Rules and Regulations. Notice of temporary deviation from regulations
23,982 words·~109 min read·
/register/2006/08/02/06-6633A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [CGD05-06-82] RIN 1625-AA-09 Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Elizabeth River, Eastern Branch, Virginia AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations. SUMMARY: The Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District, has approved a temporary deviation from the regulations governing the operation of the Berkley Bridge, at mile 0.4, across the Eastern Branch of the Elizabeth River in Norfolk, Virginia to facilitate repair and replacement of electrical and mechanical equipment.
This deviation allows vessel openings of the drawbridge upon three hours advance notice each day between 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., beginning Monday, July 31, 2006 until and including Friday, August 4, 2006. DATES: This deviation is effective from 9 a.m. on July 31, 2006, to 3 p.m. on August 4, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Heyer, Bridge Management Specialist, Fifth Coast Guard District, at
(757)398-6629. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Berkley Bridge, a lift-type drawbridge, has a vertical clearance in the closed position for vessels of 48 feet above mean high water. The bridge owner, the Virginia Department of Transportation, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulation set out in 33 CFR 117.1007(b) and (c), to support electrical and mechanical repairs of the draw span. To facilitate the repairs, the drawbridge will provide vessel openings upon three hours advance notice each day between 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. beginning on Monday, July 31, 2006 until and including Friday, August 4, 2006. At all other times, the drawbridge will operate in accordance with the current operating regulations outlined in 33 CFR 117.1007(b) and (c). The Coast Guard has informed the known users of the waterway by telephone so that they can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation. For the three-hour advance notification, mariners should contact the bridge operator on channel 13 VHF or by calling
(757)247-2133 or
(757)494-2400. In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(c), this work will be performed with all due speed in order to return the bridge to normal operation as soon as possible. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. Dated: July 25, 2006. Waverly W. Gregory, Jr. Chief, Bridge Administration Branch, Fifth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E6-12403 Filed 8-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [CGD01-06-100] RIN 1625-AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Charles River, Boston, MA AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is temporarily changing the drawbridge operation regulations that govern the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR), Craigie Bridge, formerly, the Metropolitan District Commission, Craigie Bridge, across the Charles River, mile 1.0, at Boston, Massachusetts. This temporary rule in effect from July 24, 2006 through September 30, 2006, requires the Craigie Bridge to open on signal on the half-hour only between 12 p.m. and 8 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday and it also extends the rush hour closed periods normally in effect Monday through Friday, by one-hour. This temporary final rule is necessary to enhance public safety by alleviating vehicular traffic delays caused by the Central Artery Connecter tunnel closure. DATES: This rule is effective from July 24, 2006 through September 30, 2006. ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket (CGD01-06-100) and are available for inspection or copying at the First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch Office, 408 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02110, between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. John McDonald, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District,
(617)223-8364. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. The closure of a major downtown Boston roadway, the Central Artery Connector, due to a structural failure, has resulted in land traffic being detoured over many local roadways resulting in significant vehicular traffic delays and traffic gridlock. The resulting traffic congestion has created a public safety issue. Emergency land traffic, including ambulances, fire fighting equipment, and police vehicles, may be unable to safely, and in a timely manner, travel throughout the downtown Boston area. Reducing the times at which the bridge is required to open on weekends and extending the commuter rush hour closures by one hour is expected to help alleviate the traffic delays and reduce gridlock in the vicinity of the bridge and downtown Boston. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard also finds good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the ** Federal Register** for the reasons outlined above. Background and Purpose The Department of Conservation and Recreation, Craigie Bridge, formerly the Metropolitan District Commission, Craigie Bridge, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 12 feet at normal pool elevation. The existing drawbridge operation regulations listed at 33 CFR § 117.591(e), require the bridge to open on signal; except that, from 6:15 a.m. to 9:10 a.m., and 3:15 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays, the draw need not open for the passage of vessels. The bridge shall open as soon as possible for public vessels of the United States, state or local vessels used for public safety, and vessels in distress. Pursuant to 33 CFR 117.37, the bridge owner, the Department of Conservation and Recreation, and the Massachusetts State Police, requested a temporary change to the drawbridge operation regulations for the Craigie Bridge, in the interest of public safety. The closure of a major downtown roadway, the Central Artery Connecter, due to a structural failure, has resulted in vehicular traffic being re-routed over local roads resulting in significant traffic delays and gridlock in downtown Boston on weekdays during the commuter rush hours, 6 a.m. to 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. to 7 p.m., and on weekends after 12 p.m. Emergency vehicles and equipment could be delayed in responding to emergency situations in a safe and timely manner as a result of these traffic delays. The Charles River is predominantly a recreational waterway. The Craigie Bridge normally opens between 25 and 30 times on Saturday and Sunday between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. during the boating season. Reducing the number of bridge openings after 12 p.m. on weekends and extending the commuter rush hour closure periods by one hour on weekdays when vehicular traffic is increased should help alleviate the traffic delays and enhance public safety. As a result of the above information, the Coast Guard is temporarily changing the drawbridge operation regulations that govern the operation of the Craigie Bridge. Under this temporary final rule, the Department of Recreation and Conservation Craigie Bridge across the Charles River, mile 1.0, at Boston, shall open on signal; except that, on Saturday and Sunday, from 12 p.m. to 8 p.m., the draw shall open on signal, on the half-hour only, except for the passage of emergency vessels. The morning and afternoon commuter rush hour bridge closure periods Monday through Friday will be extended. As a result, the bridge may remain closed from 6 a.m. to 10 a.m. and from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m., except for the passage of emergency vessels. Discussion of Rule The Coast Guard is temporarily changing the drawbridge operation regulations for the Department of Conservation and Recreation Craigie Bridge across the charles River, mile 1.0, at Boston, to operate as follows: the draw shall open on signal; except that, between 12 p.m. and 8 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday the draw shall open on signal, on the half-hour only, and from 6 a.m. to 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. to 7 p.m., Monday through Friday the draw need not open for the passage of vessel traffic, except as stated in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. The Coast Guard believes that this temporary change will help reduce the vehicular traffic delays while continuing to meet the reasonable needs of navigation. Regulatory Evaluation This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3), of that Order. This conclusion is based on the fact that the bridge will continue to open for vessel traffic. The temporary limitation of the bridge opening only on the half-hour between 12 p.m. and 8 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday and the one-hour extension of the commuter rush hour closures Monday through Friday is necessary for public safety and should be sufficient for the present needs of navigation. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The Charles River is navigated predominantly by recreational vessels. We believe that the recreational vessels have the schedule flexibility to plan their bridge transits in accordance with the temporary bridge opening schedule and that they will not be adversely affected since the bridge will continue to open for all vessel traffic. The temporary limitation of the bridge opening only on the half-hour between 12 p.m. and 8 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday and the extension of the weekday commuter rush hour closures is necessary for public safety, and should be sufficient for the present needs of navigation. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. No small entities requested Coast Guard assistance and none was given. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). Collection of Information This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This final rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( *e.g.* , specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. Paragraph (32)(e) is applied to this rule because it relates to the promulgation of operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the instruction, an “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are not required for this rule. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 Bridges. Regulations For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows: PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); section 117.255 also issued under the authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 106 Stat. 5039. 2. From July 24, 2006 through September 30, 2006, § 117.591 is amended by suspending paragraph
(e)and adding a temporary paragraph (g), to read as follows: § 117.591 Charles River.
(g)The draw of the Department of Conservation and Recreation, (Craigie Bridge), mile 1.0, at Boston, shall operate as follows:
(1)The draw shall open on signal; except that, from 12 p.m. to 8 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday, the draw shall open on signal on the half-hour only, except as stated in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
(2)Monday through Friday from 6 a.m. to 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. to 7 p.m., the draw need not open for the passage of vessel traffic, except as stated in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. Dated: July 24, 2006. Timothy S. Sullivan, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard,Commander, First Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E6-12401 Filed 8-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [CGD01-06-098] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Vermont Air National Guard 60th Anniversary Air Show, Burlington Bay, Burlington, VT AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for the Vermont Air National Guard 60th Anniversary Air Show on August 18 and 19, 2006 in Burlington, Vermont. This zone will temporarily close all waters in Burlington Bay from Lone Rock Point 44°29′43″ N 073°14′56″ W SE to Oakledge Park 44°27′15″ N 073°14′52″ W, thence from the Burlington South break wall light 44°28′12″ N 073°13′32″ W extending due east to the shore, thence from the Burlington north break wall 44°28′50″ N 073°13′47″ W and extending due east to the shore. The safety zone, which temporarily prohibits entry into or movement within this portion of Burlington Bay, is necessary to safeguard the public from possible hazards associated with an air show. Entry into this zone by any vessel is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port, Northern New England or his designated representative. DATES: This rule is effective from 10 a.m. until 4 p.m. on August 18, 2006 and from 8 a.m. until 6 p.m. EDT on August 19, 2006. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket [CGD01-06-098] and are available for inspection or copying at U.S. Coast Guard Sector Northern New England, 259 High Street, South Portland, ME 04106 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LTJG Stephanie Forbes at Sector Northern New England,
(207)767-0313 or LTJG Jarrett Bleacher at
(207)742-5421. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. The Coast Guard was not presented with the logistical information for the Vermont Air National Guard 60th Anniversary Air Show in sufficient time to draft and publish an NPRM. Publishing an NPRM and delaying the effective date would be contrary to the public interest since immediate action is needed to protect the maritime public from the potential hazards associated with high-speed, high-performance, low-flying aircraft conducting acrobatic demonstrations above the waters of Burlington Bay. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard also finds, for the same reasons, that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . Background and Purpose The Vermont National Guard is holding a 60th Anniversary Air Show over the waters of Burlington Bay. This rule establishes a safety zone temporarily closing all waters in Burlington Bay from Lone Rock Point *44°29′43″ N 073°14′56″ W SE to Oakledge Park 44°27′15″ N 073°14′52″ W, thence from the Burlington South break wall light 44°28′12″ N 073°13′32″ W extending due east to the shore, thence from the Burlington north break wall 44°28′50″ N 073°13′47″ W* and extending due east to the shore. This zone is necessary to protect the life and property of the maritime public from the potential dangers posed by this event. It will protect the public by prohibiting entry into or movement within the proscribed portion of Burlington Bay during the Vermont National Guard 60th Anniversary Air Show. Marine traffic may transit safely outside of the zone during the effective period. The Captain of the Port does not anticipate any negative impact on vessel traffic due to this event. Public notifications will be made prior to and during the effective period via marine safety information broadcasts and Local Notice to Mariners. Discussion of Rule This rule is effective from 10 a.m. until 4 p.m. on August 18, 2006 and from 8 a.m. until 6 p.m. on August 19, 2006. This safety zone is needed to safeguard mariners from the hazards associated with low-flying, high-speed, and high-performance acrobatic aircraft performing above the designated waters in Burlington Bay. During the effective period of the safety zone, vessel traffic will be restricted in a portion of Burlington Bay. Entry into this zone by any vessel is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port, Northern New England or his designated representative. The Captain of the Port anticipates negligible negative impact on vessel traffic from this temporary safety zone as it will be in effect for limited hours during only one weekend. Additionally, extensive advanced notifications will be made to the maritime community via Local Notice to Mariners, marine information broadcasts, local port safety committee meetings, area newspapers, and electronic Marine Safety Information Bulletins. These advisories will afford large commercial traffic substantial advance notice to schedule around the event. It has been determined that the enhanced safety to life and property provided by this rule greatly outweighs any potential negative impacts. Public notifications will be made during the entire effective period of this safety zone via Local Notice to Mariners and marine information broadcasts. Regulatory Evaluation This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full regulatory evaluation is unnecessary. The effect of this rule will not be significant for the following reasons: the duration of the safety zone is for a limited number of hours and during the span of only one weekend. Vessels will be permitted to transit and navigate in waters adjacent to this safety zone, minimizing any adverse impact. Additionally, this rule will be entered into the Local Notice to Mariners, and extensive maritime advisories will be broadcast. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners and operators of vessels intending to transit in the vicinity of Burlington, Vermont. The safety zone will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities as the duration of the safety zone is for a limited number of hours and during the span of only one weekend. Vessels will be permitted to transit and navigate in waters adjacent to this safety zone, minimizing any adverse impact. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. If this rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call LTJG Stephanie Forbes at
(207)767-0313 or LTJG Jarrett Bleacher at
(207)742-5421, Sector Northern New England, Waterways Management Division. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). Collection of Information This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it 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. Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( *e.g.* , specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g) of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. This rule fits the category selected from paragraph (34)(g), as it establishes a safety zone. A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” will be available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165-REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Add temporary § 165.T01-098 to read as follows: § 165.T01-098 Safety Zone: Vermont Air National Guard 60th Anniversary Air Show, Burlington Bay, Burlington, VT.
(a)*Location.* The following area is a safety zone: all waters in Burlington Bay from Lone Rock Point 44°29′43″ N 073°14′56″ W SE to Oakledge Park 44°27′15″ N 073°14′52″ W, thence from the Burlington South break wall light 44°28′12″ N 073°13′32″ W extending due east to the shore, thence from the Burlington north break wall 44°28′50″ N 073°13′47″ W and extending due east to the shore. All vessels are restricted from entering this area.
(b)*Effective Date.* This section is effective from 10 a.m. until 4 p.m. on August 18, 2006 and from 8 a.m. until 6 p.m. on August 19, 2006.
(c)*Definitions.* As used in this section *Designated representative* means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port (COTP).
(d)*Regulations.*
(1)In accordance with the general regulations in 165.23 of this part, entry into or movement within this zone by any person or vessel is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP), Northern New England or the COTP's designated representative.
(2)The safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
(3)Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the COTP or the COTP's designated representative to obtain permission to do so. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative. Dated: July 18, 2006. Stephen P. Garrity, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard,Captain of the Port, Northern New England. [FR Doc. E6-12400 Filed 8-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0232; FRL-8080-1] Inert Ingredient; Revocation of the Wheat Bran Tolerance Exemption AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is revoking, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) section 408(e)(1), the existing exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the inert ingredient “wheat bran” under 40 CFR 180.910. This regulatory action contributes toward the Agency's tolerance reassessment requirements under FFDCA section 408(q), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act
(FQPA)of 1996. By law, EPA is required by August 2006 to reassess the tolerances that were in existence on August 2, 1996. This regulatory action counts as a tolerance reassessment toward the August 2006 review deadline. DATES: This rule is effective August 2, 2006. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before October 2, 2006, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ). ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification
(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0232. All documents in the docket are listed in the index for the docket. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is
(703)305-5805. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Angulo, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001 ; telephone number:
(703)306-0404; e-mail address: *angulo.karen@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to: • Crop production (NAICS code 111). • Animal production (NAICS code 112). • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311). • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532). This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. To determine whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability provisions in Unit II. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document? In addition to accessing an electronic copy of this **Federal Register** document through the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , you may access this “ **Federal Register** ” document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ **Federal Register** ” listings at *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr* . You may also access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's pilot e-CFR site at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr* . C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request? Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, as amended by the FQPA, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural regulations which govern the submission of objections and requests for hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0232 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before October 2, 2006. In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public docket that is described in ADDRESSES . Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit your copies, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0232, 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 Bldg.), 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 Facility telephone number is
(703)305-5805. II. Background and Statutory Findings A. What Action is the Agency Taking? In the **Federal Register** of April 19, 2006 (71 FR 20045) (FRL-8065-7), EPA issued a proposed rule to revoke the exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for “wheat bran” under 40 CFR 180.910. As discussed in the proposed rule, wheat bran has been identified as an allergen-containing food commodity. The proposed rule provided a 60-day comment period that invited public comment for consideration and for support of tolerance exemption retention under the FFDCA standards. No comments were received on the proposed rule. This final rule completes EPA's revocation of the “wheat bran” tolerance exemption under 40 CFR 180.910 as proposed in the **Federal Register** of April 19, 2006 (71 FR 20045). 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 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 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. C. When Do These Actions Become Effective? This action becomes effective on August 2, 2006. Any commodities listed in the regulatory text of this document that are treated with the pesticide chemical subject to this final rule, and that are in the channels of trade following the tolerance exemption revocations, shall be subject to FFDCA section 408(1)(5), as established by the FQPA. Under this section, any residue of the pesticide chemical 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 chemical 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 an exemption from a tolerance. Evidence to show that food was lawfully treated may include records that verify the dates that the pesticide chemical was applied to such food. D. What Is the Contribution to Tolerance Reassessment? By law, EPA is required by August 2006, to reassess the tolerances and exemptions from tolerances that were in existence on August 2, 1996. This document revokes one inert ingredient tolerance exemption which is counted as a tolerance reassessment toward the August 2006 review deadline under FFDCA section 408(q), as amended by FQPA in 1996. III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews In this final rule, EPA is revoking a specific tolerance exemption established under section 408(d) of FFDCA. The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has exempted this type of action from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled *Regulatory Planning and Review* (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of significance, this final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, *Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use* (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This final rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq* ., or impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA)(Public Law 104-4). Nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled *Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations* (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994); or OMB review or any Agency action under Executive Order 13045, entitled *Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks* (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA)(5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq* .), the Agency previously assessed whether revocations of tolerances might significantly impact a substantial number of small entities and concluded that, as a general matter, these actions do not impose a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This analysis was published on December 17, 1997 (62 FR 66020), and was provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. Taking into account this analysis, and available information concerning the pesticide listed in this rule, the Agency hereby certifies that this final action will not have a significant 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 final rule). Furthermore, for the pesticide named in this final rule, the Agency knows of no extraordinary circumstances that exist as to the present revocations that would change the EPA's previous analysis. In addition, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled *Federalism* (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers and food retailers, not States. This action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. For these same reasons, the Agency has determined that this final 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 final 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 final rule. IV. Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq* ., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the Agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . This rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: July 24, 2006. Lois Rossi, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows: PART 180—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. § 180.910 [Amended] 2. In § 180.910, the table is amended by removing the entry for “Wheat bran.” [FR Doc. E6-12345 Filed 8-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0245; FRL-8079-2] Fenhexamid; Pesticide Tolerance AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of fenhexamid in or on nonbell pepper, pomegranate, and cilantro leaves. Interregional Research Project No.4 (IR-4) requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA). DATES: This regulation is effective August 2, 2006. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before October 2, 2006, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION . ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification
(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0245. All documents in the docket are listed in the index for the docket. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. The Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone number is
(703)305-5805. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Madden, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703)305-6463; e-mail address: *madden.barbara@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to: • Crop production (NAICS 111), e.g., agricultural workers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; farmers. • Animal production (NAICS 112), e.g., cattle ranchers and farmers, dairy cattle farmers, livestock farmers. • Food manufacturing (NAICS 311), e.g., agricultural workers; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; ranchers; pesticide applicators. • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 32532), e.g., agricultural workers; commercial applicators; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; residential users. This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document? In addition to accessing an electronic copy of this **Federal Register** document through the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , you may access this **Federal Register** document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ **Federal Register** ” listings at *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr* . You may also access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's pilot e-CFR site at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr* . To access the OPPTS Harmonized Guidelines referenced in this document, go directly to the guidelines at *http://www.epa.gpo/opptsfrs/home/guidelin.htm.* C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request? Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, as amended by the FQPA, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural regulations which govern the submission of objections and requests for hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0245 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before October 2, 2006. In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public docket that is described in **ADDRESSES** . Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit your copies, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0245, 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. II. Background and Statutory Findings In the **Federal Register** of November 30, 2005 (70 FR 71838) (FRL-7735-7), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of pesticide petitions (PP 4E6859 and 4E6860) by Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR-4), Technology Center of New Jersey, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, 681 U.S. Highway #1 South, North Brunswick, NJ 08902-3390. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.553 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the fungicide fenhexamid, (N-2,3-dichloro-4-hydroxyphenyl)-1-methyl cyclohexanecarboxamide in or on cilantro, leaves at 30.0 parts per million
(ppm)(4E6859); pepper, nonbell at 0.02 ppm (4E6860) and pomegranate at 3.0 ppm (4E6859). That notice included a summary of the petition prepared by Arvesta Corporation, the registrant. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing. Petition 4E6859 was subsequently amended to lower the residue level for pomegranate to 2.0 ppm. Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue....” EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. For further discussion of the regulatory requirements of section 408 of the FFDCA and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/1997/November/Day-26/p30948.htm* . III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure, consistent with section 408(b)(2) of FFDCA, for a tolerance for residues of fenhexamid on cilantro, leaves at 30.0 ppm; pepper, nonbell at 0.02 ppm; and pomegranate at 2.0 ppm. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with establishing the tolerance follows. A. Toxicological Profile EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the toxic effects caused by fenhexamid as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies in the **Federal Register** of April 13, 2000 (65 FR 19842) (FRL-6553-7) **http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/2000/April/Day-13/p9144.htm.* B. Toxicological Endpoints For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) from the toxicology study identified as appropriate for use in risk assessment is used to estimate the toxicological level of concern (LOC). However, the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified the (LOAEL) is sometimes used for risk assessment if no NOAEL was achieved in the toxicology study selected. An uncertainty factor
(UF)is applied to reflect uncertainties inherent in the extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and in the variations in sensitivity among members of the human population as well as other unknowns. The linear default risk methodology (Q*) is the primary method currently used by the Agency to quantify non-threshold hazards such as cancer. The Q* approach assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of cancer risk, estimates risk in terms of the probability of occurrence of additional cancer cases. More information can be found on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization at *http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/health/human.htm.* A summary of the toxicological endpoints for fenhexamid used for human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.B. of the final rule published in the **Federal Register** of September 26, 2003 (68 FR 55513) (FRL-7326-7). C. Exposure Assessment 1. *Dietary exposure from food and feed uses* . Tolerances have been established (40 CFR 180.553) for the residues of fenhexamid, in or on a variety of raw agricultural commodities. Risk assessments were conducted by EPA to assess dietary exposures from fenhexamid in food as follows: i. *Acute exposure* . Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a one-day or single exposure. No such effects were identified in the toxicological studies for fenhexamid; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary. ii. *Chronic exposure* . In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with the Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID TM ), which incorporates food consumption data as reported by respondents in the USDA 1994-1996 and 1998 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII), and accumulated exposure to the chemical for each commodity. The following assumptions were made for the chronic exposure assessments: one hundred percent of proposed and registered crops are treated with fenhexamid, default processing factors, average (chronic) concentration estimates for drinking water and tolerance-level residues for all commodities. iii. *Cancer* . Fenhexamid is classified as “not likely” to be a human carcinogen. Therefore, a cancer dietary exposure assessment was not performed. 2. *Dietary exposure from drinking water* . The Agency lacks sufficient monitoring exposure data to complete a comprehensive dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for fenhexamid in drinking water. Because the Agency does not have comprehensive monitoring data, drinking water concentration estimates are made by reliance on simulation or modeling taking into account data on the physical characteristics of fenhexamid. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at *http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm* . Based on the FIRST and SCI-GROW models, the estimated environmental concentrations
(EECs)of fenhexamid for acute exposures are estimated to be 29 parts per billion
(ppb)for surface water and 0.0007 ppb for groundwater. The EECs for chronic exposures are estimated to be 1.1 ppb for surface water and 0.0007 ppb for groundwater. Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model (DEEM-FCID TM ). For chronic dietary risk assessment, the annual average concentration of 1.1 ppb was used to access the contribution to drinking water 3. *From non-dietary exposure* . The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Fenhexamid is not registered for use on any sites that would result in residential exposure. 4. *Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of toxicity* . Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of the FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.” Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to fenhexamid and any other substances and fenhexamid does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that fenhexamid has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see the policy statements released by EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs concerning common mechanism determinations and procedures for cumulating effects from substances found to have a common mechanism on EPA's website at *http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative* . D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children 1. * In general* . Section 408 of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the data base on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. Margins of safety are incorporated into EPA risk assessments either directly through use of a MOE analysis or through using uncertainty (safety) factors in calculating a dose level that poses no appreciable risk to humans. In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X when reliable data do not support the choice of a different factor, or, if reliable data are available, EPA uses a different additional safety factor value based on the use of traditional uncertainty factors and/or special FQPA safety factors, as appropriate. 2. *Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity* . In the rat and the rabbit developmental toxicity studies, neither quantitative nor qualitative evidence of increased susceptibility of fetuses to *in utero* exposure to fenhexamid was observed. In the rat reproduction study, qualitative susceptibility was evidenced as significantly decreased pup body weights in both generations during the lactation period (on lactation days 7, 14, and 21 in the F <sup>2</sup> generation and lactation days 14 and 21 in the F <sup>1</sup> generation offspring) in the presence of lesser maternal toxicity (alterations in clinical chemistry parameters and decreased organ weights without collaborative histopathology). Considering the overall toxicity profile and the doses and endpoints selected for risk assessment for fenhexamid, the degree of concern for the effects observed in this study was characterized as low, noting that there is a clear NOAEL and well-characterized dose response for the offspring effects observed and that these effects occurred in the presence of parental toxicity. No residual uncertainties were identified. The NOAEL of 17 mg/kg/day from the chronic dog study used to establish the chronic Reference Dose
(cRfD)for the General Population (no aRfD was established for any population subgroup) is lower than the NOAEL of 38.2 mg/kg/day in the reproduction study in which the offspring effects of concern were observed (LOAEL = 406 mg/kg/day). 3. *Conclusion* . There is a complete toxicity data base for fenhexamid and exposure data are complete or are estimated based on data that reasonably accounts for potential exposures. EPA determined that the 10X Safety Factor to protect infants and children should be reduced to 1X for the following reasons: • There are no residual uncertainties for pre and/or post natal toxicities via the oral route since the doses selected for concerns for the developmental and offspring toxicities seen in the above mentioned studies. • There are no residual uncertainties for pre and/or post natal toxicities via the dermal route since the dose/endpoint/study/species of concern was used for dermal-risk assessment. • The toxicology data base is complete. • Developmental neurotoxicity studies are not required for fenhexamid based on the following weight-of-the-evidence considerations: i. Lack of evidence of abnormalities in the development of the fetal nervous system in the pre/post natal studies. ii. Neither brain weight nor histopathological examination of the nervous system was affected in the subchronic and chronic studies. iii. Decreased body temperatures observed in male rats in the acute neurotoxicity study were not considered to be toxicologically significant. • The dietary
(food)exposure assessment utilizes existing and proposed tolerance level residues and assumes 100% of crops treated with fenhexamid. The assessment is based on reliable data and is not expected to underestimate exposure/risk. • Conservative assumptions are used in the drinking water models. The drinking water exposure assessment is not expected to underestimate exposure/risk. • Fenhexamid is not registered for use sites that would result in residential exposure. E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety The Agency currently has two ways to estimate total aggregate exposure to a pesticide from food, drinking water, and residential uses. First, a screening assessment can be used, in which the Agency calculates drinking water levels of comparison (DWLOCs) which are used as a point of comparison against estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs). The DWLOC values are not regulatory standards for drinking water, but are theoretical upper limits on a pesticide's concentration in drinking water in light of total aggregate exposure to a pesticide in food and residential uses. More information on the use of DWLOCs in dietary aggregate risk assessments can be found at *http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/trac/science/screeningsop.pdf.* More recently the Agency has used another approach to estimate aggregate exposure through food, residential and drinking water pathways. In this approach, modeled surface and groundwater EDWCs are directly incorporated into the dietary exposure analysis, along with food. This provides a more realistic estimate of exposure because actual body weights and water consumption from the CSFII are used. The combined food and water exposures are then added to estimated exposure from residential sources to calculate aggregate risks. The resulting exposure and risk estimates are still considered to be high end, due to the assumptions used in developing drinking water modeling inputs. 1. *Acute risk* . An acute risk assessment was not performed. No toxicological endpoint attributable to a single (acute) dietary exposure was identified. Therefore, acute risk from exposure to fenhexamid is not expected. 2. *Chronic risk* . Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that exposure to fenhexamid from food and water will utilize 11% of the cPAD for the U.S. population, 21% of the cPAD for all infants less than 1 year old, and 28% of the cPAD for children 1-2 years old, the subpopulation at greatest exposure. There are no residential uses for fenhexamid. Therefore, EPA does not expect the aggregate exposure to exceed 100% of the cPAD 3. *Short-term risk and Intermediate-term* . Short-term and intermediate-term aggregate exposures take into account residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Fenhezamid is not registered for use on any sites that would result in residential exposure. Therefore, the aggregate risk is the sum of the risk from food and water, which do not exceed the Agency's level of concern. 4. *Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population* . The Agency has classified fenhexamid as a “not likely” human carcinogen based on lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in male and female rats as well as in male and female mice, and on the lack of genotoxicity in an acceptable battery of mutagenicity studies. Therefore, fenhexamid is not expected to pose a cancer risk. 5. *Determination of safety* . Based on these risk assessments, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, and to infants and children from aggregate exposure to fenhexamid. IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology Adequate enforcement methodology Bayer AG Method 00362 (HPLC - ECD) is available to enforce the tolerance expression. The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number:
(410)305-2905; e-mail address: *residuemethods@epa.gov* . B. International Residue Limits Fenhexamid *per se* is the residue to be regulated in pomegranate, cilantro or non-bell pepper. There are no Canadian, Mexican, or Codex MRLs for fenhexamid “for these crops” , therefore, there are no issues for international harmonization. V. Conclusion Therefore, the tolerance is established for residues of fenhexamid, (N-2,3-dichloro-4-hydroxyphenyl)-1-methyl cyclohexanecarboxamide, in or on cilantro, leaves at 30.0 ppm; pepper, nonbell at 0.02 ppm; and pomegranate at 2.0. VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews This final rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled *Regulatory Planning and Review* (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of significance, this rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, *Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use* (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This final rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* , or impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA)(Public Law 104-4). Nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled *Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations* (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994); or OMB review or any Agency action under Executive Order 13045, entitled *Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks* (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA)(5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ) do not apply. In addition, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled *Federalism* (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers and food retailers, not States. This action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. For these same reasons, the Agency has determined that this rule does not have any “tribal implications” as described in Executive Order 13175, entitled *Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments* (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000). Executive Order 13175, requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” “Policies that have tribal implications” is defined in the Executive order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.” This rule will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. VII. Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of this final rule in the **Federal Register** . This final rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: July 21, 2006. Daniel J. Rosenblatt, Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows: PART 180—AMENDED 1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. 2. Section 180.553 is amended by alphabetically adding commodities to the table in paragraph
(a)to read as follows: § 180.553 Fenhexamid; tolerances for residues.
(a)* * * Commodity Parts per million * * * * * Cilantro, leaves 30.0 * * * * * Pepper, nonbell 0.02 * * * * * Pomegranate 2.0 * * * * * [FR Doc. E6-12348 Filed 8-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0307; FRL-8079-9] Inert Ingredients; Revocation of Two Tolerance Exemptions AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is revoking two exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance that are associated with two inert ingredients (ethylene glycol monomethyl ether and methylene blue) because these substances are no longer contained in active Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) pesticide product registrations. These ingredients are subject to reassessment by August 2006 under section 408(q) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA). The two tolerance exemptions are considered “reassessed” for purposes of FFDCA's section 408(q) and count as a tolerance reassessment toward the August 2006 review deadline. DATES: This rule is effective August 2, 2006. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before October 2, 2006, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ). ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification
(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0307. All documents in the docket are listed in the index for the docket. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is
(703)305-5805. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Angulo, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703)306-0404; e-mail address: *angulo.karen@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to: • Crop production (NAICS code 111). • Animal production (NAICS code 112). • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311). • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532). This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. To determine whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability provisions in Unit II. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document? In addition to accessing an electronic copy of this **Federal Register** document through the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , you may access this “ **Federal Register** ” document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ **Federal Register** ” listings at *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr* . You may also access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's pilot e-CFR site at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr* . C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request? Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, as amended by the FQPA, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural regulations which govern the submission of objections and requests for hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0307 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before October 2, 2006. In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public docket that is described in ADDRESSES . Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit your copies, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0307, 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 Bldg.), 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 Facility telephone number is
(703)305-5805. II. Background and Statutory Findings A. What Action is the Agency Taking? In the **Federal Register** of May 3, 2006 (71 FR 26001) (FRL-8068-3), EPA issued a proposed rule to revoke two exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance that are associated with two inert ingredients because those substances are no longer contained in pesticide products. The proposed rule provided a 60-day comment period that invited public comment for consideration and for support of tolerance exemption retention under the FFDCA standards. In this final rule, EPA is revoking two exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance that are associated with two inert ingredients because these specific tolerance exemptions correspond to uses no longer current or registered under FIFRA in the United States. The tolerance exemptions revoked by this final rule are no longer necessary to cover residues of the relevant pesticide chemicals in or on domestically treated commodities or commodities treated outside but imported into the United States. EPA has historically been concerned that retention of tolerances and tolerance exemptions that are not necessary to cover residues in or on legally treated foods may encourage misuse of pesticides within the United States. Thus, it is EPA's policy to issue a final rule revoking those tolerances and tolerance exemptions for residues of pesticide chemicals for which there are no active registrations or uses under FIFRA, unless any person commenting on the proposal demonstrates a need for the tolerance to cover residues in or on imported commodities or domestic commodities legally treated. Generally, EPA will proceed with the revocation of these tolerances and tolerance exemptions on the grounds discussed in Unit II. if one of the following conditions applies: 1. Prior to EPA's issuance of a section 408(f) order requesting additional data or issuance of a section 408(d) or
(e)order revoking the tolerances or tolerance exemptions on other grounds, commenters retract the comment identifying a need for the tolerance to be retained. 2. EPA independently verifies that the tolerance or tolerance exemption is no longer needed. 3. The tolerance or tolerance exemption is not supported by data that demonstrate that the tolerance or tolerance exemption meets the requirements under FQPA. No comments were received on the proposed rule. Therefore, for the reasons stated herein and in the proposed rule, EPA is revoking the two exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance identified in the **Federal Register** Notice of May 3, 2006 (71 FR 26001). B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action? This final rule is issued pursuant to section 408(d) of FFDCA (21 U.S.C. 346a(d)). Section 408 of FFDCA authorizes the establishment of tolerances, exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance, modifications in tolerances, and revocation of tolerances for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on raw agricultural commodities and processed foods. Without a tolerance or tolerance exemption, food containing pesticide residues is considered to be unsafe and therefore “adulterated” under section 402(a) of the FFDCA. If food containing pesticide residues is found to be adulterated, the food may not be distributed in interstate commerce (21 U.S.C. 331(a) and 342 (a)). EPA's general practice is to revoke tolerances and tolerance exemptions for residues of pesticide chemicals 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 and tolerance exemptions 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 and tolerance exemptions 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 and tolerance exemptions for unregistered pesticide chemicals in order to prevent potential misuse. C. When Do These Actions Become Effective? These actions become effective on August 2, 2006. Any commodities listed in the regulatory text of this document that are treated with the pesticide chemicals subject to this final rule, and that are in the channels of trade following the tolerance exemption revocations, shall be subject to FFDCA section 408(1)(5), as established by the FQPA. Under this section, any residues of these pesticide chemicals 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 chemical 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 an exemption from a tolerance. Evidence to show that food was lawfully treated may include records that verify the dates that the pesticide chemical was applied to such food. D. What Is the Contribution to Tolerance Reassessment? By law, EPA is required by August 2006, to reassess the tolerances and exemptions from tolerances that were in existence on August 2, 1996. This document revokes two inert ingredient tolerance exemptions which are counted as tolerance reassessments toward the August 2006 review deadline under FFDCA section 408(q), as amended by FQPA in 1996. III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews In this final rule, EPA is revoking specific tolerance exemptions established under section 408(d) of FFDCA. The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has exempted this type of action from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled *Regulatory Planning and Review* (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of significance, this final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, *Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use* (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This final rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq* ., or impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA)(Public Law 104-4). Nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled *Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations* (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994); or OMB review or any Agency action under Executive Order 13045, entitled *Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks* (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA)(5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq* .), the Agency previously assessed whether revocations of tolerances might significantly impact a substantial number of small entities and concluded that, as a general matter, these actions do not impose a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This analysis was published on December 17, 1997 (62 FR 66020), and was provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. Taking into account this analysis, and available information concerning the pesticide listed in this rule, the Agency hereby certifies that this final action will not have a significant 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 final rule). Furthermore, for the pesticides named in this final rule, the Agency knows of no extraordinary circumstances that exist as to the present revocations that would change the EPA's previous analysis. In addition, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled *Federalism* (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers and food retailers, not States. This action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. For these same reasons, the Agency has determined that this final 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 final 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 final rule. IV. Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq* ., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the Agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . This rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: July 24, 2006. Lois Rossi, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows: PART 180—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. § 180.920 [Amended] 2. In § 180.920, the table is amended by removing the entries for “Ethylene glycol monomethyl ether” and “Methylene blue.” [FR Doc. E6-12344 Filed 8-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Parts 54 and 64 [WC Docket No. 05-68; FCC 06-79] Regulation of Prepaid Calling Card Services AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Interim rule. SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) takes steps necessary to protect the federal universal service program and promote stability in the market for prepaid calling cards. In particular, the Commission will treat certain prepaid calling card service providers as telecommunications service providers. As such, these providers must pay intrastate access charges for interexchange calls that originate and terminate in the same state and interstate access charges on interexchange calls that originate and terminate in different states. They also must contribute to the federal Universal Service Fund
(USF)based on their interstate revenues, subject to the limitations set forth below. The Commission also addresses a petition for interim relief filed by AT&T and adopts interim rules to facilitate compliance with the universal service and access charge rules. Specifically, on an interim and prospective basis, the Commission requires all prepaid calling card providers to comply with certain reporting and certification requirements. DATES: Effective October 31, 2006 except for §§ 64.5001(a), (b), and
(c)which contain information collection requirements that have not yet been approved by the Office of Management and Budget. The Federal Communications Commission will publish a document in the **Federal Register** announcing the effective date for those sections. ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the Office of the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements contained herein should be submitted to Judith Boley Herman, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to *Judith-B.Herman@fcc.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynne Hewitt Engledow, Wireline Competition Bureau, Pricing Policy Division,
(202)418-1520. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Declaratory Ruling and Report and Order in WC Docket No. 05-68, adopted on June 1, 2006, and released on June 30, 2006. The complete text of this Declaratory Ruling and Report and Order is available for public inspection Monday through Thursday from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and Friday from 8 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. in the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text is available also on the Commission's Internet site at *http://www.fcc.gov.* Alternative formats are available to persons with disabilities by contacting the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, at
(202)418-0531, TTY
(202)418-7365, or at *fcc504@fcc.gov.* The complete text of the decision may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copying and Printing, Inc., Room CY-B402, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, telephone
(202)488-5300, facsimile
(202)488-5563, TTY
(202)488-5562, or e-mail at *fcc@bcpiweb.com.* Synopsis of Declaratory Ruling and Report and Order 1. On May 15, 2003, AT&T filed a petition for declaratory ruling that intrastate access charges did not apply to calls made using its “enhanced” prepaid calling cards when the calling card platform is located outside the state in which either the calling or the called party is located. On November 22, 2004, AT&T submitted an *ex parte* letter requesting a declaratory ruling on two additional types of “enhanced” prepaid calling card offerings: one card that offers the caller a menu of options to access non-call-related information, and a second card that utilizes Internet Protocol
(IP)technology, accessed by 8YY dialing, to transport a portion of the calling card call. 2. On February 16, 2005, the Commission denied AT&T's May 2003 Petition. *See AT&T Corp. Petition for Declaratory Ruling Regarding Enhanced Prepaid Calling Card Services; Regulation of Prepaid Calling Card Services,* Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 70 FR 12828, March 16, 2005 ( *Calling Card Order & NPRM* ). The Commission found that the service described in the original petition was a jurisdictionally-mixed telecommunications service and that intrastate access charges apply when a call originates and terminates in the same state. The Commission initiated a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM)to address additional types of “enhanced” prepaid calling cards, including those described in AT&T's November 2004 letter. On May 3, 2005, AT&T filed a petition seeking the adoption of interim rules pending a final decision by the Commission in this docket. AT&T's Emergency Petition seeks interim rules imposing federal universal service funding obligations on all prepaid calling card services regardless of whether the Commission ultimately decides they are telecommunications services or information services. Declaratory Ruling 3. In this *Order* , the Commission addresses the two prepaid calling card variants described in the NPRM portion of the *Calling Card Order and NPRM:*
(1)Menu-driven prepaid calling cards; and
(2)prepaid calling cards that utilize IP transport to deliver all or a portion of the call. As the Commission explains, it finds that both types of prepaid calling cards are telecommunications services and that their providers are subject to regulation as telecommunications carriers. In conjunction with the Commission's prior rulings regarding basic prepaid calling cards and prepaid cards with advertising, all prepaid calling card providers will now be treated as telecommunications service providers. In the future, if prepaid calling card providers introduce new and different card types that they believe should be classified as information services, they may seek a declaratory ruling, a waiver, or other relief from the requirements that the Commission adopts in this *Order.* Menu-Driven Prepaid Calling Cards 4. In its comments AT&T described its “newly augmented” prepaid calling card service accessed via toll-free, 8YY, dialing. Upon dialing the 8YY number, the cardholder is presented with the option to make a telephone call or to access several types of information, such as additional information about the card distributor, sports, weather, or restaurant or entertainment information. Other entities offer similar services to consumers. 5. “Telecommunications” is defined as the “transmission between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user's choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received.” 47 U.S.C. 153(43). Building on the definition of “telecommunications,” the Communications Act defines “telecommunications service” as “the offering of telecommunications for a fee directly to the public, or to such classes of users as to be effectively available directly to the public regardless of the facilities used.” 47 U.S.C. 153(46). Thus, a “telecommunications service” involves more than the mere transmission of information; it requires the “offering” of pure transmission capability “for a fee directly to the public.” 6. Although it may be difficult at times to determine whether a service bundle is “sufficiently integrated” to merit treatment as a single service, that is not the case here. There simply is no functional integration between the information service features and the use of the telephone calling capability with menu-driven prepaid calling cards. The menu is a mechanism by which the customer can access the separate capabilities that are packaged together in a single prepaid calling card. The customer may use only one capability at a time and the use of the telecommunications transmission capability is completely independent of the various other capabilities that the card makes available. But even if those additional capabilities are classified as an information service, the packaging of these multiple services does not by itself transform the telecommunications component of these cards into an information service. 7. The Commission's finding here is consistent with the Commission's conclusions in the *Calling Card Order and NPRM.* Just as the Commission found in that order that the addition of an advertising message does not convert a telecommunications service into an information service, the Commission now finds that the addition of an option to access other types of information does not convert the telecommunications service offered by these prepaid calling cards into an information service for regulatory purposes, even if standing alone the information processing capability would meet the statutory definition of an information service. In short, these menu-driven calling cards offer customers a telecommunications service that enables them to make telephone calls, and the ability to obtain sports scores, stock quotes, and other information through the same card does not alter that conclusion. Prepaid Calling Cards That Utilize IP Technology 8. In the *IP-in-the-Middle Order,* the Commission addressed AT&T's use of IP technology to transport interexchange telephone calls dialed on a 1+ basis. See *In the Matter of Petition for Declaratory Ruling that AT&T's Phone-to-Phone IP Telephony Services are Exempt from Access Charges,* Order, 19 FCC Rcd 7457
(2004)( *IP-in-the-Middle Order* ). The Commission found that “an interexchange service that:
(1)Uses ordinary customer premises equipment
(CPE)with no enhanced functionality;
(2)originates and terminates on the public switched telephone network (PSTN); and
(3)undergoes no net protocol conversion and provides no enhanced functionality to end users due to the provider's use of IP technology” is a telecommunications service. The Commission limited its ruling in the *IP-in-the-Middle Order* to calls that meet all of the above criteria and are placed using 1+ dialing. 9. Other than the use of 8YY dialing instead of 1+ dialing, prepaid calling cards that use IP transport appear to be identical to the services addressed by the Commission in the *IP-in-the-Middle Order.* The Commission sees no reason why the use of a different dialing pattern to make calls, without more, should result in a different regulatory classification. These cards are used to originate calls on the circuit-switched network using standard customer premises equipment, factors that the Commission previously has used to distinguish telecommunications services from information services. Consequently, the Commission finds that the use of IP transport in the provision of a prepaid calling card service does not alone convert that service from a telecommunications service to an information service. Report and Order 10. As a result of the Commission's finding that providers of the two types of prepaid calling cards described in the previous section offer telecommunications services, these providers are now subject to all of the applicable requirements of the Communications Act and the Commission's rules, including requirements to contribute to the federal USF and to pay access charges. In this section, the Commission sets forth some additional requirements that will apply, at least on an interim basis, to all prepaid calling card providers. USF Contributions 11. As noted above, all prepaid calling card providers must contribute to the Federal USF based on interstate and international telecommunications revenues. 47 U.S.C. 254 and 47 CFR 54.706. The Commission has established two safe harbors for use by carriers that offer retail packages that bundle interstate telecommunications services with other services ( *e.g.* , basic phone service and voicemail). A carrier may elect to treat all bundled revenues as telecommunications revenues or it may report revenues from the bundled offering based on the unbundled service offering prices, with no discount allocated to the telecommunications service. Prepaid calling card providers may avail themselves of these safe harbors; should they choose to forego these safe harbors, they must be prepared to defend the allocation method they use in an audit or enforcement context. 12. Based on the record in this proceeding, the Commission finds that an exemption from the contribution requirement for calling cards sold by, to, or pursuant to contract with DoD or a DoD entity will serve the public interest. Accordingly, the Commission forbears from applying section 254(d) to the extent necessary to implement the exemption from USF contribution obligations for prepaid calling cards sold by, to, or pursuant to contract with DoD or a DoD entity, on an interim basis while the Commission decides other USF contribution issues in its *Contribution Methodology* proceeding. The Commission finds that this exemption easily meets the three-pronged forbearance standard contained in section 10(a). 47 U.S.C. 160(a). Access Charges 13. As a result of this *Order,* providers of prepaid calling cards that are menu-driven or use IP transport to offer telecommunications services are obligated to pay interstate or intrastate access charges based on the location of the called and calling parties. 47 CFR 69.1 *et seq.* As noted above, the Commission previously has found that these same access charge obligations apply to basic prepaid calling cards and prepaid calling cards with unsolicited advertising. As with other services that require the caller to dial an access number, the assessment of interstate and intrastate access charges based on the location of the called and calling parties can be complicated with respect to prepaid calling card traffic because the caller initially dials the 8YY number associated with the calling card platform and only later dials the number of the called party. 14. The Commission believes that these complications can be addressed through certification and reporting requirements that compel the prepaid calling card provider to share the necessary information with the carriers that it uses to transport traffic to and from the platform. The Commission agrees with AT&T that such requirements will promote transparency in the prepaid calling card market and that, absent such requirements, calling card providers and their underlying carriers would have the incentive and the ability to avoid intrastate access charges. As with any other service subject to the Commission's rules, if prepaid calling card providers do not comply with these rules they will be subject to the Commission's enforcement authority, including complaints and forfeitures. 47 U.S.C. 208, 501. Reporting to Other Carriers 15. Prepaid calling card providers are subject to the Commission's rules on the passing of CPN. 47 CFR 64.1601. Under these rules, carriers that use SS7 are required to transmit the CPN associated with an interstate call to interconnecting carriers. In the context of prepaid calling card calls, the Commission interprets this to mean that carriers must pass the CPN of the calling party ( *i.e.* , the number associated with the telephone used by the cardholder) and not replace that number with the number associated with the platform. 16. For similar reasons, the Commission prohibits carriers that serve prepaid calling card providers from passing the telephone number associated with the platform in the charge number
(CN)parameter of the SS7 stream. The Commission concludes that carriers that serve prepaid calling card providers may not pass information regarding the calling card platform in the CN parameters in the SS7 stream. This approach properly balances the need for accurate intercarrier billing records with the need of some carriers to use CN for their own retail billing purposes. 17. The Commission also requires prepaid calling card providers to report percentage of interstate use
(PIU)factors to those carriers from which they purchase transport services. Specifically, a prepaid calling card provider must report prepaid calling card PIU factors, and call volumes on which these factors were calculated, based on not less than a one-day representative sample. These factors must be computed separately for originating and terminating traffic on a state-specific basis. This information must be provided to the transport provider no later than the 45th day of each calendar quarter. The transport provider may use the reported PIU in calculating any PIU factors it reports to LECs, and it may disclose the reported PIU upon request of such LECs. 18. If the prepaid calling card provider fails to provide the appropriate PIU information to the transport provider in a timely manner, the transport provider may treat the prepaid calling card provider's traffic as subject to a 50 percent default PIU. The transport provider may notify any originating or terminating LEC that it has applied the default PIU to the prepaid calling card provider's traffic for that reporting period. A transport provider also may audit the PIU reports it receives from a calling card provider if it has a reasonable basis to believe that such reports contain inaccurate or misleading data. The Commission finds that the use of a default PIU and the ability to audit are reasonable means by which to protect underlying transport providers (who themselves may be subject to comparable requirements under LEC access tariffs) and encourage the timely submission of accurate information by prepaid calling card providers. The platform number should be considered the called party number if the caller does not attempt to make a call to a third party. Certification to the Commission 19. The Commission believes that the exchange of information among carriers, as described above, should be sufficient to resolve most issues related to the assessment of access charges with respect to prepaid calling card traffic. To reduce further the incentive for carriers to report false or misleading information, however, the Commission also requires prepaid calling card providers to file certifications with the Commission. On a quarterly basis, every prepaid calling card provider must submit a certification, signed by an officer of the company under penalty of perjury, stating that it is in compliance with the reporting requirements described above. The certification also should include the percentage of interstate, intrastate, and international calling card minutes for that reporting period. 20. Each prepaid calling card provider also must certify the percentages of total prepaid calling card service revenues (excluding revenue that is exempt under the military exemption adopted above) that are interstate and international and therefore subject to federal universal service assessments for the reporting period. The certification the Commission requires in this *Order* is not a replacement for the Form 499—Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet. As such, prepaid calling card providers are responsible for filing both the certification required in this *Order* and a Form 499. Finally, the certification must include a statement that the company is making the required contribution based on the reported information. 21. Certifications will be due on a quarterly basis and may be filed in WC Docket No. 05-68 using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System. The first provider certifications are due the last day of the first full calendar quarter after OMB approval of this requirement. Effect of This Order 22. In contrast to the new reporting and certification rules the Commission adopts in this *Order,* which it will apply to all prepaid calling card providers on a prospective basis, the Commission's decision to classify prepaid calling cards that use IP transport and menu-driven prepaid calling cards as telecommunications services is a declaratory ruling, which is a form of adjudication. 47 CFR 1.2. 23. Adjudicatory decisions typically apply on a retroactive basis, and the Commission finds that such retroactivity is appropriate for cards that use IP transport. The Commission reaches a different conclusion, however, with respect to menu-driven prepaid calling card services. Given the lack of clarity in the law on this issue, both before and as a result of the NPRM, the Commission is concerned that retroactive application of this *Order* to menu-driven prepaid calling cards would be so unfair to providers of such cards as to work a “manifest injustice.” For example, the Commission recognizes that retroactive application of its decision would be burdensome for menu-driven prepaid calling card providers, in that the decision subjects them to access charges, Universal Service Fund contribution obligations, and the full panoply of Title II obligations. The Commission also recognizes that, given the state of the law at the time, parties may have relied on the assumption that they would not be subject to these burdens. For these reasons, the Commission concludes that its decision that menu-driven calling cards offer telecommunications services and that their providers are subject to regulation as telecommunications carriers shall have prospective effect only. 24. To give prepaid calling card providers sufficient time to implement this new regulatory regime, this *Order* will take effect on October 31, 2006. The certification requirements set forth above are effective according to the timeframe outlined above. Certification Filing Procedures 25. Pursuant to § 64.5001 of the Commission's rules, all prepaid calling card providers shall file the quarterly reports described above in WC Docket No. 05-68. The first certification reports are due the last day of the first full calendar quarter after the effective date of this item and OMB approval of this requirement. Certification reports may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System
(ECFS)or by filing paper copies. Certification reports filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the Internet to *http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/.* Only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed in a single docket. On completing each transmittal screen, commenters should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number, in this case, WC Docket No. 05-68. Parties may also submit an electronic report by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions for e-mail reports, reporters should send an e-mail to *ecfs@fcc.gov,* and should include the following words in the body of the message, “get form.” A sample form and instructions will be sent in reply. Parties are strongly encouraged to file their certification reports electronically using the Commission's ECFS. 26. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. Paper filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners, and any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service first-class mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. 27. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Marlene H. Dortch, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. Parties should also send one copy of their filings to the Chief, Pricing Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. In addition, parties should send one copy to the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554
(202)488-5300, or via e-mail to *fcc@bcpiweb.com.* 28. Documents in WC Docket No. 05-68 are available for public inspection and copying during business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The documents may also be purchased from BCPI, telephone
(202)488-5300, facsimile
(202)488-5563, TTY
(202)488-5562, e-mail *fcc@bcpiweb.com.* Accessible formats (computer diskettes, large print, audio recording and Braille) are available to persons with disabilities by contacting the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, at
(202)418-0531, TTY
(202)418-7365, or at *fcc504@fcc.gov.* Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 29. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 603, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA)was incorporated in the *Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,* 70 FR 12828, March 16, 2005. The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the *Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,* including comment on the IRFA. We received no comments specifically directed to the IRFA. This Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(FRFA)conforms to the RFA. Need for, and Objectives of, the Report and Order 30. On May 15, 2003, AT&T filed a petition for declaratory ruling that intrastate access charges did not apply to calls made using its “enhanced” prepaid calling cards when the calling card platform is located outside the state in which either the calling or the called party is located. On November 22, 2004, AT&T submitted an *ex parte* letter requesting a declaratory ruling on two additional types of “enhanced” prepaid calling card offerings: One card that offers the caller a menu of options to access non-call-related information, and a second card that utilizes Internet Protocol
(IP)technology, accessed by 8YY dialing, to transport a portion of the calling card call. 31. On February 16, 2005, the Commission released a *Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* denying AT&T's petition and requiring it to contribute to the Federal Universal Service Fund based on its interstate prepaid calling card revenue. The *NPRM* portion of that item sought comment on the appropriate regulatory treatment of AT&T's additional prepaid calling card types and any other current or planned prepaid calling card offerings. On May 3, 2005, AT&T filed an Emergency Petition for Interim Relief asking the Commission to impose Federal universal service funding obligations on all prepaid calling card providers regardless of whether the cards offer telecommunications or information services. AT&T's Emergency Petition also requested that the Commission issue interim rules subjecting all prepaid calling card providers to the same types of access charges. 32. In this *Order,* we find that providers of the types of cards upon which the Commission sought comment in the NPRM offer telecommunications services. Consequently, providers of these types of prepaid calling cards will be treated as telecommunications carriers and therefore must pay access charges, contribute to the Universal Service Fund, and comply with all the other applicable obligations under the Communications Act and the Commission's rules. Prepaid calling card providers that use SS7 must pass the CPN of the calling party (the cardholder), and the CN where appropriate, and not pass the telephone number associated with the calling card platform in the CPN or CN parameter of the SS7 stream. 33. We also adopt interim rules requiring that prepaid calling card providers report prepaid calling card PIU factors, and call volumes from which these factors were calculated, based on not less than a one-day representative sample, to those carriers from which they purchase transport services. We also require that prepaid calling card providers certify to the Commission that they are providing PIU and CPN information to other carriers as required above and that they report their total intrastate, interstate, and international calling card minutes and revenues. 34. The requirements imposed on prepaid calling card providers in this *Order* are necessary to preserve and advance the Universal Service Fund, provide regulatory certainty and prevent “gaming” of the system. The Commission believes the public interest will best be served by eliminating any uncertainty and promoting stability in the prepaid calling card market through the adoption of this *Order.* 35. In the *Calling Card Order and NPRM,* the Commission noted that military personnel rely heavily on prepaid calling cards and asked what steps, if any, it should take to ensure that such cards remain reasonably priced. In this *Order* we decide that the public interest will be served by exempting revenue from prepaid calling cards sold by, to, or pursuant to contract with DoD or a DoD entity from the above-described universal service contribution obligations. As such, on an interim basis, prepaid calling card providers are not required to pay USF contributions on revenue generated from prepaid calling cards sold by, to, or pursuant to contract with DoD or a DoD entity. Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA 36. No comments were received regarding the IRFA. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rules May Apply 37. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act, 5 U.S.C. 601(3). A “small business concern” is one which:
(1)Is independently owned and operated;
(2)is not dominant in its field of operation; and
(3)satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA. 38. The most reliable source of information regarding the total numbers of certain common carrier and related providers nationwide, as well as the number of commercial wireless entities, appears to be the data that the Commission publishes in its *Trends in Telephone Service* report. The SBA has developed small business size standards for wireline and wireless small businesses within the three commercial census categories of Wired Telecommunications Carriers, Paging, and Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications. Under these categories, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Below, using the above size standards and others, we discuss the total estimated numbers of small businesses that might be affected by our actions. 39. We have included small incumbent LECs in this present RFA analysis. As noted above, a “small business” under the RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small business size standard (e.g., a telephone communications business having 1,500 or fewer employees) and “is not dominant in its field of operation.” The SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent LECs are not dominant in their field of operation because any such dominance is not “national” in scope. We have therefore included small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis, although we emphasize that this RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts. 40. *Wired Telecommunications Carriers.* The SBA has developed a small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which consists of all such companies having 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data for 1997, there were a total of 2,225 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 2,201 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and an additional 24 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small. 41. *Local Exchange Carriers.* Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically applicable to local exchange services. The closest applicable size standard under SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 1,303 carriers reported that they were incumbent local exchange service providers. In addition, according to Commission data, 769 companies reported that they were engaged in the provision of either competitive access provider services or competitive local exchange carrier services. Of these 769 companies, an estimated 676 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 93 have more than 1,500 employees. In addition, 39 carriers reported that they were “Other Local Service Providers.” Of the 39 “Other Local Service Providers,” an estimated 38 have 1,500 or fewer employees and one has more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of local exchange service, competitive local exchange service, competitive access providers, and “Other Local Service Providers” are small entities that may be affected by the rules and policies proposed herein. 42. *Telecommunications Resellers.* The SBA has developed a size standard for a small business within the category of Telecommunications Resellers. Under that SBA size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 89 companies reported that they were engaged in the provision of prepaid calling cards. Of these 89 companies, an estimated 88 have 1,500 or fewer employees and one has more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the great majority of prepaid calling card providers are small entities that may be affected by the rules and policies proposed herein. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements for Small Entities 43. In this *Order,* we hold that providers of the types of cards upon which the Commission sought comment in the *NPRM* offer telecommunications services. As a result of this finding, these prepaid calling card providers are now treated as telecommunications carriers and therefore are subject to the Communications Act and the Commission's rules, including all applicable reporting and recordkeeping requirements. For example, they now must submit to USAC the reports required in connection with contributions to the Federal USF. 44. In this *Order,* we also adopt new interim rules applicable to all prepaid calling card providers. Prepaid calling card providers must report prepaid calling card PIU factors, and call volumes on which these factors were calculated, based on not less than a one-day representative sample, to those carriers from whom they purchase transport services. They also must certify to the Commission that they are complying with this PIU reporting requirement. This certification also must include information on total intrastate, interstate, and international calling card minutes and revenue, and a statement that they are contributing to the Federal USF based on all interstate and international revenues, except for revenue from the sale of prepaid calling cards by, to, or pursuant to contract with DoD or a DoD entity. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered 45. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others):
(1)The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities;
(2)the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities;
(3)the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and
(4)an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1) through (c)(4). 46. In this *Order,* the Commission finds that certain types of prepaid calling card providers are telecommunications carriers and therefore subject to applicable requirements of the Communications Act and the Commission's rules, including the obligation to pay access charges and contribute to the Universal Service Fund. We apply these existing rules for the purpose of preserving and advancing universal service and providing regulatory certainty. A strong, well-funded USF is one of the Commission's regulatory mandates and is in the public interest. The clear application of regulations to the prepaid calling card industry also will promote regulatory certainty, foster innovation and competition, and avoid market disruption during the pendency of this and other rulemaking proceedings. We rejected AT&T's suggestion to address a more limited set of issues on the ground that such an approach would not provide the necessary certainty and stability. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the best way to meet our goals of preserving and advancing universal service and providing certainty to the prepaid calling card market is to subject all prepaid calling card providers to the same requirements. 47. In this *Order,* we also adopt interim rules requiring all prepaid calling card providers to meet certain reporting requirements. Specifically, they must report prepaid calling card PIU factors, and call volumes from which these factors were calculated, based on not less than a one-day representative sample, to those carriers from which they purchase transport services. The interim rules also require that prepaid calling card providers make quarterly certifications to the Commission. Specifically, they must certify that they have complied with the reporting requirements discussed above. In addition, they must provide information on total intrastate, interstate, and international calling card minutes and revenues, and include a statement that they are contributing to the federal USF based on the reported information. AT&T proposed that prepaid calling card providers comply with a much more extensive set of reporting and certification requirements. We rejected these additional reporting and certification requirements because they would prove too burdensome to small prepaid calling card providers. 48. As described above, the Commission has considered a variety of alternative approaches for regulating prepaid calling card providers. In weighing these alternatives we tried to balance our desire not to unduly burden small entities (small prepaid card providers, as well as small LECs and small IXCs) with our goals of ensuring regulatory certainty, preserving and advancing universal service, and avoiding market disruption during the pendency of other rulemakings. The *Order* we adopt achieves this balance by applying the same rules to all prepaid calling card providers, while at the same time rejecting proposals that would place excessive burdens on small companies. Report to Congress 49. The Commission will send a copy of the *Order* , including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the *Order,* including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the *Order* and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the **Federal Register** , 5 U.S.C. 604(b). Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis 50. This document contains new information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. It will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review under section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies are invited to comment on the new or modified information collection requirements contained in this proceeding. Ordering Clauses 51. Accordingly, *it is ordered* that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 201, 202 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 201, 202, and 254, this Declaratory Ruling and Report and Order in WC Docket No. 05-68 is adopted, and that parts 54 and 64 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR parts 54 and 64, are * amended* as set forth in the rule changes. 52. *It is further ordered* that AT&T's Emergency Petition for Immediate Interim Relief is granted in part and denied in part as set forth herein. 53. *It is further ordered* that the final rules and rule revisions adopted in this Declaratory Ruling and Report and Order shall become effective October 31, 2006. 54. *It is further ordered* that all prepaid calling card providers shall file an initial certification as required herein no later than the last day of the first full calendar quarter after OMB approval of this requirement. 55. *It is further ordered* that the Frontier Petition for Declaratory Ruling *is granted* as set forth herein and otherwise *is denied.* 56. *It is further ordered* that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, *shall send* a copy of this Declaratory Ruling and Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. List of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 54 and 64 Communications common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications, Telephone. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. Rule Changes For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 54 and 64 as follows: PART 54—UNIVERSAL SERVICE 1. The authority citation for part 54 continues to read as follows: Authority: 47 U.S.C. 1, 4(i), 201, 205, 214, and 254 unless otherwise noted. 2. Section 54.706 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(19) and revising paragraph
(d)to read as follows: § 54.706 Contributions.
(a)* * *
(19)Prepaid calling card providers.
(d)Entities providing open video systems (OVS), cable leased access, or direct broadcast satellite
(DBS)services are not required to contribute on the basis of revenues derived from those services. The following entities will not be required to contribute to universal service: non-profit health care providers; broadcasters; systems integrators that derive less than five percent of their systems integration revenues from the resale of telecommunications. Prepaid calling card providers are not required to contribute on the basis of revenues derived from prepaid calling cards sold by, to, or pursuant to contract with the Department of Defense
(DoD)or a DoD entity. PART 64—MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS 3. The authority citation for part 64 continues to read as follows: Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 254(k); secs. 403(b)(2)(B), (c), Public Law 104-104, 110 Stat. 56. Interpret or apply 47 U.S.C. 201, 218, 222, 225, 226, 228, and 254(k) unless otherwise noted. 4. Amend part 64 by adding subpart DD to read as follows: Subpart DD—Prepaid Calling Card Providers § 64.5000 Definitions.
(a)*Prepaid calling card.* The term “prepaid calling card” means a card or similar device that allows users to pay in advance for a specified amount of calling, without regard to additional features, functions, or capabilities available in conjunction with the calling service.
(b)*Prepaid calling card provider.* The term “prepaid calling card provider” means any entity that provides telecommunications service to consumers through the use of a prepaid calling card. § 64.5001 Reporting and certification requirements.
(a)All prepaid calling card providers must report prepaid calling card percentage of interstate use
(PIU)factors, and call volumes from which these factors were calculated, based on not less than a one-day representative sample, to those carriers from which they purchase transport services. Such reports must be provided no later than the 45th day of each calendar quarter for the previous quarter.
(b)If a prepaid calling card provider fails to provide the appropriate PIU information to a transport provider in the time allowed, the transport provider may apply a 50 percent default PIU factor to the prepaid calling card provider's traffic.
(c)On a quarterly basis, every prepaid calling card provider must submit to the Commission a certification, signed by an officer of the company under penalty of perjury, providing the following information with respect to the prior quarter:
(1)The percentage of intrastate, interstate, and international calling card minutes for that reporting period;
(2)The percentage of total prepaid calling card service revenue (excluding revenue from prepaid calling cards sold by, to, or pursuant to contract with the Department of Defense
(DoD)or a DoD entity) attributable to interstate and international calls for that reporting period;
(3)A statement that it is making the required Universal Service Fund contribution based on the reported information; and
(4)A statement that it has complied with the reporting requirements described in paragraph
(a)of this section. [FR Doc. E6-12327 Filed 8-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P 71 148 Wednesday, August 2, 2006 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 35 [Docket No. NE128; Notice No. 35-06-01-SC] Special Conditions: McCauley Propeller Systems, Model 3D15C1401/C80MWX-X Propeller AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed special conditions. SUMMARY: This action proposes special conditions for McCauley Propeller Systems. This 3D15C1401/C80MWX-X model propeller will have a novel or unusual design features(s) associated with composite blades. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These proposed special conditions contain the added safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards. DATES: We must receive your comments by September 1, 2006. ADDRESSES: You must mail two copies of your comments to: Federal Aviation Administration, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Attn: Jay Turnberg, Rules Docket (ANE-110), Docket No. NE128, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803-5299. You may deliver two copies to the Engine and Propeller Directorate at the above address. You must mark your comments: Docket No. NE128 You can inspect comments in the Rules Docket weekdays, except Federal holidays, between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jay Turnberg, ANE-110, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803-5299; telephone
(781)238-7116; fascimile
(781)238-7199; e-mail *jay.turnberg@faa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. We ask that you send us two copies of written comments. We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel about these special conditions. You can inspect the docket before and after the comment closing date. If you wish to review the docket in person, go to the address in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive. If you want us to let you know we received your comments on this proposal, send us a pre-addressed, stamped postcard on which the docket number appears. We will stamp the date on the postcard and mail it back to you. Background On November 29, 2004, McCauley Propeller applied for type certification for a new model 3D15C1401/C80MWX-X propeller. This propeller uses blades that are constructed of composite material. The blade has a carbon fiber spar, a shell composed of braided carbon fiber and fiberglass, and metallic leading edge erosion protection to give the material strength properties and durability. The material properties depend on the carbon fiber and fiberglass lay-up and the resin matrix material that bind the blade together. Composite materials introduce fatigue characteristics and failure modes that differ from metallic materials. The requirements of part 35 were established to address the airworthiness considerations associated with propellers with metallic hubs and blades. Propeller blades constructed using composite material may be subject to damage due to the high impact forces associated with a bird strike. In addition, part 35 does not require a demonstration of propeller integrity following a lightning strike. Composite blades may not safely conduct or dissipate the electrical current from a lightning strike. Severe damage can result if the propellers are not properly protected. Therefore, composite blades must demonstrate propeller integrity following a lightning strike. Lastly, the current certification requirements address structural and fatigue evaluation only of metal propeller blades or hubs and metal components of non-metallic blade assemblies. Allowable design stress limits for composite blades must consider the deteriorating effects of the environment and in-service use, particularly those effects from temperature, moisture, erosion and chemical attack. Composite blades also present new and different considerations for retention of the blades in the propeller hub. Type Certification Basis Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, McCauley Propeller Systems must show that the Model 3D15C1401/C80MWX-X propeller meets the applicable provisions of § 21.21 and part 35. If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., part 35) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the McCauley Propeller Systems Model 3D15C1401/C80MWX-X propeller, because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16. The FAA issues special conditions, as defined by 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with 14 CFR 11.38, which become part of the type certification basis in accordance with § 21.17(a)(2). Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101(d). Novel or Unusual Design Features The McCauley Propeller Systems Model 3D15C1401/C80MWX-X will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features: Blades constructed of composite materials. Special conditions for centrifugal load tests, fatigue limits and evaluation, bird impact, and lightning strike are proposed to address the novel and unusual design features. The special conditions are discussed below. Discussion Centrifugal Load Tests Section 35.35 currently requires that the hub and blade retention arrangement of propellers with detachable blades be tested to a centrifugal load of twice the maximum centrifugal force to which the propeller would be subjected during operation. This requirement is limited to the blade and hub retention capacity and does not address composite materials and composite construction of the propeller assembly or changes in materials due to service degradation and environmental factors. Fatigue Limits and Evaluation The current requirement does not adequately address composite materials and is limited to metallic hubs and blades and primary load-carrying metal components of non-metallic blades. The proposed special conditions will expand the requirements to include all materials and components whose failure would cause a hazardous propeller effect and take into account material degradation expected in service, material property variations, manufacturing variations, and environmental effects. The proposed special conditions will clarify that the fatigue limits may be determined by tests or analysis based on tests. The components whose failure may cause a hazardous propeller effect include control system components, when applicable. The proposed special conditions will require the applicant to conduct fatigue evaluation on a typical aircraft or on an aircraft used during aircraft certification to conduct the vibration tests and evaluation required by either §§ 23.907 or 25.907. The typical aircraft may be one used to develop design criteria for the propeller or another appropriate aircraft. Bird Impact Currently part 35 has no bird impact requirements. The existing requirements only address the airworthiness considerations associated with propellers that use wood and metal blades. Propeller blades of this type have demonstrated good service experience following a bird strike. Propeller blade and spinner construction now use composite materials that have a higher potential for damage from bird impact. The need for bird impact requirements was recognized when composite blades were introduced in the 1970's; the safety issue has been addressed by special test and special conditions for composite blade certifications. These special conditions were unique for each propeller and effectively stated that the propeller will withstand a four-pound bird impact without contributing to a hazardous propeller effect. These special tests and special conditions have been effective for over fifty million flight hours. There have not been any accidents attributed to bird impact on composite propellers. The selection of a four-pound bird has been substantiated by the extensive service history of blades that have been designed using the four-pound bird criteria. Lightning Strike Currently part 35 has no lightning strike requirements. The need for lightning strike requirements was recognized when composite blades were first introduced in the 1970's; the safety issue has been addressed by special tests and special condition for each design using composite blades. The special tests and special condition, which were unique for each propeller, effectively stated that the propeller must be able to withstand a lightning strike without contributing to a hazardous propeller effect. These special tests and special conditions have been effective for over fifty million flight hours. There have not been any accidents attributed to a lightning strike on composite propellers. Applicability As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to McCauley propeller systems Model 3D15C1401/C80MWX-X. If McCauley Propeller systems applies later for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well. Conclusion This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model of propellers. It is not a rule of general applicability, and it affects only the applicants who applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the propeller. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 35 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44704. The Proposed Special Conditions Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)proposes the following special conditions as part of the type certification basis for McCauley Propeller Systems Model 3D15C1401/C80MWX-X propellers. 1. *Definitions.* Unless otherwise approved by the Administrator and documented in the appropriate manuals and certification documents, for compliance with these special conditions the following definitions apply to the propeller:
(a)Propeller—the propeller is defined by the components listed in the type design.
(b)Propeller system—the propeller system consists of the propeller plus all the components necessary for its functioning, but not necessarily included in the propeller type design.
(c)Hazardous propeller effect—a hazardous propeller effect is:
(1)A significant overspeed of the propeller.
(2)The development of excessive drag.
(3)A significant thrust in the opposite direction to that commanded by the pilot.
(4)The release of the propeller or any major portion of the propeller.
(5)A failure that results in excessive unbalance.
(6)The unintended movement of the propeller blades below the established minimum in-flight low pitch position.
(d)Major propeller effect—A major propeller effect is:
(1)An inability to feather for feathering propellers.
(2)An inability to command a change in propeller pitch.
(3)A significant uncommanded change in pitch.
(4)A significant uncontrollable torque or speed fluctuation. 2. *Centrifugal Load Tests.* McCauley must demonstrate that the propeller, accounting for environmental degradation expected in service, complies with paragraphs (a),
(b)and
(c)of this section without evidence of failure, malfunction, or permanent deformation that would result in a hazardous propeller effect. Environmental degradation may be accounted for by adjustment of the loads during the tests.
(a)The hub, blade retention system, and counterweights must be tested for a period of one hour to a load equivalent to twice the maximum centrifugal load to which the propeller would be subjected during operation at the maximum declared rotational speed.
(b)If appropriate, blade features associated with transitions to the retention system (for example a composite blade bonded to a metallic retention), must be tested either during the test of paragraph
(a)of this section or in a separate component test.
(c)Components used with or attached to the propeller (for example spinners, de-icing equipment, and blade shields) must be subjected to a load equivalent to 159 percent of the maximum centrifugal load to which the component would be subjected during operation within the limitations established for the propeller. This must be performed by either:
(1)Testing at the load for a period of 30 minutes, or
(2)Analysis based on test. 3. *Fatigue Limits and Evaluation.*
(a)Fatigue limits.
(1)Fatigue limits must be established by tests, or analysis based on tests, or propeller
(i)Hubs.
(ii)Blades.
(iii)Blade retention components.
(2)The fatigue limits must take into account:
(i)All known and reasonably foreseeable vibration and cyclic load patterns that are expected in service, and
(ii)Expected service deterioration, variations in material properties, manufacturing variations, and environmental effects.
(b)A fatigue evaluation of the propeller must be conducted to show that hazardous propeller effects due to fatigue will be avoided throughout the intended operational life of the propeller on either:
(1)The intended aircraft by complying with §§ 23.907 or 25.907 as applicable, or
(2)A typical aircraft. 4. *Bird Impact Substantiation.* McCauley must demonstrate, by tests or analysis based on tests or experience on similar designs, that the propeller is capable of withstanding the impact of a four-pound bird at the critical location(s) and critical flight condition(s) of the intended aircraft without causing a major or hazardous propeller effect. 5. *Lightning Strike Substantiation.* McCauley must demonstrate, by test or analysis based on tests or experience on similar designs, that the propeller is capable of withstanding a lightning strike without causing a major or hazardous propeller effect. Dated: Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on July 24, 2006. Francis A. Favara, Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. 06-6633 Filed 8-1-06; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 41
Traces to 41 documents
CFR
- Elizabeth River---Eastern Branch.§ 117.1007
- Temporary change to a drawbridge operating schedule.§ 117.35
- Charles River and its tributaries.§ 117.591
- Delegation of rulemaking authority.§ 1.05-1
- Designation of applicable regulations.§ 21.17
- What is a special condition?§ 11.19
- What public comment procedures does the FAA follow for Special Conditions?§ 11.38
U.S. Code
- Rule making§ 553
- Avoidance of duplicative or unnecessary analyses§ 605
- Establishment, functions, and activities§ 272
- Regulations for drawbridges§ 499
- Transferred§ 1226
- Transferred§ 191
- Tolerances and exemptions for pesticide chemical residues§ 346a
- Adulterated food§ 342
- Prohibited acts§ 331
- Definitions§ 136
- Purposes§ 3501
- Definitions§ 601
- SHORT TITLE.§ 801
- EXPEDITED PROCESSING OF REQUESTS FOR JAPANESE IMPERIAL GOVERNMENT RECORDS.§ 804
- Definitions; generally§ 321
- Definitions§ 153
- Universal service§ 254
- Competition in provision of telecommunications service§ 160
- Complaints to Commission; investigations; duration of investigation; appeal of order concluding investigation§ 208
- Initial regulatory flexibility analysis§ 603
- Final regulatory flexibility analysis§ 604
- Purposes of chapter; Federal Communications Commission created§ 151
- SHORT TITLE.§ 1
- Federal Communications Commission§ 154
- Service and charges§ 201
- Federal Aviation Administration§ 106
register
public-private-law
26 references not yet in our index
- 33 CFR 117
- 33 CFR 117.37
- 5 USC 601-612
- Pub. L. 104-121
- 44 USC 3501-3520
- 2 USC 1531-1538
- 42 USC 4321-4370f
- Pub. L. 102-587
- 106 Stat. 5039
- 33 CFR 165
- Pub. L. 107-295
- 40 CFR 180
- 40 CFR 180.910
- 40 CFR 178
- 40 CFR 2
- Pub. L. 104-170
- Pub. L. 104-4
- Pub. L. 104-113
- 40 CFR 180.553
- 47 CFR 54.706
- 47 CFR 69.1
- 47 CFR 64.1601
- 47 CFR 1.2
- Pub. L. 104-13
- Pub. L. 104-104
- 14 CFR 35
Citation graph
cites case law
Rules and Regulations
Notice of temporary deviation from regulations
Cite33 CFR 117
Cite33 CFR 117.37
Cite5 USC 601-612
Cites 67 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources