Rules and Regulations. Interim rule; extension of comment period

79,083 words·~359 min read·/register/2007/05/23/07-2552

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

BILLING CODE 6050-$$-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 7 CFR Part 301 [Docket No. APHIS-2007-0032] Citrus Canker; Interstate Movement of Regulated Nursery Stock From Quarantined Areas AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Interim rule; extension of comment period. SUMMARY: We are extending the comment period for our interim rule that amended the citrus canker quarantine regulations to explicitly prohibit, with limited exceptions, the interstate movement of regulated nursery stock from a quarantined area.

This action will allow interested persons additional time to prepare and submit comments. DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before June 11, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* , select “Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service” from the agency drop-down menu, then click “Submit.” In the Docket ID column, select APHIS-2007-0032 to submit or view public comments and to view supporting and related materials available electronically.

Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket after the close of the comment period, is available through the site's “User Tips” link. • *Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery:* Please send four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to Docket No. APHIS-2007-0032, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No.

APHIS-2007-0032. *Reading Room:* You may read any comments that we receive on Docket No. APHIS-2007-0032 in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call

(202)690-2817 before coming. *Other Information:* Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the Internet at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Stephen Poe, Senior Operations Officer, Emergency Domestic Programs, Plant Protection and Quarantine, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 137, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231;

(301)734-4387. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 22, 2007, we published in the **Federal Register** (72 FR13423-13428, Docket No. APHIS-2007-0032) an interim rule that amended the citrus canker quarantine regulations to explicitly prohibit, with limited exceptions, the interstate movement of regulated nursery stock from a quarantined area. The interim rule was effective on March 16, 2007. We took this action because the interstate movement of regulated nursery stock from an area quarantined for citrus canker poses a high risk of spreading citrus canker outside the quarantined area. The interim rule included two exceptions to the prohibition. We allowed calamondin and kumquat plants, two types of citrus plants that are highly resistant to citrus canker, to move interstate from a quarantined area under a protocol designed to ensure that they are free of citrus canker prior to movement. We also continued to allow the interstate movement of regulated nursery stock for immediate export, under certain conditions. This action was necessary to clarify our regulations and to address the risk associated with the interstate movement of regulated nursery stock from areas quarantined for citrus canker. In an order dated April 26, 2007, the United States District Court of the Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division, instructed the U.S. Department of Agriculture to begin a new round of notice-and-comment rulemaking on the issue of the interstate movement of regulated nursery stock from areas quarantined for citrus canker. We solicited comments on the interim rule for 60 days after its publication. Comments on the interim rule were required to be received on or before May 21, 2007. We are extending the comment period on Docket No. APHIS-2007-0032 for an additional 21 days, until June 11, 2007. This action will allow interested persons additional time to prepare and submit comments. We encourage members of the public, including regulated industry, to submit comments regarding the interim rule, including the scientific and regulatory basis of the rule. We will carefully consider all the comments we receive. If our review of the comments indicates that changes to the regulations promulgated in the interim rule are warranted, we will amend the regulations accordingly. Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701-7772 and 7781-7786; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. Section 301.75-15 issued under Sec. 204, Title II, Pub. L. 106-113, 113 Stat. 1501A-293; sections 301.75-15 and 301.75-16 issued under Sec. 203, Title II, Pub. L. 106-224, 114 Stat. 400 (7 U.S.C. 1421 note). Done in Washington, DC, this 17th day of May 2007. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E7-9898 Filed 5-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-26120; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-184-AD; Amendment 39-15051; AD 2007-10-10] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300-600 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for all Airbus Model A300-600 series airplanes. This AD requires revising the Airworthiness Limitations section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate new limitations for fuel tank systems. This AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to prevent the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors caused by latent failures, alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. DATES: This AD becomes effective June 27, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of June 27, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC. Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, for service information identified in this AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Stafford, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-1622; fax

(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Examining the Docket You may examine the airworthiness directive

(AD)docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone

(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Discussion The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to all Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes and Model C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called A300-600 series airplanes). That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on December 14, 2006 (71 FR 75145). That NPRM proposed to require revising the Airworthiness Limitations section

(ALS)of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate new limitations for fuel tank systems. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comments received. Request To Extend Compliance Time for Task 28-18-00-03-1 Airbus requests that we extend the compliance time for the initial accomplishment of Task 28-18-00-03-1, “Operational check of lo-level/underfull/calibration sensors,” from 34,000 total flight hours to 40,000 flight hours since first aircraft entry into service. Airbus states that it is reviewing all the European Aviation Safety Agency

(EASA)airworthiness directives for fuel airworthiness limitations and has found a deviation in the compliance time from what the EASA and Airbus had intended to be a grace period for operators. Airbus also states that the EASA is considering further rulemaking to extend the compliance time. We agree to extend the initial compliance time of Task 28-18-00-03-1. Therefore, we have revised paragraph (g)(1) of this AD to specify an initial compliance time of prior to the accumulation of 40,000 total flight hours. We have coordinated this change with the EASA. Further, we have also revised paragraph

(f)of this AD to clarify the initial compliance time for all other tasks specified in Section 1, “Maintenance/Inspection Tasks,” of Airbus A300-600 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1929/05, Issue 1, dated December 19, 2005 (hereafter referred to as “Section 1 of Document 95A.1929/05”). The initial compliance time of those tasks starts from the later of the following times:

(1)The effective date of this AD, or

(2)the date of issuance of the original French standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original French export certificate of airworthiness. We have also coordinated these compliance time changes with the EASA. Since the changes are relieving, the scope of this AD has not been expanded. Request To Reference the Airplane Maintenance Manual

(AMM)FedEx requests that either Airbus revise Section 1 of Document 95A.1929/05, or we revise this AD to refer to the applicable sections of the Airbus A300-600 AMM or other service documents that describe the actions necessary to comply with this AD. As justification for its request, FedEx states that although Section 1 of Document 95A.1929/05 refers to maintenance tasks 28-18-00-01-1, 28-18-00-02-1, and 28-18-00-03-1, those tasks are not defined in the document. We agree to identify the applicable sections of the Airbus A300-600 AMM necessary for accomplishing the tasks specified in Section 1 of Document 95A.1929/05. Airbus issued Operator Information Telex

(OIT)SE 999.0076/06, dated June 20, 2006, to identify the applicable sections of the AMM. We have added Note 2 to this AD to reference that OIT. Request To Extend Compliance Time for Incorporating Section 1 FedEx requests that we extend the compliance time for incorporating Section 1 of Document 95A.1929/05 into its maintenance program. FedEx states that it will have to develop, review, and approve inspection and maintenance documents, as well as have those documents approved by the FAA. FedEx further states that its experience has shown that accomplishing this requirement will take more time; therefore, FedEx requests that we extend the compliance time from 3 months to 6 months. We disagree with extending the compliance time. The compliance time in this AD agrees with what the EASA mandated in airworthiness directive 2006-0201, dated July 11, 2006, to ensure the continued airworthiness of Model A300-600 series airplanes in the European Union. We accept the EASA's position that 3 months is an appropriate amount of time to update maintenance procedures. Additionally, we are aware that some operators have already updated their maintenance tasks and have done so within 3 months, regardless of fleet size. However, under the provisions of paragraph

(j)of this AD, we may approve requests for adjustments to the compliance time if data are submitted to substantiate that such an adjustment would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed this AD in this regard. Request To Specify the Revision Level of the Referenced Maintenance Documents FedEx requests that Airbus revise Section 2 of Airbus A300-600 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1929/05, Issue 1, dated December 19, 2005 (hereafter referred to as “Section 2 of Document 95A.1929/05”) to include revision levels for the referenced maintenance documents. As an alternative, FedEx proposes that we specify the appropriate revision levels in this AD. As justification, FedEx states that the maintenance documents referenced in Section 2 of Document 95A.1929/05 do not include the revision levels. We disagree with revising this AD to refer to specific revision levels for the referenced maintenance documents. It is the responsibility of an operator to ensure that its internal documentation is amended to reflect the data contained in Section 2 of Document 95A.1929/05 and to include the appropriate text in the operator's FAA-approved maintenance manual. We have not changed this AD in this regard. Request To Revise the Wording of the Requirements FedEx states that instructing operators to “Revise the ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness” is confusing and does not clearly communicate what the requirements are. FedEx has proposed the following revision:

(1)Within 3 months, the operator's scheduled maintenance program must be revised to include the maintenance/inspection tasks given in Section 1 of Airbus document 95A.1929/05, and,

(2)Within 12 months, the operator's maintenance documents listed in Section 2 of Airbus document 95A.1929/05 must be revised to the revision levels indicated. The Airbus manuals and revision levels listed in Section 2 include all the CDCCL information necessary for compliance with this AD. We understand FedEx's comment and welcome any feedback that would improve the readability or usability of an AD. In this case, we do not agree with the proposed wording. The wording that was used represents a standard approach and has been used for many years. The intent is to have all airworthiness limitations, regardless of whether imposed by original type certification or by a later AD, located in one immediately recognizable document. In 1980, the FAA identified the Airworthiness Limitations section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness as the appropriate document. We consider that not having all airworthiness limitations in one document could lead to confusion as to what is or what is not a mandatory maintenance action as identified in Federal Aviation Regulation, part 25, Appendix H, section H25.4. This is the basis of our requirement to have each operator maintain a current copy of the Airworthiness Limitations section. Concerning FedEx's statement that the AD does not clearly communicate what the actual compliance requirements are, we infer that the commenter is wondering if, after revising its copy of the Airworthiness Limitation section, there are other required actions such as ensuring that the operator's maintenance program is updated to incorporate the actions specified in the revised Airworthiness Limitations. Ensuring that one's maintenance program and the actions of its maintenance personnel are in accordance with the Airworthiness Limitations is required, but not by the AD. 14 CFR 91.403(c) specifies that no person may operate an aircraft for which airworthiness limitations have been issued unless those limitations have been complied with. Therefore, there is no need to further expand the requirements of the AD beyond that which was proposed because section 91.403(c) already imposes the appropriate required action after the airworthiness limitations are revised. We have not changed this AD in this regard. Changes to Language for Repetitive Intervals In paragraph

(f)of the NPRM, we stated that all tasks identified in Section 1 of Document 95A.1929/05 “* * * must be accomplished within the repetitive interval specified in Section 1 of Document 95A.1929/05 * * *.” We have revised paragraph

(f)of this AD to more clearly state that “* * * the repetitive inspections must be accomplished thereafter at the intervals specified in Section 1 of Document 95A.1929/05 * * * .” In paragraph

(g)of the NPRM, we stated that task 28-18-00-03-1 must be accomplished “within” the repetitive interval specified in Section 1 of Document 95A.1929/05. We have revised paragraph

(g)of this AD to state that task 28-18-00-03-1 must be accomplished “at” the repetitive interval specified in Section 1 of Document 95A.1929/05. Explanation of Change to Applicability We have revised the applicability of this AD to identify model designations as published in the most recent type certificate data sheet for the affected models. Clarification of Alternative Method of Compliance

(AMOC)Paragraph We have revised this action to clarify the appropriate procedure for notifying the principal inspector before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies. Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We have determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD. Costs of Compliance This AD affects about 138 airplanes of U.S. registry. The required actions take about 2 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the AD for U.S. operators is $22,080, or $160 per airplane. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

(2)Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and

(3)Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **2007-10-10 Airbus:** Amendment 39-15051. Docket No. FAA-2006-26120; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-184-AD. Effective Date

(a)This AD becomes effective June 27, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to all Airbus Model A300-600 series airplanes, certificated in any category. Note 1: This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new inspections and critical design configuration control limitations (CDCCLs). Compliance with the operator maintenance documents is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by these inspections and CDCCLs, the operator may not be able to accomplish the inspections and CDCCLs described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph

(j)of this AD. The request should include a description of changes to the required inspections and CDCCLs that will preserve the critical ignition source prevention feature of the affected fuel system. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to prevent the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors caused by latent failures, alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. Compliance

(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Revise Airworthiness Limitations Section

(ALS)To Incorporate Fuel Maintenance and Inspection Tasks

(f)Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, revise the ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate Airbus A300-600 ALS Part 5—Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, dated May 31, 2006, as defined in Airbus A300-600 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1929/05, Issue 1, dated December 19, 2005 (approved by the European Aviation Safety Agency

(EASA)on March 13, 2006), Section 1, “Maintenance/Inspection Tasks” (hereafter referred to as “Section 1 of Document 95A.1929/05”). For all tasks identified in Section 1 of Document 95A.1929/05, the initial compliance times start from the later of the times specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD, and the repetitive inspections must be accomplished thereafter at the intervals specified in Section 1 of Document 95A.1929/05, except as provided by paragraph

(g)of this AD.

(1)The effective date of this AD.

(2)The date of issuance of the original French standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original French export certificate of airworthiness. Note 2: Airbus Operator Information Telex

(OIT)SE 999.0076/06, dated June 20, 2006, identifies the applicable sections of the Airbus A300-600 airplane maintenance manual necessary for accomplishing the tasks specified in Section 1 of Document 95A.1929/05. Initial Compliance Time for Task 28-18-00-03-1

(g)For Task 28-18-00-03-1, “Operational check of lo-level/underfull/calibration sensors,” identified in Section 1 of Document 95A.1929/05: The initial compliance time is the later of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD. Thereafter, Task 28-18-00-03-1 must be accomplished at the repetitive interval specified in Section 1 of Document 95A.1929/05.

(1)Prior to the accumulation of 40,000 total flight hours.

(2)Within 72 months or 20,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first. Revise ALS To Incorporate CDCCLs

(h)Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, revise the ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate Airbus A300-600 ALS Part 5—Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, dated May 31, 2006, as defined in Airbus A300-600 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1929/05, Issue 1, dated December 19, 2005 (approved by the EASA on March 13, 2006), Section 2, “Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations.” No Alternative Inspections, Inspection Intervals, or CDCCLs

(i)Except as provided by paragraph

(j)of this AD: After accomplishing the actions specified in paragraphs

(f)and

(h)of this AD, no alternative inspections, inspection intervals, or CDCCLs may be used. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (j)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

(2)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector

(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. Related Information

(k)EASA airworthiness directive 2006-0201, dated July 11, 2006, also addresses the subject of this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference

(l)You must use Airbus A300-600 ALS Part 5—Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, dated May 31, 2006; and Airbus A300-600 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1929/05, Issue 1, dated December 19, 2005; as applicable; to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of these documents in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.* Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 7, 2007. Stephen P. Boyd, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-9399 Filed 5-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-26696; Directorate Identifier 2006-SW-19-AD; Amendment 39-15058; AD 2007-11-01] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Robinson Helicopter Company Model R44 and R44 II Helicopters AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for Robinson Helicopter Company (Robinson) Model R44 and R44 II helicopters that have a certain seat belt buckle (buckle) assembly installed, that requires removing the buckle assembly and the buckle assembly spacer, and replacing them with airworthy parts. This amendment is prompted by an accident in which a seat belt failed, and also by reports of cracking in the buckle assembly stainless support strap (support strap). The actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent cracking in the support strap and failure of a seat belt. DATES: Effective June 27, 2007. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of June 27, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may get the service information identified in this AD from Robinson Helicopter Company, 2901 Airport Drive, Torrance, California 90505, telephone

(310)539-0508, fax

(310)539-5198. *Examining The Docket:* You may examine the docket that contains this AD, any comments, and other information on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* , or at the Docket Management System (DMS), U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Room PL-401, on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Venessa Stiger, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, California 90712-4137, telephone

(562)627-5337, fax

(562)627-5210. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD for the specified model helicopters was published in the **Federal Register** on January 9, 2007 (72 FR 918). That action proposed to require, for Robinson Model R44 helicopters, through serial number (S/N) 1576, and Model R44 II helicopters, through S/N 11107, that have a C628-4, revision M or prior, buckle assembly installed, removing the buckle assembly and the A130-52 buckle assembly spacer and replacing them with a C628-4, revision N buckle assembly and a new A130-52 buckle assembly spacer within 100 hours time-in-service. We have reviewed Robinson Service SB-56, dated March 29, 2006, which describes procedures for inspecting the buckle assemblies for cracks and replacing the buckle assemblies. This AD does not require inspecting the buckle assemblies for cracks. Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. No comments were received on the proposal or the FAA's determination of the cost to the public. The FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed. The FAA estimates that this AD will affect 900 helicopters of U.S. registry, and replacing a buckle assembly will take approximately 0.2 work hour per buckle to accomplish at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately $105 for each C628-4, revision N buckle assembly, and $8.25 for each A130-52 buckle assembly spacer. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators to be $517 for each helicopter, or $465,300 for the entire fleet, assuming that four buckle assemblies and buckle assembly spacers are replaced in each helicopter. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD. See the DMS to examine the economic evaluation. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding a new airworthiness directive to read as follows: **2007-11-01 Robinson Helicopter Company:** Amendment 39-15058. Docket No. FAA-2006-26696; Directorate Identifier 2006-SW-19-AD. *Applicability:* Model R44 helicopters, through serial number (S/N) 1576, and Model R44 II helicopters, through S/N 11107, with a seat belt buckle assembly (buckle assembly) part number C628-4, revision M or prior, installed, certificated in any category. *Compliance:* Required within 100 hours time-in-service, unless accomplished previously. To prevent cracking in the buckle assembly stainless support strap and failure of a seat belt, accomplish the following:

(a)Remove the buckle assembly and any A130-52 buckle assembly spacer, and replace them with a C628-4, revision N buckle assembly and a new A130-52 buckle assembly spacer, in accordance with the Compliance Procedure, paragraph 3, in Robinson Helicopter Company Service Bulletin SB-56, dated March 29, 2006. The new A130-52 buckle assembly spacers have been redesigned to be slightly longer than the previous A130-52 buckle assembly spacers, to reduce friction in the joint. Note: Inspecting the buckle assembly for cracks is not required by this AD.

(b)Replacing the buckle assembly and buckle assembly spacer with a C628-4, Revision N buckle assembly and a new A130-52 buckle assembly spacer is a terminating action for the requirements of this AD.

(c)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Contact the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, ATTN: Venessa Stiger, Aviation Safety Engineer, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, California 90712-4137, telephone

(562)627-5337, fax

(562)627-5210, for information about previously approved alternative methods of compliance.

(d)The replacements shall be done in accordance with Robinson Helicopter Company Service Bulletin SB-56, dated March 29, 2006. The Director of the Federal Register approved this incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from Robinson Helicopter Company, 2901 Airport Drive, Torrance, California 90505, telephone

(310)539-0508, fax

(310)539-5198. Copies may be inspected at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html* .

(e)This amendment becomes effective on June 27, 2007. Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 8, 2007. David A. Downey, Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-9687 Filed 5-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-26864; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-228-AD; Amendment 39-15053; AD 2007-10-12] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-200, -300, -400, -500, -600, -700, -800, and -900 Series Airplanes; Boeing Model 757-200 and -300 Series Airplanes; and McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-10, DC-10-10F, DC-10-30, DC-10-30F, DC-10-40, MD-10-30F, MD-11, and MD-11F Airplanes; Equipped With Reinforced Flight Deck Doors Installed in Accordance With Supplemental Type Certificate

(STC)ST01335LA, STC ST01334LA, and STC ST01391LA, Respectively AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD), which applies to certain transport category airplanes identified above. That AD currently requires modification of the reinforced flight deck door and other actions related to the reinforced flight deck door. Those other actions include modifying the door, inspecting and modifying wiring in the area, and revising the maintenance program to require more frequent testing of the decompression panels of the flight deck door. This new AD continues to require the existing requirements. This new AD adds airplanes to the existing requirement of a one-time inspection for chafing of wire bundles in the area of the flight deck door and corrective actions if necessary. This proposed AD also removes certain airplanes from the applicability. This AD results from a report of smoke and fumes in the cockpit of a Model 737-300 series airplane. We are issuing this AD to prevent inadvertent release of the decompression latch and consequent opening of the decompression panel in the flight deck door, or penetration of the flight deck door by smoke, any of which could result in injury to the airplane flightcrew. We are also proposing this AD to detect and correct wire chafing, which could result in arcing, fire, and/or reduced controllability of the airplane. DATES: This AD becomes effective June 27, 2007. On July 19, 2005 (70 FR 34316, June 14, 2005), the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain service information. On July 25, 2003 (68 FR 41063, July 10, 2003), the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain other service information. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024); or C&D Aerospace, 5701 Bolsa Avenue, Huntington Beach, California 92647-2063; for service information identified in this AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron Atmur, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone

(562)627-5224; fax

(562)627-5210. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Examining the Docket You may examine the airworthiness directive

(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Discussion The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that supersedes AD 2005-12-05, amendment 39-14121 (70 FR 34316, June 14, 2005). (A correction of that AD was published in the **Federal Register** on June 28, 2005 (70 FR 37152).) The existing AD applies to Boeing Model 737-200, -300, -400, -500, -600, -700, -800, and -900 series airplanes; Boeing Model 757-200 and -300 series airplanes; and McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-10, DC-10-10F, DC-10-30, DC-10-30F, DC-10-40, MD-10-10F, MD-10-30F, MD-11, and MD-11F airplanes. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on January 19, 2007 (72 FR 2475). That NPRM proposed to continue to require modification of the reinforced flight deck door and other actions related to the reinforced flight deck door. Those other actions include modifying the door, inspecting and modifying wiring in the area, and revising the maintenance program to require more frequent testing of the decompression panels of the flight deck door. That NPRM also proposed to add airplanes to the existing requirement of a one-time inspection for chafing of wire bundles in the area of the flight deck door and corrective actions if necessary. That NPRM also proposed to remove certain airplanes from the applicability. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comments that have been received on the NPRM. Support for the NPRM Boeing, United Airlines, and the Air Line Pilots Association, International

(ALPA)support the intent of the NPRM. Request To Issue a Separate AD United Airlines requests that rather than superseding the existing AD, we issue a separate AD action since the new proposed actions are applicable only to the Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. The commenter states that if the existing AD is superseded, numerous documents must be updated for all airplane models affected by the earlier actions. The commenter asserts that superseding an already complex compliance plan provides an opportunity for non-compliance and unnecessarily increases an operator's workload. We acknowledge that the less burdensome approach is to issue a separate AD that applies only to the Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. Further, our normal policy is to issue a separate AD when any new requirements would affect only a small portion of the affected airplanes, so that we do not burden operators with the workload associated with revising maintenance record entries. However, in this case, we determined that the existing AD needed to be superseded because we are also removing certain airplanes from the applicability. For certain operators, this final rule is relieving in nature. Therefore, we have not revised this AD in this regard. Clarification of Alternative Method of Compliance

(f)of this AD (required by AD 2005-12-05) 737-200, -300, -400, -500, -600, -700, -800, and -900 series airplanes, with flight deck door assembly P/N B221001 1 1 $0 $80 1,040 $83,200 757-200 and -300 series airplanes, with flight deck door assembly P/N B231001 2 1 0 160 519 83,040 DC-10-10F, DC-10-30, DC-10-30F, DC-10-40, MD-10-30F, MD-11, and MD-11F airplanes, with flight deck door assembly P/N B211200 2 1 0 160 21 3,360 Revision in paragraph

(i)of this AD (required by AD 2005-12-05) 757-200 and -300 series airplanes 1 None 80 651 52,080 Modification in paragraph

(j)of this AD (required by AD 2005-12-05) 737-200, -300, -400, -500, -600, -700, -800, and -900 series airplanes; and 757-200 and -300 series airplanes; with flight deck door assembly P/N B221200 1 1 0 80 1,673 133,840 DC-10-10, DC-10-10F, DC-10-30, DC-10-30F, DC-10-40, MD-10-30F, MD-11, and MD-11F airplanes, with flight deck door assembly P/N B211200 1 1 0 80 155 12,400 MD-11 and MD-11F airplanes, with flight deck door assembly P/N B251200 1 1 0 80 6 480 Wiring rework in paragraph (m)(1) of this AD (required by AD 2005-12-05) 737-200 series airplanes, with flight deck door assembly P/N B221001 1 None 80 134 10,720 Inspection in paragraph (m)(2) of this AD (required by AD 2005-12-05) 737-200 series airplanes, with flight deck door assembly P/N B221001 2 None 160 134 21,440 Inspection in paragraph

(o)of this AD (additional airplanes) 737-300, -400, -500 series airplanes, with flight deck door assembly P/N B221001 2 None 160 529 84,640 1 The parts manufacturer states that it will supply required parts to operators at no cost. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

(2)Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and

(FAA)amends § 39.13 by removing amendment 39-14121 (70 FR 34316, June 14, 2005), corrected at 70 FR 37152, June 28, 2005, and by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **2007-10-12 Boeing:** Amendment 39-15053. Docket No. FAA-2007-26864; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-228-AD. Effective Date

(a)This AD becomes effective June 27, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)This AD supersedes AD 2005-12-05. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to airplanes identified in Table 1 of this AD, certificated in any category. Table 1.—Applicability Airplane manufacturer Airplane model Equipped with C&D Zodiac, Inc. reinforced flight deck doors installed in accordance with Supplemental Type Certificate (STC)— Boeing 737-200, -300, -400, -500, -600, -700, -800, and -900 series airplanes ST01335LA Boeing 757-200 and -300 series airplanes ST01334LA McDonnell Douglas DC-10-10, DC-10-10F, DC-10-30, DC-10-30F, DC-10-40, MD-10-30F, MD-11, and MD-11F airplanes ST01391LA Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from a report of smoke and fumes in the cockpit of a Model 737-300 series airplane. We are issuing this AD to prevent inadvertent release of the decompression latch and consequent opening of the decompression panel in the flight deck door, or penetration of the flight deck door by smoke, any of which could result in injury to the airplane flightcrew. We are also issuing this AD to detect and correct wire chafing, which could result in arcing, fire, and/or reduced controllability of the airplane. Compliance

(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Restatement of Requirements of AD 2005-12-05 Note 1: Where there are differences between this AD and the referenced service bulletins, this AD prevails. Modification

(f)For airplanes listed in Table 2 of this AD: Within 90 days after July 25, 2003 (the effective date of AD 2003-14-04, amendment 39-13223), modify the reinforced flight deck door according to paragraph (f)(1), (f)(2), or (f)(3) of this AD, as applicable. (AD 2003-14-04 was superseded by AD 2005-12-05.) Table 2.—Airplane Models Subject to Requirements of AD 2003-14-04 Airplane manufacturer Airplane models Identified in C&D Aerospace Service Bulletin Boeing 737-200, -300, -400, -500, -600, -700, -800, and -900 series airplanes B221001-52-03, Revision 3, dated March 25, 2003. Boeing 757-200 and -300 series airplanes B231001-52-02, Revision 4, dated March 19, 2003. McDonnell Douglas DC-10-10F, DC-10-30, DC-10-30F, DC-10-40, MD-10-30F, MD-11, and MD-11F airplanes B211200-52-02, Revision 1, dated June 3, 2003.

(1)For Boeing Model 737-200, -300, -400, -500, -600, -700, -800, and -900 series airplanes: Modify the upper and lower pressure relief latch assemblies on the flight deck door by doing all actions specified in and according to paragraphs 3.A., 3.B., and 3.C. of the Accomplishment Instructions of C&D Aerospace Service Bulletin B221001-52-03, Revision 3, dated March 25, 2003. One latch strap should be installed at the bottom of the upper pressure relief assembly, and a second latch strap should be installed at the top of the lower pressure relief assembly. When properly installed, the strap should cover a portion of the latch hook.

(2)For Boeing Model 757-200 and -300 series airplanes: Modify the upper and lower pressure relief latch assemblies on the flight deck door by doing all actions specified in and according to paragraphs 3.A., 3.B., and 3.C. of the Accomplishment Instructions of C&D Aerospace Service Bulletin B231001-52-02, Revision 4, dated March 19, 2003. One latch strap should be installed at the bottom of the upper pressure relief assembly, and a second latch strap should be installed at the top of the lower pressure relief assembly. When properly installed, the strap should cover a portion of the latch hook.

(3)For McDonnell Douglas DC-10-10F, DC-10-30, DC-10-30F, DC-10-40, MD-10-30F, MD-11, and MD-11F airplanes: Install spacers in the upper and lower pressure relief latch assemblies of the flight deck door, by doing all actions specified in and according to paragraphs 3.A., 3.C., and 3.D. of C&D Aerospace Service Bulletin B211200-52-02, Revision 1, dated June 3, 2003; or Revision 2, dated September 29, 2003. Modifications Accomplished Per Previous Issues of Service Bulletin

(g)For airplanes listed in Table 2 of this AD: Modifications accomplished before July 25, 2003, in accordance with a service bulletin listed in paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), or (g)(3) of this AD; as applicable; are considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding action specified in paragraph

(f)of this AD.

(1)For Boeing Model 737-200, -300, -400, -500, -600, -700, -800, and -900 series airplanes: C&D Aerospace Service Bulletin B221001-52-03, dated December 6, 2002; Revision 1, dated January 2, 2003; or Revision 2, dated February 20, 2003.

(2)For Boeing Model 757-200 and -300 series airplanes: C&D Aerospace Service Bulletin B231001-52-02, dated December 6, 2002; Revision 1, dated January 2, 2003; Revision 2, dated February 20, 2003; or Revision 3, dated March 7, 2003.

(3)For McDonnell Douglas DC-10-10F, DC-10-30, DC-10-30F, DC-10-40, MD-10-30F, MD-11, and MD-11F airplanes: C&D Aerospace Service Bulletin B211200-52-02, dated April 30, 2003. Parts Installation

(h)As of July 25, 2003, no person may install, on any airplane, a reinforced flight deck door having any part number (P/N) listed in paragraph 1.A. of C&D Aerospace Service Bulletin B221001-52-03, Revision 3, dated March 25, 2003; B231001-52-02, Revision 4, dated March 19, 2003; or B211200-52-02, Revision 1, dated June 3, 2003; as applicable; unless the door has been modified as required by paragraph

(f)of this AD. Model 737 and 757 Series Airplanes: Revise Maintenance Program

(i)For Boeing Model 737-200, -300, -400, -500, -600, -700, -800, and -900 series airplanes; and Model 757-200 and -300 series airplanes: Within 6 months after July 19, 2005 (the effective date of AD 2005-12-05), revise the FAA-approved maintenance inspection program to include the information specified in C&D Aerospace Report CDRB22-69, Revision E, dated November 8, 2002. Modifications to Flight Deck Door

(j)Modify the reinforced flight deck door by doing all applicable actions specified in the applicable service bulletin listed in Table 3 of this AD at the applicable compliance time specified in that table. Where the applicable service bulletin includes an instruction to install a placard to show that the service bulletin has been accomplished, this AD does not require that action. Table 3.—New Modifications to the Flight Deck Door For these models— Equipped with a flight deck door assembly having this P/N— Within this compliance time after July 19, 2005— months Do all actions in the accomplishment instructions of— McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-10, DC-10-10F, DC-10-30, DC-10-30F, DC-10-40, MD-10-30F, MD-11, and MD-11F airplanes B211200 6 C&D Aerospace Service Bulletin B211200-52-01, Revision 3, dated September 18, 2003. McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11 and MD-11F airplanes B251200 6 C&D Aerospace Service Bulletin B251200-52-01, dated April 30, 2003. Boeing Model 737-200, -300, -400, -500, -600, -700, -800, and -900 series airplanes; and Model 757-200 and -300 series airplanes B221200 18 C&D Aerospace Service Bulletin B221200-52-01, Revision 1, dated June 27, 2003. Boeing Model 737-200, -300, -400, -500, -600, -700, -800, and -900 series airplanes B221001 18 C&D Aerospace Service Bulletin B221001-52-03, Revision 3, dated March 25, 2003; except as provided by paragraph

(k)of this AD. Boeing Model 757-200 and -300 series airplanes B231001 18 C&D Aerospace Service Bulletin B231001-52-02, Revision 4, dated March 19, 2003; except as provided by paragraph

(k)of this AD. McDonnell Douglas DC-10-10, DC-10-10F, DC-10-30, DC-10-30F, DC-10-40, MD-10-30F, MD-11, and MD-11F airplanes B211200 18 C&D Aerospace Service Bulletin B211200-52-02, Revision 1, dated June 3, 2003; or Revision 2, dated September 29, 2003; except as provided by paragraph

(k)of this AD.

(k)For airplanes subject to paragraph

(f)of this AD: Actions required by paragraph

(f)of this AD that were done within the compliance time specified in paragraph

(f)of this AD do not need to be repeated in accordance with paragraph

(j)of this AD. Modifications Accomplished per Previous Issues of Service Bulletin

(l)Modifications accomplished before July 19, 2005, in accordance with an applicable service bulletin listed in Table 4 of this AD are considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding action specified in paragraph

(j)of this AD. Table 4.—Acceptable Service Information for Previous Modifications Service Bulletin Revision level Date C&D Aerospace Service Bulletin B211200-52-01 Original February 27, 2003. C&D Aerospace Service Bulletin B211200-52-01 1 March 7, 2003. C&D Aerospace Service Bulletin B211200-52-01 2 June 3, 2003. C&D Aerospace Service Bulletin B211200-52-02 Original April 30, 2003. C&D Aerospace Service Bulletin B221001-52-03 Original December 6, 2002. C&D Aerospace Service Bulletin B221001-52-03 1 January 2, 2003. C&D Aerospace Service Bulletin B221001-52-03 2 February 20, 2003. C&D Aerospace Service Bulletin B221200-52-01 Original April 30, 2003. C&D Aerospace Service Bulletin B231001-52-02 Original December 6, 2002. C&D Aerospace Service Bulletin B231001-52-02 1 January 2, 2003. C&D Aerospace Service Bulletin B231001-52-02 2 February 20, 2003. C&D Aerospace Service Bulletin B231001-52-02 3 March 7, 2003. Model 737-200 Series Airplanes: Wiring Modification/Inspection

(m)For Boeing Model 737-200 series airplanes equipped with flight deck door assembly P/N B221001: Within 18 months after July 19, 2005, do paragraphs (m)(1) and (m)(2) of this AD.

(1)Rework the wiring for the flight deck door to relocate a power wire for the flight deck door, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of C&D Aerospace Alert Service Bulletin B221001-52A05, Revision 3, dated October 3, 2003. Actions accomplished before July 19, 2005, in accordance with C&D Aerospace Alert Service Bulletin B221001-52A05, dated April 17, 2003; Revision 1, dated May 14, 2003; or Revision 2, dated June 19, 2003; are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding action required by this paragraph.

(2)Perform a general visual inspection for chafing of wire bundles in the area of the flight deck door and applicable corrective actions by doing all of the actions in the Accomplishment Instructions of C&D Aerospace Alert Service Bulletin B221001-52A02, dated November 5, 2002; except where the service bulletin specifies installing a placard, this AD does not require that action. Any applicable corrective actions must be done before further flight. Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, a general visual inspection is “a visual examination of an interior or exterior area, installation or assembly to detect obvious damage, failure or irregularity. This level of inspection is made from within touching distance unless otherwise specified. A mirror may be necessary to ensure visual access to all surfaces in the inspection area. This level of inspection is made under normal available lighting conditions such as daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight or drop-light and may require removal or opening of access panels or doors. Stands, ladders or platforms may be required to gain proximity to the area being checked.” Parts Installation

(n)As of July 19, 2005, no person may install a reinforced flight deck door under any STC listed in Table 1 of this AD, on any airplane, unless all applicable requirements of this AD have been done on the door. New Requirements of This AD Inspection and Corrective Actions if Necessary for Certain Airplanes

(o)For Boeing Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes equipped with flight deck door assembly P/N B221001: Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraph (m)(2) of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (p)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

(3)AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 2005-12-05 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference

(q)You must use the service information listed in Table 5 of this AD to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. Table 5.—Material Incorporated by Reference Service information Revision level Date C&D Aerospace Alert Service Bulletin B221001-52A02 Original November 5, 2002. C&D Aerospace Alert Service Bulletin B221001-52A05 3 October 3, 2003. C&D Aerospace Service Bulletin B211200-52-01 3 September 18, 2003. C&D Aerospace Service Bulletin B211200-52-02 1 June 3, 2003. C&D Aerospace Service Bulletin B211200-52-02 2 September 29, 2003. C&D Aerospace Service Bulletin B221001-52-03 3 March 25, 2003. C&D Aerospace Service Bulletin B221200-52-01 1 June 27, 2003. C&D Aerospace Service Bulletin B231001-52-02 4 March 19, 2003. C&D Aerospace Service Bulletin B251200-52-01 Original April 30, 2003. C&D Aerospace Report CDRB22-69 E November 8, 2002.

(1)On July 19, 2005 (70 FR 34316, June 14, 2005), the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the service information listed in Table 6 of this AD. Table 6.—Material Incorporated by Reference on July 19, 2005 Service information Revision level Date C&D Aerospace Alert Service Bulletin B221001-52A02 Original November 5, 2002. C&D Aerospace Alert Service Bulletin B221001-52A05 3 October 3, 2003. C&D Aerospace Service Bulletin B211200-52-01 3 September 18, 2003. C&D Aerospace Service Bulletin B211200-52-02 2 September 29, 2003. C&D Aerospace Service Bulletin B221200-52-01 1 June 27, 2003. C&D Aerospace Service Bulletin B251200-52-01 Original April 30, 2003. C&D Aerospace Report CDRB22-69 E November 8, 2002.

(2)On July 25, 2003 (68 FR 41063, July 10, 2003), the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the service information listed in Table 7 of this AD. Table 7.—Material Incorporated by Reference on July 25, 2003 Service Bulletin Revision level Date C&D Aerospace Service Bulletin B211200-52-02 1 June 3, 2003. C&D Aerospace Service Bulletin B221001-52-03 3 March 25, 2003. C&D Aerospace Service Bulletin B231001-52-02 4 March 19, 2003.

(3)Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024); or C&D Aerospace, 5701 Bolsa Avenue, Huntington Beach, California 92647-2063; for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html* . Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 7, 2007. Stephen P. Boyd, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-9842 Filed 5-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 158 [Docket No. FAA-2006-23730; Amendment No. 158-4] RIN 2120-AI68 Passenger Facility Charge Program, Debt Service, Air Carrier Bankruptcy, and Miscellaneous Changes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This final rule amends FAA regulations dealing with the Passenger Facility Charge

(PFC)program to add more eligible uses for revenue, protect such revenue in bankruptcy proceedings, and eliminate charges to passengers on military charters. These changes respond to the Vision 100—Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act. This final rule also revises current reporting requirements to reflect technological improvements, and to clarify and update existing references and regulations. This final rule further streamlines the existing policies of the PFC program. DATES: This amendment becomes effective June 22, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning this final rule, contact Sheryl Scarborough, Airports Financial Analysis and Passenger Facility Charge Branch, APP-510, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; *telephone:*

(202)267-8825; *facsimile:*

(202)267-5302; *e-mail: sheryl.scarborough@faa.gov* . For legal questions concerning this final rule, contact Beth Weir, Airports Law Branch, AGC-610, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone

(202)267-5880; facsimile:

(202)267-5769. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40117. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to impose a passenger facility fee to finance eligible airport-related projects. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because Vision 100 requires the FAA to change the PFC program. Many actions in this document are in response to Vision 100. Background On March 23, 2005, the FAA published a final rule establishing a 3-year pilot program for non-hub airports to test new application and application approval procedures for the PFC program (70 FR 14928). The 2005 final rule contains several changes designed to streamline the PFC application and amendment procedures for all PFC applications and amendments, thereby improving the entire PFC program. The FAA published the 2005 final rule to address Congressional mandates in the Vision 100—Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act (Vision 100). The non-hub pilot program, with the PFC application streamlining procedures, however, was only one of six mandates specified in Vision 100. The FAA separated the non-hub program and related changes from the other mandates because Congress had required the FAA to publish proposed rules on the pilot program within 180 days of enactment of Vision 100. On February 1, 2006, the FAA published the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), “Passenger Facility Charge Program, Debt Service, Air Carrier Bankruptcy, and Miscellaneous Changes” (71 FR 5188) to address the remaining mandates in Vision 100. These mandates include:

(1)Making low-emission airport vehicles and ground support equipment eligible for PFC funding,

(2)Using PFCs to pay debt service on projects that are “not an eligible airport-related project” when there is a financial need at an airport,

(3)Clarifying the PFC status of military charters,

(4)Structuring PFC account requirements for carriers in bankruptcy, and

(5)Making eligible the use of PFC revenue as local share for projects under the air traffic modernization cost-sharing program. In addition, the FAA is adopting other changes that streamline benefits beyond those contained in the 2005 final rule. These changes will:

(1)Provide for the electronic filing of notices and reports,

(2)Provide a process for periodic review and change of the carrier compensation level, and

(3)Modify the content and due date for some public agency reports and notices. Summary of Comments The FAA received 12 comments. All of the commenters generally support the proposed changes. These comments include suggested changes, as discussed below. Seven of the comments are from public agencies: Allegheny County Airport Authority, Pittsburgh, PA; Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority, Charlottesville, VA; City and County of Denver, Denver, CO; Mahlon Sweet Field, Eugene, OR; Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, New York, NY; Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport, San Jose, CA; and City of St. Louis, St. Louis, MO. Two comments are from aviation industry groups: The Air Transport Association of America and the Airports Council International—North America. Two comments are from private citizens: Steven E. Myers and Kanisha K. Carty. One comment was submitted anonymously. *In the discussion of comments below, the following applies:*

(1)*Acronyms:* The FAA uses the following acronyms or shortened names to identify the associated commenters: • Air Transport Association of America

(ATA)• Airports Council International—North America

(ACI)• Allegheny County Airport Authority (Pittsburgh) • Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority (Charlottesville) • City of St. Louis (St. Louis) • City and County of Denver (Denver) • Mahlon Sweet Field (Eugene) • Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport (San Jose) • Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) General Comments The FAA received general comments about the PFC program from Pittsburgh, ACI, and Charlottesville. Pittsburgh believes the FAA has not gone far enough to make the PFC program a much more efficient and effective capital funding source for all domestic commercial service airports. Pittsburgh contends there should be an increase in the PFC level with the maximum level indexed on a yearly basis to inflation. Pittsburgh also claims the use of PFCs should be expanded to any airport-related capital project. ACI believes the PFC program should become an “impose and audit” program where an airport would make the local decision to impose a PFC and then certify to the FAA the airport used the PFC revenues on eligible capital projects or debt service. ACI would also like to see the non-hub pilot program (§ 158.30) expanded to more airports. ACI also expressed concern about potential administrative problems which could arise from the lengthy payout process for projects financed by debt instruments. ACI argued it is concerned about the potential for an “administrative accident” that could impair the ability of an airport to continue to make its debt service payments for the full term of the indebtedness. Charlottesville is concerned about airlines requiring airports to accept PFC remittances by wire transfer. Charlottesville stated its bank charges the airport $0.26 per wire received. Charlottesville requested the FAA consider adding language to the proposed rulemaking to make the method of PFC remittance the airport's choice, not the airline's requirement. Pittsburgh's and ACI's comments regarding recasting the PFC program as an “impose and audit program” and expanding the non-hub pilot program to additional airports address areas outside the scope of this rulemaking. The proposals suggested by Pittsburgh and ACI would require changes to the PFC statute (49 U.S.C. 40117). ACI was unclear in its comments as to who, public agencies or the FAA, might have caused the “administrative accidents” during the closeout process. The FAA recently completed development and implementation of a program management system that should prevent the FAA from prematurely closing a PFC decision. The database requires the charge expiration date to be reached, and all projects to be physically and financially completed before the FAA can close a decision. Financial completion occurs after the approved amount of PFC revenue has been collected and the PFC portion of the project, including any debt instruments, paid. Public agencies may access and use the system to better monitor their PFC programs, thus minimizing administrative problems. Charlottesville's comments regarding the method of PFC remittance are also outside the scope of this rulemaking and were not included in the economic analysis. The FAA may consider this issue in a future rulemaking. However, it is unlikely that the FAA would consider a $0.26 charge for each wire transfer as burdensome on the airport. Such a charge would cost the airport no more than $3.12 per air carrier each year. Weighed against the systematic convenience of a wire transfer which could reduce the chance of loss or delay, this cost appears reasonable. The FAA made no changes to part 158 because of these general comments. Changes Mandated by Vision 100 Low-Emission Airport Vehicles and Ground Support Equipment This provision makes low-emission airport vehicles and ground support equipment eligible for PFC funding if the airport is located in an air quality nonattainment or maintenance area. Kanisha Carty recommended, for a future rulemaking, that airport projects to reduce emissions from vehicles and ground support equipment be made mandatory. PANYNJ does not agree with the low emission standards contained in the Voluntary Airport Low Emission

(VALE)Technical Guidance document. PANYNJ argued the current VALE criteria are inflexible and unrealistic. PANYNJ believes there is a gap between the equipment the FAA has determined is eligible for VALE funding and the equipment actually available for purchase. ACI requested clarification of the eligibility for PFC funding of safety and security vehicles. ACI believes these types of vehicles were already eligible for full PFC funding and this preexisting eligibility is not clearly discussed in the NPRM. ACI also believes it would be beneficial to extend the eligibility to areas covered by Early Action Compacts. (Early Action Compacts are areas for which the effective date of the nonattainment designation has been deferred because the area is expected to reach or maintain attainment status by December 31, 2006. Note 6, List of U.S. Commercial Service Airports and Their Nonattainment and Maintenance Status.) ACI also pointed out a typographic error in § 158.15(b)(8). Ms. Carty's recommendation would be a fundamental change in the PFC program that could require a statutory change, as the PFC program does not enforce Federal priorities for project selection. Even if the proposal does not require statutory changes, public comment would be required before the FAA could adopt such a change. Therefore, the proposal to make the VALE Program mandatory is not included in this rulemaking. The FAA's Airports Planning and Environmental Division and the Environmental Protection Agency, as directed by Vision 100, determined the types of equipment eligible under the VALE Program jointly. This guidance, found in the VALE Technical Report at *http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/environmental/vale/media/VALE_TR_v3_092206.pdf* , was developed outside the parameters of this rulemaking. PANYNJ's comments have been forwarded to FAA's Airports Planning and Environmental Division for its consideration. This final rule adds a definition of “Ground Support Equipment” to § 158.3 to cover those vehicles that are eligible for the VALE Program but are not otherwise eligible for PFC funding. Aircraft rescue and firefighting, security, and snow removal vehicles are not included in this definition because these vehicles are already PFC-eligible under § 158.15(b)(1). To ease confusion over which vehicles are eligible for the VALE Program, the FAA is revising proposed § 158.15(b)(8) to clarify that the references to “vehicles” mean vehicles eligible under § 158.15(b)(1). The FAA is also correcting the typographic error identified by ACI in paragraph § 158.15(b)(8). Vision 100 specifically limits VALE projects to airports located in air quality nonattainment areas or maintenance areas as defined by sections 171(2) and 175A of the Clean Air Act, respectively. A statutory change is required to add areas covered by Early Action Compacts to this eligibility. Use of PFC Revenue To Pay for Debt Service for Non-Eligible Projects This provision allows the use of PFC revenue to pay debt service on projects that are not eligible airport-related projects when there is a financial need at the airport. Eugene argued, in the case of an airline bankruptcy which results in the rejection of a significant portion of air carrier gate leases, “significant” should be defined as rejection of 20 percent or more of the airport's leased gates. Eugene further holds that a significant reduction in air service should be defined as anything greater than a 10 percent reduction in enplanements at the airport. Eugene also believes that this provision should be geared towards something less than catastrophic changes in the airport's financial position. Eugene maintained the triggering events should include an airport having difficulty meeting industry standards for financial stability. Eugene suggested indicators of financial instability should include high airline rates and charges, a high percentage of reliance on airline revenue, reductions in force, deferred maintenance, negative equity, insufficient capital reserves, and other negative impacts created by a significant change. Finally, Eugene suggested that requests for use of PFCs to pay debt service for otherwise ineligible projects be treated differently than other requests for PFC collection authority. Eugene suggested, under circumstances in which the airport asserts that a financial need has been demonstrated and the incumbent carriers unanimously agree the existing part 158 criteria have been met, the FAA should grant extraordinary flexibility in the application of this rule. Eugene requested that, if the application is denied under this process, the FAA's decision include an explanation of the denial. PANYNJ believes airports should be given the flexibility to use PFCs for any airport project that is connected to the movement of people and cargo for the purposes of commerce, trade, travel, and tourism. PANYNJ also argued airports should be given the flexibility to use PFCs to pay debt service on non-eligible projects if the airport determines this use would be good fiscal management and would enable airport management to effectively maintain and operate the airport. ATA pointed out three inconsistencies between the statute and the proposed regulatory language. ATA noted that 49 U.S.C. 40117(b)(6) refers to “debt service on indebtedness” but §§ 158.13(e) and 158.18 refer to “debt service or indebtedness.” ATA expressed concern that the proposed language in §§ 158.13(e) and 158.18 referring to “indebtedness incurred to carry out an airport project” could be interpreted to permit the use of PFC funds for projects located off airport property. Finally, ATA noted that 49 U.S.C. 40117(b)(6) refers to “the financial need of the airport” but proposed §§ 158.13(e) and 158.18 refer to “the financial need of the public agency.” ATA is concerned this change from the statutory language could result in approval of debt service even if the financial need is not related to the airport. ACI requested clarification of the term “reserve fund” as it is used within the definition of “financial need.” ACI also requested clarification of the statement “cannot meet its operational or debt service obligations.” ACI is concerned the FAA meant an airport had to miss a required payment in order to qualify. ACI asked that several events be added to the list of events, provided in the NPRM preamble, which might contribute to a financial crisis at an airport. The first of ACI's suggested events is an airport being found in violation (including technical violation) of its bond covenant, trust indenture, or other financing requirements. ACI also would like to add the failure of an air carrier, whether or not in bankruptcy, to use the facilities at the airport for a significant period of time to the list of events contributing to a financial crisis at the airport. Two final triggering events suggested by ACI are the failure of a carrier to make timely payments to the airport and the failure of a carrier to collect or remit PFCs. ACI would also like the FAA to clarify when discussing air carriers in this context that the FAA means both domestic and foreign air carriers. ACI would also like to alter the proposed procedures airports must use to gain approval to use PFCs under this provision. ACI argued an airport should be allowed to use PFCs under this provision if the airport could demonstrate it otherwise would not be able to pay its debt service, meet coverage requirements, or otherwise be in violation of bond covenants based on prospective calculations. ACI argued if airports cannot rely on prospective calculations, PFCs would not be available for debt service until after a financial crisis. ACI also recommended airports not be required to go through the normal application process. Rather ACI recommended the following four-step process:

(1)The airport declares that it is experiencing a financial crisis;

(2)The airport notifies the FAA of the basis of the crisis;

(3)The airport applies (existing) PFCs to the immediate need; and

(4)The FAA reviews the application within 60 days of submission and either “ratifies” the airport's use of PFCs or requires some modification of the airport's use of PFCs. ACI concluded its comments on this provision by requesting that the proposed prohibition on an airport issuing new debt be revised. The first suggested revision would allow an airport to issue new debt to refund outstanding debt. The second revision would allow an airport to issue new debt if it can be shown that failure to do so would have greater financial repercussions. The comments submitted anonymously argued the proposed rule unnecessarily limits the use of PFCs to pay debt service on ineligible projects. The commenter also argued the FAA has not undertaken a substantive alternatives analysis on this provision. The commenter believes the FAA should provide “significant justifications” beyond the statutory mandate for the proposed rulemaking. In order to provide the maximum flexibility to each airport, the FAA has elected not to specify percentages with respect to a significant number of gates or reduction in air service since the appropriate percentage could vary from airport to airport. The FAA suggests an airport applying to collect and use PFCs under this provision determine what percentage of gates or air service is significant for its operations and defend that choice in its application. The FAA suggested several events in the preamble of the NPRM that might result in an airport finding itself in financial need. The FAA did not consider this listing to be comprehensive. An airport seeking to demonstrate its financial need is welcome to discuss any triggering events applicable to its unique situation. The FAA does not agree that all of the proposed indicators of financial instability provided by Eugene and ACI are, in fact, indicators of instability. Some of these indicators, including reductions in force and deferred maintenance, could be indicators of prudent financial management and/or changing priorities. Furthermore, terms such as “high airline rates and charges,” “a high percentage of reliance on airline revenue,” “the failure of an air carrier to use airport facilities for a significant period of time,” and “failure of a carrier to make timely payments to the airport” are vague and subjective and must be considered on an airport-by-airport basis. The FAA encourages each airport applying to use PFC revenue under this provision to thoroughly discuss in its application those factors it believes most clearly indicate its financial need. After reviewing ATA's comments on §§ 158.13(e) and 158.18(a), the FAA has concluded that an unintended consequence of the wording “indebtedness incurred to carry out an airport project” could be airports applying to use PFC revenue to pay the debt services costs for projects located off airport property if those projects were labeled as “airport projects.” The FAA does not believe that Congress intended for this provision to be used on off-airport projects. Therefore, the FAA has returned to the statutory language, “indebtedness incurred to carry out at the airport a project,” in this final rule. The FAA also acknowledges the typographic error, “debt service or indebtedness,” and has returned this rule language to “debt service on indebtedness.” Finally, the FAA acknowledges that the term “financial need of the public agency” could lead to requests to use PFCs to pay debt service on an otherwise ineligible project due to a financial crisis unrelated to the airport. The FAA does not believe Congress intended for this provision to be on a non-airport related financial need. Therefore, the FAA has returned to the statutory language “financial need of the airport,” in this final rule. The term “reserve fund” used within the new definition of “financial need” refers only to the operational or capital reserve fund and not any reserve funds required under financing documents. The FAA's definition of financial need as it concerns this provision concentrates on the ability of an airport to maintain airport/flight operations. However, the FAA does not intend that an airport miss required payments in order to demonstrate that it “cannot meet its operational or debt service obligations.” Rather, the FAA expects an airport attempting to demonstrate that it faces a financial crisis to discuss factors likely to affect its ability to make required payments in the future. Projections of revenue streams and cash flow would be relevant to that demonstration. The discussion in the preamble to the NPRM regarding the issuance of new debt does not prohibit the issuance of new debt. Rather, the FAA believes any airport that is granted authority to collect and use PFC revenue under this provision should use this revenue to help it return to a position of financial stability as quickly as possible. Therefore, as a part of its deliberations on the application, FAA will consider the airport's plans to return to financial stability. If an airport believes incurring new debt (for any purpose) will help it return to financial stability as soon as possible, it should discuss this factor in the application. The various proposals submitted by Eugene, PANYNJ, and ACI for the FAA on processing requests to collect and use PFC revenue to pay debt service for otherwise ineligible projects and defining eligibility are not being adopted in this final rule. Vision 100 clearly requires the FAA (representing the Secretary of Transportation) rather than the airport itself to determine that an airport is in financial need. Furthermore, Vision 100 does not provide any special processing language for this provision. Therefore, the processing provided for in 49 U.S.C. 40117, which requires the FAA make its decision prior to an airport collecting or using PFC revenue, must be applied to this provision. Similarly, proposals for defining eligibility go beyond the scope of the statute and cannot be implemented by rulemaking. The FAA has, since the beginning of the PFC program, included its reasons for every partial approval and disapproval of a project in its decisions. The FAA will continue this practice for any requests submitted under this provision that are denied. The anonymous commenter's argument appears to be based on the assumption that the FAA would not consider alternatives in its financial needs analysis of an airport's proposal. The FAA stated in the preamble to the NPRM that we will analyze each proposal on a case-by-case basis. This provision responds to a statutory mandate that is based on an airport's financial need. A structured model has the potential to be overly restrictive in a financial needs analysis. The FAA has chosen to make this provision flexible in order to allow each airport to tailor its application to its particular circumstances. Clarification of Applicability of PFCs to Military Charters This provision clarifies the PFC status of military charters. ACI expressed concern that § 158.9(a)(6), as written, would allow individual passengers flying on scheduled commercial air carrier flights to be exempt from paying PFCs. The FAA reviewed the proposed language in § 158.9(a)(6) and does not agree with this comment. Section 158.9(a)(6) reads as follows: “Enplaning at an airport if the passenger did not pay for the air transportation that resulted in the enplanements because of Department of Defense

(DOD)charter arrangements and payment.” By the use of the word “and,” the language, as written, imposes two conditions for the exemption—the passenger is on a flight chartered by DOD and the flight is paid for by DOD. This language does not apply to individuals who pay for their own transportation nor does it apply to individuals who are not traveling under DOD charter arrangements. Accordingly, the FAA made no changes to § 158.9(a)(6). Financial Management of Passenger Facility Fees This provision structures PFC account requirements for air carriers in bankruptcy. Denver expressed concern that the changes to the regulation proposed in the NPRM do not address who enforces compliance with the PFC statute and regulation when an air carrier files for bankruptcy protection. Denver requested that the regulations be modified to state that an airport has the legal standing to protect its PFCs. Denver requested the regulation specifically state an airport has a sufficient stake in the PFC program such that it is entitled to seek legal protection from a court with appropriate jurisdiction to compel an air carrier's compliance with the PFC regulation. In support of this request, Denver cited a recent bankruptcy case in which the bankrupt air carrier argued public agencies had no standing to enforce this provision of Vision 100. Denver also requested § 158.49 be modified to state that any party that holds PFCs for a public agency holds such PFCs in trust for the benefit of the public agency. Denver contended this relationship should extend to third parties, including credit card companies. Denver would also like the regulation to describe which parties beyond the covered air carrier shall be subject to the PFC regulations. Denver contended that § 158.49(b) recognizes the concept of an agent of the air carrier but does not define which third parties would be considered agents. Denver is concerned the proposed § 158.49(c) does not require a separate trust account for PFCs but leaves open the possibility that an air carrier could simply create a sub-account within an existing trust account and claim compliance with the “designate separate PFC account” requirement. Denver is concerned sub-accounts in existing trust fund accounts are typically controlled by the secured creditors and are subject to provisions in complex agreements not made available to the public agencies. Denver claimed the regulation should clarify post-petition accounting requirements and require covered air carriers to demonstrate how the “PFC reserve” for each affected airport was calculated. Denver also requested that the regulation make clear that any funds in the PFC reserve are in the nature of trust funds. Denver holds that these PFC reserve funds should be available to pay PFCs in the event a covered air carrier fails to make its PFC payments. Denver contended funds in the PFC reserve should only be released for non-PFC purposes after all affected airports have received the appropriate PFC remittances. Denver also argued the funds in the PFC reserve should be equitably allocated to all affected airports if a covered air carrier ceases operations. In addition, Denver requested the regulation provide the procedure to allow an airport to recover its costs when an airport is forced to protect its PFCs. Denver claimed it has expended funds to hire outside and local counsel, file motions, appear in court, and otherwise incur costs to protect its PFC revenues in four bankruptcy cases since Vision 100 was enacted. Denver believes it is unclear from the proposed regulation whether it should invoice a non-compliant air carrier, seek recovery through the FAA, or file a motion or complaint in the appropriate court. Denver suggests the regulation clarify that the right to compensation is a post-petition claim which should be treated as an administrative expense entitled to priority under 11 U.S.C. 503(b). Denver further suggests that the regulation provide that the claim should be allowed irrespective of any requirement in the Bankruptcy Code that the airport prove a “benefit to the estate.” Denver also suggests that the claim should be allowed in the event the bankruptcy case converts from Chapter 11 to Chapter 7. Denver would also like clarification regarding which costs are eligible for reimbursement. ACI recommended the definition of “covered air carrier” be expanded beyond the category specified by Vision 100 to include air carriers in financial distress, even if they have not yet declared or been forced into bankruptcy. ACI goes on to recommend that an air carrier which fails to remit PFCs in a timely manner or fails to properly report PFC collections to any airport be required, from that point forward, to place its PFC collections daily into a segregated escrow account or trust fund absolutely dedicated to the airports for which the air carrier collected them. ACI also argued that an air carrier that “cannot prove it can provide accurate accounting, on an airport-by-airport basis” should be required to establish separate PFC trust accounts for each airport. ACI also requested clarification of § 158.49(c)(1)(v), regarding reconciliation of an estimated PFC monthly balance. ACI is concerned this paragraph does not cover air carriers to reconcile the amounts in the PFC account if they deposit PFC revenues directly into the segregated PFC account. ACI also argued the word “unnecessarily” should be deleted from § 158.49(c)(4). ACI believes Vision 100 clearly states that any failure by a carrier to comply with any provision of subsection

(m)of Vision 100 that causes an airport to spend money to recover or retain its PFCs imposes an obligation on that carrier to compensate the airport for such costs. St. Louis is concerned with the language in § 158.49(c)(3) regarding the prohibition on covered air carriers granting security or other interests in PFC revenues to third parties. St. Louis claimed it has been told by air carriers that this language would prevent the carrier from granting a security interest in the PFCs to the airports on whose behalf the charges are collected. St. Louis requested the FAA clarify § 158.49(c)(3) since this section does not apply to public agencies but rather applies to banks and other airline creditors. ATA is concerned the definition of “covered air carrier” is overly broad because it does not protect air carriers from frivolous involuntary bankruptcy filings. ATA asserts that contracts which contain involuntary bankruptcy provisions typically include a grace period (usually 30 to 90 days) to obtain dismissal of any involuntary petition. ATA believes this grace period gives an air carrier time to resolve “illegitimate bankruptcy petitions and petty disputes.” ATA requested the definition of “covered air carrier” be modified to state an air carrier ceases to be a covered air carrier upon its exit from bankruptcy protection. ATA also requested the FAA allow for some flexibility in § 158.49(c) to reflect the complex nature of airline financial management. Neither 49 U.S.C. 40117 nor 14 CFR part 158 restricts the legal remedies available to public agencies. Since the beginning of the PFC program, public agencies have had legal rights with respect to PFC revenue. Public agencies are entitled to avail themselves of all legal remedies to ensure they receive the PFC revenue to which they are entitled. Specific enforcement responsibilities are not described in the existing PFC statute, 49 U.S.C. 40117, and further clarification to assist public agencies would require legislative action. The FAA believes the air carriers' assertion that airports have no standing with regard to PFC revenue in bankruptcy cases is ill-founded. However, in the case of PFC collection issues, the FAA works with all air carriers to bring them into compliance with PFC collection, handling, and remittance requirements so that the public agencies need not resort to legal challenges. On those occasions where, for whatever reason, the air carrier has insufficient PFC revenue in its accounts to meet all of its PFC obligations, the FAA works with the affected public agencies to ensure they are treated equally and receives their proportionate share of the available revenue. In the context of the PFC regulation, an “agent” of an air carrier is a third party who is authorized to issue airline tickets for the air carrier. Credit card companies, banks, and other secured creditors that are not authorized to issue airline tickets are not agents of the air carrier. Collecting air carriers are statutorily prohibited (49 U.S.C. 40117(m)(3)) from granting any third party an interest in trust moneys such as PFCs. If, through an agreement with an air carrier, a third party holds 100 percent of ticket revenue (which would include applicable PFCs), it would appear that the air carrier is violating this statutory prohibition. The only authorized holders of PFC revenue are air carriers and public agencies. Section 158.49(c)(1) specifies that a covered air carrier must segregate its PFC revenue in a designated separate PFC account. This PFC account is intended to hold all PFC revenue separate from any other air carrier revenue so that it is easier to identify in bankruptcy proceedings. A subaccount within an existing account would not meet this requirement for a separate PFC account. The “PFC reserve fund” is not calculated on an airport-by-airport basis. Rather, the reserve is equal to the one-month average of the air carrier's total PFC collections for the 12 months preceding its filing for bankruptcy protection. The FAA is adding language to § 158.49(c)(1)(ii) to indicate that, in the event a covered air carrier ceases operations while still owing PFC remittances, the PFC reserve fund could be used to make those remittances. The FAA is also adding language that the remaining balance, after all PFC obligations are met, will be returned to the air carrier's general account after the carrier emerges from bankruptcy and ceases to be a covered air carrier. The FAA is removing the word “unnecessarily” from § 158.49(c)(4). As mentioned above, this provision applies only to the reasonable and necessary costs incurred by a public agency seeking to recover or retain payment of PFCs when a covered air carrier refuses to remit the PFCs. Vision 100 does not contain formal instructions for public agencies on how to recover funds expended to recover or retain PFCs from a covered air carrier. Federal oversight has served to assist public agencies in the initial recovery of PFCs. However, public agencies are entitled to avail themselves of all legal remedies, to include filing of a post-petition administrative claim to recoup funds used for recovery or retaining PFCs with the appropriate Bankruptcy Court. The FAA takes this opportunity to clarify that the public agency's expenses discussed in § 158.49(c)(4) apply to those expenses that a public agency may incur when a covered air carrier refuses to remit PFCs. Bankruptcy law makes participation in a bankruptcy proceeding unavoidable for public agencies seeking to assure a carrier implements the PFC financial management requirements of Vision 100. Participation may be necessary even when the air carrier is willing to implement the provision. Expenses a public agency may choose to incur to generally represent its claims in a bankruptcy proceeding are not included in this provision. The FAA is not granting ACI's request to expand the definition of covered air carrier beyond those carriers filing for bankruptcy protection. ACI's request to include carriers in financial distress within the covered air carrier definition would require a statutory change. In addition, the FAA is not modifying part 158 to require an air carrier (not just a covered air carrier) that fails to remit PFCs or report PFC collections in a timely manner to place all PFC revenue daily in a segregated escrow account or a dedicated trust fund. This proposal goes beyond the scope of the NPRM and would require the opportunity for public comment before it could be adopted. The FAA did not include a requirement in § 158.49(c)(1)(iv) that a covered air carrier undertake a monthly reconciliation of actual monthly PFC amount for those carriers that are depositing the daily PFC amount in the segregated PFC account. Covered air carriers that deposit the daily PFC amount are depositing the actual amount collected less the air carrier compensation fee. The FAA is requiring covered air carriers that opt for the estimated monthly collection amount in § 158.49(c)(1)(v) to undertake a monthly reconciliation. We are adopting this requirement because the actual amount could be different from the estimated amount and we want to ensure the PFC account contains the funds necessary for the covered air carrier to meet its PFC obligations. The FAA is partially granting the relief sought by ATA with regard to frivolous involuntary bankruptcy filings. The FAA is modifying the definition of covered air carrier to provide a 90-day grace period to allow an air carrier to seek dismissal of an involuntary bankruptcy filing before the air carrier becomes a covered air carrier. However, this grace period will be limited to those air carriers that are current on their PFC remittances. The FAA is also revising the definition of “covered air carrier” to indicate that an air carrier ceases to be a covered air carrier when it emerges from bankruptcy protection. Changes Associated With Technological Improvements This provision updates various PFC procedures to take advantage of technological improvements since the PFC program's inception in 1990 including the use of electronic or paperless airline ticketing, the use of electronic mail to send documents, and Web sites to post information. ATA argued that the proposed definition of the point of issuance of airline tickets would result in negative unintended consequences including extensive airline ticketing programming changes and unequal tax treatment for international passengers depending on the form of payment. ATA also supported the database development discussed in the NPRM. ATA recommended that the FAA work with a committee of airport and airline representatives to design airport and airline modules. ATA suggested that having the airports and airlines participate in the design of the modules they will use would help to achieve widespread buy-in to this new database. ATA also recommended the FAA develop standards and procedures for airports, airlines, and other reporting entities that need access to reports, summaries, and other information necessary to ensure accurate information is being input in the database. The FAA proposed the definition of point of issuance of airline tickets as part of a strategy to ensure PFCs collected for tickets with wholly U.S. itineraries are collected using the procedures in § 158.45 rather than the procedures in § 158.47. A second part of this strategy was a proposal to insert language in § 158.47 regarding tickets for wholly U.S. travel. Based on the concerns raised by ATA, the FAA has decided to drop the proposed definition of point of issuance of airline tickets in § 158.3. The FAA believes that the proposed revisions to § 158.47 are sufficient to ensure that all applicable PFCs will be collected. Since the NPRM was published, the FAA has completed development of the public agency module of the PFC database. The module was deployed in June 2006. The FAA plans to work closely with air carriers regarding design and development of the air carrier module, and welcomes ATA's participation. As each module of the database is developed and deployed, the FAA is gathering business rules and data standards applicable to that module. The FAA will work with all system users to determine the most effective method of publication for these rules and standards. Changes To Streamline PFC Procedures, Codify PFC Policies, or Address Issues or Questions About the PFC Program PFC Administrative Costs This provision directs public agencies wishing to use PFC revenue to pay for allowable PFC administrative support costs to treat those costs as a separate and distinct PFC project in a PFC application or notice of intent. San Jose believes that PFC administrative support costs should be a part of the project costs. San Jose suggests that its administrative costs are minimal compared to its overall PFC program. San Jose also argued that it would not be cost effective to submit and maintain a separate application for PFC administrative support costs. ACI requested that the FAA clarify that the costs of administering a PFC project; *i.e.* , managing a construction project, remain eligible and should continue to be included in the general projects. The FAA agrees with San Jose that it would not be cost effective for a public agency to submit and maintain a separate application for PFC administrative support costs. However, the proposal in the NPRM does not require public agencies to submit and maintain a separate PFC application for these costs. Rather, the proposal would require that PFC administrative support costs be treated as a separate project in an application, not a separate application, if the public agency wishes to reimburse itself for these costs using PFC revenue. PFC administrative support costs include the cost to prepare a PFC application or notice of intent as well as amendments, and other actions associated with that application or notice; prepare and distribute quarterly reports; and annual audits of its PFC program. PFC administrative support costs do not include construction or project management associated with a specific development project. Construction or project management costs may be treated either as an incidental cost within the development project or as a separate stand-alone project within an application. The FAA made no changes to part 158 because of the comments received on this section. Duration of Authority To Impose a PFC Before Project Implementation This provision clarifies the required timing of PFC project implementation. ACI believes the proposed revisions are confusing and recommends alternate language. ACI also argued the time period for when the decision date is used rather than the charge effective date should be 30 days rather than the 60 days specified in the NPRM due to other recent or proposed changes regarding charge effective dates. The FAA has reviewed the proposed revision in the NPRM and ACI's suggested alternative language. As a result of this review, the FAA has made minor revisions to the regulatory language to reduce confusion. However, the FAA has retained the 60-day time period as proposed. Section 158.43(b)(3), as revised in this rulemaking, requires the charge effective date be the first day of the month and at least 30 days after the approval date. For example, an application approved April 2, would have a charge effective date of June 1, 59 days after the decision date. Thus, the FAA has concluded that a 60-day time period is the correct differential between the charge effective and decision dates. Amendment of Approved PFC This provision modifies the PFC amendment procedures to set a minimum dollar threshold for amendments requiring additional air carrier consultation and public notice and comment. For projects with original approved amounts at or above this threshold and for projects that are amended to or above this threshold, an increase of more than 25 percent would trigger the need for consultation and public comment. For projects with original approved amounts below this threshold, public agencies would not need to consult with air carriers and provide the opportunity for public comment, regardless of the percentage increase in costs proposed. ATA recommended that, for projects with an original approved amount under $1 million, a limit of 50 percent be placed on the percentage of increase in the approved project amount allowed before the public agency is required to undertake additional airline consultation and public notice and comment. ATA also recommended that public agencies be required to undertake additional airline consultation and public notice for any project with an original approved amount of less than $1 million whenever the approved amount for that project is amended to over $1 million. The FAA understands the concerns underlying ATA's comments and recommendations. Our intention in proposing a consultation-triggering threshold is to eliminate the burden on public agencies and air carriers that is related to the required consultation for low-cost projects. In the NPRM, the FAA attempted to devise a threshold that would capture significant changes to projects without also capturing small projects. The FAA is aware of only a few projects in the entire history of the PFC program that have been approved as low-cost projects and later amended to significantly over $1 million. After further review and consideration, the FAA concludes that the threshold proposed in the NPRM is reasonable and practical. However, in addition to the threshold proposed in the NPRM, the FAA has decided to adopt ATA's proposal to require additional air carrier consultation and public notice and comment when the PFC amount of a project is amended to over $1 million. The FAA declines to adopt ATA's proposal regarding a 50 percent limit on the amendment amount for projects under $1 million at this time. However, the FAA will closely monitor future amendments. The FAA will also pay particular attention to projects originally approved for low PFC amounts and later increased significantly. The FAA may undertake future rulemaking on amendments if it concludes public agencies are using the amendment thresholds to deliberately avoid future air carrier consultation and public notice. Nonrefundable Tickets This provision clarifies that failure to travel on a nonrefundable or expired airline ticket is not a change in itinerary. Ticket purchasers holding nonrefundable or expired tickets are not entitled to a refund of any associated PFCs if the ticket purchaser is not entitled to any fare refund. Steven Myers is concerned the proposal regarding nonrefundable tickets is based on ticket costs. Mr. Myers argued PFCs should be refundable or nonrefundable to all travelers regardless of the airfare. Mr. Myers is also concerned this proposal would disproportionately affect minority and low-income travelers. He argued that, if this proposal disproportionately affects minority and low-income travelers, it should be subject to appropriate National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)analysis. While the FAA agrees with Mr. Myers that nonrefundable tickets tend to cost less than refundable tickets, the FAA does not agree that nonrefundable tickets tend to be used disproportionately by lower income travelers. Most travel web sites provide an initial sort of ticket options by fare. Generally, most travelers' first review of flights shows the more restricted or nonrefundable fares; therefore, most travelers searching for coach class tickets are likely to have been presented with the option of purchasing a nonrefundable ticket. However, the FAA's proposed clarification that passengers holding nonrefundable or expired tickets are not entitled to a refund of any associated PFCs is not based on ticket price. Rather it is based on proposed travel in conjunction with air carrier fare and refund rules. Air carriers offer many different fare types with specific rules associated with each fare type. Some of those fare rules specify that a passenger is not entitled to a cash refund of the fare if the passenger does not travel as ticketed. The FAA is ensuring that PFCs are treated similarly. Mr. Myers is reminded that where a fare is applied to another ticket, so too is the PFC. This provision applies to all travelers and thus does not disproportionately affect minority or low-income travelers. Under the circumstances, NEPA is not triggered. Air Carrier Collection Compensation This provision establishes a procedure for the FAA to periodically review and set the air carrier collection compensation level. ATA requested clarification of the term “audited air carrier collection” in § 158.53(c)(1). It questions whether the FAA would require an opinion from the carriers' auditors as to the accuracy of the costs. ATA further questioned whether the air carriers' auditors would be able to provide this opinion if the carriers' accounting systems do not capture this information specifically for PFC collection, handling, and remittance. ATA also requested the regulations state that any future handling fee revision adopted as a result of the FAA's periodic review of collection compensation may not be reduced below the current $0.11. Alternatively, ATA suggested the submission of cost data be made mandatory to ensure the FAA has a complete set of industry data to use as the basis for re-setting the handling fee. ATA also suggests the FAA establish a 5-year cycle for review of the handling fee, establish a set of air carrier data points that will be used in establishing the fee, and publicize this endeavor so that air carriers can track the data prospectively rather than having to look back every 5 years. ACI is concerned that any change in the carrier compensation level may have an adverse affect on public agencies that have pledged their PFCs to bond payments. ACI is also concerned that escrow costs may be interpreted as being the cost a carrier in bankruptcy incurs to set up trusts for PFCs in accordance with § 158.49(b). ACI argued § 158.53 should be modified so that any carrier, whether or not in bankruptcy, which has failed to properly remit PFCs to any airport would not be entitled to receive compensation for the collection or remittance of any PFCs for any airport until that carrier has “made good the PFCs it owes.” ACI also argued that, when considering any adjustment to the collection compensation level, the FAA should disregard any costs submitted by carriers that have failed to properly collect or remit PFCs. ACI believes the FAA should deduct the aggregate amount the airports have had to expend to collect PFCs from carriers that have improperly withheld them along with the amount of PFCs improperly withheld. The FAA mistakenly used the term “audited costs” in the preamble to the NPRM. Rather, the FAA intended to indicate costs submitted by a carrier should include a certification from the airline's Chief Financial Officer or independent auditor that the costs submitted are accurate. The FAA also mistakenly used the term “escrow costs” in the preamble to the NPRM. The FAA does not intend to allow the inclusion of costs related to the provisions of § 158.49(c) in the calculation of the carrier compensation rate. The FAA is not aware of any adverse affects experienced by public agencies as a result of previous changes in the carriers' compensation rate. However, the FAA's proposed procedures for review of compensation rates will provide the opportunity for public agencies to comment on how any proposed change to the rate might affect the public agency before that proposed change goes into effect. Under 49 U.S.C. 40117, the FAA is required to calculate the carriers' collection compensation rate based on an average of the carriers' reasonable and necessary costs of collecting, handling, and remitting the PFCs. Therefore, the FAA cannot agree to set the current compensation rate of $0.11 per PFC collected as the permanent minimum rate as requested by ATA. Nor can the FAA agree to forgo consideration of certain carriers' costs when determining the average of their costs, as requested by ACI. The FAA continues to keep the submission of cost data by carriers as a voluntary effort. However, the FAA agrees it would be less burdensome on the carriers if the FAA published a schedule well in advance of the next FAA review of the compensation rate. Therefore, the FAA expects to publish a **Federal Register** notice at an appropriate time in the future providing this information. As for specific data elements air carriers should consider tracking, § 158.53(c)(1) includes a list of cost categories applicable to the FAA's calculation of the air carrier PFC compensation rate. The FAA has added a new § 158.53(c)(2). The FAA will review data submitted by air carriers, if data represents at least 75 percent of PFCs collected nationwide. Based on analysis of this data, the FAA may set a new compensation level. This paragraph will ensure that the FAA does not make a decision based on grossly incomplete industry data. The FAA has determined that ACI's proposal that a carrier not be entitled to compensation until it properly remits all PFCs it owes is not practical given the collection, handling, and remittance procedures in place. First, carriers are entitled to keep the interest earned on the PFC revenue between the time the PFC is collected from the passenger and the time it is remitted to the airport. A carrier could not be identified as failing to properly remit PFCs to any airport until after the carrier earned this interest. Second, the airports would need to set up some sort of clearinghouse to process payments to carriers and to monitor carrier remittances to all airports. Finally, carriers are entitled to compensation based on the PFCs collected. This compensation is currently taken at the time of ticket issuance. ACI's proposal would appear to delay this compensation by at least two months due to the need to determine if a carrier had remitted the PFCs properly (remittance occurs at the end of the month following collection) and then collect all compensation payments from the airports. Any significant change to part 158 such as this must first be subject to public scrutiny and comment. This proposal has not been subject to such scrutiny. The FAA is accordingly not adopting ACI's proposal regarding withholding carrier compensation in this rulemaking. Environmental Analysis Steven Myers stated he could not locate paragraph 3f of FAA Order 1050.1E, referred to in the Environmental Analysis section of the NPRM. FAA mistakenly referred to an incorrect paragraph number. The correct reference should have been paragraph 312d of FAA Order 1050.1E. The FAA corrected the paragraph reference in the Environmental Analysis section of the final rule. Corrections and Other Minor Changes to the Proposed Rule This final rule also corrects typograpgical errors that appear in the rule text of the proposed rule. The following is a list of these corrections to the rule text. 1. § 158.3, Notice of intent—Put “/” between “and” and “or.” 2. § 158.13(c)—Put “§ ” before “§ 158.15(b).” 3. § 158.13(d)(2)—Change “§ 158.13(b)(1)” to “§ 158.13(d)(1).” 4. § 158.13(g)—Change “Airport Improvement Program” to “Airport Grant Program.” 5. § 158.15(b)(6)—Delete “or” at the end of this paragraph. 6. § 158.15(7)—Delete punctuation after “Projects.” 7. § 158.18(a)—Change “PFC on payments” to “PFC to make payments.” 8. § 158.20(b)—Start paragraph “Once the database development is completed, with air carrier capability, public.” 9. § 158.37(b)(1)(ii)(C)—Add “or” at the end of the paragraph. 10. § 158.37(b)(1)(ii)(D)—Add “; or” at the end of the paragraph. 11. § 158.37(b)(5)—Change “a change” to “an increase.” 12. § 158.39(a)—Add “the” between “use” and “excess.” 13. § 158.47(c)(3) should be § 158.47(c)(4). 14. § 158.49(c)(1)(iv)—Change “its PFCs” to “the PFCs it collects.” 15. § 158.53(b)—Change “account” at the end of the first sentence to “PFC Revenue.” 16. § 158.53(c)(1)—Change “file in the first sentence to “provide.” 17. § 158.53(c)(2)—Change “filed” to “provided.” 18. § 158.65(b)(2) Add “following” between “the” and “month” at the end of the first sentence. 19. § 158.67(c)(2)—Change “PFC is specifically addressed by the auditor” to auditor specifically addresses the PFC.” Paperwork Reduction Act As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), the FAA submitted a copy of the new information collection requirement(s) in this final rule to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for its review. OMB approved the collection of this information and assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0557. This final rule addresses the remaining mandates in Vision 100. Part 158 recordkeeping/reporting requirements affect two groups of respondents—air carriers and public agencies. There are 450 respondents who will respond an estimated 2,400 times annually. It should be noted that air carriers have been collecting, keeping records and reporting on other aviation related fees (passenger tax, customs user fees, international transportation tax and immigration user fees) for many years. As a result, various sophisticated manual and computer systems are currently in place and have been modified to implement the PFC program. The total reporting burden hours is 22,805. The total recordkeeping burden is 1,220 hours. There were no comments directed to the information collection burden. An agency may not collect or sponsor the collection of information, nor may it impose an information collection requirement unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. International Compatibility In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with International Civil Aviation Organization

(ICAO)Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices that correspond to these final regulations. Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination, International Trade Impact Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, this Trade Act requires agencies to consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by state, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this final rule. We suggest readers seeking greater detail read the full regulatory evaluation, a copy of which we have placed in the docket for this rulemaking. In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined this rule:

(1)Has benefits that justify its costs;

(2)is not an economically “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866;

(3)is not “significant” as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures;

(4)will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities;

(5)will not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States; and

(6)will not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, tribal governments, or on the private sector by exceeding the threshold identified above. These analyses are summarized below. This final rule addresses the remaining provisions not addressed in previously issued final rules mandated by Vision 100-Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act (Vision 100) and will include changes to administrative procedures to improve the efficiency of the PFC program. The total cost of this final rule is estimated to be $1.1 million ($983,000 present value), and the quantified cost savings are estimated to be $3.6 million ($2.5 million present value). In addition, a number of unquantified benefits will be attributable to the Vision 100 statutory provisions and streamlining procedures. The net cost savings of this final rule are estimated to be $2.5 million ($1.6 million present value) over the ten-year analysis period. Regulatory Flexibility Determination The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354)

(RFA)establishes “as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given serious consideration.” The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA. However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be clear. The FAA uses the size standards from the Small Business Administration (SBA), which classifies “small” entities based on either annual revenues or employment. An airport operator (North America Industry Classification System (NAICS) 488119) is classified as a small entity if it has annual revenues of $6 million or less. According to financial reports filed with the FAA in 2003, 195 airports received PFC revenues with annual operating revenues of $6 million or less. These small airports account for over 60 percent of all airports receiving PFC revenues and, therefore, constitute a substantial number of small entities. The average revenue for these airports was $1.7 million and the median revenue was $1.1 million for 2003. The entire cost to all airports is estimated to be $17,100, thus no small airport could experience a significant economic impact. Small airports will benefit proportionately from the establishment of the national internet database, and could also benefit from section 158.13(g), which permits the use of PFC revenues to fund the non-Federal share of air traffic modernization projects, thus easing the local financial burden. Four airports at which military enplanements exceed one percent of all enplanements are small entities. The deferred collection of PFC will result in an extension of the period of collection but will not result in any loss of revenue. The FAA has determined the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on small commercial airports. The SBA standard classifies a scheduled and nonscheduled passenger air carrier (NAICS 481111) to be a small entity if it has 1,500 employees or less. FAA has identified 57 air carriers with authorization to carry passengers that meet this classification. These small air carriers provide scheduled services under their own code at nearly 100 airports that have PFCs. In addition, some small entities provide air service on behalf of a large air carrier under a code sharing agreement. The large carrier handles all the ticketing and accounting procedures. There are a number of provisions of the PFC program that mitigate any impact on a small air carrier. Section 158.9 prohibits the imposition of a PFC on Essential Air Services

(EAS)routes on flights between two or more points in Hawaii or Alaska aboard an aircraft with less than 60 seats. There are 150 EAS routes, a number of which are served by small carriers. Section 158.11 also permits airports to request that a class of carriers that constitutes not more than one percent of total enplanements not collect PFCs. Thus some small carriers will not be affected by the final rule under these provisions. Since no small carrier voluntarily submitted PFC collection compensation information to the NPRM issued on November 20, 2002, the FAA assumed none of the small carriers will incur the cost of participating in the final compensation collection provision. In addition, small carriers that do collect PFCs will not be adversely affected. Any adjustments to modify ticketing or other administrative costs that small air carriers may incur as a result of this final rule are at least partially if not fully recoverable under the existing compensation provisions of the rule. The FAA has determined the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on small air carriers. Therefore, as the Administrator of the FAA, I certify that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. International Trade Impact Assessment The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires Federal agencies to consider international standards and, where appropriate, use the foreign standards as the basis for U.S. standards. Foreign carriers would be required to collect PFCs on wholly domestic U.S. travel that U.S. carriers are already required to collect, and the foreign carriers will be entitled to the same compensation provisions as U.S. carriers. The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this final rule and determined that it will impose the same costs on domestic and international entities and thus have a neutral trade impact. Unfunded Mandates Assessment The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act) is intended, among other things, to curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal mandates on state, local, and tribal governments. Section 202(a) (2 U.S.C. 1532) of Title II of the Act requires that each Federal agency, to the extent permitted by law, prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in the expenditure by state, local, tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year; such a mandate is deemed to be a “significant regulatory action.” The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value of $128.1 million in lieu of $100 million. Section 203(a) of the Act (2 U.S.C. 1533) provides that before establishing any regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments, an agency shall have developed a plan under which the agency shall:

(1)Provide notice of the requirements to potentially affected small governments, if any;

(2)enable officials of affected small governments to provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals containing significant Federal intergovernmental mandates; and,

(3)inform, educate, and advise small governments on compliance with the requirements. With respect to (2), Section 204(a) of the Act (2 U.S.C. 1534) requires the Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit elected officers of state, local, and tribal governments (or their designees) to provide the input described. This final rule does not contain such a mandate. The requirements of Title II do not apply. Executive Order 13132, Federalism The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, and therefore does not have federalism implications. Environmental Analysis FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 312d and involves no extraordinary circumstances. Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use The FAA has analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under the executive order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, and it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Availability of Rulemaking Documents You may get an electronic copy using the Internet by:

(1)Searching the Department of Transportation's electronic Docket Management System

(DMS)web page ( *http://dms.dot.gov/search* );

(2)Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies web page at *http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/* ; or

(3)Accessing the Government Printing Office's web page at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html* . You may also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling

(202)267-9680. Make sure to identify the amendment number or docket number of this rulemaking. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov* . Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its jurisdiction. If you are a small entity and you have a question regarding this document, you may contact your local FAA official, or the person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading of this preamble. You can find out more about SBREFA on the Internet at *http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ rulemaking/sbre_act/* . List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 158 Air carriers, Airports, Passenger facility charge, Public agencies, Collection compensation. The Amendment Because of the above, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 158 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: PART 158—PASSENGER FACILITY CHARGES (PFC'S) Subpart A—General 1. The authority citation for part 158 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40116-40117, 47106, 47111, 47114-47116, 47524, 47526. 2. Amend § 158.3 as follows: a. Revise the definitions for *Air travel ticket, Approved project,* and *State* to read as set forth below. b. Add definitions for *Covered air carrier, Financial need, Ground support equipment, Notice of intent (to impose a PFC or use PFC revenue),* and *PFC administrative support costs* in alphabetical order to read as set forth below. § 158.3 Definitions. *Air travel ticket* includes all documents, electronic records, boarding passes, and any other ticketing medium about a passenger's itinerary necessary to transport a passenger by air, including passenger manifests. *Approved project* means a project for which the FAA has approved using PFC revenue under this part. The FAA may also approve specific projects contained in a single or multi-phased project or development described in an airport capital plan separately. This includes projects acknowledged by the FAA under § 158.30 of this part. *Covered air carrier* means an air carrier that files for bankruptcy protection or has an involuntary bankruptcy proceeding started against it after December 12, 2003. An air carrier that is currently in compliance with PFC remittance requirements and has an involuntary bankruptcy proceeding commenced against it has 90 days from the date such proceeding was filed to obtain dismissal of the involuntary petition before becoming a covered air carrier. An air carrier ceases to be a covered air carrier when it emerges from bankruptcy protection. *Financial need* means that a public agency cannot meet its operational or debt service obligations and does not have at least a 2-month capital reserve fund. *Ground support equipment* means service and maintenance equipment used at an airport to support aeronautical operations and related activities. Baggage tugs, belt loaders, cargo loaders, forklifts, fuel trucks, lavatory trucks, and pushback tractors are among the types of vehicles that fit this definition. *Notice of intent (to impose or use PFC revenue)* means a notice under § 158.30 from a public agency controlling a non-hub airport that it intends to impose a PFC and/or use PFC revenue. Except for §§ 158.25 through 30, “notice of intent” can be used interchangeably with “application.” *PFC administrative support costs* means the reasonable and necessary costs of developing a PFC application or amendment, issuing and maintaining the required PFC records, and performing the required audit of the public agency's PFC account. These costs may include reasonable monthly financial account charges and transaction fees. *State* means a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and Guam. 3. Amend § 158.9 by revising paragraphs (a)(4) and

(5)and by adding paragraph (a)(6) to read as follows: § 158.9 Limitations.

(a)* * *

(4)On flights, including flight segments, between 2 or more points in Hawaii;

(5)In Alaska aboard an aircraft having a certificated seating capacity of fewer than 60 passengers; or

(6)Enplaning at an airport if the passenger did not pay for the air transportation that resulted in the enplanement due to Department of Defense charter arrangements and payments. 4. Amend § 158.13 by revising paragraphs (b), (c), (d), and

(e)and adding paragraphs (f), (g), and

(h)to read as follows: § 158.13 Use of PFC revenue.

(b)*PFC administrative support costs.* Public agencies may use PFC revenue to pay for allowable administrative support costs. Public agencies must submit these costs as a separate project in each PFC application.

(c)*Maximum cost for certain low-emission technology projects.* If a project involves a vehicle or ground support equipment using low emission technology eligible under § 158.15(b), the FAA will determine the maximum cost that may be financed by PFC revenue. The maximum cost for a new vehicle is the incremental amount between the purchase price of a new low emission vehicle and the purchase price of a standard emission vehicle, or the cost of converting a standard emission vehicle to a low emission vehicle.

(d)*Bond-associated debt service and financing costs.*

(1)Public agencies may use PFC revenue to pay debt service and financing costs incurred for a bond issued to carry out approved projects.

(2)If the public agency's bond documents require that PFC revenue be commingled in the general revenue stream of the airport and pledged for the benefit of holders of obligations, the FAA considers PFC revenue to have paid the costs covered in § 158.13(d)(1) if—

(i)An amount equal to the part of the proceeds of the bond issued to carry out approved projects is used to pay allowable costs of such projects; and

(ii)To the extent the PFC revenue collected in any year exceeds the debt service and financing costs on such bonds during that year, an amount equal to the excess is applied as required by § 158.39.

(e)*Exception providing for the use of PFC revenue to pay for debt service for non-eligible projects.* The FAA may authorize a public agency under § 158.18 to impose a PFC for payments for debt service on indebtedness incurred to carry out an airport project that is not eligible if the FAA determines that such use is necessary because of the financial need of the airport.

(f)*Combination of PFC revenue and Federal grant funds.* A public agency may combine PFC revenue and airport grant funds to carry out an approved project. These projects are subject to the record keeping and auditing requirements of this part, as well as the reporting, record keeping and auditing requirements imposed by the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (AAIA).

(g)*Non-Federal share.* Public agencies may use PFC revenue to meet the non-Federal share of the cost of projects funded under the Federal airport grant program or the FAA “Program to Permit Cost-Sharing of Air Traffic Modernization Projects” under 49 U.S.C. 44517.

(h)*Approval of project following approval to impose a PFC.* The public agency may not use PFC revenue or interest earned thereon except on an approved project. 5. Amend § 158.15 by revising paragraphs (b)(5) and

(6)and adding paragraphs (b)(7) and

(8)to read as follows: § 158.15 Project eligibility at PFC levels of $1, $2, or $3.

(b)* * *

(5)Noise compatibility measures eligible for Federal assistance under 49 U.S.C. 47504, without regard to whether the measures are approved under 49 U.S.C. 47504;

(6)Construction of gates and related areas at which passengers are enplaned or deplaned and other areas directly related to the movement of passengers and baggage in air commerce within the boundaries of the airport. These areas do not include restaurants, car rental and automobile parking facilities, or other concessions. Projects required to enable added air service by an air carrier with less than 50 percent of the annual passenger boardings at an airport have added eligibility. Such projects may include structural foundations and floor systems, exterior building walls and load-bearing interior columns or walls, windows, door and roof systems, building utilities (including heating, air conditioning, ventilation, plumbing, and electrical service), and aircraft fueling facilities next to the gate;

(7)A project approved under the FAA's “Program to Permit Cost-Sharing of Air Traffic Modernization Projects” under 49 U.S.C. 44517; or

(8)If the airport is in an air quality nonattainment area (as defined by section 171(2) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7501(2)) or a maintenance area referred to in section 175A of such Act (42 U.S.C. 7505a), and the project will result in the airport receiving appropriate emission credits as described in 49 U.S.C. 47139, a project for:

(i)Converting vehicles eligible under § 158.15(b)(1) and ground support equipment powered by a diesel or gasoline engine used at a commercial service airport to low-emission technology certified or verified by the Environmental Protection Agency to reduce emissions or to use cleaner burning conventional fuels; or

(ii)Acquiring for use at a commercial service airport vehicles eligible under § 158.15(b)(1) and, subject to § 158.13(c), ground support equipment that include low-emission technology or use cleaner burning fuels. 6. Add § 158.18 to read as follows: § 158.18 Use of PFC revenue to pay for debt service for non-eligible projects.

(a)The FAA may authorize a public agency to impose a PFC to make payments for debt service on indebtedness incurred to carry out at the airport a project that is not eligible if the FAA determines it is necessary because of the financial need of the airport. The FAA defines financial need in § 158.3.

(b)A public agency may request authority to impose a PFC and use PFC revenue under this section using the PFC application procedures in § 158.25. The public agency must document its financial position and explain its financial recovery plan that uses all available resources.

(c)The FAA reviews the application using the procedures in § 158.27. The FAA will issue its decision on the public agency's request under § 158.29. 7. Add § 158.20 to read as follows: § 158.20 Submission of required documents.

(a)Letters and reports required by this part may be transmitted to the appropriate recipient (the public agency, air carrier, and/or the FAA) via e-mail, courier, facsimile, or U.S. Postal Service.

(1)Documents sent electronically to the FAA must be prepared in a format readable by the FAA. Interested parties can obtain the format at their local FAA Airports Office.

(2)Any transmission to FAA Headquarters, using regular U.S. Postal Service, is subject to inspection that may result in delay and damage due to the security process.

(b)Once the database development is completed with air carrier capability, public agencies and air carriers may use the FAA's national PFC database to post their required quarterly reports, and, in that case, do not have to distribute the reports in any other way. Subpart B—Application and Approval 8. Revise § 158.29(a)(1)(ii) and (b)(1)(ii) to read as follows: § 158.29 The Administrator's decision.

(a)* * *

(1)* * *

(ii)The project will achieve the objectives and criteria set forth in § 158.15 except for those projects approved under § 158.18.

(b)* * *

(1)* * *

(ii)The project will achieve the objectives and criteria set forth in § 158.15 except for those projects approved under § 158.18. 9. Amend § 158.30 by revising the section heading to read as follows: § 158.30 PFC Authorization at Non-Hub Airports. 10. Amend § 158.31 by revising the introductory text and paragraph

(b)to read as follows: § 158.31 Duration of authority to impose a PFC after project implementation. A public agency that has begun implementing an approved project may impose a PFC until—

(b)The total PFC revenue collected plus interest earned thereon equals the allowable cost of the approved project; 11. Amend § 158.33 by revising paragraphs (a)(2), (c)(1) introductory text, and (c)(2), and adding paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows: § 158.33 Duration of authority to impose a PFC before project implementation.

(a)* * *

(2)5 years after the charge effective date; or

(3)5 years after the FAA's decision on the application (if the charge effective date is more than 60 days after the decision date) if an approved project is not implemented.

(c)* * *

(1)3 years after the charge effective date; or 3 years after the FAA's decision on the application if the charge effective date is more than 60 days after the decision date unless—

(2)5 years after the charge effective date; or 5 years after the FAA's decision on the application (if the charge effective date is more than 60 days after the decision date) unless the public agency has obtained project approval. 12. Amend § 158.37 by revising the section heading, revising paragraphs (b)(1)(i)(A), (b)(1)(ii)(C), (b)(1)(ii)(D), (b)(1)(ii)(E) and (b)(5), redesignating paragraphs (b)(1)(i)(B) and

(C)as (b)(1)(i)(C) and (D), and adding new paragraphs (b)(1)(i)(B) and (b)(1)(ii)(F) to read as follows: § 158.37 Amendment of approved PFC.

(b)* * *

(1)* * *

(i)* * *

(A)Amend the approved PFC amount for a project by more than 25 percent of the original approved amount if the amount was $1,000,000 or greater,

(B)Amend the approved PFC amount for a project by any percentage if the original approved amount was below $1,000,000 and the amended approved amount is $1,000,000 or greater,

(ii)* * *

(C)To institute an increase of 25 percent or less of the original approved amount if the amount was more than $1,000,000; or

(D)To institute an increase of any amount if the original approved amount of the project was less than $1,000,000 and if the amended approved amount of the project remains below $1,000,000; or

(E)To establish a new class of carriers under § 158.11 or amend any such class previously approved; or

(F)To delete an approved project.

(5)Justification, if the amendment involves an increase in the PFC amount for a project by more than 25 percent of the original approved amount if that amount is $1,000,000 or greater, an increase in the PFC amount by any percentage if the original approved amount was less than $1,000,000 and the amended approved amount is $1,000,000 or greater, a change in the approved project scope, or any increase in the approved PFC level to be collected from each passenger. 13. Amend § 158.39 by revising paragraphs

(a)and

(d)to read as follows: § 158.39 Use of excess PFC revenue.

(a)If the PFC revenue remitted to the public agency, plus interest earned thereon, exceeds the allowable cost of the project, the public agency must use the excess funds for approved projects or to retire outstanding PFC-financed bonds.

(d)Within 30 days after the authority to impose a PFC has expired or been terminated, the public agency must present a plan to the appropriate FAA Airports office to begin using accumulated PFC revenue. The plan must include a timetable for submitting any necessary application under this part. If the public agency fails to submit such a plan, or if the plan is not acceptable to the Administrator, the Administrator may reduce Federal airport grant program apportioned funds. Subpart C—Collection, Handling and Remittance of PFCs 14. Amend § 158.43 by revising paragraphs (b)(3) and

(c)to read as follows: § 158.43 Public agency notification to collect PFCs.

(b)* * *

(3)The charge effective date will always be the first day of the month; however, it must be at least 30 days after the date the public agency notified the air carriers of the FAA's approval to impose the PFC.

(c)The public agency must notify air carriers required to collect PFCs at its airport and the FAA of changes in the charge expiration date at least 30 days before the existing charge expiration date or new charge expiration date, whichever comes first. Each notified air carrier must notify its agents, including other issuing carriers, of such changes. 15. Amend § 158.45 by revising paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows: § 158.45 Collection of PFCs on tickets issued in the U.S.

(a)* * *

(3)Issuing carriers and their agents shall collect PFCs based on the itinerary at the time of issuance.

(i)Any change in itinerary initiated by a passenger that requires an adjustment to the amount paid by the passenger is subject to collection or refund of the PFC as appropriate.

(ii)Failure to travel on a nonrefundable or expired ticket is not a change in itinerary. If the ticket purchaser is not permitted any fare refund on the unused ticket, the ticket purchaser is not permitted a refund of any PFC associated with that ticket. 16. Amend § 158.47 by revising paragraphs

(a)and (c)(4) to read as follows: § 158.47 Collection of PFCs on tickets issued outside the U.S.

(a)For tickets issued outside the U.S., an air carrier or foreign air carrier may follow the requirements of either § 158.45 or this section, unless the itinerary is for travel wholly within the U.S. Air carriers and foreign air carriers must comply with § 158.45 where the itinerary is for travel wholly within the U.S. regardless of where the ticket is issued.

(c)* * *

(4)Issuing carriers and their agents shall collect PFCs based on the itinerary at the time of issuance.

(i)Any change in itinerary initiated by a passenger that requires an adjustment to the amount paid by the passenger is subject to collection or refund of the PFC as appropriate.

(c)as

(d)and revising it, and adding new paragraph

(c)to read as follows: § 158.49 Handling of PFCs.

(b)Collecting carriers must account for PFC revenue separately. PFC revenue may be commingled with the air carrier's other sources of revenue except for covered air carriers discussed in paragraph

(c)of this section. PFC revenues held by an air carrier or an agent of the air carrier after collection are held in trust for the beneficial interest of the public agency imposing the PFC. Such air carrier or agent holds neither legal nor equitable interest in the PFC revenues except for any handling fee or interest collected on unremitted proceeds as authorized in § 158.53. (c)(1) A covered air carrier must segregate PFC revenue in a designated separate PFC account. Regardless of the amount of PFC revenue in the covered air carrier's account at the time the bankruptcy petition is filed, the covered air carrier must deposit into the separate PFC account an amount equal to the average monthly liability for PFCs collected under this section by such air carrier or any of its agents.

(i)The covered air carrier is required to create one PFC account to cover all PFC revenue it collects. The designated PFC account is solely for PFC transactions and the covered air carrier must make all PFC transactions from that PFC account. The covered air carrier is not required to create separate PFC accounts for each airport where a PFC is imposed.

(ii)The covered air carrier must transfer PFCs from its general accounts into the separate PFC account in an amount equal to the average monthly liability for PFCs as the “PFC reserve.” The PFC reserve must equal a one-month average of the sum of the total PFCs collected by the covered air carrier, net of any credits or handling fees allowed by law, during the past 12-month period of PFC collections immediately before entering bankruptcy.

(iii)The minimum PFC reserve balance must never fall below the fixed amount defined in paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section.

(iv)A covered air carrier may continue to deposit the PFCs it collects into its general operating accounts combined with ticket sales revenue. However, at least once every business day, the covered air carrier must remove all PFC revenue (Daily PFC amount) from those accounts and transfer it to the new PFC account. An estimate based on 1/30 of the PFC reserve balance is permitted in substitution of the Daily PFC amount.

(A)In the event a covered air carrier ceases operations while still owing PFC remittances, the PFC reserve fund may be used to make those remittances. If there is any balance in the PFC reserve fund after all PFC remittances are made, that balance will be returned to the covered air carrier's general account.

(B)In the event a covered air carrier emerges from bankruptcy protection and ceases to be a covered air carrier, any balance remaining in the PFC reserve fund after any outstanding PFC obligations are met will be returned to the air carrier's general account.

(v)If the covered air carrier uses an estimate rather than the daily PFC amount, the covered air carrier shall reconcile the estimated amount with the actual amount of PFCs collected for the prior month (Actual Monthly PFCs). This reconciliation must take place no later than the 20th day of the month (or the next business day if the date is not a business day). In the event the Actual Monthly PFCs are greater than the aggregate estimated PFC amount, the covered air carrier will, within one business day of the reconciliation, deposit the difference into the PFC account. If the Actual Monthly PFCs are less than the aggregate estimated PFC amount, the covered air carrier will be entitled to a credit in the amount of the difference to be applied to the daily PFC amount due.

(vi)The covered air carrier is permitted to recalculate and reset the PFC reserve and daily PFC amount on each successive anniversary date of its bankruptcy petition using the methodology described above.

(2)If a covered air carrier or its agent fails to segregate PFC revenue in violation of paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the trust fund status of such revenue shall not be defeated by an inability of any party to identify and trace the precise funds in the accounts of the air carrier.

(3)A covered air carrier and its agents may not grant to any third party any security or other interest in PFC revenue.

(4)A covered air carrier that fails to comply with any requirement of paragraph

(c)of this section, or causes an eligible public agency to spend funds to recover or retain payment of PFC revenue, must compensate that public agency for those cost incurred to recover the PFCs owed.

(5)The provisions of paragraph

(b)of this section that allow the commingling of PFCs with other air carrier revenue do not apply to a covered air carrier.

(d)All collecting air carriers must disclose the existence and amount of PFC funds regarded as trust funds in their financial statements. 18. Revise § 158.53 to read as follows: § 158.53 Collection compensation.

(a)As compensation for collecting, handling, and remitting the PFC revenue, the collecting air carrier is entitled to:

(1)$0.11 of each PFC collected.

(2)Any interest or other investment return earned on PFC revenue between the time of collection and remittance to the public agency.

(b)A covered air carrier that fails to designate a separate PFC account is prohibited from collecting interest on the PFC revenue. Where a covered air carrier maintains a separate PFC account in compliance with § 158.49(c), it will receive the interest on PFC accounts as described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. (c)(1) Collecting air carriers may provide collection cost data periodically to the FAA after the agency issues a notice in the **Federal Register** that specifies the information and deadline for filing the information. Submission of the information is voluntary. The requested information must include data on interest earned by the air carriers on PFC revenue and air carrier collection, handling, and remittance costs in the following categories:

(i)Credit card fees;

(ii)Audit fees;

(iii)PFC disclosure fees;

(iv)Reservations costs;

(v)Passenger service costs;

(vi)Revenue accounting, data entry, accounts payable, tax, and legal fees;

(vii)Corporate property department costs;

(viii)Training for reservations agents, ticket agents, and other departments;

(ix)Ongoing carrier information systems costs;

(x)Ongoing computer reservations systems costs; and

(xi)Airline Reporting Corporation fees.

(2)The FAA may determine a new compensation level based on an analysis of the data provided under paragraph (c)(1) of this section, if the data is submitted by carriers representing at least 75 percent of PFCs collected nationwide.

(3)Any new compensation level determined by the FAA under paragraph (b)(2) of this section will replace the level identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. Subpart D—Report, Recordkeeping and Audits 19. Amend § 158.63 by revising paragraphs

(a)and

(c)to read as follows: § 158.63 Reporting requirements: Public agency.

(a)The public agency must provide quarterly reports to air carriers collecting PFCs for the public agency with a copy to the appropriate FAA Airports Office. The quarterly report must include:

(1)Actual PFC revenue received from collecting air carriers, interest earned, and project expenditures for the quarter;

(2)Cumulative actual PFC revenue received, interest earned, project expenditures, and the amount committed for use on currently approved projects, including the quarter;

(3)The PFC level for each project; and

(4)Each project's current schedule.

(c)For medium and large hub airports, the public agency must provide to the FAA, by July 1 of each year, an estimate of PFC revenue to be collected for each airport in the following fiscal year. 20. Revise § 158.65 to read as follows: § 158.65 Reporting requirements: Collecting air carriers.

(a)Each air carrier collecting PFCs for a public agency must provide quarterly reports to the public agency unless otherwise agreed by the collecting air carrier and public agency, providing an accounting of funds collected and funds remitted.

(1)Unless otherwise agreed by the collecting air carrier and public agency, reports must state:

(i)The collecting air carrier and airport involved,

(ii)The total PFC revenue collected,

(iii)The total PFC revenue refunded to passengers,

(iv)The collected revenue withheld for reimbursement of expenses under § 158.53, and

(v)The dates and amounts of each remittance for the quarter.

(2)The report must be filed by the last day of the month following the calendar quarter or other period agreed by the collecting carrier and public agency for which funds were collected.

(b)A covered air carrier must provide the FAA with:

(1)A copy of its quarterly report by the established schedule under paragraph

(a)of this section; and

(2)A monthly PFC account statement delivered not later than the fifth day of the following month. This monthly statement must include:

(i)The balance in the account on the first day of the month,

(ii)The total funds deposited during the month,

(iii)The total funds disbursed during the month, and

(iv)The closing balance in the account. 21. Amend § 158.67 by revising paragraph (c)(2) to read as follows: § 158.67 Recordkeeping and auditing: Public agency.

(c)* * *

(2)Conducted as part of an audit under Office of Management and Budget Circular A-133 (the Single Audit Act of 1984, Pub. L. 98-502, and the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996, Pub. L. 104-156) provided the auditor specifically addresses the PFC. Subpart E—Termination 22. Revise § 158.81 to read as follows: § 158.81 General. This subpart contains the procedures for termination of PFCs or loss of Federal airport grant funds for violations of this part or 49 U.S.C. 40117. This subpart does not address the circumstances under which the authority to collect PFCs may be terminated for violations of 49 U.S.C. 47523 through 47528. § 158.97 [Removed] 23. Remove § 158.97. 24. Amend appendix A to part 158 by revising paragraphs 10 and 12 of section B of this appendix to read as follows: Appendix A to Part 158—Assurances * * * 10. Recordkeeping and Audit. It will maintain an accounting record for audit purposes for 3 years after physical and financial completion of the project. All records must satisfy the requirements of 14 CFR part 158 and contain documentary evidence for all items of project costs. 12. Compliance with 49 U.S.C. 47523 through 47528. It understands 49 U.S.C. 47524 and 47526 require that the authority to impose a PFC be terminated if the Administrator determines the public agency has failed to comply with those sections of the United States Code or with the implementing regulations published under the Code. Issued in Washington, DC, on May 14, 2007. Marion C. Blakey, Administrator. [FR Doc. E7-9941 Filed 5-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 16 CFR Part 4 Access Requests From Foreign Law Enforcement Agencies for Consumer Protection Materials AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. ACTION: Final rule amendment. SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission is amending Rule 4.11 of its Rules of Practice, which addresses disclosure requests, to add a new provision, Rule 4.11(j). The new provision conforms the agency's rules to its authority to share confidential information in non-antitrust matters with foreign law enforcers, with appropriate confidentiality assurances and subject to certain restrictions, as provided for under the recently-enacted U.S. SAFE WEB Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-455, 120 Stat. 3372 (2006). The Commission is also amending Rules 4.10(d) and (e), which describe certain materials subject to prohibitions on disclosures and exceptions for specified circumstances, to cross-reference the new Rule 4.11(j). DATES: *Effective Date:* May 23, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joannie T. Wei, Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580,

(202)326-2840, *jwei@ftc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Undertaking Spam, Spyware and Fraud Enforcement With Enforcers beyond Borders Act of 2006 (U.S. SAFE WEB Act), Pub. L. No. 109-455, 120 Stat. 3372 (2006), was enacted to enhance the Federal Trade Commission's enforcement activities against a range of practices that harm U.S. consumers, including illegal spam, spyware, cross-border fraud and deception, misleading health and safety advertising, privacy and security breaches, and other law violations. The practices the FTC enforces against are increasingly global in nature, and the U.S. SAFE WEB Act improves the FTC's ability to cooperate with its foreign counterparts to combat such practices. *Authority to share certain materials with foreign law enforcement agencies.* Information sharing is one area in which the U.S. SAFE WEB Act strengthens the Commission's authority to cooperate with its foreign counterparts. Sections 4 and 6 of the U.S. SAFE WEB Act amend sections 6(f) and 21(b)(6) of the Federal Trade Commission Act to allow the Commission to share certain confidential and compelled information in its files with foreign law enforcement agencies. 1 15 U.S.C. 46(f), 57b-2(b)(6). These sections of the U.S. SAFE WEB Act do not provide authority for the disclosure of material obtained in connection with the administration of the Federal antitrust laws or foreign antitrust laws (as defined in paragraphs

(5)and (7), respectively, of section 12 of the International Antitrust Enforcement Assistance Act of 1994 (15 U.S.C. 6211)). 15 U.S.C. 57b-2(b)(6). 1 “Foreign law enforcement agency” means—(1) any agency or judicial authority of a foreign government, including a foreign state, a political subdivision of a foreign state, or a multinational organization constituted by and comprised of foreign states, that is vested with law enforcement or investigate authority in civil, criminal, or administrative matters; and

(ii)any multinational organization, to the extent that it is acting on behalf of an entity described in paragraph (i). 15 U.S.C. 44. The Commission's disclosure authority under the U.S. SAFE WEB Act is subject to appropriate limitations and assurances. Under section 6 of the statute, the Commission must obtain certification from an appropriate official of the foreign law enforcement agency, either by prior agreement or memorandum of understanding or by other written certification, that such material will be maintained in confidence and will only be used for official law enforcement purposes. 15 U.S.C. 57b-2(b)(6). The foreign law enforcement agency must have set forth a bona fide legal basis for its authority to maintain the material in confidence. In addition, the foreign law enforcement agency must be using the materials for purposes of investigating or engaging in enforcement proceedings related to possible violations of:

(1)Foreign laws prohibiting fraudulent or deceptive practices or other practices substantially similar to practices prohibited by any law administered by the Commission;

(2)a law administered by the Commission if disclosure would further a Commission investigation or proceeding; or

(3)with the approval of the Attorney General, other foreign criminal laws that are encompassed in an applicable mutual legal assistance treaty. 15 U.S.C. 57b-2(b)(6)(A), 57b-2(b)(6)(B). If the materials to be provided to the foreign law enforcement agency are requested for the purpose of investigating or engaging in enforcement proceedings based on possible violations by a bank, savings and loan institution, or Federal credit union, the material will not be disclosed unless the appropriate Federal banking agency, or the National Credit Union Administration in the case of a Federal credit union, has given its prior approval. 15 U.S.C. 57b-2(b)(6)(C). Further, section 6 of the U.S. SAFE WEB Act does not permit disclosure to foreign law enforcement agencies from foreign states that the Secretary of State has determined, in accordance with section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act of 1979, 50 U.S.C. App. 2405, have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism, unless and until such determination has been rescinded pursuant to section 6(j)(4) of that Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2405(j)(4). *Rule provisions.* To implement this new authority under the U.S. SAFE WEB Act, the Commission's Rules of Practice have been amended to create a new provision, Rule 4.11(j), that delineates the internal procedure for handling requests from foreign law enforcement agencies for nonpublic material other than material subject to disclosure pursuant to other delegations. Rule 4.11(j) is not intended to supersede existing Commission delegations or to preclude additional future delegations, subject to any statutory constraints. The new provision, Rule 4.11(j), generally adopts the procedures of the current Rule 4.11(c) (sharing confidential information with Federal and State law enforcement agencies), and incorporates the requirements and restrictions of the U.S. SAFE WEB Act. Under the new provision, requests for nonpublic records from foreign law enforcement agencies will be addressed to the Director of the Office of International Affairs or the Director's designee. For any material requested that is subject to the disclosure restrictions in sections 6(f) 2 or 21(b) 3 of the FTC Act or Rule 4.10(d) of the Commission's Rules of Practice, 4 the Director or the Director's designee will obtain any certification required by the U.S. SAFE WEB Act from an appropriate official of such foreign law enforcement agency. Rule 4.11(j)(3) establishes the requirements for access to such material in accordance with the U.S. SAFE WEB Act. The Director will then, with approval of the Bureau of Consumer Protection, forward the requests to the General Counsel with recommendations for disposition. The General Counsel or the General Counsel's designee is delegated the authority to dispose of the requests in accordance with the requirements of the U.S. SAFE WEB Act. Under Rule 4.11(j), the General Counsel may refer such requests to the Commission for determination, and must do so when the Bureau of Consumer Protection or the Office of International Affairs do not agree with the General Counsel's proposed disposition. 2 Section 6(f) of the FTC Act protects from public disclosure “any trade secret or any commercial or financial information which is obtained from any person and which is privileged or confidential,” except in certain specified circumstances. 15 U.S.C. 46(f). 3 Section 21(b) of the FTC Act protects from public disclosure material received by the Commission “pursuant to compulsory process in an investigation, a purpose of which is to determine whether any person may have violated any provision of the laws administered by the Commission,” except in certain specified circumstances. 15 U.S.C. 57b-2(b). 4 In addition to the two categories listed above, Rule 4.10(d) also protects from mandatory disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, material submitted to the Commission voluntarily in lieu of compulsory process in a law enforcement investigation and marked or otherwise identified as confidential. 16 CFR 4.10(d). The Commission has also amended Rules 4.10(d) and

(e)of its Rules of Practice, which describe materials that the Commission generally cannot make public at all or can make public only after finding the material is not confidential and giving ten days' notice to the submitter. These provisions also set forth exceptions to these restrictions, including, inter alia, certain disclosures to Federal and State law enforcement agencies. Rules 4.10(d) and

(e)have been amended to include disclosure to foreign law enforcement agencies pursuant to the new Rule 4.11(j) as a specifically stated exception. The amendments to Rules 4.10(d) and

(e)and Rule 4.11(j)(3) will apply to all material that is subject to the disclosure restrictions in sections 6(f) and 21(b) of the FTC Act or in Rule 4.10(d) of the Commission's Rules of Practice, and that was submitted to the Commission on or after December 22, 2006, the date of enactment of the U.S. SAFE WEB Act. *Procedural matters.* These amendments adopted herein will reconcile the Commission's rules with existing agency memoranda of understanding (MOUs), under which the Commission has an obligation to use its best efforts to share relevant consumer protection law enforcement material requested by applicable foreign agencies to the extent consistent with national laws, international obligations, enforcement policies and other important interests. Under these MOUs, the Commission has the implied obligation to implement any internal procedures required to allow the Commission to take into account all applicable laws, including the new U.S. SAFE WEB Act authority, in processing and considering applicable foreign agency requests for information. Because failure to make the proposed amendments would impair the Commission's ability to meet its foreign obligations, the amendments are exempt, by virtue of the foreign affairs exemption to the Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1), from both the Administrative Procedure Act's notice and comment requirement, 5 U.S.C. 553(b), and its restriction on the rules' effective date, 5 U.S.C. 553(d). These amendments are also exempt from the notice and comment requirement and effective date restriction of the Commission's Rules of Practice by virtue of the good cause exceptions in Rules 1.26(b) and 1.26(e). 16 CFR 1.26(b), (e). In these circumstances, providing a period of public comment would delay implementation of these rules and is both unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. 5 5 *See Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters* v. *Peña* , 17 F. 3d 1478 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (applying APA foreign affairs exemption and good cause exception of agency rule). Finally, these amendments are not a collection of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and are not subject to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601(2). List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 4 Administrative practice and procedure, Freedom of Information Act, Sunshine Act. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Federal Trade Commission amends Title 16, chapter I, subchapter A, of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows: Subchapter A—Organization, Procedures, And Rules Of Practice PART 4—MISCELLANEOUS RULES 1. The authority citation for part 4 continues to read as follows: Authority: 15 U.S.C. 46, unless otherwise noted. 2. Amend § 4.10 by revising paragraphs

(d)and

(e)to read as follows: § 4.10 Nonpublic material.

(d)Except as provided in paragraphs

(f)or

(g)of this section or in § 4.11(b), (c), (d), (i), or (j), no material that is marked or otherwise identified as confidential and that is within the scope of § 4.10(a)(8), and no material within the scope of § 4.10(a)(9) that is not otherwise public, will be made available without the consent of the person who produced the material, to any individual other than a duly authorized officer or employee of the Commission or a consultant or contractor retained by the Commission who has agreed in writing not to disclose the information. All other Commission records may be made available to a requester under the procedures set forth in § 4.11 or may be disclosed by the Commission except where prohibited by law.

(e)Except as provided in paragraphs

(f)or

(g)of this section or in § 4.11(b), (c), (d), (i), or (j), material not within the scope of § 4.10(a)(8) or § 4.10(a)(9) that is received by the Commission and is marked or otherwise identified as confidential may be disclosed only if it is determined that the material is not within the scope of § 4.10(a)(2), and the submitter is provided at least ten days notice of the intent to disclose the material. 3. Amend § 4.11 by adding a new paragraph

(j)to the end that reads as follows: § 4.11 Disclosure requests. (j)(1) The procedures specified in this section apply to disclosures of certain records to foreign law enforcement agencies in specified circumstances in accordance with the U.S. SAFE WEB Act of 2006. Nothing in this section authorizes the disclosure of material obtained in connection with the administration of the Federal antitrust laws or foreign antitrust laws, as defined in paragraph (j)(5)(i) of this section.

(2)Requests from foreign law enforcement agencies, as defined in paragraph (j)(5)(ii) of this section, for nonpublic records shall be addressed to the Director of the Office of International Affairs or the Director's designee, who shall forward them to the General Counsel with recommendations for disposition after obtaining any required certification described in paragraph (j)(3) of this section and approval of the Bureau of Consumer Protection. With respect to requests under this paragraph, the General Counsel or the General Counsel's designee is delegated the authority to dispose of them. Alternatively, the General Counsel may refer such requests to the Commission for determination, except that requests must be referred to the Commission for determination where the Bureau of Consumer Protection or the Office of International Affairs disagrees with the General Counsel's proposed disposition.

(3)Access under this section to any material subject to the disclosure restrictions in sections 6(f) or 21(b) of the FTC Act or § 4.10(d) may not be granted unless—

(i)An appropriate official of the foreign law enforcement agency has certified, either by prior agreement or memorandum of understanding or by other written certification, that such material will be maintained in confidence and will be used only for official law enforcement purposes; and (ii)(A) The foreign law enforcement agency has set forth a bona fide legal basis for its authority to maintain the material in confidence;

(B)The materials are to be used for purposes of investigating, or engaging in enforcement proceedings related to, possible violations of: ( *1* ) Foreign laws prohibiting fraudulent or deceptive commercial practices, or other practices substantially similar to practices prohibited by any law administered by the Commission; ( *2* ) A law administered by the Commission, if disclosure of the material would further a Commission investigation or enforcement proceeding; or ( *3* ) With the approval of the Attorney General, other foreign criminal laws, if such foreign criminal laws are offenses defined in or covered by a criminal mutual legal assistance treaty in force between the government of the United States and the foreign law enforcement agency's government;

(C)The appropriate Federal banking agency, (as defined in section 3(q) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813(q)) or, in the case of a Federal credit union, the National Credit Union Administration has given its prior approval if the materials to be provided under paragraph (j)(3)(ii)(B) of this section are requested by the foreign law enforcement agency for the purpose of investigating, or engaging in enforcement proceedings based on, possible violations of law by a bank, a savings and loan institution described in section 18(f)(3) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 57a(f)(3)), or a Federal credit union described in section 18(f)(4) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 57a(f)(4)); and

(D)The foreign law enforcement agency is not from a foreign state that the Secretary of State has determined, in accordance with section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 2405(j)), has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism, unless and until such determination is rescinded pursuant to section 6(j)(4) of that Act (50 U.S.C. App. 2405(j)(4)).

(4)A copy of the certificate described in paragraph (j)(3) of this section will be forwarded to the submitter of the information at the time the request is granted unless the foreign law enforcement agency requests that the submitter not be notified.

(5)For purposes of this section:

(i)“Federal antitrust laws” and “foreign antitrust laws” are to be interpreted as defined in paragraphs

(5)and (7), respectively, of section 12 of the International Antitrust Enforcement Assistance Act of 1994 (15 U.S.C. 6211); and

(ii)“Foreign law enforcement agency” is defined as:

(A)Any agency or judicial authority of a foreign government, including a foreign state, a political subdivision of a foreign state, or a multinational organization constituted by and comprised of foreign states, that is vested with law enforcement or investigative authority in civil, criminal, or administrative matters and

(B)Any multinational organization, to the extent that it is acting on behalf of an entity described in paragraph (j)(5)(i)(A) of this section. By direction of the Commission. Donald S. Clark, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-9966 Filed 5-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [TD 9319] RIN 1545-BD52 Limitations on Benefits and Contributions Under Qualified Plans; Correction AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Correcting amendments. SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to final regulations (TD 9319) that were published in the **Federal Register** on Thursday, April 5, 2007 (72 FR 16878) regarding the limitations of section 415, including updates to the regulations for numerous statutory changes since comprehensive final regulations were last published under section 415. DATES: These correcting amendments are effective May 23, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vernon S. Carter at

(202)622-6060 or Linda S. F. Marshall at

(202)622-6090 (not toll-free numbers). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The final regulations that are the subject of this document are under sections 401(a), 401(a)(4), 401(a)(9), 401(k), 402, 414(s), 415, 416, 457, and 924 of the Internal Revenue Code. Need for Correction As published, final regulations (TD 9319) contain errors that may prove to be misleading and are in need of clarification. List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1 Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Correction of Publication Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments: PART 1—INCOME TAXES **Paragraph 1.** The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows: Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * **Par. 2.** Section 1.415(b)-1 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(5)(i)(A), and the second sentence of paragraph (c)(6) *Example 6* , paragraph (iv). The revisions read as follows: § 1.415(b)-1 Limitations for defined benefit plans.

(c)* * *

(5)* * *

(i)* * *

(A)The benefit is paid in a form to which section 417(e)(3) does not apply.

(6)* * * Example 6. * * *

(iv)* * * With respect to the single-sum distribution, the annual amount of the actuarially equivalent straight life annuity commencing at the same age determined using the plan's actuarial factors is equal to $45,000. * * * **Par. 3.** Section 1.415(d)-1 is amended by revising its heading to read as follows: § 1.415(d)-1 Cost-of-living adjustments. **Par. 4.** Section 1.415(f)-1 is amended by revising the last sentence of paragraph (d)(1) to read as follows: § 1.415(f)-1 Aggregating plans.

(d)* * *

(1)* * * Instead, the transferee plan takes into account the transferred benefits that are actually provided under the transferee plan (see § 1.415(b)-1(b)(3)(i)(C)) and, pursuant to paragraph (c)(1) of this section, any nontransferred benefits provided under plans maintained by the predecessor employer with respect to a participant whose benefits have been transferred to the transferee plan. **Par. 5.** Section 1.457-5(d), *Example 2* , paragraphs

(ii)and

(iii)are amended by revising the third sentence of

(ii)and all of

(iii)to read as follows: § 1.457-5 Individual limitation for combined annual deferrals under multiple eligible plans.

(d)* * * Example 2. * * *

(ii)* * * Alternatively, Participant E could instead elect to defer the following combination of amounts: An aggregate total of $15,000 to Plans X, Y, and Z, if no contribution is made to Plan W; an aggregate total of $20,000 to any of the four plans, assuming at least $5,000 is contributed to Plan W; or $22,000 to Plan W and none to any of the other three plans.

(iii)* * * If the underutilized amount under Plans W, X, and Y for year 2006 were in each case zero (because E had always contributed the maximum amount or E was a new participant) or an amount not in excess of $5,000, the maximum exclusion under this section would be $20,000 for Participant E for year 2006 ($15,000 plus the $5,000 age 50 catch-up amount), which Participant E could contribute to any of the plans assuming at least $5,000 is contributed to Plan W. LaNita Van Dyke, Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration). [FR Doc. E7-9877 Filed 5-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [TD 9319] RIN 1545-BD52 Limitations on Benefits and Contributions Under Qualified Plans; Correction AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Correction to final regulations. SUMMARY: This document contains a correction to final regulations (TD 9319) that were published in the **Federal Register** on Thursday, April 5, 2007 (72 FR 16878) regarding the limitations of section 415, including updates to the regulations for numerous statutory changes since comprehensive final regulations were last published under section 415. DATES: This correction is effective May 23, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vernon S. Carter at

(202)622-6060 or Linda S. F. Marshall at

(202)622-6090 (not toll-free numbers). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The correction notice that is the subject of this document is under sections 401(a), 401(a)(4), 401(a)(9), 401(k), 402, 414(s), 415, 416, 457, and 924 of the Internal Revenue Code. Need for Correction As published, final regulations (TD 9319) contain an error that may prove to be misleading and is in need of clarification. Correction of Publication Accordingly, the publication of the final regulations (TD 9319), which was the subject of FR Doc. E7-5750, is corrected as follows: On page 16883, column 2, in the preamble, under the paragraph heading “ *C. Determination of High-3 Average Compensation* ”, first line from the bottom of the last paragraph of that heading, the language “participant in rehired.” is corrected to read “participant is rehired.”. LaNita Van Dyke, Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration). [FR Doc. E7-9878 Filed 5-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of Foreign Assets Control 31 CFR Part 593 Former Liberian Regime of Charles Taylor Sanctions Regulations AGENCY: Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Office of Foreign Assets Control of the U.S. Department of the Treasury is adding new part 593 to chapter V of 31 CFR to carry out the purposes of Executive Order 13348 of July 22, 2004, “Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting the Importation of Certain Goods from Liberia.” These regulations implement targeted sanctions directed at the regime of former President Charles Taylor. The sanctions are not directed against the country of Liberia, the Government of Liberia, or the Central Bank of Liberia. DATES: *Effective Date:* May 23, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Assistant Director for Compliance, Outreach & Implementation, tel.: 202/622-2490, Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202/622-2480, Assistant Director for Policy, tel.: 202/622-4855, Office of Foreign Assets Control, or Chief Counsel (Foreign Assets Control), tel.: 202/622-2410, Office of the General Counsel, Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC 20220 (not toll free numbers). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic and Facsimile Availability This document and additional information concerning the Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) are available from OFAC's Web site ( *http://www.treas.gov/ofac* ) or via facsimile through a 24-hour fax-on demand service, tel.:

(202)622-0077. Background On July 22, 2004, the President, invoking the authority of, *inter alia* , the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706) (“IEEPA”) and section 5 of the United Nations Participation Act (22 U.S.C. 287c), issued Executive Order 13348 (69 FR 44885, July 27, 2004) (”the Order”), effective at 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on July 23, 2004. The Order also noted United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1521 of December 22, 2003, and 1532 of March 12, 2004, which, *inter alia* , called on member states to impose an asset freeze on certain senior members of former Liberian President Charles Taylor's government and certain other persons and to prevent the importation into their territories of all round logs and timber products originating in Liberia. Section 1(a) of the Order blocks, with certain exceptions, all property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons, of:

(1)The persons listed in an Annex to the Order; and

(2)any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State: • To be or have been an immediate family member of Charles Taylor; • To have been a senior official of the former Liberian regime headed by Charles Taylor or otherwise to have been or be a close ally or associate of Charles Taylor or the former Liberian regime; • To have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services in support of, the unlawful depletion of Liberian resources, the removal of Liberian resources from that country, and the secreting of Liberian funds and property by any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to the Order; or • To be owned or controlled by, or acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to the Order. In Section 1(b) of the Order, the President determined that the exemption from IEEPA regulation provided in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) for the making of donations of the types of articles specified in such section ( *i.e.* , articles, such as food, clothing, and medicine, intended to be used to relieve human suffering) by, to, or for the benefit of, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to the Order would seriously impair his ability to deal with the national emergency declared in the Order, and prohibited such donations. Accordingly, the donation of such items is not exempted from the scope of these regulations and is prohibited, unless authorized by OFAC. Section 1(c) of the Order provides that the blocking of property and interests in property includes, but is not limited to, the making or receiving of any contribution or provision of funds, goods or services by, to, or for the benefit of, any person listed in or designated pursuant to the Order, and the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person. Section 2 of the Order prohibits, with certain exceptions, the direct or indirect importation into the United States of any round log or timber product originating in Liberia. Section 3 of the Order prohibits any transaction by a United States person that evades or avoids, or has the purpose of evading or avoiding, or attempts to violate, any of the prohibitions set forth in the Order, as well as any conspiracy formed to violate such prohibitions. Section 6 of the Order authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of the Order. Acting under authority delegated by the Secretary of the Treasury, the Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) is promulgating these Former Liberian Regime of Charles Taylor Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 593 (the “Regulations”). These regulations are promulgated in furtherance of the sanctions set forth in Executive Order 13348, which are targeted sanctions directed at the regime of former President Charles Taylor. The sanctions are not directed against the country of Liberia, the Government of Liberia, or the Central Bank of Liberia. They do not generally prohibit the provision of banking services to the country of Liberia, including the maintenance of correspondent banking relationships with Liberian banks, unless the bank in question, or any other person engaged in the transaction, is a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 593.201(a). In addition, the importation into the United States of rough diamonds from Liberia is governed by the Rough Diamonds Control Regulations, 31 CFR part 592. Subpart B of the Regulations implements the prohibitions contained in Sections 1, 2, and 3 of the Order. *See* §§ 593.201, 593.205, and 593.206. Appendix A to 31 CFR chapter V has previously been amended to incorporate the names of persons set forth in the Annex to the Order. Persons identified in the Annex to the Order or designated by or under the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to the Order are referred to throughout the Regulations as “persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 593.201(a).” Their names are or will be published on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List, which is accessible via OFAC's Web site, announced in the **Federal Register** , and incorporated on an ongoing basis into appendix A to 31 CFR chapter V, which lists persons who are the targets of various sanctions programs administered by OFAC. Sections 593.202 and 593.203 of subpart B detail the effect of transfers of blocked property in violation of the Regulations and set forth the requirement to hold blocked funds, such as currency, bank deposits, or liquidated financial obligations, in interest-bearing blocked accounts. Section 593.204 of subpart B provides that all expenses incident to the maintenance of blocked physical property shall be the responsibility of the owners and operators of such property, and that such expenses shall not be met from blocked funds. The section further provides that blocked property may, in the discretion of the Director of OFAC, be sold or liquidated and the net proceeds placed in a blocked interest-bearing account in the name of the owner of the property. Section 593.205 sets forth the prohibition contained in Section 2 of the Order with respect to the importation into the United States of round logs or timber products from Liberia. However, in Resolution 1689 of June 20, 2006, the United Nations Security Council decided to lift the multilateral prohibition on importation of round logs and timber products set forth in paragraph 10 of Resolution 1521. In accordance with the decision of the Security Council in Resolution 1689, OFAC is issuing § 593.510, a general license authorizing the importation into the United States of round logs and timber products originating in Liberia. Subpart C of part 593 defines key terms used throughout the Regulations, and subpart D sets forth interpretive sections regarding the general prohibitions contained in subpart B. Transactions otherwise prohibited under part 593 but found to be consistent with U.S. policy may be authorized by one of the general licenses contained in subpart E or by a specific license issued pursuant to the procedures described in subpart E of 31 CFR part 501. Subpart F of part 593 refers to subpart C of part 501 for applicable recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Subpart G describes the civil and criminal penalties applicable to violations of the Regulations, as well as the procedures governing the potential imposition of a civil monetary penalty. Subpart H of part 593 refers to subpart D of part 501 for applicable provisions relating to administrative procedures. Subpart I of the Regulations sets forth a Paperwork Reduction Act notice. Public Participation Because the Regulations involve a foreign affairs function, the provisions of Executive Order 12866 and the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity for public participation, and delay in effective date are inapplicable. Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this rule, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) does not apply. Paperwork Reduction Act The collections of information related to the Regulations are contained in 31 CFR part 501 (the “Reporting, Procedures and Penalties Regulations”). Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), those collections of information have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1505-0164. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid control number. List of Subjects in 31 CFR Part 593 Administrative practice and procedure, Banks, Banking, Blocking of assets, Credit, Foreign trade, Imports, Liberia, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Office of Foreign Assets Control adds part 593 to 31 CFR Chapter V to read as follows: PART 593—FORMER LIBERIAN REGIME OF CHARLES TAYLOR SANCTIONS REGULATIONS Subpart A—Relation of This Part to Other Laws and Regulations Sec. 593.101 Relation of this part to other laws and regulations. Subpart B—Prohibitions 593.201 Prohibited transactions involving blocked property. 593.202 Effect of transfers violating the provisions of this part. 593.203 Holding of blocked physical funds in interest-bearing accounts; investment and reinvestment. 593.204 Expenses of maintaining blocked physical property; liquidation of blocked account. 593.205 Prohibition on the importation of any round log or timber product originating in Liberia. 593.206 Evasions; attempts; conspiracies. Subpart C—General Definitions 593.301 Blocked account; blocked property. 593.302 Effective date. 593.303 Entity. 593.304 Interest. 593.305 Licenses; general and specific. 593.306 Originating in Liberia. 593.307 Person. 593.308 Property; property interest. 593.309 Round log or timber product. 593.310 Transfer. 593.311 United States. 593.312 U.S. financial institution. 593.313 United States person; U.S. person. Subpart D—Interpretations 593.401 Reference to amended sections. 593.402 Effect of amendment. 593.403 Termination and acquisition of an interest in blocked property. 593.404 Transactions ordinarily incident to a licensed transaction. 593.405 Provision of services. 593.406 Offshore transactions. 593.407 Payments from blocked accounts to satisfy obligations prohibited. 593.408 Charitable Contributions. 593.409 Credit extended and cards issued by U.S. financial institutions. 593.410 Setoffs prohibited. 593.411 Importation into the United States. 593.412 Release of any round log or timber product originating in Liberia from a bonded warehouse or foreign trade zone. 593.413 Transshipments or transit through the United States prohibited. Subpart E—Licenses, Authorizations and Statements of Licensing Policy 593.501 General and specific licensing procedures. 593.502 Effect of license or authorization. 593.503 Exclusion from licenses. 593.504 Payments and transfers to blocked accounts in U.S. financial institutions. 593.505 Entries in certain accounts for normal service charges authorized. 593.506 Investment and reinvestment of certain funds. 593.507 Provision of certain legal services authorized. 593.508 Authorization of emergency medical services. 593.509 Transactions related to mail authorized. 593.510 Transactions related to the importation of any round log and timber product originating in Liberia authorized. Subpart F—Reports 593.601 Records and reports. Subpart G—Penalties 593.701 Penalties. 593.702 Prepenalty notice. 593.703 Response to prepenalty notice; informal settlement. 593.704 Penalty imposition or withdrawal. 593.705 Administrative collection; referral to United States Department of Justice. Subpart H—Procedures 593.801 Procedures. 593.802 Delegation by the Secretary of the Treasury. Subpart I—Paperwork Reduction Act 593.901 Paperwork Reduction Act notice. Authority: 3 U.S.C. 301; 31 U.S.C. 321(b); 50 U.S.C. 1601-1651, 1701-1706; 22 U.S.C. 287c; Pub. L. 109-177, 120 Stat. 192; E.O. 13348, 69 FR 44885, 3 CFR, 2004 Comp., p. 189. Subpart A—Relation of This Part to Other Laws and Regulations § 593.101 Relation of this part to other laws and regulations. This part is separate from, and independent of, the other parts of this chapter, with the exception of part 501 of this chapter, the recordkeeping and reporting requirements and license application and other procedures of which apply to this part. Actions taken pursuant to part 501 of this chapter with respect to the prohibitions contained in this part are considered actions taken pursuant to this part. Differing foreign policy and national security circumstances may result in differing interpretations of similar language among the parts of this chapter. No license or authorization contained in or issued pursuant to any other provision of law or regulation authorizes any transaction prohibited by this part. No license contained in or issued pursuant to this part relieves the involved parties from complying with any other applicable laws or regulations. Subpart B—Prohibitions § 593.201 Prohibited transactions involving blocked property.

(a)Except as authorized by regulations, orders, directives, rulings, instructions, licenses or otherwise, and notwithstanding any contracts entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the effective date, property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of U.S. persons, including their overseas branches, of the following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in:

(1)Any person listed in the Annex to Executive Order 13348 of July 22, 2004 (69 FR 44885, July 27, 2004); and

(2)Any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State:

(i)To be or have been an immediate family member of Charles Taylor;

(ii)To have been a senior official of the former Liberian regime headed by Charles Taylor or otherwise to have been or be a close ally or associate of Charles Taylor or the former Liberian regime;

(iii)To have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services in support of, the unlawful depletion of Liberian resources, the removal of Liberian resources from that country, and the secreting of Liberian funds and property by any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this paragraph (a); or

(iv)To be owned or controlled by, or acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this paragraph (a). Note to paragraph

(a)of § 593.201. The names of persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to paragraph

(a)of this section are published on the Office of Foreign Assets Control's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (the “SDN List”), which is accessible via the Office of Foreign Assets Control's Web site, announced in the **Federal Register** , and incorporated on an ongoing basis with the identifier [LIBERIA] into Appendix A to 31 CFR chapter V. In addition, section 203 of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706) (“IEEPA”) explicitly authorizes the blocking of property and interests in property of a person or entity during the pendency of an investigation. The names of such persons also are published on the SDN List, announced in the **Federal Register** , and incorporated on an ongoing basis with the identifier [BPI-LIBERIA] into Appendix A to 31 CFR chapter V. Sections 501.806 and 501.807 of this chapter V describe the procedures to be followed by persons seeking, respectively, the unblocking of funds that they believe were blocked due to mistaken identity, or administrative reconsideration of their listing or designation pursuant to § 593.201(a).

(b)The blocking of property and interests in property pursuant to § 593.201(a) includes, but is not limited to, the prohibition of the making or receiving by a United States person of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 593.201(a).

(c)Unless otherwise authorized by this part or by a specific license expressly referring to this section, any dealing in any security (or evidence thereof) held within the possession or control of a U.S. person and either registered or inscribed in the name of, or known to be held for the benefit of, or issued by, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 593.201(a) is prohibited. This prohibition includes but is not limited to the transfer (including the transfer on the books of any issuer or agent thereof), disposition, transportation, importation, exportation, or withdrawal of, or the endorsement or guaranty of signatures on, any such security on or after the effective date. This prohibition applies irrespective of the fact that at any time (whether prior to, on, or subsequent to the effective date) the registered or inscribed owner of any such security may have or might appear to have assigned, transferred, or otherwise disposed of the security. § 593.202 Effect of transfers violating the provisions of this part.

(a)Any transfer after the effective date that is in violation of any provision of this part or of any regulation, order, directive, ruling, instruction, or license issued pursuant to this part, and that involves any property or interest in property blocked pursuant to § 593.201(a), is null and void and shall not be the basis for the assertion or recognition of any interest in or right, remedy, power, or privilege with respect to such property or property interests.

(b)No transfer before the effective date shall be the basis for the assertion or recognition of any right, remedy, power, or privilege with respect to, or any interest in, any property or interest in property blocked pursuant to § 593.201(a), unless the person with whom such property is held or maintained, prior to that date, had written notice of the transfer or by any written evidence had recognized such transfer.

(c)Unless otherwise provided, an appropriate license or other authorization issued by or pursuant to the direction or authorization of the Director of the Office of Foreign Assets Control before, during, or after a transfer shall validate such transfer or make it enforceable to the same extent that it would be valid or enforceable but for the provisions of IEEPA, Executive Order 13348, this part, and any regulation, order, directive, ruling, instruction, or license issued pursuant to this part.

(d)Transfers of property that otherwise would be null and void or unenforceable by virtue of the provisions of this section shall not be deemed to be null and void or unenforceable as to any person with whom such property is or was held or maintained (and as to such person only) in cases in which such person is able to establish to the satisfaction of the Director of the Office of Foreign Assets Control each of the following:

(1)Such transfer did not represent a willful violation of the provisions of this part by the person with whom such property is or was held or maintained;

(2)The person with whom such property is or was held or maintained did not have reasonable cause to know or suspect, in view of all the facts and circumstances known or available to such person, that such transfer required a license or authorization issued pursuant to this part and was not so licensed or authorized, or, if a license or authorization did purport to cover the transfer, that such license or authorization had been obtained by misrepresentation of a third party or withholding of material facts or was otherwise fraudulently obtained; and

(3)The person with whom such property is or was held or maintained filed with the Office of Foreign Assets Control a report setting forth in full the circumstances relating to such transfer promptly upon discovery that:

(i)Such transfer was in violation of the provisions of this part or any regulation, ruling, instruction, license, or other direction or authorization issued pursuant to this part;

(ii)Such transfer was not licensed or authorized by the Director of the Office of Foreign Assets Control; or

(iii)If a license did purport to cover the transfer, such license had been obtained by misrepresentation of a third party or withholding of material facts or was otherwise fraudulently obtained. Note to paragraph

(d)of § 593.202. The filing of a report in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (d)(3) of this section shall not be deemed evidence that the terms of paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) of this section have been satisfied.

(e)Except to the extent otherwise provided by law, unless licensed pursuant to this part, any attachment, judgment, decree, lien, execution, garnishment, or other judicial process is null and void with respect to any property in which, on or since the effective date, there existed an interest of a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 593.201(a). § 593.203 Holding of blocked funds in interest-bearing accounts; investment and reinvestment.

(a)Except as provided in paragraph

(c)or

(d)of this section, or as otherwise directed by the Office of Foreign Assets Control, any U.S. person holding funds, such as currency, bank deposits, or liquidated financial obligations, subject to § 593.201(a) shall hold or place such funds in a blocked interest-bearing account located in the United States. (b)(1) For purposes of this section, the term *blocked interest-bearing account* means a blocked account:

(i)In a federally-insured U.S. bank, thrift institution, or credit union, provided the funds are earning interest at rates that are commercially reasonable; or

(ii)With a broker or dealer registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a *et seq.* ), provided the funds are invested in a money market fund or in U.S. Treasury bills.

(2)For purposes of this section, a rate is commercially reasonable if it is the rate currently offered to other depositors on deposits or instruments of comparable size and maturity.

(3)Funds held or placed in a blocked account pursuant to this paragraph

(b)may not be invested in instruments the maturity of which exceeds 180 days. If interest is credited to a separate blocked account or subaccount, the name of the account party on each account must be the same.

(c)Blocked funds held in instruments the maturity of which exceeds 180 days at the time the funds become subject to § 593.201(a) may continue to be held until maturity in the original instrument, provided any interest, earnings, or other proceeds derived therefrom are paid into a blocked interest-bearing account in accordance with paragraph

(b)or

(d)of this section.

(d)Blocked funds held in accounts or instruments outside the United States at the time the funds become subject to § 593.201(a) may continue to be held in the same type of accounts or instruments, provided the funds earn interest at rates that are commercially reasonable.

(e)This section does not create an affirmative obligation for the holder of blocked tangible property, such as chattels or real estate, or of other blocked property, such as debt or equity securities, to sell or liquidate such property at the time the property becomes subject to § 593.201(a). However, the Office of Foreign Assets Control may issue licenses permitting or directing such sales in appropriate cases.

(f)Funds subject to this section may not be held, invested, or reinvested in a manner that provides immediate financial or economic benefit or access to any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 593.201(a), nor may their holder cooperate in or facilitate the pledging or other attempted use as collateral of blocked funds or other assets. § 593.204 Expenses of maintaining blocked physical property; liquidation of blocked account.

(a)Except as otherwise authorized, and notwithstanding the existence of any rights or obligations conferred or imposed by any international agreement or contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the effective date, all expenses incident to the maintenance of physical property blocked pursuant to § 593.201(a) shall be the responsibility of the owners or operators of such property, which expenses shall not be met from blocked funds.

(b)Property blocked pursuant to § 593.201(a) may, in the discretion of the Director of the Office of Foreign Assets Control, be sold or liquidated and the net proceeds placed in a blocked interest-bearing account in the name of the owner of the property. § 593.205 Prohibition on the importation of any round log or timber product originating in Liberia. Except as otherwise authorized by regulations, orders, directives, rulings, instructions, licenses, or otherwise, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the effective date of this section, the importation into the United States, directly or indirectly, of any round log or timber product originating in Liberia is prohibited. Note to § 593.205. See section 593.510, which authorizes transactions related to the importation of any round log or timber product originating in Liberia. This general license has been issued in accordance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1689 of June 20, 2006. § 593.206 Evasions; attempts; conspiracies.

(a)Except as otherwise authorized, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the effective date, any transaction by any U.S. person or within the United States on or after the effective date that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this part is prohibited.

(b)Except as otherwise authorized, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the effective date, any conspiracy formed to violate the prohibitions set forth in this part is prohibited. Subpart C—General Definitions § 593.301 Blocked account; blocked property. The terms *blocked account* and *blocked property* shall mean any account or property subject to the prohibitions in § 593.201 held in the name of a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 593.201(a), or in which such person has an interest, and with respect to which payments, transfers, exportations, withdrawals, or other dealings may not be made or effected except pursuant to an authorization or license from the Office of Foreign Assets Control expressly authorizing such action. § 593.302 Effective date. The term *effective date* refers to the effective date of the applicable prohibitions and directives contained in this part as follows:

(a)With respect to a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 593.201(a)(1), or with respect to the prohibitions set forth at § 593.205, 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, July 23, 2004;

(b)With respect to a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 593.201(a)(2), the earlier of the date of actual or constructive notice of such person's designation. § 593.303 Entity. The term *entity* means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization. § 593.304 Interest. Except as otherwise provided in this part, the term interest, when used with respect to property ( *e.g.* , “an *interest* in property”), means an interest of any nature whatsoever, direct or indirect. § 593.305 Licenses; general and specific.

(a)Except as otherwise specified, the term *license* means any license or authorization contained in or issued pursuant to this part.

(b)The term *general license* means any license or authorization the terms of which are set forth in subpart E of this part.

(c)The term *specific license* means any license or authorization not set forth in subpart E of this part but issued pursuant to this part. Note to § 593.305. See § 501.801 of this chapter on licensing procedures. § 593.306 Originating in Liberia. The term *originating in Liberia* means:

(a)Any product determined to be a good of Liberian origin pursuant to the rules of origin of U.S. Customs and Border Protection; or

(b)Any product that has entered into Liberian commerce. § 593.307 Person. The term *person* means an individual or entity. § 593.308 Property; property interest. The terms *property* and *property interest* include, but are not limited to, money, checks, drafts, bullion, bank deposits, savings accounts, debts, indebtedness, obligations, notes, guarantees, debentures, stocks, bonds, coupons, any other financial instruments, bankers acceptances, mortgages, pledges, liens or other rights in the nature of security, warehouse receipts, bills of lading, trust receipts, bills of sale, any other evidences of title, ownership or indebtedness, letters of credit and any documents relating to any rights or obligations there under, powers of attorney, goods, wares, merchandise, chattels, stocks on hand, ships, goods on ships, real estate mortgages, deeds of trust, vendors' sales agreements, land contracts, leaseholds, ground rents, real estate and any other interest therein, options, negotiable instruments, trade acceptances, royalties, book accounts, accounts payable, judgments, patents, trademarks or copyrights, insurance policies, safe deposit boxes and their contents, annuities, pooling agreements, services of any nature whatsoever, contracts of any nature whatsoever, and any other property, real, personal, or mixed, tangible or intangible, or interest or interests therein, present, future or contingent. § 593.309 Round log or timber product. The term *round log or timber product* means any product classifiable in Chapter 44 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. § 593.310 Transfer. The term *transfer* means any actual or purported act or transaction, whether or not evidenced by writing, and whether or not done or performed within the United States, the purpose, intent, or effect of which is to create, surrender, release, convey, transfer, or alter, directly or indirectly, any right, remedy, power, privilege, or interest with respect to any property and, without limitation upon the foregoing, shall include the making, execution, or delivery of any assignment, power, conveyance, check, declaration, deed, deed of trust, power of attorney, power of appointment, bill of sale, mortgage, receipt, agreement, contract, certificate, gift, sale, affidavit, or statement; the making of any payment; the setting off of any obligation or credit; the appointment of any agent, trustee, or fiduciary; the creation or transfer of any lien; the issuance, docketing, filing, or levy of or under any judgment, decree, attachment, injunction, execution, or other judicial or administrative process or order, or the service of any garnishment; the acquisition of any interest of any nature whatsoever by reason of a judgment or decree of any foreign country; the fulfillment of any condition; the exercise of any power of appointment, power of attorney, or other power; or the acquisition, disposition, transportation, importation, exportation, or withdrawal of any security. § 593.311 United States. The term *United States* means the United States, its territories and possessions, and all areas under the jurisdiction or authority thereof. § 593.312 U.S. financial institution. The term *U.S. financial institution* means any U.S. entity (including its foreign branches) that is engaged in the business of accepting deposits, making, granting, transferring, holding, or brokering loans or credits, or purchasing or selling foreign exchange, securities, commodity futures or options, or procuring purchasers and sellers thereof, as principal or agent; including but not limited to, depository institutions, banks, savings banks, trust companies, securities brokers and dealers, commodity futures and options brokers and dealers, forward contract and foreign exchange merchants, securities and commodities exchanges, clearing corporations, investment companies, employee benefit plans, and U.S. holding companies, U.S. affiliates, or U.S. subsidiaries of any of the foregoing. This term includes those branches, offices and agencies of foreign financial institutions that are located in the United States, but not such institutions' foreign branches, offices, or agencies. § 593.313 United States person; U.S. person. The term *United States person* or *U.S. person* means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States. Subpart D—Interpretations § 593.401 Reference to amended sections. Except as otherwise specified, reference to any provision in or appendix to this part or chapter or to any regulation, ruling, order, instruction, direction, or license issued pursuant to this part refers to the same as currently amended. § 593.402 Effect of amendment. Unless otherwise specifically provided, any amendment, modification, or revocation of any provision in or appendix to this part or chapter or of any order, regulation, ruling, instruction, or license issued by or under the direction of the Director of the Office of Foreign Assets Control does not affect any act done or omitted, or any civil or criminal suit or proceeding commenced or pending prior to such amendment, modification, or revocation. All penalties, forfeitures, and liabilities under any such order, regulation, ruling, instruction, or license continue and may be enforced as if such amendment, modification, or revocation had not been made. § 593.403 Termination and acquisition of an interest in blocked property.

(a)Whenever a transaction licensed or authorized by or pursuant to this part results in the transfer of blocked property (including any property interest) away from a person, such property shall no longer be deemed to be property blocked pursuant to § 593.201(a), unless there exists in the property another interest that is blocked pursuant to § 593.201(a) or any other part of this chapter, the transfer of which has not been effected pursuant to license or other authorization.

(b)Unless otherwise specifically provided in a license or authorization issued pursuant to this part, if property (including any property interest) is transferred or attempted to be transferred to a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 593.201(a), such property shall be deemed to be property in which that person has an interest and therefore blocked. § 593.404 Transactions ordinarily incident to a licensed transaction. Any transaction ordinarily incident to a licensed transaction and necessary to give effect thereto is also authorized, except:

(a)An ordinarily incident transaction, not explicitly authorized within the terms of the license, by or with a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 593.201(a); or

(b)An ordinarily incident transaction, not explicitly authorized within the terms of the license, involving a debit to a blocked account or a transfer of blocked property. § 593.405 Provision of services.

(a)The prohibitions on transactions involving blocked property contained in § 593.201 apply to services performed in the United States or by U.S. persons, wherever located, including by an overseas branch of an entity located in the United States:

(1)On behalf of or for the benefit of a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 593.201(a); or

(2)With respect to property interests subject to § 593.201.

(b)*Example.* U.S. persons may not, except as authorized by or pursuant to this part, provide legal, accounting, financial, brokering, freight forwarding, transportation, public relations, or other services to a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 593.201(a). Note to § 593.405. See §§ 593.507 and 593.508, respectively, on licensing policy with regard to the provision of certain legal or medical services. § 593.406 Offshore transactions. The prohibitions in § 593.201 on transactions involving blocked property apply to transactions by any U.S. person in a location outside the United States with respect to property held in the name of a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 593.201(a), or property in which a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 593.201(a) has or has had an interest since the effective date. § 593.407 Payments from blocked accounts to satisfy obligations prohibited. Pursuant to § 593.201, no debits may be made to a blocked account to pay obligations to U.S. persons or other persons, except as authorized by or pursuant to this part. § 593.408 Charitable contributions. Unless otherwise specifically authorized by the Office of Foreign Assets Control by or pursuant to this part, no charitable contribution or donation of funds, goods, services, or technology, including those to relieve human suffering, such as food, clothing or medicine, may be made by, to, or for the benefit of a person whose property or interests in property are blocked pursuant to Sec. 593.201(a). For purposes of this part, a contribution or donation is made by, to, or for the benefit of a person whose property or interests in property are blocked pursuant to Sec. 593.201(a) if made by, to, or in the name of such a person; if made by, to, or in the name of an entity or individual acting for or on behalf of, or owned or controlled by, such a person; or if made in an attempt to violate, to evade, or to avoid the bar on the provision of contributions or donations by, to, or for such a person. § 593.409 Credit extended and cards issued by U.S. financial institutions. The prohibition in § 593.201 on dealing in property subject to that section prohibits U.S. financial institutions from performing under any existing credit agreements, including, but not limited to, charge cards, debit cards, or other credit facilities issued by a U.S. financial institution to a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 593.201(a). § 593.410 Setoffs prohibited. A setoff against blocked property (including a blocked account), whether by a U.S. bank or other U.S. person, is a prohibited transfer under § 593.201 if effected after the effective date. § 593.411 Importation into the United States. With respect to the prohibitions set forth in § 593.205, the term *importation into the United States* generally means the bringing of any such products into the United States. In the case of round logs or timber products originating in Liberia being transported by vessel, *importation into the United States* means the bringing of any such products into the United States with the intent to unlade. See also § 593.413 and § 593.510. § 593.412 Release of any round log or timber product originating in Liberia from a bonded warehouse or foreign trade zone.

(a)The prohibitions in § 593.205 apply to importation into a bonded warehouse or a foreign trade zone in the United States.

(b)Section 593.205 does not prohibit the release from a bonded warehouse or foreign trade zone of any round log or timber product originating in Liberia imported into a bonded warehouse or foreign trade zone either prior to the effective date or in a transaction authorized pursuant to this part on or after the effective date.

(c)Notwithstanding paragraph

(b)of this section, any round log or timber product originating in Liberia in which persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 593.201(a) have an interest may not be released unless authorized by the Office of Foreign Assets Control. Note to § 593.412. See § 593.510. § 593.413 Transshipment or transit through the United States prohibited. Except as otherwise specified:

(a)The prohibitions in § 593.205 apply to the importation into the United States, for transshipment or transit to third countries, of any round log or timber product originating in Liberia.

(b)In the case of any round log or timber product originating in Liberia, the prohibitions in § 593.205 apply to the unlading in the United States and the intent to unlade in the United States of such products intended or destined for third countries. Note to § 593.413. See § 593.510. Subpart E—Licenses, Authorizations and Statements of Licensing Policy § 593.501 General and specific licensing procedures. For provisions relating to licensing procedures, see part 501, subpart E of this chapter. Licensing actions taken pursuant to part 501 of this chapter with respect to the prohibitions contained in this part are considered actions taken pursuant to this part. § 593.502 Effect of license or authorization.

(a)No license or other authorization contained in this part, or otherwise issued by or under the direction of the Director of the Office of Foreign Assets Control, authorizes or validates any transaction effected prior to the issuance of such license or other authorization, unless specifically provided in such license or authorization.

(b)No regulation, ruling, instruction, or license authorizes any transaction prohibited under this part unless the regulation, ruling, instruction, or license is issued by the Office of Foreign Assets Control and specifically refers to this part. No regulation, ruling, instruction, or license referring to this part shall be deemed to authorize any transaction prohibited by any provision of this chapter unless the regulation, ruling, instruction, or license specifically refers to such provision.

(c)Any regulation, ruling, instruction, or license authorizing any transaction otherwise prohibited under this part has the effect of removing a prohibition contained in this part from the transaction, but only to the extent specifically stated by its terms. Unless the regulation, ruling, instruction, or license otherwise specifies, such an authorization does not create any right, duty, obligation, claim, or interest in, or with respect to, any property which would not otherwise exist under ordinary principles of law. § 593.503 Exclusion from licenses. The Director of the Office of Foreign Assets Control reserves the right to exclude any person, property, or transaction from the operation of any license or from the privileges conferred by any license. The Director of the Office of Foreign Assets Control also reserves the right to restrict the applicability of any license to particular persons, property, transactions, or classes thereof. Such actions are binding upon all persons receiving actual or constructive notice of the exclusions or restrictions. § 593.504 Payments and transfers to blocked accounts in U.S. financial institutions. Any payment of funds or transfer of credit in which a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 593.201(a) has any interest that comes within the possession or control of a U.S. financial institution must be blocked in an account on the books of that financial institution. A transfer of funds or credit by a U.S. financial institution between blocked accounts in its branches or offices is authorized, provided that no transfer is made from an account within the United States to an account held outside the United States, and further provided that a transfer from a blocked account may be made only to another blocked account held in the same name. Note to § 593.504. Please refer to § 501.603 of this chapter for mandatory reporting requirements regarding financial transfers. See also § 593.203 concerning the obligation to hold blocked funds in interest-bearing accounts. § 593.505 Entries in certain accounts for normal service charges authorized.

(a)A U.S. financial institution is authorized to debit any blocked account held at that financial institution in payment or reimbursement for normal service charges owed it by the owner of that blocked account.

(b)As used in this section, the term *normal service charges* shall include charges in payment or reimbursement for interest due; cable, telegraph, internet, or telephone charges; postage costs; custody fees; small adjustment charges to correct bookkeeping errors; and, but not by way of limitation, minimum balance charges, notary and protest fees, and charges for reference books, photocopies, credit reports, transcripts of statements, registered mail, insurance, stationery and supplies, and other similar items. § 593.506 Investment and reinvestment of certain funds. Subject to the requirements of § 593.203, U.S. financial institutions are authorized to invest and reinvest assets blocked pursuant to § 593.201, subject to the following conditions:

(a)The assets representing such investments and reinvestments are credited to a blocked account or subaccount which is held in the same name at the same U.S. financial institution, or within the possession or control of a U.S. person, but funds shall not be transferred outside the United States for this purpose;

(b)The proceeds of such investments and reinvestments shall not be credited to a blocked account or subaccount under any name or designation that differs from the name or designation of the specific blocked account or subaccount in which such funds or securities were held; and

(c)No immediate financial or economic benefit accrues ( *e.g.* , through pledging or other use) to a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 593.201(a). § 593.507 Provision of certain legal services authorized.

(a)The provision of the following legal services to or on behalf of persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 593.201(a) is authorized, provided that all receipts of payment of professional fees and reimbursement of incurred expenses must be specifically licensed:

(1)Provision of legal advice and counseling on the requirements of and compliance with the laws of any jurisdiction within the United States, provided that such advice and counseling are not provided to facilitate transactions in violation of this part;

(2)Representation of persons when named as defendants in or otherwise made parties to domestic U.S. legal, arbitration, or administrative proceedings;

(3)Initiation and conduct of domestic U.S. legal, arbitration, or administrative proceedings in defense of property interests subject to U.S. jurisdiction;

(4)Representation of persons before any Federal or State agency with respect to the imposition, administration, or enforcement of U.S. sanctions against such persons; and

(5)Provision of legal services in any other context in which prevailing U.S. law requires access to legal counsel at public expense.

(b)The provision of any other legal services to persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 593.201(a), not otherwise authorized in this part, requires the issuance of a specific license.

(c)Entry into a settlement agreement affecting property and interests in property or the enforcement of any lien, judgment, arbitral award, decree, or other order through execution, garnishment, or other judicial process purporting to transfer or otherwise alter or affect property and interests in property blocked pursuant to § 593.201(a) is prohibited unless specifically licensed in accordance with § 593.202(e). § 593.508 Authorization of emergency medical services. The provision of nonscheduled emergency medical services in the United States to persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 593.201(a) is authorized, provided that all receipt of payment for such services must be specifically licensed. § 593.509 Transactions related to mail authorized. All transactions by U.S. persons, including payment and transfers to common carriers, incident to the receipt or transmission of mail between a U.S. person and a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 593.201(a) are authorized, provided the mail is limited to personal communications not involving a transfer of anything of value and not exceeding 12 ounces in weight. § 593.510 Transactions related to the importation of any round log or timber product originating in Liberia authorized. Except as otherwise prohibited by § 593.201, all transactions that are prohibited by § 593.205 with respect to the importation into the United States of any round log or timber product originating in Liberia are authorized. Subpart F—Reports § 593.601 Records and reports. For provisions relating to required records and reports, see part 501, subpart C, of this chapter. Recordkeeping and reporting requirements imposed by part 501 of this chapter with respect to the prohibitions contained in this part are considered requirements arising pursuant to this part. Subpart G—Penalties § 593.701 Penalties.

(a)Attention is directed to section 206 of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) (50 U.S.C. 1705), which is applicable to violations of the provisions of any license, ruling, regulation, order, direction, or instruction issued by or pursuant to the direction or authorization of the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to this part or otherwise under IEEPA.

(1)A civil penalty not to exceed the amount set forth in Section 206 of IEEPA, as amended, may be imposed on any person who violates or attempts to violate any license, order, or regulation issued under IEEPA; Note to paragraph (a)(1) of § 593.701. As of May 23, 2007, the maximum civil penalty for a violation of IEEPA is $50,000.

(2)Whoever willfully violates or willfully attempts to violate any license, order, or regulation issued under IEEPA, upon conviction, shall be fined not more than $50,000, and if a natural person, may also be imprisoned for not more than 20 years; and any officer, director, or agent of any corporation who knowingly participates in such violation may be punished by a like fine, imprisonment, or both.

(b)Attention is directed to section 5 of the United Nations Participation Act, as amended (22 U.S.C. 287c(b)) (“UNPA”), which provides that any person who willfully violates or evades or attempts to violate or evade any order, rule, or regulation issued by the President pursuant to the authority granted in that section, upon conviction, shall be fined not more than $10,000 and, if a natural person, may also be imprisoned for not more than 10 years; and the officer, director, or agent of any corporation who knowingly participates in such violation or evasion shall be punished by a like fine, imprisonment, or both and any property, funds, securities, papers, or other articles or documents, or any vessel, together with her tackle, apparel, furniture, and equipment, or vehicle, or aircraft, concerned in such violation shall be forfeited to the United States.

(c)Violations involving transactions described at section 203(b)(1), (3-4) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(1), (3-4)) shall be subject only to the penalties set forth in paragraph

(b)of this section. (d)(1) The civil penalties provided in IEEPA are subject to adjustment pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-410, as amended, 28 U.S.C. 2461 note).

(2)The criminal penalties provided in IEEPA and UNPA are subject to increase pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3571.

(e)Attention is also directed to 18 U.S.C. 1001, which provides that whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the United States, knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or makes any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(f)Violations of this part may also be subject to relevant provisions of other applicable laws. § 593.702 Prepenalty notice.

(a)*When required* . If the Director of the Office of Foreign Assets Control has reason to believe that there has occurred a violation of any provision of this part or a violation of the provisions of any license, ruling, regulation, order, direction, or instruction issued by or pursuant to the direction or authorization of the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to this part or otherwise under IEEPA, and the Director determines that further proceedings are warranted, the Director shall notify the alleged violator of the agency's intent to impose a monetary penalty by issuing a prepenalty notice. The prepenalty notice shall be in writing. The prepenalty notice may be issued whether or not another agency has taken any action with respect to the matter.

(b)*Contents of notice* .—(1) *Facts of violation* . The prepenalty notice shall describe the violation, specify the laws and regulations allegedly violated, and state the amount of the proposed monetary penalty.

(2)*Right to respond* . The prepenalty notice also shall inform the respondent of the respondent's right to make a written presentation within the applicable 30-day period set forth in § 593.703 as to why a monetary penalty should not be imposed or why, if imposed, the monetary penalty should be in a lesser amount than proposed.

(c)*Informal settlement prior to issuance of prepenalty notice* . At any time prior to the issuance of a prepenalty notice, an alleged violator may request in writing that, for a period not to exceed 60 days, the agency withhold issuance of the prepenalty notice for the exclusive purpose of effecting settlement of the agency's potential civil monetary penalty claims. In the event the Director grants the request, under terms and conditions within the Director's discretion, the Office of Foreign Assets Control will agree to withhold issuance of the prepenalty notice for a period not to exceed 60 days and will enter into settlement negotiations of the potential civil monetary penalty claim. § 593.703 Response to prepenalty notice; informal settlement.

(a)*Deadline for response* . The respondent may submit a response to the prepenalty notice within the applicable 30-day period set forth in this paragraph. The Director may grant, at the Director's discretion, an extension of time in which to submit a response to the prepenalty notice. The failure to submit a response within the applicable time period set forth in this paragraph shall be deemed to be a waiver of the right to respond.

(1)*Computation of time for response* . A response to the prepenalty notice must be postmarked or date-stamped by the U.S. Postal Service (or foreign postal service, if mailed abroad) or courier service provider (if transmitted to the Office of Foreign Assets Control by courier) on or before the 30th day after the postmark date on the envelope in which the prepenalty notice was mailed. If the prepenalty notice was personally delivered to the respondent by a non-U.S. Postal Service agent authorized by the Director, a response must be postmarked or date-stamped on or before the 30th day after the date of delivery.

(2)*Extensions of time for response* . If a due date falls on a Federal holiday or weekend, that due date is extended to include the following business day. Any other extensions of time will be granted, at the Director's discretion, only upon the respondent's specific request to the Office of Foreign Assets Control.

(b)*Form and method of response* . The response need not be in any particular form, but it must be typewritten and signed by the respondent or a representative thereof. A copy of the written response may be sent by facsimile, but the original also must be sent to the Office of Foreign Assets Control Civil Penalties Division by mail or courier and must be postmarked or date-stamped, in accordance with paragraph

(a)of this section.

(c)*Contents of response* . A written response must contain information sufficient to indicate that it is in response to the prepenalty notice and must identify the Office of Foreign Assets Control identification number listed on the prepenalty notice.

(1)A written response must include the respondent's full name, address, telephone number, and facsimile number, if available, or those of the representative of the respondent.

(2)A written response should either admit or deny each specific violation alleged in the prepenalty notice and also state if the respondent has no knowledge of a particular violation. If the written response fails to address any specific violation alleged in the prepenalty notice, that alleged violation shall be deemed to be admitted.

(3)A written response should include any information in defense, evidence in support of an asserted defense, or other factors that the respondent requests the Office of Foreign Assets Control to consider. Any defense or explanation previously made to the Office of Foreign Assets Control or any other agency must be repeated in the written response. Any defense not raised in the written response will be considered waived. The written response also should set forth the reasons why the respondent believes the penalty should not be imposed or why, if imposed, it should be in a lesser amount than proposed.

(d)*Failure to Respond* . If the Office of Foreign Assets Control receives no response to a prepenalty notice within the applicable time period set forth in paragraph

(a)of this section, a penalty notice generally will be issued, taking into account the mitigating and/or aggravating factors present in the record. If there are no mitigating factors present in the record, or the record contains a preponderance of aggravating factors, the proposed prepenalty amount generally will be assessed as the final penalty.

(e)*Informal settlement* . In addition to or as an alternative to a written response to a prepenalty notice, the respondent or respondent's representative may contact the Office of Foreign Assets Control's Civil Penalties Division as advised in the prepenalty notice to propose the settlement of allegations contained in the prepenalty notice and related matters. However, the requirements set forth in paragraph

(g)of this section as to oral communication by the representative must first be fulfilled. In the event of settlement at the prepenalty stage, the claim proposed in the prepenalty notice will be withdrawn, the respondent will not be required to take a written position on allegations contained in the prepenalty notice, and the Office of Foreign Assets Control will make no final determination as to whether a violation occurred. The amount accepted in settlement of allegations in a prepenalty notice may vary from the civil penalty that might finally be imposed in the event of a formal determination of violation. In the event no settlement is reached, the time limit specified in paragraph

(a)of this section for written response to the prepenalty notice will remain in effect unless additional time is granted by the Office of Foreign Assets Control.

(f)*Guidelines* . Guidelines for the imposition or settlement of civil penalties by the Office of Foreign Assets Control are available on OFAC's Web site ( *http://www.treas.gov/ofac* ).

(g)*Representation* . A representative of the respondent may act on behalf of the respondent, but any oral communication with the Office of Foreign Assets Control prior to a written submission regarding the specific allegations contained in the prepenalty notice must be preceded by a written letter of representation, unless the prepenalty notice was served upon the respondent in care of the representative. § 593.704 Penalty imposition or withdrawal.

(a)*No violation* . If, after considering any response to the prepenalty notice and any relevant facts, the Director of the Office of Foreign Assets Control determines that there was no violation by the respondent named in the prepenalty notice, the Director shall notify the respondent in writing of that determination and of the cancellation of the proposed monetary penalty.

(b)*Violation* .

(1)If, after considering any written response to the prepenalty notice, or default in the submission of a written response, and any relevant facts, the Director of the Office of Foreign Assets Control determines that there was a violation by the respondent named in the prepenalty notice, the Director is authorized to issue a written penalty notice to the respondent of the determination of the violation and the imposition of the monetary penalty.

(2)The penalty notice shall inform the respondent that payment or arrangement for installment payment of the assessed penalty must be made within 30 days of the date of mailing of the penalty notice by the Office of Foreign Assets Control.

(3)The penalty notice shall inform the respondent of the requirement to furnish the respondent's taxpayer identification number pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 7701 and that such number will be used for purposes of collecting and reporting on any delinquent penalty amount.

(4)The issuance of the penalty notice finding a violation and imposing a monetary penalty shall constitute final agency action. The respondent has the right to seek judicial review of that final agency action in Federal district court. § 593.705 Administrative collection; referral to United States Department of Justice. In the event that the respondent does not pay the penalty imposed pursuant to this part or make payment arrangements acceptable to the Director of the Office of Foreign Assets Control within 30 days of the date of mailing of the penalty notice, the matter may be referred for administrative collection measures by the Department of the Treasury or to the United States Department of Justice for appropriate action to recover the penalty in a civil suit in a Federal district court. Subpart H—Procedures § 593.801 Procedures. For license application procedures and procedures relating to amendments, modifications, or revocations of licenses; administrative decisions; rulemaking; and requests for documents pursuant to the Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts (5 U.S.C. 552 and 552a), see part 501, subpart E, of this chapter. § 593.802 Delegation by the Secretary of the Treasury. Any action that the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to take pursuant to Executive Order 13348 of July 22, 2004 (69 FR 44885, July 27, 2004), and any further Executive orders relating to the national emergency declared therein, may be taken by the Director of the Office of Foreign Assets Control or by any other person to whom the Secretary of the Treasury has delegated authority so to act. Subpart I—Paperwork Reduction Act § 593.901 Paperwork Reduction Act notice. For approval by the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507) of information collections relating to record keeping and reporting requirements, licensing procedures (including those pursuant to statements of licensing policy), and other procedures, see § 501.901 of this chapter. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by OMB. Dated: March 20, 2007. Adam J. Szubin, Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control. [FR Doc. E7-9822 Filed 5-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4811-42-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [CGD01-07-049] RIN 1625-AA87 Security Zone: Coast Guard Academy Commencement, New London, CT AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary security zone for the 2007 Coast Guard Academy Commencement Ceremony on Wednesday May 23, 2007. This zone will provide security in the waters of the Thames River adjacent to the Coast Guard Academy, New London, Connecticut during the 2007 Commencement Exercises. This temporary security zone is necessary to protect senior government officials, dignitaries, participants and guests attending the Commencement, members of the general public, and the surrounding area from sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents, or other hazards of a similar nature. Entry into this security zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Long Island Sound, New Haven, Connecticut. DATES: This rule is effective from 10 a.m. until 3 p.m. on May 23, 2007. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket CGD01-07-049 and are available for inspection or copying at Sector Long Island Sound between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Douglas Miller, Waterways Management Division, Sector Long Island Sound at

(203)468-4596. 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 security zone was requested by the U.S. Secret Service for the Commencement Exercises as the attendance of several senior level government officials and other dignitaries, combined with the nature of and location of the Ceremonies, presents a target for terrorist activity. The sensitive and unpredictable schedules of several of the Commencement Ceremony attendees precluded sufficient notice to the Coast Guard that a security zone would be necessary. 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 delay in notification of the need for the security zone left insufficient time to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in advance of the effective date of this security zone. The delay in notification also does not allow 30 days between publication of the rule and its effective date. Making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication is necessary as this immediate action is needed to protect the senior government officials and dignitaries attending Commencement exercises, other participants and guests to the Coast Guard Academy Commencement, and the surrounding community from sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents, or other hazards of a similar nature. Background and Purpose Several senior United States government officials and other dignitaries will be attending the Coast Guard Academy Commencement Exercises. The attendance of these individuals along with the military nature of the Ceremonies and anticipated national media coverage make this event a potential target for sabotage, subversive acts, or other terrorist activity. Coast Guard Academy Commencement Ceremonies are scheduled for Wednesday, May 23, 2007, from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. Discussion of Rule The Coast Guard is establishing a security zone in the vicinity of the Coast Guard Academy for 2007 Commencement Exercises. This security zone encompasses all navigable waters of the Thames River within a 500-yard radius of Jacobs Rock, located at approximate position 41°22″23′ N, 072°05″39′ W. The security zone will not encompass the navigable channel in the Thames River therefore commercial traffic will be able to pass unimpeded. This security zone will be enforced from 10 a.m., one hour prior to the start of Commencement Exercises, and will be effective until 3 p.m. The enforcement period of this zone will be broadcast to the maritime community immediately prior to its enforcement via broadcast notice to mariners. All coordinates are in North American Datum 1983 (NAD 1983). This temporary security zone is necessary to protect senior U.S. Government officials and dignitaries attending Coast Guard Academy Commencement, other participants and guests, members of the public and the surrounding area from sabotage, terrorist or other subversive acts, accidents, or other hazards of a similar nature. Entry into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Long Island Sound. Any violation of the security zone described herein is punishable by, among others, civil and criminal penalties, in rem liability against the offending vessel, and license sanctions. 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. We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. This regulation may have some impact on the public, but these potential impacts will be minimized for the following reasons: the zone is only for a temporary period of not more than 5 hours and will be enforced for the minimum period necessary to ensure the security of the Coast Guard Academy Commencement Exercises; the Federal navigation channel in the Thames River parallel to the Coast Guard Academy will be open to commercial and recreational traffic during the enforcement period; and, vessels may transit in all other areas of the Thames River not included in the security zone at all times. 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 will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in those portions of the Thames River covered by the security zone from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. on May 23, 2007. In addition to the reasons outlined in the Regulatory Evaluation section above, this safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. The rule will be in effect for a maximum of 5 hours on a week day when recreational and small vessel traffic is expected to be minimal. Vessel traffic, both recreational and commercial, can pass safely around the security zone. Before the security zone is effective, the Coast Guard will issue maritime advisories widely available to users of this area of the Thames River. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they 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 Lieutenant Doug Miller, Waterways Management Division, Sector Long Island Sound, at

(203)468-4596. Small business 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 (1-888-737-3247). 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. 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 would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Government 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 5100.0, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. This rule falls under the provisions of paragraph (34)(g) because the rule is established in response to an emergency situation and will be in effect for less than one week in duration. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), 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 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, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 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 temporary § 165.T01-049 to read as follows: § 165.T01-049 Security Zone: 2007 Coast Guard Academy Commencement, New London, CT.

(a)*Location.* The following area is a security zone: All navigable waters of the Thames River in a 500-yard radius from Jacobs Rock, approximate position 41°22″23′ N., 072°05″39′ W. All coordinates are North American Datum 1983.

(b)*Regulations.*

(1)Entry into or remaining in this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port, Long Island Sound.

(2)Persons desiring to transit the area of the security zone may contact the Captain of the Port at telephone number 203-468-4404 or on VHF channel 16 (156.8 MHz) to seek permission to transit the area. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port or his or her designated representative.

(c)*Enforcement period.* This section will be enforced from 10 a.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday May 23, 2007. Dated: May 14, 2007. Peter J. Boynton, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Long Island Sound. [FR Doc. E7-9946 Filed 5-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2006-0577-200624(c); FRL-8317-3] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Georgia: Removal of Douglas County Transportation Control Measure; Correcting Amendment AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule; correcting amendment. SUMMARY: This action corrects an inadvertent omission of the entry number for the Alternative Fuel Refueling Station/Park and Ride Transportation Center, Project DO-AR-211 in EPA's direct final rulemaking action, published in the **Federal Register** on November 28, 2006, for the Georgia State Implementation Plan. DATES: This action is effective May 23, 2007. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2006-0577. All documents in the docket are listed on the *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, *i.e.* , Confidential Business Information 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 Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynorae Benjamin, Air Quality Modeling and Transportation Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is

(404)562-9040. Ms. Benjamin can also be reached via electronic mail at *Benjamin.Lynorae@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This action corrects an inadvertent omission of the entry number for the Alternative Fuel Refueling Station/Park and Ride Transportation Center, Project DO-AR-211, in EPA's direct final rulemaking action, published in the **Federal Register** on November 28, 2006 (71 FR 68740), for the Georgia State Implementation Plan. Through that November 28 action, we included an entry for the table in § 52.570(e), entitled “EPA Approved Georgia Nonregulatory Provisions,” as “Alternative Fuel Refueling Station/Park and Ride Transportation Center, Project DO-AR-211 is removed.” However, we did not include an entry number. All previous entries for the table in § 52.570(e) included entry numbers. Today, EPA is correcting this inadvertent error by inserting the entry number “24” for the Alternative Fuel Refueling Station/Park and Ride Transportation Center, Project DO-AR-211. EPA has determined that today's action falls under the “good cause” exemption in section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act

(APA)which, upon finding “good cause,” authorizes agencies to dispense with public participation where public notice and comment procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. Public notice and comment for this action are unnecessary because today's action to identify, in the Code of Federal Regulations, the entry number for the Alternative Fuel Refueling Station/Park and Ride Transportation Center, Project DO-AR-211, has no substantive impact on EPA's November 28, 2006, approval. The omission of entry number for the Alternative Fuel Refueling Station/Park and Ride Transportation Center, Project DO-AR-211, in EPA's direct final rule published on November 28, 2006, makes no substantive difference to EPA's analysis as set out in that rule. In addition, EPA can identify no particular reason why the public would be interested in being notified of the correction of this omission, or in having the opportunity to comment on the correction prior to this action being finalized, since this correction action does not change EPA's analysis for the removal of the Alternative Fuel Refueling Station/Park and Ride Transportation Center, Project DO-AR-211, from the Georgia State Implementation Plan. *See,* 71 FR 68740. EPA also finds that there is good cause under APA section 553(d)(3) for this correction to become effective on the date of publication of this action. Section 553(d)(3) of the APA allows an effective date less than 30 days after publication “as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.” 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). The purpose of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in APA section 553(d)(3) is to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior and prepare before the final rule takes effect. Today's rule, however, does not create any new regulatory requirements such that affected parties would need time to prepare before the rule takes effect. Rather, today's rule merely corrects an inadvertent error of omission for the entry number related to the Alternative Fuel Refueling Station/Park and Ride Transportation Center, Project DO-AR-211, for the table in § 52.570(e), entitled “EPA Approved Georgia Nonregulatory Provisions.” For these reasons, EPA finds good cause under APA section 553(d)(3) for this correction to become effective on the date of publication of this action. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely corrects an inadvertent error of omission for the entry number related to the Alternative Fuel Refueling Station/Park and Ride Transportation Center, Project DO-AR-211, for the table in § 52.570(e), entitled “EPA Approved Georgia Nonregulatory Provisions,” and it imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this rule merely corrects an inadvertent error of omission for the entry number related to the Alternative Fuel Refueling Station/Park and Ride Transportation Center, Project DO-AR-211, for the table in § 52.570(e), entitled “EPA Approved Georgia Nonregulatory Provisions,” and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This rule also does not have Federalism implications because it does 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 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This rule merely corrects an inadvertent error of omission for the entry number related to the Alternative Fuel Refueling Station/Park and Ride Transportation Center, Project DO-AR-211, for the table in § 52.570(e), entitled “EPA Approved Georgia Nonregulatory Provisions,” and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act (CAA). This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. In addition, this rule does not involve technical standards, thus the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule also does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). 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** . 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). Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 23, 2007. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. ( *See* CAA section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: May 14, 2007. Russell L. Wright, Jr., Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart L—Georgia 2. Section 52.570(e) is amended by revising an entry at the end of the table for “Douglas County, GA” to read as follows: § 52.570 Identification of plan.

(e)* * * EPA Approved Georgia Nonregulatory Provisions Name of nonregulatory SIP provision Applicable geographic or nonattainment area State submittal date/effective date EPA approval date 24. Alternative Fuel Refueling Station/Park and Ride Transportation Center, Project DO-AR-211 is removed Douglas County, GA 09/19/06 5/23/07, [Insert citation of publication]. [FR Doc. E7-9909 Filed 5-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0158; FRL-8129-4] Aspergillus flavus AF36 on Pistachio; Temporary Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of *Aspergillus flavus* AF36 on pistachio when applied/used to reduce aflatoxin-producing *Aspergillus flavus* . Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), Rutgers University, 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton, NJ 08540 on behalf of the Arizona Cotton Research and Protection Council], 3721 East Wier Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85040-2933 submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA), requesting the temporary tolerance exemption. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of *Aspergillus flavus* AF36. The temporary tolerance exemption expires on May 14, 2010. DATES: This regulation is effective May 23, 2007. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before June 22, 2007, 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-2007-0158. To access the electronic docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* , select “Advanced Search,” then “Docket Search.” Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the “Submit” button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov web site to view the docket index or access available documents. All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available in regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is

(703)305-5805. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shanaz Bacchus, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:

(703)308-8097; e-mail address: *bacchus.shanaz@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to: • Crop production (NAICS code 111). • Animal production (NAICS code 112). • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311). • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532). This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. To determine whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability provisions in Section 5 of FIFRA and the regulations promulgated to carry out that provision of FIFRA (40 CFR part 172). If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document? In addition to accessing an electronic copy of this **Federal Register** document through the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , you may access this “ **Federal Register** ” document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ **Federal Register** ” listings at *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr* . You may also access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's pilot e-CFR site at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr* . C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request? Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, as amended by the FQPA, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural regulations which govern the submission of objections and requests for hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0158 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 July 23, 2007. 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-2007-0158, by one of the following methods. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal* : *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail* : Office of Pesticide Programs

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

(703)305-5805. II. Background and Statutory Findings In the **Federal Register** of March 21, 2007 (72 FR 13277) (FRL-8117-4), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide tolerance petition (PP 6E7118) by Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), Rutgers University, 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton, NJ 08540 on behalf of the Arizona Cotton Research and Protection Council, 3721 E. Wier Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85040-2933. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing a temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of *Aspergillus flavus* AF36 on pistachio. This notice included a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner IR-4, on behalf of the Arizona Cotton Research and Protection Council. One comment received in response to the notice of filing suggested that the area should be notified of the proposed application of the pesticide. In this respect, a **Federal Register** Notice of the receipt of the application for the Experimental Use Permit was published in the **Federal Register** on March 9, 2007 (72 FR-10751) (FRL-8117-6). Another announcement, regarding the filing of the pesticide petition discussed herein, was published in the **Federal Register** on March 21, 2007 (72 FR 13277) (FRL-8117-4). Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the exemption is “safe.” Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of the 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. Pursuant to section 408(c)(2)(B), in establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in section 408(b)(2)(C), which require 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. * * *” Additionally, section 408(b)(2)(D) of the FFDCA requires that 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.” EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. First, EPA determines the toxicity of pesticides. Second, EPA examines exposure to the pesticide through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. III. Toxicological Profile Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of the FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability and the relationship of this information 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. The toxicological profile of the conditionally registered microbial pesticide, *Aspergillus flavus* AF36 has been previously described in the final rule of the **Federal Register** of July 14, 2003 (68 FR 41535) (FRL-7311-6). The exemption from tolerance of *Aspergillus flavus* AF36, a non-aflatoxin-producing strain of *Aspergillus flavus* , on cotton was established in 40 CFR §180.1206. The database supporting that exemption from tolerance also supports the proposed temporary exemption of this active ingredient on pistachio. The pesticide was neither toxic nor infective via the oral and pulmonary routes. It was placed in Toxicity Category IV for acute oral effects. The Toxicity Category III designation for acute inhalation effects is based on the granular nature of the pesticide and the submitted pulmonary studies. This pesticide has been used for more than a decade in experimental laboratory and field trials and in agricultural practice on cotton in Arizona, Texas and California without any reports of adverse dermal irritation or hypersensitivity effects. The petitioner now seeks to amend that exemption from tolerance of *Aspergillus flavus* AF36 on cotton, to include a temporary exemption from tolerance for residues of the fungal active ingredient on pistachio. An Experimental Use Permit, EPA Registration Number 71693-EUP-1, is proposed for three years to treat 3,000 acre pistachio trees per year by ground application. Treatment of a total of 9,000 acres over three years in 2007, 2008, and 2009, will utilize a total of approximately 0.72 pound of the active ingredient, *Aspergillus flavus* AF36. No further toxicological data are required for this temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for *Aspergillus flavus* AF36 on pistachio. IV. Aggregate Exposures In examining aggregate exposure, section 408 of the FFDCA directs EPA to consider available information concerning exposures from the pesticide residue in food and all other non-occupational exposures, including drinking water from ground water or surface water and exposure through pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or buildings (residential and other indoor uses). A. Dietary Exposure 1. *Food* . The aforesaid final rule for the exemption from tolerance for residues of *Aspergillus flavus* AF 36 on cotton considered all studies submitted by the applicant and found them to be acceptable. Roasting of pistachio nuts and other post harvest agricultural practices, such as treatment with phosphine, are expected to further reduce any aflatoxin contamination of pistachio nuts. 2. *Drinking water exposure* . Those data are also acceptable to demonstrate that the proposed use of *Aspergillus flavus* AF36 on pistachio will not harm the U.S adult, infant and children population from dietary exposure, including food, and drinking water. Percolation through the soil and municipal treatment of drinking water are expected to preclude exposure of the U.S population, infants and children to residues of the pesticide. B. Other Non-Occupational Exposure 1. *Dermal exposure* . Dermal non-occupational exposure is expected to be minimal to non-existent for the proposed use of *Aspergillus flavus* AF36 on pistachio. The pesticide is to be applied to agricultural sites not in the proximity of residential areas, schools, nursing homes or daycares. 2. *Inhalation exposure* . For the same reasons non-occupational inhalation exposure to AF36 is expected to be minimal to non-existent. V. Cumulative Effects Another non-aflatoxin-producing strain of *Aspergillus flavus* , NRRL 21882 is registered, but not for use on pistachio. Cumulative effects of these strains are not expected to exceed the risk cup for the registered *Aspergillus flavus* strains, AF36 and NRRL 21882. Furthermore, these strains are expected to decrease the presence of aflatoxin-producing colonies of the fungus on treated commodities and thus decrease the risks posed by the potent liver carcinogen, aflatoxin. VI. Determination of Safety for U.S. Population, Infants and Children Based on the previously evaluated data, it is not necessary to use a safety factor to determine safety to children 9 (see **Federal Register** , July 14, 2003, as cited in Unit III.) VII. Other Considerations A. Endocrine Disruptors See **Federal Register** , July 14, 2003, cited in Unit III. B. Analytical Method(s) See **Federal Register** , July 14, 2003, cited in Unit III. C. Codex Maximum Residue Level There is no Codex Maximum Residue Level

(MRL)for residues of *Aspergillus flavus* AF36 on pistachio. VIII. 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, 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) or Executive Order 13045, entitled *Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks* (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). 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* ., 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). 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. This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled *Federalism* (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled *Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments* (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000) do not apply to this rule. In addition, This rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(UMRA)(Pub. L. 104-4). This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Pub. L. 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). IX. Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq* ., generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report 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: May 14, 2007. Janet L. Andersen, Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention 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 180.1206 is amended by designating the existing text as paragraph

(a)and by adding paragraph

(b)to read as follows: § 180.1206 Aspergillus flavus AF36 on pistachio; exemption from the requirement of a tolerance.

(a)* * *

(b)*Apergillus flavus* AF36 is temporarily exempt from the requirement of a tolerance on pistachio when used in accordance with the Experimental Use Permit 71693-EUP-1. This temporary exemption from tolerance will expire on May 14, 2010. [FR Doc. E7-9729 Filed 5-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0820; FRL-8131-4] Coumaphos; Pesticide Tolerance AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of coumaphos in or on honey and honeycomb. Interregional Research Project #4 (IR-4) requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). DATES: This regulation is effective May 23, 2007. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before July 23, 2007, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION) . ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification

(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0820. To access the electronic docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* , select “Advanced Search,” then “Docket Search.” Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the “Submit” button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov web site to view the docket index or access available documents. All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available in regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or,if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr. Arlington, VA. The Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is

(703)305-5805. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Madden, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:

(703)305-6463; e-mail address: *madden.barbara@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to those engaged in the following activities: • Crop production (NAICS code 111), e.g., agricultural workers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; farmers. • Animal production (NAICS code 112), e.g., cattle ranchers and farmers, dairy cattle farmers, livestock farmers. • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311), e.g., agricultural workers; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; ranchers; pesticide applicators. • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 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 to provide 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 EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's pilot e-CFR site at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr* . C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request? Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0820 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 as required by 40 CFR part 178 on or before July 23, 2007. 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 this copy, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0820, by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal* : *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail* : Office of Pesticide Programs

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

(703)305-5805. II. Petition for Tolerance In the **Federal Register** of October 18, 2006 (71 FR 61465) (FRL-8097-9), 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 2E6504) by Interregional Research Project #4 (IR-4), Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.189 be amended by establishing a tolerance for residues of the insecticide coumaphos (O,O -diethyl O -3-chloro-4-methyl-2-oxo-2H-1-benzopyran-7-yl phosphorothioate) and its oxygen analog (O,O -diethyl O -3-chloro-4-methyl-2-oxo-2H-1-benzopyran-7-yl phosphate) in or on honey at 0.10 parts per million

(ppm)and honeycomb at 100 ppm. That notice referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Bayer CropScience, the registrant, which is available to the public in the docket, *http://www.regulations.gov* . Comments were received on the notice of filing. EPA's response to these comments is discussed in Unit IV.C. Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has determined tolerance levels for honey and honeycomb should be modified. The reason for these changes is explained in Unit V. EPA is also deleting the established tolerances in §180.189(b) for honey and honeycomb that are no longer needed. The tolerance deletions under §180.189(b) are time-limited tolerances established under section 18 emergency exemptions that are superceded by the establishment of general tolerances for coumaphos under §180.189(a). III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of the 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 the 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 the 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. . . .” These provisions were added to the FFDCA by the Food Quality Protection Act

(FQPA)of 1996. Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of the FFDCA, and the factors specified in section 408(b)(2)(D), 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 for the petitioned-for tolerance for residues of coumaphos (O,O -diethyl O -3-chloro-4-methyl-2-oxo-2H-1-benzopyran-7-yl phosphorothioate) and its oxygen analog ( O,O -diethyl O -3-chloro-4-methyl-2-oxo-2H-1-benzopyran-7-yl phosphate) on honey at 0.15 ppm and honeycomb at 45 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 adverse effects caused by coumaphos as well as the NOAEL and the LOAEL from the toxicity studies can be found in the Reregistration Eligibility Decision

(RED)for coumaphos ( *http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/0018.pdf* ), the Reregistration Eligibility Decision Addendum and FQPA Tolerance Reassessment Progress Report

(TRED)for coumaphos ( *http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/0018tred.pdf* ) and at *www.regulations.gov* in document Coumaphos: Human Health Risk Assessment for Proposed Use on Honey and Honeycomb page 11 in Docket ID EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0820. The mammalian toxicology database for coumaphos is complete. Acute toxicity studies in rats and rabbits; an acute delayed neurotoxicity study in hens; subchronic oral and dermal studies in rats; chronic/carcinogenicity studies in rats, mice, and dogs; developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits; a 2-generation study in rats; mutagenicity studies; and a metabolism study were discussed and considered in the Reregistration Eligibility Decision

(RED)for coumaphos ( *http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/0018.pdf* ). Acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies in rats were received subsequent to the RED and were considered in the RED Addendum and FQPA Tolerance Reassessment Progress Report

(TRED)for coumaphos ( *http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/0018tred.pdf* ). Subsequent to the TRED, a developmental neurotoxicity study and a comparative cholinesterase study in rats were received; these studies are discussed in detail at www.regulations.gov in document Coumaphos: Human Health Risk Assessment for Proposed Use on Honey and Honeycomb at page 11 in Docket ID EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0820. The acute toxicity of coumaphos is high via the oral route of exposure (Category I), moderate via the inhalation route (Category II), and slight via the dermal route (Category III). Coumaphos is not a dermal sensitizer or a dermal irritant. Coumaphos, an organophosphate insecticide, primarily affects the nervous system through cholinesterase

(ChE)inhibition. Females are consistently more sensitive to the cholinergic effects than males. In the acute oral toxicity studies, female rats are approximately 17 times more sensitive to the toxic and lethal effects of coumaphos compared to male rats. In a single dose oral study, female rats had ChE inhibition and cholinergic symptoms at much lower doses than male rats. In a short-term (5 days) dermal toxicity study, brain ChE inhibition was the most sensitive indication of the toxic effects of coumaphos dermal treatment. In subchronic and chronic studies in rats, the magnitude of ChE inhibition in red blood cell and plasma and brain was also more pronounced in females, compared to males. Coumaphos does not cause delayed neuropathy. In chronic studies, systemic effects other than cholinergic toxicity include decreases in body weight gain. There was no evidence of malformations or decreases in the number of pups and/or litter or surviving offspring in any of the developmental toxicity or reproduction studies. In developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits, no developmental toxicity was observed, while clinical signs of ChE toxicity were seen in the maternal animals. In a 2-generation reproduction study, ChE inhibition was noted in both parents and offspring, with parents more susceptible. Reproductive toxicity was not observed in this study. The developmental neurotoxicity study showed no increased susceptibility of the young. The maternal ChE activity was inhibited at both the mid and high does. Consistent with the other mammalian toxicity studies, female pups were more sensitive to cholinergic effects than males; at the high dose, female plasma, erythrocyte, and brain ChE activities were inhibited 27%, 33%, and 8%, respectively, but only plasma ChE activity was significantly inhibited (30%) at this dose in males. In the comparative ChE study increased quantitative susceptibility of the offspring was observed in that ChE inhibition was seen at a lower dose in neonatal rats, compared to young adult rats. The relative sensitivities to ChE inhibition at peak inhibition by coumaphos were measured in neonatal and young adult rats. This comparative ChE study does demonstrate increased quantitative susceptibility of the offspring. However, the degree of concern for this comparative ChE study is low because the effects are well characterized and there are clear no observed adverse effect levels (NOAELs) and lowest observed adverse effect levels (LOAELs) for both neonatal and adult animals. Furthermore, there are no residual uncertainties for prenatal and/or postnatal toxicity for the comparative ChE study because the endpoint of concern is the one used for the acute dietary exposure risk assessment and a more protective endpoint (based on long term-exposure) is used for chronic dietary exposure risk assessment. Coumaphos is not carcinogenic and is classified as a Group E chemical, indicating that it is “Not Likely” to be carcinogenic in humans via relevant routes of exposure. This classification is based on adequate studies in two animal species. No evidence of mutagenicity was seen in any study. B. Toxicological Endpoints For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological level of concern

(LOC)is derived from the highest dose at which the NOAEL in the toxicology study identified as appropriate for use in risk assessment. However, if a NOAEL cannot be determined, the lowest dose at which the LOAEL of concern are identified is sometimes used for risk assessment. Uncertainty/safety factors

(UF)are used in conjunction with the LOC to take into account 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. Safety is assessed for acute and chronic risks by comparing aggregate exposure to the pesticide to the acute population adjusted dose

(aPAD)and chronic population

(cPAD)adjusted dose. The aPAD and cPAD are calculated by dividing the LOC by all applicable uncertainty/safety factors. Short-term, intermediate, and long-term risks are evaluated by comparing aggregate exposure to the LOC to ensure that the margin of exposure

(MOE)called for by the product of all applicable uncertainty/safety factors is not exceeded. For non-threhold risk, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk and estimates risk in terms of the probability of occurrence of additional adverse cases. Generally, cancer risks are considered non-threshold. For more information on the general principles EPA used in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/1997/November/Day-26/p30948.htm* . A summary of the toxicological endpoints for coumpahos used for human risk assessment can be found at www.regulations.gov in document Coumaphos: Human Health Risk Assessment for Proposed Use on Honey and Honeycomb page 15 in Docket ID EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0820. C. Exposure Assessment 1. *Dietary exposure from food and feed uses* . In evaluating dietary exposure to coumaphos, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing coumaphos tolerances in (40 CFR 180.189). EPA assessed dietary exposures from coumaphos and coumaphos-oxon 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 In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption information from the United States Department of Agriculture's

(USDA)1994-1996 and 1998 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII). As to residue levels in food, EPA relied upon anticipated residues incorporating 2002

(USDA)Pesticide Data Program

(PDP)monitoring data for beef and 2004 PDP monitoring data for milk. Field trial data were used for honey to support the proposed use pattern. The dietary exposure assessment assumes 100% crop treated for all commodities. ii. *Chronic exposure* . In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 1994-1996 and 1998 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII). As to residue levels in food, EPA relied upon anticipated residues incorporating 2002 USDA PDP monitoring data for beef and 2004 PDP monitoring data for milk. Field trial data were used for honey to support the proposed use pattern. The dietary exposure assessment assumes 100% crop treated for all commodities. iii. *Cancer* . Coumaphos is not carcinogenic and is classified as a Group E chemical, indicating that it is “Not Likely” to be carcinogenic in humans via relevant routes of exposure. Therefore, the Agency concluded that coumaphos is not expected to pose a carcinogenic risk and quantification of cancer risk is not required. iv. *Anticipated residue information* . Section 408(b)(2)(E) of the FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and information on the anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in food and the actual levels of pesticide residues that have been measured in food. If EPA relies on such information, EPA must pursuant to section 408(f)(1) require that data be provided 5 years after the tolerance is established, modified, or left in effect, demonstrating that the levels in food are not above the levels anticipated. For the present action, EPA will issue such data call-ins as are required by section 408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under section 408(f)(1) of the FFDCA. Data will be required to be submitted no later than 5 years from the date of issuance of this tolerance. 2. *Dietary exposure from drinking water* . The Agency lacks sufficient monitoring data to complete a comprehensive dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for coumaphos in drinking water. Because the Agency does not have comprehensive monitoring data, drinking water concentration estimates are made by reliance on simulation or modeling taking into account data on the environmental fate characteristics of coumaphos. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at *http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm* . The generic expected environmental concentration (GENEEC) and screening concentration in groundwater (SCI-GROW) screening models were used to estimate surface water and ground water concentrations of coumaphos and its oxygen analog, coumaphoxon. This degradate is considered in the drinking water assessment, as it was in the assessment for consumption of food (honey and livestock commodities). Based on the GENEEC and SCI-GROW models, the estimated environmental concentrations

(EECs)of coumaphos and its oxygen analog, coumaphoxon for acute exposures are estimated to be 1.86 parts per billion

(ppb)for surface water and 0.17 ppb for ground water. The EECs for chronic exposures are estimated to be 0.41 ppb for surface water and 0.17 ppb for ground water. Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 1.86 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 0.41 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. 3. *From non-dietary exposure* . The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Coumaphos is not registered for use on any sites that would result in residential exposure. 4. *Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of toxicity* . Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of the FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.” FQPA

(1996)stipulates that when determining the safety of a pesticide chemical, the EPA shall consider, among other things, available information concerning the cumulative effects on human health that may result from dietary, residential, or other non-occupational exposure to the pesticide chemical and other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity. The reason for consideration of other substances is due to the possibility that low-level exposures to multiple chemical substances that cause a common toxic effect by a common mechanism could lead to the same adverse health effect as would a higher level of exposure to any of the substances individually. A person exposed to a pesticide at a level that is considered safe may, in fact, experience harm if that person is also exposed to other substances that cause a common toxic effect by a mechanism common with that of the subject pesticide, even if the individual exposure levels to the other substances are also considered safe. The organophosphate pesticides

(OPs)were established as the first common mechanism group by EPA in 1999, based on their shared ability to bind to and phosphorylate the enzyme acetylcholinesterase in both the central (brain) and peripheral nervous systems. Coumaphos is an OP pesticide. In December 2001, the Agency issued the “Preliminary OP Cumulative Risk Assessment”, available at *http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative/pra_op_methods.htm* . In June 2002, the Agency released its Revised OP CRA, available at *http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative/rra-op/* , which included the cumulative risk due to the OPs from exposures in food, drinking water, and residential uses. In August 2006, the Agency issued an update to the 2002 Revised OP CRA document, which emphasized changes, modifications, and amendments. With the 2006 update, available at *http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative/2006-op/index.htm* , the Agency has developed a highly refined and complex cumulative risk assessment for the OPs that represents the state of the science regarding existing hazard and exposure data and the models and approaches used. Based upon the results from the 2006 update, the Agency concluded that the results of the OP cumulative risk assessment support a reasonable certainty of no harm finding. In both the 2002 revised OP CRA, as well as the 2006 update, the cumulative dietary risk associated with the use of OP pesticides on food crops was assessed using residue monitoring data collected by the USDA PDP and dietary consumption data collected by USDA's Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII). Both assessments relied primarily on the PDP for residue data; the 2006 update added PDP data collected in 2002-2004 to the 1994-2001 data used in the 2002 Revised Assessment. The PDP has been collecting pesticide residue data since 1991, primarily for purposes of estimating dietary exposure. The program focuses on high-consumption foods for children and reflects foods typically available throughout the year. A complete description of the PDP and all data through 2004 are available online ( *http://www.ams.usda.gov/science/pdp* ). No PDP data on honey currently exist that could have been used in a cumulative assessment. OP residues in honey were not included in the PDP data base, in part because honey is a low-consumption food. A quantitative estimate of honey consumption over a single day was obtained for the general U.S. population and subpopulations using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM-FCID TM , Version 2.03), which uses food consumption data from the USDA's CSFII from 1994-1996 and 1998. Consumption estimates at the 99.9 th percentile of exposure range from 21 grams of honey/day in all infants ( < 1 year) to 96 grams/day in adults 50 + years, the population subgroup who reported the greatest amount of honey consumed. Estimates of honey consumption for all other subpopulations, including children 1-2, 3-5, and 6-12 years; youth 13-19 years; females 13-49 years; and adults 20-49 years are within this range. Although PDP data on coumaphos data in honey is not available, monitoring for coumaphos in honey is conducted under the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) Surveillance Monitoring Program. This monitoring program is designed primarily for enforcement of EPA pesticide tolerances on imported foods and domestic foods shipped in interstate commerce. In this monitoring program, domestic samples are generally collected close to the point of production in the distribution system. Import samples are collected at the point of entry into U.S commerce. The emphasis in sample collection is on the agricultural commodity, which is analyzed as the unwashed, whole (unpeeled), raw commodity. Processed foods are also included in the program. A description of the program and residue data for recent years can be found online ( *http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/pestadd.html* ). Because the emphasis of this program is not on dietary exposure, it was used in the 2006 cumulative assessment mostly as a semi-quantitative check on the potential for residues and as support for data from other sources. Data are available from 1996-2003. Although the Agency has granted emergency exemptions, starting in 1999, such that the coumaphos strips assessed in this document have been and continue to be used on beehives in 40-46 states ( *http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/section18* ), the FDA has detected coumaphos in honey only once, in 2003, at levels lower than the level of quantification. Thus, FDA data indicates that there is a low expectation of meaningful coumaphos residues in honey. EPA does not believe that inclusion of anticipated coumaphos residues in honey in the OP CRA will significantly modify the calculated risk. This conclusion is based on three factors. First, honey is a low consumption food, and, thus, even if honey contained quantifiable levels of OPs, it would be unlikely to significantly alter the OP CRA. Second, available monitoring data indicates that, despite widespread use of coumaphos, residues of coumaphos in honey as consumed are exceedingly low, if present at all. Finally, a prior risk assessment for coumaphos indicated that aggregate risk from coumaphos was essentially unchanged when honey containing levels of coumaphos residues found in field trials was added to the coumaphos risk assessment, August 16, 2000 (65 FR 49927) (FRL-6738-3). In the current assessment, no discernible difference in exposure was observed when coumaphos residues in honey and beeswax were or were not included in an aggregate assessment (personal correspondence, S. Piper, January 1, 2007). If coumaphos exposure from honey is insignificant in comparison to exposure to coumaphos from other uses of the chemical, it necessarily is insignificant in comparison to exposure to the more than 30 other OPs. For these reasons, EPA concludes that the establishment of a coumaphos honey tolerance will not raise a concern regarding cumulative OP exposure. D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children 1. *In general* . Section 408 of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional (“10X”) 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. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA safety factor. 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 FQPA safety factor value based on the use of traditional uncertainty/safety factors and/or special FQPA safety factors, as appropriate. 2. *Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity* . There was no evidence of increased qualitative or quantitative susceptibility of the offspring in the developmental, reproduction, or developmental neurotoxicity studies. Increased quantitative susceptibility of the offspring was observed in the comparative ChE study in that ChE inhibition was seen at a lower dose in neonatal rats, compared to young adult rats. The degree of concern for this comparative ChE study is low because the effects are well characterized and there are clear NOAELs and LOAELs for both neonatal and adult animals. Furthermore, there are no residual uncertainties for pre- and/or postnatal toxicity for the comparative ChE study because the endpoint of concern is the one used for the acute dietary exposure risk assessment and a more protective endpoint (based on long-term exposure) is used for chronic dietary exposure risk assessment. 3. *Conclusion* . EPA has determined that reliable data show that it would be safe for infants and children to reduce the FQPA safety factor to 1X. That decision is based on the following findings: i. The toxicity database for coumaphos is complete. ii. As discussed in Unit III.D.2., there are no residual uncertainties regarding prenatal or postnatal toxicity or increased sensitivity of the young. iii. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure data bases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 100% crop treated and using reliable data (USDA PDP data for meat and milk and field trial data for honey) and will not underestimate the exposure and risk. Conservative ground water and surface water modeling estimates were used. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by coumaphos. E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety Safety is assessed for acute and chronic risks by comparing aggregate exposure to the pesticide aPAD and cPAD. The aPAD and cPAD are calculated by dividing the LOC by all applicable uncertainty/safety factors. For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the probability of additional cancer cases given aggregate exposure. Short-term, intermediate-term, and long-term risks are evaluated by comparing aggregate exposure to the LOC to ensure that the MOE called for by the product of all applicable uncertainty/safety factors is not exceeded. 1. *Acute risk* . Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water to coumaphos will occupy 15% of the aPAD for the U.S. population and 38% of the aPAD for all infants ( < 1 year), the most highly exposed population subgroup. 2. *Chronic risk* . Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that exposure to coumaphos from food and water will utilize 6% of cPAD for the U.S. population and 13% of the cPAD for all infants ( < 1 year), the most highly exposed population subgroup. There are no residential uses for coumaphos that result in chronic residential exposure to coumaphos. 3. *Short-term and Intermediate-term risk* . Short-term and intermediate aggregate exposure takes into account residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Coumaphos is not registered for use on any sites that would result in residential exposure. Therefore, the aggregate risk is the sum of the risk from food and water. 4. *Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population* . Coumaphos is not carcinogenic and is classified as a Group E chemical, indicating that it is “Not Likely” to be carcinogenic in humans via relevant routes of exposure. This classification is based on adequate studies in two animal species. Coumaphos is not expected to pose a cancer risk. 5. *Determination of safety* . Based on these risk assessments, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to coumaphos residues. IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology Adequate enforcement methodology liquid chromatography/mass spectroscopy/ mass spectroscopy (LC/MS/MS) 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 There are no CODEX, Canadian, or Mexican maximum residue limits

(MRLs)for residues of coumaphos in honey or honeycomb. Therefore, harmonization with international tolerances is not an issue for this action. C. Response to Comments Several comments were received from a private citizen objecting to establishment of tolerances. The Agency has received similar comments from this commenter on numerous previous occasions. Refer to **Federal Register** June 30, 2005 (70 FR 37686) (FRL-7718-3), January 7, 2005 (70 FR 1354) (FRL-7691-4) and, October 29, 2004 (69 FR 63096) (FRL-7681-9) for the Agency's response to these objections. V. Conclusion Based upon review of the residue field trial data supporting the petition, EPA has determined tolerance levels for honey and honeycomb should be modified and tolerances levels should be 0.15 ppm for honey and 45 ppm for honeycomb. Therefore, tolerance are established for residues of coumaphos (O,O -diethyl O -3-chloro-4-methyl-2-oxo-2H-1-benzopyran-7-yl phosphorothioate and its oxygen analog ( O,O -diethyl O -3-chloro-4-methyl-2-oxo-2H-1-benzopyran-7-yl phosphate) on honey at 0.15 ppm and honeycomb at 45 ppm. 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

(UMRA)(Pub. L. 104-4). This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Pub. L. 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). VII. Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report 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: May 15, 2007. Daniel J. Rosenblatt, 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 180.189 is amended by alphabetically adding commodities to the table in paragraph (a), and in paragraph (b), the text and table are removed and the paragraph is reserved to read as follows: § 180.189 Coumaphos; tolerances for residues.

(a)* * * Commodity Parts per million * * * * * Honey 0.15 Honeycomb 45.0 * * * * *

(b)*Section 18 emergency exemptions* . [Reserved] [FR Doc. E7-9813 Filed 5-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0332; FRL-8128-6] Famoxadone; Pesticide Tolerance AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of famoxadone in or on grape, hop, and caneberry, Subgroup 13A. Interregional Research Project (IR-4) requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). DATES: This regulation is effective May 23, 2007. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before July 23, 2007, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ). ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification

(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0332. To access the electronic docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* , select “Advanced Search,” then “Docket Search.” Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the “Submit” button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov web site to view the docket index or access available documents. All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available in regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov,* or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is

(703)305-5805. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shaja R. Brothers, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:

(703)308-3194; e-mail address: *brothers.shaja@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 those engaged in the following activities: • Crop production (NAICS code 111), e.g., agricultural workers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; farmers. • Animal production (NAICS code 112), e.g., cattle ranchers and farmers, dairy cattle farmers, livestock farmers. • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311), e.g., agricultural workers; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; ranchers; pesticide applicators. • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 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 to provide 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 EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's pilot e-CFR site at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr* . C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request? Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0332 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 as required by 40 CFR part 178 on or before July 23, 2007. 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 this copy, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0332, by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal* : *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail* : Office of Pesticide Programs

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

(703)305-5805. II. Petition for Tolerance In the **Federal Register** of May 10, 2006 (71 FR 27247) (FRL-8067-5) and November 22, 2006 (71 FR 67572) (FRL-8101-9), EPA issued notices pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of pesticide petitions PP 5E7001 (grape and hop), and PP 6E7099 (caneberry) by the IR-4, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540. The petitions requested that 40 CFR 180.587 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the fungicide famoxadone, 3-anilino-5-methyl-5-(4-phenoxyphenyl)-1,3-oxazolidine-2,4-dione, in or on grape (east of the rocky mountains) at 2.5 parts per million (ppm); hop, dried cone at 60 ppm; and caneberry at 11 ppm. These notices referenced a summary of the petitions prepared by Dupont, the registrant, which is available to the public in the docket, *http://www.regulations.gov* . A comment was received from a private citizen on the notice of filing for famoxadone on caneberry. EPA's response to comment is discussed in Unit IV.C. III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of the 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 the 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 the 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. . . .” These provisions were added to the FFDCA by the Food Quality Protection Act

(FQPA)of 1996. Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in section 408(b)(2)(D), 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 for the petitioned-for tolerances for residues of famoxadone grape (regional registration) at 2.5 ppm; hop, dried cone at 80 ppm; and caneberry subgroup 13A at 10 ppm on EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with establishing the tolerances follow. 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 adverse effects caused by famoxadone as well as the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) and the lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are discussed in the final rule published in the **Federal Register** at *http://www.epa.gov/EPA-PEST/2003/July/Day-02/p16736.htm* . B. Toxicological Endpoints For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological level of concern

(LOC)is derived from the highest dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) in the toxicology study identified as appropriate for use in risk assessment. However, if a NOAEL cannot be determined, the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL) is sometimes used for risk assessment. Uncertainty/safety factors

(aPAD)and chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD). The aPAD and cPAD are calculated by dividing the LOC by all applicable uncertainty/safety factors. Short-, intermediate, and long-term risks are evaluated by comparing aggregate exposure to the LOC to ensure that the margin of exposure

(MOE)called for by the product of all applicable uncertainty/safety factors is not exceeded. For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk and estimates risk in terms of the probability of occurrence of additional adverse cases. Generally, cancer risks are considered non-threshold. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/1997/November/Day-26/p30948.htm* . A summary of the toxicological endpoints for famoxadone can be found at www.regulations.gov in the Human Health Risk Assessment for Famoxadone to Support Tolerances for Residues in/on Grapes, Hops, and Caneberry, Crop Subgroup 13A, pages 10-11 in Docket ID EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0332. C. Exposure Assessment 1. *Dietary exposure from food and feed uses* . In evaluating dietary exposure to famoxadone, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing famoxadone tolerances in (40 CFR 180.587). EPA assessed dietary exposures from famoxadone 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 1-day or single exposure. No such effects were identified in the toxicological studies for famoxadone. Therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment was not performed. ii. *Chronic exposure* . In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 1994-1996 and 1998 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII). As to residue levels in food, EPA used Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM TM ) default processing factors and anticipated residues

(ARs)calculated from field trial data including the highest average field trial

(HAFT)level for hop and caneberry, and existing ARs for grape commodities. Exposure estimates were further refined with percent crop treated

(PCT)data for several registered commodities. iii. *Cancer* . EPA has classified famoxadone as a “not likely” human carcinogen. Therefore, a cancer dietary exposure analysis was not performed. iv. *Anticipated residue and PCT information* . Section 408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and information on the anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in food and the actual levels of pesticide residues that have been measured in food. If EPA relies on such information, EPA must pursuant to section 408(f)(1) require that data be provided 5 years after the tolerance is established, modified, or left in effect, demonstrating that the levels in food are not above the levels anticipated. For the present action, EPA will issue such Data Call-Ins as are required by section 408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA and authorized under section 408(f)(1) of FFDCA. Data will be required to be submitted no later than 5 years from the date of issuance of this tolerance. Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states that the Agency may use data on the actual percent of food treated for assessing chronic dietary risk only if: a. The data used are reliable and provide a valid basis to show what percentage of the food derived from such crop is likely to contain such pesticide residue; b. The exposure estimate does not underestimate exposure for any significant subpopulation group; and c. Data are available on pesticide use and food consumption in a particular area, the exposure estimate does not understate exposure for the population in such area. In addition, the Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any estimates used. To provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate of PCT as required by section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA, EPA may require registrants to submit data on PCT. The Agency used PCT information as follows: Tomato at 10%; Cucumber, Pepper, Potato, Pumpkin at 5%; Squash and Watermelon at 1%EPA uses an average PCT for chronic dietary risk analysis. The average PCT figure for each existing use is derived by combining available federal, state, and private market survey data for that use, averaging by year, averaging across all years, and rounding up to the nearest multiple of five percent except for those situations in which the average PCT is less than one. In those cases <1% is used as the average and <2.5% is used as the maximum. EPA uses a maximum PCT for acute dietary risk analysis. The maximum PCT figure is the single maximum value reported overall from available federal, state, and private market survey data on the existing use, across all years, and rounded up to the nearest multiple of five percent. In most cases, EPA uses available data from United States Department of Agriculture/National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA/NASS), Proprietary Market Surveys, and the National Center for Food and Agriculture Policy (NCFAP) for the most recent 6 years. The Agency believes that the three conditions listed have been met. With respect to Condition 1, PCT estimates are derived from Federal and private market survey data, which are reliable and have a valid basis. The Agency is reasonably certain that the percentage of the food treated is not likely to be an underestimation. As to Conditions 2 and 3, regional consumption information and consumption information for significant subpopulations is taken into account through EPA's computer-based model for evaluating the exposure of significant subpopulations including several regional groups. Use of this consumption information in EPA's risk assessment process ensures that EPA's exposure estimate does not understate exposure for any significant subpopulation group and allows the Agency to be reasonably certain that no regional population is exposed to residue levels higher than those estimated by the Agency. Other than the data available through national food consumption surveys, EPA does not have available information on the regional consumption of food to which famoxadone may be applied in a particular area. 2. *Dietary exposure from drinking water* . The Agency lacks sufficient monitoring data to complete a comprehensive dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for famoxadone in drinking water. Because the Agency does not have comprehensive monitoring data, drinking water concentration estimates are made by reliance on simulation or modeling taking into account data on the environmental fate characteristics of famoxadone. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at *http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm* . The assessment was based on the registered potato use (highest application rate, 0.1875 lbs ai/acre, with 6 applications at 5 day intervals). The Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS) Model was used to estimate surface water concentrations, and Screening Concentrations in Groundwater (SCI-GROW) Model was used to estimate ground water concentrations. The model values generally represent upper-bound estimates of the concentrations that might be found in surface water and ground water resulting from the use of famoxadone. Based on the PRZM/EXAMS and SCI-GROW models, the estimated environmental concentrations

(EECs)of famoxadone for chronic exposures are estimated to be 0.47 ppb for surface water and 0.23 ppb for ground water. Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 0.47 ppb was used to access the contribution to drinking water. 3. *From non-dietary exposure* . The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Famoxadone is not registered for use on any sites that would result in residential exposure. 4. *Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of toxicity* . Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of the FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.” Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to famoxadone and any other substances and famoxadone 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 famoxadone 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 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 (“10X”) 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. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA safety factor. 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 FQPA safety factor value based on the use of traditional uncertainty/safety factors and/or special FQPA safety factors, as appropriate. 2. *Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity* . There is no quantitative or qualitative evidence of increased susceptibility of rat and rabbit fetuses to *in utero* exposure in developmental studies. There is no quantitative or qualitative evidence of increased susceptibility of rat offspring in the multi-generation reproduction study. 3. *Conclusion* . EPA has determined that reliable data show that it would be safe for infants and children to reduce the FQPA safety factor to 1X. That decision is based on the following findings: i. The toxicity database for famoxadone is complete. ii. There is no indication that famoxadone is a neurotoxic chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional uncertainty factors to account for neurotoxicity. iii. There is no evidence that famoxadone results in increased susceptibility in *in utero* rats or rabbits in the prenatal developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction study. iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. Although the food exposure assessment was slightly refined, it is based in reliable data and will not underestimate the exposure and risk. Conservative ground water and surface water modeling estimates were used. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by famoxadone. E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety Safety is assessed for acute and chronic risks by comparing aggregate exposure to the pesticide to the aPAD and cPAD. The aPAD and cPAD are calculated by dividing the LOC by all applicable uncertainty/safety factors. For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the probability of additional cancer cases given aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate, and long-term risks are evaluated by comparing aggregate exposure to the LOC to ensure that the MOE called for by the product of all applicable uncertainty/safety factors is not exceeded. 1. *Acute risk* . An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into account exposure estimates from acute dietary consumption and drinking water. There was no acute dietary endpoint selected. Therefore, famoxdane is not expected to pose an acute risk. 2. *Chronic risk* . Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that exposure to famoxadone from food and water will utilize 65% of the cPAD for children 1-2 years old, the subpopulation group with the greatest exposure. There are no residential uses for famoxadone that result in chronic residential exposure to famoxadone. 3. *Short and intermediate-term risks.* Short and Intermediate-term aggregate exposures takes into account residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Famoxadone is not registered for use on any sites that would result in residential exposure. Therefore, the aggregate risk is the sum of the risk from food and water, which do not exceed the Agency's level of concern. 4. *Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population* . EPA has classified famoxadone as a “not likely” human carcinogen. Therefore, famoxdane is not expected to pose a cancer risk. 5. *Determination of safety* . Based on these risk assessments, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to famoxadone residues. IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology An analytical method AMR 3705-95; gas chromatography with nitrogen/phosphorus detector (GC/NPD) for plants was developed for data gathering and enforcement purposes to quantitate famoxadone. The method has undergone a successful independent laboratory validation

(ILV)and Agency petition method validation (PMV). Therefore, adequate enforcement methodology is available to enforce this 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 There are no established CODEX maximum residue limits

(MRLs)for famoxadone. C. Response to Comments One comment was received by a private citizen. The commenter argued that cancer rates in the United States are too high and no new pesticides should be approved until the causes of the increased cancers are found. Additionally, the commenter urged that EPA should test famoxdane in combination with the thousands of other chemicals to which humans are exposed. Famoxdane has been examined in the required carcinogenicity studies and EPA concluded that it is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans. This was discussed in a prior rulemaking published in the **Federal Register** at *http://www.epa.gov/EPA-PEST/2003/July/Day-02/p16736.htm* . EPA does not require the testing of pesticides in combination with other chemicals but does consider available data bearing on whether a pesticide shares a common toxicity with other substances that could result in cumulative effects. For specific information regarding EPA's approach to the use of common mechanism of toxicity to evaluate the cumulative effects of chemicals, please refer to EPA's website at *http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative* to see policy statements. V. Conclusion The proposed tolerance for hop, dried cone was requested at 60 ppm. The residue data from the hop field trials indicate that residues of famoxadone ranged from 14.70 ppm to 46.85 ppm in/on dried hops harvested 7-8 days after the last of six applications at a total rate of ~1.50 lb ai/A. The submitted data are adequate pending label revision to reflect the parameters of field trial data. The Agency recommends the following label revisions: apply a maximum single foliar application rate of 0.25 lb ai/A, with a 6-8 day RTI, a maximum seasonal rate of ~1.50 lb ai/A, and a 7-day PHI. Statistical analysis of the data show that a tolerance level of 80 ppm will be appropriate for hops. The proposed tolerance for caneberry, subgroup 13-A was requested at 11 ppm. The results from these trials show that famoxadone residues ranged from 0.40 ppm to 6.7 ppm on/in treated caneberry when the test substance was applied at the proposed seasonal application rate of 1.125 lb ai/A using a 0-day PHI. Caneberry were stored frozen for a maximum of 181 days at -21°9C. Submitted storage stability studies indicate that famoxadone residues are stable on caneberry for up to 216 days. A residue decline study was not conducted by the applicant. Statistical analysis of the data show that a tolerance level of 10 ppm will be appropriate for caneberry, subgroup 13-A. Therefore, the tolerances are established for residues of famoxadone, 3-anilino-5-methyl-5-(4-phenoxyphenyl)-1,3-oxazolidine-2,4-dione), in or on grape (regional registration) at 2.5 ppm; hop, dried cone at 80 ppm; and caneberry, Subgroup 13A at 10 ppm. 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

(UMRA)(Pub. L. 104-4). This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Pub. L. 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). VII. Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report 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: May 15, 2007. Daniel J. Rosenblatt, Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows: PART 180—AMENDED 1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. 2. Section 180.587 is amended by revising the section heading; by alphabetically adding caneberry, Subgroup 13A and hop, dried cone to the table in paragraph

(a)and removing grape from the table in paragraph (a); and adding text to paragraph

(c)to read as follows: § 180.587 Famoxadone; tolerance for residues.

(a)* * * Commodity Parts per million Caneberry, Subgroup 13A 10 * * * * * Hop, dried cone 80 * * * * * 1 There are no U.S. registrations as of May 15,2003.

(c)*Tolerances with a regional registrations* . Tolerances with a regional registration as defined in Sec. 180.1(n) are established for the residues of the fungicide famoxadone, 3-anilino-5-methyl-5-(4-phenoxyphenyl)-1,3-oxazolidine-2,4-dione) in or on the raw agricultural commodities: Commodity Parts per million Grape 2.5 [FR Doc. E7-9823 Filed 5-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0586; FRL-8126-6] Propanil, Phenmedipham, Triallate, and MCPA; Tolerance Actions AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is revoking certain tolerances for the herbicides propanil, triallate, and MCPA. EPA is modifying certain tolerances for the herbicides propanil, phenmedipham, triallate, and MCPA. In addition, EPA is establishing tolerances for the herbicides propanil, phenmedipham, triallate, and MCPA. The regulatory actions in this document are part of the Agency's reregistration program under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) section 408(q), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act

(FQPA)of 1996. DATES: This regulation is effective May 23, 2007. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before July 23, 2007, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ). ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification

(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0586. To access the electronic docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* , select “Advanced Search,” then “Docket Search.” Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the “Submit” button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov web site to view the docket index or access available documents. All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available in regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information

(OPP)Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is

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

(703)308-0048; e-mail address: *smith.jane-scott@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to: • Crop production (NAICS code 111), e.g., agricultural workers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; farmers. • Animal production (NAICS code 112), e.g., cattle ranchers and farmers, dairy cattle farmers, livestock farmers. • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311), e.g., agricultural workers; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; ranchers; pesticide applicators. • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 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* . C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request? Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, as amended by the FQPA, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural regulations which govern the submission of objections and requests for hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0586 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 July 23, 2007. In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public docket that is described in ADDRESSES . Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit your copies, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0586, by one of the following methods. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal* : *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail* : Office of Pesticide Programs

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

(703)305-5805. II. Background A. What Action is the Agency Taking? In the **Federal Register** of September 27, 2006 (71 FR 56425) (FRL-8089-5), EPA issued a proposed rule to revoke, modify and establish specific tolerances for residues of the herbicides propanil, phenmedipham, triallate and MCPA. Also, the proposal of September 27, 2006 (71 FR 56425) (FRL-8089-5) provided a 60-day comment period which invited public comment for consideration and for support of tolerance retention under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) standards. EPA is revoking, removing, modifying, and establishing specific tolerances for residues of the the herbicides propanil, phenmedipham, triallate and MCPA in or on commodities listed in the regulatory text. EPA is finalizing these tolerance actions in order to implement the tolerance recommendations made during the reregistration and tolerance reassessment processes (including follow-up on canceled or additional uses of pesticides). As part of reregistration and when taking action on tolerances and exemptions EPA is required to determine whether each of the amended tolerances meets the safety standards under the FQPA. The safety finding determination of “reasonable certainty of no harm” is found in detail in each Reregistration Eligibility Decision

(RED)and Report on FQPA Tolerance Reassessment Progress and Interim Risk Management Decision

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

(703)605-6000; internet at *http://www.ntis.gov.* Electronic copies of REDs and TREDs are available on the internet at *http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/status.htm.* and in public dockets EPA- HQ-OPP-2003-0348 and EPA-HQ-OPP-2002-0033 (propanil); EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0384 (phenmedipham); and EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0156 and EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0239

(MCPA)at *http://www.regulations.gov* . In this final rule, EPA is revoking certain tolerances and tolerance exemptions because these specific tolerances and exemptions correspond to uses no longer current or registered under FIFRA in the United States. The tolerances revoked by this final rule are no longer necessary to cover residues of the relevant pesticides in or on domestically treated commodities or commodities treated outside but imported into the United States. It is EPA's general practice to revoke those tolerances and tolerance exemptions for residues of pesticide active ingredients on crop uses for which there are no active registrations under FIFRA, unless any person in comments on the proposal indicates a need for the tolerance or tolerance exemption to cover residues in or on imported commodities or domestic commodities legally treated. EPA's policy is to issue a final rule revoking those tolerances for residues of pesticide chemicals for which there are no active registrations under FIFRA, unless any person commenting on the proposal demonstrates a need for the tolerance to cover residues in or on imported commodities or domestic commodities legally treated. Generally, EPA will proceed with the revocation of these tolerances on the grounds discussed in Unit II.A. if one of the following conditions applies: 1. Prior to EPA's issuance of a section 408(f) order requesting additional data or issuance of a section 408(d) or

(e)order revoking the tolerances on other grounds, commenters retract the comment identifying a need for the tolerance to be retained. 2. EPA independently verifies that the tolerance is no longer needed. 3. The tolerance is not supported by data that demonstrate that the tolerance meets the requirements under FQPA. This final rule does not revoke those tolerances for which EPA received comments stating a need for the tolerance to be retained. In response to the proposal published in the **Federal Register** of September 27, 2006 (71 FR 56425) (FRL-8089-5), EPA received three comments during the 60-day public comment period, as follows: *Comment* . The MCPA Task Force Three submitted a comment requesting the published tolerance for “cattle, meat and meat byproducts” be changed from the proposed 0.1 ppm to 0.5 ppm. The Task force has conducted a new Magnitude of the Residues in Meat and Milk Study, according to the Agency guidelines, that supports a 0.5 ppm tolerance. The new study will be submitted to the Agency as soon as it is issued which, according to the MCPA Task Force Three, is well in advance of the due date requested by the Agency in the Data Call-In. The task force did not take issue with any of the proposed tolerances for revocation. *Agency response* . The Agency acknowledges the cooperation and effort the MCPA Task Force Three has put forth to fulfill the requirements of the reregistration Data Call-In Notice. When the Magnitude of the Meat and Milk Study is received, reviewed, a risk assessment conducted and safety finding is made, EPA will make a determination as to the whether the current tolerance of 0.1 ppm is still appropriate or should be changed. *Comment* . A comment was received from a private citizen that expressed concern with pesticide residues in general and that pesticide residue levels should be zero. Concern was also expressed for the number of chemicals found in the bodies of adults and children. *Agency response* . The private citizen's comment did not take issue with the Agency's conclusion that specific tolerances in this action should be revoked, established and/or modified. The Agency conducts a detailed risk assessment to determine whether establishing and/or increasing tolerances is safe; i.e., there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. Also, it is EPA's general practice to propose revocation of tolerances for residues of pesticide active ingredients on crop uses for which FIFRA registrations no longer exist. *Comment* . A comment was received from the California Rice Commission (CRC). CRC expressed concern that the increased U.S. tolerance for propanil in/on rice grain from 2 ppm to 10 ppm could result in a trade irritant with Japan, a major importer of California rice whose Maximum Residue Limit

(MRL)on rice grain is 2 ppm. According to the CRC propanil is the most important herbicide to the California rice industry; a significant percentage of the rice grown in California is exported to Japan; propanil residues on California grown rice are non-detectable for propanil; and the tolerance level of 10 ppm is based on an outlier residue level of 8.7 ppm. *Agency response* . The CRC brought this important issue to the attention of the Agency when the RED Amendment was released in 2006. The U.S. tolerance is a national level based on uses and residue data generated on rice grown in Arkansas, California, Louisiana, and Texas showing multiple residue detections above 2 parts per million

(ppm)up to 8.7 ppm supporting a tolerance level of 10 ppm. Avoiding potential trade irritants is of paramount interest, unfortunately, no new data have been generated or submitted to the Agency to change the basis of the tolerance level. If additional propanil field trial residue data on rice were generated and provided to the Agency, the tolerance level on rice grain would be reconsidered. 1. *Propanil.* Currently, in 40 CFR 180.274(a)(1) and (2), tolerances are established for the combined residues of propanil and its metabolites (calculated as propanil) in or on both raw agricultural commodities

(RACs)and processed foods and feeds. EPA is revising the tolerance expression to specify the residues of concern and combine the RACs and processed foods and feed tolerances in accordance with FFDCA 408 as amended by FQPA

(1996)in 40 CFR 180.274(a) to read as follows: Tolerances are established for the combined residues of the herbicide propanil (3', 4'-dichloropropionanilide) and its metabolites convertible to 3, 4-dichloroaniline (3, 4-DCA). Tolerances currently exist for rice milling fractions and rice polishings. Rice milling fractions are no longer considered significant animal feed items as delineated in “Table 1. - Raw Agricultural and Processed Commodities and Feedstuffs Derived from Crops” which is found in Residue Chemistry Test Guidelines OPPTS 860.1000 dated August 1996, available at *http://www.epa.gov/opptsfrs/ publications/OPPTS_Harmonized/860_Residue_Chemistry_Test_Guidelines/Series/* . Therefore, EPA is removing the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.274(a) for the combined residues of propanil in/on rice milling fractions and rice, polishings at 10 ppm. The registered uses on barley, oat, and wheat (small grains) have been voluntarily cancelled December 10, 2003; 68 FR 68901, FRL-7332-5, June 27, 2003; 68 FR 38328, FRL 7310-6. In the absence of registered uses, the tolerances associated with the small grains should be revoked. Therefore, EPA is revoking the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.274(a) for the combined propanil residues of concern in/on barley, straw; oat, straw; and wheat, straw at 0.75 ppm; barley, grain at 0.2 ppm; oat, grain at 0.2 ppm; and wheat, grain at 0.2 ppm. Two studies depicting the magnitude of regulated propanil residues in/on rice grain exceeded the established tolerance of 2 ppm in/on treated rice grain samples demonstrating residues ranging from 0.03 ppm to 8.7 ppm. Based on these data, the EPA determined the tolerance should be 10 ppm on rice grain. Therefore, EPA is increasing the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.274(a) for the combined propanil residues of concern in/on rice, grain from 2 ppm to 10 ppm. The Agency determined that the increased tolerance is safe; i.e. there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. A rice processing study showed no concentration of residues in polished rice and average concentration factors of 3.5x for rice hulls and 4.6x for rice bran. The highest average field trial

(HAFT)propanil residues found in rice were 8.7 ppm. Based on this HAFT and the observed concentration factors, the maximum expected residues are 30.45 ppm in/on rice hulls (8.7 ppm x 3.5) and 40.02 ppm in/on rice bran (8.7 ppm x 4.6). These expected residues are higher in the processed commodities than the reassessed tolerance of 10 ppm for rice, grain. Based on these data, EPA has determined that the tolerances should be 30 ppm on rice, hulls and 40 ppm on rice, bran. Therefore, EPA is increasing tolerances in 40 CFR 180.274(a) for the combined propanil residues of concern in or on rice, hulls from 10 to 30 ppm and rice, bran from 10 to 40 ppm. The Agency determined that the increased tolerances are safe; i.e. there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. The potential for secondary transfer of propanil residues to animal commodities exists because the herbicide is registered for use on rice, which may be used as animal feed. Based on a maximum theoretical dietary burden

(x)and using the residue levels found in dairy cattle and milk fed 15 ppm (0.75x) resulted in residues of: 0.035 ppm in milk, 0.31 ppm in liver, 0.77 ppm in kidney, <0.05 ppm (non-detectable) in muscle, and 0.10 ppm in fat. Based on these data, the Agency determined the tolerances should be 0.05 ppm in cattle, meat; goat, meat; hog, meat; horse, meat; and sheep, meat and 1.0 ppm in cattle, meat byproducts; goat, meat byproducts; hog, meat byproducts; horse, meat byproducts; and sheep, meat byproducts. In addition, the term “negligible residue” and its designation, “(N)” associated with the milk and animal tissue tolerances is being removed to conform to current Agency policy and practice. Therefore, EPA is maintaining and revising tolerances in 40 CFR 180.274(a) for the combined propanil residues of concern in/on milk from 0.05(N) ppm to 0.05 ppm and cattle, fat; goat, fat; hog, fat; horse, fat; and sheep, fat from 0.1(N) ppm to 0.10 ppm; decreasing and revising the tolerances in/on cattle, meat; goat, meat; hog, meat; horse, meat; and sheep, meat from 0.1(N) to 0.05 ppm; and increasing and revising the tolerances in/on cattle, meat byproducts; goat, meat byproducts; hog, meat byproducts; horse, meat byproducts; and sheep, meat byproducts from 0.1(N) to 1.0 ppm. The Agency determined that the increased tolerances are safe; i.e. there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. Maximum propanil residues were 0.212, and 0.372 ppm, respectively, in eggs from hens dosed with propanil 15 ppm (0.9x), and 50 ppm (3.1x). Residues in liver from hens in the 15 ppm (0.9x), and 50 ppm (3.1x) dose groups were 0.183 - 0.236, and 0.824 - 1.755 ppm, respectively. Residues in muscle were <0.050 - 0.076 and 0.087 - 0.161 ppm from the 0.9x and 3.1x dose groups, respectively. In fat, propanil residues of concern were <0.05 ppm (<non-detectable) up to 0.9x feeding levels, and <0.139 - 0.348 ppm at 3.1x. Based on these data, the Agency has determined that the propanil tolerances should be 0.30 ppm for eggs, 0.50 ppm for meat byproducts, 0.05 ppm for poultry fat, and 0.10 ppm for poultry meat. In addition, the term “negligible residue” and its designation, “(N)” associated with the egg and animal tissue tolerances is being removed to conform to current Agency policy and practice. Therefore, EPA is revising tolerances in 40 CFR 180.274(a) for the combined propanil residues of concern to increase and revise the tolerance for eggs from 0.05(N) to 0.30 ppm and poultry, meat byproducts from 0.1(N) to 0.50 ppm; to decrease and revise the tolerances in/on poultry, fat from 0.1(N) to 0.05 ppm; and revise tolerances in/on poultry, meat from 0.10(N) to 0.10 ppm. The Agency determined that the increased tolerances are safe; i.e., there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. Residues of propanil and its metabolites, determined as base-releasable 3, 4-DCA and expressed as propanil equivalents, were <0.01 - 0.03 ppm in/on the edible portions of crayfish (1x maximum season rate). Based on these data, the Agency determined the tolerance should be 0.05 ppm on crayfish. Therefore, EPA is establishing a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.274(a) for the combined propanil residues of concern in/on crayfish at 0.05 ppm. In addition, the “N” (negligible residues) designation correlated with tolerances is being removed to conform to current Agency practice. Therefore, EPA is revising the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.278(a) for the combined propanil residues of concern in/on rice, straw from 75(N) ppm to 75 ppm. 2. *Phenmedipham.* The current tolerance expression in 40 CFR 180.278(a) refers to phenmedipham as methyl m-hydroxycarbanilate methyl carbanilate which should be changed to the more appropriate chemical name, 3-methoxycarbonylaminophenyl-3′-methylcarbanilate. Therefore, EPA is changing the chemical name in 40 CFR 180.278(a) for residues of the herbicide phenmedipham to 3-methoxycarbonylaminophenyl-3′-methylcarbanilate. Spinach field trial residue data generated at the 1x seasonal application rate and 14-22 day pre-harvest interval

(PHI)resulted in residues ranging from 2.1 - 3.6 ppm. Additional trials conducted at similar rates and PHIs yielded residues ranging from <0.05 to 0.17 ppm. Based on the more recent residue data and use pattern, EPA has determined the tolerance on spinach should be 4.0 ppm. Therefore, EPA is increasing the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.278(a) for residues of phenmedipham in/on spinach from 0.5 ppm to 4.0 ppm. The Agency determined that the increased tolerance is safe; i.e. there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. Sugar beet processing studies indicate that phenmedipham residues of concern concentrated 3x in dried pulp, 1.3x in molasses, and did not concentrate in sugar. Because of the concentration factors associated with dried pulp and molasses, the current tolerance of 0.1 ppm for raw beet, sugar, roots and tops is not adequate to cover the dried pulp and molasses from sugar beets; therefore, the Agency has determined that tolerances should be established for beet, sugar, dried pulp at 0.5 ppm and beet, sugar, molasses at 0.2 ppm. EPA is establishing tolerances in 40 CFR 180.278(a) for residues of phenmedipham in/on beet, sugar, dried pulp at 0.5 ppm and beet, sugar, molasses at 0.2 ppm. In addition, the “N” (negligible residues) designation that is correlated with some of the tolerances is being removed to conform to current Agency practice. Therefore, EPA is revising the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.278(a) for residues of phenmedipham in/on beet, garden at 0.2(N) ppm to beet, garden, roots at 0.2 ppm and beet, garden, tops at 0.2 ppm; beet, sugar, roots at 0.1(N) ppm to 0.1 ppm and beet, sugar, tops at 0.1(N) ppm to 0.1 ppm. 3. *Triallate.* The available data, reflecting the maximum registered use patterns, indicate that the maximum combined triallate residues of concern were 0.26 ppm in or on barley straw; 0.12 ppm in or on the seed and pods of succulent peas; 0.39 ppm in or on the vines of succulent peas; 0.27 ppm in or on the vines of dried peas; 0.73 ppm in or on the straw

(hay)of succulent peas; 0.36 ppm in or on the straw of dried peas; and 0.94 ppm in or on wheat straw in the states of California, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. In addition, the term “negligible residue” and its designation, “(N)” associated with the barley, grain tolerance is being removed to conform to current Agency policy and practice. Based on these data, the Agency determined the tolerances should be 0.3 ppm on barley, straw; 1.0 ppm on pea, field, hay; 0.5 ppm on pea, field, vines; 0.2 ppm on pea, succulent; and 1.0 ppm on wheat, straw and recodified under 40 CFR 180.314(c) as regional tolerances. Therefore, EPA is increasing and recodifying the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.314(a) to 40 CFR 180.314(c) for the combined triallate residues of concern in/on barley, straw from 0.05 to 0.3 ppm; pea, field, hay from 0.05 to 1.0 ppm; pea, field, vines from 0.05 to 0.5 ppm; pea, succulent from 0.05 to 0.2 ppm; wheat, straw from 0.05 to 1.0 ppm; and recodifying tolerances from 40 CFR 180.314(a) to 40 CFR 180.314(c) for barley, grain at 0.05 ppm and wheat, grain at 0.05 ppm. The Agency determined that the increased tolerances are safe; i.e., there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. Lentil hay is no longer considered significant livestock feed item and has been removed from Table 1 (OPPTS GLN 860.1000) and lentil, seed is covered by the established pea tolerance in accordance with 40 CFR 180.1(g). As a result, EPA is removing the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.314(a) for the combined triallate residues of concern in/on lentil, hay at 0.05 ppm and lentil seed at 0.05 ppm. Sugar beet processing studies were conducted on sugar beets treated at 5x the seasonal application rate resulting in maximum residues of 0.14 ppm in root, 0.30 ppm in dried pulp and <0.03 ppm in sugar and molasses. Therefore, EPA is maintaining the tolerances and correcting the terminology for sugar beets to include roots in 40 CFR 180.314(c) for the combined triallate residues of concern in or on beet, sugar, dried pulp at 0.2 ppm; beet, sugar, roots at 0.1 ppm and beet, sugar, tops at 0.5 ppm. The available data, reflecting the maximum registered use patterns, indicate that the maximum combined triallate residues of concern were <0.02 ppm in/on the seed and pods of dry peas; and 0.94 ppm on wheat straw. Because of similar cultural practices and identical use rates, wheat straw data are used to support tolerances for barley hay and wheat hay. Based on these data, the Agency determined the tolerances should be 0.2 ppm for pea, dry and 1.0 ppm for barley, hay and wheat, hay by translating the data from wheat straw. Therefore, EPA is establishing tolerances in 40 CFR 180.314(c) for the combined triallate residues of concern in/on barley, hay at 1.0 ppm; pea, dry at 0.2 ppm; and wheat, hay at 1.0 ppm. The Agency determined that the establishment of these tolerances is safe; i.e., there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. 4. *MCPA.* The current tolerance expression in 40 CFR 180.339(a) regulates residues of the herbicide 2-methyl-4-chlorophenoxyacetic acid

(MCPA)from application of the herbicide in acid form or in the form of its sodium, ethanolamine, diethanolamine, triethanolamine, isopropanolamine, diisopropanolamine, triisopropanolamine, or dimethylamine salts or isooctyl or butoxyethyl esters and in 40 CFR 180.339(b) tolerances are established for combined negligible residues

(N)of the herbicide 2-methyl-4-chlorophenoxyacetic acid and its metabolite 2-methyl-4-chlorophenol. Based on toxicity data for 2-methyl-4-chlorophenol, a currently regulated livestock metabolite, EPA determined that it is of significantly less concern than the parent compound and therefore can be excluded from the tolerance expression. Although the chemical name for MCPA has been presented as “(2-methyl-4-chlorophenoxy)acetic acid”, under current chemical naming conventions the “(4-chloro-2-methylphenoxy)acetic acid” designation is preferred. EPA determined the residues to be regulated in plant commodities (40 CFR 180.339(a)) are parent, free and conjugated MCPA. When MCPA is applied in various forms (e.g. ethanolamine and other salts and esters), a single common moiety is released that is the pesticidally active component and serves as the basis for tolerance regulation. Therefore, EPA is changing the tolerance expression in 40 CFR 180.339(a) to read as follows: Tolerances are established for residues of the herbicide MCPA [(4-chloro-2-methylphenoxy)acetic acid)], both free and conjugated, resulting from the direct application of MCPA or its sodium or dimethylamine salts or its 2-ethylhexyl ester and in 40 CFR 180.339(b) to read as follows: Tolerances are established for residues of the herbicide MCPA [(4-chloro-2-methylphenoxy)acetic acid)] resulting from the direct application of MCPA or its sodium or dimethylamine salts or its 2-ethylhexyl ester. EPA is revising 40 CFR 180.339(a) and

(b)to 180.339 (a)(1) and

(2)for consistency. Lastly, the term “negligible residue” and its designation, “(N)”, associated with some tolerances is being removed to conform to current Agency policy and practice. Currently, tolerances exist reflecting uses of MCPA on rice, sorghum, flax (straw) and canarygrass. The uses on rice, sorghum, and canarygrass are no longer registered uses June 30, 2004; 69 FR 39467; FRL 7363-4, April 26, 2006; 71 FR 24687; FRL 8059-2. EPA policy no longer requires tolerances be established for flax straw. Therefore, EPA is revoking tolerances in 40 CFR 180.339(a)(1) for the combined MCPA residues of concern in or on flax, straw at 2 ppm; grass, canary, annual, hay at 0.1 ppm; grass, canary, annual, seed at 0.1 ppm; rice, grain at 0.1(N) ppm; rice, straw at 2 ppm; sorghum, grain at 0.1 ppm; sorghum, forage at 20 ppm; and sorghum, grain, stover at 20 ppm. The crop field trial data indicate that the maximum combined residues of MCPA and its metabolites are <0.29 ppm in or on alfalfa forage and <1.07 ppm in or on alfalfa hay. Alfalfa forage and alfalfa hay data will also be used to satisfy crop field trial requirements for the clover, forage; clover, hay; lespedeza, clover; lespedeza, hay; trefoil, forage; trefoil, hay; vetch, forage; and vetch, hay. Ordinarily, the Agency would not translate data from alfalfa to support uses on clover, lespedeza, trefoil, and vetch; however, because the only supported use of MCPA on these crops is to the crops underseeded to small grains it is reasonable to use alfalfa forage and alfalfa hay data to support these uses. Based on these data, EPA has determined the tolerance should be 0.5 ppm in or on alfalfa, forage; clover, forage; lespedeza, forage; trefoil, forage; and vetch, forage and 2.0 ppm in or on alfalfa, hay; clover, hay; lespedeza, hay; trefoil, hay; and vetch, hay. Therefore, EPA is increasing and revising tolerances in 40 CFR 180.339(a)(1) for residues of MCPA in/on alfalfa, forage; clover, forage; lespedeza, forage; trefoil, forage; and vetch, forage from 0.1 to 0.5 ppm and alfalfa, hay; clover, hay; lespedeza, hay; trefoil, hay; and vetch, hay from 0.1 to 2.0 ppm. The Agency determined that the increased tolerances are safe; i.e. there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. The crop field trial data indicate that the maximum combined residues of MCPA and its metabolites are 0.72 ppm in or on wheat grain and 21.4 ppm in or on wheat straw. Based on the HAFT residue of 0.08 ppm for wheat grain, expected MCPA residues of concern in/on wheat bran and germ will not exceed the established tolerance of 0.1 ppm for wheat grain and for wheat processed commodities. Because of similar cultural practices and identical use rates, wheat residue field trial data are used to support tolerances for barley, oat and rye. Based on these data, EPA has determined the tolerance should be 1.0 ppm in/on barley, grain; oat, grain; rye, grain and wheat, grain and 25 ppm in or on barley, straw; oat, straw; rye, straw; and wheat, straw. Therefore, EPA is increasing the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.33(a)(1) for residues of MCPA in/on barley, grain; oat, grain; rye, grain; and wheat, grain from 0.1(N) to 1.0 ppm and barley, straw; oat, straw; rye, straw; and wheat, straw from 2 to 25 ppm. The Agency determined that these increased tolerances are safe; i.e. there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. The crop field trial data indicate that the maximum combined residues of MCPA and its metabolites are 19.4 ppm (7 day PHI) in or on wheat forage, 39.5 ppm and 111 ppm (7 and14 day PHIs, respectively) in or on wheat hay. Also these data are translated to support tolerances for barley, hay; oat, hay; oat, forage; and rye, forage. Based on these data, EPA determined the tolerances should be 20 ppm on oat, forage; rye, forage; and wheat, forage; 40 ppm on barley, hay; and 115 ppm in/on oat, hay; and wheat hay. EPA is establishing tolerances in 40 CFR 180.339(a)(1) for residues of MCPA in/on wheat, forage at 20 ppm; barley, hay at 40 ppm and oat, hay; and wheat, hay at 115 ppm. The Agency determined that these newly established tolerances are safe; i.e. there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemicals residue. In addition, EPA is revising commodity terminology and tolerances to conform to current Agency practice in 40 CFR 180.339 as follows: “grass, pasture and grass, rangeland at 300 ppm to grass, forage at 300 ppm:” “peavines at 0.1(N) ppm to pea, field, vines at 0.1 ppm;” “peavines, hay at 0.1(N) ppm to pea, field, hay at 0.1 ppm;” “vegetable, seed and pod at 0.1 ppm to pea, dry at 0.1 ppm and pea, succulent at 0.1 ppm;” flax seed at 0.1(N) to 0.1 ppm; “cattle, fat; goat, fat; hog, fat; horse, fat; and sheep, fat; cattle, meat byproducts; goat, meat byproducts; hog, meat byproducts; horse, meat byproducts; and sheep, meat byproducts; and cattle, meat; goat, meat; hog, meat; horse, meat; and sheep, meat at 0.1(N) ppm to 0.1 ppm;” and milk at 0.1(N) ppm to 0.1 ppm. B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action? EPA may issue a regulation establishing, modifying, or revoking a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(e). In this final rule, EPA is establishing, modifying, and revoking tolerances to implement the tolerance recommendations made during the reregistration and tolerance reassessment processes, and as follow-up on canceled uses of pesticides. As part of these processes, EPA is required to determine whether each of the amended tolerances meets the safety standards under the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). The safety finding determination is found in detail in each Reregistration Eligibility Document

(RED)and Tolerance Reassessment Document

(TRED)for the active ingredient. REDs and TREDs recommend the implementation of certain tolerance actions, including modifications to reflect current use patterns, to meet safety findings, and change commodity names and groupings in accordance with new EPA policy. Printed and electronic copies of the REDs and TREDs are available as provided in Unit II.A. EPA has issued post-FQPA REDs for propanil, phenmedipham, triallate, and MCPA, and a TRED for propanil. REDs and TREDs contain the Agency's evaluation of the data base for these pesticides, including statements regarding additional data on the active ingredients that may be needed to confirm the potential human health and environmental risk assessments associated with current product uses, and REDs state conditions under which these uses and products will be eligible for reregistration. The REDs and TREDs recommended the establishment, modification, and/or revocation of specific tolerances. RED and TRED recommendations such as establishing or modifying tolerances, and in some cases revoking tolerances, are the result of assessment under the FQPA standard of “reasonable certainty of no harm.” However, tolerance revocations recommended in REDs and TREDs that are made final in this document do not need such assessment when the tolerances are no longer necessary. EPA's general practice is to revoke tolerances for residues of pesticide active ingredients on crops for which FIFRA registrations no longer exist and on which the pesticide may therefore no longer be used in the United States. Nonetheless, EPA will establish and maintain tolerances even when corresponding domestic uses are canceled if the tolerances, which EPA refers to as “import tolerances,” are necessary to allow importation into the United States of food containing such pesticide residues. However, where there are no imported commodities that require these import tolerances, the Agency believes it is appropriate to revoke tolerances for unregistered pesticides in order to prevent potential misuse. When EPA establishes tolerances for pesticide residues in or on raw agricultural commodities, the Agency gives consideration to possible pesticide residues in meat, milk, poultry, and/or eggs produced by animals that are fed agricultural products (for example, grain or hay) containing pesticides residues (40 CFR 180.6). If there is no reasonable expectation of finite pesticide residues in or on meat, milk, poultry, or eggs, then tolerances do not need to be established for these commodities (40 CFR 180.6(b) and 180.6 (c)). C. When Do These Actions Become Effective? These actions become effective on the date of publication of this final rule in the **Federal Register** because their associated uses have been canceled for several years. The Agency believes that treated commodities have had sufficient time for passage through the channels of trade. Any commodities listed in the regulatory text of this document that are treated with the pesticides subject to this final rule, and that are in the channels of trade following the tolerance revocations, shall be subject to FFDCA section 408(1)(5), as established by the FQPA. Under this section, any residues of these pesticides in or on such food shall not render the food adulterated so long as it is shown to the satisfaction of the Food and Drug Administration that: 1. The residue is present as the result of an application or use of the pesticide at a time and in a manner that was lawful under FIFRA, and 2. The residue does not exceed the level that was authorized at the time of the application or use to be present on the food under a tolerance or exemption from tolerance. Evidence to show that food was lawfully treated may include records that verify the dates that the pesticide was applied to such food. III. Are There Any International Trade Issues Raised by this Final Action? In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international MRLs established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, as required by section 408(b)(4) of FFDCA. The Codex Alimentarius is a joint U.N. food and agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, section 408(b)(4) of FFDCA requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level in a notice published for public comment. EPA's effort to harmonize with Codex MRLs is summarized in the tolerance reassessment section of individual REDs and TREDs, and in the Residue Chemistry document which supports the RED and TRED, as mentioned in the proposed rule cited in Unit II.A. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews In this final rule, EPA establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(e), and also modifies and revokes specific tolerances established under FFDCA section 408. The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)has exempted these types of actions (i.e., establishment and modification of a tolerance and tolerance revocation for which extraordinary circumstances do not exist) from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled *Regulatory Planning and Review* (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this 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)(Pub. L. 104-4). Nor does it require any special considerations as required by Executive Order 12898, entitled *Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations* (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994); or OMB review or any other Agency action under Executive Order 13045, entitled *Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks* (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Pub. L. 104-13, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(RFA)(5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq* .), the Agency previously assessed whether establishment of tolerances, exemptions from tolerances, raising of tolerance levels, expansion of exemptions, or revocations might significantly impact a substantial number of small entities and concluded that, as a general matter, these actions do not impose a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. These analyses for tolerance establishments and modifications, and for tolerance revocations were published on May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950) and on December 17, 1997 (62 FR 66020), respectively, and were provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. Taking into account this analysis, and available information concerning the pesticides listed in this rule, the Agency hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In a memorandum dated May 25, 2001, EPA determined that eight conditions must all be satisfied in order for an import tolerance or tolerance exemption revocation to adversely affect a significant number of small entity importers, and that there is a negligible joint probability of all eight conditions holding simultaneously with respect to any particular revocation. (This Agency document is available in the docket of this proposed rule). Furthermore, for the pesticides named in this final rule, the Agency knows of no extraordinary circumstances that exist as to the present revocations that would change EPA's previous analysis. In addition, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled *Federalism* (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers and food retailers, not States. This action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. For these same reasons, the Agency has determined that this 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. V. Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq* ., generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the Agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . This rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: May 16, 2007. Debra Edwards, Director, 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 180.274 is amended by revising paragraph

(a)to read as follows: § 180.274 Propanil; tolerances for residues.

(a)*General* . Tolerances are established for the combined residues of the herbicide propanil (3′, 4′-dichloropropionanilide) and its metabolites convertible to 3, 4-dichloroaniline (3, 4-DCA) in or on the following food commodities: Commodity Parts per million Cattle, fat 0.10 Cattle, meat 0.05 Cattle, meat byproducts 1.0 Crayfish 0.05 Egg 0.30 Goat, fat 0.10 Goat, meat 0.05 Goat, meat byproducts 1.0 Hog, fat 0.10 Hog, meat 0.05 Hog, meat byproducts 1.0 Horse, fat 0.10 Horse, meat 0.05 Horse, meat byproducts 1.0 Milk 0.05 Poultry, fat 0.05 Poultry, meat 0.10 Poultry, meat byproducts 0.50 Rice, bran 40 Rice, grain 10 Rice, hulls 30 Rice, straw 75 Sheep, fat 0.10 Sheep, meat 0.05 Sheep, meat byproducts 1.0 3. Section 180.278 is revised to read as follows: §180.278 Phenmedipham; tolerances for residues.

(a)*General* . Tolerances are established for the combined residues of the herbicide phenmedipham (3-methoxycarbonylaminophenyl-3′-methylcarbanilate) in or on the following food commodities: Commodity Parts per million Beet, garden, roots 0.2 Beet, garden, tops 0.2 Beet, sugar, dried pulp 0.5 Beet, sugar, molasses 0.2 Beet, sugar, roots 0.1 Beet, sugar, tops 0.1 Spinach 4.0

(b)*Section 18 emergency exemptions* . [Reserved]

(c)*Tolerances with regional registrations* . [Reserved]

(d)*Indirect or inadvertent residues* . [Reserved] 4. Section 180.314 is revised to read as follows: §180.314 Triallate; tolerances for residues.

(a)*General* . [Reserved]

(b)*Section 18 emergency exemptions* . [Reserved]

(c)*Tolerances with regional registrations* . Tolerances with a regional registration, as defined in 180.1(m),are established for residues of the herbicide (S-2, 3, 4-trichloroallyl diisopropylthiocarbamate) and its metabolite 2, 3, 3-trichloroprop-2-enesulfonic acid (TCPSA) in or on the following food commodities: Commodity Parts per million Barley, grain 0.05 Barley, hay 1.0 Barley, straw 0.3 Beet, sugar, dried pulp 0.2 Beet, sugar, roots 0.1 Beet, sugar, tops 0.5 Pea, dry 0.2 Pea, field, hay 1.0 Pea, field, vines 0.5 Pea, succulent 0.2 Wheat, grain 0.05 Wheat, hay 1.0 Wheat, straw 1.0

(d)*Indirect or inadvertent residues* . [Reserved] 5. Section 180.339 is revised to read as follows: §180.339 MCPA; tolerances for residues.

(a)*General* .

(1)Tolerances are established for residues of the herbicide MCPA ((4-chloro-2-methylphenoxy)acetic acid), both free and conjugated, resulting from the direct application of MCPA or its sodium or dimethylamine salts, or its 2-ethylhexyl ester in or on the following food commodities: Commodity Parts per million Alfalfa, forage 0.5 Alfalfa, hay 2.0 Barley, grain 1.0 Barley, hay 40 Barley, straw 25 Clover, forage 0.5 Clover, hay 2.0 Flax, seed 0.1 Grass, forage 300 Grass, hay 20 Lespedeza, forage 0.5 Lespedeza, hay 2.0 Oat, forage 20 Oat, grain 1.0 Oat, hay 115 Oat, straw 25 Pea, dry 0.1 Pea, field, hay 0.1 Pea, succulent 0.1 Pea, field, vines 0.1 Rye, forage 20 Rye, grain 1.0 Rye, straw 25 Trefoil, forage 0.5 Trefoil, hay 2.0 Vetch, forage 0.5 Vetch, hay 2.0 Wheat, forage 20 Wheat, grain 1.0 Wheat, hay 115 Wheat, straw 25

(2)Tolerances are established for residues of the herbicide MCPA ((4-chloro-2-methylphenoxy)acetic acid) resulting from the direct application of MCPA or its sodium or dimethylamine salts, or its 2-ethylhexyl ester in or on the following food commodities: Commodity Parts per million Cattle, fat 0.1 Cattle, meat 0.1 Cattle, meat byproducts 0.1 Goat, fat 0.1 Goat, meat 0.1 Goat, meat byproducts 0.1 Hog, fat 0.1 Hog, meat 0.1 Hog, meat byproducts 0.1 Horse, fat 0.1 Horse, meat 0.1 Horse, meat byproducts 0.1 Milk 0.1 Sheep, fat 0.1 Sheep meat 0.1 Sheep meat byproducts 0.1

(b)*Section 18 emergency exemptions* . [Reserved]

(c)*Tolerances with regional registrations* . [Reserved]

(d)*Indirect or inadvertent residues* . [Reserved] [FR Doc. E7-9912 Filed 5-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 15 [ET Docket No. 03-201; FCC 07-56] Unlicensed Devices and Equipment Approval AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This document amends the Commission's rules to provide for more efficient equipment authorization of both existing modular transmitter devices and emerging partitioned (or “split”) modular transmitter devices. These rule changes will benefit manufacturers by allowing greater flexibility in certifying equipment and providing relief from the need to obtain a new equipment authorization each time the same transmitter is installed in a different final product. The rule changes will also enable manufacturers to develop more flexible and more advanced unlicensed transmitter technologies. The Commission further finds that modular transmitter devices authorized in accordance with the revised equipment authorization procedures will not pose any increased risk of interference to other radio operations. DATES: Effective June 22, 2007, except for § 15.212, which contains information collection requirements that have not been approved by the Office of Management and Budget. The Federal Communications Commission will publish a document in the **Federal Register** announcing the effective date of this section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hugh Van Tuyl, Office of Engineering and Technology,

(202)418-7506, e-mail *Hugh.VanTuyl@fcc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's *Second Report and Order,* ET Docket No. 03-201, FCC 07-56, adopted April 20, 2007, and released April 25, 2007. The full text of this document is available on the Commission's Internet site at *http://www.fcc.gov* . It is also available for inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street., SW., Washington, DC 20554. The full text of this document also may be purchased from the Commission's duplication contractor, Best Copy and Printing Inc., Portals II, 445 12th St., SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554; telephone

(202)488-5300; fax

(202)488-5563; e-mail *FCC@BCPIWEB.COM* . Summary of the Report and Order 1. In the Second Report and Order the Commission codified the *Public Notice,* DA 00-1407, June 26, 2000, requirements for approving modular transmitters, with certain modifications. It also adopted requirements for the approval of split modular transmitters, including a requirement that only parts of a split module that have been approved in a single application for equipment authorization may operate together. Further, it allows manufacturers the flexibility to demonstrate alternative methods in the application for equipment authorization to ensure that a modular transmitter will meet all the applicable part 15 requirements under the operating conditions in which it will be used. The Commission finds that the increased flexibility adopted will facilitate the approval process for modular transmitters and provide relief from the need to obtain a new equipment authorization each time the same transmitter is installed in a different final product, and will promote an increase in the development of part 15 devices without increasing the potential for interference to authorized radio services. Single Unit Modular Transmitters 2. The Commission codified the proposed requirements for approving single modular transmitters into the rules. This action will ensure that all equipment manufacturers are provided with adequate notice of the Commission's requirements for obtaining modular transmitter approvals. The Commission adopted a definition for a modular transmitter. Specifically, a modular transmitter will be defined as a completely self-contained radio-frequency transmitter device that is typically incorporated into another product, host or device. However, the Commission will not require “module-like devices” that contain part 15 transmitters to be approved as modular transmitters. Consistent with current Commission policy, it will continue to permit such devices to be approved as stand-alone transmitters under the present authorization procedures, although manufacturers may obtain approval for them as modules if they desire. 3. The Commission recognizes that there may be circumstances where there are alternative means that will enable a modular transmitter to meet all applicable part 15 requirements under the operating conditions in which the transmitter will be used. Therefore, the Commission adopted a rule that states that modular transmitters do not have to comply with all of the approval requirements if the manufacturer can demonstrate by alternative means in the application for equipment authorization that the equipment complies with the part 15 rules. Specifically, the Commission will permit manufacturers flexibility with respect to the requirements such as module shielding, buffered modulation/data inputs and power supply regulation, because compliance with these requirements may not be necessary in specific module installations. Consistent with the *Public Notice* , the Commission may grant a “Limited Modular Approval” in instances where the equipment does not meet all eight criteria for modular transmitters, but the grantee of equipment authorization can demonstrate that it will retain control over the final installation of the device such that compliance of the end product is assured. In such cases, the grantee must state how control of the end product into which the module will be installed will be maintained such that full compliance of the end product is always ensured. A limited modular approval is subject to conditions such as the device(s) into which the module can be installed, the antenna separation distance from persons or the locations where it may be used (e.g. outdoor only). 4. To provide additional flexibility to manufacturers and to parties incorporating modular transmitters into other devices, the Commission will permit electronic labeling of modular transmitters in the same manner as it allows for software defined radios. The FCC identification number may be shown on an electronic display on the module itself if the module contains a display that is visible to the user, or more typically, it may be displayed on the device into which the module is installed, such as a laptop computer or PDA. The information must be readily accessible, and the user manual must describe how to access the electronic display. In addition to the electronic display, the Commission requires a simple label on the product indicating when a module is installed inside a host device to facilitate identification of equipment that contains modular transmitters. This approach will simplify the labeling procedure for parties that incorporate modules into other devices because they will not need to affix a different label on the outside of a device for each type of modular transmitter that may be installed inside. 5. The Commission declines to make changes to the antenna connector requirements for modular transmitters. The Commission previously addressed this issue in the *Report and Order* , 69 FR 54072, September 7, 2004, in this proceeding. It noted that the changes adopted in the *Report and Order* that allow intentional radiators to be authorized with multiple antenna types similarly apply to modular transmitters. 6. The Commission declined to modify the rules to state that the host device manufacturer is responsible for meeting the requirements specified in the modular transmitter authorization. It is ultimately the responsibility of the grantee of equipment authorization to comply with the terms of the equipment authorization. The Commission notes that in the case of equipment requiring special accessories, the rules state that it is the responsibility of the user to use the needed special accessories that the grantee is required to supply with the equipment. It also notes that some parties are assembling devices that contain multiple approved modules that may interact with each other and may cause the host device to operate out of compliance with the Commission's rules. In this case, the assembler is responsible for any interactions that cause the device to operate out of compliance with the Commission's rules, while the grantee of the equipment authorization for each module remains responsible for the compliance of the module with the equipment authorization. If an assembler makes any changes to an approved module, it becomes the party responsible for compliance of that module and must obtain a new equipment authorization. Split Modular Transmitters 7. A new class of split modular transmitters is now under development. These transmitters consist of two basic components: the radio front end and the firmware on which the software that controls the radio operation resides. The separation of modular devices into these components will provide manufacturers with flexibility to design a larger variety of modular systems by mixing and matching individual components. 8. The *Public Notice* on modular transmitter approvals envisioned that a transmitter module would be a single component device, rather than split into two separate sections. Certain requirements in the *Public Notice* may not be appropriate or may be unnecessarily restrictive for split modules. Therefore, in the *Notice of Proposed Rule Making* (NPRM), the Commission proposed to modify the requirements for shielding, control information, and test procedures in the *Public Notice* to accommodate the special case of new split modules in which the antenna, radio front end, and firmware are independent of one another. 9. The Commission adopted modified and additional approval requirements for split modules. These rules will provide manufacturers relief from the need to obtain a new equipment authorization each time the same split modular transmitter is installed in a different device. Reducing the authorization burden for split modular transmitters will encourage and enable manufacturers to develop more flexible and more advanced unlicensed transmitter technologies. The Commission also finds that, with appropriate safeguards, split modules may be authorized while continuing to ensure that final products comply with the Commission's technical requirements. 10. The Commission will use the term “transmitter control element” in place of the proposed term “firmware” for split modular transmitters. The term firmware is generally used to describe computer instructions that are stored in a read-only memory. While that term may be appropriate for describing how transmitter functions are carried out in some split module implementations, it may not be appropriate in all cases. Thus, the Commission is using the more generic term “transmitter control element”. 11. For a split modular transmitter, there are three pieces that must be tested together. The first is the RF front end, which consists of the power amplifier, antenna, and possibly the circuitry that produces the modulation. The second piece is the transmitter control element, which may be on its own chip or circuit board, or which may consist of components incorporated into another device. The transmitter control element may produce the modulation rather than the RF front end. The third piece is the host device, such as a notebook computer or personal digital assistant, which will be used to link the first two pieces of the split module together. The Commission will use some judgment at the time of equipment authorization as to whether the host device with which a modular transmitter is tested is representative of the intended use(s) of that modular transmitter. 12. The Commission adopted the proposed requirements that only the radio front end of a split module must be shielded. It does not believe that it is necessary to shield the transmitter control element because it is unlikely any stray RF energy to this circuitry would affect the emissions from the overall device. The adopted rules will allow the physical crystal and tuning capacitors to be located external to the shielded radio element. This approach recognizes that it would greatly complicate equipment design to shield the crystal and tuning capacitor and does not appear warranted by the negligible risk of any impact on the transmitter output. The Commission also adopted a requirement that the interface between sections of the split modular system must be digital with a minimum signaling amplitude of 150 millivolts peak-to-peak. These requirements will help ensure that the interface between sections of a split module is immune to stray signals that could cause the module to operate out of compliance with the part 15 rules. While these requirements should be appropriate in most cases, the Commission recognizes the concerns of parties who request additional flexibility in meeting these requirements. Therefore, consistent with its actions for single modules, the Commission will permit manufacturers to demonstrate alternatives to these requirements that will ensure that the split modular transmitter complies with the part 15 rules. 13. The Commission adopted a rule stating that control information and other data may be exchanged between the radio front end and transmitter control elements. The purpose of this rule is merely to clarify that in a split module, data may be sent not to just the module input as in a single module, but also between sections of the module. 14. The Commission declines to define a reference platform or specific cable lengths for testing split modules as proposed in the *NPRM.* Because split modules are a new technology, the Commission concludes that it would be premature to specify detailed testing procedures that may not be applicable to all implementations and could inadvertently hinder development of this technology. Rather, it will require manufacturers to comply with the basic objective of demonstrating, through testing, that their split module equipment will comply with the applicable part 15 requirements ( *e.g.* , frequency, power, spurious emissions limits, and other rules). The Commission will provide manufacturers with the flexibility to perform testing on a platform that is representative of actual use, such as a laptop or PDA, but may require a manufacturer to perform testing on additional platforms if necessary to demonstrate that the equipment will comply under the conditions in which it will be used. The sections of a split module must be tested together as a system and will be authorized as a system with a single FCC identification number. 15. The Commission declines to require a standard physical or logical interface between sections of a split module or to require the use of an industry standard. It now finds that such an action could hinder development of this nascent technology. Manufacturers are free to develop standard interfaces and use industry standards in designing split modules at their discretion. Parties may also mix and match radio front ends and transmitter control elements made by different manufacturers in split modules, but to ensure the compliance of these components as a module they must be tested and certified as a system on a platform representative of actual use. Each combination of radio front end and transmitter control elements must have its own FCC identification number that will indicate which party is responsible for compliance of the system. The Commission will not require a permanently affixed label on the transmitter control elements of a split module when electronic labeling is used, because the radio front end or transmitter control element may be integrated into another device, making physical labeling impractical. However, if electronic labeling is not used, the Commission will require a permanently affixed label to be located either on the radio front end, transmitter control elements, or the host device. 16. Because split modules are tested for compliance and authorized as a system, the Commission finds that it is necessary to adopt requirements to ensure that only sections of a split module system that have been approved together may be used together in a device. Therefore, it adopted a general security requirement for split modules that is similar to the security requirement for software defined radios that ensures that only hardware and software that has been approved together may operate in a device. Specifically, the Commission requires that manufacturers take steps to ensure that only transmitter control elements and radio front end components that have been approved together are capable of operating together. It also requires that the split module not operate unless it has verified that the installed transmitter control elements and radio front end have been authorized together. The Commission will permit manufacturers to use means including, but not limited to, coding in hardware and electronic signatures in software to meet these requirements, and will require them to describe the methods for ensuring that components operate only when connected with other components included under the same equipment authorization in their application for equipment authorization. 17. The Commission will not permit Telecommunication Certification Bodies

(TCBs)to certify split modules at this time. Split modules are a new technology, and TCBs will not be permitted to certify them until the Commission has more experience with them and can properly advise TCBs on how to apply the applicable rules. The Commission's Laboratory maintains a list of types of devices that TCBs are excluded from certifying and will place split modules on this list until the Laboratory determines that TCBs are capable of certifying them. Ordering Clauses 18. Part 15 of the Commission's rules is amended as specified in Appendix A, effective 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . The Second Report and Order contains information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Pub. L. 104-13, that are not effective until approved by the Office of Management and Budget. The Federal Communications Commission will publish a document in the **Federal Register** announcing the effective date of the rules. This action is taken pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 4(i), 303(f), and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 303(f), and 303(r). 19. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, *shall send* a copy of the Second Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 20. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 1 an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

(IRFA)was incorporated in the *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* ( *NPRM* ) in this docket, ET Docket 03-201. The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the NPRM, including comment on the IRFA. This present Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

(FRFA)conforms to the RFA. 2 1 *See* 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. 601-612, has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996). 2 *See* 5 U.S.C. 603, Title II, 110 Stat 857 (1996). A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Second Report and Order 21. In recent years, manufacturers have developed part 15 transmitter modules (or “single” modules) that can be incorporated into many different devices. A module generally consists of a completely self-contained radio-frequency transmitter missing only an input signal source and a power source to make it functional. Once a module is authorized by the Commission under its certification procedure, it may be incorporated into a number of host devices such as personal computers

(PCs)or personal digital assistants (PDAs), which have been separately authorized. The completed product generally is not subject to requirements for further certification by the Commission. Therefore, modular transmitters save manufacturers the time and any related expenses that would be incurred if a new equipment authorization were needed for the same transmitter when it is installed in a new device. 22. On June 26, 2000, the Commission released a *Public Notice* detailing eight criteria that must be met in order for the Commission to grant certification to a part 15 transmitter as a module. Specifically, the module must:

(1)Have its own radio-frequency shielding,

(2)have buffered modulation/data inputs to ensure that the device will comply with the part 15 requirements with any type of input signal,

(3)contain power supply regulation,

(4)comply with the part 15 antenna requirements,

(5)be tested in a stand-alone configuration,

(6)be labeled with its own FCC ID,

(7)comply with any specific rules applicable to the transmitter, and

(8)comply with RF safety requirements. The *Public Notice* was released in response to manufacturers' requests to the FCC Laboratory for information about the conditions under which part 15 modular transmitter approvals may be granted. In the *NPRM* in this proceeding, the Commission proposed to codify the criteria from the *Public Notice* for approval of singular modular transmitters. In addition, the Commission proposed additional criteria that must be met for approval of split modular transmitters. 23. The Second Report and Order codifies the eight *Public Notice* requirements for approval of single modular transmitters. It also adopts specific requirements for the approval of split modular devices. Specifically, in a split modular device:

(1)Only the radio-frequency section of the module must be shielded,

(2)the two sections of the module may exchange data and control information,

(3)the sections of a split module must be tested together in a representative device, and

(4)split modules must contain measures such a security codes to ensure that only sections of a module that have been approved together will function together in a host device. These rule changes will benefit manufacturers by allowing greater flexibility in certifying equipment and providing relief from the need to obtain a new equipment authorization each time the same transmitter is installed in a different device. The rule changes will also enable manufactures to develop more flexible and more advanced unlicensed transmitter technologies. B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA 24. No comments were filed in response to the IRFA. C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Rules Will Apply 25. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. 3 The RFA defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small business concern” under section 3 of the Small Business Act. 4 Under the Small Business Act, a “small business concern” is one that:

(1)Is independently owned and operated;

(2)is not dominant in its field of operations; and

(3)meets additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). 5 3 *See* U.S.C. 603(b)(3). 4 *Id.* 601(3). 5 *Id.* 632. 26. The rules adopted in this Second Report and Order pertains to manufacturers of unlicensed communications devices. The appropriate small business size standard is that which the SBA has established for radio and television broadcasting and wireless communications equipment manufacturing. This category encompasses entities that primarily manufacture radio, television, and wireless communications equipment. 6 Under this standard, firms are considered small if they have 750 or fewer employees. 7 Census Bureau data for 1997 indicate that, for that year, there were a total of 1,215 establishments 8 in this category. 9 Of those, there were 1,150 that had employment under 500, and an additional 37 that had employment of 500 to 999. The percentage of wireless equipment manufacturers in this category is approximately 61.35%, so the Commission estimates that the number of wireless equipment manufacturers with employment under 500 was actually closer to 706, with an additional 23 establishments having employment of between 500 and 999. Given the above, the Commission estimates that the great majority of wireless communications equipment manufacturers are small businesses. 6 NAICS code 334220. 7 *Id.* 8 The number of “establishments” is a less helpful indicator of small business prevalence in this context than would be the number of “firms” or “companies,” because the latter take into account the concept of common ownership or control. Any single physical location for an entity is an establishment, even though that location may be owned by a different establishment. Thus, the numbers given may reflect inflated numbers of businesses in this category, including the numbers of small businesses. In this category, the Census breaks-out data for firms or companies only to give the total number of such entities for 1997, which was 1,089. 9 U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Industry Series: Manufacturing, “Industry Statistics by Employment Size,” Table 4, NAICS code 334220. D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements 27. Part 15 modular transmitters are already required to be certified before they can be legally imported into or marketed within the United States. The rule changes adopted in this proceeding will not alter any of the current reporting or recordkeeping requirements. Telecommunication Certification Bodies

(TCBs)will not be permitted to certify split modular transmitters until the Commission has more experience with them and can properly advise TCBs on how to apply the applicable rules. E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered 28. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its approach, which may include the following four alternatives:

(1)The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities;

(2)the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities;

(3)the use of performance rather than design standards; and

(4)an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small entities. 29. Modular approvals save manufacturers, both large and small, the burden of having to test a transmitter multiple times for incorporation into multiple host devices. However, we recognize that in some instances, particularly with respect to small manufacturers, the drawback to modular approvals is that the certification of a module is somewhat more burdensome because the manufacturer must show compliance with the eight requirements from the June 2000 public notice that the current item incorporates into the rules. This could mean that a manufacturer has to incorporate shielding, modulation buffering or power supply regulation to make a device eligible for a modular approval, or that it has to be tested in different configurations than non-modular transmitters. 30. Because smaller manufacturers may find that these requirements impose an economically significant burden, we have provided for two alternatives to reduce this burden. 31. First, the rules do not require that a manufacturer approve a transmitter as a module. If a transmitter is only intended to be installed in a small number of different devices, a manufacturer may find it is more efficient, either cost-wise or time-wise, to simply obtain a separate certification for each device. 32. Second, the rules permit “limited modular approvals” for transmitters that do not comply with all eight requirements for modular certification if the manufacturer can demonstrate by alternative means in the application for equipment authorization that the equipment will comply with the part 15 rules. Specifically, manufacturers have flexibility with respect to requirements such as module shielding, buffered modulation/data inputs and power supply regulation, because compliance with these requirements may not be necessary in specific module installations. The manufacturer must demonstrate that it will retain control over the final installation of the device such that compliance of the end product is assured. A limited modular approval is subject to conditions such as the device(s) into which the module can be installed, a requirement for professional installation, the antenna separation distance from persons or the locations where it may be used (e.g., outdoor only). F. Report to Congress 33. The Commission will send a copy of the Second Report and Order, including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. 10 In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the second Report and Order, including the FRFA, to Congress and the Government Accountability Office. 10 See 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 15 Communications equipment. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. Final Rules For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends part 15 of Title 47 of the CFR to read as follows: PART 15—RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES 1. The authority citation for part 15 continues to read as follows: Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 304, 307, 336, and 544a 2. Section 15.212 is added to read as follows: § 15.212 Modular transmitters.

(a)Single modular transmitters consist of a completely self-contained radiofrequency transmitter device that is typically incorporated into another product, host or device. Split modular transmitters consist of two components: a radio front end with antenna (or radio devices) and a transmitter control element (or specific hardware on which the software that controls the radio operation resides). All single or split modular transmitters are approved with an antenna. All of the following requirements apply, except as provided in paragraph

(b)of this section.

(1)Single modular transmitters must meet the following requirements to obtain a modular transmitter approval.

(i)The radio elements of the modular transmitter must have their own shielding. The physical crystal and tuning capacitors may be located external to the shielded radio elements.

(ii)The modular transmitter must have buffered modulation/data inputs (if such inputs are provided) to ensure that the module will comply with part 15 requirements under conditions of excessive data rates or over-modulation.

(iii)The modular transmitter must have its own power supply regulation.

(iv)The modular transmitter must comply with the antenna and transmission system requirements of §§ 15.203, 15.204(b) and 15.204(c). The antenna must either be permanently attached or employ a “unique” antenna coupler (at all connections between the module and the antenna, including the cable). The “professional installation” provision of § 15.203 is not applicable to modules but can apply to limited modular approvals under paragraph

(b)of this section.

(v)The modular transmitter must be tested in a stand-alone configuration, *i.e.* , the module must not be inside another device during testing for compliance with part 15 requirements. Unless the transmitter module will be battery powered, it must comply with the AC line conducted requirements found in § 15.207. AC or DC power lines and data input/output lines connected to the module must not contain ferrites, unless they will be marketed with the module (see § 15.27(a)). The length of these lines shall be the length typical of actual use or, if that length is unknown, at least 10 centimeters to insure that there is no coupling between the case of the module and supporting equipment. Any accessories, peripherals, or support equipment connected to the module during testing shall be unmodified and commercially available (see § 15.31(i)).

(vi)The modular transmitter must be equipped with either a permanently affixed label or must be capable of electronically displaying its FCC identification number.

(A)If using a permanently affixed label, the modular transmitter must be labeled with its own FCC identification number, and, if the FCC identification number is not visible when the module is installed inside another device, then the outside of the device into which the module is installed must also display a label referring to the enclosed module. This exterior label can use wording such as the following: “Contains Transmitter Module FCC ID: XYZMODEL1” or “Contains FCC ID: XYZMODEL1.” Any similar wording that expresses the same meaning may be used. The Grantee may either provide such a label, an example of which must be included in the application for equipment authorization, or, must provide adequate instructions along with the module which explain this requirement. In the latter case, a copy of these instructions must be included in the application for equipment authorization.

(B)If the modular transmitter uses an electronic display of the FCC identification number, the information must be readily accessible and visible on the modular transmitter or on the device in which it is installed. If the module is installed inside another device, then the outside of the device into which the module is installed must display a label referring to the enclosed module. This exterior label can use wording such as the following: “Contains FCC certified transmitter module(s).” Any similar wording that expresses the same meaning may be used. The user manual must include instructions on how to access the electronic display. A copy of these instructions must be included in the application for equipment authorization.

(vii)The modular transmitter must comply with any specific rules or operating requirements that ordinarily apply to a complete transmitter and the manufacturer must provide adequate instructions along with the module to explain any such requirements. A copy of these instructions must be included in the application for equipment authorization.

(viii)The modular transmitter must comply with any applicable RF exposure requirements in its final configuration.

(2)Split modular transmitters must meet the requirements in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, excluding paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (a)(1)(v), and the following additional requirements to obtain a modular transmitter approval.

(i)Only the radio front end must be shielded. The physical crystal and tuning capacitors may be located external to the shielded radio elements. The interface between the split sections of the modular system must be digital with a minimum signaling amplitude of 150 mV peak-to-peak.

(ii)Control information and other data may be exchanged between the transmitter control elements and radio front end.

(iii)The sections of a split modular transmitter must be tested installed in a host device(s) similar to that which is representative of the platform(s) intended for use.

(iv)Manufacturers must ensure that only transmitter control elements and radio front end components that have been approved together are capable of operating together. The transmitter module must not operate unless it has verified that the installed transmitter control elements and radio front end have been authorized together. Manufacturers may use means including, but not limited to, coding in hardware and electronic signatures in software to meet these requirements, and must describe the methods in their application for equipment authorization.

(b)A limited modular approval may be granted for single or split modular transmitters that do not comply with all of the above requirements, *e.g.* , shielding, minimum signaling amplitude, buffered modulation/data inputs, or power supply regulation, if the manufacturer can demonstrate by alternative means in the application for equipment authorization that the modular transmitter meets all the applicable part 15 requirements under the operating conditions in which the transmitter will be used. Limited modular approval also may be granted in those instances where compliance with RF exposure rules is demonstrated only for particular product configurations. The applicant for certification must state how control of the end product into which the module will be installed will be maintained such that full compliance of the end product is always ensured. [FR Doc. E7-9942 Filed 5-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 15 [MB Docket No. 03-15; FCC 07-69] Second Periodic Review of the Commission's Rules and Policies Affecting the Conversion to Digital Television AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Final rule; announcement of effective date. SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission has received Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)approval for information collection requirements contained in 47 CFR 15.117(k). Therefore, the Commission announces that 47 CFR 15.117(k) is effective May 25, 2007. DATES: The effective date for the rule published at 72 FR 26554 (May 10, 2007) amending 47 CFR 15.117 is May 25, 2007. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Communications Commission has received OMB approval for the Consumer Alert labeling rule published at 72 FR 26554 (May 10, 2007). Through this document, the Commission announces that it received this approval on May 16, 2007. Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act

(PRA)that does not display a valid control number. OMB assigned OMB Control Number 3060-1100 to the collection of information contained in 47 CFR 15.117(k). Questions concerning the OMB control number should be directed to Cathy Williams, Federal Communications Commission,

(202)418-2918 or via the Internet at *Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov* . Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-10053 Filed 5-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P 72 99 Wednesday, May 23, 2007 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Federal Crop Insurance Corporation 7 CFR Part 457 RIN 0563-AB98 Common Crop Insurance Regulations, Tobacco Crop Insurance Provisions AGENCY: Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, USDA. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation

(FCIC)proposes to amend the Common Crop Insurance Regulations by removing the Quota Tobacco Crop Insurance Provisions, revising the Guaranteed Tobacco Crop Insurance Provisions, and changing the title of the Guaranteed Tobacco Crop Insurance Provisions to Contracted Tobacco Crop Insurance Provisions. The intended effect of this action is to provide policy changes and clarify existing policy provisions to better meet the needs of insured producers. The changes will apply for the 2008 and succeeding crop years. DATES: Written comments and opinions on this proposed rule will be accepted until close of business July 23, 2007, and will be considered when the rule is to be made final. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments, titled “Tobacco Crop Insurance Provisions”, by any of the following methods: • *By Mail to:* Director, Product Administration and Standards Division, Risk Management Agency, United States Department of Agriculture, 6501 Beacon Drive, Stop 0812, Room 421, Kansas City, MO 64133-4676. • *E-mail: DirectorPDD@rma.usda.gov.* • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. A copy of each response will be available for public inspection and copying from 7 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., CDT. Monday through Friday, except holidays, at the above address. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Johnson, Risk Management Specialist, Product Management, Product Administration and Standards Division, Risk Management Agency, at the Kansas City, Mo, address listed above, telephone

(816)926-7730. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Executive Order 12866 This rule has been determined to be nonsignificant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Pursuant to the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the collections of information in this rule have been approved by OMB under control number 0563-0053 through November 30, 2007. E-Government Act Compliance FCIC is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 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. This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of title II of the UMRA) for State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA. Executive Order 13132 It has been determined under section 1(a) of Executive Order 13132, Federalism, that this rule does not have sufficient implications to warrant consultation with the States. The provisions contained in this rule will not have a substantial direct effect on States, or on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Regulatory Flexibility Act FCIC certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Program requirements for the Federal crop insurance program are the same for all producers regardless of the size of their farming operation. For instance, all producers are required to submit an application and acreage report to establish their insurance guarantees and compute premium amounts, and all producers are required to submit a notice of loss and production information to determine the amount of an indemnity payment in the event of an insured cause of crop loss. Whether a producer has 10 acres or 1000 acres, there is no difference in the kind of information collected. To ensure crop insurance is available to small entities, the Federal Crop Insurance Act authorizes FCIC to waive collection of administrative fees from limited resource farmers. FCIC believes this waiver helps to ensure small entities are given the same opportunities as large entities to manage their risks through the use of crop insurance. A Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has not been prepared since this regulation does not have an impact on small entities, and, therefore, this regulation is exempt from the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605). Federal Assistance Program This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.450. Executive Order 12372 This program is not subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which require intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. See the Notice related to 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V, published at 48 FR 29115, June 24, 1983. Executive Order 12988 This proposed rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12988 on civil justice reform. The provisions of this rule will not have a retroactive effect. The provisions of this rule will preempt State and local laws to the extent such State and local laws are inconsistent herewith. With respect to any direct action taken by FCIC or to require the insurance provider to take specific action under the terms of the crop insurance policy, the administrative appeal provisions published at 7 CFR part 11 must be exhausted before any action against FCIC for judicial review may be brought. Environmental Evaluation This action is not expected to have a significant economic impact on the quality of the human environment, health, or safety. Therefore, neither an Environmental Assessment nor an Environmental Impact Statement is needed. Background FCIC proposes to amend the Common Crop Insurance Regulations by removing the Quota Tobacco Crop Insurance Provisions and reserving § 457.156. The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 eliminated the tobacco quota support program and quota support price as administrated by the Farm Service Agency (FSA). FCIC also proposes to revise the Guaranteed Tobacco Crop Insurance Provisions and change the title to Contracted Tobacco Crop Insurance Provisions. Under the new provisions, insurance will only be available for tobacco grown under a contract with a tobacco company. The entity named on the tobacco contract must be the same as the entity named on the application to indicate an insurable share. Prior to the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, tobacco was sold in United States Department of Agriculture

(USDA)auction warehouses. The prices paid to the auction warehouses by tobacco companies were based upon the quality and grade of the tobacco. Today the majority of tobacco is grown under contract with a tobacco company. Therefore, a new environment exists for tobacco production and marketing and FCIC is proposing to revise the tobacco policy to reflect this new environment. The proposed changes are as follows: 1. FCIC proposes to remove the paragraph immediately preceding section 1 which refers to the order of priority of provisions in the event of conflict. This same information is contained in the Basic Provisions; therefore, it is duplicative and should be removed in the Crop Provisions. 2. Section 1—Definitions—Add definitions of “average price received,” “commercial tobacco producer,” “contract price,” “minimum acreage,” “price election,” “tobacco company or commercial marketing association (CMA),” “tobacco contract,” “tobacco handler,” and “tobacco types” since these terms are required to provide insurance under a tobacco company contract. FCIC proposes to revise the definition of “basic unit” so that a basic unit will be all insurable acreage of each tobacco type grown in the county for the crop year. Previously, basic units were available by farm serial number (FSN). However, due to the elimination of the tobacco quota and support program and the tobacco quota support price, the majority of tobacco is now sold under a contract with a tobacco company. The tobacco company contract indicates only the total quantity of tobacco production by tobacco type the producer agrees to deliver regardless of who shares in the production or from what FSN the tobacco production was produced. Basic units by tobacco types are more appropriate because tobacco types are planted, harvested and cured separately by growers. The types are graded, and purchased separately by tobacco companies. Therefore, verifiable production records will most likely be kept by type. Under the APH plan of insurance the producer is responsible for supplying verifiable production records for APH purposes. FCIC is proposing to revise the definition of “priming” to clarify that priming applies to one or more leaf, not just each leaf. FCIC proposes to remove the definitions of “average value,” “carryover tobacco,” “discount variety,” “fair market value,” “market price,” “season average market price,” and “support price.” These definitions are no longer necessary since the price support program has been eliminated. FCIC proposes to remove the definition of “adequate stand” because even though the definition was added in 1999, the term was never used in the Crop Provisions. FCIC proposes to remove the definition of “approved yield,” and “replanting.” These terms are defined in the Common Crop Insurance Policy Basic Provisions and do not require modification for the purpose of these Crop Provisions. FCIC also proposes to remove the definition of “production guarantee (per acre)” because the elimination of the quota tobacco program means that production will now be based on the actual production history of the producer, not the pounds on the actuarial documents or approved yield in the Special Provisions. Therefore, the definition in the Basic Provisions is appropriate. 3. Section 2—FCIC is proposing to revise section 2 by removing the sentence that states, “The provisions in the Basic Provisions regarding optional units are not applicable, unless specified by the Special Provisions.” FCIC is proposing only basic units by type be available to producers. Previously, optional units were available by farm serial number

(FSN)for certain types of tobacco in certain areas as specified by the Special Provisions. Also, enterprise units were available by certain types of tobacco in certain areas as specified by the Special Provisions. However, due to the elimination of the tobacco quota and support program and the tobacco quota support price, the majority of tobacco is now sold under a contract with a tobacco company. The tobacco company contract indicates only the total quantity of tobacco production by tobacco type the producer agrees to deliver regardless of who shares in the production or from what FSN the tobacco production was produced. Optional and enterprise units will not be available to any producer. Basic units by tobacco types are more appropriate because tobacco types are planted, harvested and cured separately by growers. The types are graded, and purchased separately by tobacco companies. Therefore, verifiable production records will most likely be kept by type. Under the APH plan of insurance the producer is responsible for supplying verifiable production records for APH purposes. 4. Section 3—FCIC is proposing to revise section 3(a) by removing the word “guaranteed” because the tobacco quota support program through the FSA has been abolished so there is no longer guaranteed tobacco. FCIC is also proposing to add the word “percentage” after the phrase “price election” to clarify that producers actually select the percentage of the price election that is announced by FCIC. FCIC proposes to remove section 3(b). Once the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 eliminated the tobacco quota support program and quota support price, the guarantee became based on the actual production history of the producer. Therefore, the production report must be filed annually. FCIC proposes to add a new section 3(b) to specify the producer's production guarantee will be adjusted if the producer has not planted a sufficient number of acres to produce the amount of tobacco necessary to fulfill the contracts. Whether sufficient acres have been planted is determined by dividing the pounds specified in the producer's tobacco contracts in the county by the applicable approved yield. If the producer does not plant the minimum acreage, the production guarantee will be reduced proportionately. These provisions are necessary to prevent the producer from over-insuring the tobacco. 5. Section 6—FCIC proposes to remove the provision requiring the producer to report any carryover tobacco from previous years because carryover production no longer needs to be reported since the tobacco quota support program has been eliminated. FCIC proposes the new paragraph

(a)specify that a copy of all tobacco contracts must be provided to the approved insurance provider on or before the acreage reporting date and the entity named on the tobacco contract must be the same as the entity named on the application. This is consistent with other Crop Provisions that cover crops under contract. However, FCIC added the requirement that the name on the tobacco contract must be the same name on the application in order to be able to verify that the producer has an insurable interest in the crop. FCIC proposes to add a new section 6(b) to specify that a copy of any written lease agreement, if applicable, between the insured and any landlord or tenant must identify all other persons sharing in the crop and be provided to the approved insurance provider on or before the acreage reporting date. This provision would permit the approved insurance provider to properly determine the appropriate share in the crop. 6. Section 7—FCIC is proposing to restructure section 7 and add new paragraphs

(a)and (b). FCIC is proposing a new paragraph

(a)that specifies that the insured tobacco crop must meet all rotation requirements on the Special Provisions, be grown in accordance with the requirements of the tobacco contract executed on or before the acreage reporting date, and not be excluded from the tobacco contract at any time during the insurance period. These requirements are consistent with the requirements of other Crop Provisions covering crops under contract and ensure that the coverage is only provided if the crop remains contracted throughout the insurance period. This will prevent a shifting of costs to the government if there has been an over-contracting of production. FCIC is proposing to add a new section 7(b) to specify a tobacco company or commercial marketing association that produces its own tobacco may establish an insurable share if they comply with the Crop Provisions; the Board of Directors or officers of the tobacco company or commercial marketing association, or tobacco handler executes and adopts a resolution prior to the sales closing date that contains the same terms as an acceptable tobacco contract; and the approved insurance provider's inspection determines the processing facilities comply with the definition of a tobacco company or commercial marketing association. These requirements are consistent with the requirements of other Crop Provisions covering crops under contract and protect program integrity by ensuring that the persons responsible for decisions of the business determine the terms and conditions of the contract. 7. Section 8—FCIC is proposing to revise section 8 by removing paragraphs

(a)and (b). Paragraph

(a)is not necessary because the quota price support program has been eliminated. Paragraph

(b)is not necessary because it was redundant with section 7, which specifies the premium rate for the tobacco type must be provided by the actuarial documents. Paragraph

(c)and

(d)have been redesignated as paragraphs

(a)and

(b)respectively. FCIC proposes to revise redesignated paragraph

(b)to specify that acreage is not insured if it is damaged before the final planting date to the extent that a majority of the producers in the area would normally not care for the crop. Previously, the provision referred to “most” producers but FCIC has since been using the term “majority” in its other Crop Provisions because it provides a more determinable standard. 8. Section 9—FCIC proposes to revise the introductory paragraph to specify that section 9 is in lieu of the provisions in section 11 of the Basic Provisions. FCIC proposes to remove section 9(b) because tobacco under contract may no longer be weighed at a tobacco warehouse like it was under the previous tobacco quota program. FCIC proposes to redesignate sections 9(c) and

(d)as sections 9(b) and (f), respectively and revise redesignated section 9(b) to remove the reference to delivery to the warehouse for the same reason as stated above. FCIC proposes to add new sections 9(c), (d), and

(e)to incorporate the events that trigger the end of the insurance period from section 11 of the Basic Provisions that are still applicable and add a new event, which is the date the producer delivers sufficient production to fulfill all tobacco contracts in the county. This is consistent with other Crop Provisions covering crops under contract. FCIC is proposing to revise redesignated section 9(f) to clarify that the end of insurance period is the date immediately following planting and it is designated by specific tobacco types and states, unless otherwise provided on the Special Provisions. This proposed revision changes the tobacco type from an assigned number to a specific name. 9. Section 10—FCIC is proposing to revise section 10(b) to clarify fire is a cause of loss if it is caused by lightning. Currently, the provisions provide for tobacco to be insured in the tobacco barn and fire is listed as a cause of loss. FCIC has received many inquiries asking if fire is an insurable cause of loss when the barn burns and there is no proof the fire was caused by a naturally occurring event. Since coverage can only be provided for naturally occurring events, FCIC is removing all ambiguity regarding what causes of the fire are covered. FCIC is proposing to revise section 10(h) for clarity and to be consistent with other Crop Provisions. No substantive change has been made. 10. Section 11—FCIC proposes to revise section 11(a) to be consistent with the format of other similar Crop Provisions. No substantive change has been made. FCIC proposes to revise section 11(b) to require producers who have filed a notice of damage to leave all tobacco stalks and stubble on the unit intact for the approved insurance provider's inspection. Previously this requirement only applied to specific tobacco types but FCIC has determined that inspection of the stalks and stubble can be useful in the adjustment of all types of tobacco. 11. Section 12—FCIC proposes to revise section 12(a) to remove the consequences for failure to provide acceptable records for optional units since such units are no longer available under the policy. As stated above, only basic units are available because the tobacco company contract indicates the total quantity of tobacco production the producer will deliver regardless of who shares in the production or from what FSN the tobacco production was grown. The consequences for failure to provide acceptable records by basic unit remains the same. FCIC proposes to revise section 12(b) to remove the references to different types because now separate basic units are available by type. The loss calculation example has also been revised to remove the references to the type by number of guaranteed tobacco since types are proposed to be designated by name, not number, and the tobacco is not longer guaranteed because of the elimination of the quotas. FCIC proposes to revise section 12(c) to be consistent with other Crop Provisions. FCIC also proposes to remove language in section 12(c)(1)(D) referring to specific tobacco types because FCIC is proposing that the requirement to leave all stubble and stalks intact be applicable to all tobacco. FCIC is proposing to remove the references to the value of the production to count in section 12(c)(1)(E)(A) because there is no support price. The provision will now refer to the amount of production to count instead of the value of such production. FCIC proposes to remove sections 12(e) through

(g)since the tobacco quota support program has been eliminated. FCIC proposes to redesignate section 12(d) as section 12(e) and add a new section 12(d) to specify the producer must destroy the production in those situations where an agreement is reached between the approved insurance provider and the insured that the current year's tobacco has no market value due to an insured cause of loss. FCIC is also proposing that failure to destroy such tobacco will result in the production considered as production to count valued at the price election. FCIC proposes to revise redesignated section 12(e). Previously, quality deficiencies for tobacco were determined by using USDA Official Grade Standards at the tobacco warehouses. This allowed an objective third party to inspect the tobacco. However, most of the tobacco is now sold under contract and the elimination of the quota tobacco program has eliminated the need for tobacco warehouses. Therefore, there is no longer this disinterested third party available to grade and value the tobacco. Further, FCIC has not discovered any party other than the tobacco company, commercial marketing association, or tobacco handler who grades or values tobacco. This creates a serious program vulnerability because the person who would be grading and valuing the tobacco will be the same person who is purchasing it. This means there exists an incentive to undervalue the production, reduce the price the tobacco company, commercial marketing association, or tobacco handler has to pay the producer, and shift the costs to FCIC to pay the difference. There have been similar situations in other crop policies and there has been significant fraud and abuse. One solution is the removal of the quality adjustment provisions but producers claim that the value of the insurance is seriously diminished without this coverage. FCIC recognizes its value and is not ready to remove the coverage in this rule. However, FCIC is proposing that insured producers, with damaged tobacco, will be required to notify approved insurance providers before any tobacco is delivered to the tobacco company, commercial marketing association, or tobacco handler so that at the approved insurance providers option they may inspect the tobacco to determine and document the extent of the damage. Without the opportunity to inspect the damaged tobacco, such tobacco is not eligible for quality adjustment. Such inspection will assist the approved insurance provider in determining the extent of damage and if the price for the damaged tobacco received by the producer is reasonable based on the quality of the tobacco observed by the approved insurance provider. If the price is not reasonable, the approved insurance provider will have the authority to adjust the price. FCIC is also proposing quality adjustment will apply only when the average price per pound received for the damaged tobacco is less than 75 percent of the producer's contract price. This will reduce the administrative burdens associated with minor quality adjustments. FCIC realizes that this is not a perfect solution and is seeking comments on alternative methods to ensure the integrity of the program. If the proposed solution is not workable or effective, and there are no viable alternatives, FCIC may be required to remove the quality adjustment provisions from the policy. 12. Section 13—FCIC is proposing to revise section 13 to remove the numeric figures and parenthesis surrounding such figures to be consistent with the other Crop Provisions. No substantive change has been made. 13. Section 14—FCIC is proposing to revise section 14 to add prevented planting coverage. Previously, prevented planting coverage was not available at all for tobacco. FCIC is proposing the producer's prevented panting coverage be 35 percent of the producer's production guarantee for timely planted acreage. However, no additional prevented planting coverage will be available. List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 457 Crop insurance, Tobacco, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Proposed Rule Accordingly, as set forth in the preamble, the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation proposes to amend 7 CFR part 457 to read as follows: PART 457—COMMON CROP INSURANCE REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 457 continues to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1506(l), 1506(p). PART 457—[AMENDED] § 457.156 [Removed and Reserved] 2. Remove and reserve § 457.156. 3. Revise § 457.136 to read as follows: § 457.136 Contracted tobacco crop insurance provisions. The contracted tobacco crop insurance provisions for the 2008 and succeeding crop years are as follows: FCIC policies: United States Department of Agriculture, Federal Crop Insurance Corporation. Reinsured policies: (Appropriate title for insurance provider). Both FCIC and reinsured policies: Contracted Tobacco Crop Insurance Provisions 1. Definitions. *Average price received.* The price per pound for tobacco sold under contract by type, and is determined by dividing total receipts for the tobacco type sold by the number of pounds of the tobacco type sold, without regard to discounts or incentives. Failure to provide acceptable receipts will result in the average price received being the same as the price election. *Basic unit.* In lieu of the definition in the Basic Provisions, a basic unit is all insurable acreage of each tobacco type grown in the county for the crop year. *Commercial tobacco producer.* A producer who grows tobacco under a contract with tobacco company, commercial marketing association, or tobacco handler. *Contract price.* The price for each type of tobacco specified in the tobacco contract without regard to discounts or incentives. *Harvest.* Cutting or priming and removing all insured tobacco from the unit. *Hydroponic plants.* Seedlings grown in liquid nutrient solutions. *Late planting period.* In lieu of the definition in section 1 of the Basic Provisions, the period that begins the day after the final planting date for the insured crop and ends 15 days after the final planting date, unless otherwise specified in the Special Provisions. *Minimum acreage.* The minimum number of acres required to be planted to produce the number of pounds of tobacco under contract, determined by dividing the pounds specified in your tobacco contract by the applicable approved yield. *Planted acreage.* In addition to the definition contained in the Basic provisions, land in which tobacco seedlings, including hydroponic plants, have been transplanted by hand or machine from the tobacco bed to the field. *Pound.* Sixteen ounces avoirdupois. *Price election.* In lieu of the definition in the Basic Provisions, the price election will be the contract price multiplied by the percentage you elect. *Priming.* A method of harvesting tobacco by which one or more leaves are removed from the stalk as they mature. *Tobacco bed.* An area protected from adverse weather in which tobacco seeds are sown and seedlings are grown until transplanted into the tobacco field by hand or machine. *Tobacco company or commercial marketing association (CMA).* Any business enterprise regularly engaged in buying and processing tobacco for human use, that possesses all licenses and permits for processing tobacco required by the state in which it operates, possesses facilities, or has contractual access to such facilities, with enough equipment to accept and process contracted tobacco within a reasonable amount of time after harvest. *Tobacco contract.* A written agreement between the producer or entity and a tobacco company or commercial marketing association, or between the producer and a tobacco handler, containing at a minimum:

(a)The producer or entity's commitment to plant and grow tobacco of an insurable type and practice, and to deliver the amount of production stated in the contract to the tobacco company, commercial marketing association, or tobacco handler;

(b)The tobacco company's, commercial marketing association's, or tobacco handler's commitment to purchase the specified number of pounds of tobacco stated in the contract (an option to purchase is not a commitment); and

(c)A contract price. *Tobacco handler.* A business enterprise that has all the licenses and permits required by the state in which it operates, and has an agreement in writing with a tobacco company or commercial marketing association to purchase and deliver tobacco. *Tobacco types.* Insurable types as shown on the Special Provisions. 2. Unit Division. A unit will be determined in accordance with the definition of basic unit contained in section 1 of these Crop Provisions. Enterprise and optional units are not available. 3. Insurance Guarantees, Coverage Levels, and Prices for Determining Indemnities. In addition to the requirements of section 3 of the Basic Provisions:

(a)You must select only one price election percentage and coverage level for each tobacco type designated in the Special Provisions that you elect to insure.

(b)Your total production guarantee will be the number of pounds in your tobacco contract multiplied by your selected coverage level, provided you have planted sufficient acreage of tobacco to fulfill all of your tobacco contracts in the county.

(1)Sufficient acreage is determined by dividing the pounds specified in your tobacco contracts in the county by the applicable approved yields. For example, you have three contracts for tobacco, each to deliver 2,000 pounds, and your approved yield is 1,700 pounds. You must plant at least 3.5 acres (6,000 ÷ 1,700).

(2)If you do not plant sufficient acreage, your production guarantee (per acre) will be reduced proportionately. For example, using the example in paragraph (2), you only plant 2.5 acres. This means you could only produce 4,250 pounds (1,700 x 2.5), which is 71 percent of the pounds specified in your tobacco contracts. Therefore, your production guarantee (per acre) will be reduced to 1207 pounds (.71 x 1,700). 4. Contract Changes. In accordance with section 4 of the Basic Provisions, the contract change date is November 30 preceding the cancellation date. 5. Cancellation and Termination Dates. In accordance with section 2 of the Basic Provisions, the cancellation and termination dates are March 15. 6. Report of Acreage. In addition to the requirements of section 6 of the Basic Provisions, you must:

(a)Provide a copy of all tobacco contracts to us on or before the acreage reporting date. The entity named on the tobacco contract must be the same as the entity named on your application for you to have an insurable interest; and

(b)Provide a copy of any written lease agreement, if applicable, between you and any landlord or tenant. The written lease agreement must:

(1)Identify all other persons sharing in the crop; and

(2)Be submitted to us on or before the acreage reporting date. 7. Insured Crop.

(a)In accordance with section 8 of the Basic Provisions, the insured crop will be each tobacco type you elect to insure and for which a premium rate is provided by the actuarial documents:

(1)In which you have a share;

(2)That meets all rotation requirements on the Special Provisions; and

(3)That is grown and insured in accordance with the requirements of your tobacco contract executed on or before the acreage reporting date and the tobacco is not excluded from the tobacco contract at any time during the insurance period.

(b)You will be considered to have a share in the insured crop if you retain control of the acreage on which the tobacco is grown and you are at risk of loss.

(c)A commercial tobacco producer who is also a tobacco company, commercial marketing association, or tobacco handler may establish an insurable interest if the following requirements are met:

(1)You must comply with these Crop Provisions;

(2)Prior to the sales closing date, the Board of Directors or officers of the tobacco company, commercial marketing association, or tobacco handler must execute and adopt a resolution that contains the same terms as an acceptable tobacco contract. Such resolution will be considered a tobacco contract under this policy; and

(3)Our inspection determines the processing facilities comply with the definition of a tobacco company or commercial marketing association contained in these Crop Provisions. 8. Insurable Acreage. In addition to the provisions of section 9 of the Basic Provisions, we will not insure any acreage that is:

(a)Planted in any manner other than as provided in the definition of “planted acreage” in section 1 of these Crop Provisions, unless otherwise provided by the Special Provisions or by written agreement; or

(b)Damaged before the final planting date to the extent that the majority of producers in the area would normally not further care for the tobacco crop, unless such crop is replanted or we agree that replanting is not practical. 9. Insurance Period. In lieu of the provisions of section 11 of the Basic Provisions, coverage ends at the earlier of:

(a)Total destruction of the tobacco on the unit;

(b)Removal of the tobacco from the unit where grown, except for curing, grading, and packing;

(c)Abandonment of the crop on the unit;

(d)The date you deliver sufficient production to fulfill your tobacco contract with the tobacco company, commercial marketing association, or tobacco handler;

(e)Final adjustment of the loss on the unit; or

(f)The calendar date for the end of the insurance period, which is the date immediately following planting and designated by tobacco types and states (or as otherwise stated on the Special Provisions) as follows:

(i)Flue cured—November 30 in North Carolina and Virginia;

(ii)Flue cured—October 31 in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina;

(iii)Burley—February 28 in all states;

(iv)Dark air cured—March 15 in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia;

(v)Fire cured—April 15 in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia;

(vi)Cigar Binder, Cigar Filler, and Cigar Wrapper—April 30 in Connecticut, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin; and

(vii)Maryland type—May 15 in Maryland and Pennsylvania. 10. Causes of Loss. In accordance with the provisions of section 12 of the Basic Provisions, insurance is provided only against the following causes of loss that occur during the insurance period:

(a)Adverse weather conditions;

(b)Fire, if caused by lightning;

(c)Insects, but not damage due to insufficient or improper application of pest control measures;

(d)Plant disease, but not damage due to insufficient or improper application of disease control measures;

(e)Wildlife;

(f)Earthquake;

(g)Volcanic eruption; or

(h)Failure of the irrigation water supply due to a cause of loss specified in sections 10(a) through

(g)that also occurs during the insurance period. 11. Duties In The Event of Damage or Loss.

(a)In accordance with section 14 of the Basic Provisions, any representative sample we require of each unharvested tobacco type must be at least 5 feet wide (at least two rows), and extend the entire length of each field in the unit. The samples must not be harvested or destroyed until after our inspection.

(b)If you have filed a notice of damage, you must leave all tobacco stalks and stubble in the unit intact for our inspection. The stalks and stubble must not be destroyed until we give you written consent to do so or until 30 days after the end of the insurance period, whichever is earlier. 12. Settlement of Claim.

(a)We will determine your loss on a unit basis. In the event you are unable to provide records of production that are acceptable to us for any basic unit, we will allocate any commingled production to such units in proportion to our liability on the harvested acreage for each unit.

(b)In the event of loss or damage covered by this policy, we will settle your claim by:

(1)Multiplying the number of insured acres by your applicable production guarantee (per acre), as adjusted in accordance with section 3(b), if applicable;

(2)Multiplying the result of section 12(b)(1) by your price election;

(3)Multiplying the total production to count determined in section 12(c) by your price election;

(4)Subtracting the result of section 12(b)(3) from the result of section 12(b)(2); and

(5)Multiplying the result of section 12(b)(4) by your share. For example: You have 100 percent share in a tobacco contract to produce 3,000 pounds of Burley tobacco, a production guarantee of 1,950 pounds (APH yield of 3,000 pounds × .65 coverage level), you will plant 1.0 acre (which is the minimum acreage requirement in this situation), your price election is $1.50 per pound, and your production to count is 500 pounds. Your indemnity would be calculated as follows:

(1)1.0 acre × 1,950 pound production guarantee = 1,950 pounds;

(2)1,950 pounds × $1.50 price election = $2,925.00 value of the production guarantee;

(3)500 pound production to count × $1.50 price election = $750.00 value of the production to count;

(4)$2,925.00 value of the production guarantee—$750.00 value of the production to count = $2,175.00; and

(5)$2,175.00 × 1.000 share = $2,175.00 indemnity.

(c)The total production (pounds) to count from all insurable acreage on the unit will include:

(1)All appraised production as follows:

(i)Not less than the production guarantee for acreage:

(A)That is abandoned;

(B)Put to another use without our consent;

(C)That is damaged solely by uninsured causes;

(D)For which you fail to provide records of production, that are acceptable to us; or

(E)Of any type of tobacco when the stalks and stubble have been destroyed without our consent;

(ii)Production lost due to uninsured causes.

(iii)Potential production on insured acreage you intend to put to another use or abandon, if you and we agree on the appraised amount of production. Upon such agreement, the insurance period for that acreage will end when you put the acreage to another use or abandon the crop. If agreement on the appraised amount of production is not reached:

(A)If you do not elect to continue to care for the crop, we may give you consent to put the acreage to another use if you agree to leave intact, and provide sufficient care for, representative samples of the crop in locations acceptable to us (The amount of production to count for such acreage will be based on the harvested production or appraisals from the samples at the time harvest should have occurred. If you do not leave the required samples intact, or fail to provide sufficient care for the samples, our appraisal made prior to giving you consent to put the acreage to another use will be used to determine the amount of production to count.); or

(B)If you elect to continue to care for the crop, the amount of production to count for the acreage will be the harvested production, or our reappraisal if additional damage occurs and the crop is not harvested; and

(2)All harvested production from insurable acreage.

(d)Once we agree the current year's tobacco has no market value due to an insured cause of loss, you must destroy it, and it will not be considered production to count. If you refuse to destroy such tobacco, we will include it as production to count and value it at your applicable price election.

(e)Mature tobacco may be adjusted for quality deficiencies when production has been damaged by insurable causes.

(1)You must contact us before any tobacco is delivered to the tobacco company, commercial marketing association, or tobacco handler so that at our option we may inspect the tobacco to determine and document the extent of the damage.

(2)Our inspection will be used to assist in determining whether the price paid for the quality deficient tobacco by the tobacco company, commercial marketing association, or tobacco handler is reasonable. Based on the degree of damage documented by the tobacco company compared to our inspection, if the price adjusted for quality is:

(i)Reasonable, such price will be used to determine the quality adjustment in section 12(e)(5);

(ii)Unreasonable, we may adjust the price used to calculate the quality adjustment in section 12(e)(5).

(3)If you deliver any production to the tobacco company, commercial marketing association, or tobacco handler without giving us the opportunity to inspect the tobacco you will not receive a quality adjustment for such tobacco, regardless of the price received by the tobacco company, commercial marketing association, or tobacco handler.

(4)Production to count will only be reduced if the average price received for damaged tobacco is less than 75 percent of your tobacco contract price. You must provide us with a marketing record acceptable to us which clearly shows the number of pounds, price per pound, and the quality of such tobacco.

(5)Any reduction in the production to count will be determined by:

(i)Dividing the price per pound as determined by us in accordance with section 12(e)(2) of these Crop Provisions by your applicable tobacco contract price; and

(ii)Multiplying this result by the number of pounds of damaged production. 13. Late Planting. In lieu of late planting provisions in the Basic Provisions regarding acreage initially planted after the final planting date, insurance will be provided for acreage planted to the insured crop after the final planting date as follows:

(a)The production guarantee (per acre) for acreage planted during the late planting period will be reduced by:

(1)One percent per day for the 1st through the 10th day; and

(2)Two percent per day for the 11th through the 15th day;

(b)The premium amount for insurable acreage planted to the insured crop after the final planting date will be the same as that for timely planted acreage. If the amount of premium you are required to pay (gross premium less our subsidy) for acreage planted after the final planting date exceeds the liability on such acreage, coverage for those acres will not be provided (no premium will be due and no indemnity will be paid for such acreage). 14. Prevented Planting. Your prevented planting coverage will be 35 percent of your production guarantee for timely planted acreage. Additional prevented planting coverage levels are not available for tobacco. Signed in Washington, DC, on May 15, 2007. Eldon Gould, Manager, Federal Crop Insurance Corporation. [FR Doc. E7-9775 Filed 5-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-08-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Commodity Credit Corporation 7 CFR Part 1485 RIN Number: 0051-AA69 Market Access Program AGENCY: Commodity Credit Corporation, USDA. ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking and public hearing. SUMMARY: The Commodity Credit Corporation

(CCC)is soliciting comments on whether to amend and revise the regulation at 7 CFR part 1485 for the purpose of improving the effectiveness of the program. This action announces the comment period and the date, time, and location for a public hearing on the proposed rulemaking. The Market Access Program

(MAP)is administered by personnel of the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). DATES: Written comments on the proposed rulemaking must be received on or before Monday, August 13, 2007, to be assured of consideration. FAS will conduct a public hearing in order to receive oral and written comments. The hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, July 25, 2007, from 9 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. ADDRESSES: The hearing scheduled for July 25, 2007, will be held in the Jefferson Auditorium at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250. Comments may be hand delivered (including FedEx, DHL, UPS, etc.) to: Program Policy Staff, Office of Trade Programs, Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1250 Maryland Avenue, SW., Suite 400, Washington, DC 20024-2162. Comments may also be delivered through the U.S. mail to: Program Policy Staff, Office of Trade Programs, Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., STOP 1042, Washington, DC 20250-1042. All written comments received will be available for public inspection at the above address during business hours from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. Persons with disabilities who require an alternative means for communication of information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's Target Center at

(202)720-2600 (voice and TDD). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Slupek, Director, Program Policy Staff, Office of Trade Programs, Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

(202)720-4327; fax

(202)720-9361. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The current regulation was last amended on June 2, 1998. FAS now has sufficient experience to propose further changes to improve the program's effectiveness. MAP funding helps to create, expand, and maintain commercial export markets for U.S. agricultural products. The program forms partnerships between non-profit U.S. agricultural trade associations, U.S. agricultural cooperatives, non-profit state-regional trade groups, small U.S. businesses, and the CCC to share the costs of international marketing and promotional activities. Any future amendment of the regulation could be expected to include revision of outdated language. For example, the current regulation does not reflect the organizational changes resulting from the recent reorganization of FAS. Issues for Public Comment I. With respect to proposed administrative changes, comments on these specific issues are being requested:

(a)Application process and activity plan. FAS is seeking comments on updating and merging the list of application requirements under § 1485.13(a) and the activity plan requirements under § 1485.15 to reflect the Unified Export Strategy system that is currently in place.

(b)Approval Criteria. FAS is seeking comments on the application approval criteria and allocation factors identified under § 1485.14(b) and (c). II. With respect to amending and revising the scope and coverage of the regulation, FAS is soliciting comments regarding the feasibility of the changes proposed below and views regarding how they might be implemented.

(a)Expanding the scope of the program to include activities designed to address international market access issues. FAS is aware of the increasing numbers of trade barriers that disrupt the export of U.S. agricultural products in mature markets and is considering modifying the program to ensure that appropriate activities of this type would be reimbursable.

(b)Modifying the lists of eligible and ineligible contributions [currently found at § 1485.13(c)] to better identify in-kind and third party contributions.

(c)Modifying the lists of reimbursable and non-reimbursable activities [currently found at § 1485.16(b), (c), and (d)] to clarify existing activities and to include the use of electronic technologies not considered in the current regulation.

(d)Revising the portions of the regulation regarding contracting procedures [currently found at § 1485.23(c)]. The current regulation may not address the full range of contracting situations faced by participants. It may be necessary to identify the differences between employees, consultants, and contractors.

(e)Revising the portions of the regulation regarding the compliance review and appeals processes. The current regulation does not describe the compliance review and appeals processes in a single, cohesive section. A unified compliance section may improve the regulation.

(f)Revising the portions of the regulation regarding evaluation [currently found at § 1485.20(c)] to include requirements for country progress reports and success stories.

(g)Eliminating the Export Incentive Program/Market Access Program (EIP/MAP) subcomponent. FAS does not currently operate the EIP/MAP subcomponent and is considering removing reference to the subcomponent from the regulation. III. With respect to risk management, FAS is soliciting comments regarding the mitigation of the risk inherent to reimbursing third party contracting expenses and brand participant activities with program funds. This could include improved accounting controls, insurance against fraud, bonding employees, or other risk management tools. IV. In addition, FAS requests comments on any other aspect of the program set forth at 7 CFR part 1485 which commenters believe should be addressed in any future amendment of the regulation. Dated: May 10, 2007. W. Kirk Miller, Acting Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Service, and Vice President, Commodity Credit Corporation. [FR Doc. 07-2552 Filed 5-22-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 63

Traces to 63 documents

U.S. Code