in 40 CFR 180.143(a) for residues of dipropyl isocinchomeronate in or on cattle, fat; cattle, meat; cattle, meat byproducts; goat, fat; goat, meat; goat, meat byproducts; hog, fat; hog, meat; hog, meat byproducts; horse, fat; horse, meat; horse, meat byproducts; milk; sheep, fat; sheep, meat; and, sheep, meat byproducts. 4. *Oil of lemongrass (oil of lemon) and oil of orange* . Oil of lemon is not a registered pesticide active ingredient nor has it ever been an active ingredient in any pesticide product. However, the Agency has determined that the exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance under 40 CFR 180.1238 apply to Oil of lemongrass, which is a registered active ingredient included in the 1993 RED entitled Flower and Vegetable Oils. There have been no active food-use registrations within the past 10 years which contain either oil of lemongrass or oil of orange as pesticide active ingredients. Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerance exemptions on raw agricultural commodities in 40 CFR 180.1238 and 180.1239 for oil of lemon (oil of lemongrass) and oil of orange, respectively, when used as a postharvest fungicide. B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action? A “tolerance” represents the maximum level for residues of pesticide chemicals legally allowed in or on raw agricultural commodities and processed foods. Section 408 of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a, as amended by the FQPA of 1996, Public Law 104-170, authorizes the establishment of tolerances, exemptions from tolerance requirements, modifications in tolerances, and revocation of tolerances for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on raw agricultural commodities and processed foods. Without a tolerance or exemption, food containing pesticide residues is considered to be unsafe and therefore, “adulterated” under section 402(a) of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 342(a). Such food may not be distributed in interstate commerce (21 U.S.C. 331(a)). For a food-use pesticide to be sold and distributed, the pesticide must not only have appropriate tolerances under the FFDCA, but also must be registered under FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136 *et seq* .). Food-use pesticides not registered in the United States must have tolerances in order for commodities treated with those pesticides to be imported into the United States. EPA is proposing these tolerance actions to implement the tolerance recommendations made during the reregistration and tolerance reassessment processes (including follow-up on canceled or additional uses of pesticides). As part of these processes, EPA is required to determine whether each of the amended tolerances meets the safety standard of the FQPA. The safety finding determination is discussed in detail in each post-FQPA RED and TRED for the active ingredient. REDs and TREDs recommend the implementation of certain tolerance actions, including modifications to reflect current use patterns, to meet safety findings, and change commodity names and groupings in accordance with new EPA policy. Printed and electronic copies of the REDs and TREDs are available as provided in Unit II.A. EPA has issued a post-FQPA RED for carboxin and dipropyl isocinchomeronate (MGK 326), and a pre-FQPA RED for bentazon, whose tolerances were reassessed post-FQPA as part of the Agency's determination on March 8, 2000 (65 FR 12122) (FRL-6492-7) to establish new bentazon uses and therefore a TRED to reassess its tolerances was not needed. Also, EPA has issued a TRED for oil of lemongrass (oil of lemon) and oil of orange, as these active ingredients were part of the Flower and Vegetable Oils pre FQPA RED. REDs and TREDs contain the Agency's evaluation of the data base for these pesticides, including requirements for additional data on the active ingredients to confirm the potential human health and environmental risk assessments associated with current product uses, and in REDs state conditions under which these uses and products will be eligible for reregistration. The REDs and TREDs recommended the establishment, modification, and/or revocation of specific tolerances. RED and TRED recommendations such as establishing or modifying tolerances, and in some cases revoking tolerances, are the result of assessment under the FQPA standard of “reasonable certainty of no harm.” However, tolerance revocations recommended in REDs and TREDs that are proposed in this document do not need such assessment when the tolerances are no longer necessary. EPA's general practice is to propose revocation of tolerances for residues of pesticide active ingredients on crops for which FIFRA registrations no longer exist and on which the pesticide may therefore no longer be used in the United States. EPA has historically been concerned that retention of tolerances that are not necessary to cover residues in or on legally treated foods may encourage misuse of pesticides within the United States. Nonetheless, EPA will establish and maintain tolerances even when corresponding domestic uses are canceled if the tolerances, which EPA refers to as “import tolerances,” are necessary to allow importation into the United States of food containing such pesticide residues. However, where there are no imported commodities that require these import tolerances, the Agency believes it is appropriate to revoke tolerances for unregistered pesticides in order to prevent potential misuse. Furthermore, as a general matter, the Agency believes that retention of import tolerances not needed to cover any imported food may result in unnecessary restriction on trade of pesticides and foods. Under section 408 of the FFDCA, a tolerance may only be established or maintained if EPA determines that the tolerance is safe based on a number of factors, including an assessment of the aggregate exposure to the pesticide and an assessment of the cumulative effects of such pesticide and other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity. In doing so, EPA must consider potential contributions to such exposure from all tolerances. If the cumulative risk is such that the tolerances in aggregate are not safe, then every one of these tolerances is potentially vulnerable to revocation. Furthermore, if unneeded tolerances are included in the aggregate and cumulative risk assessments, the estimated exposure to the pesticide would be inflated. Consequently, it may be more difficult for others to obtain needed tolerances or to register needed new uses. To avoid potential trade restrictions, the Agency is proposing to revoke tolerances for residues on crops uses for which FIFRA registrations no longer exist, unless someone expresses a need for such tolerances. Through this proposed rule, the Agency is inviting individuals who need these import tolerances to identify themselves and the tolerances that are needed to cover imported commodities. Parties interested in retention of the tolerances should be aware that additional data may be needed to support retention. These parties should be aware that, under FFDCA section 408(f), if the Agency determines that additional information is reasonably required to support the continuation of a tolerance, EPA may require that parties interested in maintaining the tolerances provide the necessary information. If the requisite information is not submitted, EPA may issue an order revoking the tolerance at issue. When EPA establishes tolerances for pesticide residues in or on raw agricultural commodities, consideration must be given to the possible residues of those chemicals in meat, milk, poultry, and/or eggs produced by animals that are fed agricultural products (for example, grain or hay) containing pesticides residues (40 CFR 180.6). When considering this possibility, EPA can conclude that: 1. Finite residues will exist in meat, milk, poultry, and/or eggs. 2. There is a reasonable expectation that finite residues will exist. 3. There is a reasonable expectation that finite residues will not exist. If there is no reasonable expectation of finite pesticide residues in or on meat, milk, poultry, or eggs, tolerances do not need to be established for these commodities (40 CFR 180.6(b) and (c)). EPA has evaluated certain specific meat, milk, poultry, and egg tolerances proposed for revocation in this rule and has concluded that there is no reasonable expectation of finite pesticide residues of concern in or on those commodities. C. When do These Actions Become Effective? EPA is proposing that revocations, modifications, and establishments of tolerances, and commodity terminology revisions become effective on the date of publication of the final rule in the **Federal Register** . For this rule, proposed revocations will affect tolerances for uses which have been canceled for many years or are no longer needed. The Agency believes that treated commodities have had sufficient time for passage through the channels of trade. However, if EPA is presented with information that existing stocks would still be available and that information is verified, the Agency will consider extending the expiration date of the tolerance. If you have comments regarding existing stocks and whether the effective date allows sufficient time for treated commodities to clear the channels of trade, please submit comments as described under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION . Any commodities listed in this proposal treated with the pesticides subject to this proposal, and in the channels of trade following the tolerance revocations, shall be subject to FFDCA section 408(1)(5), as established by FQPA. Under this section, any residues of these pesticides in or on such food shall not render the food adulterated so long as it is shown to the satisfaction of the Food and Drug Administration that:

(1)The residue is present as the result of an application or use of the pesticide at a time and in a manner that was lawful under FIFRA, and

(2)the residue does not exceed the level that was authorized at the time of the application or use to be present on the food under a tolerance or exemption from tolerance. Evidence to show that food was lawfully treated may include records that verify the dates when the pesticide was applied to such food. D. What Is the Contribution to Tolerance Reassessment? By law, EPA is required by August 3, 2006 to reassess the tolerances in existence on August 2, 1996. As of May 30, 2006, EPA has reassessed over 8,140 tolerances. Regarding tolerances mentioned in this proposed rule, tolerances in existence as of August 2, 1996 were previously counted as reassessed at the time of the signature completion of a post-FQPA RED or TRED for each active ingredient. Therefore, no further tolerance reassessments would be counted toward the August 2006 review deadline. III. Are The Proposed Actions Consistent with International Obligations? The tolerance revocations in this proposal are not discriminatory and are designed to ensure that both domestically-produced and imported foods meet the food safety standard established by the FFDCA. The same food safety standards apply to domestically produced and imported foods. EPA is working to ensure that the U.S. tolerance reassessment program under FQPA does not disrupt international trade. EPA considers Codex Maximum Residue Limits

(MRLs)in setting U.S. tolerances and in reassessing them. MRLs are established by the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues, a committee within the Codex Alimentarius Commission, an international organization formed to promote the coordination of international food standards. It is EPA's policy to harmonize U.S. tolerances with Codex MRLs to the extent possible, provided that the MRLs achieve the level of protection required under FFDCA. EPA's effort to harmonize with Codex MRLs is summarized in the tolerance reassessment section of individual Reregistration Eligibility Decision documents. EPA has developed guidance concerning submissions for import tolerance support of June 1, 2000, (65 FR 35069 FRL-6559-3). This guidance will be made available to interested persons. Electronic copies are available on the internet at *http://www.epa.gov* . On the Home Page select “Laws, Regulations, and Dockets,” then select Regulations and Proposed Rules and then look up the entry for this document under “ **Federal Register** -Environmental Documents.” You can also go directly to the “ **Federal Register** ” listings at *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr* . IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews In this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to establish tolerances under FFDCA section 408(e), and also modify and revoke specific tolerances established under FFDCA section 408. The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)has exempted these types of actions (i.e., establishment and modification of a tolerance and tolerance revocation for which extraordinary circumstances do not exist) from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled *Regulatory Planning and Review* (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this proposed rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of significance, this proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, *Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use* (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This proposed rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq* ., or impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(UMRA)(Pub. Law 104-4). Nor does it require any special considerations as required by Executive Order 12898, entitled *Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations* (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994); or OMB review or any other Agency action under Executive Order 13045, entitled *Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks* (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Pub. Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(RFA)(5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq* .), the Agency previously assessed whether establishment of tolerances, exemptions from tolerances, raising of tolerance levels, expansion of exemptions, or revocations might significantly impact a substantial number of small entities and concluded that, as a general matter, these actions do not impose a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. These analyses for tolerance establishments and modifications, and for tolerance revocations were published on May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950) and on December 17, 1997 (62 FR 66020), respectively, and were provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. Taking into account this analysis, and available information concerning the pesticides listed in this proposed rule, the Agency hereby certifies that this proposed action will not have a significant negative economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In a memorandum dated May 25, 2001, EPA determined that eight conditions must all be satisfied in order for an import tolerance or tolerance exemption revocation to adversely affect a significant number of small entity importers, and that there is a negligible joint probability of all eight conditions holding simultaneously with respect to any particular revocation. (This Agency document is available in the docket of this proposed rule). Furthermore, for the pesticide named in this proposed rule, the Agency knows of no extraordinary circumstances that exist as to the present proposal that would change the EPA's previous analysis. Any comments about the Agency's determination should be submitted to the EPA along with comments on the proposal, and will be addressed prior to issuing a final rule. In addition, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled *Federalism* (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” This proposed rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers and food retailers, not States. This action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of section 408(n)(4) of the FFDCA. For these same reasons, the Agency has determined that this proposed rule does not have any “tribal implications” as described in Executive Order 13175, entitled *Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments* (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000). Executive Order 13175, requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” “Policies that have tribal implications” is defined in the Executive order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.” This proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: July 5, 2006. James Jones, Director, Office of Pesticide Programs. Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR chapter I be amended as follows: PART 180 —[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. § 180.143 [Removed] 2. Section 180.143 is removed. 3. Section 180.301 is amended by revising paragraph

(a)to read as follows: §180.301 Carboxin; tolerances for residues.

(a)*General* . Tolerances are established for the combined residues of the fungicide carboxin (5,6-dihydro-2-methyl-1,4-oxathiin-3-carboxanilide) and its metabolites determined as aniline and expressed as parent compound, in or on food commodities as follows: Commodity Parts per million Barley, grain 0.2 Barley, straw 0.2 Bean, dry, seed 0.2 Bean, succulent 0.2 Canola, seed 0.03 Cattle, fat 0.05 Cattle, meat 0.05 Cattle, meat byproducts 0.1 Corn, field, forage 0.2 Corn, field, grain 0.2 Corn, field, stover 0.2 Corn, pop, grain 0.2 Corn, pop, stover 0.2 Corn, sweet, forage 0.2 Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed 0.2 Corn, sweet, stover 0.2 Cotton, undelinted seed 0.2 Egg 0.05 Goat, fat 0.05 Goat, meat 0.05 Goat, meat byproducts 0.1 Hog, fat 0.05 Hog, meat 0.05 Hog, meat byproducts 0.1 Horse, fat 0.05 Horse, meat 0.05 Horse, meat byproducts 0.1 Milk 0.05 Oat, forage 0.5 Oat, grain 0.2 Oat, straw 0.2 Onion, bulb 0.2 Peanut 0.2 Peanut, hay 0.2 Poultry, fat 0.1 Poultry, meat 0.1 Poultry, meat byproducts 0.1 Rice, grain 0.2 Rice, straw 0.2 Safflower, seed 0.2 Sheep, fat 0.05 Sheep, meat 0.05 Sheep, meat byproducts 0.1 Soybean, seed 0.2 Wheat, forage 0.5 Wheat, grain 0.2 Wheat, straw 0.2 4. Section 180.355 is amended by revising the table in paragraph

(a)to read as follows: §180.355 Bentazon; tolerances for residues.

(a)*General* . * * * Commodity Parts per million Bean, dry, seed 0.05 Bean, succulent 0.5 Corn, field, forage 3.0 Corn, field, grain 0.05 Corn, field, stover 3.0 Corn, pop, grain 0.05 Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed 0.05 Cowpea, forage 10.0 Cowpea, hay 3.0 Flax, seed 1.0 Pea, dry, seed 1.0 Pea, field, hay 8.0 Pea, field, vines 3.0 Pea, succulent 3.0 Peanut 0.05 Peanut, hay 3.0 Pepper, nonbell 0.05 Peppermint, tops 1.0 Rice, grain 0.05 Rice, hulls 0.25 Rice, straw 3.0 Sorghum, forage 0.20 Sorghum, grain 0.05 Sorghum, grain, stover 0.05 Soybean, seed 0.05 Soybean, forage 8.0 Soybean, hay 8.0 Spearmint, tops 1.0 § § 180.1238 and 180.1239 [Removed] 5. Sections 180.1238 and 180.1239 are removed. [FR Doc. E6-11016 Filed 7-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 571 [Docket No. NHTSA 2006-24342] Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT. ACTION: Denial of Petitions for Rulemaking and Defect Determination. SUMMARY: This document denies a petition for rulemaking and defect determinations submitted by Mr. James E. Hofferberth to prevent the installation by States of seat belts in large school buses and declare school buses equipped with seat belts to be safety defects. After reviewing the petition, NHTSA concludes that there is no justification for changing its longstanding position that States may require seat belts at passenger seating positions in large public school buses. We also conclude that there is no basis to declare that school buses equipped with seat belts have safety-related defects, or to recall existing school buses installed with seat belts. The petitioner did not provide any data that NHTSA has not considered in the past. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For legal issues: Ms. Dorothy Nakama, Office of the Chief Counsel, phone

(202)366-2992. For technical issues: Mr. Charles R. Hott, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, NVS-113, phone

(202)366-0247. You can reach both of these officials at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 20590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 26, 2005, NHTSA received a petition from Mr. James E. Hofferberth to preempt and prevent the installation of seat belts in large school buses (gross vehicle weight rating greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) (also called “full-sized school buses” by the petitioner) and declare school buses equipped with seat belts defective. He petitioned to: 1. Preempt, prevent and preclude the possibility of the installation of seat belts or safety belts in full sized school buses. 2. Declare school buses equipped with seat belts or safety belts as defective relative to safety and order that all such vehicles be recalled and repaired immediately to full compliance with letter and intent of the applicable motor vehicle safety standard. 3. Initiate criminal, civil or any alternative punitive action available to [the Secretary of Transportation] under the law against any individual or organization that ordered or performed the installation of seat belts or safety belts in school buses. 4. Require that any device installed in full sized school buses be proven to neither reduce the overall safety of children of all relevant sizes and ages during transportation related to school activities with due consideration to all factors affecting that safety nor preclude or diminish in any way the safety provision of the motor vehicle safety standards related to school buses. In his petition, Mr. Hofferberth stated his belief that several State and local governments have enacted or are considering requirements for seat belts or safety belts in full sized school buses, that full sized school buses are subject to established Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS), that installation of seat belts or safety belts in full sized school buses overrides or precludes the effectiveness of the safety features required in full sized school buses, and that the installation of seat belts or safety belts in full sized school buses creates an unnecessary and unacceptable risk of injury and fatality to school bus passengers. He also submitted supplemental information and analysis on November 16, 2005 1 . He reviewed cited tests in the agency's April 2002 report to Congress, “School Bus Safety: Crashworthiness Research,” and concluded that abdominal injury measurements, which he alleged were not included in the report to Congress, for lap and shoulder belted occupants were between 1.6 and 2.3 times higher than for comparable unbelted occupants. For lap belted occupants, he stated that the abdominal injury measurements were between 2.9 and 5.6 times higher than for comparable unbelted occupants, and that these loadings of the belted occupants were well above the threshold of serious to fatal injury. He stated that abdominal loading of the unbelted child was 135 pounds, and this type of loading is substantially less injurious than when belts are used to apply the loads, and would not be likely to cause serious abdominal injury. He believed that the increases in injury severity for belted occupants are consistent with “seat belt syndrome” and provided a bibliography of various research reports and articles on the subject. 1 For a full copy of Mr. Hofferberth's supplemental information, please refer to *dms.dot.gov* (Docket Number 24342). Mr. Hofferberth argued that the modification of standard seats to accommodate belt loading increased the head, neck and chest injury readings for all unbelted occupants and degraded the level of safety performance provided by standard seats designed for use with the compartmentalization requirements of FMVSS No. 222. The petitioner stated that section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (recodified at 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)) provides that no “State or political subdivisions [sic] of a State shall have any authority either to establish or continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any motor vehicle [sic] safety standard applicable to the same aspect of [performance of such vehicle or item of] equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard.” It was his opinion that the “aspect” which overlaps the “motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment” regulated by FMVSS No. 222 is the level of injury protection provided by the school buses and the compartmentalization restraint equipment and performance required by FMVSS No. 222. Therefore, he argued that FMVSS No. 222 preempts all State and local requirements relating to the installation of belt restraints in full size school buses, and that the use of belt restraints installed in full size school buses should be prohibited until such time as the belts can be removed or otherwise rendered inoperable. Analysis of the Petition for Rulemaking The agency has conducted a review of the rulemaking petition in accordance with 49 CFR Section 552.6. We are denying the petition, based on that review. NHTSA is responsible for establishing Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) to reduce the number of fatalities and injuries from motor vehicle crashes, including those involving school buses. NHTSA also works with the States on school bus safety and occupant protection programs. New school buses must meet safety standards for various aspects of school bus safety, including the passenger crash protection requirements of FMVSS No. 222. Rather than requiring passenger seat belts on large school buses, FMVSS No. 222 provides crash protection through a concept called “compartmentalization.” Children are compartmentalized in a protective envelope consisting of strong, closely-spaced seats that have energy-absorbing seat backs. Through compartmentalization, children are protected without the need to buckle up. Currently, there are four States that require seat belts in all school buses. New York, New Jersey and Florida require lap belts, and California requires lap and shoulder belts in all school buses. NHTSA does not maintain a record of local school boards that also may require seat belts on buses. However, a University of South Florida

(USF)study 2 revealed that many districts might require such systems even though it is not mandatory in their State. At the time of the USF study, only New York required seat belts in all school buses. 2 “To Belt or Not To Belt, Experiences of School Districts that Operate Large School Buses Equipped with Seat Belts,” Final Report, August 1994, Center for Urban Transportation Research, College of Engineering, University of South Florida. Federal preemption of State motor vehicle safety standards is governed by Section 30103(b) of 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. (the “Vehicle Safety Act”). Section 30103(b)(1) states: When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter [49 USCS §§ 30101 et seq.], a State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter [49 USCS §§ 30101 et seq.]. However, the United States Government, a State, or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe a standard for a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment obtained for its own use that imposes a higher performance requirement than that required by the otherwise applicable standard under this chapter [49 USCS §§ 30101 et seq.]. NHTSA has previously addressed the preemption issue raised by the petitioner 3 . A State law that requires seat belts on all large school buses conflicts with FMVSS No. 222 and is preempted. However, the last sentence of § 30103(b) permits a State to prescribe a standard for school buses obtained for its own use that imposes a higher performance requirement than that required by the otherwise applicable FMVSS. (We have interpreted the phrase “vehicles procured for (the State's) own use” to include public school buses and those under contract to transport children to and from public school. However, school buses purchased by private schools would not be included). Thus, as the last sentence of § 30103(b) makes clear, States are free to require seat belts on school buses which the State purchases for its own use. 3 Denial of Petition for Rulemaking, September 10, 1981 46 FR 4571, interpretation letter to Mr. Martin Chauvin, February 20, 1987. NHTSA has permitted the co-existence of seat belts with compartmentalization requirements on large school buses since the beginning of FMVSS No. 222. NHTSA published the final rule establishing FMVSS No. 222 on January 28, 1976 (41 FR 4016). This regulation became effective for all newly manufactured school buses on and after April 1, 1977. In the rulemaking leading to the 1976 final rule, four notices of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)were published. 4 Throughout the course of that rulemaking, the issue of requiring seat belts and/or belt anchorages on large school buses was extensively contemplated. Although the agency decided not to require the belts or anchorage systems, the agency clearly intended to allow State and local jurisdictions the choice of installing seat belts. For example 5 , in the October 1975 NPRM, the agency confirmed State and local jurisdictional choice to install belts when it stated (46 FR at 45171): 4 February 22, 1973 (38 FR 4776), July 30, 1974 (39 FR 27586), April 23, 1975 (40 FR 17855) and October 8, 1975 (40 FR 47141). 5 See also April 23, 1975 NPRM, in which NHTSA proposed (but subsequently did not adopt) a provision for built-in seat belt anchorages in addition to compartmentalization requirements stating that it “finds it desirable to allow local school boards the option of installing belts, if they decide the additional protection is worth the extra expense.” A greater measure of protection may be obtained [over compartmentalization alone] if a particular end user chooses to use the anchorages by installation of seat belts together with a system to assure that seat belts are worn, properly adjusted, and not misused. School bus users are free to choose whether or not to install belts. NHTSA has consistently construed the FMVSS as not preempting State requirements concerning seat belts in large school buses where there is no showing that those requirements adversely impact compliance with the FMVSS. Seat belts on large school buses can be considered to satisfy the “higher performance” threshold of the last sentence of § 30103(b) because, when properly worn, they can supplement compartmentalization by restraining passengers in crashes other than frontal crashes, e.g., in rollovers. In its 1999 report on seat belts on large school buses, the National Transportation Safety Board

(NTSB)6 concluded that the compartmentalization requirement for school buses in FMVSS No. 222 is incomplete because it does not protect school bus passengers in rollovers or in lateral impacts from large vehicles, because in such accidents passengers do not always remain completely within the seating compartment. Despite the NTSB conclusion, NHTSA has not found that a sufficient safety need exists with respect to those non-frontal crashes to warrant requiring seat belts on large school buses. 7 However, we have always permitted States to choose to require the safety devices over and above the Federal requirements in the school buses they purchase. 6 NTSB/SIR-99/04, Highway Safety Report, Bus Crashworthiness Issues, September 1999, National Transportation Safety Board. 7 In its 1987 report on the crashworthiness of large, post-April 1, 1977 school buses, NTSB concluded that passengers in the cases studied would have received no net benefit from lap belt use, and that most of the severe injuries and fatalities were due to passengers being seated directly in the impact zone (NTSB/SS-87/01, Safety Study, Crashworthiness of Large Post-standard School Buses, March 1987, National Transportation Safety Board). Likewise, the National Academy of Sciences

(NAS)concluded that the overall potential benefits of requiring seat belts on large school buses are insufficient to justify a Federal requirement for mandatory installation. Special Report 222, Improving School Bus Safety, National Academy of Sciences, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 1989. NAS also stated that the funds used to purchase and maintain seat belts might better be spent on other school bus safety programs and devices that could save more lives and reduce more injuries. NHTSA's April 2002 report to Congress 8 found that the addition of lap belts slightly raised the potential risk for head injury. However, these were *severe* frontal impacts that were studied for the report. Conversely, lap belts have been on large school buses for over 30 years without any documented injuries resulting from the use of the seat belt restraint systems. 9 We cannot make a determination, based on the results of limited testing with belt restraints in a severe frontal condition that showed performance only slightly reduced from that of compartmentalization, that the addition of seat belts in large school buses reduces overall occupant protection. 8 School Bus Safety: Crashworthiness Research, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, April 2002. 9 Crash data show that there are approximately 26,000 school bus crashes annually, involved in frontal, side, rear, and rollover collisions. As for abdominal loading, NHTSA does not know the basis for the petitioner's conclusions regarding the significance of the dummy abdominal measures. The abdominal measurements made in these tests were for comparative research purposes, have not been biomechanically validated, and have no injury criteria associated with them. This was discussed on page 43 of the report to Congress. School buses constitute a very safe form of transportation. A recent NAS study 10 shows that there are about 815 school transportation fatal injuries per year. Only 2 percent are associated with school buses, compared to 22 percent due to walking/bicycling, and 75 percent from passenger car transportation. Every year, approximately 450,000 public school buses travel about 4.3 billion miles to transport 23.5 million children to and from school and school-related activities. The school bus occupant fatality rate of 0.2 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled

(VMT)is much lower than the rates for passenger cars (1.46 per 100 million VMT) or light trucks and vans (1.3 per 100 million VMT). These results reflect the safety record of large school buses that, for the most part, are not being fitted with any seat belts at passenger seating positions. 10 Special Report 269, “The Relative Risks of School Travel: A National Perspective and Guidance for Local Community Risk Assessment,” Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, 2002. The petitioner believes that the dollars spent installing belts on large school buses could be more effectively spent purchasing additional buses to transport more children in the safest means available (in school buses). On our Web site information about seat belts in large school buses 11 , NHTSA does advise consideration of the overall safety consequences of bus purchasing decisions, to ensure that seat belt restraints are worn properly, and that no child is left seeking a less safe form of transportation. At the same time, the agency concludes that there is no justification for changing its longstanding position that States may order seat belts at passenger seating positions in large public school buses. For these reasons, and since the petitioner did not provide any data that NHTSA has not considered in the past, the agency is denying the rulemaking petition. 11 *Http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov:* click Traffic Safety tab: click School Buses under Browse Topics menu: click Seat Belts On School Buses Analysis of the Petition for Defect Determination The agency has conducted a technical review of the defect petition in accordance with 49 CFR 552.6. The Office of Defects Investigation

(ODI)reviewed its databases for reports and complaints related to alleged problems with school buses equipped with seat belts. That review did not reveal any reports or complaints that would warrant opening a safety-related defects investigation. Moreover, the petitioner has not presented any data or argument that supports his basis for concluding that seat belts may pose an unreasonable risk to the safety of occupants of those buses. Based on ODI's review and lack of data to the contrary, the agency believes that there is insufficient data to warrant NHTSA commencing a defect investigation and is denying the petition. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30118, and 30162; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8. Issued on: July 10, 2006. Stephen R. Kratzke, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. Daniel C. Smith, Associate Administrator for Enforcement. [FR Doc. E6-11136 Filed 7-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P 71 135 Friday, July 14, 2006 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Information Collection; Request for Comment; Youth Conservation Corps AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Forest Service is seeking comments from all interested individuals and organizations on the extension of a currently approved information collection, Youth Conservation Corps. The collected information will help the Forest Service evaluate the employment eligibility of youth 15-18 years old through the Youth Conservation Corps Program. Under this Program, the Forest Service cooperates with other Federal agencies to provide seasonal employment for youth. DATES: Comments must be received in writing on or before September 12, 2006 to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable. ADDRESSES: Comments concerning this notice should be addressed to United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Director, Youth Conservation Corps—Senior, Youth, and Volunteer Programs, P.O. Box 96090 (Mail Stop 1136), Washington DC 20090-6090. Comments also may be submitted via facsimile to

(703)605-5115 or by e-mail to: *syvp/wo@fs.fed.us.* The public may inspect comments received at the Office of the Director, Senior, Youth and Volunteer Programs, Forest Service, USDA, Room 1010, 1621 North Kent Street, Arlington, VA 22209, during normal business hours. Visitors are encouraged to call ahead to

(703)605-4854 to facilitate entry to the building. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ransom Hughes, Youth Conservation Corps, Senior, Youth and Volunteer Program at

(703)605-4854. Individuals who use TDD may call the Federal Relay Service

(FRS)at 1-800-877-8339, 24 hours a day, every day of the year, including holidays. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Youth Conservation Corps

(YCC)Application. *OMB Number:* 0596-0084. *Expiration Date of Approval:* December 31, 2006. *Type of Request:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Abstract:* Under the Youth Conservation Corps Act of August 13, 1970, as amended (U.S. 18701-1706), the Forest Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture and the Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service and Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior cooperate to provide seasonal employment for eligible youth 15 to 18 years old. These youth, who seek training and employment with the Forest Service through the Youth Conservation Corps, must complete the following forms: FS 1800-18, Youth Conservation Corps Application, and FS-1800-3, Youth Conservation Corps Medical History. The applicant's parents or guardian must sign both forms. Employees of the Forest Service (U.S. Department of Agriculture) and the Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, and Bureau of Land Management (U.S. Department of the Interior) will evaluate the data and determine the eligibility of each youth for employment with the Youth Conservation Corps. Data gathered in this information collection are not available from other sources. The Youth Conservation Corps stresses three important objectives: • Accomplish needed conservation work on public lands; • Provide gainful employment for 15 to 18 year old male and females from all social, economic, ethnic, and racial background; and • Foster, on the part of the 15 to 18 year old youth, an understanding and appreciation of the Nation's natural resources and heritage. *FS-1800-18, Youth Conservation Corps

(YCC)Application:* Applicants are asked to answer questions that include their name, social security number, date of birth, mailing address, and telephone number. *FS-1800-3, Youth Conservation Corps Medical History:* Applicants are asked to answer questions regarding their personal health. The purpose of FS-1800-3 is to certify the youth's physical fitness to work in the seasonal employment program. *Estimate of Annual Burden:* 6 minutes (FS-1800-18); 14 minutes (FS-1800-3). *Type of Respondents:* Youth between the ages of 15 and 18 years old seeking seasonal employment with the Forest Service through the YCC program. *Estimated Annual Number of Respondents:* 18,000. *Estimated Annual Number of Responses Per Respondent:* 2. *Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents:* 6,000. Comment is invited on:

(1)Whether this collection of information is necessary for the stated purposes and the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical or scientific utility;

(2)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval. Dated: July 6, 2006. Hand Kashdan, Deputy Chief, OPS. [FR Doc. E6-11103 Filed 7-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Notice of Tri-County Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: Pursuant to the authorities in the Federal Advisory Committee act (Public Law 92-463) and under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-393) the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest's Tri-County Resource Advisory Committee will meet on Thursday, August 3, 2006, from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m., in Helmville, Montana, for a business meeting and field trip. The meeting is open to the public. DATES: Thursday, August 3, 2006. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Community Hall on Highway 271, Helmville, Montana. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bruce Ramsey, Designated Forest Official (DFO), Forest Supervisor, Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, at

(406)683-3973. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agenda topics for this meeting include a review of projects proposed for funding as authorized under Title II of Pub. L. 106-393, and public comment. If the meeting location is changed, notice will be posted in local newspapers, including The Montana Standard. Dated: July 10, 2006. Bruce Ramsey, Forest Supervisor. [FR Doc. 06-6222 Filed 7-13-06; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 18

Traces to 18 documents