Rules and Regulations. Temporary final rule; amendment
55,513 words·~252 min read·
/register/2006/08/16/06-6941A 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 100 [CGD05-06-037] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Atlantic Ocean, Atlantic City, NJ, Change of Time AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule; amendment. SUMMARY: On July 7, 2006, the Coast Guard published a temporary final rule in the **Federal Register** establishing temporary special local regulations for the “Thunder Over the Boardwalk Airshow”, an aerial demonstration to be held over the waters of the Atlantic Ocean adjacent to Atlantic City, New Jersey.
On July 14, 2006, the Coast Guard was notified that this marine event was proposed to be conducted at a different time period. This rule changes the times of enforcement for the temporary regulated area. These special local regulations are necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during the event. This action is intended to restrict vessel traffic in the regulated area during the event. DATES: This rule changes the effective period of the temporary final rule published at 71 FR 38523 (July 7, 2006) to be 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on August 23, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket (CGD05-06-037) and are available for inspection or copying at Commander (dpi), Fifth Coast Guard District, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, Virginia 23704-5004, between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis Sens, Project Manager, Inspections and Investigations Branch, at
(757)398-6204. 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 new time period of when the airshow was proposed to be conducted was not known in sufficient time to allow for the publication of an NPRM followed by publication of an effective rule before the event. Delaying this rule would be contrary to the public interest of ensuring the safety of life at sea during this event. The event will take place on August 23, 2006. Because of the danger posed by high performance jet aircraft performing low altitude aerial maneuvers over the waters of the Atlantic Ocean, special local regulations are necessary to provide for the safety of event participants, spectator craft and other vessels transiting the event area. For the safety concerns noted, it is in the public interest to have these regulations in effect during the event. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . Delaying the effective date would be contrary to the public interest, since immediate action is needed to ensure the safety of the event participants, spectator craft and other vessels transiting the regulated area. However, advance notifications will be made to affected users of the Atlantic Ocean coastal area via marine information broadcasts and area newspapers. Background and Purpose On August 23, 2006, the Atlantic City Chamber of Commerce will sponsor the “Thunder Over the Boardwalk Airshow”. The event will consist of high performance jet aircraft performing low altitude aerial maneuvers over the waters of the Atlantic Ocean adjacent to Atlantic City, New Jersey. A fleet of spectator vessels is expected to gather nearby to view the aerial demonstration. Due to the need for vessel control during the event, vessel traffic will be temporarily restricted to provide for the safety of spectators and transiting vessels. Discussion of the Amendment to the Temporary Final Rule The Coast Guard is establishing temporary special local regulations on specified waters of the Atlantic Ocean adjacent to Atlantic City, New Jersey. The regulated area includes a section of the Atlantic Ocean approximately 2.5 miles long, running from Pennsylvania Avenue to Columbia Avenue, and extending approximately 900 yards out from the shoreline. This amendment to the rule changes the time period previously announced in the **Federal Register** notice published on July 7, 2006. The temporary special local regulations will be enforced from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m. on August 23, 2006. The effect of the temporary special local regulations will be to restrict general navigation in the regulated area during the event. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area. Non-participating vessels will be allowed to transit the regulated area between event activities, when the Coast Guard Patrol Commander determines it is safe to do so. These regulations are needed to control vessel traffic during the event to enhance the safety of participants, spectators and transiting vessels. Regulatory Evaluation This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We expect the economic impact of this temporary final rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. Although this regulation prevents traffic from transiting a portion of the Atlantic Ocean during the event, the effect of this regulation will not be significant due to the limited duration that the regulated area will be in effect and the extensive advance notifications that will be made to the maritime community via marine information broadcasts and area newspapers so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. 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 or operators of vessels intending to transit this area of the Atlantic Ocean during the event. This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This rule will be in effect for only a short period. The Patrol Commander will allow non-participating vessels to transit the event area between event activities. Before the enforcement period, we will issue maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 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. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the address listed under ADDRESSES . 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 effect 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 will 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 and direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Governments 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 guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. Special local regulations issued in conjunction with a regatta or marine parade permit are specifically excluded from further analysis and documentation under those sections. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), 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 100 Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows: PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS 1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233, Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. The Coast Guard amends the temporary final rule published July 7, 2006 (71 FR 38522) entitled, “Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Atlantic Ocean, Atlantic City, NJ. § 100.35-T05-037 [Amended] In rule FR Doc. E6-10589 published on July 7, 2006 (71 FR 38522) make the following amendments to § 100.35-T05-037. On page 38523, in the third column, revise paragraph
(d)to read as follows:
(d)*Enforcement period.* This section will be enforced from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on August 23, 2006. Dated: July 28, 2006. L.L. Hereth, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E6-13495 Filed 8-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [CGD05-06-057] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulation for Marine Event, Bogue Sound, Morehead City, NC AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing temporary special local regulations for the “Crystal Coast Super Boat Grand Prix”, a power boat race to be held on the waters of Bogue Banks adjacent to Morehead City, NC. These special local regulations are necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during the event. This action is intended to restrict vessel traffic in the Morehead City Turning Basin including sections of the Intra-Coastal Waterways and Morehead City Channel during the power boat race. DATES: This rule is effective from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. on September 24, 2006. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket (CGD05-06-057) and are available for inspection or copying at Commander (dpi), Fifth Coast Guard District, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, Virginia 23704-5004, between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: CWO Christopher Humphrey, Prevention Department, Sector North Carolina, at
(252)247-4525 or via e-mail to *Christopher.D.Humphrey@uscg.mil.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information On June 20, 2006, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)entitled “Special Local Regulation for Marine Event; Bogue Sound, Morehead City, NC” in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 35404). We received no letters commenting on the proposed rule. On June 28, 2006, a public meeting was held at U.S. Coast Guard Sector North Carolina base, Atlantic Beach, NC. Background and Purpose On September 24, 2006, the Super Boat International Productions Inc. will sponsor the “Crystal Coast Super Boat Grand Prix, on the waters of Bogue Sound including the Morehead City Turning Basin, sections of the Intra-Coastal Waterway, and Morehead City Channel at Morehead City, North Carolina. The event will consist of approximately 35 powerboats participating in two high-speed competitive races, traveling counter-clockwise around a race course. A fleet of spectator vessels are expected to gather near the event site to view the competition. To provide for the safety of participants, spectators and other transiting vessels, the Coast Guard will temporarily restrict vessel traffic in the event area during the races. Discussion of Comments and Changes The Coast Guard did not receive comments in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)published in the **Federal Register** . Additionally, the Coast Guard did not receive substantive comments at the public meeting held on June 28, 2006, at Atlantic Beach, NC. Accordingly, the Coast Guard is establishing temporary special local regulations on waters of Bogue Sound specified in our proposed rule including the Morehead City Turning Basin, sections of the Intracoastal Waterway, and Morehead City Channel at Morehead City, North Carolina. Regulatory Evaluation This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. Although this regulation would prevent traffic from transiting a portion of Bogue Sound including the Morehead City Turning Basin, sections of the Intracoastal Waterway, and Morehead City Channel during the event, the effect of this regulation would not be significant due to the limited duration that the regulated area would be in effect and the extensive advance notification that would be made to the maritime community via marine information broadcast, local radio stations and area newspapers so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. Additionally, the regulated area has been narrowly tailored to impose the least impact on general navigation yet provide the level of safety deemed necessary. Vessel traffic would be able to transit the regulated area between heats, when the Coast Guard Patrol Commander deems it is safe to do so. 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 would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule would affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit this section of Bogue Sound including the Morehead City Turning Basin, Atlantic Intra-Coastal waterway and Morehead City Channel from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. on September 24, 2006. This rule would not have a significant economic impact on substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: Although the regulated area would apply to the Morehead City Channel, Morehead City Turning Basin and a 2 mile segment of the Atlantic Intra-coastal Waterway, south and west of the Highway 70 Bridge, from approximately mile 204 of the Atlantic Intra-coastal Waterway to mile 206, traffic would be allowed to pass through the regulated area with the permission of the Coast Guard Patrol Commander. In the case where the Patrol Commander authorizes passage through the regulated area during the event, vessels would be required to proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course that minimizes wake near the race course. The Patrol Commander would allow non-participating vessels to transit the event area between races. Before the enforcement period, we would issue maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance; please contact U.S. Coast Guard Sector North Carolina, listed at the beginning of this rule. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. 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 would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this 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 would not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule would not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This 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 would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might 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 would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this 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 made a preliminary determination 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, we believe that this rule should be categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the Instruction, an “Environmental Analysis Check List” is not required for this rule. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100 Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways. For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows: PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS 1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. From 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. on September 24, 2006, add a temporary § 100.35T-05-057 to read as follows: § 100.35T-05-057 Bogue Sound, Morehead City, North Carolina.
(a)*Regulated area.* The regulated area is established for the waters of Bogue Sound, adjacent to Morehead City, NC, from the southern tip of Sugar Loaf Island approximate position latitude 34°42′55″ N longitude 076°42′48″ W, thence westerly to Morehead City Channel Daybeacon 7 (LLNR 38620), thence southwest along the channel line to Bogue Sound Light 4 (LLRN 38770), thence southerly to Causeway Channel Daybeacon 2 (LLNR 38720), thence southeasterly to Money Island Daybeacon 1 (LLNR 38645), thence easterly to Eight and One Half Marina Daybeacon 2 (LLNR 38685), thence easterly to the western most shoreline of Brant Island approximate position latitude 34°42′36″ N longitude 076°42′11″ W, thence northeasterly along the shoreline to Tombstone Point approximate position latitude 34°42′14″ N longitude 076°41′20″ W, thence southeasterly to the east end of the pier at Coast Guard Sector North Carolina approximate position latitude 34°42′00″ N longitude 076°40′52″ W, thence easterly to Morehead City Channel Buoy 20 (LLNR 29427), thence northerly to Beaufort Harbor Channel LT 1BH (LLNR 34810), thence northwesterly to the southern tip of Radio Island approximate position latitude 34°42′22″ N longitude 076°40′52″ W, thence northerly along the shoreline to approximate position latitude 34°43′00″ N longitude 076°41′25″ W, thence westerly to the North Carolina State Port Facility, thence westerly along the State Port to the southwest corner approximate position latitude 34°42′55″ N longitude 076°42′12″ W, thence westerly to the southern tip of Sugar Loaf Island the point of origin. All coordinates reference Datum NAD 1983.
(b)*Definitions.* The following definitions apply to this section;
(1)*Coast Guard Patrol Commander* means a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the Coast Guard who has been designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector North Carolina.
(2)*Official Patrol* means any person or vessel assigned or approved by Commander, Coast Guard Sector North Carolina with a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer on board and displaying a Coast Guard ensign.
(3)*Participant* includes all vessels participating in the “Crystal Coast Super Boat Grand Prix” under the auspices of the Marine Event Permit issued to the event sponsor and approved by Commander, Coast Guard Sector North Carolina.
(c)*Special local regulations.*
(1)Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area.
(2)The operator of any vessel in the regulated area must:
(i)Stop the vessel immediately when directed to do so by any Official Patrol and then proceed only as directed.
(ii)All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Official Patrol.
(iii)When authorized to transit the regulated area, all vessels shall proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course that minimizes wake near the race course.
(d)*Enforcement period.* This section will be enforced from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. on September 24, 2006. Dated: August 4, 2006. Larry L. Hereth, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E6-13511 Filed 8-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [CGD01-06-019] RIN 1625-AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Townsend Gut, Boothbay and Southport, ME AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is changing the drawbridge operation regulations that govern the operation of the Southport
(SR27)Bridge, across Townsend Gut, at mile 0.7, between Boothbay Harbor and Southport, Maine. This final rule changes the regulation to require the Southport
(SR27)Bridge to operate on a fixed opening schedule between April 29 and September 30, each year. This final rule is expected to help relieve vehicular traffic delays during the summertime tourism season while continuing to meet both the current and anticipated needs of navigation. DATES: This rule is effective September 15, 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 CGD01-06-019 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 On April 20, 2006, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)entitled “Drawbridge Operation Regulations”; Townsend Gut, Booth Bay and Southport, ME, in the ** Federal Register ** (71 FR 20376). We received twelve comment letters in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking. No public hearing was requested and none was held. Background and Purpose The Southport
(SR27)Bridge, across Townsend Gut, at mile 0.7, has a vertical clearance of 10 feet at mean high water, and 19 feet at mean low water in the closed position. The existing drawbridge operation regulations, listed at 33 CFR 117.5, require the bridge to open on signal at all times. The owner of the bridge, Maine Department of Transportation (MDOT), requested a change to the drawbridge operation regulations governing the operation of the Southport
(SR27)Bridge to require it to open on signal, on the hour, between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m., from April 29 through September 30, each year. The rule change was proposed to help reduce vehicular traffic delays during the summer tourism season when vehicular traffic is greatly increased. Frequent bridge openings during the summer months result in vehicular traffic delays during the daytime hours in Boothbay Harbor and Southport. The Southport
(SR27)Bridge opened 4,136 times in 2004. Specifically, 3,493 (84%) of the 2004 bridge openings were between May and September. The Town of Southport Board of Selectmen conducted a public meeting in the fall of 2005, to survey public opinion regarding the proposed regulation change originally reflected in the notice of proposed rulemaking published on April 20, 2006. The local residents, mariners, and commercial vessel operators who attended the meeting were in favor of permanently changing the regulation governing the operation of the Southport
(SR27)Bridge to require the bridge to open on signal, once an hour, on the hour, between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m., from April 29 through September 30, each year. All other provisions of the existing regulation would remain unchanged. Discussion of Comments and Changes The Coast Guard received twelve comment letters in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking published on April 20, 2006. Six were in favor of the proposed rule change requiring the bridge to open once an hour, on the hour, and six were opposed to the hourly openings. The six comment letters in opposition to the hourly bridge openings varied in reasons, ranging from a concern for boating safety, greater delays of vessel traffic, longer bridge openings to accommodate the volume of vessel traffic waiting to transit the bridge, and a concern for the safety of motorists that will be more likely to rush across the bridge before the hourly bridge opening. Three comment letters suggested that the bridge open two times an hour, on the hour and half hour, as a compromise remedy. The Coast Guard has considered the inconvenience to local lobstermen, local commercial passenger vessels, and recreational boaters. Specifically, the Coast Guard considered the added cost to lobster boat operators bypassing the bridge and navigating around the island and the delays to recreational boaters. We believe these complaints are legitimate as are the concerns of motorists being delayed for frequent unscheduled bridge openings. After reviewing the comments received, and re-visiting the various competing interests, the Coast Guard believes that having two bridge openings an hour, on the hour and half hour, from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. would accommodate the maritime community including local lobstermen, local commercial passenger vessels, recreational boaters, and motorists who seek to cross the bridge. As a result, we have modified this final rule to allow the Southport
(SR27)Bridge to open twice an hour, on the hour and half hour, between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m., from April 29 through September 30. For the remainder of the year, the bridge will open on signal. Regulatory Evaluation This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not significant under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security. This conclusion is based on the fact that vessel traffic, which is not able to pass under the Southport
(SR27)Bridge in the closed position, will still be provided bridge openings twice every hour, on the hour and half hour. Moreover, mariners can safely utilize the alternate route to open water through Sheepscot Bay. 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 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: local lobstermen, local commercial passenger vessels, and recreational boaters. This rule will not have a significant economic impact on these entities for the reasons described under the Regulatory Evaluation section. 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 would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might 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 M16475.1D, 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. 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; section 117.255 also issued under the authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 106 Stat. 5039. 2. Add § 117.537 to read as follows: § 117.537 Townsend Gut. The draw of the Southport
(SR27)Bridge, at mile 0.7, across Townsend Gut between Boothbay Harbor and Southport, Maine shall open on signal; except that, from April 29 through September 30, between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m., the draw shall open on signal on the hour and half hour only, after an opening request is given. Dated: July 31, 2006. Timothy S. Sullivan, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E6-13384 Filed 8-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [COTP San Francisco Bay 06-031] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Old Mormon Slough Sediment Contamination—McCormick and Baxter Superfund Site; Stockton, CA AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in the navigable waters of Stockton Deep Water Channel, in the vicinity of the Old Mormon Slough. This safety zone is necessary to protect persons and vessels, which might otherwise transit near the work site, from the hazards associated with the work. Unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or remaining in the safety zone without permission of the Captain of the Port or his designated representative. DATES: This rule is effective from July 24, 2006 through October 31, 2006. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket COTP 06-031 and are available for inspection or copying at the Waterways Safety Branch of Sector San Francisco, Yerba Buena Island, Bldg. 278, San Francisco, California, 94130, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ensign Erin Bastick, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Francisco, at
(415)556-2950 or Sector San Francisco 24 hour Command Center at
(415)399-3547. 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 dates for the site remediation of the Old Mormon Slough were not finalized and presented to the Coast Guard in time to draft and publish an NPRM. As such, the capping of the Slough would commence before the rulemaking process could be completed. Any delay in implementing this rule is contrary to the public interest since immediate action is necessary in order to protect the maritime public from the hazards associated with the remediation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . The dates for the site remediation of the Old Mormon Slough were not finalized and presented to the Coast Guard in time to publish this rule 30 days prior to its effective date. As such, the capping of the Slough would commence before the rulemaking process could be completed. Delay in the effective date of this rule would expose the mariners and waterways users to undue hazards associated with the remediation and would therefore be contrary to the public interest. Background and Purpose This safety zone is necessary to cap a superfund site, located in the Stockton Deep Water Channel, within the Old Mormon Slough. The Army Corps of Engineers has contracted Montgomery Watson, with J.E. McAmis Inc. being the subcontractor, to implement Phase II of the selected remedy for contaminated sediment in the Old Mormon Slough. Phase II consists of placing a cap of clean sand on the contaminated portion of the Slough. During this process it is imperative that unauthorized persons or vessels remain out of the safety zone for safety reasons in addition to ensuring proper completion of the project. This will enable the EPA to proceed with plans of this Superfund site and contain the contaminated sediment. Discussion of Rule This safety zone will encompass the navigable waters from the surface to the sea floor, located in the Stockton Deep Water Channel, within the Old Mormon Slough, encompassing all waters East of 37°57′01.25″ N. Latitude by 121°18′48.03″ W. Longitude. Within the waters of this safety zone, J.E. McAmis, Inc. will be covering the contaminated bottom of the Old Mormon Slough with two feet of sand. To control turbidity, a primary and a local silt curtain will be installed. The primary silt curtain will be installed at 37°57′01.25″ N. Latitude by 121°18′48.03″ W. Longitude, creating the safety zones outer boundary. JEM intends to place one loaded barge of sand (approximately 750/c.y.) each day. The silt curtains will be opened and closed each day when a loaded barge is switched with an empty barge. After completion of sand placement, the primary silt curtain will be removed. A permanent log boom will be installed in the same location along with Type 2, Type 3A and Type 3B warning signs. This safety zone is necessary to protect persons and property from the hazards associated with the work. U.S. Coast Guard personnel will enforce this safety zone. Other Federal, State, or local agencies may assist the Coast Guard, including the Coast Guard Auxiliary. Section 165.23 of Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations, prohibits any unauthorized person or vessel from entering or remaining in a safety zone. Vessels or persons violating this section will be subject to both criminal and civil penalties. 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. Although this rule restricts access to the waters encompassed by the safety zone, the effect of this rule will not be significant because the local waterway users have been contacted to ensure the closure will result in minimum impact. The entities most likely to be affected are pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities. 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. We expect this rule may affect owners and operators of vessels, some of which may be small entities, intending to fish, sightsee, or anchor in the waters affected by this safety zone. This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because vessels engaged in recreational activities, sightseeing and fishing have ample space outside of the safety zone to engage in these activities. Small entities and the maritime public will also be advised of this safety zone via public broadcast notice to mariners. The economic impact of this waterway closure is not expected to be significant. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 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. If the rule will affect your small business, organization, or government jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact Ensign Erin Bastick, Waterways Safety Branch, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Francisco at
(415)556-2950 extension 142, or the 24 hour Command Center at
(415)399-3547. 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 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. Paragraph (34)(g) is applicable because this rule 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; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Add § 165.T11-127, to read as follows: § 165.T11-127 Safety Zone; Old Mormon Slough Sediment Contamination—McCormick and Baxter Superfund Site; Stockton, California.
(a)*Location* . This safety zone will encompass the navigable waters from the surface to the sea floor, located in the Stockton Deep Water Channel, within the Old Mormon Slough, encompassing all waters East of 37°57′01.25″N Latitude by 121°18′48.03″W Longitude. Within the waters of this safety zone, the contaminated bottom of the Old Mormon Slough will be covered with two feet of sand. To control turbidity, a primary and a local silt curtain will be installed. The primary silt curtain will be installed at 37°57′01.25″N Latitude by 121°18′48.03″W Longitude, creating the safety zones outer boundary.
(b)*Effective Dates* . This rule is effective from July 24, 2006 through October 31, 2006.
(c)*Regulations* . In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry into, transit through, or anchoring within this safety zone by all vessels and persons is prohibited, unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port San Francisco, or his designated on-scene patrol personnel.
(d)*Enforcement* .
(1)All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port, or the designated on-scene patrol personnel. Patrol personnel can be comprised of commissioned, warrant, and petty officers of the Coast Guard onboard Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, local, state, and Federal law enforcement vessels. Upon being hailed by U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel by siren, radio, flashing light or other means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed as directed.
(2)The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol and enforcement of these two safety zones by local law enforcement as necessary.
(3)If the need for the safety zone ends prior to the scheduled termination time, the Captain of the Port will cease enforcement of the safety zone. Dated: July 21, 2006. David Swatland, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port, San Francisco, California. [FR Doc. E6-13392 Filed 8-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0018; FRL-8080-7] Endothall; Pesticide Tolerance AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a tolerance for combined residues of endothall and its monomethyl ester in or on fish. Cerexagri, Inc. requested this tolerance 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 16, 2006. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before October 16, 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-2005-0018. 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: Joanne Miller, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703)305-6224; e-mail address: *miller.joanne@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-2005-0018 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 16, 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-2005-0018, 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 February 11, 2005 (70 FR 7260) (FRL-7696-9), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 9F6015) by Cerexagri, Inc., 630 Freedom Business Center, Suite 402, King of Prussia, PA 19406. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.293 be amended by establishing a tolerance for residues of the herbicide endothall, 7-oxabicyclo[2,2,1] heptane-2,3-dicarboxylic acid, in or on fish/shellfish at 0.25 parts per million (ppm). That notice included a summary of the petition prepared by Cerexagri, Inc., the registrant. Comments were received on the notice of filing. EPA's response to these comments is discussed in Unit IV.C. On June 8, 2006, Cerexagri, Inc. submitted a revised petition to the Agency. The petition was requested establishing a tolerance for endothall in or on fish at 0.1 ppm. The endothall tolerance under 40 CFR 180.293 is being revised per the Endothall RED, to be expressed in terms of endothall *per se* and its monomethyl ester. Tolerances that are currently established for residues in/on undelinted cotton seed, hops, potato, and rice grain and straw will not change in value. Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue....” EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. For further discussion of the regulatory requirements of section 408 of the FFDCA and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/1997/November/Day-26/p30948.htm* . III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure, consistent with section 408(b)(2) of FFDCA, for a tolerance for combined residues of endothall and its monomethyl ester on fish at 0.1 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 endothall and its monomethyl ester as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at *http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/endothall_red.pd.* B. Toxicological Endpoints For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the NOAEL from the toxicology study identified as appropriate for use in risk assessment is used to estimate the toxicological level of concern (LOC). However, the LOAEL is sometimes used for risk assessment if no NOAEL was achieved in the toxicology study selected. An uncertainty factor
(UF)is applied to reflect uncertainties inherent in the extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and in the variations in sensitivity among members of the human population as well as other unknowns. The linear default risk methodology (Q*) is the primary method currently used by the Agency to quantify non-threshold hazards such as cancer. The Q* approach assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of cancer risk, estimates risk in terms of the probability of occurrence of additional cancer cases. More information can be found on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization at *http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/health/human.htm.* A summary of the toxicological endpoints for endothall and its monomethyl ester used for human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit: **Table 1.—Summary of Toxicological Dose and Endpoints for Endothall and its monomethyl ester for Use in Human Risk Assessment** Exposure/Scenario Dose Used in Risk Assessment, Interspecies and Intraspecies and any Traditional UF Special FQPA Safety Factor
(SF)and LOC for Risk Assessment Study and Toxicological Effects Acute Dietary (Females 13-50 years of age) An appropriate endpoint attributable to a single dose was not available from any study, including the prenatal developmental toxicity study in rats. An acute reference dose
(RfD)was not established. Chronic Dietary (All populations) LOAEL= 2 milligrams/kilogram (mg/kg)/day UF = 300 Chronic RfD = 0.007 mg/kg/day FQPA SF = 1 Chronic population adjusted dose
(cPAD)= chronic RfD ÷ FQPA SF = 0.007 mg/kg/day Rat 2-generation reproduction study LOAEL 2 mg/kg/day based on proliferative lesions of the gastric epithelium (both sexes) Short-Term Incidental Oral (1 to 30 days) (Residential) Offspring NOAEL = 9.4 mg/kg/day Residential LOC for Margin of Exposure
(MOE)= 100 Occupational = Not Applicable (N.A.) Rat 2-generation reproduction study LOAEL 60 mg/kg/day based on decreased pup body weight (both sexes) on Day 0 F <sup>1</sup> and F <sup>2</sup> generations Intermediate-Term Incidental Oral (1 to 6 months) (Residential) LOAEL= 2 mg/kg/day Residential LOC for MOE = 300 Occupational = N.A. Rat 2-generation reproduction study LOAEL 2 mg/kg/day based on proliferative lesions of the gastric epithelium (both sexes) Short-Term Dermal (1 to 30 days) (Residential) No dermal assessments were conducted, since endothall is a severe dermal irritant and repeated dermal exposure is highly unlikely to occur. Intermediate-Term Dermal (1 to 6 months) (Residential) No dermal assessments were conducted, since endothall is a severe dermal irritant and repeated dermal exposure is highly unlikely to occur. Long-Term Dermal ( > 6 months) N.A. No exposure under use pattern Residential N.A. Occupational N.A. N.A. Short-Term Inhalation (1 to 30 days) Offspring NOAEL = 9.4 mg/kg/day (inhalation absorption rate = 100%) Residential LOC for MOE = 100 Occupational LOC for MOE = 100 Rat 2-generation reproduction study LOAEL 60 mg/kg/day based on decreased pup body weight (both sexes) on Day 0 F <sup>1</sup> and F <sup>2</sup> generations Intermediate-Term Inhalation (1 to 6 months) and Long-Term Inhalation ( > 6 months) LOAEL= 2 mg/kg/day Residential LOC for MOE = 300 Occupational LOC for MOE = 300 Rat 2-generation reproduction study LOAEL 2 mg/kg/day based on proliferative lesions of the gastric epithelium (both sexes) Cancer (oral, dermal, inhalation) N.A. N.A. Chronic/Onco Rat Negative for carcinogenicity Carcinogenicity Mice Negative for carcinogenicity Not likely carcinogenic to humans C. Exposure Assessment 1. *Dietary exposure from food and feed uses* . Tolerances have been established (40 CFR 180.293) for the residues of endothall, in or on a variety of raw agricultural commodities. Risk assessments were conducted by EPA to assess dietary exposures from endothall and its monomethyl ester 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 endothall and its monomethyl ester; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary. In conducting the acute 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 United States Department of Agricultural
(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 acute exposure assessments: No toxicological endpoint was identified for acute oral exposure. Therefore no acute dietary exposure assessment was performed. ii. *Chronic exposure* . In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the DEEM-FCID TM , which incorporates food consumption data as reported by respondents in the USDA 1994-1996 and 1998 Nationwide CSFII, and accumulated exposure to the chemical for each commodity. The following assumptions were made for the chronic exposure assessments: For the chronic analyses, tolerance-level residues were assumed for all food commodities with current or proposed endothall tolerances, and it was assumed that all the crops included in the analysis were treated. Percent Crop Treated
(PCT)and/or anticipated residues were not used in the chronic risk assessment. iii. *Cancer* . Endothall is considered not likely to be carcinogenic to humans. 2. *Dietary exposure from drinking water* . This assessment assumes an endothall concentration of 100 parts per billion
(ppb)as the average concentration in drinking water. This concentration is the Maximum Contaminant Level
(MCL)for endothall. Actual monitoring data for endothall suggest the average concentration of endothall in drinking water are well below the MCL. Monitoring data for finished water are available from the National Contaminant Occurrence Database
(NCOD)for both surface water and ground water. Detectable residues of endothall were found in only 7 of 27,494 or 0.025% of ground water samples and 8 of 5,112 or 0.15% of surface water samples. Although these few values are above the established Maximum Contaminant Level
(MCL)for endothall of 100 ppb, greater than 99% of ground water and surface water samples contained concentration below the limit of detections (10 ppb). Using this data the mean concentration of endothall would be expected to be 10 ppb in both ground water and surface water. Although the MCL is likely to overestimate average (i.e., chronic) residues of endothall in drinking water, EPA believes it provides a reasonable high-end estimate of potential drinking water concentrations from the aquatic uses of endothall. Consequently, the MCL of 100 ppb was used in the dietary risk assessment. Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) models, the estimated environmental concentrations
(EECs)of endothall and its monomethyl ester for acute exposures are estimated to be 7.1 ppb for surface water and 0.086 ppb for ground water. The EECs for chronic exposures are estimated to be 2.5 ppb for surface water and 0.086 ppb for ground water. The EECs for chronic exposures (cancer) are estimated to be 2.4 ppb for surface water and 0.086 ppb for ground 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). Endothall and its monomethyl ester is currently registered for use on the following residential non-dietary sites: Ponds and garden pools. The risk assessment was conducted using the following residential exposure assumptions: Homeowners may potentially be exposed to endothall by applying home-use formulations. There is potential for exposure to adults and children from incidental oral and dermal exposure during recreational activities in public waters treated with endothall. As a result, risk assessments were completed for both residential handlers and post-application scenarios. Residential applications are only expected to occur over short-periods of time. For residential post-application exposures, exposures on the day of application after an application to a public water body are of the greatest concern. The Agency identified incidental oral exposure (from swallowing water while swimming) and the potential for dermal irritation while swimming as possible post-application exposure scenarios. The Agency conducted an assessment, using the SWIM modeling program, to assess incidental exposures. Risks were calculated using MOEs, where and MOE greater than or equal to 100 is below EPA's LOC. 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 endothall and its monomethyl ester and any other substances and endothall and its monomethyl ester 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 endothall and its monomethyl ester 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 UFs and/or special FQPA safety factors, as appropriate. 2. *Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity* . There is not a concern for prenatal and/or postnatal toxicity resulting from exposure to endothall in rats (rabbit- not yet determined). There was no quantitative or qualitative evidence of increased susceptibility following prenatal exposure to rats in the developmental toxicity study and prenatal/postnatal exposure to rats in the 2-generation reproduction study. Due to the lack of a prenatal developmental study in rabbits, susceptibility could not be ascertained in a second (non-rodent) species. There are no concerns for residual uncertainty for prenatal toxicity in the available developmental study, or the 2-generation rat toxicity study. In evaluating the toxicological database for endothall, the primary effects are the point of entry effects (i.e., dermal). In addition, the weight of evidence suggests that endothall will be of no developmental concern. The rabbit developmental study is being required as a confirmatory study. 3. *Conclusion* . Based on the above data base (which is considered adequate), no special FQPA safety factor (i.e. 1X) is required since there are no residual uncertainties for prenatal toxicity. In deriving uncertainty for use in the risk assessment, the conventional 10x factor for interspecies extrapolation and 10x for intraspecies extrapolation were used for all scenarios. The data base was complete enough and there was no evidence of prenatal or postnatal susceptibility in the studies submitted and evaluated to date. Therefore, the FQPA 10X factor was reduced to 1X. The exposure scenarios in which the hazard value was based on a LOAEL (intermediate term inhalation for both occupational and residential settings) an additional UF of 3X was used to approximate a NOAEL. E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety 1. *Acute risk* . Due to the lack of an acute Rfd and acute dietary exposure/risk, an acute aggregate risk assessment was not performed. 2. *Chronic risk* . There are no long term residential uses of endothall. Aggregated chronic exposures to endothall through food plus drinking water were calculated in DEEM TM . The results for directly treated crops, irrigated crops and drinking water from aquatic uses of endothall were 33% of the cPAD (0.002297 mg/kg/day) for the general population. The most highly exposed population subgroup was infants at 103% cPAD (0.007234 mg/kg/day). This risk estimate is the result of conservative assumptions (using the MCL of 100 ppb, likely to overestimate chronic residues of endothall in drinking waters). 3. *Short-term risk* . A risk assessment for aggregate exposures (food + drinking water + residential) was conducted for the short term exposure scenario because residential uses of endothall are expected to be only episodic. Food exposures are based on treated crops and irrigated crops. Drinking water exposures are based on aquatic uses of endothall. Although endothall has terrestrial uses, as well as aquatic uses, the aquatic uses result in the highest estimates of potential drinking water exposures. Residential handler exposures for adults are based on granular applications of endothall with a belly grinder to lakes or ponds. Residential post-application exposures for adults and children are based on swimming. For adults, estimated dietary exposures via food and drinking water were combined with inhalation exposures during application to a pond or lake and potential post-application exposures during swimming. The Agency notes the handler scenario aggregated for adults is the exposure scenario resulting in the lowest MOE (highest risk estimate) for residential handlers. For children, estimated dietary exposures via food and drinking water were combined with potential post-application exposures during swimming. The short term aggregate risk estimate
(MOE)for adults is 310, for children, it is 250. The MOEs are not a risk concern. Therefore, there are no short term aggregate (food + drinking water + residential) risk concerns for endothall. **Table 2.—Aggregate Risk Assessment for Short-Term Exposure to Endothall and its monomethyl ester** Population Short Term Scenario Target Aggregate MOE 1 MOE food + water 2 Residential MOE oral 3 MOE dermal MOE inhalation 4 Aggregate MOE (food + water and residential) 5 Child (3-5 years old) 100 2,770 280 N.A. N.A. 250 Adults (50+ years old) 100 4,250 900 N.A. 470 310 1 Target MOE of 100 based on using UF of 10X for interspecies extrapolation and 10X for intraspecies variability. 2 MOE food + water, which incorporated the dietary exposures for treated crops, irrigated crops and aquatic uses, = ( short-term oral NOAEL)/(chronic dietary exposure). Short-term NOAEL = 9.4 mg/kg/day from the 2-generation reproduction rat study, chronic dietary (food+ water) exposure = 0.003395, Children 3-5 years old, and 0.002211, Adults 50+ years old. 3 MOE oral = (short-term oral NOAEL)/(Oral postapplication exposure of Swimmers) Short-term NOAEL = 9.4 mg/kg/day from the 2-generation reproduction rat study, Oral daily postapplication exposure of swimmers = 0.0341 mg/kg/day, Children 6-10 years old; 0.0107 mg/kg/day, Adults (see Table 6.3.2.2). 4 MOE inhalation = [(inhalation NOAEL)/(high-end inhalation residential handler exposure)] Short-term inhalation NOAEL = 9.4 mg/kg/day from the 2-generation reproduction rat study. 5 Aggregate MOE (food + water and residential) = 1÷[ [(1÷MOE food+ water) + (1÷MOE oral) + (1÷MOE dermal) + (1÷MOE inhalation)]] 4. *Intermediate-term risk* . Due to the episodic residential use of Endothall, no intermediate term aggregate (dietary + residential) risk assessment was performed. 5. *Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population* . Endothall is considered not likely to be carcinogenic to humans. 6. *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 endothall and its monomethyl ester residues. IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology An improved high performance liquid chromotography-mass spectrometry detection (HPLC-MSD) method has been submitted as a confirmatory enforcement method for plants and fish. A gas chromatography method with microcoulometric nitrogen detection is listed as Method I in the Pesticide Analytical Manual (PAM, Volume II) for the determination of endothall residues in/on crop commodities. Adequate enforcement methodology (specify method; example—gas chromatography) 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 No International tolerances have been set for endothall. C. Response to Comments Public comments were received from B. Sachau who objected to the proposed tolerances because of the amounts of pesticides already consumed and carried by the American population. She further indicated that testing conducted on animals have absolutely no validity and are cruel to the test animals. B. Sachau's comments contained no scientific data or evidence to rebut the Agency's conclusion that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to endothall, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information. EPA has responded to B. Sachau's generalized comments on numerous previous occasions. V. Conclusion Therefore, the tolerance is established for combined residues of endothall, 7-oxabicyclo[2,2,1] heptane-2,3-dicarboxylic acid and its monomethyl ester, in or on fish at 0.1 ppm, and the endothall tolerance in 40 CFR 180.293 is revised to be expressed in terms of endothall *per se* and its monomethyl ester. 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. The Agency hereby certifies that this rule will not have significant negative economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In addition, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled *Federalism* (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers and food retailers, not States. This action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of section 408(n)(4) of 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: August 3, 2006. Lois Rossi, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows: PART 180—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. 2. Section 180.293, paragraph (a)(1) is amended by revising the introductory text and alphabetically adding the commodity “fish” to the table to read as follows: § 180.293 Endothall; tolerances for residues.
(a)*General* .
(1)Tolerances are established for combined residues of Endothall, 7-oxabicyclo [2, 2, 1] heptane-2, 3-dicarboxylic acid and its monomethyl ester in or on the following raw agricultural commodities: Commodity Parts per million * * * * * Fish 0.1 * * * * * [FR Doc. E6-13293 Filed 8-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 302 and 355 [EPA-HQ-SFUND-2002-0010; EPA-HQ-SFUND-2002-0011; FRL-8210-5] RIN 2050-AE12 Reportable Quantity Adjustments for Carbamates and Carbamate-Related Hazardous Waste Streams; Reportable Quantity Adjustment for Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing Process Waste
(K178)AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This rule promulgates adjustments to the reportable quantities under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act for 28 individual carbamates and five carbamate-related hazardous waste streams and for the inorganic chemical manufacturing process waste K178 from their statutory one-pound reportable quantities. All of the substances are listed as hazardous wastes under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act. DATES: This final rule is effective on September 15, 2006. ADDRESSES: EPA has established two dockets for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2002-0010 and EPA-HQ-SFUND-2002-0011. All documents in the dockets are listed on the *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Superfund Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is
(202)566-1744, and the telephone number for the Superfund Docket is
(202)566-0270. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynn Beasley, Regulation and Policy Development Division, Office of Emergency Management, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (5104A), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:
(202)564-1965; fax number:
(202)564-2625; e-mail address: *beasley.lynn@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Does This Action Apply to Me? Type of entity Examples of affected entities Industry Manufacturers, handlers, transporters, and other users of carbamates. These substances are often used as insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, accelerators in the vulcanization of rubber, or as chemical intermediates in the manufacture of drugs, pesticides, or resins. In addition, entities that may release K178 waste streams will also be affected. State, Local, or Tribal Governments State Emergency Response Commissions, and Local Emergency Planning Committees. Federal Government National Response Center, and any Federal agency that may release these carbamates and waste streams. This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether your facility, company, business, or organization is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the changes to 40 CFR parts 302 and 355. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. B. Outline of This Preamble The contents of this preamble are listed in the following outline: I. Introduction A. What is the Statutory Authority for This Rulemaking? B. What Types of Releases Are Exempt From These Reporting Requirements? II. Background III. Summary of This Action A. What Is the Scope of This Rule? B. What Methodology Did EPA Use To Adjust the RQs of the Individual Carbamates? 1. RQ Adjustment Methodology 2. Final RQ Adjustments C. What Are the Final Adjusted RQs for the Individual Carbamates? D. What Methodology Did EPA Use To Assign RQs for the Carbamate-Related Waste Streams? 1. RQ Assignment Methodology for F- and K-Hazardous Waste Streams 2. RQ Assignments for the Carbamate-Related Waste Streams a. Comment Received on the Proposed RQ Adjustment for K156 and K157 b. Response To Comment—Application of Mixture Rule to Listed Wastes E. What Conforming Changes Are Made to 40 CFR Table 302.4 and its Appendix A? F. What Conforming Changes Are Made to 40 CFR Part 355? G. What Final RQ Is Assigned to the K178 Waste? 1. Comment Received on the Proposed RQ Adjustment for K178 2. Response To Comment—Application of Mixture Rule to Listed Wastes IV. Statutory and Regulatory Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act C. Regulatory Flexibility Act D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Energy Effects I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act J. The Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* as Added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996) I. Introduction A. What Is the Statutory Authority for This Rulemaking? The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9601 *et seq.* , as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, gives the Federal government broad authority to respond to releases or threats of releases of hazardous substances from vessels and facilities. The term “hazardous substance” is defined in section 101(14) of CERCLA by referencing various Federal environmental statutes. For example, the term includes “any hazardous waste having the characteristics identified under or listed pursuant to section 3001 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act * * *,” also known as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Section 102(b) of CERCLA establishes reportable quantities
(RQs)of one pound (“statutory RQs”) for releases of most CERCLA hazardous substances. Under section 102(a) of CERCLA, the Administrator of EPA has the authority to adjust these RQs by regulation (“adjusted RQs”). Under CERCLA section 103(a), the person in charge of a vessel or facility from which a CERCLA hazardous substance is released in a quantity that equals or exceeds its RQ must immediately notify the National Response Center
(NRC)of that release. A release is reportable if an RQ or more of the hazardous substance is released within a 24-hour period. ( *See* 40 CFR 302.6.) This reporting requirement serves as a trigger for informing the government of a release so that Federal personnel can evaluate the need for a Federal removal or remedial action and undertake any necessary action in a timely fashion. In addition to the reporting requirements under CERCLA section 103, section 304 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA), 42 U.S.C. 11001 *et seq.* , requires owners or operators of certain facilities to report releases of extremely hazardous substances
(EHSs)and CERCLA hazardous substances to State and local authorities. ( *See* 40 CFR 355.40.) Thus, after the release of an EHS or a hazardous substance in a quantity equal to or greater than its RQ, facility owners or operators must immediately notify the community emergency coordinator for each local emergency planning committee for any area likely to be affected by the release, and the State emergency response commission of any State likely to be affected by the release. B. What Types of Releases Are Exempt From These Reporting Requirements? To determine whether you must report the release of a carbamate that equals or exceeds its RQ, you should note that section 103(e) of CERCLA exempts from the notification provisions of CERCLA section 103(a): “* * * the application of a pesticide product registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act or * * * the handling and storage of such a pesticide product by an agricultural producer.” The legislative history of CERCLA suggests that Congress intended this exemption to apply to the application of a pesticide generally in accordance with the pesticide's purpose. If a release of a CERCLA hazardous substance meets the criteria under CERCLA section 103(e) for an exemption from reporting to the NRC, the same release is also exempt from the notification requirements to State and local authorities under EPCRA section 304. For this final rule, therefore, the use of carbamates as pesticides in accordance with its use and purpose is not subject to the reporting requirements under CERCLA section 103(e) and EPCRA section 304. As stipulated by EPA in an earlier final rule (50 FR 13464, Apr. 4, 1985), we do not consider the spill of a pesticide to be an application of the pesticide, nor do we consider a pesticide spill to be in accordance with the pesticide's purpose. Consequently, spills of a carbamate pesticide that equal or exceed an RQ must be reported to the NRC under CERCLA section 103 and to the appropriate State and local authorities under EPCRA section 304. II. Background In this final rule, EPA adjusts the statutory one-pound RQs for 28 individual carbamates and five carbamate-related waste streams. The adjustments to these statutory one-pound RQs were proposed in December 2003. ( *See* 68 FR 67916, Dec. 4, 2003.) This final rule includes RQ adjustments not only for individual carbamates, but also for thiocarbamates, dithiocarbamates, carbamoyl oximes, and several other individual substances that are closely related to carbamate production and/or waste generation. The preamble to this final rule refers to all 28 individual substances for which the RQ adjustments are made as “carbamates,” and to the five waste streams as “carbamate-related” waste streams. In addition, EPA is adjusting the statutory one-pound RQ of another hazardous waste stream, K178, which is unrelated to the carbamates addressed in this rule (see Section III.G of this preamble for information regarding K178). A summary of the developments leading up to this final rule as it relates to the carbamate-related substances is provided below. On November 8, 1984, Congress amended RCRA by enacting the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), 42 U.S.C. 6901 *et seq.* In one provision of HSWA—a newly added RCRA section 3001(e)(2)—Congress directed EPA to determine whether several wastes, including wastes generated from the production of carbamates, should be listed as RCRA hazardous wastes. Carbamates are widely used as active ingredients in pesticides, herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides, and in the production of synthetic rubber. Before Congress enacted HSWA in 1984, EPA already had regulated several carbamate substances under RCRA, CERCLA, and other statutes. Based on our evaluation of the carbamate production wastes, we published a proposal to list 80 carbamate-related substances as RCRA hazardous wastes and as CERCLA hazardous substances. ( *See* 59 FR 9808, Mar. 1, 1994.) The 80 substances included:
(1)70 individual carbamates;
(2)six carbamate-related waste streams; and
(3)four generic groups of carbamate products or captive intermediates with limited toxicity data. 1 On February 9, 1995, we finalized the listing of 64 of the 80 substances as RCRA hazardous wastes and CERCLA hazardous substances, deferring action on 12 individual substances and the four generic groups of carbamate products or captive intermediates with limited toxicity data included in the March 1994 proposed rule. ( *See* 60 FR 7824, Feb. 9, 1995.) EPA listed a total of 58 individual carbamates and six carbamate-related hazardous waste streams as RCRA hazardous wastes and CERCLA hazardous substances in the February 1995 final rule. 2 Corrections to minor errors in the February 1995 final rule were later published. ( *See* 60 FR 19165, Apr. 17, 1995 and 60 FR 25619, May 12, 1995.) We also modified our interpretation of the rule as it affected listings for K156 and K157 hazardous wastes. ( *See* 60 FR 41817, Aug. 14, 1995.) 1 These chemicals with limited toxicity data were divided into structure-toxicity groups (esterase (cholinesterase) inhibiting, other non-cancer toxicity, potentially carcinogenic, and toxic metal (metallocarbamates)). ( *See* 59 FR 9840, Mar. 1, 1994.) 2 Independent of the March 1994 proposed and February 1995 final rules, EPA added and adjusted the RQs for six individual carbamates to 40 CFR table 302.4—List of Hazardous Substances and Reportable Quantities, due to their listing under the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, or both. The six substances and their Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Numbers (CASRNs) are: carbaryl (CASRN 63-25-2); carbofuran (CASRN 1563-66-2); mercaptodimethur (CASRN 2032-65-7); mexacarbate (CASRN 315-18-4); triethylamine (CASRN 121-44-8); and propoxur (CASRN 114-26-1). We adjusted the RQ for the first five of these six substances in a final rule (50 FR 13456, Apr. 4, 1985) and later adjusted the RQ for the last substance, propoxur, in another final rule (60 FR 30926, Jun. 12, 1995). On November 1, 1996, the Court of Appeals (D.C. Circuit) ruled that EPA failed to follow proper rulemaking procedures in making some of the carbamate listing determinations in the February 1995 rule. *Dithiocarbamate Task Force* v. *EPA* , 98 F.3d 1394 (D.C. Cir. 1996). The court vacated the RCRA hazardous waste and CERCLA hazardous substance listings for 24 3 of the 58 individual carbamates and one of the six carbamate-related waste streams
(K160)included in that rule. The court also vacated three other carbamate-related waste streams (K156, K157, and K158) to the extent that they applied to the chemical 3-iodo-2-propynyl n-butylcarbamate. Under the court decision, the vacated carbamate listings are to be treated as though they had never been in effect. 3 The 24 vacated listings and their Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Numbers (CASRNs) and Hazardous Waste No. (U###) were: Bis(pentamethylene)thiuram tetrasulfide (120-54-7), (U400); Copper, bis(dimethylcarbamodithioato-S,S')-(137-29-1), (U393); Dazomet (533-74-44), (U366); Disulfiram (97-77-8), (U403); Iron, tris(dimethylcarbamodithioato-S,S')-(14484-64-1), (U396); Metam Sodium (137-42-8), (U384); Selenium, tetrakis(dimethyldithiocarbamate) (144-34-3), (U376); Carbamodithioic acid, dimethyl, potassium salt (128-03-0), (U383); Carbamodithioic acid, (hydroxymethyl)methyl-, monopotassium salt (51026-28-9), (U378); Carbamodithioic acid, methyl-, monopotassium salt (137-41-7), (U377); Carbamodithioic acid, dibutyl, sodium salt (136-30-1), (U379); Carbamodithioic acid, diethyl-, sodium salt (148-18-5), (U381); Carbamodithioic acid, dimethyl-, sodium salt (128-04-1), (U382); Carbamodithioic acid, diethyl-, 2-chloro-2-propenyl ester (95-06-7), (U277); Tetrabutylthiuram disulfide (1634-02-2), (U402); Bis(dimethylthiocarbamoyl) sulfide (97-74-5), (U401); Ethyl Ziram (14324-55-1), (U407); Butylate (2008-41-5), (U392); Cycloate (1134-23-2), (U386); EPTC (759-94-4), (U390); Molinate (2212-67-1), (U365); Pebulate (1114-71-2), (U391); Carbamothioic acid, dipropyl-, S-propyl ester (1929-77-7), (U385); and Carbamic acid, butyl-, 3-iodo-2-propynyl ester (55406-53-6), (U375). To clarify the status of the vacated listings for the regulated community and the public, EPA amended the lists of RCRA hazardous wastes (40 CFR part 261) and CERCLA hazardous substances (40 CFR part 302) to remove the entries for the 24 individual carbamates and one carbamate-related waste stream
(K160)that were vacated by the court, and revised the entries for K156, K157, and K158 to indicate that they do not apply to 3-iodo-2-propynyl n-butylcarbamate (62 FR 32974, Jun. 17, 1997). The court's ruling did not change the February 1995 listing of the 34 remaining individual carbamates as RCRA hazardous wastes, which includes the six carbamates that were listed as hazardous substances due to their listing under the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, or both. Those listings remain in effect. Upon the effective date of the February 1995, final rule, the 28 4 remaining individual carbamates and the five carbamate-related hazardous waste streams became hazardous substances under CERCLA section 101(14)(C) and received one-pound statutory RQs. This final rule adjusts the RQs for these 28 individual substances and five waste streams (proposed for adjustment in December 2003) based on criteria that relate to the possibility of harm from the release of each hazardous substance into the environment. EPA is revising the 40 CFR table 302.4— *List of Hazardous Substances and Reportable Quantities* to reflect these changes and other conforming changes. 4 **Note:** Six of the 34 individual carbamates already have their final adjusted RQs, see FN 2, above. Diagrams Showing Evolution of This Final Rule Diagram 1.—Listing RCRA Hazardous Wastes and CERCLA Hazardous Substances March 1, 1994 Proposed Rule 59 FR 9808 80 Carbamate-Related Substances RCRA Hazardous Wastes and CERCLA Hazardous Substances 70 Individual Carbamates (Includes 6 individual carbamates with CERCLA RQs adjusted previously under 50 FR 13456 and 60 FR 30926) 6 Carbamate-Related Waste Streams 4 Generic Groups. February 9, 1995 Final Rule 60 FR 7824 64 Carbamate-Related Substances RCRA Hazardous Wastes and CERCLA Hazardous Substances This completes the RCRA Hazardous Waste Listing for these substances 58 Individual Carbamates (Action deferred on 12 Individual Carbamates) 6 Carbamate-Related Waste Streams 0 Generic Groups (Action deferred on 4 generic groups). Diagram 2.—November 1, 1996 Court of Appeals Decision *Dithiocarbamate Task Force* v. *EPA* 98 F.3d 1394 (D.C.Cir. 1996) 58 Individual Carbamates (Court vacated 24 individual carbamates) 6 Carbamate Related Waste Streams (Court vacated 1 waste stream, partially vacated 3 others). June 17, 1997 Final Rule 62 FR 32974 Amended February 9, 1995 Final Rule to Conform with Court of Appeals Decision 34 Individual Carbamates (Includes 6 individual carbamates with CERCLA RQs adjusted previously under 50 FR 13456 and 60 FR 30926) 5 Carbamate-Related Waste Streams. Diagram 3.—RQ Adjustment for CERCLA Hazardous Substances December 4, 2003 Proposed Rule 68 FR 67916 28 Individual Carbamates (34 individual carbamates less the 6 individual carbamates with RQ adjustments under 50 FR 13456 and 60 FR 30926) 5 Carbamate-Related Waste Streams. FINAL RULE FINAL CERCLA RQ Adjustments for 28 Individual Carbamates and 5 Carbamate-Related Waste Streams Eleven of the individual substances with RQ adjustments in this final rule are also EPCRA section 302 EHSs. For the names of these 11 substances, see the revisions to Appendices A and B of 40 CFR part 355, included at the end of this final rule. In 1989, we proposed to adjust the RQs for all the EPCRA EHSs. 5 ( *See* 54 FR 35988, Aug. 30, 1989.) Except for the 11 substances included in this rule, we finalized adjustments to the RQs for all the EHSs at 61 FR 20473, May 7, 1996. The adjusted RQs for these 11 substances are now finalized by this action. 5 We used the data from this August 30, 1989, proposed rulemaking, as well as more recent data, to support the RQ adjustments proposed for these 11 substances in this rule. III. Summary of This Action A. What Is The Scope of This Rule? In this final rule, we are adjusting the one-pound statutory RQs for 28 individual carbamates (one of which is adjusted to a final RQ of one-pound) and five carbamate-related waste streams. In addition, EPA is adjusting the one-pound statutory RQ of another hazardous waste stream, K178, which is unrelated to the carbamates addressed in this rule (see Section III.G. of this preamble for information regarding K178). We based these adjustments on specific scientific and technical criteria that relate to the possibility of harm from the release of a CERCLA hazardous substance in certain amounts. RQs are based, in part, on a determination of possible or potential harm, but they are not a determination that releases of a particular amount of a hazardous substance necessarily will harm the public health, welfare, or the environment. The quantity released is just one factor that the Federal government considers when it assesses the need to respond to such a release. Other factors include, but are not limited to, the location of the release, its proximity to drinking water supplies or other valuable resources, and the likelihood of exposure or injury to nearby populations. The RQ adjustments that EPA is finalizing in this final rule will enable us to focus our resources on those releases that are most likely to pose potential threats to public health, welfare, or the environment. These RQ adjustments will also help to relieve the regulated community and emergency response personnel from the burden of making and receiving reports of releases that are unlikely to pose such threats. B. What Methodology Did EPA Use To Adjust the RQs of the Individual Carbamates? EPA has wide discretion to adjust the statutory RQs for hazardous substances under CERCLA. Administrative feasibility and practicality are important considerations. 1. RQ Adjustment Methodology The methodology for adjusting the RQ of an individual hazardous substance begins with an evaluation of its intrinsic physical, chemical, and toxicological properties. These intrinsic properties—called “primary criteria”—are aquatic toxicity, mammalian toxicity (oral, dermal, and inhalation), ignitability, reactivity, chronic toxicity, and potential carcinogenicity. 6 When there are sufficient data in the scientific literature on the chronic toxicity and/or potential carcinogenicity (two of the six primary criteria) of a hazardous substance, we evaluate and summarize these data in a chemical-specific profile. 6 For further information on assigning adjusted RQs to hazardous substances under the primary criteria, see the Technical Background Document to Support Rulemaking Pursuant to CERCLA Section 102, Volume 2, August 1986 (for chronic toxicity), Volume 3, July 1989 (for potential carcinogenicity), and Volume 1, March 1985 (for the four other primary criteria), available for inspection at the Superfund Docket in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. These documents are not available electronically; contact the Superfund Docket and reference, “EPA-HQ-SFUND-2002-0010-0043,” “EPA-HQ-SFUND-2002-0010-0044,” and “EPA-HQ6-SFUND-2002-0010-0042,” respectively. For each intrinsic property, EPA ranks the hazardous substance on a five-tier scale, associating a specific range of values on each scale with an RQ value of 1, 10, 100, 1,000, or 5,000 pounds. Each hazardous substance may receive several tentative RQ values based on the primary criteria. The lowest of the tentative RQs becomes the “primary criteria RQ” for that substance. After assigning the primary criteria RQs, EPA evaluates the substances for their susceptibility to certain degradative processes. These natural degradative processes, which we use as “secondary RQ adjustment criteria,” are biodegradation, hydrolysis, and photolysis (BHP). If a hazardous substance, when released into the environment, degrades relatively rapidly to a less hazardous form by one or more of the BHP processes, we generally increase its RQ (as determined by the primary RQ adjustment criteria) by one level. 7 Conversely, if a hazardous substance degrades to a more hazardous product after its release, we assign an RQ equal to the RQ for the more hazardous substance, which may be one or more levels lower than the RQ for the original substance. 7 We do not raise an RQ level based on BHP if the primary criterion RQ is already at its highest possible level (100 pounds for potential carcinogens and 5,000 pounds for all other types of hazardous substances). The secondary adjustment criteria of BHP are not applied to radionuclides. 2. Final RQ Adjustments Following an extensive review of available scientific literature on the 28 individual carbamates adjusted in this final rule, we found that chronic toxicity profiles were warranted for nine of the 28 carbamates, and that potential carcinogenicity profiles were warranted for six of the 28 carbamates. EPA sought comment on those 15 draft chemical-specific profiles in its December 2003, proposed rule. The Agency received no comment on any of the 15 draft chemical-specific profiles. RQs for several of the substances included in this rule are based, at least in part, on the conclusions drawn in those profiles. Three carbamates—bendiocarb, benomyl, and thiophanate-methyl—had BHP data that were a sufficient basis for adjusting the primary criteria RQs for these substances. Although several other carbamates ( *e.g.* , propham) had BHP data that suggest rapid degradation, the evidence for most of these substances was not conclusive. Therefore, no adjustment to the RQs for the other 25 carbamates was proposed on the basis of BHP. 8 EPA sought additional degradation data ( *e.g.* , data on BOD5 values and on half lives) for these 28 individual substances; 9 however, no additional data were submitted in response to this request for comment. 8 To review a summary of the BHP data on the 28 carbamates included in this rule, see Exhibit 4-3 of the Technical Background Document to Support Rulemaking Pursuant to CERCLA Section 102, Volume 8, available for inspection at the Superfund Docket in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. This document is not available electronically; contact the Superfund Docket and reference, “EPA-HQ-SFUND-2002-0010-0048.” 9 One or more of the following criteria should be met for a hazardous substance to qualify for further RQ adjustment based on BHP:
(1)*Biodegradation:* the substance must have a five-day biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD5)that equals or exceeds 50 percent of the theoretical oxygen demand as calculated based on stoichiometric oxidation; and
(2)*Hydrolysis/Photolysis:* the half-life of the substance in the environment must be five days or less. For further information on the methodology for applying BHP, *see* the Technical Background Document to Support Rulemaking Pursuant to CERCLA Section 102, Volume 1, March 1985, available for inspection at the Superfund Docket in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. This document is not available electronically; contact the Superfund Docket and reference, “EPA-HQ-SFUND-2002-0010-0042.” EPA could not locate acceptable data on any of the primary or secondary criteria for three of the 28 individual carbamates in this proposed rule ( *see* Table 1). In the past, when the statutory RQs of such data-poor hazardous substances were adjusted, we used data from chemically similar, surrogate substances. 10 Keeping with that practice, we conducted an analysis of other carbamates to identify potential surrogate substances for the three data-poor hazardous substances. 10 We used surrogate substances for the carbamates with primary criteria data that are chemically similar, based primarily on structural analogy, to the data-poor substances. For further information and examples of EPA's use of surrogate data to adjust RQs of hazardous substances, see Section 2 of the Technical Background Document to Support Rulemaking Pursuant to CERCLA Section 102, Volume 8, available for inspection at the Superfund Docket in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. This document is not available electronically; contact the Superfund Docket and reference, “EPA-HQ-SFUND-2002-0010-0048.” Table 1 lists the chemically similar carbamates EPA used as surrogates, and the RQs that we proposed and now assign to each data-poor substance based on its chemically similar surrogate. 11 We requested primary and secondary criteria data on these three data-poor substances and solicited comment in the December 2003 proposal, as well as the choice of surrogate substances used to adjust the RQs for these three carbamates; however, we received no data or comment on these three data-poor substances or choice of surrogate substances. 11 These three data-poor carbamates also are included in the list of 28 individual carbamates that appear in Table 2. For further information on the three data-poor carbamates and the chemically-similar, surrogate substances that EPA has identified, *see* Section 3 of the Technical Background Document to Support Rulemaking Pursuant to CERCLA Section 102, Volume 8, available for inspection at the Superfund Docket in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. This document is not available electronically; contact the Superfund Docket and reference, “EPA-HQ-SFUND-2002-0010-0048.” Table 1.—RQs for the Data-Poor Carbamates Data-poor carbamate Surrogate RQ (pounds) Bendiocarb phenol Bendiocarb 1000 Carbofuran phenol Carbofuran 10 Manganese dimethyldithiocarbamate Ziram 10 Note that in Table 2 below, we proposed, and now assign as proposed, different RQs for the data-poor carbamate/surrogate pair of Bendiocarb phenol (data-poor carbamate) and Bendiocarb (its surrogate) as shown in Table 1, above. In Table 2, EPA applied the secondary criteria of BHP to adjust the RQ for bendiocarb to 100 pounds. Due to structural differences between the two substances, it was not appropriate to apply the BHP data for bendiocarb to bendiocarb phenol. Therefore, the final adjusted RQ for bendiocarb phenol is 1000 pounds. (see Tables 1 and 2). C. What Are the Final Adjusted RQs for the Individual Carbamates? Table 2 lists the chemical names, CASRNs, and final adjusted RQs for the 28 individual carbamates included in this final rule. The final adjusted RQs for 27 of the 28 individual carbamates were raised from their statutory one-pound levels; one of the 28 individual carbamates “Dimetilan” was adjusted to a final RQ of one-pound. Table 2.—Final Adjusted RQs for 28 Individual Carbamates Chemical name CASRN Final adjusted RQ (pounds) A2213 30558-43-1 5000 Aldicarb sulfone 1646-88-4 100 Barban 101-27-9 10 Bendiocarb 22781-23-3 100 Bendiocarb phenol 22961-82-6 1000 Benomyl 17804-35-2 10 Carbendazim 10605-21-7 10 Carbofuran phenol 1563-38-8 10 Carbosulfan 55285-14-8 1000 m-Cumenyl methylcarbamate 64-00-6 10 Diethylene glycol, dicarbamate 5952-26-1 5000 Dimetilan 644-64-4 1 Formetanate hydrochloride 23422-53-9 100 Formparanate 17702-57-7 100 Isolan 119-38-0 100 Manganese dimethyldithiocarbamate 15339-36-3 10 Metolcarb 1129-41-5 1000 Oxamyl 23135-22-0 100 Physostigmine salicylate 57-64-7 100 Physostigmine 57-47-6 100 Promecarb 2631-37-0 1000 Propham 122-42-9 1000 Prosulfocarb 52888-80-9 5000 Thiodicarb 59669-26-0 100 Thiophanate-methyl 23564-05-8 10 Tirpate 26419-73-8 100 Triallate 2303-17-5 100 Ziram 137-30-4 10 D. What Methodology Did EPA Use To Assign RQs for the Carbamate-Related Waste Streams? In addition to the 28 individual carbamate hazardous substances, we also proposed and now assign RQs for the five carbamate-related RCRA hazardous waste streams (K156, K157, K158, K159, and K161). As described below, the methodology used to assign RQs to the RCRA F- and K-hazardous waste streams differs from the standard methodology used to adjust individual hazardous substances described in Section III.B.1, above. 1. RQ Assignment Methodology for F- and K-Hazardous Waste Streams The methodology to assign RQs to RCRA F- and K-hazardous waste streams is based on an analysis of the hazardous constituents of the waste streams. Specifically, EPA identifies the constituents of concern in each RCRA hazardous waste stream in 40 CFR part 261, Appendix VII. We then determine the RQ for each constituent within that waste stream and assign the lowest RQ value of the constituents as the RQ for the waste stream. We also used this same methodology to adjust the RQ for K178 (see Section III.G. for more information). 2. RQ Assignments for the Carbamate-Related Waste Streams In the February 1995 final rule, five carbamate-related waste streams were assigned the statutory one-pound RQ required by CERCLA section 102(b). (See 60 FR 7824, Feb. 9, 1995.) In the December 2003 proposed rule, EPA used its standard methodology for assigning RQs for RCRA waste streams and assigned a one-pound final RQ for waste stream K161 and 10-pound final RQs for the remaining four carbamate-related waste streams (K156, K157, K158, and K159). The assigned RQs are based on the constituent(s) with the lowest RQ within each of the waste streams. This rule assigns the final RQs to each of the five carbamate-related hazardous waste streams as proposed. Table 3 lists the constituents and constituent RQs of each of the five carbamate-related hazardous waste streams. Table 3.—Constituents of Five Carbamate-Related Waste Streams Carbamate waste stream constituents RQ (pounds) K156 10 benomyl 10 carbaryl 100 carbendazim 10 carbofuran 10 carbosulfan 1000 formaldehyde 100 methylene chloride 1000 triethylamine 5000 K157 10 carbon tetrachloride 10 formaldehyde 100 methyl chloride 100 methylene chloride 1000 pyridine 1000 triethylamine 5000 K158 10 benomyl 10 carbendazim 10 carbofuran 10 carbosulfan 1000 chloroform 10 methylene chloride 1000 K159 10 benzene 10 butylate 100 EPTC 1000 molinate 10 pebulate 100 vernolate 100 K161 1 antimony 5000 arsenic 1 metam sodium 10 ziram 10 a. Comment Received on the Proposed RQ Adjustment for K156 and K157 In response to the proposed rule, 68 FR 67916, Dec. 4, 2003, EPA received one comment 12 regarding the 10-pound RQ assigned to K156 and K157. The commenter represents a manufacturer of carbamate products and is familiar with EPA's 1994 RCRA carbamate rulemaking process. The commenter would like to see higher RQs assigned for the K156 and K157 process wastes, although he acknowledges the Agency's policies in assigning RQs for waste streams. 12 You can view the full comment (e-mail) by going to: *www.regulations.gov* , clicking on “Advanced Search” in the bar at the top of the page, then “Document Search.” Search for the document, “EPA-HQ-SFUND-2002-0010-0115.” The commenter also requested that, “EPA provide clear guidance and examples of how the CERCLA RQ mixture rule applies to reporting scenarios where the waste is K156 or K157, but contains none of the above constituents, or contains one or more of these constituents at known concentrations.” b. Response To Comment—Application of Mixture Rule to Listed Wastes Since the commenter did not provide any information to support a higher RQ for EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. K156 and K157, we are maintaining the 10 pound RQ for these two hazardous substances. With respect to the mixture rule, 40 CFR 302.6(b)(1) provides notification requirements where the quantity of all of the hazardous constituents of the mixture or solution is known and where the quantity of one or more of the hazardous constituent(s) of the mixture or solution is unknown. **Note:** The Agency has issued guidance on applying the mixture rule for reporting purposes (EPA publication, “Questions and Answers on Release Notification Requirements and Reportable Quantity Adjustments,” specifically questions 37-40 and Exhibit 1—Mixture Rule Scenarios.) 13 13 You can view this publication by going to: *www.regulations.gov* , clicking on “Advanced Search” in the bar at the top of the page, then “Document Search.” Search for the document, “EPA-HQ-SFUND-2002-0010-0115.” Application of the mixture rule may be most useful when the concentration levels of all the hazardous constituents in a particular carbamate waste stream are known and when an RQ or more of any hazardous constituent is released. For the carbamate waste streams addressed in this rule, appropriate use of the mixture rule may help reduce the burden of notification requirements for the regulated community, while adequately protecting public health and welfare and the environment. E. What Conforming Changes Are Made to 40 CFR Table 302.4 and Its Appendix A? EPA is modifying the entries in 40 CFR table 302.4— *List of Hazardous Substances and Reportable Quantities* , for the carbamates added by the February 1995, final rule. Specifically, we are revising the entries for the chemical names of the carbamates in the “Hazardous substance” column of table 302.4 to reflect the chemical names for these substances as they appear in the RCRA tables of hazardous wastes at 40 CFR 261.33(e) and (f). For example, the February 1995, final rule lists two names for each individual carbamate in table 302.4—a chemical name and a synonym in parenthesis. However, whereas that final rule alphabetically lists these two names as separate entries in the RCRA tables of hazardous wastes in 40 CFR 261.33, it only adds one entry for each carbamate to the list of hazardous substances. Because each of the 28 individual carbamates included in this final rule has at least two separate entries in the RCRA tables of hazardous wastes, we are listing each of them as separate entries in table 302.4. To effectuate this change, this rule removes the previously listed names for these hazardous substances and adds the chemical names and synonyms as separate entries in table 302.4. We believe that these changes to table 302.4 will improve consistency between the chemical lists under RCRA and CERCLA and help to make carbamate synonyms easier to find in the tables. We have also made these conforming changes to entries in Appendix A to table 302.4 for the 28 carbamates added to table 302.4, by the February 1995, final rule. F. What Conforming Changes Are Made to 40 CFR part 355? Appendices A and B of 40 CFR part 355 list EHSs and their threshold planning quantities
(TPQs)under EPCRA and their CERCLA RQs, where applicable. Eleven of the individual carbamates with RQs adjusted by this final rule are also EHSs and CERCLA hazardous substances. In this final rule, EPA is revising Appendices A and B of 40 CFR part 355 to include those adjusted RQs. You can see the revisions to Appendices A and B at the end of this final rule for the names of the individual carbamates. G. What Final RQ Is Assigned to the K178 Waste? Section III.D.1 above describes the Agency's standard methodology for assigning RQs for RCRA F- and K-hazardous waste streams, a process that is based on an analysis of the hazardous constituents of each waste identified in 40 CFR part 261, Appendix VII. We determine an RQ for each constituent and establish the lowest RQ value of all of the constituents as the assigned RQ for the hazardous waste stream. When there are hazardous constituents identified in the waste stream that are not individual CERCLA hazardous substances, EPA develops an RQ for those constituents in order to assign an appropriate RQ to the waste stream. ( *See* 48 FR 23552, May 25, 1983.) In other words, we derive the RQ for a RCRA hazardous waste stream based on the lowest RQ of all of the hazardous constituents identified for that waste in Appendix VII of 40 CFR Part 261, regardless of whether all of the constituents are CERCLA hazardous substances. In September 2000, EPA published a proposed rule to list three waste streams from the inorganic chemical manufacturing industry as RCRA hazardous wastes in 40 CFR 261.32 and as CERCLA hazardous substances in 40 CFR 302.4. ( *See* 65 FR 55684, Sept. 14, 2000.) In that rule, we proposed to adjust the statutory one-pound RQ for two of the three waste streams, K176 and K177. Waste stream K178 contained two hazardous constituents: thallium, which is a CERCLA hazardous substance with a 1,000-pound RQ, and manganese, which is not a CERCLA hazardous substance identified in 40 CFR 302.4 and does not have an RQ. Because EPA did not develop an RQ for manganese in time for the September 2000, proposed rule, we did not propose to adjust the statutory one-pound RQ for K178 in that rule. Numerous commenters to the September 2000, proposed rule objected to using manganese as a basis for listing K178 as a hazardous waste, citing potential adverse impacts to many industries. Although EPA believed that manganese poses significant issues that ultimately should be resolved, the court-ordered schedule for the hazardous waste listings provided no flexibility to address those issues fully before finalizing the listings. For that reason, in the November 2001, final rule, EPA deferred final action on adding manganese to Appendix VII of 40 CFR part 261 as a basis for listing K178 as a hazardous waste. (See 66 FR 58258, Nov. 20, 2001.) The final hazardous waste listing for K178 was based solely on thallium. 14 As a result, we proposed an RQ of 1,000 pounds for the K178 waste stream, which is based on the constituent RQ for thallium. This rule assigns the final RQ for the K178 waste stream as proposed. 14 Note that EPA also modified the listing description in the November 2001 final rule to read, “Residues from manufacturing and manufacturing-site storage of ferric chloride from acids formed during the production of titanium dioxide using the chloride-ilmenite process.” a. Comment Received on the Proposed RQ Adjustment for K178 In response to the proposed rule published in December 2003, EPA received one comment 15 regarding the 1,000-pound RQ assigned to K178. The commenter represents a production facility directly affected by the K178 listing. The commenter expresses support for the 1,000 pound RQ assigned to the K178 listed hazardous waste and believes that the basis for the adjustment (RQ for thallium) is sound for use in the establishment of the 1,000-pound RQ. Because the individual containers of K178 hazardous wastes used for accumulation and transportation to an off-site RCRA hazardous waste treatment facility will contain more than 1,000 pounds, the commenter also requests that EPA discuss, “the proper application, with examples, of the CERCLA RQ mixture rule to listed wastes such as K178.” 15 You can view the full comment (email) by going to: *www.regulations.gov* , clicking on “Advanced Search” in the bar at the top of the page, then “Document Search.” Search for the document, “EPA-HQ-SFUND-2002-0011-0018.” b. Response to Comment—Application of Mixture Rule to Listed Wastes As described above (see section III.D.2.b.), where the person in charge has knowledge of the specific constituent mix of the hazardous waste stream, it may be appropriate to use the mixture rule to determine whether there has been a release above an RQ for that waste stream consistent with the known constituent mixture of the hazardous waste stream. For example, for the inorganic chemical manufacturing process waste stream K178, the RQ is based on the constituent thallium; however, there are other constituents (nonhazardous) that make up the waste stream. If the person in charge knows the relative amounts of thallium to nonhazardous constituents in his waste stream, it may be appropriate to use the mixture rule for RQ purposes for that waste stream. It is important to note that attenuation of the waste stream for the purpose of diluting the relative amount of thallium is inconsistent with the intent of the mixture rule. IV. Statutory and Regulatory Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order
(EO)12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to the review under the EO. B. Paperwork Reduction Act This action does not impose any new information collection burden. This final rule represents a reduction in the burden for both industry and the government because we are raising the RQs for all but two of the substances included in this final rule. The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has previously approved the information collection requirements contained in the existing regulations 40 CFR 302 and 40 CFR 355 under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* and has assigned OMB control number 2050-0046, EPA ICR number 1049.10 and OMB control number 2050-0086, EPA ICR number 1445.06. A copy of the OMB approved Information Collection Requests
(ICRs)may be obtained from Susan Auby, Collection Strategies Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460 or by calling
(202)566-1672. The proposed rule estimated that the annual reporting and recordkeeping burdens associated with reports to the NRC will be reduced by approximately 720 hours (ICR No. 1049.09) and to SERCs and LEPCs by 880 hours (ICR No. 1395.04). That estimate was based on reports received for the period 1995 through 1999. Based on the period 2000 through 2002 (there was only one reported release) the estimated annual reporting and recordkeeping burdens associated with reports to the NRC will be reduced by 3 hours and to SERCs and LEPCs by 9 hours. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA)generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small entities, small entity is defined as:
(1)A small business that has fewer than 1000 or 100 employees per firm depending upon the SIC code the firm primarily is classified;
(2)a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and
(3)a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. After considering the economic impacts of this final rule on small entities, I hereby certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any significant *adverse* economic impact on small entities, since the primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify and address regulatory alternatives “which minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.” 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on all of the small entities subject to the rule. We have therefore concluded that this final rule will relieve regulatory burden for small entities. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. The rule imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local, or tribal governments. EPA also has determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. In addition, as discussed above, the private sector is not expected to incur costs exceeding $100 million. Thus, this final rule is not subject to the requirements of Sections 202 and 205 of UMRA. E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. This rule directly affects manufacturers, handlers, transporters, and other users of carbamates that may release them into the environment; in addition, entities that may release K178 hazardous waste will also be affected. There are no State and local government bodies that incur direct compliance costs by this rulemaking. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicited comment on the proposed rule from State and local officials. F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, Nov. 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” This final rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments, nor would it impose substantial direct compliance costs on them. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks The Executive Order 13045: “Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that:
(1)Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and
(2)concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This final rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. H. Executive Order 13211: Energy Effects 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) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act As noted in the proposed rule, Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law. No. 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. The action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards. J. The Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as Added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996) 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 submitted a report containing this final 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 in the **Federal Register** . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective September 15, 2006. List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 302 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations, Natural resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply. 40 CFR Part 355 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Disaster assistance, Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations, Natural resources, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply. Dated: August 9, 2006. Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator. For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 302—DESIGNATION, REPORTABLE QUANTITIES, AND NOTIFICATION 1. The authority citation for part 302 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9602, 9603, 9604; 33 U.S.C. 1321 and 1361. 2. Table 302.4 in § 302.4 is amended by removing the following entries: “1,3-Benzodioxol-4-ol, 2,2-dimethyl-, (Bendiocarb phenol)”, “1,3-Benzodioxol-4-ol, 2,2-dimethyl-, methyl carbamate (Bendiocarb)”, “7-Benzofuranol, 2,3-dihydro-2,2-dimethyl-(Carbofuran phenol)”, “Benzoic acid, 2-hydroxy-, compd. with (3aS-cis)-1,2,3,3a,8,8a-hexahydro-1,3a,8-trimethylpyrrolo[2,3b]indol-5-yl methylcarbamate ester (1:1) (Physostigmine salicylate)”, “Carbamic acid, 1H-benzimidazol-2-yl, methyl ester (Carbendazim)”, “Carbamic acid, [1-[(butylamino)carbonyl]-1H-benzimidazol-2-yl, methyl ester (Benomyl)”, “Carbamic acid, (3-chlorophenyl)-, 4-chloro-2-butynyl ester (Barban)”, “Carbamic acid, [(dibutylamino)thio]methyl-, 2,3-dihydro-2,2-dimethyl-7benzofuranyl ester (Carbosulfan)”, “Carbamic acid, dimethyl-,1[(dimethylamino)carbonyl]-5-methyl-1H-pyrazol-3-yl ester (Dimetilan)”, “Carbamic acid, dimethyl-, 3-methyl-1-(1methylethyl)-1H-pyrazol-5-yl ester (Isolan)”, “Carbamic acid, methyl-, 3-methylphenyl ester (Metolcarb)”, “Carbamic acid, [1,2phenylenebis (iminocarbonothioyl)]bis-, dimethyl ester (Thiophanate-methyl)”, “Carbamic acid, phenyl-, 1-methylethyl ester (Propham)”, “Carbamothioic acid, bis(1-methylethyl)-, S-(2,3,3-trichloro-2-propenyl) ester (Triallate)”, “Carbamothioic acid, dipropyl-, S-(phenylmethyl) ester (Prosulfocarb)”, “1,3-Dithiolane-2-carboxaldehyde, 2,4-dimethyl-, O-[(methylamino)carbonyl]oxime (Tirpate)”, “Ethanimidothioci acid, 2-(dimethylamino-N-hydroxy-2-oxo-, methyl ester (A2213)”, “Ethanimidothoic acid, 2-(dimethylamino)-N- [[(methylamino)carbonyl]oxy]-2-oxo-, methyl ester (Oxamyl)”, “Ethanimidothioic acid, N,N'-[thiobis[(methylimino) carbonyloxy]]bis-, dimethyl ester (Thiodicarb)”, “Ethanol, 2,2'oxybis-, dicarbamate (Diethylene glycol, dicarbamate)”, “Manganese, bis(dimethylcarbamodithioato-S,S')-(Manganese dimethyldithiocarbamate)”, “Methanimidamide, N,N-dimethyl-N'-[3-[[(methylamino)carbonyl]oxy]phenyl]-, monohydrochloride (Formetanate hydrochloride)”, “Methanimidamide, N,N-dimethyl-N'-[2-methyl-4-[[(methylamino)carbonyl]oxy]phenyl]-(Formparanate)”, “Phenol, 3-(l-methylethyl)-, methyl carbamate (m-Cumenyl methylcarbamate)”, “Phenol, 3-methyl-5-(l-methylethyl)-, methyl carbamate (Promecarb)”, “Propanal, 2-methyl-2-(methylsulfonyl)-, O-[(methylamino)carbonyl] oxime (Aldicarb sulfone)”, “Pyrrolo[2,3-b]indol-5-ol, 1,2,3,3a,8,8a-hexahydro-1,3a,8-trimethyl-, methylcarbamate (ester), (3aS-cis)-(Physostigmine)”, “Zinc, bis(dimethylcarbamodithioato-S,S')-(Ziram)”, “K156”, “K157”, “K158”, “K159”, “K161”, and K178”. 3. Table 302.4 in § 302.4 is amended by adding the following new entries in alphabetical order, as set forth below (applicable footnotes have been republished without change): Table 302.4.—List of Hazardous Substances and Reportable Quantities [Note: All comments/notes are located at the end of this table] Hazardous substance CASRN Statutory code † RCRA waste No. Final RQ pounds
(Kg)A2213 30558431 4 U394 5000
(2270)* * * * * * * Aldicarb sulfone 1646884 4 P203 100 (45.4) * * * * * * * Barban 101279 4 U280 10 (4.54) * * * * * * * Bendiocarb 22781233 4 U278 100 (45.4) Bendiocarb phenol 22961826 4 U364 1000
(454)Benomyl 17804352 4 U271 10 (4.54) * * * * * * * 1,3-Benzodioxol-4-ol, 2,2-dimethyl- 22961826 4 U364 1000
(454)1,3-Benzodioxol-4-ol, 2,2-dimethyl-, methyl carbamate 22781233 4 U278 100 (45.4) * * * * * * * 7-Benzofuranol, 2,3-dihydro-2,2-dimethyl- 1563388 4 U367 10 (4.54) * * * * * * * Benzoic acid, 2-hydroxy-, compd. with (3aS-cis)-1,2,3,3a,8,8a-hexahydro-1,3a,8-trimethylpyrrolo[2,3-b]indol-5-yl methylcarbamate ester (1:1) 57647 4 P188 100 (45.4) * * * * * * * Carbamic acid, 1H-benzimidazol-2-yl, methyl ester 10605217 4 U372 10 (4.54) Carbamic acid, [1-[(butylamino)carbonyl]-1H-benzimidazol-2-yl]-,methyl ester 17804352 4 U271 10 (4.54) Carbamic acid, (3-chlorophenyl)-, 4-chloro-2-butynyl ester 101279 4 U280 10 (4.54) Carbamic acid, [(dibutylamino)-thio]methyl-, 2,3-dihydro-2,2-dimethyl-7-benzofuranyl ester 55285148 4 P189 1000
(454)Carbamic acid, dimethyl-,1-[(dimethyl-amino)carbonyl]-5-methyl-1H-pyrazol-3-yl ester 644644 4 P191 1 (0.454) Carbamic acid, dimethyl-, 3-methyl-1-(1-methylethyl)-1H-pyrazol-5-yl ester 119380 4 P192 100 (45.4) * * * * * * * Carbamic acid, methyl-, 3-methylphenyl ester 1129415 4 P190 1000
(454)* * * * * * * Carbamic acid, [1,2-phenylenebis(iminocarbonothioyl)]bis-, dimethyl ester 23564058 4 U409 10 (4.54) Carbamic acid, phenyl-, 1-methylethyl ester 122429 4 U373 1000
(454)* * * * * * * Carbamothioic acid, bis(1-methylethyl)-, S-(2,3,3-trichloro-2-propenyl) ester 2303175 4 U389 100 (45.4) Carbamothioic acid, dipropyl-, S-(phenylmethyl) ester 52888809 4 U387 5000
(2270)Carbendazim 10605217 4 U372 10 (4.54) Carbofuran phenol 1563388 4 U367 10 (4.54) * * * * * * * Carbosulfan 55285148 4 P189 1000
(454)* * * * * * * m-Cumenyl methylcarbamate 64006 4 P202 10 (4.54) * * * * * * * Diethylene glycol, dicarbamate 5952261 4 U395 5000
(2270)* * * * * * * Dimetilan 644644 4 P191 1 (0.454) * * * * * * * 1,3-Dithiolane-2-carboxaldehyde, 2,4-dimethyl-, O-[(methylamino)-carbonyl]oxime 26419738 4 P185 100 (45.4) * * * * * * * Ethanimidothioic acid, 2-(dimethylamino)-N-hydroxy-2-oxo-, methyl ester 30558431 4 U394 5000
(2270)Ethanimidothioic acid, 2-(dimethylamino)-N-[[(methylamino)carbonyl]oxy]-2-oxo-, methyl ester 23135220 4 P194 100 (45.4) * * * * * * * Ethanimidothioic acid, N,N'- [thiobis[(methylimino) carbonyloxy]]bis-, dimethyl ester 59669260 4 U410 100 (45.4) * * * * * * * Ethanol, 2,2'-oxybis-, dicarbamate 5952261 4 U395 5000
(2270)* * * * * * * Formetanate hydrochloride 23422539 4 P198 100 (45.4) * * * * * * * Formparanate 17702577 4 P197 100 (45.4) * * * * * * * Isolan 119380 4 P192 100 (45.4) * * * * * * * 3-Isopropylphenyl N-methylcarbamate 64006 4 P202 10 (4.54) * * * * * * * Manganese, bis (dimethylcarbamodithioato-S,S')- 15339363 4 P196 10 (4.54) * * * * * * * Manganese dimethyldithiocarbamate 15339363 4 P196 10 (4.54) * * * * * * * Methanimidamide, N,N-dimethyl-N'-[3-[[(methylamino)-carbonyl]oxy]phenyl]-, monohydrochloride 23422539 4 P198 100 (45.4) Methanimidamide, N,N-dimethyl-N'-[2-methyl-4- [[(methylamino) carbonyl]oxy]phenyl]- 17702577 4 P197 100 (45.4) * * * * * * * Metolcarb 1129415 4 P190 1000
(454)* * * * * * * Oxamyl 23135220 4 P194 100 (45.4) * * * * * * * Phenol, 3-(1-methylethyl)-, methyl carbamate 64006 4 P202 10 (4.54) Phenol, 3-methyl-5-(1-methylethyl)-, methyl carbamate 2631370 4 P201 1000
(454)* * * * * * * Physostigmine 57476 4 P204 100 (45.4) Physostigmine salicylate 57647 4 P188 100 (45.4) * * * * * * * Promecarb 2631370 4 P201 1000
(454)* * * * * * * Propanal, 2-methyl-2-(methyl- sulfonyl)-, O-[(methylamino)carbonyl] oxime 1646884 4 P203 100 (45.4) * * * * * * * Propham 122429 4 U373 1000
(454)* * * * * * * Prosulfocarb 52888809 4 U387 5000
(2270)* * * * * * * Pyrrolo[2,3-b]indol-5-ol, 1,2,3,3a,8,8a- hexahydro-1,3a,8-trimethyl-, methylcarbamate (ester), (3aS-cis)- 57476 4 P204 100 (45.4) * * * * * * * Thiodicarb 59669260 4 U410 100 (45.4) * * * * * * * Thiophanate-methyl 23564058 4 U409 10 (4.54) * * * * * * * Tirpate 26419738 4 P185 100 (45.4) * * * * * * * Triallate 2303175 4 U389 100 (45.4) * * * * * * * Zinc, bis(dimethylcarbamodithioato-S,S')- 137304 4 P205 10 (4.54) * * * * * * * Ziram 137304 4 P205 10 (4.54) * * * * * * * K156 4 K156 10 (4.54) Organic waste (including heavy ends, still bottoms, light ends, spent solvents, filtrates, and decantates) from the production of carbamates and carbamoyl oximes. (This listing does not apply to wastes generated from the manufacture of 3-iodo-2-propynyl n-butylcarbamate.) K157 4 K157 10 (4.54) Wastewaters (including scrubber waters, condenser waters, washwaters, and separation waters) from the production of carbamates and carbamoyl oximes. (This listing does not apply to wastes generated from the manufacture of 3-iodo-2-propynyl n-butylcarbamate.) K158 4 K158 10 (4.54) Bag house dusts and filter/separation solids from the production of carbamates and carbamoyl oximes. (This listing does not apply to wastes generated from the manufacture of 3-iodo-2-propynyl n-butylcarbamate.) K159 4 K159 10 (4.54) Organics from the treatment of thiocarbamate wastes. K161 4 K161 1 (0.454) Purification solids (including filtration, evaporation, and centrifugation solids), bag-house dust and floor sweepings from the production of dithiocarbamate acids and their salts. (This listing does not include K125 or K126). * * * * * * * K178 4 K178 1000
(454)Residues from manufacturing and manufacturing-site storage of ferric chloride from acids formed during the production of titanium dioxide using the chloride-ilmenite process. † Indicates the statutory source as defined by 1, 2, 3, and 4, as described in the note preceding Table 302.4. 4. Appendix A to § 302.4 is amended by revising the following entries, as set forth below: Appendix A to § 302.4.—Sequential CAS Registry Number List of CERCLA Hazardous Substances CASRN Hazardous substance * * * * * * * * 57476 Physostigmine. Pyrrolo[2,3-b]indol-5-ol, 1,2,3,3a,8,8a-hexahydro-1,3a,8-trimethyl-, methylcarbamate (ester), (3aS-cis)-. 57647 Benzoic acid, 2-hydroxy-, compd. with (3aS-cis)-1,2,3,3a,8,8a-hexahydro-1,3a,8-trimethylpyrrolo[2,3-b]indol-5-yl methylcarbamate ester (1:1). Physostigmine salicylate. * * * * * * * 64006 m-Cumenyl methylcarbamate. 3-Isopropylphenyl N-methylcarbamate. Phenol, 3-(1-methylethyl)-, methyl carbamate. * * * * * * * 101279 Barban. Carbamic acid, (3-chlorophenyl)-, 4-chloro-2-butynyl ester. * * * * * * * 119380 Carbamic acid, dimethyl-, 3-methyl-1-(1-methylethyl)-1H-pyrazol-5-yl ester. Isolan. * * * * * * * 122429 Carbamic acid, phenyl-, 1-methylethyl ester. Propham. * * * * * * * 137304 Zinc, bis(dimethylcarbamodithioato-S,S')-. Ziram. * * * * * * * 644644 Carbamic acid, dimethyl-,1-[(dimethyl-amino)carbonyl]-5-methyl-1H-pyrazol-3-yl ester. Dimetilan. * * * * * * * 1129415 Carbamic acid, methyl-, 3-methylphenyl ester. Metolcarb. * * * * * * * 1563388 7-Benzofuranol, 2,3-dihydro-2,2-dimethyl-. Carbofuran phenol. * * * * * * * 1646884 Aldicarb sulfone. Propanal, 2-methyl-2-(methyl-sulfonyl)-, O-[(methylamino)carbonyl] oxime. * * * * * * * * 2303175 Carbamothioic acid, bis(1-methylethyl)-, S-(2,3,3-trichloro-2-propenyl) ester. Triallate. * * * * * * * 2631370 Phenol, 3-methyl-5-(1-methylethyl)-, methyl carbamate. Promecarb. * * * * * * * 5952261 Ethanol, 2,2'-oxybis-, dicarbamate. Diethylene glycol, dicarbamate. * * * * * * * 10605217 Carbamic acid, 1H-benzimidazol-2-yl, methyl ester. Carbendazim. * * * * * * * 15339363 Manganese, bis(dimethylcarbamodithioato-S,S')-. Manganese dimethyldithiocarbamate. * * * * * * * 17702577 Formparanate. Methanimidamide, N,N-dimethyl-N'-[2-methyl-4-[[(methylamino)carbonyl]oxy]phenyl]-. 17804352 Benomyl. Carbamic acid, [1-[(butylamino)carbonyl]-1H-benzimidazol-2-yl]-, methyl ester. * * * * * * * 22781233 Bendiocarb. 1,3-Benzodioxol-4-ol, 2,2-dimethyl-, methyl carbamate. 22961826 Bendiocarb phenol. 1,3-Benzodioxol-4-ol, 2,2-dimethyl-. 23135220 Ethanimidothioic acid, 2-(dimethylamino)-N-[[(methylamino)carbonyl]oxy]-2-oxo-, methyl ester. Oxamyl. 23422539 Methanimidamide, N,N-dimethyl-N'-[3-[[(methylamino)-carbonyl]oxy]phenyl]-, monohydrochloride. Formetanate hydrochloride. 23564058 Carbamic acid, [1,2-phenylenebis(iminocarbonothioyl)]bis-, dimethyl ester. Thiophanate-methyl. * * * * * * * 26419738 1,3-Dithiolane-2-carboxaldehyde, 2,4-dimethyl-, O-[(methylamino)-carbonyl]oxime. Tirpate. * * * * * * * 30558431 Ethanimidothioic acid, 2-(dimethylamino)-N-hydroxy-2-oxo-, methyl ester. A2213. * * * * * * * 52888809 Carbamothioic acid, dipropyl-, S-(phenylmethyl) ester. Prosulfocarb. * * * * * * * 55285148 Carbamic acid, [(dibutylamino)-thio]methyl-, 2,3-dihydro-2,2-dimethyl-7-benzofuranyl ester. Carbosulfan. * * * * * * * 59669260 Ethanimidothioic acid, N,N'-[thiobis[(methylimino)carbonyloxy]]bis-, dimethyl ester. Thiodicarb. * * * * * * * PART 355—EMERGENCY PLANNING AND NOTIFICATION 5. The authority citation for part 355 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 11002, 11004, and 11048. 6. Appendix A in part 355 is amended by revising the following entries, to read as set forth below (footnotes “*” and “h” have been republished without change): Appendix A To Part 355.—The List of Extremely Hazardous Substances and Their Threshold Planning Quantities [Alphabetical order] CAS No. Chemical name Notes Reportable quantity* (pounds) Threshold planning quantity (pounds) * * * * * * * 26419-73-8 Carbamic Acid, Methyl-, O-(((2,4-Dimethyl-1, 3-Dithiolan-2-yl)Methylene)Amino)- 100 100/10,000 * * * * * * * 644-64-4 Dimetilan 1 500/10,000 * * * * * * * 23422-53-9 Formetanate Hydrochloride ( h ) 100 500/10,000 * * * * * * * 17702-57-7 Formparanate 100 100/10,000 * * * * * * * 119-38-0 Isopropylmethyl-pyrazolyl Dimethylcarbamate 100 500 * * * * * * * 1129-41-5 Metolcarb 1,000 100/10,000 * * * * * * * 23135-22-0 Oxamyl 100 100/10,000 * * * * * * * 64-00-6 Phenol, 3-(1-Methylethyl)-, Methylcarbamate 10 500/10,000 * * * * * * * 57-47-6 Physostigmine 100 100/10,000 57-64-7 Physostigmine, Salicylate (1:1) 100 100/10,000 * * * * * * * 2631-37-0 Promecarb ( h ) 1,000 500/10,000 * * * * * * * * Only the statutory or final RQ is shown. For more information, see 40 CFR Table 302.4. Notes: h Revised TPQ based on new or re-evaluated toxicity data. 7. Appendix B in part 355 is amended by revising the following entries, to read as set forth below (footnotes “*” and “h” have been republished without change): Appendix B To Part 355.—The List of Extremely Hazardous Substances and Their Threshold Planning Quantities [CAS number order] CAS No. Chemical name Notes Reportable quantity* (pounds) Threshold planning quantity (pounds) * * * * * * * 57-47-6 Physostigmine 100 100/10,000 * * * * * * * 57-64-7 Physostigmine, Salicylate (1:1) 100 100/10,000 * * * * * * * 64-00-6 Phenol, 3-(1-Methylethyl)-, Methylcarbamate 10 500/10,000 * * * * * * * 119-38-0 Isopropylmethyl-pyrazolyl Dimethylcarbamate 100 500 * * * * * * * 644-64-4 Dimetilan 1 500/10,000 * * * * * * * 1129-41-5 Metolcarb 1,000 100/10,000 * * * * * * * 2631-37-0 Promecarb ( h ) 1,000 500/10,000 * * * * * * * 17702-57-7 Formparanate 100 100/10,000 * * * * * * * 23135-22-0 Oxamyl 100 100/10,000 23422-53-9 Formetanate Hydrochloride ( h ) 100 500/10,000 * * * * * * * 26419-73-8 Carbamic Acid, Methyl-, O-(((2,4-Dimethyl-1, 3-Dithiolan-2-yl)Methylene)Amino)- 100 100/10,000 * * * * * * * *Only the statutory or final RQ is shown. For more information, see 40 CFR Table 302.4. Notes: h Revised TPQ based on new or re-evaluated toxicity data. [FR Doc. E6-13491 Filed 8-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 712 [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0014; FRL-7764-9] RIN 2070-AB08 Preliminary Assessment Information Reporting; Addition of Certain Chemicals AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule and Technical corrections. SUMMARY: This final rule, issued pursuant to section 8(a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), requires certain manufacturers (including importers) of certain High Production Volume
(HPV)Challenge Program orphan (unsponsored) chemicals to submit a one-time report on general production/ importation volume, end use, and exposure-related information to EPA. The Interagency Testing Committee (ITC), established under section 4(e) of TSCA to recommend chemicals and chemical mixtures to EPA for priority testing consideration, amends the TSCA Section 4(e) *Priority Testing List* through periodic reports submitted to EPA. The ITC recently added certain HPV Challenge Program orphan (unsponsored) chemicals to the *Priority Testing List* in its 55 th and 56 th ITC Reports, as amended by deletions to this list made in its 56 th and 58 th ITC Reports. Two tungsten oxide compounds were added to the *Priority Testing List* by the ITC in its 55 th ITC Report but were removed from the *Priority Testing List* in the 58 th ITC Report. In addition, EPA is making technical corrections to update the EPA addresses to which submissions under the Preliminary Assessment Information Reporting
(PAIR)rule must be mailed or delivered. This update reflects the completion of the Agency's move to the Federal Triangle complex in Washington, DC. DATES: This final rule is effective September 15, 2006. However, § § 712.28 and 712.30(c), which contain technical corrections, are effective August 16, 2006. For purposes of judicial review, this rule shall be promulgated at 1 p.m. eastern daylight/standard time on August 30, 2006. (See 40 CFR 23.5) PAIR Forms must be submitted to EPA on or before November 14, 2006. A request to withdraw a chemical from this PAIR rule, pursuant to 40 CFR 712.30(c), must be received on or before August 30, 2006. (See Unit IV. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION .) ADDRESSES: *Docket* . EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification
(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0014. All documents in the docket are listed on the regulations.gov web site. 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 either electronically at *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the OPPT Docket, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Rm. B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is
(202)566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is
(202)566-0280. *Submissions* . For submission of PAIR Forms and withdrawal requests, each of which must be identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0014, see Unit III.D. and the regulatory text of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: *For general information contact* : Colby Lintner, Regulatory Coordinator, Environmental Assistance Division (7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202)554-1404; e-mail address: *TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov* . *For technical information contact* : Joe Nash, Chemical Control Division (7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202)564-8886; fax number:
(202)564-4765; e-mail address: *ccd.citb@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture (defined by statute to include import) any of the chemical substances that are listed in 40 CFR 712.30(e) of the regulatory text of this document. Entities potentially affected by this action may include, but are not limited to: • Chemical manufacturers (including importers), (NAICS codes 325, 324110), e.g., persons who manufacture (defined by statute to include import) one or more of the subject chemical substances. This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. 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 technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. How Do I Submit CBI Information? Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. II. Background A. What Action is the Agency Taking? EPA is issuing a PAIR rule under TSCA section 8(a) which requires certain manufacturers (including importers) of certain voluntary HPV Challenge Program orphan (unsponsored) chemicals (as defined by the ITC in its 55 th , 56 th , and 58 th ITC Reports (Refs. 1, 2, and 3)) added to the ITC's TSCA section 4(e) *Priority Testing List* to submit production and exposure reports. The regulatory text of this document lists certain voluntary HPV Challenge Program orphan (unsponsored) chemicals that are being added to the PAIR rule. (For additional information about EPA's voluntary HPV Challenge Program, visit the Challenge Program website at *http://www.epa.gov/chemrtk/volchall.htm* ). EPA is also making minor amendments to update the EPA addresses to which submissions under the PAIR rule must be sent or delivered (40 CFR 712.28 and 712.30). B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action? EPA promulgated the PAIR rule under TSCA section 8(a) (15 U.S.C. 2607(a)), and it is codified at 40 CFR part 712. EPA uses this model TSCA section 8(a) rule to quickly gather current information on chemicals. This model TSCA section 8(a) rule establishes standard reporting requirements for certain manufacturers (including importers) of the chemicals listed in 40 CFR 712.30. These entities are required to submit a one-time report on general production/importation volume, end use, and exposure-related information using the PAIR Form entitled *Manufacturer's Report-Preliminary Assessment Information* (EPA Form No. 7710-35). (See 40 CFR 712.28.) This model TSCA section 8(a) rule provides for the addition of TSCA section 4(e) *Priority Testing List* chemicals. Whenever EPA announces the receipt of an ITC Report, EPA amends, unless otherwise instructed by the ITC, the model TSCA section 8(a) information-gathering rule by adding the recommended (or designated) chemicals. The amendment adding these chemicals to the PAIR rule is effective 30 days after the date of publication in the **Federal Register** . C. Why is this Action Being Issued as a Final Rule? EPA is publishing this action as a final rule without prior notice and an opportunity for comment pursuant to the procedures set forth in 40 CFR 712.30(c). EPA finds that there is “good cause” under the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA)(5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B)) to make these amendments without prior notice and comment. EPA believes notice and an opportunity for comment on this action are unnecessary. TSCA directs the ITC to add chemicals to the *Priority Testing List* for which EPA should give priority consideration. EPA also lacks the authority to remove a chemical from the *Priority Testing List* once it has been added by the ITC. As explained earlier in this PAIR rule, pursuant to 40 CFR 712.30(c), once the ITC adds a chemical to the *Priority Testing List* , EPA in turn is obliged to add that chemical to the list of chemicals subject to PAIR reporting requirements, unless requested not to do so by the ITC. EPA promulgated this procedure in 1985 after having solicited public comment on the need for and mechanics of this procedure. (See the **Federal Register** of August 28, 1985 (50 FR 34805)). Because that rulemaking established the procedure for adding ITC chemicals to the PAIR rule, it is unnecessary to request comment on the procedure in this action. EPA believes this action does not raise any relevant issues for comment. EPA is not changing the PAIR reporting requirements or the process set forth in 40 CFR 712.30(c). Finally, 40 CFR 712.30(c) does provide EPA with the discretion to withdraw a chemical from the PAIR rule if a chemical manufacturer submits to EPA information showing good cause that a chemical should be removed from the PAIR rule. III. Final Rule A. What Chemicals are to be Added ? In this PAIR rule, EPA is adding certain voluntary HPV Challenge Program orphan (unsponsored) chemicals as requested by the ITC in its 55 th , 56 th , and 58 th ITC Reports (Refs. 1, 2, and 3). These chemicals are listed in 40 CFR 712.30(e) of the regulatory text of this document. B. Who Must Report Under this PAIR Rule? Persons who manufactured (defined by statute to include import) the chemicals identified in 40 CFR 712.30(e) of the regulatory text of this document during their latest complete corporate fiscal year must submit a PAIR Form for each site at which they manufactured or imported a named substance. Exemptions from this reporting requirement are found at 40 CFR 712.25. A separate form must be completed for each substance and submitted to the Agency as specified in 40 CFR 712.28 no later than November 14, 2006. Persons who have previously and voluntarily submitted a PAIR Form to the ITC may be able to submit a copy of the original report to EPA along with an accompanying letter notifying EPA of the respondent's intent that the submission be used in lieu of a current data submission. Persons who have previously and voluntarily submitted a PAIR Form to EPA may be able to notify EPA by letter of their desire to have this voluntary submission accepted in lieu of a current data submission. (See 40 CFR 712.30(a)(3)). Details of the PAIR reporting requirements, including the basis for exemptions, are provided in 40 CFR part 712. Specifically, 40 CFR 712.28(d) provides information on the availability of the PAIR Form. Copies of the PAIR Form are available from the general information contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Copies of the PAIR Form are also available electronically from the Chemical Testing and Information Branch Home Page at *http:// www.epa.gov/opptintr/chemtest/pairform.pdf* . C. Economic Analysis The economic analysis for the addition of certain voluntary HPV Challenge Program orphan (unsponsored) chemicals to the PAIR rule is entitled *Economic Analysis of the Addition of Chemicals from the 55* th , *56* th , *and 58* th *ITC Report to the TSCA 8(a) PAIR Rule* (Ref. 4). EPA identified 174 manufacturers of the 243 voluntary HPV Challenge Program orphan (unsponsored) chemicals in its 2002 Chemical Update System, which contains data reported under the Inventory Update Rule (IUR). The IUR required manufacturers (including importers) of certain chemical substances included in the TSCA Chemical Substances Inventory to report current data on the production volume, plant site, and site-limited status of these substances (as of the upcoming 2006 reporting cycle, information in addition to these data elements will also be reported). Since 1986, reporting under the IUR has taken place at 4-year intervals (reporting will occur in 5-year intervals after 2006). The threshold for reporting under the IUR (prior to the upcoming 2006 reporting cycle, for which the threshold will be 25,000 lbs) has been 10,000 lbs and the threshold for PAIR reporting is 1,100 lbs (500 kilograms (kg)). Because EPA's existing IUR data excludes any entities with production or importation volumes in the 1,100-10,000 lbs range, EPA's analysis may slightly underestimate the costs of the present PAIR rule. The PAIR rule exempts a firm from reporting if the total annual sales from all sites owned or controlled by the parent company are below $30 million for the reporting period and total production for the reporting period is below 45,400 kg (100,000 lbs) of the chemical at the plant. EPA used the IUR data to estimate the potential number of companies and sites likely to submit PAIR reports and the number of estimated reports, and to develop appropriate assumptions needed to estimate overall costs. Much of the data reported under IUR is CBI, and as a result it is not detailed in the economic analysis (Ref. 3). EPA's review of the 2002 IUR data for the 243 voluntary HPV Challenge Program orphan (unsponsored) chemicals identified 312 sites that filed 547 IUR reports. Two of the sites meet the PAIR rule's exemption criteria and therefore are not expected to have to submit PAIR reports. An additional three sites that manufacture (including import) two voluntary HPV Challenge Program orphan (unsponsored) chemicals are expected to have one of their two chemicals meet the exemption criteria which further reduces the number of PAIR reports expected. Therefore, the total number of sites expected to provide PAIR reports is 310, and an estimated total of 541 reports is expected. By researching corporate affiliations for these 310 sites, EPA estimates that 172 firms (i.e., ultimate corporate entities (UCEs)) manufacturing (including importing) the voluntary HPV Challenge Program orphan (unsponsored) chemicals will need to comply with the PAIR rule. Therefore, EPA anticipates 541 reports from 310 sites for 172 firms to be covered by this PAIR rule. Given the assumptions in this unit, the costs and burden associated with this PAIR rule are estimated in the Economic Analysis (Ref. 3) to be the following: **Industry Costs (dollars)** The estimated total cost to industry under this PAIR reporting rule is $643,730. The total industry cost divided by sites yields an average per site cost of $2,077 (i.e., $643,730/310 sites). Costs are expected to occur within a time frame of a single year. Therefore, costs have not been annualized. **EPA Costs (dollars)** Personnel requirements are derived from the 1989 PAIR Information Collection Request
(ICR)update, which estimated that industry and public assistance required 0.00072 full time employees
(FTEs)per report and data processing/system support required 0.0018 FTEs per report. Data processing costs for the 1996 PAIR ICR update were estimated to be approximately $199.56 per report. Adjusting this number to 2003 dollars with the Gross Domestic Product
(GDP)implicit price deflator (BEA 2005) yields an adjusted data processing cost of $224.80 per report (i.e., $199.56 x 1.1265). This analysis estimates that a total of 541 reports will be submitted. EPA estimates the Agency costs to be $247,800. D. Additional Amendments to Update EPA Addresses EPA is making minor amendments to update the EPA addresses to which submissions under the PAIR reporting rule must be sent or delivered (40 CFR 712.28 and 712.30). This update to the EPA addresses reflects the completion of the Agency's move to the Federal Triangle complex in Washington, DC. The addresses listed in the existing regulation are no longer the correct or complete Agency addresses to which this material must be submitted. The Agency finds that notice and comment on these amendments is unnecessary. The update is not substantive and does not affect the information manufacturers must report. The amendments merely reflect a change in the Agency's location. The Agency therefore finds the amendments to be minor in nature. IV. Requesting a Chemical be Withdrawn from the Rule As specified in 40 CFR 712.30(c), EPA may remove a chemical substance, mixture, or category of chemical substances from this PAIR rule for good cause prior to September 15, 2006. Any person who believes that the reporting required by this PAIR rule is not warranted for a chemical listed in this PAIR rule, must submit to EPA detailed reasons for that belief. EPA has established a policy regarding acceptance of new commitments to sponsor chemicals under the voluntary HPV Challenge Program (Ref. 5). Under this policy, EPA will accept new commitments to sponsor chemicals under the voluntary HPV Challenge Program for any of the 243 voluntary HPV Challenge Program orphan (unsponsored) chemicals listed in the regulatory text of this document until August 30, 2006. In accordance with the procedures described in 40 CFR 712.30(c), withdrawal requests submitted by chemical manufacturers in conjunction with these new commitments must be received on or before August 30, 2006. Voluntary HPV Challenge Program orphan (unsponsored) chemicals for which new commitments are accepted based on EPA's policy will be removed from the PAIR rule, and a **Federal Register** document announcing these withdrawal decisions will be published before the effective date of this PAIR rule (i.e., September 15, 2006). You must submit your request to EPA on or before August 30, 2006 and in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR 712.30(c), which are briefly summarized here. In addition, to ensure proper receipt, EPA recommends that you identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0014 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. If the Administrator withdraws a chemical substance, mixture, or category of chemical substances from the amendment, a **Federal Register** document announcing this decision will be published no later than September 15, 2006. V. Materials in the Docket The official docket for this PAIR rule has been established under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0014. The official public docket is available for review as specified in ADDRESSES . The following is a listing of the documents referenced in this preamble that have been placed in the official docket for this PAIR rule: 1. ITC. 2005. Fifty-Fifth Report of the TSCA Interagency Testing Committee to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency; Receipt of Report and Request for Comments. **Federal Register** (70 FR 7364, February 11, 2005) (FRL-7692-1). Available on-line at: *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr* . 2. ITC. 2005. Fifty-Sixth Report of the TSCA Interagency Testing Committee to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency; Receipt of Report and Request for Comments. **Federal Register** (69 FR 61520, October 24, 2005) (FRL-7739-9). Available on-line at: *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr* . 3. ITC. 2006. Fifty-Eigth Report of the TSCA Interagency Testing Committee to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency; Receipt of Report and Request for Comments. **Federal Register** (71 FR 39188, July ll, 2006) (FRL-8073-7). Available on-line at: *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr* . 4. EPA. 2006. Economic Analysis of the Addition of Chemicals from the 55 th , 56 th , and 58 th ITC Report to the TSCA 8(a) PAIR Rule. July 10, 2006. 5. EPA. 2006. Policy Regarding Acceptance of New Commitments to the High Production Volume
(HPV)Challenge Program. Available on-line at: *http://www.epa.gov/chemrtk/hpvpolcy.htm* . July 2006. VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866 The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has exempted actions under TSCA section 8(a) related to the PAIR rule from the requirements of Executive Order 12866, entitled *Regulatory Planning and Review* (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). B. Paperwork Reduction Act The information collection requirements contained in TSCA section 8(a) PAIR rules have already been approved by OMB under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq* ., and OMB control number 2070-0054 (EPA ICR No. 0586). The collection activities in this final rule are captured by the existing approval and do not require additional review and/or approval by OMB. EPA estimates that the information collection activities related to PAIR reporting for all chemicals in this final rule will result in a total industry burden estimated to be 13,712 hours. An estimated 310 sites are expected to provide PAIR reports. Therefore, the estimated burden per respondent is 44 hours (13,712 hours/310 sites). As defined by the PRA and 5 CFR 1320.3(b), “burden” means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal Agency. This includes the time needed to: Review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. Under the PRA, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, an information collection request unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and included on the related collection instrument. This listing of the OMB control numbers and their subsequent codification in the CFR satisfies the display requirements of PRA and OMB's implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq* ., the Agency hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the Agency's determination is presented in the small entity impact analysis prepared as part of the economic analysis for this rule (Ref. 4), and is briefly summarized here. Section 601(3) of RFA establishes as the default definition of “small business” the definition used in section 3 of the Small Business Act (SBA), 15 U.S.C. 632, under which the SBA establishes small business size standards for each industry sector (13 CFR 121.201). For this final rule, EPA has analyzed the potential small business impacts using the size standards established under the default definition. The SBA size standards, which are primarily intended to determine whether a business entity is eligible for government programs and preferences reserved for small businesses (13 CFR 121.101), “seek to ensure that a concern that meets a specific size standard is not dominant in its field of operation” (13 CFR 121.102(b)). (See section 632(a)(1) of SBA.) The SBA size standards are generally based upon the number of employees or level of sales that an entity in a certain industrial sector may have. Entities are classified into industrial sectors based upon their NAICS code. EPA determined that the 172 UCEs subject to this PAIR rule fall into 77 unique NAICS codes. EPA confirmed through its analysis that 26 of the 172 affected firms are small businesses. In addition, there are another four firms for which sales and/or employment data are not available to make this determination. To determine whether compliance costs for the small business sector may differ, EPA analyzed the data specific to these UCEs. Based on reporting to the IUR, EPA estimates that 27 small businesses will submit 34 reports for 29 sites. The average number of reports per company is 1.3, although, at least one of the companies is expected to submit at least three PAIR reports. EPA estimates the total cost for a small business with three sites as $4,023. However, nearly 90 percent of the small businesses will have only one report to submit. For these companies, the cost is approximately $1,500 per company assuming they undertake CBI substantiation and trademark notification. EPA compared the cost of compliance for a small business to its sales and found that no companies would experience an impact of greater than 1% of its sales. In the case of a small business that submits three reports, EPA estimates that the firm would have to generate less than $402,300 in annual sales to experience a 1% impact. For those small businesses where EPA has available data (25 of the 27), the average sales data for a small business is greater than $258 million and the minimum annual sales was over $3.7 million. Therefore, EPA concludes that the impact of the rule on these small businesses will be minimal. For the six companies where sales data were not available, EPA determined that each has only one site, with all but one site producing a single reportable chemical. Therefore, the average cost for those companies is approximately $1,500. Given that the lowest sales revenue for small businesses where sales could be identified was $3.7 million, the average cost to those companies is expected to be well below 1% of the sales of the company. Therefore, EPA does not believe it is likely that the cost of the rule to these businesses will be significant. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year. In addition, EPA has determined that this rule will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Accordingly, the rule is not subject to the requirements of UMRA sections 202, 203, 204, or 205. E. Executive Order 13132 and 13175 Based on EPA's experience with past TSCA section 8(a) rules, State, local, and tribal governments have not been impacted by these rules, and EPA does not have any reasons to believe that any State, local, or tribal government will be impacted by this rule. As a result, these rules are not subject to the requirements in Executive Order 13132, entitled *Federalism* (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) or Executive Order 13175, entitled *Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments* (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000). F. Executive Order 13045 Executive Order 13045, entitled *Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks* (62 FR 19885, April 23,1997), does not apply to this rule, because it is not “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and does not concern an environmental health or safety risk that may have a disproportionate effect on children. This rule requires the one-time reporting on general production/importation volume, end use, and exposure-related information to EPA by certain manufacturers (including importers) of certain chemicals requested by the ITC to be added to the PAIR rule in its 55 th , 56 th , and 58 th ITC Reports (Ref. 1, 2, and 3). G. Executive Order 13211 This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled *Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use* (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because this action is not expected to affect energy supply, distribution, or use. H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 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). Section 12(d) of NTTAA directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. I. Executive Order 12898 This action does not involve special considerations of environmental justice-related issues pursuant to Executive Order 12898, entitled *Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations* (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 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 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 712 Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Health and safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: August 3, 2006. Charles M. Auer, Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows: PART 712—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 712 continues to read as follows: Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2607(a). 2. By revising paragraph
(c)of § 712.28 to read as follows: § 712.28 Form and instructions.
(c)You must submit forms by one of the following methods:
(1)Mail, preferably certified, to the Document Control Office
(DCO)(7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001, ATTN: 8(a) PAIR Reporting.
(2)Hand delivery to OPPT Document Control Office (DCO), EPA East, Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC, ATTN: 8(a) PAIR Reporting. The DCO is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the DCO is (202)564-8930. 3. By amending § 712.30 as follows: a. Remove the last sentence in paragraph (c), designate the remaining text of paragraph
(c)as paragraph (c)(1), and add a new paragraph (c)(2). b. Amend the table in paragraph
(e)by adding in alphabetical order the category “Voluntary HPV Challenge Program orphan (unsponsored) chemicals” and its entries. § 712.30 Chemical lists and reporting periods.
(c)* * *
(2)You must submit information by one of the following methods:
(i)Mail, preferably certified, to the Document Control Office
(DCO)(7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001, ATTN: 8(a) Auto-ITC.
(ii)Hand delivery to OPPT Document Control Office (DCO), EPA East, Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC, ATTN: 8(a) Auto-ITC. Reporting. The DCO is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the DCO is (202)564-8930.
(e)* * * CAS No. Substance Effective date Reporting date * * * * * * * Voluntary HPV Challenge Program orphan (unsponsored) chemicals 62-56-6 Thiourea September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 74-97-5 Methane, bromochloro- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 75-46-7 Methane, trifluoro- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 77-76-9 Propane, 2,2-dimethoxy- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 77-86-1 1,3-Propanediol, 2-amino-2-(hydroxymethyl)- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 81-07-2 1,2-Benzisothiazol-3(2H)-one, 1,1-dioxide September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 81-16-3 1-Naphthalenesulfonic acid, 2-amino- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 81-84-5 1H,3H-Naphtho[1,8-cd]pyran-1,3-dione September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 83-41-0 Benzene, 1,2-dimethyl-3-nitro- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 84-69-5 1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, bis(2-methylpropyl) ester September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 85-40-5 1H-Isoindole-1,3(2H)-dione, 3a,4,7,7a-tetrahydro- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 91-68-9 Phenol, 3-(diethylamino)- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 94-96-2 1,3-Hexanediol, 2-ethyl- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 96-22-0 3-Pentanone September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 97-00-7 Benzene, 1-chloro-2,4-dinitro- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 98-09-9 Benzenesulfonyl chloride September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 98-16-8 Benzenamine, 3-(trifluoromethyl)- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 98-56-6 Benzene, 1-chloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 99-51-4 Benzene, 1,2-dimethyl-4-nitro- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 100-64-1 Cyclohexanone, oxime September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 101-34-8 9-Octadecenoic acid, 12-(acetyloxy)-, 1,2,3-propanetriyl ester, (9Z,9'Z,9''Z,12R,12'R,12''R)- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 104-66-5 Benzene, 1,1'-[1,2-ethanediylbis(oxy)]bis- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 104-93-8 Benzene, 1-methoxy-4-methyl- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 107-39-1 1-Pentene, 2,4,4-trimethyl- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 107-40-4 2-Pentene, 2,4,4-trimethyl- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 107-45-9 2-Pentanamine, 2,4,4-trimethyl- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 110-18-9 1,2-Ethanediamine, N,N,N',N'-tetramethyl- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 110-33-8 Hexanedioic acid, dihexyl ester September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 111-44-4 Ethane, 1,1'-oxybis[2-chloro- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 111-85-3 Octane, 1-chloro- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 111-91-1 Ethane, 1,1'-[methylenebis(oxy)]bis[2-chloro- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 118-90-1 Benzoic acid, 2-methyl- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 119-33-5 Phenol, 4-methyl-2-nitro- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 121-69-7 Benzenamine, N,N-dimethyl- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 121-82-4 1,3,5-Triazine, hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 124-63-0 Methanesulfonyl chloride September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 127-68-4 Benzenesulfonic acid, 3-nitro-, sodium salt September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 131-57-7 Methanone, (2-hydroxy-4-methoxyphenyl)phenyl- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 137-20-2 Ethanesulfonic acid, 2-[methyl[(9Z)-1-oxo-9-octadecenyl]amino]-, sodium salt September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 138-25-0 1,3-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, 5-sulfo-, 1,3-dimethyl ester September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 139-40-2 1,3,5-Triazine-2,4-diamine, 6-chloro-N,N'-bis(1-methylethyl)- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 140-93-2 Carbonodithioic acid, O-(1-methylethyl) ester, sodium salt September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 142-73-4 Glycine, N-(carboxymethyl)- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 150-50-5 Phosphorotrithious acid, tributyl ester September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 330-54-1 Urea, N'-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-N,N-dimethyl- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 460-00-4 Benzene, 1-bromo-4-fluoro- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 506-51-4 1-Tetracosanol September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 506-52-5 1-Hexacosanol September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 513-74-6 Carbamodithioic acid, monoammonium salt September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 515-40-2 Benzene, (2-chloro-1,1-dimethylethyl)- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 529-33-9 1-Naphthalenol, 1,2,3,4-tetrahydro- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 529-34-0 1(2H)-Naphthalenone, 3,4-dihydro- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 542-92-7 1,3-Cyclopentadiene September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 557-61-9 1-Octacosanol September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 563-72-4 Ethanedioic acid, calcium salt (1:1) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 579-66-8 Benzenamine, 2,6-diethyl- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 590-19-2 1,2-Butadiene September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 592-45-0 1,4-Hexadiene September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 598-72-1 Propanoic acid, 2-bromo- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 617-94-7 Benzenemethanol, .alpha.,.alpha.-dimethyl- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 628-13-7 Pyridine, hydrochloride September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 628-96-6 1,2-Ethanediol, dinitrate September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 645-62-5 2-Hexenal, 2-ethyl- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 693-07-2 Ethane, 1-chloro-2-(ethylthio)- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 693-95-8 Thiazole, 4-methyl- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 756-80-9 Phosphorodithioic acid, O,O-dimethyl ester September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 870-72-4 Methanesulfonic acid, hydroxy-, monosodium salt September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 928-72-3 Glycine, N-(carboxymethyl)-, disodium salt September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 939-97-9 Benzaldehyde, 4-(1,1-dimethylethyl)- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 1000-82-4 Urea, (hydroxymethyl)- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 1002-69-3 Decane, 1-chloro- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 1111-78-0 Carbamic acid, monoammonium salt September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 1115-20-4 Propanoic acid, 3-hydroxy-2,2-dimethyl-, 3-hydroxy-2,2-dimethylpropyl ester September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 1401-55-4 Tannins September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 1445-45-0 Ethane, 1,1,1-trimethoxy- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 1459-93-4 1,3-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, dimethyl ester September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 1498-51-7 Phosphorodichloridic acid, ethyl ester September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 1558-33-4 Silane, dichloro(chloromethyl)methyl- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 1738-25-6 Propanenitrile, 3-(dimethylamino)- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 1912-24-9 1,3,5-Triazine-2,4-diamine, 6-chloro-N-ethyl-N'-(1-methylethyl)- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 2152-64-9 Benzenamine, N-phenyl-4-[[4-(phenylamino)phenyl][4-(phenylimino)-2,5-cyclohexadien-1-ylidene]methyl]-, monohydrochloride September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 2210-79-9 Oxirane, [(2-methylphenoxy)methyl]- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 2372-45-4 1-Butanol, sodium salt September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 2409-55-4 Phenol, 2-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-4-methyl- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 2425-54-9 Tetradecane, 1-chloro- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 2494-89-5 Ethanol, 2-[(4-aminophenyl)sulfonyl]-, hydrogen sulfate (ester) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 2524-03-0 Phosphorochloridothioic acid, O,O-dimethyl ester September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 2611-00-9 3-Cyclohexene-1-carboxylic acid, 3-cyclohexen-1-ylmethyl ester September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 2691-41-0 1,3,5,7-Tetrazocine, octahydro-1,3,5,7-tetranitro- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 2814-20-2 4(1H)-Pyrimidinone, 6-methyl-2-(1-methylethyl)- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 2905-62-6 Benzoyl chloride, 3,5-dichloro- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 2915-53-9 2-Butenedioic acid (2Z)-, dioctyl ester September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 3039-83-6 Ethenesulfonic acid, sodium salt September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 3088-31-1 Ethanol, 2-[2-(dodecyloxy)ethoxy]-, hydrogen sulfate, sodium salt September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 3132-99-8 Benzaldehyde, 3-bromo- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 3338-24-7 Phosphorodithioic acid, O,O-diethyl ester, sodium salt September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 3386-33-2 Octadecane, 1-chloro- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 3710-84-7 Ethanamine, N-ethyl-N-hydroxy- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 3779-63-3 1,3,5-Triazine-2,4,6(1H,3H,5H)-trione, 1,3,5-tris(6-isocyanatohexyl)- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 3965-55-7 1,3-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, 5-sulfo-, 1,3-dimethyl ester, sodium salt September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 4035-89-6 Imidodicarbonic diamide, N,N',2-tris(6-isocyanatohexyl)- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 4170-30-3 2-Butenal September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 4316-73-8 Glycine, N-methyl-, monosodium salt September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 4860-03-1 Hexadecane, 1-chloro- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 5026-74-4 Oxiranemethanamine, N-[4-(oxiranylmethoxy)phenyl]-N-(oxiranylmethyl)- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 5216-25-1 Benzene, 1-chloro-4-(trichloromethyl)- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 5460-09-3 2,7-Naphthalenedisulfonic acid, 4-amino-5-hydroxy-, monosodium salt September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 5915-41-3 1,3,5-Triazine-2,4-diamine, 6-chloro-N-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-N'-ethyl- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 6473-13-8 2-Naphthalenesulfonic acid, 6-[(2,4-diaminophenyl)azo]-3-[[4-[[4-[[7-[(2,4-diaminophenyl)azo]-1-hydroxy-3-sulfo-2-naphthalenyl]azo]phenyl]amino]-3-sulfophenyl]azo]-4-hydroxy-, trisodium salt September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 6863-58-7 Butane, 2,2'-oxybis- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 6865-35-6 Octadecanoic acid, barium salt September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 7320-37-8 Oxirane, tetradecyl- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 7795-95-1 1-Octanesulfonyl chloride September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 8001-58-9 Creosote September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 10265-69-7 Glycine, N-phenyl-, monosodium salt September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 13749-94-5 Ethanimidothioic acid, N-hydroxy-, methyl ester September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 13826-35-2 Benzenemethanol, 3-phenoxy- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 14666-94-5 9-Octadecenoic acid (9Z)-, cobalt salt September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 17103-31-0 Urea, sulfate (2:1) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 17321-47-0 Phosphoramidothioic acid, O,O-dimethyl ester September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 17976-43-1 2,4,6,8,3,5,7-Benzotetraoxatriplumbacycloundecin-3,5,7-triylidene, 1,9-dihydro-1,9-dioxo- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 19438-61-0 1,3-Isobenzofurandione, 5-methyl- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 19525-59-8 Glycine, N-phenyl-, monopotassium salt September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 20068-02-4 2-Butenenitrile, 2-methyl-, (2Z)- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 20227-53-6 Phosphorous acid, 2-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-4-[1-[3-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-4-hydroxyphenyl]-1-methylethyl]phenyl bis(4-nonylphenyl) ester September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 20469-71-0 Hydrazinecarbodithioic acid, compd. with hydrazine (1:1) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 21351-39-3 Urea, sulfate (1:1) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 22527-63-5 Propanoic acid, 2-methyl-, 3-(benzoyloxy)-2,2,4-trimethylpentyl ester September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 24615-84-7 2-Propenoic acid, 2-carboxyethyl ester September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 24794-58-9 Formic acid, compd. with 2,2',2''-nitrilotris[ethanol] (1:1) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 25154-38-5 Piperazineethanol September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 25168-05-2 Benzene, chloromethyl- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 25168-06-3 Phenol, (1-methylethyl)- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 25321-41-9 Benzenesulfonic acid, dimethyl- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 25383-99-7 Octadecanoic acid, 2-(1-carboxyethoxy)-1-methyl-2-oxoethyl ester, sodium salt September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 25646-71-3 Methanesulfonamide, N-[2-[(4-amino-3-methylphenyl)ethylamino]ethyl]-, sulfate (2:3) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 26377-29-7 Phosphorodithioic acid, O,O-dimethyl ester, sodium salt September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 26401-27-4 Phosphorous acid, isooctyl diphenyl ester September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 26680-54-6 2,5-Furandione, dihydro-3-(octenyl)- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 27193-28-8 Phenol, (1,1,3,3-tetramethylbutyl)- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 28106-30-1 Benzene, ethenylethyl- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 28188-24-1 Octadecanoic acid, 2-(hydroxymethyl)-2-[[(1-oxooctadecyl)oxy]methyl]-1,3-propanediyl ester September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 28777-98-2 2,5-Furandione, dihydro-3-(octadecenyl)- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 28908-00-1 Benzothiazole, 2-[(chloromethyl)thio]- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 30574-97-1 2-Butenenitrile, 2-methyl-, (2E)- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 32072-96-1 2,5-Furandione, 3-(hexadecenyl)dihydro- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 33509-43-2 1,2,4-Triazin-5(2H)-one, 4-amino-6-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-3,4-dihydro-3-thioxo- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 34689-46-8 Phenol, methyl-, sodium salt September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 35203-06-6 Benzenamine, 2-ethyl-6-methyl-N-methylene- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 35203-08-8 Benzenamine, 2,6-diethyl-N-methylene- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 37734-45-5 Carbonochloridothioic acid, S-(phenylmethyl) ester September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 37764-25-3 Acetamide, 2,2-dichloro-N,N-di-2-propenyl- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 38185-06-7 Benzenesulfonic acid, 4-chloro-3,5-dinitro-, potassium salt September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 38321-18-5 Ethanol, 2-(2-butoxyethoxy)-, sodium salt September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 39515-51-0 Benzaldehyde, 3-phenoxy- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 40630-63-5 1-Octanesulfonyl fluoride September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 40876-98-0 Butanedioic acid, oxo-, diethyl ester, ion(1-), sodium September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 51632-16-7 Benzene, 1-(bromomethyl)-3-phenoxy- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 52184-19-7 Phenol, 2,4-bis(1,1-dimethylpropyl)-6-[(2-nitrophenyl)azo]- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 52556-42-0 1-Propanesulfonic acid, 2-hydroxy-3-(2-propenyloxy)-, monosodium salt September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 52663-57-7 Ethanol, 2-butoxy-, sodium salt September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 56803-37-3 Phosphoric acid, (1,1-dimethylethyl)phenyl diphenyl ester September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 57693-14-8 Chromate(3-), bis[3-(hydroxy-.kappa.O)-4-[[2-(hydroxy-.kappa.O)-1-naphthalenyl]azo-.kappa.N1]-7-nitro-1-naphthalenesulfonato(3-)]-, trisodium September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 61788-44-1 Phenol, styrenated September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 61788-76-9 Alkanes, chloro September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 61789-32-0 Fatty acids, coco, 2-sulfoethyl esters, sodium salts September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 61789-85-3 Sulfonic acids, petroleum September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 63302-49-8 Phosphorochloridous acid, bis(4-nonylphenyl) ester September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 64743-02-8 Alkenes, C>10 .alpha.- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 64743-03-9 Phenols (petroleum) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 65996-79-4 Solvent naphtha
(coal)September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 65996-80-7 Ammonia liquor
(coal)September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 65996-81-8 Fuel gases, coke-oven September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 65996-82-9 Tar oils, coal September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 65996-83-0 Extracts, coal tar oil alk. September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 65996-86-3 Extract oils (coal), tar base September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 65996-87-4 Extract residues (coal), tar oil alk. September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 65996-89-6 Tar, coal, high-temp. September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 65996-91-0 Distillates (coal tar), upper September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 65996-92-1 Distillates (coal tar) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 66071-94-1 Corn, steep liquor September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 68081-86-7 Phenol, nonyl derivs. September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 68082-78-0 Lard, oil, Me esters September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 68153-60-6 Fatty acids, tall-oil, reaction products with diethylenetriamine, acetates September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 68187-41-7 Phosphorodithioic acid, O,O-di-C1-14-alkyl esters September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 68187-57-5 Pitch, coal tar-petroleum September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 68187-59-7 Coal, anthracite, calcined September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 68188-18-1 Paraffin oils, chlorosulfonated, saponified September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 68308-74-7 Amides, tall-oil fatty, N,N-di-Me September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 68309-16-0 Fatty acids, tall-oil, 2-(2-hydroxyethoxy)ethyl esters September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 68309-27-3 Fatty acids, tall-oil, sulfonated, sodium salts September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 68334-01-0 Disulfides, alkylaryl dialkyl diaryl, petroleum refinery spent caustic oxidn. products September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 68441-66-7 Decanoic acid, mixed esters with dipentaerythritol, octanoic acid and valeric acid September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 68442-60-4 Acetaldehyde, reaction products with formaldehyde, by-products from September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 68442-77-3 2-Butenediamide, (2E)-, N,N'-bis[2-(4,5-dihydro-2-nortall-oil alkyl-1H-imidazol-1-yl)ethyl] derivs. September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 68457-74-9 Phenol, isobutylenated methylstyrenated September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 68476-80-2 Fats and Glyceridic oils, vegetable, deodorizer distillates September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 68478-20-6 Residues (petroleum), steam-cracked petroleum distillates cyclopentadiene conc., C4-cyclopentadiene-free September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 68513-62-2 Disulfides, C5-12-alkyl September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 68514-41-0 Ketones, C12-branched September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 68515-89-9 Barium, carbonate nonylphenol complexes September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 68527-22-0 Naphtha (petroleum), clay-treated light straight-run September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 68584-25-8 Benzenesulfonic acid, C10-16-alkyl derivs., compds. with triethanolamine September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 68602-81-3 Distillates, hydrocarbon resin prodn. higher boiling September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 68603-84-9 Carboxylic acids, C5-9 September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 68608-59-3 Ethane, 1,2-dichloro-, manuf. of, by-products from, distn. lights September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 68609-05-2 Cyclohexane, oxidized, non-acidic by-products, distn. lights September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 68610-90-2 2-Butenedioic acid (2E)-, di-C8-18-alkyl esters September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 68649-42-3 Phosphorodithioic acid, O,O-di-C1-14-alkyl esters, zinc salts September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 68650-36-2 Aromatic hydrocarbons, C8, o-xylene-lean September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 68782-97-8 Distillates (petroleum), hydrofined lubricating-oil September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 68815-50-9 Octadecanoic acid, reaction products with 2-[(2-aminoethyl)amino]ethanol September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 68909-77-3 Ethanol, 2,2'-oxybis-, reaction products with ammonia, morpholine derivs. residues September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 68915-05-9 Fatty acids, tall-oil, low-boiling, reaction products with ammonia-ethanolamine reaction by-products September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 68915-39-9 Cyclohexane, oxidized, aq. ext., sodium salt September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 68918-16-1 Tar, coal, dried and oxidized September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 68919-17-5 Hydrocarbons, C12-20, catalytic alkylation by-products September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 68937-29-1 1,6-Hexanediol, distn. residues September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 68937-69-9 Carboxylic acids, C6-18 and C5-15-di- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 68937-70-2 Carboxylic acids, C6-18 and C8-15-di- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 68937-72-4 Carboxylic acids, di-, C4-11 September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 68953-80-0 Benzene, mixed with toluene, dealkylation product September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 68955-37-3 Acid chlorides, tallow, hydrogenated September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 68955-76-0 Aromatic hydrocarbons, C9-16, biphenyl deriv.-rich September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 68987-41-7 Benzene, ethylenated September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 68987-66-6 Ethene, hydrated, by-products from September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 68988-22-7 1,4-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, dimethyl ester, manuf. of, by-products from September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 68990-61-4 Tar, coal, high-temp., high-solids September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 68990-65-8 Fats and Glyceridic oils, vegetable, reclaimed September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 70084-98-9 Terpenes and Terpenoids, C10-30, distn. residues September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 70693-50-4 Phenol, 2,4-bis(1-methyl-1-phenylethyl)-6-[(2-nitrophenyl)azo]- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 70851-08-0 Amides, coco, N-[3-(dimethylamino)propyl], alkylation products with sodium 3-chloro-2-hydroxypropanesulfonate September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 71077-05-9 Ethanol, 2,2'-oxybis-, reaction products with ammonia, morpholine product tower residues September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 72162-15-3 1-Decene, sulfurized September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 72162-28-8 2-Propanone, reaction products with phenol September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 72854-27-4 Tannins, reaction products with sodium bisulfite, sodium polysulfide and sodium sulfite September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 73665-18-6 Extract residues (coal), tar oil alk., naphthalene distn. residues September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 83864-02-2 Nickel, bis[(cyano-C)triphenylborato(1-)-N]bis(hexanedinitrile-N,N')- September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 84501-86-0 Hexanedioic acid, esters with high-boiling C6-10-alkene hydroformylation products September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 90640-80-5 Anthracene oil September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 90640-86-1 Distillates (coal tar), heavy oils September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 119345-02-7 Benzene, 1,1'-oxybis-, tetrapropylene derivs. September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 125997-20-8 Phosphoric acid, mixed 3-bromo-2,2-dimethylpropyl and 2-bromoethyl and 2-chloroethyl esters September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 [FR Doc. E6-13479 Filed 8-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 716 [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0055; FRL-7764-7] RIN 2070-AB11 Health and Safety Data Reporting; Addition of Certain Chemicals AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule and Technical corrections. SUMMARY: This final rule, issued pursuant to section 8(d) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), requires manufacturers (including importers) of the chemicals listed in this document in the category of voluntary High Production Volume
(HPV)Challenge Program orphan (unsponsored) chemicals to report certain unpublished health and safety data to EPA. The Interagency Testing Committee (ITC), established under section 4(e) of TSCA to recommend chemical substances and mixtures to EPA for priority testing consideration, amends the TSCA section 4(e) *Priority Testing List* through periodic reports submitted to EPA. The ITC recently added voluntary HPV Challenge Program orphan (unsponsored) chemicals to the *Priority Testing List* in its 55 th and 56 th ITC Reports, as amended by deletions to this list made in its 56 th and 58 th ITC Reports. In addition, EPA is making technical corrections to update the EPA addresses to which submissions under the health and safety data reporting rule must be mailed or delivered. This update reflects the completion of the Agency's move to the Federal Triangle complex in Washington, DC. DATES: This final rule is effective September 15, 2006. However, § § 716.30, 716.35, 716.60, and 716.105, which contain technical corrections, are effective August 16, 2006. For purposes of judicial review, this rule shall be promulgated at 1 p.m. eastern daylight/standard time on August 30, 2006. (See 40 CFR 23.5) A request to withdraw a chemical from this rule pursuant to 40 CFR 716.105(c) must be received on or before August 30, 2006. (See Unit IV. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION .) For dates for reporting requirements, see Unit III.B. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION . ADDRESSES: *Docket* . EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification
(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0055. All documents in the docket are listed on the regulations.gov web site. 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 either electronically at *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the OPPT Docket, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Rm. B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is
(202)566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is
(202)566-0280. *Submissions* . For submission of withdrawal requests, copies of studies and accompanying cover letters, lists of studies, and requests for extensions of time, each of which must be identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0055, see Unit III.D. and the regulatory text of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: *For general information contact* : Colby Lintner, Regulatory Coordinator, Environmental Assistance Division (7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202)554-1404; e-mail address: *TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov* . *For technical information contact* : Joe Nash, Chemical Control Division (7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202)564-8886; fax number:
(202)564-4765; e-mail address: *ccd.citb@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture (defined by statute to include import) any of the chemical substances that are listed in 40 CFR 716.120(d) of the regulatory text of this document. Entities potentially affected by this action may include, but are not limited to: • Chemical manufacturers (including importers), (NAICS codes 325, 32411), e.g., persons who manufacture (defined by statute to include import) one or more of the subject chemical substances. This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. 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 technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. How Do I Submit CBI Information? Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. II. Background A. What Action is the Agency Taking? EPA is issuing a Health and Safety Data Reporting rule under TSCA section 8(d) which requires manufacturers (including importers) of chemicals in the category (as defined by the ITC in its 55 th , 56 th , and 58 th ITC Reports (Refs. 1, 2, and 3)) of voluntary HPV Challenge Program orphan (unsponsored) chemicals on the ITC's TSCA section 4(e) *Priority Testing List* to submit certain unpublished health and safety data to EPA. The regulatory text of this document lists the voluntary HPV Challenge Program orphan (unsponsored) chemicals that are being added to the Health and Safety Data Reporting rule. The regulatory text also lists the data reporting requirements imposed by this amendment to the rule. (For additional information about EPA's voluntary HPV Challenge Program, visit the Challenge Program website at *http://www.epa.gov/chemrtk/volchall.htm* ). EPA is also making minor amendments to update the EPA addresses to which submissions under the Health and Safety Data reporting rule must be sent or delivered (40 CFR 716.30, 40 CFR 716.35, 40 CFR 716.60, and 40 CFR 716.105). B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action? EPA promulgated the model Health and Safety Data Reporting rule under section 8(d) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2607(d)), and it is codified at 40 CFR part 716. EPA uses this TSCA section 8(d) model rule to quickly gather current information on chemicals. The TSCA section 8(d) model rule requires certain past, current, and proposed manufacturers, importers, and (if specified by EPA in a particular notice or rule under TSCA section 8(d)) processors of listed chemicals to submit to EPA copies and lists of unpublished health and safety studies on the listed chemicals that they manufacture, import, or (if specified by EPA in a particular notice or rule under TSCA section 8(d)) process. These studies provide EPA with useful information and have provided significant support for EPA's decisionmaking under TSCA sections 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9. This model TSCA section 8(d) rule provides for the addition of TSCA section 4(e) *Priority Testing List* chemicals. Whenever EPA announces the receipt of an ITC Report, EPA amends, unless otherwise instructed by the ITC, the model Health and Safety Data Reporting rule by adding the recommended (or designated) chemicals. The amendment adding these chemicals to the Health and Safety Data Reporting rule is effective 30 days after the date of publication in the **Federal Register** . Explanations of the procedures to follow if a respondent to this rule wishes to assert a claim of confidentiality for a part of a study or certain information contained in a study are provided at 40 CFR 716.55. C. Why is this Action Being Issued as a Final Rule? EPA is publishing this action as a final rule without prior notice and an opportunity for comment pursuant to the procedures set forth in 40 CFR 716.105(b) and (c). EPA finds that there is ``good cause'' under the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA)(5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B)) to make these amendments without prior notice and comment. EPA believes notice and an opportunity for comment on this action are unnecessary. TSCA directs the ITC to add chemicals to the *Priority Testing List* for which EPA should give priority consideration. EPA also lacks the authority to remove a chemical from the *Priority Testing List* once it has been added by the ITC. As explained earlier in this rule, pursuant to 40 CFR 716.105(b) and (c), once the ITC adds a chemical to the *Priority Testing List* , EPA in turn is obliged to add that chemical to the list of chemicals subject to Health and Safety Data Reporting rule reporting requirements, unless requested not to do so by the ITC. EPA promulgated this procedure in 1985 after having solicited public comment on the need for and mechanics of this procedure. (See the **Federal Register** of August 28, 1985 (50 FR 34809)). Because that rulemaking established the procedure for adding ITC chemicals to the Health and Safety Data Reporting rule, it is unnecessary to request comment on the procedure in this action. EPA believes this action does not raise any relevant issues for comment. EPA is not changing the Health and Safety Data Reporting rule reporting requirements or the process set forth in 40 CFR 716.105(b) and (c). Finally, 40 CFR 716.105(b) and
(c)do provide EPA with the discretion to withdraw a chemical from the Health and Safety Data Reporting rule if a chemical manufacturer submits to EPA information showing good cause that a chemical should be removed from the Health and Safety Data Reporting rule. III. Final Rule A. What Chemicals are to be Added? In this document, EPA is adding certain voluntary HPV Challenge Program orphan (unsponsored) chemicals to the TSCA section 8(d) Health and Safety Data Reporting rule as requested by the ITC in its 55 th , 56 th , and 58 th ITC Reports (Refs. 1, 2, and 3). B. What are the General Reporting Requirements and Deadlines? The general provisions regarding the submission of copies and lists of studies under EPA's TSCA section 8(d) rule are located at 40 CFR 716.30 and 716.35, respectively, and additional reporting requirements and exemptions are described elsewhere in 40 CFR part 716. The reporting schedule and reporting period for persons subject to this rule (see 40 CFR 716.5) are described at 40 CFR 716.60 and 716.65. C. What Types of Studies Must be Submitted? Pursuant to 40 CFR 716.20(b)(5) and 716.50, the types of environmental fate, health, and/or environmental effects studies that must be reported and the chemical grade/purity requirements that must be met or exceeded in individual studies for the chemicals in the category of voluntary HPV Challenge Program orphan (unsponsored) chemicals added to the Health and Safety Data Reporting rule as a result of this document are as follows: 1. All unpublished environmental fate studies, meeting the criteria set forth in Unit III.C.4., on water solubility; adsorption/desorption on particulate surfaces, e.g., soil; vapor pressure; octanol/water partition coefficient; density/relative density (specific gravity); particle size distribution for insoluble solids; dissociation constant; degradation by photochemical mechanisms—aquatic and atmospheric; degradation by chemical mechanisms—hydrolytic, reductive, and oxidative; degradation by biological mechanisms—aerobic and anaerobic. Studies of physical and chemical properties, meeting the criteria set forth in Unit III.C.4., must be reported if performed for the purpose of determining the environmental or biological fate of a substance, and only if they investigated one or more of the properties listed in this paragraph. In addition, all unpublished studies, meeting the criteria set forth in Unit III.C.4., on melting point and boiling point must be submitted. 2. All unpublished health effects studies, meeting the criteria set forth in Unit III.C.4., including pharmacokinetics, genotoxicity, acute toxicity, subacute toxicity, subchronic toxicity, chronic toxicity, reproductive toxicity, developmental toxicity, immunotoxicity, neurotoxicity, and oncogenicity/carcinogenicity. 3. All unpublished environmental effects studies, meeting the criteria set forth in Unit III.C.4., including acute and chronic toxicity studies of aquatic and terrestrial vertebrates and invertebrates and aquatic plants. 4. Only studies where the voluntary HPV Challenge Program orphan (unsponsored) chemical is ≥ 90% of the test substance by weight should be submitted. In addition, only studies that were conducted using TSCA test guidelines (40 CFR parts 795, 796, 797, 798, and 799), FIFRA test guidelines (see the OPPTS Harmonized Test Guidelines at *http://www.epa.gov/opptsfrs/home/guidelin.htm* , the Pesticide Assessment Guidelines 1 ), Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD)test guidelines at *http://www.oecd.org/document/13/0,2340,en_2649_201185_2740429_1_1_1_1,00.html* , or other internationally accepted test guidelines or voluntary consensus standards should be submitted. Studies performed where the recommended voluntary HPV Challenge Program orphan (unsponsored) chemical is < 90% of the test substance by weight are not requested at this time. All other studies are exempt at this time from reporting. 1 Pesticide Assessment Guidelines are available from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS). Address: 5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield, VA 22161; telephone number:
(703)487-4650. EPA requests that a robust summary of each submitted study or for all studies of a given endpoint be prepared and submitted with copies of each study. A robust summary contains the technical information necessary to adequately describe a study and includes the objectives, methods, results, and conclusions of the full study. A robust summary is intended to provide sufficient information to allow a technically qualified person to make an independent assessment of a given study without having to read the full study. A document entitled *Draft Guidance on Developing Robust Summaries* (Ref. 4), which is available on the website of the HPV Challenge Program at *http://www.epa.gov/chemrtk/robsumgd.htm* , and in the public docket for this final rule, can be used as a general framework for preparing robust summaries. Persons who intend to voluntarily respond to this request and who find it less burdensome to submit robust summary information via the High Production Volume Information System (HPVIS) rather than as hard copy documents are encouraged to submit robust summary information into HPVIS using the directions provided at *https://iaspub.epa.gov/oppthpv/metadata.html* . This link will direct you to the “HPVIS Quick Start and User's Guide.” D. Additional Amendments to Update EPA Addresses EPA is making minor amendments to update the EPA addresses to which: Copies of health and safety studies and the accompanying cover letters must be submitted (40 CFR 716.30), lists of health and safety studies must be submitted (40 CFR 716.35), requests for extensions of time must be submitted (40 CFR 716.60), and comments providing information that shows why a chemical should be withdrawn must be submitted (40 CFR 716.105). This update to the EPA addresses reflects the completion of the Agency's move to the Federal Triangle complex in Washington, DC. The addresses listed in the existing regulations are no longer the correct or complete Agency addresses to which this material must be submitted. The Agency finds that notice and comment on these amendments is unnecessary. The update is not substantive and does not affect the information manufacturers must report. The amendments merely reflect a change in the Agency's location. The Agency therefore finds the amendments to be minor in nature. E. Economic Analysis The economic analysis for the addition of certain chemicals to the TSCA section 8(d) Health and Safety Data Reporting rule is entitled *Economic Analysis of the Addition of Chemicals from the 55* th , *56* th , *and 58* th * ITC Reports to the 8(d) Health and Safety Data Reporting Rule * (Ref. 5). To determine the number of affected manufacturers and sites, EPA reviewed data from the last three reporting periods (i.e., 1994, 1998, and 2002) for EPA's Inventory Update Rule
(IUR)(see 40 CFR part 710, subpart B) to identify the firms that manufactured the 243 chemicals. Using manufacturer and site information, EPA used sources, such as Dun and Bradstreet, to identify relevant NAICS codes or Standard Industrial Classification
(SIC)codes for each company and/or facility. Where SIC codes were reported, they were cross matched with NAICS codes to assign a NAICS code to the company. Only companies that were associated at any corporate level (e.g., site or company) with NAICS codes 325 and 32411 were included. A total of 191 ultimate parent companies
(UCEs)or firms operating 462 sites that meet the criteria were identified. To estimate the number of health and safety data reports that might be submitted, EPA used data on the number of reports received in 2004. Specifically, in 2004, EPA added 15 chemicals to the Health and Safety Data Reporting rule. Seven firms reported the manufacture of those chemicals to the IUR. Of the seven firms, three submitted reports. This represents an average of 0.43 reports per manufacturer. These reports included a total of 14 separate health and safety studies, or approximately five studies per firm. Assuming the response rate to the 243 chemicals is proportional to the results for 2004, then 43% of the manufacturers, or 82 firms (0.43 x 191 firms), will each submit reports, and a total of 410 studies are anticipated (82 firms x 5 studies per firm). Given the assumptions in this unit, the costs associated with this rule are estimated in the Economic Analysis (Ref. 5) to be the following: Total reporting costs = $110,000 Total EPA costs = $79,000 Total Rule Costs = $189,000 IV. Requesting a Chemical be Withdrawn from the Rule As specified in 40 CFR 716.105(c), EPA may remove a chemical substance, mixture, or category of chemical substances or mixtures from this rule for good cause prior to September 15, 2006. Any person who believes that the reporting required by this rule is not warranted for a chemical listed in this rule, must submit to EPA detailed reasons for that belief. EPA has established a policy regarding acceptance of new commitments to sponsor chemicals under the voluntary HPV Challenge Program (Ref. 6). Under this policy, EPA will accept new commitments to sponsor chemicals under the voluntary HPV Challenge Program for any of the 243 voluntary HPV Challenge Program orphan (unsponsored) chemicals listed in the regulatory text of this document until August 30, 2006. In accordance with the procedures described in 40 CFR 716.105(c), withdrawal requests submitted by chemical manufacturers in conjunction with these new commitments must be received on or before August 30, 2006. Voluntary HPV Challenge Program orphan (unsponsored) chemicals for which new commitments are accepted based on EPA's policy will be removed from the TSCA 8(d) Health and Safety Data Reporting rule, and a **Federal Register** document announcing these withdrawal decisions will be published no later than the effective date of this rule (i.e., September 15, 2006). You must submit your request to EPA on or before August 30, 2006 and in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR 716.105(c), which are briefly summarized here. In addition, to ensure proper receipt, EPA recommends that you identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT- 2005-0055 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. If the Administrator withdraws a chemical substance, mixture, or category of chemical substances or mixtures from the amendment, a **Federal Register** document announcing this decision will be published no later than September 15, 2006. V. Materials in the Docket The official docket for this rule has been established under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0055. The official public docket is available for review as specified in ADDRESSES . The following is a listing of the documents referenced in this preamble that have been placed in the official docket for this rule: 1. ITC. 2005. Fifty-Fifth Report of the ITC. **Federal Register** (70 FR 7364, February 11, 2005) (FRL-7692-1). Available on-line at: *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr* . 2 ITC. 2005. Fifty-Sixth Report of the ITC. **Federal Register** (70 FR 61519, October 24, 2005) (FRL-7739-9). Available on-line at: *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr* . 3 ITC. 2006. Fifty-Eight Report of the ITC. **Federal Register** (71 FR 39188, July 11, 2006) (FRL-8073-7). Available on-line at: *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr* . 4. EPA. 1999. Draft Guidance on Developing Robust Summaries. Available on-line at: *http://www.epa.gov/chemrtk/robsumgd.htm* . October 22, 1999. 5. EPA. 2006. Economic Analysis of the Addition of Chemicals from the 55 th , 56 th , and 58 th ITC Reports to the 8(d) Health and Safety Data Reporting Rule. July 10, 2006. 6. EPA. 2006. Policy Regarding Acceptance of New Commitments to the High Production Volume
(HPV)Challenge Program. Available on-line at: *http://www.epa.gov/chemrtk/hpvpolcy.htm* . June 2006. VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866 The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has exempted actions under TSCA section 8(d) related to the Health and Safety Data Reporting rule from the requirements of Executive Order 12866, entitled *Regulatory Planning and Review* (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). B. Paperwork Reduction Act The information collection requirements contained in TSCA section 8(d) Health and Safety Data Reporting rules have already been approved by OMB under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq* ., and OMB control number 2070-0004 (EPA ICR No. 0575). The collection activities in this final rule are captured by the existing approval and do not require additional review and/or approval by OMB. EPA estimates the total industry burden to be 1,764 hours as a result of the rule. An estimated 82 firms are expected to provide studies in response to the rule. The estimated burden per respondent is approximately 22 hours (Ref. 4). As defined by the PRA and 5 CFR 1320.3(b), “burden” means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal Agency. This includes the time needed to: Review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. Under the PRA, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, an information collection request unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations, including its regulations implementing TSCA section 8(d) at 40 CFR part 716, are listed in the table in 40 CFR part 9 and included on the related collection instrument. This listing of the OMB control numbers and their subsequent codification in the CFR satisfies the display requirements of PRA and OMB's implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq* ., the Agency hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the Agency's determination is presented in the small entity impact analysis prepared as part of the economic analysis for this rule (Ref. 5), and is briefly summarized here. For this final rule, EPA has analyzed the potential small business impacts using the size standards established under the default definition of “small business” established under section 601(3) of RFA, which basically uses the definition used in section 3 of the Small Business Act (SBA), 15 U.S.C. 632, under which the SBA establishes small business size standards for each industry sector (13 CFR 121.201). The SBA size standards, which are primarily intended to determine whether a business entity is eligible for government programs and preferences reserved for small businesses (13 CFR 121.101), “seek to ensure that a concern that meets a specific size standard is not dominant in its field of operation.” (13 CFR 121.102(b)). See section 632(a)(1) of SBA. These standards vary according to the NAICS code of the business and are typically based upon number of employees or receipts. For most companies, EPA identified the NAICS code of a company's UCE and applied the relevant SBA size standard to determine if a business was small. Using this approach, EPA identified 37 small businesses that would potentially be affected by the rule. In addition, there are an additional five firms for which a determinations could not be made because sales and/or employment could not be found. EPA's review of IUR data found that 32 of the 37 small businesses have only one site to review for studies, three firms have two sites, and two firms have three sites. Firms with three sites would potentially incur the highest costs of complying with the rule if all three sites were searched for studies. The estimated cost of the rule for firms with three sites is $1,348. For the small businesses where EPA had available data (36 of the 37 firms), the minimum sales level was $1 million with an average sales level of $128 million. Thus, the cost of the rule is expected to be well below 1% of sales ($1,348/$1,000,000 = .1%) for 36 of the small businesses. Assuming that each of the companies for which sales data were unavailable had at least the minimum level of sales, there are no small businesses for which this rule is expected to have an impact in excess of 1% of sales. Additionally, EPA believes that small firms are unlikely to have unpublished health and safety data studies due to the cost of developing the information, and would therefore, only expend resources to review the rule at a cost of $108. Given these results, EPA concludes that there is not a significant adverse economic impact on these small entities as a result of this final rule. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year. In addition, EPA has determined that this rule will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Accordingly, the rule is not subject to the requirements of UMRA sections 202, 203, 204, or 205. E. Executive Order 13132 and 13175 Based on EPA's experience with past TSCA section 8(d) rules, State, local, and tribal governments have not been impacted by these rules, and EPA does not have any reasons to believe that any State, local, or tribal government will be impacted by this rule. As a result, these rules are not subject to the requirements in Executive Order 13132, entitled *Federalism* (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) or Executive Order 13175, entitled *Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments* (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000). F. Executive Order 13045 Executive Order 13045, entitled *Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks* (62 FR 19885, April 23,1997), does not apply to this rule, because it is not “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and does not concern an environmental health or safety risk that may have a disproportionate effect on children. This rule requires the reporting of health and safety data to EPA by manufacturers (including importers) of certain chemicals requested by the ITC to be added to the Health and Safety Data Reporting rule in its 55 th , 56 th , and 58 th ITC Reports (Refs. 1, 2, and 3). G. Executive Order 13211 This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled *Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use* (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because this action is not expected to affect energy supply, distribution, or use. H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 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). Section 12(d) of NTTAA directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. I. Executive Order 12898 This action does not involve special considerations of environmental justice-related issues pursuant to Executive Order 12898, entitled *Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations* (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 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 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 716 Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Health and safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: August 3, 2006. Charles M. Auer, Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows: PART 716—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 716 continues to read as follows: Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2607(d). 2. By adding a new paragraph
(7)to § 716.21 to read as follows: § 716.21 Chemical specific reporting requirements.
(a)* * *
(7)For all voluntary HPV Challenge Program orphan (unsponsored) chemicals:
(i)All unpublished environmental fate studies, meeting the criteria set forth in paragraph (a)(7)(iv) of this section, on water solubility; adsorption/desorption on particulate surfaces, e.g., soil; vapor pressure; octanol/water partition coefficient; density/relative density (specific gravity); particle size distribution for insoluble solids; dissociation constant; degradation by photochemical mechanisms—aquatic and atmospheric; degradation by chemical mechanisms—hydrolytic, reductive, and oxidative; degradation by biological mechanisms—aerobic and anaerobic. Studies of physical and chemical properties meeting the criteria set forth in paragraph (a)(7)(iv) of this section must be reported if performed for the purpose of determining the environmental or biological fate of a substance, and only if they investigated one or more of the properties listed in this paragraph. In addition, all unpublished studies meeting the criteria set forth in paragraph (a)(7)(iv) of this section on melting point and boiling point must be submitted.
(ii)All unpublished health effects studies meeting the criteria set forth in paragraph (a)(7)(iv) of this section including pharmacokinetics, genotoxicity, acute toxicity, subacute toxicity, subchronic toxicity, chronic toxicity, reproductive toxicity, developmental toxicity, immunotoxicity, neurotoxicity, and oncogenicity/carcinogenicity.
(iii)All unpublished environmental effects studies meeting the criteria set forth in paragraph (a)(7)(iv) of this section including acute and chronic toxicity studies of aquatic and terrestrial vertebrates and invertebrates and aquatic plants.
(iv)Only studies where the voluntary HPV Challenge Program orphan (unsponsored) chemical is ≥ 90% of the test substance by weight should be submitted. In addition, only studies that were conducted using TSCA, Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD)or other internationally accepted test guidelines or voluntary consensus standards should be submitted. Studies performed where the voluntary HPV Challenge Program orphan (unsponsored) chemical is < 90% of the test substance by weight are not requested at this time. 3. By revising paragraph
(c)of § 716.30 to read follows: § 716.30 Submission of copies of studies.
(c)You must submit copies of health and safety studies and the accompanying cover letters by one of the following methods:
(1)Mail, preferably certified, to the Document Control Office
(DCO)(7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001, ATTN: 8(d) Health and Safety Reporting Rule (Notification/Reporting).
(2)Hand delivery to OPPT Document Control Office (DCO), EPA East, Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC, ATTN: 8(d) Health and Safety Reporting Rule (Notification/Reporting). The DCO is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the DCO is
(202)564-8930. Such deliveries are only accepted during the DCO's normal hours of operation. 4. By revising paragraph
(c)of § 716.35 to read follows: § 716.35 Submission of lists of studies.
(c)You must submit lists of health and safety studies by one of the following methods:
(1)Mail, preferably certified, to the Document Control Office
(DCO)(7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001, ATTN: 8(d) Health and Safety Reporting Rule (Notification/Reporting).
(2)Hand delivery to OPPT Document Control Office (DCO), EPA East, Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC, ATTN: 8(d) Health and Safety Reporting Rule (Notification/Reporting). The DCO is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the DCO is
(202)564-8930. Such deliveries are only accepted during the DCO's normal hours of operation. 5. In § 716.60, remove the second sentence of paragraph
(c)and add a new paragraph
(d)to read as follows: § 716.60 Reporting schedule.
(d)*Submission methods* . You must submit a request for an extension of time in writing by one of the following methods:
(1)Mail, preferably certified, to the Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
(OPPT)(7401M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001, ATTN: Section 8(d) Extension.
(2)Hand delivery to OPPT Document Control Office (DCO), EPA East, Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC, ATTN: Section 8(d) Extension. The DCO is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the DCO is
(202)564-8930. Such deliveries are only accepted during the DCO's normal hours of operation. 6. In § 716.105, remove the last sentence of paragraph
(c)and add a new paragraph
(d)to read as follows: § 716.105 Additions of substances and mixtures to which this subpart applies.
(d)Persons who wish to submit information that shows why a chemical should be withdrawn must submit their comments in writing by one of the following methods:
(1)Mail, preferably certified, to the Document Control Office
(DCO)(7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001, ATTN: 8(d) Auto-ITC.
(2)Hand delivery to OPPT Document Control Office (DCO), EPA East, Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC, ATTN: 8(d) Auto-ITC. The DCO is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the DCO is
(202)564-8930. Such deliveries are only accepted during the DCO's normal hours of operation. 7. In § 716.120, the table in paragraph
(d)is amended by adding in alphabetical order the category “Voluntary HPV Challenge Program orphan (unsponsored) chemicals” and its entries to read as follows: § 716.120 Substances and listed mixtures to which this subpart applies.
(d)* * * Category CAS No. Special exemptions Effective date Sunset date * * * * * * * Voluntary HPV Challenge Program orphan (unsponsored) chemicals: Acetaldehyde, reaction products with formaldehyde, by-products from 68442-60-4 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Acetamide, 2,2-dichloro-N,N-di-2-propenyl- 37764-25-3 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Acid chlorides, tallow, hydrogenated 68955-37-3 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Alkanes, chloro 61788-76-9 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Alkenes, C > 10 .alpha.- 64743-02-8 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Amides, coco, N-[3-(dimethylamino)propyl], alkylation products with sodium 3-chloro-2-hydroxypropanesulfonate 70851-08-0 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Amides, tall-oil fatty, N,N-di-Me 68308-74-7 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Ammonia liquor
(coal)65996-80-7 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Anthracene oil 90640-80-5 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Aromatic hydrocarbons, C8, o-xylene-lean 68650-36-2 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Aromatic hydrocarbons, C9-16, biphenyl deriv.-rich 68955-76-0 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Barium, carbonate nonylphenol complexes 68515-89-9 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Benzaldehyde, 3-bromo- 3132-99-8 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Benzaldehyde, 3-phenoxy- 39515-51-0 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Benzaldehyde, 4-(1,1-dimethylethyl)- 939-97-9 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Benzenamine, 2,6-diethyl- 579-66-8 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Benzenamine, 2,6-diethyl-N-methylene- 35203-08-8 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Benzenamine, 2-ethyl-6-methyl-N-methylene- 35203-06-6 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Benzenamine, 3-(trifluoromethyl)- 98-16-8 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Benzenamine, N,N-dimethyl- 121-69-7 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Benzenamine, N-phenyl-4-[[4-(phenylamino)phenyl][4-(phenylimino)-2,5-cyclohexadien-1-ylidene]methyl]-, monohydrochloride 2152-64-9 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Benzene, (2-chloro-1,1-dimethylethyl)- 515-40-2 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Benzene, 1-(bromomethyl)-3-phenoxy- 51632-16-7 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Benzene, 1,1'-[1,2-ethanediylbis(oxy)]bis- 104-66-5 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Benzene, 1,1'-oxybis-, tetrapropylene derivs. 119345-02-7 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Benzene, 1,2-dimethyl-3-nitro- 83-41-0 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Benzene, 1,2-dimethyl-4-nitro- 99-51-4 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Benzene, 1-bromo-4-fluoro- 460-00-4 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Benzene, 1-chloro-2,4-dinitro- 97-00-7 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Benzene, 1-chloro-4-(trichloromethyl)- 5216-25-1 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Benzene, 1-chloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)- 98-56-6 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Benzene, 1-methoxy-4-methyl- 104-93-8 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Benzene, chloromethyl- 25168-05-2 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Benzene, ethenylethyl- 28106-30-1 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Benzene, ethylenated 68987-41-7 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Benzene, mixed with toluene, dealkylation product 68953-80-0 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 1,3-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, 5-sulfo-, 1,3-dimethyl ester 138-25-0 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 1,3-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, 5-sulfo-, 1,3-dimethyl ester, sodium salt 3965-55-7 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, bis(2-methylpropyl) ester 84-69-5 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 1,3-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, dimethyl ester 1459-93-4 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 1,4-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, dimethyl ester, manuf. of, by-products from 68988-22-7 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Benzenemethanol, .alpha.,.alpha.-dimethyl- 617-94-7 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Benzenemethanol, 3-phenoxy- 13826-35-2 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Benzenesulfonic acid, 3-nitro-, sodium salt 127-68-4 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Benzenesulfonic acid, 4-chloro-3,5-dinitro-, potassium salt 38185-06-7 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Benzenesulfonic acid, C10-16-alkyl derivs., compds. with triethanolamine 68584-25-8 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Benzenesulfonic acid, dimethyl- 25321-41-9 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Benzenesulfonyl chloride 98-09-9 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 1,2-Benzisothiazol-3(2H)-one, 1,1-dioxide 81-07-2 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Benzoic acid, 2-methyl- 118-90-1 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 2,4,6,8,3,5,7-Benzotetraoxatriplumbacycloundecin-3,5,7-triylidene, 1,9-dihydro-1,9-dioxo- 17976-43-1 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Benzothiazole, 2-[(chloromethyl)thio]- 28908-00-1 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Benzoyl chloride, 3,5-dichloro- 2905-62-6 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 1,2-Butadiene 590-19-2 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Butane, 2,2'-oxybis- 6863-58-7 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Butanedioic acid, oxo-, diethyl ester, ion(1-), sodium 40876-98-0 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 1-Butanol, sodium salt 2372-45-4 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 2-Butenal 4170-30-3 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 2-Butenediamide, (2E)-, N,N'-bis[2-(4,5-dihydro-2-nortall-oil alkyl-1H-imidazol-1-yl)ethyl] derivs. 68442-77-3 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 2-Butenedioic acid (2E)-, di-C8-18-alkyl esters 68610-90-2 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 2-Butenedioic acid (2Z)-, dioctyl ester 2915-53-9 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 2-Butenenitrile, 2-methyl-, (2E)- 30574-97-1 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 2-Butenenitrile, 2-methyl-, (2Z)- 20068-02-4 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Carbamic acid, monoammonium salt 1111-78-0 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Carbamodithioic acid, monoammonium salt 513-74-6 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Carbonochloridothioic acid, S-(phenylmethyl) ester 37734-45-5 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Carbonodithioic acid, O-(1-methylethyl) ester, sodium salt 140-93-2 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Carboxylic acids, C5-9 68603-84-9 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Carboxylic acids, C6-18 and C5-15-di- 68937-69-9 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Carboxylic acids, C6-18 and C8-15-di- 68937-70-2 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Carboxylic acids, di-, C4-11 68937-72-4 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Chromate(3-), bis[3-(hydroxy-.kappa.O)-4-[[2-(hydroxy-.kappa.O)-1-naphthalenyl]azo-.kappa.N1]-7-nitro-1-naphthalenesulfonato(3-)]-, trisodium 57693-14-8 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Coal, anthracite, calcined 68187-59-7 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Corn, steep liquor 66071-94-1 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Creosote 8001-58-9 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Cyclohexane, oxidized, aq. ext., sodium salt 68915-39-9 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Cyclohexane, oxidized, non-acidic by-products, distn. lights 68609-05-2 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Cyclohexanone, oxime 100-64-1 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 3-Cyclohexene-1-carboxylic acid, 3-cyclohexen-1-ylmethyl ester 2611-00-9 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 1,3-Cyclopentadiene 542-92-7 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Decane, 1-chloro- 1002-69-3 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Decanoic acid, mixed esters with dipentaerythritol, octanoic acid and valeric acid 68441-66-7 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 1-Decene, sulfurized 72162-15-3 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Distillates (coal tar) 65996-92-1 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Distillates (coal tar), heavy oils 90640-86-1 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Distillates (coal tar), upper 65996-91-0 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Distillates (petroleum), hydrofined lubricating-oil 68782-97-8 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Distillates, hydrocarbon resin prodn. higher boiling 68602-81-3 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Disulfides, alkylaryl dialkyl diaryl, petroleum refinery spent caustic oxidn. products 68334-01-0 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Disulfides, C5-12-alkyl 68513-62-2 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Ethanamine, N-ethyl-N-hydroxy- 3710-84-7 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Ethane, 1,1,1-trimethoxy- 1445-45-0 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Ethane, 1,1'-[methylenebis(oxy)]bis[2-chloro- 111-91-1 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Ethane, 1,1'-oxybis[2-chloro- 111-44-4 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Ethane, 1,2-dichloro-, manuf. of, by-products from, distn. lights 68608-59-3 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Ethane, 1-chloro-2-(ethylthio)- 693-07-2 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 1,2-Ethanediamine, N,N,N',N'-tetramethyl- 110-18-9 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Ethanedioic acid, calcium salt (1:1) 563-72-4 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 1,2-Ethanediol, dinitrate 628-96-6 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Ethanesulfonic acid, 2-[methyl[(9Z)-1-oxo-9-octadecenyl]amino]-, sodium salt 137-20-2 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Ethanimidothioic acid, N-hydroxy-, methyl ester 13749-94-5 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Ethanol, 2-(2-butoxyethoxy)-, sodium salt 38321-18-5 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Ethanol, 2,2'-oxybis-, reaction products with ammonia, morpholine derivs. residues 68909-77-3 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Ethanol, 2,2'-oxybis-, reaction products with ammonia, morpholine product tower residues 71077-05-9 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Ethanol, 2-[(4-aminophenyl)sulfonyl]-, hydrogen sulfate (ester) 2494-89-5 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Ethanol, 2-[2-(dodecyloxy)ethoxy]-, hydrogen sulfate, sodium salt 3088-31-1 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Ethanol, 2-butoxy-, sodium salt 52663-57-7 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Ethene, hydrated, by-products from 68987-66-6 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Ethenesulfonic acid, sodium salt 3039-83-6 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Extract oils (coal), tar base 65996-86-3 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Extract residues (coal), tar oil alk. 65996-87-4 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Extract residues (coal), tar oil alk., naphthalene distn. residues 73665-18-6 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Extracts, coal tar oil alk. 65996-83-0 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Fats and Glyceridic oils, vegetable, deodorizer distillates 68476-80-2 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Fats and Glyceridic oils, vegetable, reclaimed 68990-65-8 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Fatty acids, coco, 2-sulfoethyl esters, sodium salts 61789-32-0 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Fatty acids, tall-oil, 2-(2-hydroxyethoxy)ethyl esters 68309-16-0 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Fatty acids, tall-oil, low-boiling, reaction products with ammonia-ethanolamine reaction by-products 68915-05-9 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Fatty acids, tall-oil, reaction products with diethylenetriamine, acetates 68153-60-6 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Fatty acids, tall-oil, sulfonated, sodium salts 68309-27-3 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Formic acid, compd. with 2,2',2''-nitrilotris[ethanol] (1:1) 24794-58-9 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Fuel gases, coke-oven 65996-81-8 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 2,5-Furandione, 3-(hexadecenyl)dihydro- 32072-96-1 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 2,5-Furandione, dihydro-3-(octadecenyl)- 28777-98-2 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 2,5-Furandione, dihydro-3-(octenyl)- 26680-54-6 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Glycine, N-(carboxymethyl)- 142-73-4 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Glycine, N-(carboxymethyl)-, disodium salt 928-72-3 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Glycine, N-methyl-, monosodium salt 4316-73-8 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Glycine, N-phenyl-, monopotassium salt 19525-59-8 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Glycine, N-phenyl-, monosodium salt 10265-69-7 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 1-Hexacosanol 506-52-5 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Hexadecane, 1-chloro- 4860-03-1 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 1,4-Hexadiene 592-45-0 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Hexanedioic acid, dihexyl ester 110-33-8 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Hexanedioic acid, esters with high-boiling C6-10-alkene hydroformylation products 84501-86-0 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 1,3-Hexanediol, 2-ethyl- 94-96-2 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 1,6-Hexanediol, distn. residues 68937-29-1 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 2-Hexenal, 2-ethyl- 645-62-5 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 1H-Isoindole-1,3(2H)-dione, 3a,4,7,7a-tetrahydro- 85-40-5 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Hydrazinecarbodithioic acid, compd. with hydrazine (1:1) 20469-71-0 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Hydrocarbons, C12-20, catalytic alkylation by-products 68919-17-5 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Imidodicarbonic diamide, N,N',2-tris(6-isocyanatohexyl)- 4035-89-6 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 1,3-Isobenzofurandione, 5-methyl- 19438-61-0 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Ketones, C12-branched 68514-41-0 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Lard, oil, Me esters 68082-78-0 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Methane, bromochloro- 74-97-5 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Methane, trifluoro- 75-46-7 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Methanesulfonamide, N-[2-[(4-amino-3-methylphenyl)ethylamino]ethyl]-, sulfate (2:3) 25646-71-3 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Methanesulfonic acid, hydroxy-, monosodium salt 870-72-4 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Methanesulfonyl chloride 124-63-0 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Methanone, (2-hydroxy-4-methoxyphenyl)phenyl- 131-57-7 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Naphtha (petroleum), clay-treated light straight-run 68527-22-0 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 2,7-Naphthalenedisulfonic acid, 4-amino-5-hydroxy-, monosodium salt 5460-09-3 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 1-Naphthalenesulfonic acid, 2-amino- 81-16-3 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 2-Naphthalenesulfonic acid, 6-[(2,4-diaminophenyl)azo]-3-[[4-[[4-[[7-[(2,4-diaminophenyl)azo]-1-hydroxy-3-sulfo-2-naphthalenyl]azo]phenyl]amino]-3-sulfophenyl]azo]-4-hydroxy-, trisodium salt 6473-13-8 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 1-Naphthalenol, 1,2,3,4-tetrahydro- 529-33-9 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 1(2H)-Naphthalenone, 3,4-dihydro- 529-34-0 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 1H,3H-Naphtho[1,8-cd]pyran-1,3-dione 81-84-5 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Nickel, bis[(cyano-C)triphenylborato(1-)-N]bis(hexanedinitrile-N,N')- 83864-02-2 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 1-Octacosanol 557-61-9 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Octadecane, 1-chloro- 3386-33-2 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Octadecanoic acid, 2-(1-carboxyethoxy)-1-methyl-2-oxoethyl ester, sodium salt 25383-99-7 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Octadecanoic acid, 2-(hydroxymethyl)-2-[[(1-oxooctadecyl)oxy]methyl]-1,3-propanediyl ester 28188-24-1 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Octadecanoic acid, barium salt 6865-35-6 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Octadecanoic acid, reaction products with 2-[(2-aminoethyl)amino]ethanol 68815-50-9 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 9-Octadecenoic acid (9Z)-, cobalt salt 14666-94-5 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 9-Octadecenoic acid, 12-(acetyloxy)-, 1,2,3-propanetriyl ester, (9Z,9'Z,9''Z,12R,12'R,12''R)- 101-34-8 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Octane, 1-chloro- 111-85-3 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 1-Octanesulfonyl chloride 7795-95-1 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 1-Octanesulfonyl fluoride 40630-63-5 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Oxirane, [(2-methylphenoxy)methyl]- 2210-79-9 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Oxirane, tetradecyl- 7320-37-8 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Oxiranemethanamine, N-[4-(oxiranylmethoxy)phenyl]-N-(oxiranylmethyl)- 5026-74-4 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Paraffin oils, chlorosulfonated, saponified 68188-18-1 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 2-Pentanamine, 2,4,4-trimethyl- 107-45-9 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 3-Pentanone 96-22-0 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 1-Pentene, 2,4,4-trimethyl- 107-39-1 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 2-Pentene, 2,4,4-trimethyl- 107-40-4 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Phenol, (1,1,3,3-tetramethylbutyl)- 27193-28-8 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Phenol, (1-methylethyl)- 25168-06-3 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Phenol, 2-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-4-methyl- 2409-55-4 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Phenol, 2,4-bis(1,1-dimethylpropyl)-6-[(2-nitrophenyl)azo]- 52184-19-7 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Phenol, 2,4-bis(1-methyl-1-phenylethyl)-6-[(2-nitrophenyl)azo]- 70693-50-4 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Phenol, 3-(diethylamino)- 91-68-9 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Phenol, 4-methyl-2-nitro- 119-33-5 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Phenol, isobutylenated methylstyrenated 68457-74-9 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Phenol, methyl-, sodium salt 34689-46-8 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Phenol, nonyl derivs. 68081-86-7 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Phenol, styrenated 61788-44-1 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Phenols (petroleum) 64743-03-9 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Phosphoramidothioic acid, O,O-dimethyl ester 17321-47-0 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Phosphoric acid, (1,1-dimethylethyl)phenyl diphenyl ester 56803-37-3 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Phosphoric acid, mixed 3-bromo-2,2-dimethylpropyl and 2-bromoethyl and 2-chloroethyl esters 125997-20-8 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Phosphorochloridothioic acid, O,O-dimethyl ester 2524-03-0 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Phosphorochloridous acid, bis(4-nonylphenyl) ester 63302-49-8 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Phosphorodichloridic acid, ethyl ester 1498-51-7 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Phosphorodithioic acid, O,O-di-C1-14-alkyl esters 68187-41-7 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Phosphorodithioic acid, O,O-di-C1-14-alkyl esters, zinc salts 68649-42-3 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Phosphorodithioic acid, O,O-diethyl ester, sodium salt 3338-24-7 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Phosphorodithioic acid, O,O-dimethyl ester 756-80-9 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Phosphorodithioic acid, O,O-dimethyl ester, sodium salt 26377-29-7 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Phosphorotrithious acid, tributyl ester 150-50-5 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Phosphorous acid, 2-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-4-[1-[3-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-4-hydroxyphenyl]-1-methylethyl]phenyl bis(4-nonylphenyl) ester 20227-53-6 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Phosphorous acid, isooctyl diphenyl ester 26401-27-4 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Piperazineethanol 25154-38-5 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Pitch, coal tar-petroleum 68187-57-5 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Propane, 2,2-dimethoxy- 77-76-9 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 1,3-Propanediol, 2-amino-2-(hydroxymethyl)- 77-86-1 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Propanenitrile, 3-(dimethylamino)- 1738-25-6 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 1-Propanesulfonic acid, 2-hydroxy-3-(2-propenyloxy)-, monosodium salt 52556-42-0 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Propanoic acid, 2-bromo- 598-72-1 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Propanoic acid, 2-methyl-, 3-(benzoyloxy)-2,2,4-trimethylpentyl ester 22527-63-5 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Propanoic acid, 3-hydroxy-2,2-dimethyl-, 3-hydroxy-2,2-dimethylpropyl ester 1115-20-4 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 2-Propanone, reaction products with phenol 72162-28-8 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 2-Propenoic acid, 2-carboxyethyl ester 24615-84-7 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Pyridine, hydrochloride 628-13-7 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 4(1H)-Pyrimidinone, 6-methyl-2-(1-methylethyl)- 2814-20-2 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Residues (petroleum), steam-cracked petroleum distillates cyclopentadiene conc., C4-cyclopentadiene-free 68478-20-6 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Silane, dichloro(chloromethyl)methyl- 1558-33-4 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Solvent naphtha
(coal)65996-79-4 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Sulfonic acids, petroleum 61789-85-3 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Tannins 1401-55-4 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Tannins, reaction products with sodium bisulfite, sodium polysulfide and sodium sulfite 72854-27-4 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Tar oils, coal 65996-82-9 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Tar, coal, dried and oxidized 68918-16-1 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Tar, coal, high-temp. 65996-89-6 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Tar, coal, high-temp., high-solids 68990-61-4 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Terpenes and Terpenoids, C10-30, distn. residues 70084-98-9 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 1-Tetracosanol 506-51-4 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Tetradecane, 1-chloro- 2425-54-9 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 1,3,5,7-Tetrazocine, octahydro-1,3,5,7-tetranitro- 2691-41-0 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Thiazole, 4-methyl- 693-95-8 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Thiourea 62-56-6 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 1,2,4-Triazin-5(2H)-one, 4-amino-6-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-3,4-dihydro-3-thioxo- 33509-43-2 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 1,3,5-Triazine, hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro- 121-82-4 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 1,3,5-Triazine-2,4,6(1H,3H,5H)-trione, 1,3,5-tris(6-isocyanatohexyl)- 3779-63-3 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 1,3,5-Triazine-2,4-diamine, 6-chloro-N-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-N'-ethyl- 5915-41-3 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 1,3,5-Triazine-2,4-diamine, 6-chloro-N,N'-bis(1-methylethyl)- 139-40-2 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 1,3,5-Triazine-2,4-diamine, 6-chloro-N-ethyl-N'-(1-methylethyl)- 1912-24-9 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Urea, (hydroxymethyl)- 1000-82-4 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Urea, N'-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-N,N-dimethyl- 330-54-1 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Urea, sulfate (1:1) 21351-39-3 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 Urea, sulfate (2:1) 17103-31-0 § 716.21(a)(7) September 15, 2006 November 14, 2006 [FR Doc. E6-13489 Filed 8-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 64 [CG Docket No. 03-123; FCC 06-87] Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals With Hearing and Speech Disabilities AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Final rule; petition for reconsideration. SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission addresses issues raised in a petition for reconsideration which include: the adoption of the final 2003-2004 Video Relay Service
(VRS)rate of $8.854; whether the VRS rate should be fully retroactive; the compensability of research and development expense incurred for telecommunications relay service
(TRS)enhancements that go beyond the applicable TRS mandatory minimum standards from the Interstate TRS Fund (Fund); and the applicability of “rate of return” regulation to traditional TRS and speed of answer requirements to VRS. DATES: Effective August 16, 2006. ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington DC 20554. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Chandler, Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, Disability Rights Office at
(202)418-1475 (voice),
(202)418-0597 (TTY), or e-mail at *Thomas.Chandler@fcc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the PRA of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, it does not contain any new or modified “information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506 (c)(4). This is a summary of the Commission's document FCC 06-87, Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, Order on Reconsideration, CG Docket No. 03-123, adopted June 20, 2006, released July 12, 2006 addressing issues raised in the Communications Services for the Deaf, Inc.
(CSD)September 30, 2004 petition for reconsideration; National Video Relay Service Coalition (NVRSC) October 1, 2004 petition for reconsideration; Hands On Video Relay Service, Inc. (Hands On) October 1, 2004 petition for partial reconsideration; and Hamilton Relay, Inc. (Hamilton) October 1, 2004 petition for reconsideration, arising from the Report and Order Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, Report and Order, (2004 TRS Report and Order), CC Docket No. 98-67, FCC 04-137; published at 69 FR 53346 (September 1, 2004) and Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, Order, (2003 Bureau TRS Order), CC Docket No. 98-67, DA 03-2111, 18 FCC Rcd at 12835-12836, paragraphs 29-38 (June 30, 2003) (adopting TRS compensation rates for the 2003-2004 Fund Year). The full text of document FCC 06-87 and copies of any subsequently filed documents in this matter will be available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. Document FCC 06-87 and copies of subsequently filed documents in this matter may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor at Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Customers may contact the Commission's duplicating contractor at its Web site *http://www.bcpiweb.com* or by calling 1-800-378-3160. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to *fcc504@fcc.gov* or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at
(202)418-0530 (voice),
(202)418-0432 (TTY). Document FCC 06-87 can also be downloaded in Word or Portable Document Format
(PDF)at: *http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro.* Synopsis Background Telecommunications Relay Service Title IV of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(ADA)requires common carriers offering “telephone voice transmission services” to also provide TRS throughout the area in which they offer service, so that persons with hearing and speech disabilities can use the telephone system. 47 U.S.C. 225(c). The statute also mandates that eligible TRS providers be compensated for their costs of providing TRS. 47 U.S.C. 225(d)(3). As a general matter, states compensate providers for the costs of providing intrastate TRS, and the Interstate TRS Fund compensates providers for the costs of providing interstate TRS. *See generally 2004 TRS Report and Order,* 19 FCC Rcd at 12482-12483, paragraphs 7-8. The cost recovery framework—and the annual determination of the TRS compensation rates—is intended to cover the “reasonable” costs incurred in providing the TRS services mandated by Congress and Commission regulations. *2004 TRS Report and Order,* 19 FCC Rcd at 12543, paragraph 179; *see generally* 47 CFR 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(E) (providers shall be compensated for the “reasonable costs” of providing TRS). The intent of Title IV is to further the Communications Act's goal of universal service by ensuring that individuals with hearing or speech disabilities have access to telephone services that are “functionally equivalent” to those available to individuals without such disabilities. *See* 47 U.S.C. 225(a)(3). TRS became available on a nationwide basis in 1993. *See generally Telecommunication Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, and the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990,* Report and Order and Request for Comments, CC Docket No. 90-571; published at 56 FR 36729 (August 1, 1991), (TRS I). *VRS.* In 2000, the Commission recognized VRS as form of TRS eligible for compensation from the Interstate TRS Fund. *See Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities,* CC Docket No. 98-67, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 15 FCC Rcd 5140, 5152-5154, paragraphs 21-27 (March 6, 2000) ( *Improved TRS Order and FNPRM* ) (recognizing VRS as a form of TRS), published at 65 FR 38432 (June 21, 2000) and 65 FR 38490 (June 21, 2000); 47 CFR 64.601(17). Presently, all VRS calls are compensated from the Interstate TRS Fund. *See Improved TRS Order and FNPRM,* 15 FCC Rcd at 5154, paragraphs 26-27. As most frequently used, VRS allows a deaf person whose native language is American Sign Language
(ASL)to communicate in ASL with the CA through a video link. The CA, in turn, places an outbound telephone call to a hearing person. During the call, the CA communicates in ASL with the deaf person and by voice with the hearing person. VRS calls reflect a degree of “functional equivalency” unimaginable in a solely text-based TRS world. As the following figures for approximate monthly minutes of use of VRS demonstrate, usage continues to rise: May 2003—189,422; July 2004—900,000; August 2005—2.7 million; April 2006—3.2 million. *Cost Recovery.* Section 225 of the Communications Act provides that the costs of providing interstate TRS “shall be recovered from all subscribers for every interstate service.” 47 U.S.C. 225(d)(3)(B). This mandate requires both collecting contributions to establish a fund (the Interstate TRS Fund) from which TRS providers can be compensated, and paying money from the Fund to eligible providers for their provision of eligible TRS services. *See generally* 47 CFR 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(A) and
(E)of the Commission's rules. These duties are performed by the Interstate TRS Fund administrator, selected by, and under the direction of, the Commission. See 47 CFR 64.604(c)(5)(iii) of the Commission's rules. The current Interstate TRS Fund administrator is the National Exchange Carrier Association (NECA). The TRS Fund administrator presently makes payments to eligible providers based on per-minute compensation rates for traditional TRS and IP Relay, Speech-to-Speech (STS), and VRS. In the *2005 TRS Rate Order,* the Commission concluded that it would adopt separate rates for traditional TRS and IP Relay. Accordingly, beginning with the 2005-2006 Fund year. *Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities,* Order, FCC 05-135, CC Docket No. 98-67, CG Docket No. 03-123; published at 70 FR 38134 (July 1, 2005) ( *2005 TRS Rate Order* ). The compensation rates are set on an annual basis. The TRS Fund administrator requests and collects projected cost and demand ( *i.e.* , minutes of use) data from the providers. *See* 47 CFR 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(C) of the Commission's rules. After the Fund administrator reviews the submitted projected costs and minutes of use, it calculates proposed per-minute compensation rates based on data submitted (or modified, as necessary). As NECA has explained, NECA calculates a national average cost per minute of use. It does so by totaling projected costs and minutes of use for all providers for a two year period, and then dividing each sum (costs and minutes) by two. Then the average costs are divided by the average minutes to determine the average cost per minute. *See* NECA, *Interstate Telecommunications Relay Services Fund Payment Formula and Fund Size Estimate,* filed April 25, 2005, at 9 and Appendix 1E. The Fund administrator then files these proposed rates with the Commission, and they are placed on public notice. *See* , *e.g.* , *National Exchange Carrier Association
(NECA)Submits the Payment Formula and Fund Size Estimate for Interstate Telecommunications Relay Services
(TRS)Fund for July 2005 Through June 2006,* CC Docket No. 98-67, Public Notice, DA 05-1175 (April 28, 2005); published at 70 FR 24790 (May 11, 2005) ( *2005 TRS Rate Notice* ). The Commission reviews the proposed rates and, in adopting compensation rates for the ensuing Fund year, may approve or modify the proposed rates. *See generally Telecommunications Relay Services and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,* CC Docket No. 90-571, Third Report and Order, 8 FCC Rcd 5300, 5305, paragraph 30 (July 20, 1993); published at 58 FR 39671 (July 26, 1993) (the TRS rate calculated by the administrator “shall be subject to Commission approval”). If either the Fund administrator or the Commission disallows any of a provider's submitted costs, the provider has the opportunity to contest the disallowances before they are finalized. Because of confidentiality issues, this is generally done either in a telephone conversation or in an individual meeting with each provider. The precise process by which the providers' challenges to cost disallowances have been handled has varied, depending in part on whether the Fund administrator or the Bureau has made the disallowance. The providers may further challenge the adopted rates, including any cost disallowances, by seeking review of the rate order. Since 1993, the Commission has released orders at least annually setting forth the per-minute compensation rates for the various forms of TRS. The Commission released the first rate order on September 29, 1993. *See Telecommunications Relay Services, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,* CC Docket No. 90-571, Second Order on Reconsideration and Fourth Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 1637 (September 29, 1993); published at 58 FR 53663 (October 18, 1993). Subsequent rate orders have been released at the bureau level, with the exception of the *2005 TRS Rate Order.* Discussion The Final 2003-2004 VRS Compensation Rate was Based on Reasoned Analysis *Background.* The *2003 Bureau TRS Order* rejected NECA's proposed VRS rate of $14.023 per minute and adopted an “interim” rate of $7.751, subject to possible revision pending a more complete analysis of the providers' cost data. *2003 Bureau TRS Order,* 18 FCC Rcd at 12835-12836, paragraphs 29-38. Five parties filed petitions for reconsideration, challenging the adoption of the interim VRS rate of $7.751 and requesting that the Commission accept NECA's proposed rate of $14.023 retroactive to July 1, 2003 (the first day of the 2003-2004 Fund year). *See 2004 TRS Report and Order,* 19 FCC Rcd at 12538, paragraph 165 and note 474. These parties were Sprint, AT&T, Sorenson, Hands On, and CSD. The Commission concluded, based on its review of more complete cost data submitted by the providers, that it would adopt a final rate of $8.854. Hands On now contends that the Commission failed to adequately explain how it arrived at the $8.854 rate. Hands On Petition at 11-17. Hands On also asserts that the exclusion of “proprietary” software in the rate analysis was wrong. Hands On Petition at 20. *Discussion.* The Commission denies Hands On's petition to reconsider the $8.854 final VRS rate. *See 2004 TRS Report and Order,* 19 FCC Rcd at 12545-12547, paragraphs 183-187. After the release of the interim 2003-2004 TRS compensation rates, the Commission reviewed additional cost data submitted by the providers. As the Commission explained, “because all of the providers filed for confidential treatment, the adjustments made [were] described in the aggregate.” The Commission noted that it added back various costs that were excluded in calculating the $7.751 rate relating to salaries, engineering support, and return on capital investment, as well as the costs from one provider that had been excluded in their entirety. These adjustments resulted in including an additional $9,503,801 in costs, and a corresponding increase of 213,415 in reimbursable minutes. These adjustments resulted both from the Commission's analysis of the providers' supplemental cost data, and individual meetings with the providers after the release of the *2003 Bureau TRS Order.* In these meetings, Commission staff discussed any adjustments to an individual provider's cost support with the provider in detail. The Commission met with Hands On (July 11, 2003), Hamilton (July 10, 2003), Sorenson (July 17, 2003), and Sprint and CSD (July 18, 2003). The Commission provided no specific dollar amounts and discussed adjustments in the aggregate because providers claimed that their cost data were confidential. *See 2004 TRS Report and Order,* 19 FCC Rcd at 12548-12549, paragraph 191. For these reasons, the Commission finds that the Commission adequately summarized the cost adjustments to the VRS rate. The Commission also rejects Hands On's argument that the Commission has failed to set forth in sufficient detail what costs are “reasonable” in certain cost categories. *See,* *e.g.* , Hands On Petition at 14-16. Hands On takes issue with a lack of specific direction on certain standards for the provision of service, specifically the number of frames per second that should be used to ensure a clear picture and standards for compatibility between various computers, software, or video systems. Providers are required to offer VRS in compliance with all applicable non-waived mandatory minimum standards, and entitled to be compensated for their reasonable costs of doing so. Each year the TRS Fund administrator, NECA, gives the providers instructions for the cost data request forms, which outline various cost categories and give examples of the types of costs that can be included. *See* , *e.g.* , *NECA, Interstate Telecommunications Relay Services Fund Payment Formula and Fund Size Estimate* , filed May 3, 2004, Appendix A. NECA provides these guidelines so that providers consistently report only costs incurred in providing compensable services. The providers follow these guidelines, and Commission staff review the submitted costs to determine whether they are “reasonable”, *see* 47 CFR 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(E) of the Commission's rules, and consistent with the applicable TRS mandatory minimum standards. In some cases, a provider's submitted costs are compared to the costs of other providers of the same service, particularly if a provider's costs are substantially different from the other providers' submitted costs. Commission staff subsequently review any disallowances with the individual providers. This method for determining “reasonable” costs gives providers flexibility to determine how best to provide service in compliance with the rules. The reasonableness standard satisfies Hands On's concerns over the lack of specific frames per second or quality standards for VRS. Hands On Petition at 15-16. If, for example, a provider's VRS service uses so few frames per second that the picture is not clear and the VRS user cannot understand what the interpreter is signing, the provider is not offering VRS at all and the service is not compensable. Hands On further asserts that the Commission erred in concluding that “proprietary” software is not a compensable cost. Hands On Petition at 20; *see* *2004 TRS Report and Order* , 19 FCC Rcd at 12547-12549, paragraphs 188-189, and 192. The Commission agrees that the categorical exclusion of such costs is not warranted, and clarifies that software developed and owned by a provider that is used for the provision of TRS may be a compensable cost:
(1)to the extent it is used for the provision of TRS in compliance with non-waived mandatory minimum standards, and
(2)if it is not sold or licensed to any other entity. Further, such costs should be capitalized, *see 2004 TRS Report and Order* , 19 FCC Rcd at 12548, paragraph 190, note 543 (addressing capitalization of costs), and are subject to review under the general reasonableness standard. This approach ensures that the Fund does not become a source of funding for software or other products that the provider develops and uses to provide non-TRS services, TRS services beyond those required by applicable non-waived mandatory minimum standards, or to generate other income from research paid for by the Fund. The Final VRS Rate Should Be Fully Retroactive *Background* . When the Commission adopted the final VRS rate on June 30, 2004, the Commission concluded that the rate would not be fully retroactive to the July 1, 2003, beginning of the Fund year because it was based on cost data submitted after the July 1, 2003, adoption of the $7.751 interim rate. *2004 TRS Report and Order* , 19 FCC Rcd at 12538-12539, 12549-12550, paragraphs 166, 193. The Commission concluded that the new compensation rate would apply to the provision of VRS services effective September 1, 2003. Hands On Petition at 21-23. Hands On asserts that the modified rate should be fully retroactive because providers' costs were the same for July and August 2003 as they were after September 1, 2003. Hands On also asserts that the providers could not submit additional data until after July 1, 2003. CSD and Sprint filed comments supporting Hands On's petition on this issue. CSD Comments at 1-4; Sprint Comments at 1-3. *Discussion* . The Commission agrees that it should have made the final 2003-2004 VRS rate of $8.854 fully retroactive to July 1, 2003, rather than September 1, 2003. In adopting the interim rate, the Bureau stated that it would remain in force until the Bureau completed its examination of the providers' cost data, “after which time the Bureau will produce the final VRS cost recovery rate *for the July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004, fund year* .” *2003 Bureau TRS Order* , 18 FCC Rcd at 12836, paragraph 37 (emphasis added). Consistent with this statement, and in acceptance of Hands On's argument, the Commission now determines that the final 2003-2004 VRS rate of $8.854 adopted in the *2004 TRS Report and Order* should be made fully retroactive to July 1, 2003, the beginning of the 2003-2004 Fund year. Accordingly, effective August 16, 2006, the Commission directs NECA to make appropriate supplemental payments to those VRS providers compensated for providing VRS in July and August 2003 that reflect the difference between the interim rate of $7.751 per minute and the final rate of $8.854 per minute. Costs Directed at Meeting Waived Mandatory Minimum Standards *Background* . Petitioners seek reconsideration of the Commission's conclusion that research and development costs directed at meeting waived mandatory minimum standards are not compensable. Hands On Petition at 17-20; CSD Petition at 18-22; *see 2004 TRS Report and Order* , 19 FCC Rcd at 12523, 12547-12548, paragraphs 122, 188-190. For VRS, the following mandatory minimum standards are presently waived: providing STS; handling any type of call; emergency call handling; offering equal access to interexchange carriers; handling 900 calls; providing Voice Carry Over (VCO), Hearing Carry Over (HCO), VCO-to-TTY, HCO-to-TTY, VCO-to-VCO, HCO-to-HCO; call release; 3-way calling; and speed dialing. *See 2004 TRS Report and Order* , 19 FCC Rcd at 12594-12596, Appendix E (waiver chart). They argue that when a mandatory minimum standard has been waived due to technological infeasibility, a provider should be compensated for the expenses related to developing the technology to meet the waived standard. Hands On Petition at 18; *see also* CSD Petition at 18-22 (asserting that it is not reasonable to expect a provider to meet a standard by a certain date ( *i.e.* , the date the waiver expires) if the provider cannot be compensated for the expenses associated with developing a means to meet the standard). CSD more specifically asserts that the Commission should permit the recovery of costs for research and development to enable VRS to meet the requirement that all TRS emergency calls be automatically and immediately transferred to an appropriate public safety answering point (PSAP). *See 2004 TRS Report and Order* , 19 FCC Rcd at 12521, paragraph 116. Because VRS is an Internet-based service, the VRS provider does not receive the automatic number identification
(ANI)of the calling party, cannot identify the calling party's location, and therefore cannot automatically pass that information to the PSAP. *2004 TRS Report and Order* at 12522, paragraph 117. The Commission concluded that emergency call handling for VRS was technologically infeasible, and waived the requirement for VRS until January 1, 2006. *See 2004 TRS Report and Order* at 12522, paragraph 118. On November 30, 2005, the Commission released an NPRM seeking comment on rules for access to emergency services for the Internet-based forms of TRS. *See Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities* , FCC 05-196, CG Docket No. 03-123, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 05-196; published at 71 FR 5221 (February 1, 2006) ( *2005 TRS 911 NPRM* ) *Discussion* . The Commission reaffirms the general principle that engineering and other expenses for research and development to meet waived mandatory minimum standards, or provide enhancements beyond applicable non-waived mandatory minimum standards, are not compensable from the Interstate TRS Fund. *2004 TRS Report and Order* , 19 FCC Rcd at 12523-12524, 12547-12548, paragraphs 122, 189. As the Commission explained, TRS providers are obligated to provide functionally equivalent service, and that functionality is defined by the applicable mandatory minimum standards. *2004 TRS Report and Order* at 12547-12548, paragraph 189. Title IV is intended to ensure that entities that offer telephone voice transmission services *also* offer TRS so that persons with certain disabilities have access to the *functionality* of a voice telephone call. *See* 47 U.S.C. 225(a)(3) and (c). When “a provider offers eligible services that meet these standards it may recover its costs of doing so from the Interstate TRS Fund.” *2004 TRS Report and Order* , 19 FCC Rcd at 12547-12548, paragraph 189 (emphasis in original). As the Commission explained, “this conclusion best reconciles the Commission's interest in avoiding placing undue burdens on the Interstate TRS Fund with the statutory mandate that the Commission's regulations ‘do not discourage or impair the development of improved technology.’ ” *2004 TRS Report and Order* , 19 FCC Rcd 12548, paragraph 190 (quoting 47 U.S.C. 225(d)(2)). The Commission recognized the “apparent ‘Catch-22’ that, so long as a mandatory minimum standard is waived, providers cannot be compensated for the costs of meeting the requirement, but that without additional compensation they cannot cover the costs of meeting the requirement to therefore justify the end of the waiver. *2004 TRS Report and Order* , 19 FCC Rcd at 12523-12524, paragraph 122. Nevertheless, the Commission took this approach because of the open-ended nature of the research and development that might be directed at a particular feature. The Commission stated that it would rely on the filing of annual reports for information indicating when the termination of a waiver may be appropriate and what additional costs may be necessary. In other words, the Commission concluded that it would require the providers to identify the manner in which the waived standard might be met, and the projected associated costs involved, *before* a provider devoted potentially unbounded resources to trying to find a way to meet the standard for a particular form of TRS. The Commission continues to believe that, as a general matter, this approach is reasonable. First, to the extent that some waivers are the result of technological limitations presently inherent in Internet-based services generally, the Interstate TRS Fund should not be a source of funding to resolve these limitations. In addition, the Commission does not believe it can meaningfully determine what costs are reasonable when they are incurred to resolve technological issues that no one can resolve in the near term. Further, it may be impossible for some waived standards ever to apply to certain forms of TRS. Therefore, the Commission again concludes that, absent more specific direction from the Commission resulting from the annual waiver reports or information otherwise brought to the Commission's attention, providers may not be compensated from the Interstate TRS Fund for research and development to meet waived mandatory minimum standards. This principle applies to the waived emergency call handling requirement for VRS. Only in this way can the Commission prevent the Fund from becoming an open source of funding for research and development efforts over which the Commission, and the Fund Administrator, would have no control. Other Issues *MARS Plan* . Hamilton's petition for reconsideration asserts that the Commission should not have applied “rate of return regulation” to traditional TRS, *i.e.* , regulation requiring that the providers are not entitled to compensation that constitutes profit ( *e.g.* , a mark-up on expenses) but are limited to a rate of return on capital investment. Hamilton Petition at iii, 1; *see generally 2004 TRS Report and Order* , 19 FCC Rcd at 12542-12545, paragraphs 177-182. Hamilton asks the Commission to initiate a proceeding to adopt its proposed alternative cost recovery methodology (the Multi-state Average Rate Structure or MARS plan) for determining the compensation rate for traditional TRS. Hamilton Petition at 1-4. Under the MARS plan, the interstate traditional TRS rate would be calculated based on an average of the *intrastate* TRS rates paid by the states. According to Hamilton, this approach would be superior to the current cost recovery methodology because it is grounded in competition (because most states select an intrastate TRS provider through a competitive bidding process), it would be easier and less costly to administer, and would benefit consumers “by lowering interstate TRS rates to the competitively based market value.” Hamilton Petition at 2-3. In response to Hamilton's petition, comments were filed by USTA, MCI, and Hands On, which generally support Hamilton's request. USTA Comments at 1-4; MCI Comments at 2-4; Hands On Reply Comments at 3-4. Hamilton also filed reply comments, further urging the Commission to consider its MARS proposal. Hamilton Reply at 1-4. Because, however, the Commission construes Hamilton's petition for reconsideration as a request that it adopts a new cost recovery methodology for traditional TRS, the Commission denies the petition for reconsideration to the extent it challenges the present cost recovery methodology for traditional TRS. * See generally 2004 TRS Report and Order * , 19 FCC Rcd at 12542-12545, paragraphs 177-182. The Commission will treat this as a petition for rulemaking and request public comment on the MARS plan in a future notice of proposed rulemaking. *VRS Speed of Answer* . Finally, several parties seek reconsideration of the extension of the waiver of the speed of answer requirement for VRS providers until January 1, 2006, or at such time the Commission adopts a speed of answer rule for VRS, whichever is earlier. *See* , *e.g.* , CSD Petition at 13-18. *See generally 2004 TRS Report and Order* , 19 FCC Rcd at 12522-12524, paragraphs 119-123. On July 19, 2005, the Commission released the *VRS Speed of Answer Order* , which adopted speed of answer requirements for VRS providers, effective January 1, 2006. *See Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities* , Report and Order, FCC 05-140, CC Docket No. 98-67 and CG Docket No. 03-123, (July 14, 2005), paragraphs 4-25; published at 70 FR 51649 (August 31, 2005) ( *VRS Speed of Answer Order* ). In the *VRS Speed of Answer Order* , the Commission required that:
(1)by January 1, 2006, VRS providers must answer 80 percent of all VRS calls within 180 seconds, measured on a monthly basis;
(2)by July 1, 2006, VRS providers must answer 80 percent of all VRS calls within 150 seconds, measured on a monthly basis; and
(3)by January 1, 2007, VRS providers must answer 80 percent of all VRS calls with 120 seconds, measured on a monthly basis. Because the Commission has now adopted a speed of answer rule for VRS, this issue is moot. Congressional Review Act The Commission will not send a copy of the *Order on Reconsideration* pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, *see* 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), because the adopted rules are rules of particular applicability. Ordering Clauses Pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 2, and 225 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, and 225, the *Order on Reconsideration* *is hereby* *adopted* . The petition for partial reconsideration filed by Hands On is *granted in part* and *denied in part* , as provided herein, and the petitions for reconsideration filed by CSD, NVRSC, and Hamilton *are denied* , as provided herein. The final per-minute compensation rate for VRS for the 2003-2004 Fund year of $8.854 *shall apply* retroactively to all VRS minutes provided during that Fund year commencing July 1, 2003. The *Order On Reconsideration* shall be effective August 16, 2006. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-13486 Filed 8-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 64 [CG Docket No. 03-123; FCC 06-88] Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals With Hearing and Speech Disabilities AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission denies the applications for review and affirms the per-minute compensation rate for Video Relay Service
(VRS)adopted by the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau for the 2004-2005 fund year. Three parties filed applications for review challenging the per minute compensation rate for VRS, a form of telecommunications relay service (TRS). DATES: Effective August 16, 2006. ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Chandler, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Disability Rights Office at
(202)418-1475 (voice),
(202)418-0597 (TTY), or e-mail at *Thomas.Chandler@fcc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the PRA of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, it does not contain any new or modified “information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 106-198, *see* 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). This is a summary of the Commission's document FCC 06-88, *Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities,* Memorandum Opinion and Order, CG Docket No. 03-123, adopted June 20, 2006, released July 12, 2006 denying the applications for review filed by Communication Services for the Deaf, Inc.
(CSD)on July 26, 2004, the National Video Relay Service Coalition (NVRSC) on July 20, 2004, and Hands On Video Relay Services, Inc. (Hands On) on July 20, 2004. The applications for review challenge the per-minute compensation rate for Video Relay Service adopted in the *Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities,* Order, ( *2004 Bureau TRS Rate Order* ), CC Docket No. 98-67, DA 04-1999, 19 FCC Rcd 12224, released June 30, 2004. This order was later modified in the *Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities,* Order, ( *Modified 2004 Bureau TRS Rate Order* ), CC Docket No. 98-67, DA 04-4063, 19 FCC Rcd 24981, released December 30, 2004. The full text of document FCC 06-88 and copies of any subsequently filed documents in this matter will be available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. Document FCC 06-88 and copies of subsequently filed documents in this matter may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor at Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Customers may contact the Commission's duplicating contractor at their Web site *http://www.bcpiweb.com* or call 1-800-378-3160. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to *fcc504@fcc.gov* or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at
(202)418-0530 (voice),
(202)418-0432 (TTY). Document FCC 06-88 can also be downloaded in Word or Portable Document Format
(PDF)at: *http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro.* Synopsis Background TRS Cost Recovery Framework *TRS.* Title IV of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(ADA)requires common carriers offering “telephone voice transmission services” to also provide TRS throughout the area in which they offer service so that persons with hearing and speech disabilities will have access to the telephone system. 47 U.S.C. 225(c). The statute also mandates that eligible TRS providers be compensated for their costs of doing so. 47 U.S.C. 225(d)(3). As the Commission has explained, however, the cost recovery framework—and the annual determination of the TRS compensation rates—“is not akin to a ratemaking process that determines the charges a regulated entity may charge its customers,” but rather is intended to “cover the reasonable costs incurred in providing the TRS services mandated by Congress and the Commission's regulations.” *2004 TRS Report and Order,* 19 FCC Rcd 12543, paragraph 179; published at 69 FR 53346, September 1, 2004; *see generally* 47 CFR 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(E) of the Commission's rules (providers shall be compensated for the “reasonable costs” of providing TRS). *VRS.* In 2000, the Commission recognized VRS as a form of TRS eligible for compensation from the Interstate TRS Fund. *See Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities,* CC Docket No. 98-67, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 15 FCC Rcd 5140, 5152-5154, paragraphs 21-27 (March 6, 2000) ( *Improved TRS Order and FNPRM* ) (recognizing VRS as a form of TRS), published at 65 FR 38432, June 21, 2000 and 65 FR 38490, June 21, 2000; 47 CFR 64.601(17). Presently, all VRS calls are compensated from the Interstate TRS Fund. *See Improved TRS Order and FNPRM,* 15 FCC Rcd 5154, paragraphs 26-27. As most frequently used, VRS allows a deaf person whose native language is American Sign Language
(ASL)to communicate in ASL with the communications assistant (CA), a qualified interpreter, through a video link; the CA, in turn, places an outbound telephone call to a hearing person. During the call, the CA communicates in ASL with the deaf person and by voice with the hearing person. VRS calls reflect a degree of “functional equivalency” unimaginable in a solely text-based TRS world. As the following figures for approximate monthly minutes of use of VRS demonstrate, usage continues to rise: May 2003—189,422; July 2004—900,000; December 2005—3.1 million. *Cost Recovery.* Section 225 of the Communications Act, provides that the costs of providing interstate TRS “shall be recovered from all subscribers for every interstate service.” 47 U.S.C. 225(d)(3)(B). This mandate requires both collecting contributions to establish a fund (the Interstate TRS Fund) from which TRS providers can be compensated, and paying money from the Fund to eligible providers for their provision of eligible TRS services. *See generally* 47 CFR 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(A) and
(E)of the Commission's rules. These duties are performed by the Interstate TRS Fund administrator, selected by, and under the direction of, the Commission. *See* 47 CFR 64.604(c)(5)(iii) of the Commission's rules. The current Interstate TRS Fund administrator is the National Exchange Carrier Association (NECA). The TRS fund administrator makes payments to eligible providers based on per-minute compensation rates for traditional TRS, IP Relay, Speech-to-Speech (STS), and VRS. The compensation rates are set on an annual basis through a two-stage process. First, the TRS fund administrator requests and collects projected cost and demand ( *i.e.* , minutes of use) data from the providers. *See* 47 CFR 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(C) of the Commission's rules. The fund administrator then uses this data to propose compensation rates to the Commission for the particular fund year. The proposed rates are intended to compensate the providers for their “reasonable” costs of providing TRS. Second, the Commission reviews the proposed rates and, in adopting compensation rates for the ensuing fund year, may approve or modify the proposed rates. *See generally Telecommunications Relay Services and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,* CC Docket No. 90-571, Third Report and Order, 8 FCC Rcd 5300, 5305, paragraph 30 (July 20, 1993); published at 58 FR 39671, July 26, 1993 (the TRS rate calculated by the administrator “shall be subject to Commission approval”). The fund administrator may “examine, verify, and audit data received from TRS providers as necessary to assure the accuracy and integrity of fund payments.” 47 CFR 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(c) of the Commission's rules. The fund administrator therefore has the responsibility, in the first instance, to ensure the accuracy and reasonableness of the cost and demand data submitted by the providers so that its proposed rates will be based on permissible costs consistent with the TRS regulations and prior Commission orders. Once the fund administrator reviews the submitted projected costs and minutes of use, it calculates per-minute compensation rates based on data submitted (or modified, as necessary). As NECA has explained, NECA calculates a national average cost per minute of use. It does so by totaling projected costs and minutes of use for all providers for a two year period, and then dividing each sum (costs and minutes) by two. Then the average costs are divided by the average minutes to determine the average cost per minute. *See* NECA, *Interstate Telecommunications Relay Services Fund Payment Formula and Fund Size Estimate,* filed April 25, 2005, at 9 and Appendix 1E. The fund administrator then files these proposed rates with the Commission, and they are placed on public notice. *See, e.g., National Exchange Carrier Association
(NECA)Submits the Payment Formula and Fund Size Estimate for Interstate Telecommunications Relay Services
(TRS)Fund for July 2005 Through June 2006,* CC Docket No. 98-67, Public Notice, DA 05-1175 (April 28, 2005); published at 70 FR 24790, May 11, 2005 ( *2005 TRS Rate Notice* ). The Commission reviews the fund administrator's proposed rates, the basis for those rates, and any comments received, and by June 30 issues an order adopting the TRS compensation rates for the following July 1 to June 30 fund year. If either the fund administrator or the Commission disallows any of a provider's submitted costs, the provider has the opportunity to contest the disallowances before they are finalized. Because of confidentiality issues, this is generally done either in a telephone conversation or in an individual meeting with each provider. The precise process by which the providers' challenges to cost disallowances have been handled has varied, depending in part on whether the fund administrator or the Bureau has made the disallowance. The providers may further challenge the adopted rates, including any cost disallowances, by seeking review of the rate order, as was done in this proceeding. A rate order may also be challenged by filing a petition for reconsideration, as was done with respect to the *2003 Bureau TRS Order.* *Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities,* Order, CC Docket No. 98-67; DA 03-2111, 18 FCC Rcd 12823 (June 30, 2003) ( *2003 Bureau TRS Order* ). Those petitions were resolved in the *2004 TRS Report and Order,* 19 FCC Rcd at 12537-12552, paragraphs 163-200. Since 1993, the Commission has released orders at least annually setting forth the per-minute compensation rates for the various forms of TRS. The Commission released the first rate order on September 29, 1993. *See Telecommunications Relay Services, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,* Second Order on Reconsideration and Fourth Report and Order, CC Docket No. 90-571; published at 58 FR 53663, October 18, 1993. Subsequent rate orders have been released at the bureau level, with the exception of the *2005 TRS Rate Order. See 2004 Bureau TRS Order,* 19 FCC Rcd 12231, paragraph 17, note 56 (listing rate orders); *2005 TRS Rate Order.* Applications for Review On June 30, 2004, the Bureau released the *2004 Bureau TRS Order,* which adopted NECA's proposed TRS per-minute compensation rates for traditional TRS and IP Relay, STS, and VRS, for the 2004-2005 fund year. *2004 Bureau TRS Order,* 19 FCC Rcd 12224. These rates, however, were subject to revision based on review of: “(1) any supplemental cost data relating to capital investment, and
(2)any adjustments to cost disallowances challenged by a provider in response to this Order.” *2004 Bureau TRS Order,* 19 FCC Rcd 12225, paragraph 2. The rates were $1.349 per-minute for interstate traditional TRS and interstate and intrastate IP Relay, $1.440 per-minute for interstate STS, and $7.293 per-minute for interstate and intrastate VRS. In calculating these rates, NECA disallowed certain costs submitted by some of the providers for each of the TRS services. *See 2004 Bureau TRS Order,* 19 FCC Rcd 12232-12234, paragraphs 18-19 (traditional TRS and IP Relay), 22 (STS), and 25 (VRS). These rates were modified on December 30, 2004, by the *Modified 2004 Bureau TRS Rate Order.* The Bureau also approved NECA's proposed Interstate TRS fund size and carrier contribution factor. *2004 Bureau TRS Order,* 19 FCC Rcd 12224-12225, paragraphs 1-2. NECA proposed a total fund size requirement of $289,352,701, and a carrier contribution factor of 0.00356. In response to the *2004 Bureau TRS Order,* some, but not all, of the providers elected to submit capital investment data and/or to challenge the cost disallowances specific to their filings. These providers include Hands On, Sprint, and Hamilton. The Bureau reviewed the data submitted, and made appropriate adjustments to the TRS rates. The Bureau also reviewed every cost disallowance that was challenged by a provider, and added back some costs for some providers for the various TRS services. The Bureau offered to meet with any provider that desired to review and challenge its cost disallowances, and held several such meetings. Because of provider confidentiality issues, the Commission can only summarize the cost disallowances and the restoration of certain costs. Five providers had costs disallowed. Two of these providers elected not to challenge NECA's proposed disallowances; in those cases, the disallowed costs were almost entirely profit and tax allowances, which do not constitute reasonable costs. *See 2004 TRS Report and Order,* 19 FCC Rcd 12542-12545, paragraphs 177-182 (“reasonable costs” do not include a profit or mark-up on expenses). With respect to the remaining three providers, one provider had approximately 18% of its submitted costs initially disallowed by NECA, and approximately 30% of those costs restored; another provider had approximately 9% of its submitted costs initially disallowed, and approximately 92% of those costs restored; and one provider had approximately 3% of its submitted costs initially disallowed, and approximately 78% of those costs restored. As a result of these two adjustments, the Bureau recalculated the compensation rate for each of the TRS services. The Bureau announced that the VRS compensation rate would be $7.596 per minute (an increase of $0.303 over NECA's proposed rate). *See Modified 2004 Bureau TRS Order* (effective for the July 1, 2004, to June 30, 2005, fund year). The other final TRS compensation rates were: for eligible traditional TRS and IP Relay, $1.398 per minute (an increase of $0.049); for eligible STS, $1.596 per minute (an increase of $0.156). Three parties challenged the *2004 Bureau TRS Order* and the determination of the VRS compensation rate. CSD's and NVRSC's filings were accompanied by petitions for emergency stay of the *2004 Bureau TRS Order.* Those petitions sought to have the VRS per-minute compensation rate of $8.854, which was adopted as the final VRS rate for the September 1, 2003 to June 30, 2004 funding period, apply to the 2004-2005 fund year, and not the rate of $7.293 adopted in the *2004 Bureau TRS Order,* until such time as the Commission resolves the applications for review and the “quality issues” raised in the *2004 TRS Report and Order's* Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( *FNPRM* ). The Commission addresses the petitions for stay below, and denies them as moot. Hands On makes three arguments related to the process by which NECA determined the proposed TRS rates, arguing that:
(1)The *2003 Bureau TRS Order* “was not a sufficient guide” for NECA's evaluation of a provider's submitted cost data; Hands On Application at 17-18;
(2)NECA lacked authority to review and disallow submitted cost data; Hands On Application at 22-23; and
(3)providers did not have the opportunity to contest disallowances; Hands On Application at 23-26. Hands On makes the related argument that even if the *2003 Bureau TRS Order* provided sufficient guidance for the determination of the TRS compensation rates, NECA did not follow that guidance. CSD asserts that the Bureau improperly excluded certain costs in setting the 2004-2005 VRS. CSD Application at 2-13. Finally, CSD and the NVRSC argue that the determination of the rate is at odds with the mandate that the Commission encourage new technology. CSD Application at 13-15; NVRSC Application at 7-11; *see* 47 U.S.C. 225(d)(2). Hamilton's application for review challenges the *2004 Bureau TRS Order* to the extent it “abandoned the `cost-plus' reimbursement rate methodology for traditional TRS.” Hamilton Application at 1. Hamilton notes, however, that this issue is “inextricably interwoven” with issues presented in the *2004 TRS Report and Order* (on which the *2004 Bureau TRS Order* relied), and that it filed the application for review “to ensure that the *2004 Bureau TRS Order* does not become a final order” before the Commission addresses Hamilton's petition for reconsideration of the *2004 TRS Report and Order.* Hamilton Application at 1-2. Therefore, Hamilton's real challenge is to the Commission's *2004 TRS Report and Order* , not to the *2004 Bureau TRS Order* . In these circumstances, the Commission denies Hamilton's application for review because it does not assert that the Bureau erred in adopting the *2004 Bureau TRS Order.* The Commission will address the pending petitions for reconsideration of the *2004 TRS Report and Order* in a separate order. Discussion The Process of Setting the 2004-2005 VRS Compensation Rate Was Proper The Commission finds that the procedural arguments raised by Hands On are without merit. NECA properly looked to the prior *2003 Bureau TRS Order* for guidance in analyzing the submitted costs because that order was the most recent pronouncement on the relevant issues. At the time NECA filed its proposed 2004-2005 TRS compensation rates with the Commission, the *2003 Bureau TRS Order* was the only Commission or Bureau level order that specifically addressed cost disallowances. The *2003 Bureau TRS Order* reflected the general principle that the providers' submitted costs must relate to the “reasonable” costs of providing TRS, and that the Commission has the duty to ensure that costs underlying the compensation rates are appropriate under this standard. *2003 Bureau TRS Order* , 18 FCC Rcd 12834-12836, paragraphs 32-37. The *2003 Bureau TRS Order* noted categories of submitted costs where the Bureau found that certain costs were not reasonable. *2003 Bureau TRS Order* , 18 FCC Rcd 12835, paragraph 34 (profit calculations, taxes, and labor costs are unreasonable). That order made clear that because of confidentiality concerns, the cost disallowances would be addressed individually with the providers. *2003 Bureau TRS Order* , 18 FCC Rcd 12835, paragraph 33 and note 91. Hands On contends that the *2003 Bureau TRS Order* did not sufficiently detail permissible costs, and as a result, NECA's cost adjustments were an unreliable basis for the Bureau's evaluation of its proposed rates. Hands On Application at 18-21. Hands On asserts, for example, that NECA did not sufficiently explain in its May 3, 2004, filing why it made the cost adjustments that it did, and did not tie those adjustments to the *2003 Bureau TRS Order.* Hands On Application at 19. As the Commission has noted, however, NECA's proposed rates are reviewed by the Bureau, which makes an independent determination of the appropriate TRS compensation rates. *See* paragraphs 5-8. Hands On acknowledges that the regulations specifically permit the fund administrator to examine, verify, and audit data it receives from the providers, but asserts that the regulations do not permit the fund administrator “to exclude categories of costs or to substitute its judgment for the good faith judgment of the providers.” Hands On Application at 23. The Commission disagrees. It is the fund administrator's role to request and collect the providers' cost and demand data, to review that data for compliance with the Commission's rules, and to propose compensation rates to the Commission based on that data. *See 2004 Bureau TRS Order* , 19 FCC Rcd 12239, paragraph 40 (rejecting the notion that NECA cannot make adjustments to cost data in proposing rates to the Commission). In so doing, the fund administrator need not defer to the judgment of the providers concerning what are allowable costs; indeed, such an arrangement would be an abdication of the administrator's role in overseeing the integrity of the fund. Hands On further states that even if NECA has the authority to review and disallow submitted cost data, it must give the providers an opportunity to contest the disallowances. The Commission agrees. Indeed, NECA did discuss possible cost adjustments with the providers, including Hands On, *before* it submitted its proposed rates to the Commission. *See 2004 Bureau TRS Order* , 19 FCC Rcd 12229, paragraph 13 and note 43 (also citing NECA filing). NECA also provided the Commission with the details of its cost disallowances for each provider. *See* Hands On Supplement to Application for Review at 1-2 (noting meetings between the Bureau and Hands On addressing its cost disallowances); *see also* Ex parte letter from George L. Lyon, Jr., Counsel for Hands On, CC Docket No, 98-67 (filed October 25, 2004). In addition, the Bureau gave each provider, including Hands On, an opportunity to review and contest disallowances specific to it. Hands On further complains that NECA's report proposing the compensation rates to the Commission does not detail individual cost disallowances. Hands On Supplement to Application for Review at 23-26; *see also* Hands On Supplement to Application for Review at 2 (asserting that all elements of rate determination, including all of the providers' cost disallowances, must be on the public record). The Bureau reviewed Hands On's cost disallowances with Hands On in great detail in meetings and over the telephone, and as a result, the Bureau restored nearly one-third of the costs initially disallowed. Hands On's challenges to those disallowed costs not restored are addressed below. *See* paragraph 17. Because of confidentiality issues, all cost disallowances are not shared with all providers. *See generally 2004 Bureau TRS Order* , 19 FCC Rcd 12239, paragraph 39 (noting that NECA cannot detail all cost disallowances because of confidentiality issues); *see* 47 CFR 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(I) of the Commission's rules (requiring the fund administrator to keep the providers' data confidential). In sum, neither Hands On, nor any other provider, has been denied a meaningful opportunity to challenge any cost disallowances specific to it under the procedures outlined above and followed by the fund administrator and the Bureau in adopting the 2004-2005 TRS compensation rates. NVRSC makes the related argument that the Bureau erred by adopting NECA's proposed VRS compensation rate when the Bureau also noted it might subsequently modify the rate based on submissions of capital investment data and challenges to specific cost disallowances. NVRSC Application at 9. The *Modified 2004 Bureau TRS Order* , however, applied the modified VRS rate to the entire 2004-2005 fund year, thus ensuring that the compensation rates properly reflected all reasonable costs of providing the services. Further, the adoption of the modified rate makes NVRSC's argument moot. The 2004-2005 VRS Rate Properly Excluded Quality of Service Factors The Commission rejects claims that the Bureau did not properly consider the effect of the VRS rate on the quality of service, and should have allowed costs related to waived requirements. *See generally* CSD Application at 3-8; NVRSC Application at 13-15; Hands On Application at 4-16. TRS compensation rates are designed to compensate providers for the reasonable costs of providing service in compliance with non-waived mandatory minimum standards. Arguments regarding quality of service generally concern the effect of the rate on the ability of providers to offer VRS 24 hours a day, seven days a week (24/7), and to promptly answer calls. The Commission raised these quality of service issues in the *2004 TRS Report and Order's FNPRM* , and did not adopt speed of answer and 24/7 service requirements for VRS until July 14, 2005. *VRS Speed of Answer Order* at paragraph 1 (the requirements are effective January 1, 2006). The Bureau does not have the discretion to include costs in its calculations that relate to matters that the Commission has raised only in a pending *FNPRM* , or that the Commission has indicated are not appropriate for reimbursement. Such costs include, for example, engineering, research and development, or other costs relating to enhancements that go beyond the required standards applicable to the particular service. *2004 TRS Report and Order* , 19 FCC Rcd 12547-12548, 12551, paragraphs 189-190, 197. The Commission agrees with the Bureau that “providers are not entitled to unlimited financing from the Interstate TRS Fund to enable them to further develop a service that is not even required.” *2004 Bureau TRS Order,* 19 FCC Rcd 12236, paragraph 31, note 84. This statement was taken from the Commission's *2004 TRS Report and Order* . Therefore, CSD's argument is directed not at the *2004 Bureau TRS Order,* but rather the *2004 TRS Report and Order* . The Commission finds, therefore, that because the Commission had only proposed speed of answer and 24/7 service requirements for VRS at the time the Bureau adopted the 2004-2005 rate, the Bureau correctly excluded costs of meeting such requirements from the 2004-2005 rate calculations. Such costs may be included in subsequent cost submissions, and the resulting rate will reflect reasonable costs incurred to comply with these new requirements. CSD makes the related assertion that the VRS rate was based on the incorrect assumption that the “lower” VRS rate adopted for the previous fund year (2003-2004) did not affect the quality of VRS service. CSD Application at 8-10; *see also* NVRSC Application at 15. The order itself makes clear, however, that the VRS rate was adopted based solely on the projected cost (and demand) data submitted by the providers, as modified based on certain disallowances. *2004 Bureau TRS Order* , 19 FCC Rcd 12242, paragraph 50. Section 225 of the Communications Act provides that the Commission shall ensure that its TRS regulations encourage the use of existing technology and not discourage or impair the development of new technology. CSD Application at 13-14. NVRSC asserts the VRS rate is too low to allow providers to enhance the quality of the service through the development of new and improved technology. NVRSC Application at 8-10; *see generally* 47 U.S.C. 225(d)(2). Petitioners argue that, pursuant to section 225 of the Communications Act, providers should be compensated from the Interstate TRS Fund for research and development directed at complying with technical and operational standards that have been waived. CSD Application at 13-15; NVRSC Application at 19-20. The Commission rejects this argument. As a general matter, the Commission believes that the principle recognized in the *2004 TRS Report and Order* —that compensable costs must be directed to providing the service in compliance with applicable non-waived mandatory minimum standards *2004 TRS Report and Order* , 19 FCC Rcd 12547-12548, paragraphs 189-190—is consistent with the mandate that the Commission not impair the development of new technology. Providers are free to develop new TRS features and services to enhance the provision of TRS, and may gain a competitive advantage in doing so. But absent more specific direction from the Commission resulting from the annual waiver reports or information otherwise brought to the Commission's attention, providers may not be compensated from the Interstate TRS Fund for research and development to meet waived mandatory minimum standards. Moreover, the very existence of VRS—and the Commission's adoption of other new forms of TRS such as Captioned Telephone service See, *e.g.* , *See Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities* , Order, CC Docket No. 98-67, CG Docket No. 03-123, FCC 05-141; published at 70 FR 54294, September 14, 2005 (finding that two-line Captioned Telephone service is a type of TRS eligible for compensation from the Interstate TRS Fund)—reflect the Commission's faithful adherence to encouraging new technologies to meet this statutory mandate. The Cost Disallowances Related to Installation Were Proper The Commission rejects Hands On's assertion that that the Interstate TRS Fund should pay for its installation of video cameras and VRS software at its customers' premises (which includes on-site training) to ensure “connectivity.” Hands On Application at 35. Hands On's application for review challenges other cost disallowances. *See* Hands On Application at 26-37. Subsequent to the filing of Hands On's application for review, however, the Bureau reviewed with Hands On its cost disallowances, and ultimately restored approximately 30% of the initially disallowed costs. As a result, subsequent to the release of the *Modified 2004 Bureau TRS Order* , Hands On withdrew its objections concerning cost disallowances in the areas of accounting staff, corporate overhead, operations, software licensing, and general and administrative personnel. Hands On Supplement to Application for Review at 2-3. Hands On's supplemental filing, however, does not address its initial challenges to cost disallowances for engineering personnel. *See* Hands On Application at 30-31. After meetings between the Bureau and Hands On, Hands On agreed that some of the excluded engineering personnel could be removed, and the Bureau ultimately restored costs for some other engineering personnel previously excluded. Therefore, issues regarding disallowances for engineering personnel have been resolved. Installation expenses are not “reasonable costs” of providing TRS, and are not permitted for any provider. The Commission has consistently stated that compensable expenses must be the providers' expenses in making the service available and not the customer's costs of receiving the service. *See* , *e.g.* , *2004 TRS Report and Order* , 19 FCC Rcd 12543-12544, paragraphs 179, 181. Compensable expenses, therefore, do not include expenses for customer premises equipment—whether for the equipment itself, equipment distribution, or installation of the equipment or any necessary software. Allowance for Working Capital The Commission rejects Hands On's contention that the Bureau should have adopted a higher allowance for working capital. This factor, which was set at 1.4 percent, compensates the providers for the time they are out of pocket their expenses before they are compensated by NECA. Hands On Application at 20-21; *see 2004 Bureau TRS Order* , 19 FCC Rcd 12230, paragraph 16 and note 53 (setting forth in detail the derivation of the 1.4 percent figure for an allowance for working capital). Hands On asserts that the 1.4 percent figure does not adequately cover the time period for which providers are out of pocket their expenses because it is based on a 30 day period rather than a 45 day period. Hands On Application at 20-21. Hands On maintains that, although the providers are reimbursed on a monthly basis one month after service is provided, they incur costs at the beginning of each month, but do not receive compensation for that month until the end of the following month. Hands On Application at 20. Hands On's argument confuses when a provider incurs an expense with when the provider pays the expense. The purpose of the working capital allowance is to reimburse the providers for the time they are actually out of pocket money they have paid for services rendered. Even granting Hands On's assumption that most of the providers' costs are labor costs, and that “most providers pay their employees semi-monthly,” the Commission believes that the 30 day period reasonably compensates the providers for the time they are actually out of pocket. Hands On Application at 21. Assuming, for example, that employees are paid on the 15th and 30th of the month, the average payment date would be the 22nd. The Commission also assumes that labor is paid at least a week in arrears, *i.e.* , that payment is not concurrent with period of performance. For example, the payment on the 15th of the month would be for labor from the 22nd of the prior month to the 8th of the month, and the payment on the 30th of the month would be for labor from the 8th to the 22nd of the month. Under these circumstances, the average out-of-pocket date for labor incurred in a particular month, which would be paid by NECA at the end of the following month, would be the 30th of the month. Further, the Commission assumes that other types of expenses are generally paid approximately 30 days after the provider is billed. Accordingly, the Commission declines to increase the working capital allowance. The 2003-2004 VRS Compensation Rate Does Not Apply to the 2004-2005 Fund Year The Commission rejects CSD's and NVRSC's argument that, instead of adopting a VRS rate for the 2004-2005 fund year based on the cost and demand data submitted by the providers for that fund year, the Bureau should have continued to apply the modified VRS rate adopted in the *2004 TRS Report and Order* ($8.854 per minute) applicable to the previous fund year (2003-2004), pending resolution of VRS issues raised in the *2004 TRS Report and Order's FNPRM* . CSD Application at 16-17; NVRSC Application at 9-10, 18-20. NVRSC asserts that the Bureau should *not* have followed the *2004 TRS Report and Order* in adopting the 2004-2005 VRS rate, but rather should have continued the VRS rate from the 2003-2004 fund year. NVRSC Application at 9-10. According to CSD and NVRSC, VRS providers should be compensated at the rate of $8.854 per minute in 2004-2005, not at the rate of $7.596 ultimately adopted by the Bureau for the 2004-2005 fund year. CSD Application at 15-16; NVRSC Application at 20. This argument is inconsistent with the cost recovery mechanism that has been in place for over ten years. As explained above, for each fund year the compensation rates are based on the *providers* ' own projected cost and demand data for the upcoming two-year period. If there is concern that the rates were not calculated correctly, the answer is not to apply rates from a previous fund year based on an entirely different set of cost and demand projections, but to review the calculation of the challenged rates and the data upon which they rely and make any resulting adjustments retroactive to the beginning of the fund year. In this instance, therefore, no basis to apply the VRS rate from the 2003-2004 fund year to the 2004-2005 fund year. The Emergency Petitions for a Stay of the 2004 Bureau TRS Order CSD and NVRSC filed a petition for emergency stay, seeking to have the 2003-2004 VRS per-minute compensation rate of $8.854 apply to the 2004-2005 fund year, instead of the rate of $7.293 adopted in the *2004 Bureau TRS Order* for the 2004-2005 fund year, until such time as the Commission resolved the pending applications for review. The petitions for an emergency stay accompanied the applications for review. Because, as set forth above, the Commission has affirmed the *2004 Bureau TRS Order* (as modified by the *Modified 2004 Bureau TRS Order* ), and have rejected the argument that the 2003-2004 VRS rate should apply in the 2004-2005 fund year, the Commission dismisses the stay requests as moot. Congressional Review Act The Commission will not send a copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, *see* 5 U.S.C. 801 (a)(1)(1A), because the adopted rules are rules of particular applicability. Ordering Clauses Pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 2, and 225 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, and 225, that the Memorandum Opinion and Order *is* hereby *adopted* . The applications for review filed by CSD, Hands On, NVRSC, and Hamilton *are* hereby *denied* , as provided herein. The Memorandum Opinion and Order *shall become effective* August 16, 2006. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-13490 Filed 8-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 73 [DA 06-1531; MB Docket No. 05-297; RM-11290] Radio Broadcasting Services; Savanna, OK AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: At the request of Charles Crawford, the Audio Division allots Channel 275A at Savanna, Oklahoma, as the community's first local aural transmission service. A later filed minor change application, File No. BPH-20050509AAB, filed by JDC Radio, Inc., licensee of Station KQIB(FM), Channel 275C3, Idabel, Oklahoma, is dismissed. Channel 275A is allotted at Savanna with a site restriction of 7.0 kilometers (4.3 miles) south at coordinates 34-46-00 NL and 95-50-00 WL. A filing window period for Channel 275A at Savanna will not be opened at this time. Instead, the issue of opening this allotment for auction will be addressed by the Commission in a subsequent Order. DATES: Effective September 11, 2006. ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Victoria M. McCauley, Media Bureau,
(202)418-2180. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's *Report and Order* , MB Docket No. 05-297, adopted July 26, 2006, and released July 28, 2006. At the request of Charles Crawford, the Audio Division allots Channel 275A at Savanna, Oklahoma, as that community's first local aural transmission service. 70 FR 70775 (November 23, 2005). The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC's Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC, 20054, telephone 1-800-378-3160 or *http://www.BCPIWEB.com.* The Commission will send a copy of this *Report and Order* in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act *see* 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 Radio, Radio broadcasting. As stated in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 73 as follows: PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES 1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows: Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336. § 73.202 [Amended] 2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Oklahoma, is amended by adding Savanna, Channel 275A. Federal Communications Commission. John A. Karousos, Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau. [FR Doc. E6-13359 Filed 8-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 73 [DA 06-1466; MB Docket No. 04-84; RM-10879] Radio Broadcasting Services; Willcox, AZ AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Audio Division grants a Petition for Rule Making filed by Calvary Chapel of Tucson requesting the reservation of vacant Channel 223C3 at Willcox, Arizona for noncommercial educational use. A staff engineering analysis determines that Channel *223C3 can be allotted at Willcox in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance spacing requirements at reference coordinates 32-16-22 NL and 109-48-14 WL. DATES: Effective September 11, 2006. ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rolanda F. Smith, Media Bureau,
(202)418-2180. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MB Docket No. 04-84, adopted July 26, 2006, and released July 28, 2006. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC's Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC, 20554, telephone 1-800-378-3160 or *http://www.BCPIWEB.com.* The Commission will send a copy of this *Report and Order* in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, *see* 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 Radio, Radio broadcasting. As stated in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 73 as follows: PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES 1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows: Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336. § 73.202 [Amended] 2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Arizona, is amended by removing Channel 223C3 and by adding Channel *223C3 at Willcox. Federal Communications Commission. John A. Karousos, Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau. [FR Doc. E6-13357 Filed 8-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 73 [DA 06-1532; MB Docket No. 05-219; RM-11249] Radio Broadcasting Services; Brawley and Campo, CA AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This document grants a proposal filed by CCR-Brawley IV, LLC as proposed in the *Notice of Proposed Rule Making* in this proceeding. Specifically, the license of Station KSIQ, Channel 241B, Brawley, California, is modified to specify operation on Channel 241B1 at Campo, California. The reference coordinates for the Channel 241B1 allotment at Campo, California, are 32-38-30 and 116-28-05. With this action, the proceeding is terminated. DATES: Effective September 11, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Hayne, Media Bureau
(202)418-2177. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the *Report and Order* in MB Docket No. 05-219, adopted July 26, 2006, and released July 28, 2006. The full text of this decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center at Portals ll, CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-800-378-3160 or *http://www.BCPIWEB.com.* The Commission will send a copy of this *Report and Order* in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act *see* 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 Radio, Radio Broadcasting. As stated in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 73 as follows: PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES 1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows: Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336. § 73.202(b) [Amended] 2. Section 73.202(b), the table of FM Allotments under California, is amended by removing Channel 241B at Brawley and by adding Campo, Channel 241B1. Federal Communications Commission. John A. Karousos, Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau. [FR Doc. E6-13358 Filed 8-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P 71 158 Wednesday, August 16, 2006 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 981 [Docket No. FV06-981-2 PR] Almonds Grown in California; Changes to Incoming Quality Control Requirements AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This rule invites comments on changing the incoming quality control requirements under the administrative rules and regulations of the California almond marketing order (order). The order regulates the handling of almonds grown in California and is administered locally by the Almond Board of California (Board). These changes would help minimize the risk of aflatoxin in almonds by removing inedible kernels from human consumption. Inedible almonds are poor quality kernels or pieces of defective kernels that may be contaminated with aflatoxin. This action is intended to improve the overall quality of almonds placed into consumer channels. DATES: Comments must be received by August 23, 2006. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this rule. Comments must be sent to the Docket Clerk, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Fax:
(202)720-8938, E-mail: *moab.docketclerk@usda.gov* , or Internet: *http://www.regulations.gov.* All comments should reference the docket number and the date and page number of this issue of the **Federal Register** and will be available for public inspection in the Office of the Docket Clerk during regular business hours, or can be viewed at: *http://www.ams.usda.gov/fv/moab.html.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maureen T. Pello, Assistant Regional Manager, or Kurt Kimmel, Regional Manager, California Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, telephone:
(559)487-5901, Fax:
(559)487-5906, or E-mail: *Maureen.Pello@usda.gov* , or *Kurt.Kimmel@usda.gov.* Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Jay Guerber, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; telephone:
(202)720-2491, Fax:
(202)720-8938, or E-mail: *Jay.Guerber@usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposed rule is issued under Marketing Order No. 981, as amended (7 CFR part 981), regulating the handling of almonds grown in California, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.” The Department of Agriculture
(USDA)is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Order 12866. This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect. This rule will not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule. The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling. This proposed rule invites comments on changing the incoming quality control requirements under the administrative rules and regulations of the order. These changes would help minimize the risk of aflatoxin in almonds by removing inedible almonds from human consumption. Inedible almonds are poor quality kernels or pieces of defective kernels that may be contaminated with aflatoxin. These changes are intended to improve the overall quality of almonds placed into consumer channels, and were recommended by the Board at a meeting on May 18, 2006. Section 981.42 of the order provides authority for a quality control program. Paragraph
(a)of that section requires handlers to obtain incoming inspections on almonds received from growers to determine the percent of inedible kernels in each lot of any variety. Based on these inspections, handlers incur an inedible disposition obligation. They must satisfy their obligation by disposing of inedible almonds in outlets such as oil and animal feed. Section 981.442(a)(4) of the order's administrative rules and regulations specifies that the weight of inedible kernels in excess of 1 percent of kernel weight shall constitute that handler's disposition obligation. Handlers must satisfy the disposition obligation by delivering packer pickouts, kernels rejected in blanching, pieces of kernels, meal accumulated in manufacturing, or other material, to crushers, feed manufacturers, feeders, or dealers in nut wastes on record with the Board as accepted users of such product. Accepted users dispose of this material through non-human consumption outlets. Paragraph (a)(5) of § 981.442 specifies further that at least 25 percent of a handler's total annual disposition obligation be satisfied with inedible kernels as defined under § 981.408. Handlers with total annual inedible obligations of less than 1,000 pounds are exempt from the 25 percent requirement. Board research has shown that aflatoxin in almonds is directly related to insect damage in inedible kernels. In order to help minimize the risk of aflatoxin in almonds, the Board recommended reducing the tolerance for inedible kernels from 1 to .50 percent, and increasing the percent of a handler's total annual inedible obligation that must be true inedibles from 25 to 50 percent. Such revisions are intended to improve the overall quality of almonds placed into consumer channels. All of the Board's members supported the change regarding true inedibles, but three of the Board's 10 members opposed the change to reduce the incoming tolerance for inedible kernels (the Board's chairperson abstained). Those opposed pointed to the existing 2 percent outgoing tolerance and expressed concern about additional costs that handlers may incur to separate out inedible kernels. The majority of Board members supported both changes. Paragraphs (a)(4) and (a)(5) of § 981.442 are proposed to be revised accordingly. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Agricultural Marketing Service
(AMS)has considered the economic impact of this rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this initial regulatory flexibility analysis. The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf. Thus, both statutes have small entity orientation and compatibility. There are approximately 6,000 producers of almonds in the production area and approximately 115 handlers subject to regulation under the marketing order. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.201) as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $6,500,000. Data for the most recently completed crop year indicate that about 52 percent of the handlers shipped under $6,500,000 worth of almonds. Dividing average almond crop value for 2003-2005 reported by the National Agricultural Statistics Service ($2.171 billion) by the number of producers (6,000) yields an average annual producer revenue estimate of about $362,000. Based on the foregoing, about half of the handlers and a majority of almond producers may be classified as small entities. This rule would revise paragraphs (a)(4) and (a)(5) of § 981.442 of the order's administrative rules and regulations regarding inedible almonds. These changes would help minimize the risk of aflatoxin in almonds by removing inedible kernels from human consumption. Inedible almonds are poor quality kernels or pieces of defective kernels that may be contaminated with aflatoxin. Specifically, this action would reduce the tolerance for inedible kernels in each variety of almonds received by a handler from 1 to .50 percent, and increase the percent of a handler's annual inedible obligation that must be satisfied with dispositions containing inedible almonds from 25 to 50 percent. Authority for these changes is provided in § 981.42(a) of the order. Regarding the impact of the proposed action on affected entities, this action is intended to improve the overall quality of almonds placed into consumer channels and therefore would be beneficial to the industry. In addition, this rule is not expected to change handler inspection costs. Handlers must currently have an incoming inspection done on each lot of almonds received to determine the percent of inedible kernels. Additionally, inedible almond dispositions must be inspected to determine the percent of inedible kernels in such dispositions. Such inspections are performed by the inspection agency, which means the Federal-State Inspection Service. The inspection agency charges a fee of $40 per hour, plus $0.75 per ton, with a minimum total fee of $55, to perform an inedible disposition inspection. The Board considered various alternatives and options before making its recommendation on inedible almonds. It was decided that a 0.5 percent tolerance was appropriate rather than 0 percent. As previously stated, opposition Board members pointed to the existing 2 percent outgoing tolerance and expressed concern about additional costs that handlers may incur to separate out inedible kernels. Ultimately, the majority of Board members supported both changes. The Board's Food Quality and Safety
(FQS)Committee met again via teleconference on June 13, 2006, and concurred with the Board's recommendation. This action would impose no additional reporting and recordkeeping burden on California almonds handlers. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the information collection requirements in this rule have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)under OMB Control No. 0581-0178. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. AMS is committed to compliance with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act, which requires Government agencies in general to provide the public the option of submitting information or transacting business electronically to the maximum extent possible. USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule. There are U.S. Standards for Grades of Shelled Almonds (7 CFR 51.2105 through 51.2131) and U.S. Standards for Grades of Almonds in the Shell (7 CFR 51.2075 through 51.2091) issued under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621 through 1627). However, these standards are voluntary for the almond industry. Additionally, the meetings were widely publicized throughout the California almond industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meetings and participate in deliberations on all issues. Like all Board meetings, the task force meetings on March 23 and April 26, 2006, the FQS Committee meetings on April 11, May 8, and June 13, 2006, and the Board meeting on May 18, 2006, were public meetings and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit information on the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses. A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at: *http://www.ams.usda.gov/fv/moab.html.* Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Jay Guerber at the previously mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. A 7-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to respond to this proposal. Seven days is deemed appropriate because the 2006-07 crop year begins on August 1, 2006, and therefore, this rule, if adopted, should be in effect as soon as possible. List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 981 Almonds, Marketing agreements, Nuts, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 981 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 981—ALMONDS GROWN IN CALIFORNIA 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 981 continues to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674. 2. Section 981.442 is amended by revising the first sentence of paragraph (a)(4)(i) and the eleventh sentence in paragraph (a)(5) to read as follows: § 981.442 Quality control.
(a)* * *
(4)*Disposition obligation.*
(i)The weight of inedible kernels in excess of .50 percent of kernel weight reported to the Board of any variety received by a handler shall constitute that handler's disposition obligation. * * *
(5)*Meeting the disposition obligation.* * * * At least 50 percent of a handler's total crop year inedible disposition obligation shall be satisfied with dispositions consisting of inedible kernels as defined in § 981.408: *Provided,* That this 50 percent requirement shall not apply to handlers with total annual obligations of less than 1,000 pounds. * * * Dated: August 9, 2006. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. 06-6941 Filed 8-11-06; 2:16 pm]
Connectionstraces to 39
Traces to 39 documents
U.S. Code
- Rule making§ 553
- Definitions§ 601
- 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
- Purposes§ 3501
- SHORT TITLE.§ 801
- EXPEDITED PROCESSING OF REQUESTS FOR JAPANESE IMPERIAL GOVERNMENT RECORDS.§ 804
- Definitions; generally§ 321
- Definitions§ 9601
- Establishment of State commissions, planning districts, and local committees§ 11001
- Congressional findings§ 6901
- Initial regulatory flexibility analysis§ 603
- Designation of additional hazardous substances and establishment of reportable released quantities; regulations§ 9602
- Oil and hazardous substance liability§ 1321
- Substances and facilities covered and notification§ 11002
- Reporting and retention of information§ 2607
- Definitions§ 632
- Federal agency responsibilities§ 3506
- Telecommunications services for hearing-impaired and speech-impaired individuals§ 225
- Purposes of chapter; Federal Communications Commission created§ 151
- Federal Communications Commission§ 154
- Congressional declaration of purpose; use of existing facilities; cooperation with States§ 1621
register
CFR
- When the drawbridge must open.§ 117.5
- Delegation of rulemaking authority.§ 1.05-1
- Timing of Administrator's action under Toxic Substances Control Act.§ 23.5
- What size standards has SBA identified by North American Industry Classification System codes?§ 121.201
- What are SBA size standards?§ 121.101
- How does SBA establish size standards?§ 121.102
68 references not yet in our index
- 33 CFR 100
- Pub. L. 104-121
- 44 USC 3501-3520
- 2 USC 1531-1538
- 42 USC 4321-4370f
- 33 USC 1233
- 5 USC 601-612
- 33 CFR 117
- Pub. L. 102-587
- 106 Stat. 5039
- 33 CFR 165
- Pub. L. 107-295
- 40 CFR 180
- 40 CFR 178
- 40 CFR 2
- 40 CFR 180.293
- Pub. L. 104-4
- Pub. L. 104-113
- 40 CFR 355
- 40 CFR 302.6
- 40 CFR 355.40
- 98 F.3d 1394
- 40 CFR 261
- 40 CFR 302
- 40 CFR 302.6(b)(1)
- 40 CFR 261.33(e)
- 40 CFR 261.33
- 40 CFR 261.32
- 40 CFR 302.4
- 40 CFR 9
- 40 CFR 712
- 40 CFR 712.30(c)
- 40 CFR 712.30(e)
- 40 CFR 712.28
- 40 CFR 712.30
- 40 CFR 712.25
- 40 CFR 712.30(a)(3)
- 40 CFR 712.28(d)
- 5 CFR 1320.3(b)
- 5 CFR 1320
+ 28 more
Citation graph
cites case law
Rules and Regulations
Temporary final rule; amendment
F. App'x98 F.3d 1394
Cite33 CFR 100
Pub. L.Pub. L. 104-121
Cites 107 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources