Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2007-05-23 · Federal Communications Commission · Proposed Rules

Proposed Rules. Notice of proposed rulemaking

12,425 words·~56 min read·/register/2007/05/23/07-2555

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

BILLING CODE 4120-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 54 [WC Docket No. 05-337, CC Docket No. 96-45, FCC 07-88] High-Cost Universal Service Support; Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission seeks comment on the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service's recommendation that the Commission adopt an interim cap on support for competitive Eligible Telecommunications Carriers.
DATES: Comments are due on or before June 6, 2007. Reply Comments are due on or before June 13, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WC Docket No. 05-337 and CC Docket No. 96-45, by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Federal Communications Commission's Web Site:* *http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *People with Disabilities:* Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: *FCC504@fcc.gov* or phone: 202-418-0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ted Burmeister, Attorney, Wireline Competition Bureau, Telecommunications Access Policy Division,
(202)418-7400, TTY
(202)418-0484. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's * Notice of Proposed Rulemaking * , in WC Docket No. 05-337 and CC Docket No. 96-45, released May 14, 2007. The full text of this document is available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. I. Introduction In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), we seek comment on the recommendation of the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service (Joint Board) that the Commission takes immediate action to rein in the explosive growth in high-cost universal service support disbursements. Specifically, we seek comment on the Joint Board's recommendation that the Commission impose an interim, emergency cap on the amount of high-cost support that competitive eligible telecommunications carriers
(ETCs)may receive. The Joint Board also recommended that both it and the Commission further explore comprehensive high-cost distribution reform, and sought comment on various reform proposals in a Public Notice released on the same day as the *Recommended Decision* , in WC Docket No. 05-337, CC Docket No. 96-45 released on May 1, 2007. II. Procedural Matters A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), *see* 5 U.S.C. 603, the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA)of the possible significant economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in the NPRM. Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the NPRM provided in paragraph 9 of the item. The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). *See* 5 U.S.C. 603(a). In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the **Federal Register** . a. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules 2. Section 254(a)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), requires that the Commission implement within one year recommendations from the Joint Board based on the universal service requirements provided in section 254 of the Act, which establishes a number of principles for the preservation and advancement of universal service in a competitive telecommunications environment. On May 1, 2007, the Joint Board recommended that the Commission adopt an interim cap on high-cost universal service support for competitive ETCs to rein in the explosive growth in universal service. In this NPRM, the Commission seeks comment on the Joint Board recommendation that the Commission cap competitive ETC support at the amount of support received by competitive ETCs in 2006. The objective of the NPRM is to explore whether the Commission should take action to cap the high-cost universal service support in the manner that the Joint Board recommends, and whether there are other issues related to the interim cap that should be considered. b. Legal Basis 3. The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to the NPRM is contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 201, 202, 205, 214, 254, 403 and 410 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i)-(j), 201, 202, 205, 254, 410 and sections 1.1, 1.411, 1.412, 1.415, 1.419, and 1.1200-1.1216, of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.1, 1.411, 1.412, 1.415, 1.419, 1.1200-1.1216. c. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which Rules Will Apply 4. 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 rules, if adopted. 5 U.S.C. 604(b)(3). The RFA generally defines the term “small entity,” 5 U.S.C. 601(6), as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” 5 U.S.C. 601(3), “small organization,” 5 U.S.C 601(4), and “small governmental jurisdiction.” 5 U.S.C. 601(5). In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act, unless the Commission has developed one or more definitions that are U.S.C. 601(3). 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 operation; and
(3)meets any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). 15 U.S.C. 632. Nationwide, there are a total of approximately 22.4 million small businesses, according to SBA data. A small organization is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” Nationwide, as of 2002, there were approximately 1.6 million small organizations. 5. The most reliable source of information regarding the total numbers of certain common carrier and related providers nationwide, as well as the number of commercial wireless entities, is the data that the Commission publishes in its *Trends in Telephone Service* report. The SBA has developed small business size standards for wireline and wireless small businesses within the three commercial census categories of Wired Telecommunications Carriers, Paging, and Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications. Under these categories, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Below, using the above size standards and others, we discuss the total estimated numbers of small businesses that might be affected by our actions. d. Wireline Carriers and Service Providers 6. We have included small incumbent local exchange carriers
(LECs)in this present RFA analysis. As noted above, a “small business” under the RFA is one that, *inter alia* , meets the pertinent small business size standard ( *e.g.* , a telephone communications business having 1,500 or fewer employees), and “is not dominant in its field of operation.” The SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent LECs are not dominant in their field of operation because any such dominance is not “national” in scope. We have therefore included small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis, although we emphasize that this RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts. 7. *Incumbent LECs.* Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically applicable to incumbent LECs. The closest applicable size standard under SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 1,307 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of local exchange services. Of these 1,307 carriers, an estimated 1,019 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and 288 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of incumbent local exchange service are small businesses that may be affected by our action. 8. *Competitive LECs, Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), “Shared-Tenant Service Providers,” and “Other Local Service Providers.”* Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for these service providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 859 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of either competitive LEC or CAP services. Of these 859 carriers, an estimated 741 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and 118 have more than 1,500 employees. In addition, 16 carriers have reported that they are “Shared-Tenant Service Providers,” and all 16 are estimated to have 1,500 or fewer employees. In addition, 44 carriers have reported that they are “Other Local Service Providers.” Of the 44, an estimated 43 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and one has more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most competitive LECs, CAPs, “Shared-Tenant Service Providers,” and “Other Local Service Providers” are small entities that may be affected by our action. e. Wireless Carriers and Service Providers 9. *Wireless Service Providers.* The SBA has developed a small business size standard for wireless firms within the two broad economic census categories of “Paging” and “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications.” Under both categories, the SBA deems a wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For the census category of Paging, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were 807 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 804 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and three firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this category and associated small business size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small. For the census category of Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were 1,397 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,378 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and 19 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this second category and size standard, the majority of firms can, again, be considered small. 10. *Wireless Telephony.* Wireless telephony includes cellular, personal communications services (PCS), and specialized mobile radio
(SMR)telephony carriers. As noted earlier, the SBA has developed a small business size standard for “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications” services. Under that SBA small business size standard, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 432 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless telephony. We have estimated that 221 of these are small under the SBA small business size standard. f. Satellite Service Providers 11. *Satellite Telecommunications and Other Telecommunications.* There is no small business size standard developed specifically for providers of international service. The appropriate size standards under SBA rules are for the two broad census categories of “Satellite Telecommunications” and “Other Telecommunications.” Under both categories, such a business is small if it has $13.5 million or less in average annual receipts. 12. The first category of Satellite Telecommunications “comprises establishments primarily engaged in providing point-to-point telecommunications services to other establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting industries by forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications.” For this category, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were a total of 371 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 307 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and 26 firms had receipts of $10 million to $24,999,999. Consequently, we estimate that the majority of Satellite Telecommunications firms are small entities that might be affected by our action. 13. The second category of Other Telecommunications “comprises establishments primarily engaged in
(1)Providing specialized telecommunications applications, such as satellite tracking, communications telemetry, and radar station operations; or
(2)providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities operationally connected with one or more terrestrial communications systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to or receiving telecommunications from satellite systems.” For this category, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were a total of 332 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 259 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million and 15 firms had annual receipts of $10 million to $24,999,999. Consequently, we estimate that the majority of Other Telecommunications firms are small entities that might be affected by our action. 2. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements 14. The specific proposals under consideration in the NPRM would not, if adopted, result in additional recordkeeping requirements for small businesses. 3. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered 15. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others):
(1)The establishment of differing compliance and reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities;
(2)the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities;
(3)the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and
(4)an exemption from coverage of the rule, or part thereof, for small entities. *See* 5 U.S.C. 603(c). 16. This IRFA seeks comment on how the Joint Board's recommendation could be implemented in a manner that reduces the potential burden and cost of compliance for small entities. We also seek comment on the potential impact of the proposed recommendations related to the interim cap proposal on high-cost universal support for competitive ETCs. In the NPRM, the Commission has offered several alternatives and that might avoid or mitigate reductions in the amount of high-cost support flowing to competitive ETCs, some of which might be small entities. For instance, the Commission inquires into other methods, besides a cap, to control the growth of high-cost support; asks about the length of time the interim cap should be in place; seeks comment on the level that the cap should be set at; and asks whether other operational, administrative, or implementation issues might have an impact on implementing an interim cap. 4. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rules 17. None. B. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis 18. This NPRM does not contain proposed information collections subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified “information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198. See 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). C. Ex Parte Presentations 19. These matters shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's *ex parte* rules. Persons making oral *ex parte* presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentations must contain summaries of the substance of the presentations and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one or two sentence description of the views and arguments presented is generally required. Other requirements pertaining to oral and written presentations are set forth in section 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. D. Comment Filing Procedures 20. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or before June 6, 2007, and reply comments June 13, 2007. Comments may be filed using:
(1)The Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS),
(2)the Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal, or
(3)by filing paper copies. *See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings* , 63 FR 24121 (1998). • *Electronic Filers:* Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: *http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/* or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov.* Filers should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting comments. • For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one electronic copy of the comments for each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions, filers should send an e-mail to *ecfs@fcc.gov* , and include the following words in the body of the message, “get form.” A sample form and directions will be sent in response. • *Paper Filers:* Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. • The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building. • Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. • U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. • *People with Disabilities:* To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to *fcc504@fcc.gov* or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty). In addition, one copy of each pleading must be sent to each of the following:
(1)The Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554; Web site: *http://www.bcpiweb.com* ; phone: 1-800-378-3160;
(2)Antoinette Stevens, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 5-B540, Washington, DC 20554; e-mail: *Antoinette.Stevens@fcc.gov.* 21. For further information regarding this proceeding, contact Ted Burmeister, Attorney Advisor, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau at
(202)418-7389, or *theodore.burmeister@fcc.gov* , or Katie King, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau,
(202)418-7491, or *katie.king@fcc.gov.* III. Ordering Clauses 22. Pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 4(i), 201-205, 214, 254, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 201-205, 214, 254, and 403, this *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* is adopted. 23. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* , including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-9837 Filed 5-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 571 [Docket No. NHTSA-2003-15227] Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Hydraulic and Electric Brake Systems, Air Brake Systems AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Denial of petition for reconsideration. SUMMARY: This document responds to a petition for reconsideration of our 2003 final rule establishing a braking-in-a-curve performance requirement for single unit trucks and buses. The braking-in-a-curve requirement has applied to air-braked truck tractors since 1997 and we determined that the requirement should also apply to single-unit trucks and buses. The requirement ensures that a vehicle's antilock brake system
(ABS)maintains adequate stability and control during a hard stop on a curved, slippery road surface. A petition for reconsideration was received from the National Truck Equipment Association (NTEA), which seeks to exclude vehicles built in two or more stages and altered vehicles from the braking-in-a-curve requirement if such vehicles are manufactured or altered by a final stage manufacturer or alterer that builds no more than 250 affected vehicles per year. The agency is denying the petitioner's request for the reasons discussed in this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may contact Jeff Woods, Office of Crash Avoidance Safety Standards at
(202)366-2720. For legal issues, you may contact Rebecca Schade, Office of Chief Counsel, at
(202)366-2992. You may send mail to these officials at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 20590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Background II. Petition for Reconsideration and Agency Response A. Pass Through Certification 1. Auxiliary Axles 2. Wheelbase Modifications B. Testing Costs and Alternatives to Testing C. New Temporary Exemption Procedure in Part 555 III. Conclusion I. Background A braking-in-a-curve performance requirement was added for single-unit trucks and buses in a final rule published on August 11, 2003 (68 FR 47485; Docket No. NHTSA-2003-15277). The agency determined that such a requirement is necessary to ensure the safe performance of an antilock braking system (ABS), which is required equipment on these vehicles. Testing by the agency and information provided by industry indicated that the braking-in-a-curve test specified previously for truck-tractors could be applied to single-unit trucks and buses. The requirement ensures that an ABS installed on a vehicle helps the driver maintain vehicle control and stability during a hard stop on a curved, slippery road surface. In the final rule, the agency specified that the braking-in-a-curve is only conducted with these vehicles at lightly loaded vehicle weight (LLVW). The LLVW condition was determined to be the worst-case loading condition for ABS performance testing on single unit trucks. Test data indicated that testing a vehicle fully loaded to its gross vehicle weight rating
(GVWR)did not provide for additional benefits in vehicle safety when compared to the testing in the LLVW condition. Therefore, a requirement for single-unit trucks and buses to comply when tested at GVWR was not included in the final rule. Limiting the requirement to the LLVW condition also had the additional benefit of reducing the certification cost. As we stated in the final rule, the braking-in-a-curve performance test is necessary to ensure that the benefits of ABS are realized. Merely requiring ABS does not ensure that an ABS system will provide an acceptable level of performance. The added performance test provides such an assurance. As established in the final rule, vehicles built in two or more stages must meet the braking-in-a-curve performance requirements on and after July 1, 2006. II. Petition for Reconsideration and Agency Response The National Truck Equipment Association
(NTEA)submitted a petition for reconsideration asking NHTSA to exclude vehicles built in two or more stages and altered vehicles from the braking-in-a-curve requirement if such vehicles are manufactured or altered by a final stage manufacturer or alterer that builds no more than 250 affected vehicles per year. NTEA did not assert that such vehicles are unable to comply, but instead stated that it is not practicable for small final stage manufacturers and alterers to certify compliance with the requirement. NTEA argued that contrary to the agency's determination in the final rule, final stage manufacturers and alterers are unable to rely on guidance from incomplete vehicle manufacturers in order to certify to the braking-in-a-curve performance requirement. Specifically, the petitioner stated that the agency failed to appropriately consider the impact of aftermarket axles and modifications to a vehicle's wheelbase on the ability of final stage manufacturers and alterers to rely on guidance from incomplete vehicle manufacturers. Further, NTEA stated that the agency's cost estimates were too low and that the agency failed to provide sufficient guidance on alternatives to testing that would constitute due care for purposes of certification of compliance with the requirement. A. Pass-Through Certification and Compliance Envelopes Final stage manufacturers complete the manufacture of incomplete vehicles and alterers perform modifications to completed and certified vehicles. Manufacturers of incomplete vehicles and original vehicle manufacturers often provide guidance on how a vehicle may be completed or altered to comply with all applicable FMVSSs. Guidance from incomplete manufacturers may permit an incomplete vehicle to be completed in a manner that permits a final-stage manufacturer or alterer to rely on pass-through certification. Incomplete vehicle manufacturers provide this information in incomplete vehicle documents (IVD). 49 CFR 568.5 requires incomplete vehicle manufacturers to provide IVDs to final stage manufacturers. Manufacturers of completed vehicles may provide alterers with a “compliance envelope,” i.e., guidance as to the modifications that can be made to a vehicle that will not remove the vehicle from compliance under the original certification. NHTSA stated in its final rule that the occurrences where final stage manufacturers may not rely on pass-through certification, or on data provided by incomplete vehicle manufacturers, will be rare and would represent a significantly smaller percentage of the affected vehicles than the 20 percent claimed by NTEA in its comments to the NPRM. In its petition for reconsideration, NTEA provided additional clarification that the 20 percent value it cited represents vehicles for which no pass-through certification exists. 1 NTEA stated that when considering the number of vehicles that are completed or altered outside the guidelines for pass-through certification or the compliance envelope, the number of incomplete and altered vehicles for which certification guidance is not available may perhaps be as high as 60 percent. NTEA stated that incomplete vehicle manufacturers and original vehicle manufacturers have an incentive to keep pass-through certification guidance narrow in order to limit potential liability from non-compliant final stage manufacture and alteration. The petitioner provided several IVDs that it argued demonstrated that final stage manufacturers and alterers effectively cannot rely on these documents for certification of compliance with the braking-in-a-curve requirement. 1 It was not clear to NHTSA from the petition whether NTEA was referring to pass-through certification for all FMVSSs, or was limiting its comments to pass-through certification to the braking standards, FMVSS Nos. 105 and 121. NHTSA has reviewed the IVDs provided by NTEA in its petition for reconsideration, and also obtained additional IVDs for other types of chassis. We found no instance of an incomplete chassis-cab for which pass-through certification for FMVSS Nos. 105 or 121 was unavailable to final stage manufacturers and alterers. The typical incomplete vehicle configuration, a single-unit truck equipped with a completed cab, had pass-through certification for the braking standards so long as a final stage manufacturer completed the vehicle without modifying the brake system and followed other routine measures. Aside from the IVDs provided by the petitioner, NHTSA reviewed the IVD for a Ford F 53 basic stripped chassis 2 without a cab or any exterior bodywork. Page 9 of the Ford IVD specifies that if the chassis is completed within the guidelines identified for system or component modification, minimum body weight, vertical and longitudinal center-of-gravity specifications, and axle and gross vehicle weight ratings, it will conform to FMVSS No. 105. The IVD also provides a table of all U.S. and Canadian motor vehicle safety standards which show that this chassis can be completed as a bus (other than a school bus) or a multipurpose vehicle and still utilize pass-through certification for the hydraulic brake system requirements. 2 The IVD for the 2003 F-Super Duty Class A Motorhome Chassis is available from the Ford Web site at *http://www.fleet.ford.com/truckbbas/topics/incomp.html.* In sum, NHTSA was unable to identify an IVD for which no pass-through certification was provided for the brake standards. Moreover, the petitioner did not provide examples of incomplete vehicles for which no pass-through certification was provided in general. NTEA did cite two vehicle modifications for which it stated that pass-through certification was not sufficient, installation of auxiliary axles and modifications to a vehicle's wheelbase. 3 The issues raised by these types of modifications are addressed below. 3 NTEA did not specify whether auxiliary axle and wheelbase modifications account for the 60 percent of vehicles that are unable to rely on a pass-through certification, or if other modifications, including those not related to braking, also contribute to this value. 1. Auxiliary Axles A common modification to air-braked trucks is the installation of one or more auxiliary axles to increase the GVWR to provide for increased cargo-carrying capacity. NTEA estimated that 25,000 auxiliary axles are installed annually by final stage manufacturers and alterers. The petitioner stated that incomplete vehicle manufacturers typically do not provide compliance information to final stage manufacturers with regard to the installation of such axles, and noted that the agency did not test vehicles configured with auxiliary axles for the August 2003 final rule. We note that auxiliary axles can be configured as either liftable or non-liftable axles. A liftable axle can be raised and lowered by means of an air suspension system operated by a control switch provided for the driver. Whether an auxiliary axle is liftable or non-liftable relates to how the vehicle is tested in the braking-in-a-curve test. The braking-in-a-curve test procedure specified in the final rule states that single-unit trucks and buses are tested only in a LLVW condition. S6.1.12 of FMVSS No. 121 states that when a vehicle with a liftable axle is tested at lightly loaded vehicle weight, the liftable axle is to be raised. Thus, the wheels on a liftable axle would not be in contact with the pavement during the test, and would have no appreciable impact on the ability of a straight truck or bus to comply with the braking-in-a-curve test procedure. As noted in the final rule, lighter vehicle weights typically perform worse than heavier vehicle weights during the braking-in-a-curve test. The axle would add weight to a vehicle, but so long as the installation of the axle did not place the vehicle outside the envelope for weight distribution or center of gravity requirements in the IVD, a liftable axle (when raised) may even improve a vehicle's performance in the braking-in-a-curve test. Installations of non-liftable axles could affect the braking-in-a-curve test performance for a modified vehicle, because the wheels of these axles would be in contact with the pavement during the braking-in-a-curve test. Therefore, if a non-liftable axle is installed on a vehicle outside the scope of the pass-through certification, the party performing the installation must certify that the altered vehicle does comply with FMVSS No. 121. The costs to perform a certification test and alternatives to conducting the braking-in-a-curve test are discussed below. The agency estimates that a majority of auxiliary axles are liftable axles. Information provided by a major supplier of truck suspensions indicated that 99 percent of the auxiliary axle suspensions it sells are the liftable type. 4 Based on NTEA's estimates of the number of auxiliary axles installed annually and on the distribution of axles between liftable and non-liftable, if each non-liftable axle were installed on a separate vehicle, the number of affected vehicles would be approximately 250 a year. However, vehicles can be equipped with more than one auxiliary axle. Therefore, the number of vehicles with non-liftable axles is likely lower, which suggests to the agency that this is a less serious problem than NTEA implies. 4 See memo regarding conversation with Hendrickson Int'l., Docket No. NHTSA-2003-15277-4. 2. Wheelbase Modifications NTEA also asserted that with regard to the braking-in-a-curve test, “no certification pass-through is available for any vehicle with a wheelbase modification.” NTEA stated that under the previous regulations, if a final stage manufacturer or alterer stayed within the chassis manufacturers' wheelbase range for a given model, it could be reasonably assured that the brake system was designed to perform within this range for stopping distance requirements. Additionally, NTEA stated that if a final stage manufacturer or alterer completes or alters a vehicle such that the wheelbase is modified outside the scope of an IVD, compliance with the brake standards should be assured if: • The GVWR and gross axle weight rating are not re-rated; • Tire or other suspension components are not changed or modified; • Added brake lines meet the requirements of FMVSS 106, brake hoses; and • Modifications are consistent with design guidelines from the chassis manufacturer. However, because of the new braking-in-a-curve test, NTEA argued that “wheelbase changes will nullify both the hydraulic and air brake system conformity statements of the chassis manufacturer, and place the full burden of compliance with the [final stage manufacturer].” We disagree with the petitioner that wheelbase changes will necessarily “nullify” chassis manufacturers” conformity statements. Data reviewed by the agency indicates that final stage manufacturers and alterers can modify wheelbases such that the vehicle continues to comply with the braking-in-a-curve test. For example, data provided by the Truck Manufacturers Association
(TMA)in response to the NPRM indicated that for 31 trucks tested by TMA's member companies with a wheelbase range of 152 to 300 inches, each vehicle successfully passed the braking-in-a-curve test (Docket No. NHTSA-1999-6550-13). The agency has also observed that typical hydraulic-braked and air-braked ABS electronic control units
(ECU)will perform satisfactorily on several types of hydraulic-braked or air-braked vehicles, respectively, including trucks, tractors, and buses. 5 5 For example, the Body Builder's Book Bulletin BB-2, Rev. A, states that “When lengthening the wheelbase on vehicles with Anti-lock Brake Systems (ABS), the wiring for the wheel speed sensors and ABS components cannot and should not be altered, cut, spliced, or repaired. The use of approved ABS extension cables is recommended whenever a wheelbase is lengthened. Whenever the wheelbase is shortened, ensure that excess ABS cables are securely tied to the inside of the frame rail to prevent interference. Refer to UD Parts Bulletin UD99-116 for ABS extension cable information.” Based on the thoroughness of this explanation of necessary steps for preserving ABS when changing a wheelbase, we believe it is reasonable to assume that no changes to the ECU are necessary. Body Builder's Book Bulletin BB-2, Rev. A, Nissan Diesel America Inc. (September 20, 2004), available at *http://www.udtrucks.com/Q_Tech_Notes/BBB2%20Rev.pdf* . Thus, no alterations are needed to the ECU: it functions properly regardless of the wheelbase that is used. There are data available for a variety of vehicle configurations that a final stage manufacturer or alterer may be able to rely on for purposes of certification ( *e.g.* , the range of available wheelbases that are offered by the chassis manufacturer). We further note that final stage manufacturers and alterers may obtain technical support from the ABS suppliers or from the body builder advisory service that is available from many chassis manufacturers. However, if a final stage manufacturer or alterer were to modify a vehicle outside the scope of the IVD and for which no compliance data were available, such as a very short wheelbase beyond the range of what is offered by a chassis manufacturer, such a modification could degrade the vehicle's handling characteristics beyond the performance capabilities of the vehicle's ABS. A very short wheelbase could result in extreme weight transfer during the stopping distance tests on dry pavement and failure to stay within the 12-foot wide lane if, for example, the rear wheels lifted off the ground during the stop. In such a case, there would be problems complying with the both the braking-in-a-curve test and the stopping distance test. In such cases, the final stage manufacturer or alterer would be responsible for ensuring that the vehicle's ABS performed as necessary to comply with the braking-in-a-curve test. B. Testing Costs and Alternatives to Testing In the NPRM, NHTSA estimated the cost of conducting a braking-in-a-curve test at $1,500, if performed as a stand-alone test, or $1,000, if performed as part of a complete FMVSS No. 105 or 121 certification test. 6 In its petition, NTEA commented that because currently other braking requirements can be certified without testing, as discussed above, the braking-in-a-curve test would likely be a stand-alone test. In addition to the cost of the test itself, NTEA argued that final stage manufacturers and alterers would be faced with the cost of transporting the vehicle to the testing site, as well as the loss in value of the tested vehicle as it could not be sold as new. 6 In response to the NPRM, the TMA provided an upper range estimate for the stand-alone test of $6,000. However, the TMA provided no data in support of the estimate. TMA stated that this cost included the cost of transporting a vehicle and conducting the brake burnish specified in the standard. However, TMA did not itemize these costs. See 68 FR at 47491. NTEA also stated its concern of the cost on the industry as a whole. NTEA again argued that based on the number of auxiliary axle installations and wheelbase modifications, 35,000 vehicles will be produced for which there is no pass-through certification available. The petitioner further stated that because of the competitive nature of the industry and the number of vehicle configurations in the market place, consortium testing as a means to reduce certification costs for individual businesses is not a practical option. In response, as discussed above, some vehicle configurations will indeed require a final stage manufacturer or alterer to certify a vehicle's compliance with the braking-in-a-curve test. However, the agency does not believe that this test will be prohibitive relative to the total vehicle cost. We estimate that the cost of a specialized heavy duty truck with auxiliary axles, an altered wheelbase, and custom body and work equipment may be in the range of $100,000 to $500,000, so the additional cost of a braking-in-a-curve test, in the range of $1,000 to $6,000, should not be hugely consequential. Also, we note that FMVSS No. 105 or 121 certification testing (e.g., the braking-in-a-curve test) is non-destructive to the vehicle. A vehicle can still be sold even if testing is required. The agency recognizes that there may be a small loss in the value of a new vehicle that requires certification testing for the braking-in-a-curve requirements, but reiterates that some highly-specialized vehicles may require actual testing, even though the majority of vehicles may not. We are aware that custom heavy vehicles sometimes need brake system certification testing prior to delivery to the customer, and that manufacturers and alterers are able to accommodate such situations. The brake burnish specifications in FMVSS Nos. 105 and 121 both specify 500 brake snubs from 40 mph to 20 mph at 1 mile intervals, which would add 500 miles to the odometer of a test vehicle, with the remaining portions of the brake system certification test under each standard adding several more miles. Thus, if a vehicle intended for a customer were tested for certification, it would accumulate slightly over 500 miles prior to delivery. Heavy vehicles often travel several hundreds of thousands of miles over their lifetime, and NHTSA believes that adding 500 miles of use to a vehicle for a brake system certification test only occasionally necessary would not appreciably devalue it. However, the agency believes that the vast majority of vehicles completed by final stage manufacturers and alterers will continue to use pass-through certification and will not need to be individually tested. As stated above, auxiliary lift installations and wheelbase modifications can be made such that a final stage manufacturer or alterer can rely on the IVD or engineering analysis to certify compliance with FMVSS No. 121. Additionally, we note that many chassis manufacturers offer chassis with many non-standard configurations of axles. Promotional information from Kenworth, Peterbilt, Oshkosh, and Western Star truck manufacturers indicates that these chassis manufacturers can provide a wide range of axle configurations, including lift axles, dual-steering front axles, all-wheel drive, tridem drive axles, and bridge-formula tag axles. NTEA did not provide data indicating how many of the vehicle configurations offered by their member final stage manufacturers are so specialized that these configurations are not available from a chassis manufacturer with full brake system certification. Additionally, while NTEA stated that consortium testing would not be a practical solution for the industry, such testing is currently being performed by the industry in Canada. Consortium testing is an approach in which a parent organization or group of member companies develops and conducts certification testing and provides the results to each member company. This lowers testing costs per unit produced, sold, or manufactured, as compared to each company performing its own certification tests. Consortium testing is being used by the Canadian Transportation Equipment Association
(CTEA)to compile certification data for Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems* , 7 on axles that are installed by manufacturers in Canada. CTEA also sponsors testing on altered vehicles, as described in the report *Stability and Handling Characteristics of a Straight Truck with a Self-steering Pusher Axle* (Centre for Surface Transport Technology, National Research Council Canada, Technical Report CSTT-HVC-TR-057, August 9, 2002). 8 Thus the Canadian industry is able to provide consortium testing that results in reduced certification testing costs and offers valuable information on the alteration of heavy vehicles to consortium member companies. 7 We note that Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121 is virtually identical to FMVSS No. 121. 8 Available for public inspection in NHTSA's Office of Rulemaking, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. The agency notes that a consortium of individual final stage manufacturers and alterers might also develop engineering modeling or installation guidelines that could permit, for certain vehicles, certification without the need for performance testing of each individual vehicle. We suggest that a vehicle dynamics simulation program could be enhanced to include elements such as auxiliary axles. However, we recognize that an auxiliary axle component of the model would need to be developed and likely validated through road testing. A braking-in-a-curve testing program could explore several parameters to determine if there are limits at which the braking-in-a-curve test performance becomes unacceptable with a particular auxiliary axle configuration (e.g., minimum curb weight), and describe conditions under which appropriate countermeasures such as installing an ABS system on the auxiliary axle(s) are appropriate. C. New Temporary Exemption Procedure in Part 555 On February 14, 2005, the agency published in the **Federal Register** (70 FR 7414) a final rule which, among other things, created new procedures under which manufacturers of vehicles built in two or more stages and alterers could obtain temporary exemptions from certain dynamic performance requirements. These procedures were established as Subpart B of Part 555. The new procedures streamline the temporary exemption process by allowing an association or another party representing the interests of multiple manufacturers to bundle exemption petitions for a specific vehicle design, thus permitting a single explanation of the potential safety impact and good faith attempts to comply with the standards. The procedures specify that each manufacturer seeking an exemption is required to demonstrate financial hardship and good faith efforts to comply with applicable requirements. Exemptions based on financial hardship are available to companies manufacturing *fewer* than 10,000 vehicles per year, and any single exemption cannot apply to more than 2,500 vehicles per year. On May 15, 2006, NHTSA published in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 28168) a final rule in response to a petition submitted by NTEA requesting reconsideration of the February 2005 final rule. See Docket No. NHTSA-2006-24664. While the agency had limited the new procedures to FMVSS requirements that incorporate dynamic crash tests, NTEA argued that they should apply to all standards that are based on dynamic testing and not just dynamic crash testing. In response to NTEA's petition, the agency reconsidered its previous position with respect to scope of relief available under Subpart B. On reconsideration, in the May 2006 final rule, it amended Part 555 to permit the manufacturers of multistage vehicles to petition for temporary exemption from requirements that incorporate various dynamic tests and not exclusively dynamic crash tests. This would include the braking-in-a-curve test. In the May 2006 final rule, the agency observed that small volume manufacturers were already able to petition the agency for temporary exemptions from all Federal standards under Subpart A. Therefore its reconsideration as to the scope of Subpart B related to the availability of the more streamlined procedures rather than to the possibility of a manufacturer obtaining an exemption in appropriate circumstances. Second, NHTSA noted that under § 555.13(a) and
(b)of Subpart B, in order to petition for an exemption, the petitioner must show why the test requirements of a particular standard would cause substantial economic hardship. This showing must include detailed financial information, and a complete description of each manufacturer's good faith efforts to comply with the standards. Specifically, the petitioner must explain the inadequacy of the IVD document furnished by an incomplete vehicle manufacturer or by a prior intermediate-stage manufacturer pursuant to Part 568. The petitioner must also show why generic or cooperative testing is impracticable. Finally, the petitioner must explain the difficulty in procuring goods and services necessary to conduct dynamic tests. We also noted that, in addition to showing of hardship, each petitioner is required to explain under § 555.13(c) why the requested temporary exemption would not unreasonably degrade safety. In the May 2006 final rule, we also stated that for both dynamic crash tests and other dynamic tests, we believe that given the other relief provided in the February 2005 final rule, including greater ability to use pass-through certification, we expect that the number of cases for which exemptions are needed will be relatively small. For purposes of this response to NTEA's petition concerning the braking-in-a-curve test, we note that the new streamlined temporary exemption procedures will be available for this test requirement. Thus, this relief will be available should it be necessary and appropriate. Moreover, the agency provided a considerable amount of information and analysis in its May 2006 document in connection with arguments raised by NTEA concerning multistage manufacturers and alterers. In addition to issues related to the new Part 555 temporary exemption procedures, the agency included extensive discussion as to why the current multistage vehicle certification scheme is workable. Because many of the issues we discussed in that document are relevant to the issues raised by NTEA in connection with the braking in a curve test, we refer the reader to that document and its supporting record. *See* 71 FR 28196 (May 15, 2006) and Docket No. NHTSA-2006-24664. III. Conclusion For the reasons discussed above, the agency is denying the petition for reconsideration from the NTEA to exclude certain small volume final stage manufacturers and alterers from certifying to the braking-in-a-curve performance requirements. Other than auxiliary axle and wheelbase modifications, NTEA did not provide any data showing specifically what modifications or deviations to IVD guidelines are occurring to incomplete or complete vehicles such that they cannot use pass-through certification for the brake system requirements. With regard to wheelbase modifications, the agency has determined that IVDs typically provide guidance on how such modifications can be performed while maintaining pass-through certification. Moreover, final stage manufacturers and alterers have considerable choice in purchasing chassis with different wheelbases and configuration of axles certified as complying by the original vehicle manufacturer. We recognize that pass-through certification is not available for all modifications, including the addition of some types of auxiliary axles. However, these types of modifications would not necessarily result in the need for certification testing. For example, with the addition of a lift axle, a manufacturer or final stage manufacturer may be able to rely on engineering analysis to certify compliance with the requirements of FMVSS Nos. 105 and 121. In the rare cases in which certification testing may be required, the testing is non-destructive and the industry has options available to minimize the cost of any testing that is required. While the agency recognizes that some modifications might be beyond the envelope of pass-through certification, final stage manufacturers and alterers must certify that vehicles with such modifications continue to comply with FMVSS Nos. 105 and 121, to ensure that purchasers and other motorists have the full benefit of the required ABS. Finally, as discussed earlier, the new streamlined exemption procedures are available for this test requirement, providing relief if it is necessary and appropriate. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166: delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50. Issued on: May 18, 2007. Stephen R. Kratzke, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. [FR Doc. E7-9944 Filed 5-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P 72 99 Wednesday, May 23, 2007 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Office of the Secretary Solicitation for Members To Fill Vacancies to the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board AGENCY: Research, Education, and Economics, USDA. ACTION: Solicitation for membership. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., the United States Department of Agriculture announces solicitation for nominations to fill 10 vacancies on the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board. DATES: Deadline for Advisory Board member nominations is July 20, 2007. ADDRESSES: The nominee's name, resume, and completed Form AD-755 must be sent to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board Office, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW.; Room 344-A, Whitten Building; Washington, DC 20250-2255. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shirley Morgan-Jordan, Program Support Coordinator; National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board; *telephone:* 202-720-3684; *fax:* 202-720-6199; e-mail: *smorgan@csrees.usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 1408 of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3123) was amended by the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 by adding one additional member to the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board, which totals 31 members. Since the Advisory Board's inception by congressional legislation in 1996, each member has represented a specific category related to farming or ranching, food production and processing, forestry research, crop and animal science, land-grant institutions, non-land-grant colleges or universities with a historic commitment to research in the food and agricultural sciences, food retailing and marketing, rural economic development, and natural resource and consumer interest groups, among many others. The Board was first appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture in September 1996 and one-third of its members were appointed for a one-, two-, and three-year term, respectively. The terms for 10 of the 31 members who represent the specific categories to be filled will expire September 30, 2010. Nominations for a 3-year appointment for these 10 vacant categories are sought. All nominees will be carefully reviewed for their expertise, leadership, and relevance to each category. The 10 categories to be filled are: Category H. National Food Animal Science Society. Category I. National Crop, Soil, Agronomy, Horticulture or Weed Science Societies. Category N. 1890 Land-Grant Colleges and Universities. Category O. 1994 Equity in Education Land-Grant Institutions. Category Q. American Colleges of Veterinary Medicine. Category U. Food Retailing and Marketing Interests. Category W. Rural Economic Development. Category X. National Consumer Interest Group. Category Y. National Forestry Group. Category Z. National Conservation or Natural Resource Group. Nominations are being solicited from organizations, associations, societies, councils, federations, groups, and companies that represent a wide variety of food and agricultural interests throughout the country. Nominations for one individual who fits several of the categories listed above, or for more than one person who fits one category, will be accepted. In your nomination letter, please indicate the specific membership category for each nominee. Each nominee must fill out a form AD-755, “Advisory Committee Membership Background Information” (which can be obtained from the contact person above or from the following Web site: *http://www.ree.usda.gov/nareeeab/downloads/forms/AD-755.pdf.* All nominees will be vetted before selection. Nominations are open to all individuals without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, mental or physical handicap, marital status, or sexual orientation. To ensure that recommendations of the Advisory Board take into account the needs of the diverse groups served by the Department, membership shall include, to the extent practicable, individuals with demonstrated ability to represent minorities, women, and persons with disabilities. Appointments to the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board will be made by the Secretary of Agriculture. Done at Washington, DC this 10th day of May 2007. Gale Buchanan, Under Secretary, Research, Education, and Economics. [FR Doc. E7-9891 Filed 5-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-22-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Development; Notice of Privatization of the National Sheep Industry Improvement Center AGENCY: Rural Development, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Secretary of Agriculture approved the Transition Plan to privatize the National Sheep Industry Improvement Center. The American Sheep and Goat Center, a Utah non-profit corporation, became the successor to the National Sheep Industry Improvement Center on October 1, 2006. DATES: Privatization was effective Midnight, September 30, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas C. Dorr, Under Secretary, USDA Rural Development, Room 205-W, Mail Stop 0107, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-0107, *telephone:* 202-720-4581, *TTY:* 800-877-8339 (Federal Information Relay Service). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Section 375 of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, 7 U.S.C. 2008j, created the National Sheep Industry Improvement Center (NSIIC) to strengthen the infrastructure of the sheep and goat industry. The NSIIC provided loans and grants for business ventures where normal commercial credit or funding was not available. Section 375(j) of the Farm Bill legislation required the privatization of the NSIIC to occur on the earlier of its receiving a certain level of Federal funding or September 30, 2006. The legislation required a transition plan, to be approved by the Secretary of Agriculture, that provides for a private successor entity that would have the same purposes and be able to continue the activities of the NSIIC. The Secretary of Agriculture has approved a privatization plan that was triggered by the September 30, 2006 deadline. The NSIIC ceased operations on September 30, 2006. The American Sheep and Goat Center became the successor private organization on October 1, 2006. All assets and liabilities of the NSIIC have now been transferred to the private American Sheep and Goat Center. The transition plan is completed as of May 23, 2007. Dated: May 16, 2007. Douglas Faulkner, Acting Under Secretary, Rural Development. [FR Doc. E7-9932 Filed 5-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-XY-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2007-0047] Notice of Request for Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Bees and Related Articles AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Extension of approval of an information collection; comment request. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request an extension of approval of an information collection associated with regulations for the importation of bees and related articles. DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before July 23, 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-2007-0047 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-2007-0047, 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-2007-0047. *Reading Room:* You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call
(202)690-2817 before coming. *Other Information:* Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the Internet at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on an information collection associated with regulations for the importation of bees and related articles, contact Dr. Wayne Wehling, Entomologist, Pest Permit Evaluations, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737;
(301)734-8757. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at
(301)734-7477. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Bees and Related Articles. *OMB Number:* 0579-0207. *Type of Request:* Extension of approval of an information collection. *Abstract:* Under the Honeybee Act (7 U.S.C. 281-286), the Secretary is authorized to prohibit or restrict the importation of honeybees and honeybee semen to prevent the introduction into the United States of diseases and parasites harmful to honeybees and of undesirable species such as the African honeybee. This authority has been delegated to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). Further, the Plant Protection Act
(PPA)(7 U.S.C. 7701 *et seq.* ) authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to prohibit or restrict the importation, entry, or interstate movement of plants, plant products, and other articles to prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United States or their dissemination within the United States. As with the Honeybee Act, APHIS has delegated authority for the PPA. The establishment of certain bee diseases, parasites, or undesirable species and subspecies of honeybees in the United States could cause substantial reductions in pollination by bees. These reductions could cause serious damage to crops and other plants and result in substantial financial losses to American agriculture. Regulations for the importation of honeybees and honeybee semen and regulations to prevent the introduction of exotic bee diseases and parasites through the importation of bees other than honeybees, certain beekeeping products, and used beekeeping equipment are contained in 7 CFR part 322, “Bees, Beekeeping Byproducts, and Beekeeping Equipment.” These regulations require the use of certain information collection activities, including: An application for permit, appeals for denial of permit application and cancellation of permit, request for risk assessment, inspection report of containment facilities, request for release of containment, transit documentation, export certificate, notice of arrival, packaging and labeling, and recordkeeping by containment facilities. We are asking the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)to approve our use of these information collection activities for an additional 3 years. The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1)Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2)Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. *Estimate of burden:* The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 2.4338 hours per response. *Respondents:* Importers and shippers of bees and related articles, foreign governments, and containment facilities. *Estimated annual number of respondents :* 869. *Estimated annual number of responses per respondent:* 1. *Estimated annual number of responses:* 869. *Estimated total annual burden on respondents:* 2,115 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.) All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record. Done in Washington, DC, this 17th day of May 2007. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E7-9897 Filed 5-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2007-0060] Emerald Ash Borer; Availability of an Environmental Assessment AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of availability and request for comments. SUMMARY: We are advising the public that an environmental assessment has been prepared by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service relative to the release of three insect parasitoid species for the biological control of the emerald ash borer *Agrilus planipennis.* The environmental assessment documents our review and analysis of environmental impacts associated with the release of these biological control agents. We are making this environmental assessment available to the public for review and comment. DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before June 22, 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-2007-0060 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-2007-0060, 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-2007-0060. *Reading Room:* You may read any comments that we receive on the environmental assessment 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: Dr. Juli Gould, Entomologist, Otis Pest Survey, Detection, and Exclusion Laboratory, PPQ, APHIS, Building 1398, Otis ANGB, MA 02542-5008;
(508)563-9303 ext. 220. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The emerald ash borer
(EAB)( *Agrilus planipennis* ) is a destructive woodboring insect that attacks ash trees ( *Fraxinus* spp., including green ash, white ash, black ash, and several horticultural varieties of ash). The insect, which is indigenous to Asia and known to occur in China, Korea, Japan, Mongolia, the Russian Far East, Taiwan, and Canada, eventually kills healthy ash trees after it bores beneath their bark and disrupts their vascular tissues. The EAB regulations in 7 CFR 301.53-1 through 301.53-9 restrict the interstate movement of regulated articles from quarantined areas to prevent the artificial spread of EAB into noninfested areas of the United States. The States of Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio and portions of the State of Michigan are currently designated as quarantined areas. We are also in the process of establishing a quarantine in Prince George's County, MD. Despite State and Federal quarantines designed to contain EAB, the lack of effective methods to detect EAB-infested trees and the large area of EAB infestation has resulted in a shift in strategy by regulatory agencies from area-wide eradication to eradication in outlying areas and containment in the core infestation area. In the United States, EAB eradication efforts involve the removal of all ash trees within a specified radius around known infestations. However, by the time an infestation is discovered and treated, EAB has usually already dispersed outside the eradication zone. Besides natural dispersal, the spread of EAB has been accelerated through human-assisted movement of infested ash firewood, timber, solid wood packing materials, and nursery stock. As EAB spreads throughout North America, regulatory agencies, land managers, and the public are seeking sustainable management tools such as biological control to reduce EAB population densities and to slow its spread. APHIS has completed an environmental assessment that examines the potential effects on the quality of the human environment that may be associated with the release of three specific biological control agents to control infestations of EAB within the continental United States. APHIS and the Forest Service propose to release the three parasitoids into the environment of the continental United States for the purpose of reducing EAB populations. These parasitoids are known to attack EAB consistently in its native habitat in China. Initial releases of each parasitoid are planned for summer 2007. Post-release monitoring of the spread and establishment of each parasitoid species and impacts on EAB and non-target wood-boring beetles will also be conducted. APHIS' review and analysis of the potential environmental impacts associated with this biological control action are documented in detail in an environmental assessment entitled “Proposed Release of Three Parasitoids for the Biological Control of the Emerald Ash Borer ( *Agrilus planipennis* ) in the Continental United States” (April 2, 2007). We are making this environmental assessment available to the public for review and comment. We will consider all comments that we receive on or before the date listed under the heading DATES at the beginning of this notice. The environmental assessment may be viewed on the Regulations.gov Web site or in our reading room (see ADDRESSES above for instructions for accessing Regulations.gov and information on the location and hours of the reading room). You may request paper copies of the environmental assessment by calling or writing to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Please refer to the title of the environmental assessment when requesting copies. The environmental assessment has been prepared in accordance with:
(1)The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* ),
(2)regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508),
(3)USDA regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1), and
(4)APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372). Done in Washington, DC, this 17th day of May 2007 . Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E7-9895 Filed 5-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2007-0049] National Wildlife Services Advisory Committee; Meeting AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: We are giving notice of a meeting of the National Wildlife Services Advisory Committee. DATES: The meeting will be held on June 19 and 20, 2007, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. each day. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Utah State University Inn, Room 507, 4300 Old Main Hill, Logan, UT. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mrs. Joanne Garrett, Director, Operational Support Staff, WS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 87, Riverdale, MD 20737;
(301)734-7921. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Wildlife Services Advisory Committee (the Committee) advises the Secretary of Agriculture concerning policies, program issues, and research needed to conduct the Wildlife Services
(WS)program. The Committee also serves as a public forum enabling those affected by the WS program to have a voice in the program's policies. The meeting will focus on operational and research activities. The Committee will discuss WS efforts to increase operational capacity through prioritizing research objectives. Additionally, the Committee will discuss pertinent national programs and how to increase their effectiveness, as well as ensuring WS remains an active participant in the goal of agricultural protection. The meeting will be open to the public. However, due to time constraints, the public will not be allowed to participate in the discussions during the meeting. Written statements on meeting topics may be filed with the Committee before or after the meeting by sending them to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Written statements may also be filed at the meeting. Please refer to Docket No. APHIS-2007-0049 when submitting your statements. This notice of meeting is given pursuant to section 10 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2). Done in Washington, DC, this 17th day of May 2007. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E7-9896 Filed 5-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Office of the Secretary [Docket No. APHIS-2007-0065] Declaration of Extraordinary Emergency Because of Plum Pox Virus An exotic plant virus, plum pox virus, has been confirmed in New York and Michigan. Plum pox virus is the most devastating viral disease of stone fruit worldwide, causing yield losses to growers and reducing the marketability of fruit. Previously, the disease was known to be present in the United States only in portions of several counties in south-central Pennsylvania. Plum pox virus is the cause of an extremely serious plant disease, affecting a number of *Prunus* species, including peach, nectarine, apricot, plum, and almond. Infection eventually results in severely reduced fruit production, and the fruit that is produced is often misshapen and blemished. There is no cure or treatment for the disease once a tree becomes infected. In Europe, where plum pox has been present for a number of years, the disease is considered to be the most serious disease affecting susceptible *Prunus* species. The disease is spread over short distances by a number of different aphid species, and over longer distances through the movement of infected budwood and nursery stock. Since the detection of plum pox virus in Pennsylvania in 1999, an aggressive eradication program has been conducted in that State, involving a cooperative effort between APHIS and the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture. The program in Pennsylvania has resulted in significant success, with no spread of the disease outside of the general area in which it was first found in 1999, and with only trace amounts of plum pox virus being detected in 2005 and 2006. Following the detection of plum pox virus in Pennsylvania, APHIS has worked with States in which there was commercial production of peaches and other stone fruit to conduct a series of national surveys. Prior to 2006, the result of these surveys has always been negative. As a result of a cooperative survey conducted by APHIS and the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets, plum pox virus was confirmed in Niagara County, NY, on July 7, 2006. A total of three infected trees were discovered in two commercial orchard locations. Cooperative surveys were also conducted in Michigan, in this case involving APHIS and the Michigan Department of Agriculture. As a result of these surveys, plum pox virus was detected in a single plum tree at the Michigan State University's Southwest Michigan Research and Education Center, a State-operated facility, on August 11, 2006. In order to prevent the spread of plum pox virus from these new detection sites, an aggressive eradication program will be necessary. The eradication program will involve removal of all infected trees and of all host trees within 500 meters, conducting delimiting and detection surveys over a period of several years to ensure that there are no additional infestations, and establishing appropriate safeguards to ensure that additional spread of plum pox virus does not occur while the eradication program is being completed. Following consultation with State officials from both New York and Michigan, the Department has determined that the States do not have sufficient resources to effectively carry out an eradication program. The infestation of plum pox virus represents a threat to U.S. stone fruit crops. It constitutes a real danger to the national economy and a potential serious burden on interstate and foreign commerce. Therefore, the Department has determined that an extraordinary emergency exists because of the existence of plum pox virus in Michigan and New York. In accordance with 7 U.S.C. 7715, this declaration of extraordinary emergency authorizes the Secretary to:
(1)Hold, seize, quarantine, treat, apply other remedial measures to, destroy, or otherwise dispose of, any plant, biological control organism, plant product, article, or means of conveyance that the Secretary has reason to believe is infected by or contains the plum pox virus;
(2)quarantine, treat, or apply other remedial measures to any premises, including any plants, biological control organisms, plant products, articles, or means of conveyance on the premises, that the Secretary has reason to believe is infected by or contaminated with the plum pox virus;
(3)quarantine any State or portion of a State in which the Secretary finds the plum pox virus or any plant, biological control organism, plant product, article, or means of conveyance that the Secretary has reason to believe is infected by or contaminated with the plum pox virus; and
(4)prohibit or restrict the movement within a State of any plant, biological control organism, plant product, article, or means of conveyance when the Secretary determines that the prohibition or restriction is necessary to prevent the dissemination of the plum pox virus or to eradicate the plum pox virus. The Governors of New York and Michigan have been informed of these facts. EFFECTIVE DATE: This declaration of extraordinary emergency shall become effective May 18, 2007. Mike Johanns, Secretary of Agriculture. [FR Doc. E7-10044 Filed 5-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Natural Resources Conservation Services West Fork Duck Creek Watershed, Noble County, OH AGENCY: Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of a Finding of No Significant Impact. SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR part 1500); and the Natural Resources Conservation Service Rules (7 CFR part 650); the Natural Resources Conservation Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, gives notice that an environmental impact statement is not being prepared for the rehabilitation of Floodwater Retarding Structure No. 7 (Caldwell Lake Dam) in the West Fork Duck Creek Watershed. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terry J. Cosby; State Conservationist; Natural Resources Conservation Service; 200 North High Street, Room 522, Columbus, Ohio 43215; telephone 614-255-2500. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The environmental assessment of this Federally assisted action indicates that the project will not cause significant local, regional, or national effects on the human environment. As a result of these findings, Terry J. Cosby, State Conservationist, has determined that the preparation and review of an environmental impact statement are not needed for this project. The project purpose is flood prevention. The action includes the rehabilitation of one floodwater-retarding dam. The Notice of a Finding of No Significant Impact
(FNSI)has been forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency; various Federal, state and local agencies; and interested parties. A limited number of copies of the FNSI are available to fill single copy requests at the above address. Basic data developed during the environmental assessment is on file and may be reviewed by contacting Terry J. Cosby. No administrative action on implementation of the preferred alternative will be taken until 30 days after the date of this publication in the **Federal Register** . Terry J. Crosby, State Conservationist [FR Doc. 07-2555 Filed 5-22-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 12
15 references not yet in our index
  • 47 CFR 54
  • 47 CFR 1.1
  • Pub. L. 104-13
  • Pub. L. 107-198
  • 47 CFR 1.415
  • 49 CFR 571
  • 49 CFR 568.5
  • 49 CFR 1.50
  • 7 USC 281-286
  • 7 CFR 322
  • 7 CFR 301.53-1
  • 7 CFR 1
  • 7 CFR 372
  • 40 CFR 1500
  • 7 CFR 650
Citation graph
cites case law
Proposed Rules
Notice of proposed rulemaking
U.S.C.§ 603
U.S.C.§ 151
U.S.C.§ 604
U.S.C.§ 601
U.S.C.§ 632
U.S.C.§ 3506
U.S.C.§ 322
U.S.C.§ 3123
U.S.C.§ 2008j
Cite47 CFR 54
Cite47 CFR 1.1
Pub. L.Pub. L. 104-13
Cites 27 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.