Rules and Regulations. Final rule

Agency: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce
Action: Final rule
Citation: FR Doc. 07-2901 · RIN 0648-AU58 · Docket No. 070209029-7118-02; I.D. 112906A · 50 CFR 679

Summary

NMFS issues a final rule to amend regulations implementing the North Pacific Groundfish Observer Program (Observer Program). This action is necessary to avoid expiration of these regulations on December 31, 2007, and ensure uninterrupted observer coverage in North Pacific groundfish fisheries. This action is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area and the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMPs).

Dates

Effective on July 13, 2007.

Supplementary Information

Background NMFS manages the U.S. groundfish fisheries of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI) and Gulf of Alaska (GOA) in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) under the FMPs. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) has prepared the FMPs pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Regulations implementing the FMPs appear at 50 CFR part 679. General regulations that pertain to U.S. fisheries appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600. High quality observer data are a cornerstone of Alaska groundfish fisheries management. However, the quality and utility of observer data suffer due to the current structure of procuring and deploying observers. Under the current program, coverage levels vary with the size of the vessel or the quantity of fish processed. Vessel owners and operators choose when and where to carry observers, and fishery managers do not control when and where observers are deployed. To address these concerns, the Council directed NMFS to develop an alternate program structure. Since the early 1990s, the Council and NMFS have explored alternative program structures as part of three separate actions. However, the Council identified problems with each of these actions and none were adopted. While the Council was developing and considering options for an alternate program structure, the Council recommended, and the Secretary approved, several extensions of the Observer Program regulations. A thorough discussion of the need for, and history of, the Observer Program, including past efforts to restructure and extend the Observer Program, is provided in the proposed rule (72 FR 7948, February 22, 2007) and EA/RIR/FRFA prepared for this action (see ADDRESSES ), and is not repeated here. In October 2002, the Council tasked its observer advisory committee (OAC) to develop a problem statement and alternatives for restructuring the Observer Program. In April 2003, the Council adopted a suite of alternatives that contemplated restructuring the Observer Program in a stepwise approach, beginning in the GOA. However, as NMFS began evaluating these alternatives, it became apparent that certain operational and data quality issues would be difficult to resolve in a revised program under which NMFS contracted directly with observers for observer services in the GOA, but retained the current system for procuring observer services in the BSAI. From December 2003 through June 2005, the Council refined the suite of alternatives, and in June 2005 adopted the alternatives for analysis. These alternatives include options to restructure the Observer Program for all groundfish and halibut vessels fishing in the GOA only, for halibut vessels and certain sectors fishing in both the GOA and BSAI, and for all groundfish and halibut fisheries. Shoreside and stationary floating processors were included under each alternative depending on their location and management program. In addition to the “no-action” alternative under which the Observer Program would expire, the Council also asked staff to analyze an alternative that would remove the December 31, 2007, expiration date and continue current observer coverage regulations without an expiration date. While the Council intended to adopt a preferred alternative by January 1, 2008, several issues arose during the course of analysis of the alternatives that has made this difficult. First, due to uncertainty about the applicability of overtime pay provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act to contracted observers, staff were unable to adequately estimate observer costs under any of the restructuring alternatives. Second, the Research Plan authority to assess a fee for observer coverage could not be exclusively applied to a subset of the North Pacific groundfish fisheries vessels. Therefore, all the action alternatives except Alternative 2 (extension of the current program) required new statutory authorization for fee collection from a portion of the fleet or to implement different fee mechanisms for different sectors, as were considered in the analysis. Because observer costs could not be adequately estimated and the uncertainty that Congress would authorize fee collection, NMFS recommended that the Council adopt Alternative 2 as its preferred alternative. The Council concurred and adopted Alternative 2 at its February 2006 meeting. The Council also amended the problem statement to reflect that, while Alternative 2 does not address most of the issues in the problem statement, it ensures Observer Program viability, and the continued collection of information necessary to manage the North Pacific fisheries. While the costs of the restructuring alternatives cannot be adequately estimated at this time, the analysis prepared for this action includes restructuring alternatives to provide context to the Council's adoption of Alternative 2. Expiration of the Observer Program would result in significant costs to groundfish fishery participants. Without data collected by observers, NMFS would be forced to adopt a much more conservative approach towards managing the groundfish fisheries of the GOA and BSAI. Such an approach could lead to early fisheries closures because no observer data would be collected to monitor and estimate groundfish total allowable catch (TAC) and prohibited species catch. NMFS would likely rely more on population models to generate allowable biological catch and TAC recommendations. In addition, failure to maintain a groundfish observer program in the North Pacific would violate the terms of a variety of statutes, including the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The ESA requires observer coverage as a reasonable and prudent measure for certain management actions. These are non-discretionary measures under current biological opinions and are prescribed under the incidental take statements for endangered marine mammals, salmon, and seabirds. In June 2006 the Council decided it would consider amendments to the FMPs proposing restructuring alternatives for the Observer Program when (1) legislative authority is established for fee-based alternatives; (2) the cost issues described above are clarified (by statute, regulation, or guidance) to allow estimated costs associated with the fee-based alternatives; or (3) the Council responds to changes in conditions that cannot be anticipated now. On January 12, 2007, the President signed the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act (Public Law 109-479). The reauthorized Magnuson-Stevens Act includes language that appears to allow the Council to adopt a fee collection program as considered in the analysis. However, the exact nature of the fee program authorized by the Magnuson-Stevens Act must be determined, the Council must consider new FMP amendments to restructure the current Observer Program, and NMFS must undergo rulemaking to implement a new Observer Program. Therefore, implementing a fee collection and restructured Observer Program prior to the December 31, 2007, expiration date would be difficult. Additionally, the observer cost issues described above remain unresolved. Revisions to Observer Program Regulations For the reasons described above, this action removes the December 31, 2007, expiration date from the section heading of § 679.50 and from regulations at § 679.50(j)(1)(vi). The current Observer Program will continue until the Council recommends and the Secretary approves and implements further action to amend the program. Continuation of the current Observer Program is necessary to prevent interruption of many current management programs. The proposed rule to extend the Observer Program beyond 2007 was published in the Federal Register on February 22, 2007 (72 FR 7948), and the public review and comment period closed on March 23, 2007. No comments were received during the comment period. Classification The Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, determined that the regulatory amendment is necessary for the conservation and management of the groundfish fisheries off Alaska and that it is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and other applicable laws. This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was prepared for the proposed rule, and described in the Classification section of the proposed rule. The public comment period ended on March 23, 2007, but no comments were received on the economic analysis in the proposed rule. NMFS prepared a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA). The FRFA incorporates the IRFA and a summary of the analyses completed to support the action. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ). A summary of the analysis follows. This action would extend the effective date of regulations governing the Observer Program beyond December 31, 2007, the current expiration date. Extending the Observer Program beyond December 31, 2007, is necessary for uninterrupted continuation of many of the current management programs. The entities that would be directly regulated by this action are groundfish harvesters and processors of the BSAI and GOA EEZ. These entities include the groundfish catcher vessels, groundfish catcher processor vessels, and shoreside processors active in these areas. It also includes organizations to which direct allocations of groundfish are made, such as the BSAI Community Development Quota (CDQ) groups and the American Fisheries Act (AFA) fishing sectors. The FRFA identified the following small entities that would be impacted by this action. Based on 2005 data, 23 of the 87 catcher/processors active in the North Pacific groundfish fisheries are considered small entities. All five North Pacific observer provider companies and the six CDQ groups are considered small entities. Estimates of the number of shoreside processors that are small entities include all Alaska processors that reported processing groundfish to NMFS in 2002. Due to insufficient ownership and affiliation information, it is not possible, at this time, to determine how many of the 73 shoreside processors qualify as small entities. However, at least eight shoreside processors would be considered large entities because of American Fisheries Act (AFA) affiliations. Finally, 807 catcher vessels have gross revenues less than $4 million for groundfish, and would be considered small entities. In the FRFA, Alternative 1 is the no action alternative. Under this alternative, the current Observer Program would continue to be the only system under which groundfish observers would be provided in the BSAI and GOA groundfish fisheries. Regulations authorizing the current program expire at the end of 2007. Alternative 2 is the preferred alternative, and would extend the existing program. Under this alternative, the 2007 sunset date for the existing program would be removed and the program would be extended indefinitely with no changes to the overall service delivery model until the Council took further action. Alternative 3 would restructure the Observer Program for GOA groundfish and all halibut fisheries, while BSAI groundfish fisheries would be administered under the current system. A new ex-vessel value fee program would be established to fund coverage for GOA groundfish vessels, GOA-based processors, and halibut vessels operating throughout Alaska. Regulations that divide the fleet into zero, 30 percent, and 100 percent coverage categories would no longer apply to vessels and processors in the GOA. Fishermen and processors would no longer be responsible for obtaining their own observer coverage. Rather, NMFS would determine when and where to deploy observers based on data collection and monitoring needs, and would contract directly for observers using fee proceeds and/or direct Federal funding. Alternative 4 would restructure the Observer Program for all fisheries with coverage less than 100 percent. All vessels and processors assigned to Tiers 3 and 4 would participate in the new program throughout Alaska and pay an ex-vessel value based fee. In general, this alternative would apply to all halibut vessels, all groundfish catcher vessels less than 125 ft (38.1 m) length overall and all non-AFA shoreside processors. All vessels and processors assigned to Tiers 1 and 2 (100 percent or greater coverage) would continue to operate under the current “pay-as-you-go” system throughout Alaska. Alternative 5 would restructure the Observer Program for all groundfish and halibut fisheries off Alaska. This alternative would establish a new fee-based groundfish observer program in which NMFS has a direct contract with observer providers for all GOA and BSAI groundfish and halibut vessels. Under this alternative, vessels with 100 percent or greater coverage requirements would pay a daily observer fee and vessels with coverage requirements less than 100 percent would pay an ex-vessel value based fee. As noted in the preamble above, Alternative 1 was rejected because it would result in significant costs to the fleet. The impacts to small entities of the Alternatives 2 through 5, expressed as a percentage of the ex-vessel value of groundfish and halibut landed, are presented in the EA/RIR/FRFA prepared for this action and are summarized here. Current observer costs expressed as a percentage of ex-vessel landed catch value can be considered a reasonable estimate of the costs to each sector of the fleet under Alternative 2 (rollover of the existing program). In the BSAI management area for the years 2000 through 2003, these costs averaged 2.54 percent for catcher/processors, 1.49 percent for catcher vessels, and 0.89 percent for all processors, including motherships. In the GOA management area for these same years, these costs averaged 1.11 percent for catcher/processors, 1.71 percent for catcher vessels, and 0.65 percent for all processors. Adoption of any of these alternatives as presented in the EA/RIR/FRFA would require selection of a low, middle, or high ex-vessel fee percentage. Estimated costs expressed as a percentage of ex-vessel value of groundfish and halibut landings for the low, middle, and high endpoint options for Alternative 3 are 0.52 percent, 0.70 percent, and 1.05 percent, respectively. Estimated costs in terms of a percent of ex-vessel value for Alternative 4 are 0.69 percent, 0.83 percent, and 1.15 percent. Finally estimated costs in terms of a percent of ex-vessel value for Alternative 5 are 0.69 percent, 0.83 percent, and 1.15 percent. Each of these alternatives was rejected because they would not continue to provide the benefits associated with the Observer Program beyond 2007. Because of the looming sunset clause contained within the No Action alternative, only Alternative 2 accomplishes the stated objectives, is consistent with applicable statutes, and would minimize the economic impact of the action on small entities. Alternative 2 is the only alternative that achieves the primary objective of this action to extend the Observer Program beyond December 31, 2007. No additional recordkeeping, reporting, or compliance requirements are associated with this action. List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679 Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: June 8, 2007. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS amends 50 CFR part 679 as follows: PART 679—FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA 1. The authority citation for part 679 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq. ; 1540(f); 1801 et seq. ; 1851 note; 3631 et seq. 2. In § 679.50, the section heading is revised to read and paragraph (j)(1)(vi) is removed as follows: § 679.50 Groundfish Observer Program. [FR Doc. E7-11419 Filed 6-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 72 113 Wednesday, June 13, 2007 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28245; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-047-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Cirrus Design Corporation Models SR20 and SR22 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Cirrus Design Corporation (CDC) Models SR20 and SR22 airplanes. This proposed AD would require you to replace the cabin door rod ends at the upper and lower hinges of the cabin door with newly designed rod ends. This proposed AD results from two known occurrences of in-flight cabin door separation (one total separation and one retained by the door strut). The rod ends, a component of the door hinges, may fail and result in a door separation from the airplane while in flight. We are proposing this AD to prevent in-flight failure of the cabin door, which could result in door separation from the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 13, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to comment on this proposed AD: • DOT Docket Web site: Go to http://dms.dot.gov and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • Fax: (202) 493-2251. • Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Cirrus Design Corporation, 4515 Taylor Circle, Duluth, Minnesota 55811; telephone: (218) 727-2737; Internet address: http://www.cirrusdesign.com . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wess Rouse, Aerospace Engineer, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Room 107, Des Plaines, Illinois 60018; telephone: (847) 294-8113; fax: (847) 297-7834. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number, “FAA-2007-28245; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-047-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive concerning this proposed AD. Discussion We received notification by CDC of a door that separated from a CDC SR22 airplane while in-flight. During descent for landing, the door separated from the airplane and struck the tail of the airplane. There have been many occurrences of broken or bent lower door hinges on CDC Models SR20 and SR22 airplanes, most discovered before flight. This condition, if not corrected, could result in door separation from the airplane. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Cirrus Design Corporation Service Bulletin SB 2X-52-07, dated May 3, 2007. The service information describes procedures for the installation of newly designed rod ends for the cabin door. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. This proposed AD would require you to replace the cabin door rod ends at the upper and lower hinges of the cabin door with newly designed rod ends. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 1,562 airplanes in the U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to do the proposed replacement of the cabin door rod ends: Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane Total cost on U.S. operators 2.5 work-hours × $80 per hour = $200 $60 $260 $406,120 CDC will provide warranty credit as stated in Cirrus Design Corporation Service Bulletin SB 2X-52-07, dated May 3, 2007. 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 proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 proposed 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 a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket that contains the proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov ; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is located at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 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 FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: Cirrus Design Corporation: Docket No. FAA-2007-28245; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-047-AD. Comments Due Date (a) We must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) action by August 13, 2007. Affected ADs (b) None. Applicability (c) This AD applies to the following airplane models and serial numbers that are certificated in any category: Models Serial numbers SR20 1423 through 1796. SR22 0795 and 0820 through 2499. Unsafe Condition (d) This AD results from two known occurrences of in-flight cabin door separation (one total separation and one retained by the door strut). We are proposing this AD to prevent in-flight failure of the cabin door, which could result in door separation from the airplane. Compliance (e) To address this problem, you must do the following, unless already done: Actions Compliance Procedures (1) Remove the old cabin door rod ends (both doors) and replace with the new designed cabin door rod ends, part number 21845-001 Within the next 30 hours time-in-service (TIS) after the effective date of this AD or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first Follow Cirrus Design Corporation Service Bulletin SB 2X-52-07, dated May 3, 2007. (2) Inspect cabin door fit-up and latch for proper fit, adjusting as necessary Within the next 30 hours time-in-service (TIS) after the effective date of this AD or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first Follow Cirrus Design Corporation Service Bulletin SB 2X-52-07, dated May 3, 2007. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (f) The Manager, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Wess Rouse, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Room 107, Des Plaines, Illinois 60018; telephone: (847) 294-8113; fax: (847) 297-7834. 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 (g) To get copies of the service information referenced in this AD, contact Cirrus Design Corporation, 4515 Taylor Circle, Duluth, Minnesota 55811; telephone: (218) 727-2737; Internet address: http://www.cirrusdesign.com . To view the AD docket, go to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, or on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov . The docket number is Docket No. FAA-2007-28245; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-047-AD. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on June 6, 2007. James E. Jackson, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-11386 Filed 6-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28448; Directorate Identifier 2006-SW-24-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter France Model SA-365 N1, AS-365N2, AS 365 N3, SA-366G1, EC 155B, and EC155B1 Helicopters AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: This document proposes superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD) for the specified Eurocopter France (ECF) model helicopters. That AD currently requires a onetime inspection for end play in the pitch control rod assembly double bearing (bearing) using the tail rotor (T/R) hub control plate, and before further flight, replacing the bearing if end play is present. This action would require checking the T/R gearbox (TGB) oil level before the first flight of the day and maintaining the oil at the maximum level for certain helicopters. Also, this action would require, during each required inspection or at certain specified intervals, ensuring the oil is at the maximum level for certain other model helicopters. Also, this action would require inspecting the magnetic plug for chips at specified intervals. Depending on the quantity of chips found, this action would require either replacing the TGB before further flight or further inspecting for axial play in the T/R hub pitch change control spider (spider). If axial play is found in the spider, before further flight, this AD would require replacing the bearing. This proposal is prompted by the finding that metal chips were not detected on the magnetic plug due to insufficient oil flow because the oil in the TGB was being maintained at the minimum level. The actions specified by the proposed AD are intended to detect metal chips on the magnetic plug, to prevent damage to the bearing resulting in end play, loss of T/R pitch control, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 13, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD: • DOT Docket Web site: Go to http://dms.dot.gov and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically; • Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically; • Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590; • Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays; or • Fax: 202-493-2251. You may get the service information identified in this proposed AD from American Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, Texas 75053-4005, telephone (972) 641-3460, fax (972) 641-3527. You may examine the comments to this proposed AD in the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Uday Garadi, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Regulations and Guidance Group, Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0110, telephone (817) 222-5123, fax (817) 222-5961. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to the address listed under the caption ADDRESSES . Include the docket number “FAA-2007-28448, Directorate Identifier 2006-SW-24-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Using the search function of our docket Web site, you can find and read the comments to any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent or signed the comment. You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov. Examining the Docket You may examine the docket that contains the proposed AD, any comments, and other information in person at the Docket Management System (DMS) Docket Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527) is located at the plaza level of the Department of Transportation NASSIF Building in Room PL-401 at 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the DMS receives them. Discussion On April 17, 2006, the FAA issued AD 2006-09-10, Amendment 39-14581 (85 FR 25930). That AD requires a onetime inspection for end play in the bearing using the T/R Hub control plate, and before further flight, replacing the bearing if end play is present. That action was prompted by an incident in which a pilot lost T/R pitch control of a helicopter while landing. The requirements of that AD are intended to detect damage to the bearing resulting in end play and prevent loss of T/R pitch control and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. Since issuing AD 2006-09-10, ECF has issued Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) 05.00.54, dated August 25, 2006, for Model SA-365N1, AS-365N2, AS 365 N3, to replace ASB 05.00.52, dated February 15, 2006. ECF has also issued ASB 05.37 for Model SA 366G1, dated August 25, 2006, to replace ASB 05.36, dated February 15, 2006. Also, ECF has issued ASB 05A015 for Model EC155B and EC155B1, dated August 25, 2006, to replace ASB 05A013, dated February 15, 2005. ASBs 05.00.52, 05.36, and 05A013 introduced a periodic check for absence of end play in the bearing. These ASBs were revised following the loss of yaw control on an AS365 MB helicopter due to progressive deterioration of the bearing. The metal chips resulting from this deterioration remained trapped in the area around the bearing and were not detected by the magnetic plug of the TGB. Further investigation and analyses revealed that the nondetection of the chips resulting from this deterioration was due to insufficient oil flow. This occurs when the oil level in the TGB is continuously maintained at the “min” level. Therefore, the ASBs specify keeping the TGB oil level at maximum level to ensure that any chips resulting from possible deterioration of the bearing are detected by the magnetic plug. Also, the ASBs specify checking for absence of play in the bearing should chips be detected at the magnetic plug of the TGB. The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) classified these ASBs as mandatory and issued Emergency AD (EAD) No. 2006-0258 R1-E on August 29, 2006. This EAD replaced EAD No. 2006-0051-E, dated February 20, 2006, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these helicopters in France. These helicopter models are manufactured in France and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.29 and the applicable bilateral agreement. Under this agreement, EASA has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined EASA's findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that AD action is necessary for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. This previously described unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs. Therefore, the proposed AD would supersede AD 2006-09-10 to require the following: • Before the first flight of each day for Model SA-365N1, AS-365N2, AS 365 N3, and SA-366G1 helicopters, check the T/R gearbox (TGB) oil level. An owner/operator (pilot) holding at least a private pilot certificate may perform the visual check of the oil level but must enter compliance into the aircraft maintenance records in accordance with 14 CFR 43.11 and 91.417(a)(2)(v). A pilot may perform these checks because they involve a routine check and no special tools are required. • If a pilot finds the oil level is not at maximum, before further flight, a qualified mechanic must fill it to the maximum level. • During each required inspection not to exceed 15 hours time-in-service (TIS) or 7 days, whichever occurs first, if the oil level is not at the maximum level, fill it to the maximum level for Model EC 155B and EC155B1 helicopters. • Inspect the magnetic plug of the TGB for any chips at intervals not to exceed: ○ 25 hours TIS for helicopters with a magnetic plug without a chip electrical indication in the cockpit, or ○ 100 hours TIS and after any illumination of the TGB “CHIP” warning light for helicopters with a chip electrical indication in the cockpit. • If you find any chips during the inspection, before further flight, if the quantity of chips on the magnetic plug is at or above the removal criteria, replace the TGB with an airworthy TGB. If the quantity of chips on the magnetic plug is below the removal criteria, inspect for axial play in the T/R hub pitch control change spider (spider). If there is axial play in the spider, replace the bearing with an airworthy bearing. The actions would be required by following the specified portions of the ASBs described previously. We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 133 helicopters of U.S. registry, and the proposed actions would require about: • 1/2 hour to check the oil level, fill the oil to maximum level, and inspect the magnetic plug for metal chips, • 1/2 hour to inspect for end play in the bearing; • 8 hours to remove and replace the bearing (if necessary) at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour; and • $2026 for required parts per helicopter. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $365,218, assuming the bearing is replaced on the entire fleet after 1 oil level check, 1 magnetic plug inspection, and 1 end play inspection. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. Additionally, this proposed AD would 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 proposed 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 a draft economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD. See the DMS to examine the draft 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, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 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 removing Amendment 39-14581 (85 FR 25930, May 3, 2006), and by adding a new airworthiness directive (AD), to read as follows: Eurocopter France: Docket No. FAA-2007-28448; Directorate Identifier 2006-SW-24-AD. Supersedes AD 2006-09-10, Amendment 39-14581, Docket No. FAA-2006-24588, Directorate Identifier 2006-SW-07-AD. Applicability: Model SA-365N1, AS-365N2, AS 365 N3, SA-366G1, EC 155B, and EC155B1 helicopters, with a tail rotor (T/R) pitch control rod assembly double bearing (bearing) installed, certificated in any category. Compliance: Required as indicated. To detect metal chips on the magnetic plug to prevent damage to the bearing resulting in end play, loss of T/R pitch control, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter, do the following: (a) Before the first flight of each day for Model SA-365N1, AS-365N2, AS 365 N3, and SA-366G1 helicopters, check the T/R gearbox (TGB) oil level. An owner/operator (pilot) holding at least a private pilot certificate may perform the visual check of the oil level but must enter compliance into the aircraft maintenance records in accordance with 14 CFR 43.11 and 91.417(a)(2)(v). (b) If the oil level is not at maximum during the check in paragraph (a) of this AD, before further flight, a qualified mechanic must fill it to the maximum level. (c) During each required inspection not to exceed 15 hours time-in-service (TIS) or 7 days, whichever occurs first, if the oil level is not at the maximum level, fill it to the maximum level for Model EC 155B and EC155B1 helicopters. (d) Inspect the magnetic plug of the TGB for any chips as follows: (1) At intervals not to exceed 25 hours TIS for helicopters with a magnetic plug without a chip electrical indication in the cockpit, or (2) At intervals not to exceed 100 hours TIS and after any illumination of the TGB “CHIP” warning light for helicopters with a chip electrical indication in the cockpit. (e) If you find any chips during the inspection in paragraph (d) of this AD, before further flight, follow the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 2.B.2.b), of Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin No. 05.00.54 for Model SA-365N1, AS-365N2, AS 365 N3; No. 05A015 for Model EC 155B and EC155B1; or No. 05.37 for Model SA-366G1 all dated August 25, 2006 (ASBs), as appropriate for your model helicopter. (1) If the quantity of chips on the magnetic plug, as referenced in the Operational Procedures, paragraph 2.B.2.b(1) of the ASBs is at or above the removal criteria, before further flight, replace the TGB with an airworthy TGB. (2) If the quantity of chips on the magnetic plug is below the removal criteria, as referenced in the Operational Procedure, paragraph 2.B.2.b(2) of the ASBs. (i) Inspect for axial play in the T/R hub pitch control change spider (spider) by following the additional steps in the Operational Procedure, paragraph 2.B.2.b(2) of the ASBs. (ii) If there is axial play in the spider, before further flight, replace the bearing with an airworthy bearing. (f) 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, Safety Management Group, ATTN: Uday Garadi, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Regulations and Guidance Group, Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0110, telephone (817) 222-5123, fax (817) 222-5961. (g) Special flight permits will not be issued. Note: The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety Agency Revised Emergency AD No. 2006-0258 R1-E on August 29, 2006, which replaced AD No. 2006-0051-E, dated February 20, 2006. Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on June 5, 2007. Mark R. Schilling, Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-11388 Filed 6-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket No. CGD05-07-059] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulation for Marine Event, Bogue Sound, Morehead City, NC AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish temporary special local regulations for the “Crystal Coast Super Boat Grand Prix”, a power boat race to be held on the waters of Bogue Banks adjacent to Morehead City, NC. These special local regulations are necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during the event. This action is intended to restrict vessel traffic in the Morehead City Turning Basin including sections of the Intra-Coastal Waterways and Morehead City Channel during the power boat race. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before July 13, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander (dpi), Fifth Coast Guard District, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, Virginia, 23704-5004, hand deliver them to Room 119 at the same address between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, fax them to (757) 398-6203, or e-mail them to Dennis.M.Sens@uscg.mil. The Inspections and Investigations Branch, Fifth Coast Guard District, maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at the above address between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: CWO Christopher Humphrey, Prevention Department, Sector North Carolina, at (252) 247-4525 or via e-mail to Christopher.D.Humphrey@uscg.mil . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Request for Comments We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (CGD05-07-059), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them. Public Meeting We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to Fifth Coast Guard District at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register . Background and Purpose On September 23, 2007, the Super Boat International Productions Inc. will sponsor the “Crystal Coast Super Boat Grand Prix”, on the waters of Bogue Sound including the Morehead City Turning Basin, sections of the Intra-Coastal Waterway, and Morehead City Channel at Morehead City, North Carolina. The event will consist of approximately 35 power boats participating in two high-speed competitive races, traveling counter-clockwise around a race course. A fleet of spectator vessels are expected to gather near the event site to view the competition. To provide for the safety of participants, spectators and other transiting vessels, the Coast Guard will temporarily restrict vessel traffic in the event area during the races. Discussion of Proposed Rule The Coast Guard proposes the establishment of special local regulations on specified waters of Bogue Sound. The regulation would be enforced from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on September 23, 2007. The effect of the regulation would be to restrict general navigation in the regulated area during the races. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area. Non-participating vessels will be allowed to transit the regulated area between races, when the Coast Guard Patrol Commander determines it is safe to do so. These regulations are needed to control vessel traffic during the event to enhance the safety of participants, spectators and transiting vessels. Regulatory Evaluation This proposed 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 proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. Although this regulation prevents traffic from transiting a portion of Morehead City State Port Turning Basin, sections of the Intra Coastal Waterway and Morehead City Channel during the event, the effect of this regulation will not be significant due to the limited duration that the regulated area will be in effect. Extensive advance notification will be made to the maritime community via marine information broadcast, local radio stations and area newspapers so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. Additionally, the regulated area has been narrowly tailored to impose the least impact on general navigation yet provide the level of safety deemed necessary. Vessel traffic will be able to transit the regulated area between heats, when the Coast Guard Patrol Commander deems it is safe to do so. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed 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 proposed 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 this section of Bogue Sound including the Morehead City Turning Basin, Atlantic Intra-Coastal waterway and Morehead City Channel from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on September 23, 2007. This proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. Although the regulated area will apply to the Morehead City Channel, Morehead City Turning Basin and a two-mile segment of the Atlantic Intra-coastal Waterway, south and west of the Highway 70 Bridge, from approximately mile 204 of the Atlantic Intra-coastal Waterway to mile 206, traffic may be allowed to pass through the regulated area with the permission of the Coast Guard Patrol Commander. In the case where the Patrol Commander authorizes passage through the regulated area during the event, vessels shall proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course that minimizes wake near the race course. The Patrol Commander will allow non-participating vessels to transit the event area between races. Before the enforcement period, we will issue maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it. 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 proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, contact Coast Guard Sector North Carolina listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT at the beginning of this rule. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed 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 proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This proposed rule would 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 proposed 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 proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this proposed 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 proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is not likely to have a significant effect on the human environment. Draft documentation supporting this preliminary determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100 Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows: PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS 1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233. 2. Add a temporary § 100.35-T05-059 to read as follows: § 100.35-T05-059 Bogue Sound, Morehead City, North Carolina. (a) Regulated area. The regulated area is established for the waters of Bogue Sound, adjacent to Morehead City, NC, from the southern tip of Sugar Loaf Island approximate position latitude 34°42′55″ N longitude 076°42′48″ W, thence westerly to Morehead City Channel Daybeacon 7 (LLNR 38620), thence southwest along the channel line to Bogue Sound Light 4 (LLRN 38770), thence southerly to Causeway Channel Daybeacon 2 (LLNR 38720), thence southeasterly to Money Island Daybeacon 1 (LLNR 38645), thence easterly to Eight and One Half Marina Daybeacon 2 (LLNR 38685), thence easterly to the western most shoreline of Brant Island approximate position latitude 34°42′36″ N longitude 076°42′11″ W, thence northeasterly along the shoreline to Tombstone Point approximate position latitude 34°42′14″ N longitude 076°41′20″ W, thence southeasterly to the east end of the pier at Coast Guard Sector North Carolina approximate position latitude 34°42′00″ N longitude 076°40′52″ W, thence easterly to Morehead City Channel Buoy 20 (LLNR 29427), thence northerly to Beaufort Harbor Channel LT 1BH (LLNR 34810), thence northwesterly to the southern tip of Radio Island approximate position latitude 34°42′22″ N longitude 076°40′52″ W, thence northerly along the shoreline to approximate position latitude 34°43′00″ N longitude 076°41′25″ W, thence westerly to the North Carolina State Port Facility, thence westerly along the State Port to the southwest corner approximate position latitude 34°42′55″ N longitude 076°42′12″ W, thence westerly to the southern tip of Sugar Loaf Island the point of origin. All coordinates reference Datum NAD 1983. (b) Definitions. (1) Coast Guard Patrol Commander means a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the Coast Guard who has been designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector North Carolina. (2) Official Patrol means any person or vessel assigned or approved by Commander, Coast Guard Sector North Carolina with a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer on board and displaying a Coast Guard ensign. (3) Participant includes all vessels participating in the “Crystal Coast Super Boat Grand Prix” under the auspices of the Marine Event Permit issued to the event sponsor and approved by Commander, Coast Guard Sector North Carolina. (c) Special local regulations. (1) Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area. (2) The operator of any vessel in the regulated area must: (i) Stop the vessel immediately when directed to do so by any Official Patrol and then proceed only as directed. (ii) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Official Patrol. (iii) The operator of a vessel in the regulated area shall stop the vessel immediately when instructed to do so by the Official Patrol and then proceed as directed. (iv) When authorized to transit the regulated area, all vessels shall proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course that minimizes wake near the race course. (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on September 23, 2007. Dated: June 5, 2007. Larry L. Hereth, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E7-11344 Filed 6-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2005-AL-0002-200623e; FRL-8326-8] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans Alabama: Approval of Revisions to the State Implementation Plan; Re-Opening of Comment Period AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule; re-opening of public comment period. SUMMARY: EPA is re-opening the comment period for a proposed rule published April 12, 2007 (72 FR 18428). On April 12, 2007, EPA proposed to approve a revision to the State Implementation Plan for the State of Alabama regarding the State's visible emissions rule, Alabama Rule 335-3-4-.01 “Visible Emissions.” At the request of a commentor, EPA is re-opening the comment period through July 11, 2007. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 11, 2007. ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted to: Ms. Stacy Harder, 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. Phone: (404) 562-9042. E-mail: harder.stacy@epa.gov . Additional instructions to comment can be found in the notice of proposed rulemaking published April 12, 2007 (72 FR 18428). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Stacy Harder, 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. The telephone number is (404) 562-9042. Ms. Harder can also be reached via electronic mail at harder.stacy@epa.gov . Dated: June 5, 2007. J.I. Palmer, Jr., Regional Administrator, Region 4. [FR Doc. E7-11412 Filed 6-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0187; FRL-8133-3] Amitraz, Atrazine, Ethephon, Ferbam, Lindane, Propachlor, and Simazine; Proposed Tolerance Actions AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to revoke certain tolerances for the insecticides amitraz and lindane; the herbicides atrazine, propachlor, and simazine; the plant growth regulator ethephon; and the fungicide ferbam. Also, EPA is proposing to modify certain tolerances for the herbicide atrazine, propachlor, and simazine; the insecticide amitraz; the plant growth regulator ethephon; and the fungicide ferbam. In addition, EPA is proposing to establish new tolerances for the herbicide atrazine; the plant growth regulator ethephon. The regulatory actions proposed in this document are in follow-up to the Agency's reregistration program under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and tolerance reassessment program under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) section 408(q). DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 13, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0187, by one of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal : http://www.regulations.gov . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • Mail : Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. • Delivery : OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Docket telephone number is (703) 305-5805. Instructions : Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0187. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at http://www.regulations.gov , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-mail. The Federal regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. Docket : All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available in regulations.gov. 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. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov , or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone number is (703) 305-5805. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Monisha Dandridge, Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 308-0410; e-mail address: dandridge.monisha@epa.gov . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to: • Crop production (NAICS code 111). • Animal production (NAICS code 112). • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311). • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532). This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. To determine whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability provisions in Unit II.A. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 1. Submitting CBI . Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 2. Tips for preparing your comments . When submitting comments, remember to: i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number). ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number. iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives. vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. C. What Can I do if I Wish the Agency to Maintain a Tolerance that the Agency Proposes to Revoke? This proposed rule provides a comment period of 60 days for any person to state an interest in retaining a tolerance proposed for revocation. If EPA receives a comment within the 60-day period to that effect, EPA will not proceed to revoke the tolerance immediately. However, EPA will take steps to ensure the submission of any needed supporting data and will issue an order in the Federal Register under FFDCA section 408(f) if needed. The order would specify data needed and the time frames for its submission, and would require that within 90 days some person or persons notify EPA that they will submit the data. If the data are not submitted as required in the order, EPA will take appropriate action under FFDCA. EPA issues a final rule after considering comments that are submitted in response to this proposed rule. In addition to submitting comments in response to this proposal, you may also submit an objection at the time of the final rule. If you fail to file an objection to the final rule within the time period specified, you will have waived the right to raise any issues resolved in the final rule. After the specified time, issues resolved in the final rule cannot be raised again in any subsequent proceedings. II. Background A. What Action is the Agency Taking? EPA is proposing to revoke, remove, modify, and establish specific tolerances for residues of Amitraz, Atrazine, Ethephon, Ferbam, Lindane, Propachlor, and Simazine in or on commodities listed in the regulatory text. EPA is proposing these tolerance actions to implement the tolerance recommendations made during the reregistration and tolerance reassessment processes (including follow-up on canceled or additional uses of pesticides). As part of these processes, EPA is required to determine whether each of the amended tolerances meets the safety standard of the FFDCA. The safety finding determination of “reasonable certainty of no harm” is discussed in detail in each Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) and Report of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) Tolerance Reassessment Progress and Risk Management Decision (TRED) for the active ingredient. REDs and TREDs recommend the implementation of certain tolerance actions, including modifications to reflect current use patterns, meet safety findings, and change commodity names and groupings in accordance with new EPA policy. Printed copies of many REDs and TREDs may be obtained from EPA's National Service Center for Environmental Publications (EPA/NSCEP), P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, OH 45242-2419, telephone 1-800-490-9198; fax 1-513-489-8695; internet at http://www.epa.gov/ncepihom/ and from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161, telephone 1-800-553-6847 or 703-605-6000; internet at http://www.ntis.gov/ . Electronic copies of REDs and TREDs are available on the internet for amitraz, atrazine, ethephon, ferbam, lindane, propachlor, and simazine and in public dockets EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0048 (amitraz), EPA-HQ-OPP-2003-0367 (atrazine), EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0371 (ethephon), EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0337 (ferbam), EPA-HQ-OPP-2002-0005 (lindane) and EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0151 (simazine), respectively at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/status.htm . The selection of an individual tolerance level is based on crop field residue studies designed to produce the maximum residues under the existing or proposed product label. Generally, the level selected for a tolerance is a value slightly above the maximum residue found in such studies, provided that the tolerance is safe. The evaluation of whether a tolerance is safe is a separate inquiry. EPA recommends the raising of a tolerance when data show that: (1) Lawful use (sometimes through a label change) may result in a higher residue level on the commodity and (2) the tolerance remains safe, notwithstanding increased residue level allowed under the tolerance. In REDs, Chapter IV on “Risk Management, Reregistration, and Tolerance Reassessment” typically describes the regulatory position, FQPA assessment, cumulative safety determination, determination of safety for U.S. general population, and safety for infants and children. In particular, the human health risk assessment document which supports the RED describes risk exposure estimates and whether the Agency has concerns. In TREDs, the Agency discusses its evaluation of the dietary risk associated with the active ingredient and whether it can determine that there is a reasonable certainty (with appropriate mitigation) that no harm to any population subgroup will result from aggregate exposure. EPA also seeks to harmonize tolerances with international standards set by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, as described in Unit III. Explanations for proposed modifications in tolerances can be found in the RED and TRED document and in more detail in the Residue Chemistry Chapter document which supports the RED and TRED. Copies of the Residue Chemistry Chapter documents are found in the Administrative Record and paper copies for amitraz, ferbam, lindane and simazine can be found under their respective public docket numbers, identified above. Paper copies for atrazine, ethephon and propachlor are available in the public docket for this proposed rule. Electronic copies are available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, regulations.gov at http://www.regulations.gov/ . You may search for docket number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0187, then click on that docket number to view its contents. EPA has determined that the aggregate exposures and risks are not of concern for the above mentioned pesticide active ingredients based upon the data identified in the RED or TRED which lists the submitted studies that the Agency found acceptable. EPA has found that the tolerances that are proposed in this document to be modified, are safe; i.e., that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residues, in accordance with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C). (Note that changes to tolerance nomenclature do not constitute modifications of tolerances). These findings are discussed in detail in each RED or TRED. The references are available for inspection as described in this document under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION . In addition, EPA is proposing to revoke certain specific tolerances because they are either no longer needed or are associated with food uses that are no longer registered under FIFRA. Registrations were canceled because the registrant failed to pay the required maintenance fee and/or the registrant voluntarily requested cancellation of one or more registered uses of the pesticide. It is EPA's general practice to propose revocation of those tolerances for residues of pesticide active ingredients on crop uses for which there are no active registrations under FIFRA, unless any person in comments on the proposal indicates a need for the tolerance to cover residues in or on imported commodities or legally treated domestic commodities. 1. Amitraz. According to the TRED, the tolerance expression, which is currently expressed as “residues of the insecticide amitraz ( N ′-[2,4-dimethylphenyl] -N -[[(2,4-dimethylphenyl)imino] methyl]]- N -methylmethanimidamide) and its metabolites N -(2,4-dimethylphenyl) -N- methyl formamide and N -(2,4-dimethyl-phenyl) -N -methylmethanimidamide (both calculated as the parent) in or on the following raw agricultural commodities (RAC) at the following levels” in 40 CFR 180.287 should be modified. EPA has determined that there is no need to require residue data for 2,4-dimethylaniline because the current analytical enforcement methods detect all residues containing the 2,4-dimethylaniline moiety. The tolerance expression should specify that the terminal residues of concern for enforcement purposes are amitraz and its metabolites containing the 2,4-dimethylaniline moiety. Consequently, EPA is proposing that the tolerance expression in 40 CFR 180.287(a) read as follows: “(a) General . Tolerances are established for residues of the insecticide amitraz ( N ′-[2,4-dimethylphenyl] -N- [[(2,4-dimethylphenyl)imino] methyl]]- N -methylmethanimidamide) and its metabolites containing the 2,4-dimethylaniline moiety (calculated as the parent) in or on food commodities, as follows:”. All registered uses of amitraz in beehives have been cancelled and therefore, the Agency determined that the tolerances on honey and honeycomb are no longer needed and should be revoked. Consequently, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.287(a) for residues of amitraz and its metabolites in or on “honey” and “honeycomb.” There have been no active U.S. registrations for use of amitraz on cotton since May 3, 2006. However, Arysta Life Sciences requested that the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.287 on cotton, undelinted seed be retained for import purposes. EPA requires that Arysta Life Sciences submit information to the Agency about the use pattern in foreign countries and residue data from those countries to support the import tolerance. Certain tolerances were based on cotton as a livestock feed item; however there will no longer be any dietary exposure of livestock to amitraz through feed. Since cotton gin byproducts or cotton gin trash are not allowed to be fed to livestock in Europe, EPA does not expect imported meat to have secondary residues of amitraz. And although cottonseed is imported from Australia, U.S. production of cotton is about 55x greater than that produced in Australia. Therefore, even if such imported cottonseed were fed to animals, the contributions to the diet will be insignificant when compared with direct dermal treatment of amitraz to cattle and hogs. Consequently, the tolerances for egg, poultry, goat, and sheep commodities should be revoked. Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke the commodity tolerances in 40 CFR 180.287(a) for residues of amitraz and its metabolites in or on “egg;” “goat, fat;” “goat, meat byproducts;” “goat, meat;” “poultry fat/meat;” “poultry, meat byproducts;” “sheep, fat;” “sheep, meat byproducts;” and “sheep, meat.” For adults, acute dietary risks from use of amitraz on hops, for which an import tolerance exists on dried hops, exceed the Agency's level of concern. The Agency's assessment concluded that the acute dietary risk is driven by the contribution of hops, and the acute dietary exposure estimate for adults 20 to 49 years old is 582% of the acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) at the 99.9th percentile. The Agency has evaluated the human health risks associated with all currently registered uses of amitraz and has determined that there is reasonable certainty that no harm to any population subgroup will result from aggregate non-occupational exposure to amitraz provided the tolerance for residues in or on hops is revoked and the registrant implements the mitigation measures identified in the RED, i.e., to reduce exposure from residential use; the registrant has agreed to reduce the amount of active ingredient in dog collars. Provided that mitigation measures in the RED are implemented and the tolerance on hops, dried cones is revoked, EPA is able to conclude that risk from exposure to amitraz fits within its own risk cup such that the tolerances for amitraz meet the FQPA safety standard. Therefore, under FFDCA section 408(e)(1), EPA is proposing to revoke the import tolerance in or on hop, dried cones in 40 CFR 180.287(a) because it does not meet requirements of FFDCA section 408(b)(2). Currently, direct animal treatments of amitraz are registered for use on cattle and hogs. Based on the available data following dermal treatment and a 3-day pre-slaughter interval on cattle with amitraz which show combined amitraz residues of concern are as high as 0.09 ppm in fat, 0.02 ppm in muscle, and range from 0.08 to 0.21 ppm in kidney and liver, the Agency determined that the tolerances should be decreased on cattle, meat from 0.05 to 0.02 ppm, cattle, meat byproducts from 0.3 to 0.2 ppm and cattle, fat should remain unchanged at 0.1 ppm. Based on available data following dermal treatment of swine with amitraz which show combined amitraz residues of concern in liver and kidney as high as 0.05 ppm and 0.07 ppm, respectively, the Agency determined that the tolerances on hog, liver and hog, kidney should be decreased, from 0.2 to 0.1 ppm. Therefore, EPA is proposing in 40 CFR 180.287(a) to decrease the tolerances for “cattle, meat byproducts” from 0.3 to 0.2 ppm; “cattle, meat” from 0.05 to 0.02 ppm; “hog, kidney” from 0.2 to 0.1 ppm; “hog, liver” from 0.2 to 0.1 ppm; and “milk, fat” from 0.3 to 0.2 ppm. 2. Atrazine. Currently the tolerance expression in 40 CFR 180.220(a)(1) is expressed in terms of residues of atrazine and in paragraph (a)(2) in terms of combined residues of atrazine and its metabolites 2-amino-4-chloro-6-ethylamino-s-triazine, 2-amino-4-chloro-6-isopropylamino-s-triazine, and 2-chloro-4,6-diamino-s-triazine. Because EPA considers residues of chlorinated metabolites of atrazine in both animal and plant commodities to be of toxicological concern, the Agency has determined that atrazine and its chlorinated metabolites (2-amino-4-chloro-6-ethylamino-s-triazine, 2-amino-4-chloro-6-isopropylamino-s-triazine, and 2-chloro-4,6-diamino-s-triazine) should be included in the tolerance expression. Therefore, EPA proposes revising 40 CFR 180.220(a) by combining 40 CFR 180.220(a)(1) and (a)(2) into 40 CFR 180.220(a). Also, EPA is proposing to revise the tolerance expression in proposed recodified § 180.220(a) as follows: “(a) General . Tolerances are established for the combined residues of the herbicide atrazine (2-chloro-4-ethylamino-6-isopropylamino-s-triazine) and its chlorinated metabolites 2-amino-4-chloro-6-isopropylamino-s-triazine, 2-amino-4-chloro-6-ethylamino-s-triazine, and 2,4-diamino-6-chloro-s-triazine, in or on food commodities as follows:” . Currently, there is only one active registration for use of atrazine on perennial rye grass and that use is restricted to the Conservation Reserve Program lands in OK, OR, NE, and TX, and along roadsides in CO, KS, MT, NE, ND, SD, and WY. Because the label restricts grazing and cutting for feed, the Agency has determined that the tolerance on perennial rye grass is no longer needed and should be revoked. Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerances in proposed recodified 40 CFR 180.220(a) for the combined residues of atrazine in or on rye grass, perennial at 15 ppm. Because of the limited acreage, timing of application, restrictions on the use of range grasses for animal feeds, and the dominance of corn as a feed item, range grasses are not expected to impact either the livestock diet or the risk estimates significantly, and consequently were not included in the dietary exposure assessments. Currently, there are active registrations for atrazine use on range grass. Because the registrant has recently submitted new data to the Agency in support of a group tolerance and the range grass use has feeding and grazing restrictions on product labels, the Agency will maintain the existing tolerance. The Agency made a safety finding that atrazine tolerances are safe. Consequently, EPA will not take action to revoke the tolerance for atrazine in 40 CFR 180.220 on range grass at this time. However, in order to reflect current Agency practice the terminology should be revised to read grass, forage and grass, hay. Therefore, EPA is proposing to revise commodity terminology in proposed recodified 40 CFR 180.220(a) to conform to current Agency practice as follows: “grass, range” will be revised to read both “grass, forage” and “grass, hay.” Because EPA no longer considers sugarcane fodder and forage to be significant livestock feed items their tolerances are no longer needed and therefore should be revoked. Consequently, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerances in proposed recodified 40 CFR 180.220(a) for sugarcane, fodder and sugarcane, forage. EPA's listing of significant food and feed commodities (raw and processed) can be found in Table 1 of Guideline OPPTS 860.1000 (available at http://www.epa.gov/opptsfrs/OPPTS_Harmonized/860_Residue_Chemistry_Test_Guidelines/Series/ ). Based on available field trial data that showed combined atrazine residues of concern were as high as 0.27 ppm to 1.59 ppm in or on corn, field, stover and corn, sweet, stover, respectively, the Agency determined that the tolerances on corn, pop, stover; corn, fodder, field; and corn, sweet, stover should be decreased from 15 to 0.5 ppm, 15 to 0.5 ppm, and 15 to 2.0 ppm, respectively. Therefore, EPA is proposing to decrease the tolerances in proposed recodified 40 CFR 180.220(a) on “corn, pop, stover” to 0.5 ppm; “corn, fodder, field” to 0.5 ppm and to revise the commodity terminology to “corn, field, stover;” and “corn, sweet, stover” to 2.0 ppm. Based on field trial data that showed atrazine residues of concern as high as 15 ppm on corn, pop, forage, the Agency determined that the tolerance on corn, pop, forage should be decreased from 15 to 1.5 ppm. Therefore, EPA is proposing to decrease the tolerance in proposed recodified 40 CFR 180.220(a) on “corn, pop, forage” to 1.5 ppm. Based on available field trial data that showed combined atrazine residues of concern were less than 0.2 ppm (less than the combined Limit of Quantitation (LOQs) for atrazine and its chlorometabolites) in or on field corn grain and sweet corn grain, the Agency determined that the tolerances on field corn grain and sweet corn grain should each be decreased from 0.25 to 0.20 ppm. Therefore, EPA is proposing to decrease the tolerances in proposed recodified 40 CFR 180.220(a) from 0.25 to 0.20 ppm for “corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed” and “corn, grain” and revise the terminology to “corn, field, grain” and “corn, pop, grain.” Based on available data that indicate combined atrazine residues of concern were as high as <0.05 ppm in or on macadamia nuts, the Agency determined that the tolerance should be decreased to 0.20 ppm. Therefore, EPA is proposing to decrease the tolerance in proposed recodified 40 CFR 180.220(a) for combined residues of atrazine in or on “nut, macadamia” from 0.25 to 0.20 ppm. Based on available field trial data that indicate the combined atrazine residues of concern as high as 0.20 ppm in or on grain sorghum, and 0.23 ppm in or on sorghum stover, the Agency determined the tolerances should be decreased to 0.20 ppm in or on sorghum, grain; grain; and 0.50 ppm in or on sorghum, stover. EPA is also revising the commodity terminology to reflect current Agency practice. Therefore, EPA proposes decreasing and revising the tolerances in proposed recodified 40 CFR 180.220(a) for the combined residues of atrazine in or on “sorghum, grain” at 0.25 ppm to “sorghum, grain, grain” at 0.20 ppm and “sorghum, fodder” at 15 ppm to 0.50 ppm. Based on field trial data (at 0.8-2x application rate) that show combined atrazine residues of concern as high as <0.20 ppm in or on sugarcane, the Agency determined that the tolerance should be decreased to 0.20 ppm. Therefore, EPA is proposing to decrease the tolerance in proposed recodified 40 CFR 180.220(a) on sugarcane, cane from 0.25 to 0.20 ppm. Based on field trial data that showed atrazine residues of concern as high as 0.06 ppm on wheat grain and 0.34 ppm on wheat straw, EPA determined that the tolerances on wheat grain and wheat straw should be decreased from 0.25 to 0.1 ppm and from 5.0 to 0.5 ppm, respectively. Therefore, EPA is proposing in proposed recodified 40 CFR 180.220(a) to decrease the tolerances on wheat, grain to 0.1 ppm and wheat, straw to 0.5 ppm. In the atrazine RED, the Agency recommends revising the tolerance at 5 ppm on wheat, fodder to wheat, forage and decreasing that tolerance to 1.5 ppm. The Agency believes that a clearer recommendation should have been to establish a tolerance on wheat forage at 1.5 ppm and revise the commodity terminology for the tolerance at 5 ppm on wheat, fodder to “wheat, hay.” Based on field trial data that showed atrazine residues of concern as high as 1.11 ppm on wheat forage, EPA determined that a tolerance on wheat forage should exist at 1.5 ppm. Nevertheless, sometime between July 1, 2002 and July 1, 2003, the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.220 at 5 ppm on wheat, fodder underwent a revision in nomenclature to “wheat, straw,” which resulted in two tolerances on wheat straw, both at 5 ppm. Because there is already a tolerance on wheat straw in 40 CFR 180.220 (see above proposal to decrease the tolerance on wheat straw to 0.5 ppm, which is considered by the Agency to be the appropriate level based on data), the duplicate wheat straw tolerance should be revoked. Therefore, EPA is proposing in 40 CFR 180.220 to revoke the duplicate tolerance on wheat, straw and establish a tolerance on wheat, forage at 1.5 ppm. In addition, based on field trial data that showed atrazine residues of concern as high as 1.11 ppm on wheat forage and adjusting for the difference in dry matter between hay and forage (88% vs. 25%), the Agency expects combined residues of about 3.9 ppm on wheat hay and therefore determined that a tolerance should be established on wheat hay at 5.0 ppm. Consequently, EPA is proposing to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.220(a) on wheat, hay at 5.0 ppm. Based on available field trial data that indicate combined atrazine residues of concern as high as 0.20 ppm in or on sorghum forage, the Agency determined the tolerances should be decreased to 0.25 ppm and revise the terminology to read sorghum, grain, forage and sorghum, forage, forage. However, that recommended tolerance level reduction is based on label restrictions which require that all atrazine labels with postemergent sorghum uses have a minimum PHI of 45 days, and preemergent sorghum uses have a minimum PHI of 60 days. In addition, available field trial data indicate that combined atrazine residues of concern as high as 1.11 ppm and 1.15 ppm in or on corn field forage and corn sweet forage respectively, based on atrazine labels for postemergent and preemergent field corn use which require a minimum PHI of 60-days and a PHI of 45 days for sweet corn use, EPA has determined that these tolerances should be decreased from 15 to 1.5 ppm. After EPA has confirmed that active registrations for the use of atrazine on field and sweet corn forage and sorghum forage have been amended to reflect the appropriate pre-harvest intervals (PHIs), the Agency will take action to modify tolerances on field and sweet corn forage; sorghum forage; milk, and the fat, meat and meat byproducts of cattle, goats, horses, and sheep in proposed recodified 40 CFR 180.220. Therefore, EPA will not take action on these tolerances at this time, but will follow-up with the registrants and address the tolerances, if needed, in a future publication in the Federal Register . However, EPA is proposing to revise commodity terminology in 40 CFR 180.220(a) to conform to current Agency practice as follows: “sorghum, forage” to “sorghum, grain, forage” and “sorghum, forage, forage.” 3. Ethephon. Because there have been no registered uses of ethephon on cranberries and figs since January 1991, the Agency determined that the tolerances are no longer needed and should be revoked. Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.300(a) on “cranberry” and “fig.” Based on available processing data which show that residues of ethephon do not concentrate in or on pearled barley, EPA determined that the tolerance is no longer needed, and therefore should be revoked. Consequently, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.300(a) on “barley, pearled barley.” Because active registrations with use for ethephon on pumpkins prohibit harvesting for human or animal consumption and limit use to seed production only, the Agency has determined that the tolerance on pumpkin is no longer needed. Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.300(a) on “pumpkin.” Based on the Maximum Theoretical Dietary Burden (MTDB) for dairy cattle and available ruminant feeding data (0.93x), ethephon residues in the milk, fat, meat, kidney, and liver of cattle were expected by the Agency (at 1x MTDB) to be as high as 0.008 ppm, 0.108 ppm, 0.017 ppm, 0.686 ppm, and 0.102 ppm, respectively. Therefore, tolerances on the fat and meat of cattle, goats, hogs, horses, and sheep should be decreased from 0.1 to 0.02 ppm; tolerances on meat byproducts of cattle, goats, horses, and sheep should be separated into “meat byproducts, except kidney,” and “kidney,” and the tolerances on meat byproducts, except kidney should be increased from 0.1 to 0.2 ppm and tolerances on kidney should be increased from 0.1 to 1.0 ppm; and the tolerance on milk should be decreased from 0.1 to 0.01 ppm. Consequently, EPA is proposing in 40 CFR 180.300(a) to change some commodity terminology by revising the terminology “cattle, meat byproducts;” “goat, meat byproducts;” “hog, meat byproducts;” “horse, meat byproducts;” and “sheep, meat byproducts” to read “cattle, meat byproducts, except kidney;” “cattle, kidney;” “goat, meat byproducts, except kidney;” “goat, kidney;” “hog, meat byproducts, except kidney;” “hog, kidney;” “horse, meat byproducts, except kidney;” “horse, kidney” and “sheep, meat byproducts, except kidney;” and “sheep, kidney;” respectively. In addition, EPA is proposing to decrease tolerances on “cattle,fat;” “cattle, meat;” “goat, fat;” “goat, meat;” “hog, fat;” “hog, meat;” “horse, fat;” “horse, meat;” “sheep, fat;” and “sheep, meat” to 0.02 ppm. EPA is also proposing to increase tolerances on “cattle, meat byproducts, except kidney;” ; “goat, meat byproducts, except kidney;” “hog, meat byproducts, except kidney;” “horse, meat byproducts, except kidney;” and “sheep, meat byproducts, except kidney to 0.2 ppm; and to increase tolerances on ”cattle, kidney;“ ”goat, kidney;“ ”hog, kidney;“ ”horse, kidney;“ and ”sheep, kidney“ to 1.0 ppm; and decrease the tolerance on ”milk“ to 0.01 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. Based on the available data that show residues of ethephon as high as 0.49 ppm and 4.93 ppm in or on coffee, bean, green and cotton, undelinted seed, respectively, EPA determined that the tolerances on coffee, bean, green and cotton, undelinted seed should be increased from 0.1 to 0.5 ppm and 2.0 to 6.0 ppm, respectively. Therefore, the Agency is proposing to increase the tolerance on “coffee, bean, green” and on “cotton, undelinted seed” in 40 CFR 180.300(a) to 0.5 ppm, and 6.0 ppm, respectively; and to remove the “(N)” designation to conform to current Agency administrative practice, where the “(N)” designation means negligible residues. 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. Compatibility exists between the reassessed U.S. tolerance of 5.0 ppm and Codex MRL for ethephon residues in or on apples. However, because data indicate that ethephon residues concentrate (1.6x) in apple juice, EPA determined that a tolerance should be established at 10.0 ppm in apple, juice. Therefore, the Agency is proposing to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.300(a) in “apple, juice” at 10.0 ppm. Based on data that show ethephon residues as high as 150.0 ppm in or on cotton gin byproducts, EPA determined that a tolerance on cotton gin byproducts should be established at 180.0 ppm. Therefore, the Agency is proposing to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.300(a) on “cotton, gin byproducts” at 180.0 ppm. Based on the available data that show ethephon residues as high as 0.52 ppm in or on filbert, EPA determined that a tolerance on filbert should be established at 0.80 ppm. Therefore, the Agency is proposing to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.300(a) on “filbert” at 0.80 ppm. Based on data that show ethephon residues <2.0 ppm in wheat grain and that residues concentrate (1.8x) in wheat germ, EPA determined that a tolerance should be established at 5.0 ppm in or on wheat, germ. Therefore, the Agency is proposing to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.300(a) on “wheat, germ” at 5.0 ppm. Based on available exaggerated (1.6x MTDB) poultry feeding data that show residues of ethephon as high as 0.0036 ppm in eggs, 0.032 ppm in fat, 0.015 ppm in meat, and 0.068 ppm in liver, EPA calculated residues to be 0.002 ppm in egg, 0.02 ppm in fat, 0.009 ppm in meat, and 0.04 ppm in liver at the 1x MTDB for poultry. The Agency determined that the tolerances should be established on egg at 0.002 ppm, fat at 0.02 ppm, meat and meat byproducts, except liver at 0.01 ppm, and liver at 0.05 ppm. Therefore, EPA is proposing to establish tolerances in 40 CFR 180.300(a) on “egg” at 0.002 ppm; “poultry, fat” at 0.02 ppm; “poultry, meat” at 0.01 ppm; “poultry, meat byproducts, except liver” at 0.01 ppm; and “poultry, liver” at 0.05 ppm. Cucumber was not included in the dietary risk assessment for ethephon because the use was to become non-food; i.e., limited to cucumbers grown for seed production and product labels were to include that limitation and a restriction to prohibit the harvesting of treated cucumbers for human or animal consumption. Therefore, the ethephon RED recommended revocation of the tolerance on cucumber. However, based on the estimated acute and chronic dietary risks of ethephon are 77% of the aPAD and 16% of the chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD), the relatively low tolerance level for cucumber (0.1 ppm) and maximum estimate of 1% crop treated (about 2000 acres), the Agency determined that the addition of cucumbers to the dietary risk assessment would not significantly contribute to dietary or drinking water risk estimates. Currently, the Agency is in the process of confirming the completeness of amendments for two active registrations concerning the inclusion of the limitation and restriction on cucumber use (particularly under the product label application instructions for California only). Consequently, the Agency will not propose to take action on the cucumber tolerance in 40 CFR 180.300(a) for ethephon at this time, but expects to address it in a future publication in the Federal Register . The proposed tolerance actions herein for ethephon, to implement the recommendations of the ethephon TRED, reflect use patterns in the United States which support a different tolerance than the Codex value on cottonseed; chicken eggs; meat of poultry; meat of cattle, goats, hogs, horses, and sheep; and milk of cattle, goats, and sheep. However, compatibility exists between the reassessed U.S. tolerances and Codex MRLs for ethephon residues in or on apples, blueberries, cherries, pineapples, tomatoes, and walnuts. 4. Ferbam. Tolerances for residues of ferbam in or on food and feed commodities are currently established under 40 CFR 180.114(a) for residues of the fungicide ferbam (ferric dimethyldithiocarbamate), calculated as zinc ethylenebisdithiocarbamate (zineb). Current analytical methodology employs common moiety detection in which dithiocarbamate residues are converted to carbon disulfide (CS2). Based on this new methodology, the Agency has determined that the tolerance expression should reflect residues of ferbam (ferric dimethyldithiocarbamate), calculated as carbon disulfide. Therefore, EPA is proposing to modify the tolerance expression in 40 CFR 180.114(a) to residues of the fungicide ferbam (ferric dimethyldithiocarbamate) calculated as carbon disulfide. In order to account for the conversion of ferbam residues previously calculated as zineb to that calculated as carbon disulfide, EPA determined that a conversion factor of 0.55x should be applied to existing tolerance levels. Consequently, the tolerances for apples, cherries, cranberries, citrus fruit, grapes, mangoes, nectarines, peaches, and pears currently at 7 ppm should be decreased to 4 ppm. Also, because mango has only one active FIFRA section 24(c) registration for use in Florida, the tolerance should be moved from § 180.114(a) to § 180.114(c) for regional tolerances. Therefore, EPA is proposing to decrease the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.114(a) on “apple;” “cherry;” “cranberry;” “grape;” “nectarine;” “peach;” and “pear;” each to 4.0 ppm; “fruit, citrus” to 4.0 ppm; revise the commodity terminology for fruit, citrus to read “fruit, citrus, group 10” to decrease the tolerance on mango to 4.0 ppm and recodify the entry for mango into § 180.114(c). There have been no active ferbam registrations on apricot, asparagus, blueberries, boysenberries, cucumbers, peas, squash, and tomatoes in the United States since 1998. There have been no active ferbam registrations on blackberries, dewberries, loganberries, or youngberries in the United States since October, 2004. Because their tolerances are no longer needed, EPA is proposing to revoke the commodity tolerances in 40 CFR 180.114(a) for residues of ferbam in or on “apricot;” “blackberry;” “blueberry;” “boysenberry;” “dewberry;” “loganberry;” “pea;” “squash;” and “youngberry.” There have been no active ferbam registrations on beans, cabbage, lettuce, and raspberries since July 3, 2006 and existing stocks were allowed by the Agency to be sold and distributed until October 27, 2006 (70 FR 62112, October 28, 2005) (FRL-7743-6). The Agency believes that end users will have sufficient time to exhaust existing stocks and for treated commodities to have cleared the channels of trade by October 27, 2007. Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.114(a) for residues of ferbam on “bean,” “cabbage,” “lettuce,” and “raspberry” with an expiration/revocation date of October 27, 2007. On October 26, 1998 (63 FR 57067)(FRL-6035-6), EPA published a final rule in the Federal Register in which it responded to the comment by Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR-4) that it would support uses of ferbam on guava and papaya. However, in a correspondence to the Agency dated February 24, 2005, IR-4 withdrew its support for the use of ferbam on papaya. Also, in recent correspondence, the IR-4 no longer expressed that it was interested in supporting the use of ferbam on guava. Because there are no active registrations for ferbam use on guava and papaya and there is no longer an expressed need for their tolerances, these tolerances should be revoked. Therefore, the Agency is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.114(a) on guava and papaya. Also, on October 26, 1998 (63 FR 57067)(FRL-6035-6), EPA published a final rule in the Federal Register in which it responded to the Canadian Horticultural Council's comment asking that certain tolerances, including those in 40 CFR 180.114 for ferbam use on asparagus, cucumbers, and tomatoes, not be revoked. At that time, the Agency responded that it would not revoke the tolerances on asparagus, cucumbers, and tomatoes in 40 CFR 180.114. However, in the interim, no interested party has declared a need for tolerances on asparagus, cucumber, or tomato commodities and interest in providing the appropriate data for import purposes. Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.114 on asparagus, cucumber, and tomato. There are no Codex Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) for ferbam use per se. However, Codex MRLs exist for the dithiocarbamates from the use of various dithiocarbamates and they are currently expressed as total dithiocarbamates, determined or carbon disulfide (milligrams/kilogram (mg/kg)). The proposed modification of the U.S. tolerance expression for ferbam to be calculated as carbon disulfide will improve the comparison between U.S. tolerances on ferbam with Codex MRLs on total dithiocarbamates. The proposed U.S. tolerances of 4.0 ppm for ferbam residues (calculated as carbon disulfide) on cranberry and citrus fruit are different from the Codex MRLs of 5.0 and 10.0 mg/kg for total dithiocarbamate residues (calculated as carbon disulfide) on cranberry and mandarins, respectively. The difference may reflect different use patterns in the United States which support a different tolerance level and/or result from Codex's inclusion of various dithiocarbamates in its tolerance definition. 5. Lindane. In July 2006, EPA created an addendum to the July 2002 Lindane RED. Both documents are available in public docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2002-0202. In the 2006 Lindane RED Addendum, which reflects the Agency's conclusions on the lindane seed treatment uses in light of the information gathered since the 2002 RED, the Agency established that lindane seed treatment uses are ineligible for reregistration and that the existing lindane fat tolerances should be revoked. In the addendum, the Agency concludes that the risks of continued use of lindane outweigh the benefits. In addition, the addendum noted that as of July 27, 2006, the Agency had received requests from all lindane technical and end-use product registrants to voluntarily cancel all lindane product registrations. Consequently, in the Federal Register notice of August 23, 2006 (71 FR 49445) (FRL-8089-1), EPA published its receipt of requests to voluntarily cancel lindane registrations and provided a public comment period. The Agency did not receive any comments that required further review of the cancellation requests. Further, the registrants did not withdraw their requests. Accordingly, EPA sent final cancellation orders to the registrants granting the requested cancellations and published a notice announcing these cancellation orders in the Federal Register on December 13, 2006 (71 FR 74905) (FRL-8103-4). In that notice, EPA announced issuance of final orders cancelling the registrations of all pesticide products containing the pesticide lindane, including those concerning lindane registrations for use as a seed treatment on grain. The cancellation of manufacturing-use products was effective on October 4, 2006, and the cancellation of end-use products is effective on July 1, 2007. The Agency has established in the cancellation orders that July 1, 2007 is the last day on which these lindane manufacturing-use products can be used and October 1, 2009 is the last day on which these lindane end-use products can be used. FFDCA section 408(l)(5) protects treated commodities that are still in the channels of trade after revocation if they were lawfully treated. Because lindane seed treatment registrations are canceled as described above, EPA believes that the associated tolerances for the fat of cattle, goats, hogs, horses, and sheep fed lindane-treated seeds will no longer be needed after October 1, 2009. Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke tolerances in 40 CFR 180.133 on “cattle, fat;” “goat, fat;” “hog, fat;” “horse, fat;” and “sheep, fat” with an expiration/revocation date of October 2, 2009. Also, because the time-limited tolerances on “broccoli;” “brussels sprouts;” “cabbage;” and “cauliflower” expired on April 26, 2007, EPA is proposing to remove them from 40 CFR 180.133. 6. Propachlor. Currently, propachlor tolerances are established in 40 CFR 180.211(a) for residues of propachlor and its metabolites, calculated as propachlor. The Agency determined that residues of concern are propachlor and its metabolites which contain the N -isopropylaniline moiety. Therefore, EPA is proposing to revise the tolerance expression in 40 CFR 180.211(a) as follows: “(a) General . Tolerances are established for the combined residues of the herbicide 2-chloro -N- isopropylacetanilide and its metabolites containing the N -isopropylaniline moiety, calculated as 2-chloro -N- isopropylacetanilide, in or on the following raw agricultural commodities:” Also, in 40 CFR 180.211(a), EPA is proposing to remove the “(N)” designation from all entries to conform to current Agency administrative practice, where the “(N)” designation means negligible residues. Based on poultry feeding data and MTDB for poultry, EPA determined that there is no reasonable expectation of finite residues of propazine residues of concern in eggs (<0.02 ppm at 60x MTDB) and in the fat, meat, and meat byproducts of poultry (as high as 0.02 ppm at 60x MTDB) resulting from the feeding of propachlor treated commodities. Therefore, the tolerances on fat, meat, meat byproducts for poultry are no longer needed in accordance with 40 CFR 180.6(a)(3). Consequently, the Agency is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.211 on “egg;” “poultry, fat;” “poultry, meat;” and “poultry, meat byproducts.” Based on available exaggerated cattle feeding data that show combined propachlor residues of concern at the dose level of 1.3x MTDB as high as 0.12 in kidney, and 0.04 ppm in fat and liver, EPA determined that tolerances on the fat and meat byproducts of cattle, goats, horses, and sheep should be increased from 0.02 to 0.05 ppm, and individual tolerances on the kidney of goats, horses, and sheep should be separated from “meat byproducts” and increased to 0.2 ppm. Therefore, the Agency is proposing to increase the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.211 on “cattle, fat;” “goat, fat;” “horse, fat;” and “sheep, fat” to 0.05 ppm; revise their commodity terminologies to read “cattle, meat byproducts, except kidney;” “goat, meat byproducts, except kidney;” “horse, meat byproducts, except kidney;” and “sheep, meat byproducts, except kidney;” increase tolerances on cattle, meat byproducts, except kidney; goats, meat byproducts, except kidney; horse, meat byproducts, except kidney; and sheep, meat byproducts, except kidney; to 0.05 ppm and establish separate tolerances for “cattle, kidney;” “goat, kidney;” “horse, kidney;” and “sheep, kidney” at 0.2 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. Based on available data that showed combined propachlor residues of concern as high as 7.67 ppm and 10.59 ppm in or on sorghum forage and stover, respectively, EPA determined that the tolerances on sorghum forage and sorghum, grain, stover should each be increased from 5.0 to 8.0 ppm and 12.0 ppm, respectively. Therefore, EPA is proposing in 40 CFR 180.211 to revise the commodity terminology “sorghum, forage” to read “sorghum, grain, forage” and “sorghum, forage, forage” and increase the tolerance from 5.0 to 8.0 ppm; and increase “sorghum, grain, stover” from 5.0 to 12.0 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. Based on available data that showed combined propachlor residues of concern as high as 0.19 ppm and 2.12 ppm in or on corn grain and forage, respectively, EPA determined that the tolerances on corn grain and corn forage should be increased from 0.1 to 0.2 ppm and 1.5 to 3.0 ppm, respectively. Therefore, the Agency is proposing in 40 CFR 180.211 to revise the commodity terminology for “corn, grain” to read “corn, field, grain” and to increase the tolerance on corn, field, grain to 0.2 ppm, to increase “corn, forage” to 3.0 ppm, and revise the commodity terminology to read “corn, field, forage” and “corn, sweet, forage.” 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. Based on available data that showed combined propachlor residues of concern no greater than 1.0 ppm in or on corn stover, EPA determined that the tolerance on corn stover should be established at 1.0 ppm. Therefore, the Agency is proposing to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.211(a) on corn, field, stover at 1.0 ppm. In addition, EPA is proposing to revise commodity terminology in 40 CFR 180.211 to conform to current Agency practices as follows: “sorghum, grain” to “sorghum, grain, grain.” 7. Simazine. Because there are no active food use U.S. registrations on bermuda grass and no active U.S. registrations for simazine use associated with banana and fish, their tolerances are no longer needed and therefore should be revoked. Consequently, EPA is proposing to revoke in 40 CFR 180.213(a)(1) the tolerances on “bermuda grass;” “bermudagrass, forage;” and “bermudagrass, hay” and proposing to revoke in 40 CFR 180.213(a)(2) the tolerances on “banana” and “fish” and remove § 180.213(a)(2). Currently, simazine tolerances are established in 40 CFR 180.213(a)(1) for residues of simazine only. The Agency determined that residues of concern are simazine and its two chlorinated degradates. Therefore, EPA is proposing to revise 40 CFR 180.213(a) to read as follows: “(a) General . Tolerances are established for the combined residues of the herbicide simazine (2-chloro-4,6-bis(ethylamino)-s-triazine) and its two chlorinated degradates (2-amino-4-chloro-6-ethylamino-s-triazine and 2,4-diamino-6-chloro-s-triazine), the total residue to be measured in or on the following food commodities:”. The revision of 180.213(a) will eliminate paragraph designations (a)(1) and (a)(2). Because there are no active food use U.S. registrations on alfalfa and sugarcane, molasses, the Agency has determined the tolerances in or on alfalfa and sugarcane, molasses should be revoked. Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.213 in or on “alfalfa;” “alfalfa, forage;” “alfalfa, hay;” and “sugarcane, molasses.” Also, because the time-limited tolerances on “artichoke, globe;” “asparagus;” and “sugarcane, cane” expired on December 31, 2000, EPA is proposing to remove them from 40 CFR 180.213. Because there no longer are registered uses of simazine on pasture and rangeland grasses, the tolerances on grass, grass forage, and grass hay are no longer needed. Consequently, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.213 on “grass;” “grass, forage;” and “grass, hay.” Because the use of simazine on boysenberry and dewberry is covered by the reassessed tolerance on blackberry, the tolerances on boysenberry and dewberry are no longer needed and therefore should be revoked. Consequently, EPA is proposing to remove the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.213 on “boysenberry” and “dewberry,” in accordance with 40 CFR 180.1(g), since the tolerance on blackberry covers boysenberry and dewberry. Based on poultry feeding data and MTDB for poultry, EPA determined that there is no reasonable expectation of finite residues of simazine residues of concern in the fat, meat, and meat byproducts of poultry resulting from the feeding of simazine treated commodities. Therefore, the tolerances on fat, meat, meat byproducts for poultry are no longer needed in accordance with 40 CFR 180.6(a)(3). Consequently, the Agency is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.213 on “poultry, fat;” “poultry, meat;” and “poultry, meat byproducts.” However, because detectable residues of 2,4-diamino-6-chloro-s-triazine were found in egg at 6.3x the MTDB, the Agency determined that the tolerance on egg should be increased from 0.02 ppm and set at the combined LOQ of 0.03 ppm. Therefore, the Agency is proposing to increase the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.213 on “egg” to 0.03 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. Based on ruminant feeding data and MTDB for swine, EPA determined that there is no reasonable expectation of finite residues of simazine residues of concern in the fat, meat, and meat byproducts of hogs resulting from the feeding of simazine treated commodities. Therefore, the tolerances on fat, meat, meat byproducts for hogs are no longer needed inaccordance with 40 CFR 180.6(a)(3). Consequently, the Agency is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.213 on “hog, fat;” “hog, meat;” and “hog, meat byproducts.” Based on ruminant feeding data for (5.6 to 6.0x MTDB) simazine that show combined residues were <0.03 ppm (below the combined LOQ of 0.03 ppm), EPA determined that there is no reasonable expectation of finite combined simazine residues of concern in the fat of cattle, goats, horse, and sheep. Therefore, the tolerances on the fat for cattle, goats, horses and sheep are no longer needed in accordance with 40 CFR 180.6(a)(3). Consequently, the Agency is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.213 on “cattle, fat;” “goat, fat;” “horse, fat;” and “sheep, fat.” In addition, based on available exaggerated ruminant feeding data that show combined residues were quantifiable at the dose level of 11.2 to 12.0x MTDB of simazine, EPA determined that tolerances on the meat and meat byproducts of cattle, goats, horses, and sheep, and milk should be set at the combined LOQ of 0.03 ppm and increased from 0.02 to 0.03 ppm. Therefore, the Agency is proposing to increase the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.213 on “cattle, meat;” “cattle, meat byproducts;” “goat, meat;” “goat, meat byproducts;” “horse, meat;” “horse, meat byproducts;” “sheep, meat;” “sheep, meat byproducts;” and “milk” to 0.03 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. Based on available data that showed combined simazine residues of concern as high as <0.15 ppm in or on apples, avocados, corn, forage, corn, grain, grapes, olives, and peaches, and <0.20 ppm in or on plums, EPA determined that the tolerances on these commodities should each be decreased from 0.25 to 0.20 ppm. Therefore, the Agency is proposing to decrease the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.213 on “apple,” “avocado,” “corn, forage;” “corn, grain;” “grape,” “olive,” “peach,” and “plum” to 0.20 ppm and to revise the commodity terminology for “corn, forage” to read “corn, field, forage” and “corn, sweet, forage” and for “corn, grain” to read “corn, field, grain” and “corn, pop, grain.” In addition, EPA is proposing to revise the commodity terminology in 40 CFR 180.213 for “corn, stover” to read “corn, field, stover;” “corn, pop, stover;” and “corn, sweet, stover.” Based on available data that showed combined simazine residues of concern as high as <0.15 ppm in or on blueberries and raspberries, EPA determined that the tolerances on these commodities should each be decreased from 0.25 to 0.20 ppm. Also, the Agency believes that data for the two chlorinated degradates of simazine can be translated from raspberries to blackberries and loganberries. From the translated data and existing data for simazine residues only on blackberry and loganberry, EPA determined that the tolerances on blackberry and loganberry should also be decreased from 0.25 to 0.20 ppm. Therefore, the Agency is proposing to decrease the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.213 on “blueberry,” “blackberry,” “loganberry,” and “raspberry” to 0.20 ppm. Based on available data that showed combined simazine residues of concern as high as <0.20 ppm in or on pecans, EPA determined that the tolerance on pecans should be increased from 0.1 to 0.20 ppm. Also, the Agency believes that data can be translated from pecans to filberts, and that the tolerance on filbert should be decreased from 0.25 to 0.20 ppm. Therefore, the Agency is proposing in 40 CFR 180.213 to decrease the tolerance on “filbert” to 0.20 ppm, increase the tolerance on “pecan” to 0.20 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. Also, in 40 CFR 180.213, EPA is proposing to remove the “(N)” designation from all entries to conform to current Agency administrative practice, where the “(N)” designation means negligible residues. In addition, in 40 CFR 180.213, EPA is proposing to revise commodity terminology for “orange, sweet” to read “orange” to conform to current Agency practice. B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action? A “tolerance” represents the maximum level for residues of pesticide chemicals legally allowed in or on raw agricultural commodities and processed foods. Section 408 of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a, as amended by the FQPA of 1996, Public Law 104-170, authorizes the establishment of tolerances, exemptions from tolerance requirements, modifications in tolerances, and revocation of tolerances for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on raw agricultural commodities and processed foods. Without a tolerance or exemption, food containing pesticide residues is considered to be unsafe and therefore “adulterated” under section 402(a) of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 342(a). Such food may not be distributed in interstate commerce (21 U.S.C. 331(a)). For a food-use pesticide to be sold and distributed, the pesticide must not only have appropriate tolerances under the FFDCA, but also must be registered under FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq. ). Food-use pesticides not registered in the United States must have tolerances in order for commodities treated with those pesticides to be imported into the United States. EPA is proposing these tolerance actions in follow-up to the tolerance recommendations made during the reregistration and tolerance reassessment processes (including follow-up on canceled or additional uses of pesticides). The safety finding determination under section 408 of the FFDCA standard is discussed in detail in each Post-FQPA RED and TRED for the active ingredient. REDs and TREDs recommend the implementation of certain tolerance actions, including modifications to reflect current use patterns, to meet safety findings, and change commodity names and groupings in accordance with new EPA policy. Printed and electronic copies of the REDs and TREDs are available as provided in Unit II.A. EPA has issued Post-FQPA REDs for atrazine, ferbam, lindane, propachlor, and simazine, and TREDs for amitraz, and ethephon, whose REDs were both completed prior to FQPA. REDs and TREDs contain the Agency's evaluation of the data base for these pesticides, including requirements for additional data on the active ingredients to confirm the potential human health and environmental risk assessments associated with current product uses, and in REDs state conditions under which these uses and products will be eligible for reregistration. The REDs and TREDs recommended the establishment, modification, and/or revocation of specific tolerances. RED and TRED recommendations such as establishing or modifying tolerances, and in some cases revoking tolerances, are the result of assessment under the FFDCA standard of “reasonable certainty of no harm.” However, tolerance revocations recommended in REDs and TREDs that are proposed in this document do not need such assessment when the tolerances are no longer necessary. EPA's general practice is to propose revocation of tolerances for residues of pesticide active ingredients on crops for which FIFRA registrations no longer exist and on which the pesticide may therefore no longer be used in the United States. EPA has historically been concerned that retention of tolerances that are not necessary to cover residues in or on legally treated foods may encourage misuse of pesticides within the United States. Nonetheless, EPA will establish and maintain tolerances even when corresponding domestic uses are canceled if the tolerances, which EPA refers to as “import tolerances,” are necessary to allow importation into the United States of food containing such pesticide residues. However, where there are no imported commodities that require these import tolerances, the Agency believes it is appropriate to revoke tolerances for unregistered pesticides in order to prevent potential misuse. Furthermore, as a general matter, the Agency believes that retention of import tolerances not needed to cover any imported food may result in unnecessary restriction on trade of pesticides and foods. Under section 408 of the FFDCA, a tolerance may only be established or maintained if EPA determines that the tolerance is safe based on a number of factors, including an assessment of the aggregate exposure to the pesticide and an assessment of the cumulative effects of such pesticide and other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity. In doing so, EPA must consider potential contributions to such exposure from all tolerances. If the cumulative risk is such that the tolerances in aggregate are not safe, then every one of these tolerances is potentially vulnerable to revocation. Furthermore, if unneeded tolerances are included in the aggregate and cumulative risk assessments, the estimated exposure to the pesticide would be inflated. Consequently, it may be more difficult for others to obtain needed tolerances or to register needed new uses. To avoid potential trade restrictions, the Agency is proposing to revoke tolerances for residues on crops uses for which FIFRA registrations no longer exist, unless someone expresses a need for such tolerances. Through this proposed rule, the Agency is inviting individuals who need these import tolerances to identify themselves and the tolerances that are needed to cover imported commodities. Parties interested in retention of the tolerances should be aware that additional data may be needed to support retention. These parties should be aware that, under FFDCA section 408(f), if the Agency determines that additional information is reasonably required to support the continuation of a tolerance, EPA may require that parties interested in maintaining the tolerances provide the necessary information. If the requisite information is not submitted, EPA may issue an order revoking the tolerance at issue. EPA has developed guidance concerning submissions for import tolerance support (65 FR 35069, June 1, 2000) (FRL-6559-3). This guidance will be made available to interested persons. Electronic copies are available on the internet at http://www.epa.gov/ . On the Home Page select “Laws, Regulations, and Dockets,” then select Regulations and Proposed Rules and then look up the entry for this document under “ Federal Register —Environmental Documents.” You can also go directly to the “ Federal Register ” listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/ . When EPA establishes tolerances for pesticide residues in or on raw agricultural commodities, consideration must be given to the possible residues of those chemicals in meat, milk, poultry, and/or eggs produced by animals that are fed agricultural products (for example, grain or hay) containing pesticides residues (40 CFR 180.6). When considering this possibility, EPA can conclude that: 1. Finite residues will exist in meat, milk, poultry, and/or eggs. 2. There is a reasonable expectation that finite residues will exist. 3. There is a reasonable expectation that finite residues will not exist. If there is no reasonable expectation of finite pesticide residues in or on meat, milk, poultry, or eggs, tolerances do not need to be established for these commodities (40 CFR 180.6(b) and (c)). EPA has evaluated certain specific meat, milk, poultry, and egg tolerances proposed for revocation in this proposed rule and has concluded that there is no reasonable expectation of finite pesticide residues of concern in or on those commodities. C. When do These Actions Become Effective? With the exception of certain tolerances for ferbam and lindane for which EPA is proposing specific expiration/revocation dates, the Agency is proposing that the actions herein become effective on the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register . With the exception of the revocation of specific tolerances for ferbam and lindane, the Agency believes that existing stocks of pesticide products labeled for the uses associated with the tolerances proposed for revocation have been completely exhausted and that treated commodities have had sufficient time for passage through the channels of trade. EPA is proposing an expiration/revocation date of October 27, 2007 for the ferbam tolerances on bean, cabbage, lettuce, and raspberry and an expiration/revocation date of October 2, 2009 for the lindane tolerances on the fat of cattle, goats, hops, horses, and sheep. The Agency believes that these revocation dates allow users to exhaust stocks and allow sufficient time for passage of treated commodities through the channels of trade. However, if EPA is presented with information that existing stocks would still be available and that information is verified, the Agency will consider extending the expiration date of the tolerance. If you have comments regarding existing stocks and whether the effective date allows sufficient time for treated commodities to clear the channels of trade, please submit comments as described under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION . Any commodities listed in this proposal treated with the pesticides subject to this proposal, and in the channels of trade following the tolerance revocations, shall be subject to FFDCA section 408(1)(5), as established by FQPA. Under this section, any residues of these pesticides in or on such food shall not render the food adulterated so long as it is shown to the satisfaction of the Food and Drug Administration that: 1. The residue is present as the result of an application or use of the pesticide at a time and in a manner that was lawful under FIFRA, and 2. The residue does not exceed the level that was authorized at the time of the application or use to be present on the food under a tolerance or exemption from tolerance. Evidence to show that food was lawfully treated may include records that verify the dates when the pesticide was applied to such food. III. Are the Proposed Actions Consistent with International Obligations? The tolerance actions in this proposal are not discriminatory and are designed to ensure that both domestically produced and imported foods meet the food safety standards established by the FFDCA. The same food safety standards apply to domestically produced and imported foods. 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 Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, as required by Section 408(b)(4) of the 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, FFDCA Section 408(b)(4) 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 Unit II.A. Specific tolerance actions in this rule and how they compare to Codex MRLs (if any) are discussed in Unit II.A. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews In this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to establish tolerances under FFDCA section 408(e), and also modify and revoke specific tolerances established under FFDCA section 408. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions (e.g., establishment and modification of a tolerance and tolerance revocation for which extraordinary circumstances do not exist) from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this proposed rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of significance, this proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled * Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use * (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This proposed rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. , or impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4). Nor does it require any special considerations as required by Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994); or OMB review or any other Agency action under Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), the Agency previously assessed whether establishment of tolerances, exemptions from tolerances, raising of tolerance levels, expansion of exemptions, or revocations might significantly impact a substantial number of small entities and concluded that, as a general matter, these actions do not impose a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. These analyses for tolerance establishments and modifications, and for tolerance revocations were published on May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950) and on December 17, 1997 (62 FR 66020), respectively, and were provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. Taking into account this analysis, and available information concerning the pesticides listed in this proposed rule, the Agency hereby certifies that this proposed action will not have a significant negative economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In a memorandum dated May 25, 2001, EPA determined that eight conditions must all be satisfied in order for an import tolerance or tolerance exemption revocation to adversely affect a significant number of small entity importers, and that there is a negligible joint probability of all eight conditions holding simultaneously with respect to any particular revocation. Furthermore, for the pesticides named in this proposed rule, the Agency knows of no extraordinary circumstances that exist as to the present proposal that would change the EPA's previous analysis. Any comments about the Agency's determination should be submitted to the EPA along with comments on the proposal, and will be addressed prior to issuing a final rule. In addition, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” This proposed rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers and food retailers, not States. This action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of section 408(n)(4) of the FFDCA. For these same reasons, the Agency has determined that this proposed rule does not have any “tribal implications” as described in Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000). Executive Order 13175, requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” “Policies that have tribal implications” is defined in the Executive order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.” This proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: June 3, 2007. Debra Edwards, Director, Office of Pesticide Programs. Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR chapter I be amended as follows: PART 180 —[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. 2. Section 180.114 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and adding text to paragraph (c) to read as follows: §180.114 Ferbam; tolerances for residues. (a) General . Tolerances are established for residues of the fungicide ferbam (ferric dimethyldithiocarbamate), calculated as carbon disulfide, in or on food commodities as follows: Commodity Parts per million Expiration/Revocation Date Apple 4.0 1 None Bean 7.0 1 10/27/07 Cabbage 7.0 1 10/27/07 Cherry 4.0 1 None Cranberry 4.0 1 None Fruit, citrus, group 10 4.0 1 None Grape 4.0 1 None Lettuce 7.0 1 10/27/07 Nectarine 4.0 1 None Peach 4.0 1 None Pear 4.0 1 None Raspberry 7.0 1 10/27/07 1 Some of these tolerances were established on the basis of data acquired at the public hearings held in 1950 (formerly § 180.101) and the remainder were established on the basis of pesticide petitions presented under the procedure specified in the amendment to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act by Public Law 518, 83d Congress (68 Stat.511) (c) Tolerances with regional registrations . A tolerance with regional registrations, as defined in § 180.1(m), is established for residues of the fungicide ferbam (ferric dimethyldithiocarbamate), calculated as carbon disulfide, in or on food commodities as follows: Commodity Parts per million Mango 4.0 1 1 This tolerance was established on the basis of data acquired at the public hearings held in 1950 (formerly §180.101) and the remainder was established on the basis of pesticide petitions presented under the procedure specified in the amendment to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act by Public Law 518, 83d Congress (68 Stat.511) 3. Section 180.133 is amended by revising the table in paragraph (a) to read as follows: §180.133 Lindane; tolerances for residues. (a) General * * * Commodity Parts per million Expiration/Revocation Date Cattle, fat 7.0 10/2/09 Goat, fat 7.0 10/2/09 Hog, fat 4.0 10/2/09 Horse, fat 7.0 10/2/09 Sheep, fat 7.0 10/2/09 4. Section 180.211 is amended by revising the section heading and paragraph (a) to read as follows: §180.211 Propachlor; tolerances for residues. (a) General . Tolerances are established for the combined residues of the herbicide 2-chloro -N- isopropylacetanilide and its metabolites containing the N -isopropylaniline moiety, calculated as 2-chloro -N- isopropylacetanilide, in or on the following raw agricultural commodities: Commodity Parts per million Cattle, fat 0.05 Cattle, kidney 0.2 Cattle, meat 0.02 Cattle, meat byproducts, except kidney 0.05 Corn, field, forage 3.0 Corn, field, grain 0.2 Corn, field, stover 1.0 Corn, sweet, forage 3.0 Goat, fat 0.05 Goat, kidney 0.2 Goat, meat 0.02 Goat, meat byproducts, except kidney 0.05 Hog, fat 0.02 Hog, meat 0.02 Hog, meat byproducts 0.02 Horse, fat 0.05 Horse, kidney 0.2 Horse, meat 0.02 Horse, meat byproducts, except kidney 0.05 Milk 0.02 Sheep, fat 0.05 Sheep, kidney 0.2 Sheep, meat 0.02 Sheep, meat byproducts, except kidney 0.05 Sorghum, forage, forage 8.0 Sorghum, grain, forage 8.0 Sorghum, grain, grain 0.25 Sorghum, grain, stover 12.0 5. Section 180.213 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: §180.213 Simazine; tolerances for residues. (a) General . Tolerances are established for the combined residues of the herbicide simazine (2-chloro-4,6-bis(ethylamino)-s-triazine) and its two chlorinated degradates (2-amino-4-chloro-6-ethylamino-s-triazine and 2,4-diamino-6-chloro-s-triazine), the total residue to be measured in or on the following food commodities: Commodity Parts per million Almond 0.25 Almond, hulls 0.25 Apple 0.20 Avocado 0.20 Blackberry 0.20 Blueberry 0.20 Cattle, meat 0.03 Cattle, meat byproducts 0.03 Cherry 0.25 Corn, field, forage 0.20 Corn, field, grain 0.20 Corn, field, stover 0.25 Corn, pop, grain 0.20 Corn, pop, stover 0.25 Corn, sweet, forage 0.20 Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed 0.25 Corn, sweet, stover 0.25 Cranberry 0.25 Currant 0.25 Egg 0.03 Filbert 0.20 Goat, meat 0.03 Goat, meat byproducts 0.03 Grape 0.20 Grapefruit 0.25 Horse, meat 0.03 Horse, meat byproducts 0.03 Lemon 0.25 Loganberry 0.20 Milk 0.03 Nut, macadamia 0.25 Olive 0.20 Orange 0.25 Peach 0.20 Pear 0.25 Pecan 0.20 Plum 0.20 Raspberry 0.20 Sheep, meat 0.03 Sheep, meat byproducts 0.03 Strawberry 0.25 Walnut 0.2 6. Section 180.220 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: §180.220 Atrazine; tolerances for residues. (a) General . Tolerances are established for the combined residues of the herbicide atrazine (2-chloro-4-ethylamino-6-isopropylamino-s-triazine) and its chlorinated metabolites 2-amino-4-chloro-6-isopropylamino-s-triazine, 2-amino-4-chloro-6-ethylamino-s-triazine, and 2,4-diamino-6-chloro-s-triazine, in or on food commodities as follows: Commodity Parts per million Cattle, fat 0.02 Cattle, meat 0.02 Cattle, meat byproducts 0.02 Corn, field, forage 15 Corn, field, grain 0.20 Corn, field, stover 0.5 Corn, pop, forage 1.5 Corn, pop, grain 0.20 Corn, pop, stover 0.5 Corn, sweet, forage 15 Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed 0.20 Corn, sweet, stover 2.0 Goat, fat 0.02 Goat, meat 0.02 Goat, meat byproducts 0.02 Grass, forage 4.0 Grass, hay 4.0 Guava 0.05 Horse, fat 0.02 Horse, meat 0.02 Horse, meat byproducts 0.02 Milk 0.02 Nut, macadamia 0.20 Sheep, fat 0.02 Sheep, meat 0.02 Sheep, meat byproducts 0.02 Sorghum, forage, forage 15 Sorghum, grain forage 15 Sorghum, grain, grain 0.20 Sorghum, grain, stover 0.50 Sugarcane, cane 0.20 Wheat, forage 1.5 Wheat, grain 0.10 Wheat, hay 5.0 Wheat, straw 0.50 7. Section 180.287 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: §180.287 Amitraz; tolerances for residues. (a) General . Tolerances are established for residues of the insecticide amitraz ( N ′-[2,4-dimethylphenyl] -N -[[(2,4-dimethylphenyl)imino] methyl]] -N -methylmethanimidamide) and its metabolites containing the 2,4-dimethylaniline moiety (calculated as the parent) in or on food commodities, as follows: Commodity Parts per million Cattle, fat 0.1 Cattle, meat 0.02 Cattle, meat byproducts 0.2 Cotton, undelinted seed 1 1.0 Hog, fat 0.1 Hog, kidney 0.1 Hog, liver 0.1 Hog, meat 0.05 Hog, meat byproducts 0.3 Milk 0.03 Milk, fat 0.2 Pear 3.0 1 There are no U.S. registrations on cotton, undelinted seed as of May 3, 2006. 8. Section 180.300 is amended by revising the table in paragraph (a) to read as follows: §180.300 Ethephon; tolerances for residues. (a) * * * Commodity Parts per million Apple 5.0 Apple, juice 10.0 Barley, bran 5.0 Barley, grain 2.0 Barley, straw 10.0 Blackberry 30.0 Blueberry 20.0 Cantaloupe 2.0 Cattle, fat 0.02 Cattle, kidney 1.0 Cattle, meat 0.02 Cattle, meat byproducts, except kidney 0.2 Cherry 10.0 Coffee, bean, green 0.5 Cotton, gin byproducts 180.0 Cotton, undelinted seed 6.0 Cucumber 0.1 Egg 0.002 Filbert 0.80 Goat, fat 0.02 Goat, kidney 1.0 Goat, meat 0.02 Goat, meat byproducts, except kidney 0.2 Grape 2.0 Grape, raisin 12.0 Hog, fat 0.02 Hog, kidney 1.0 Hog, meat 0.02 Hog, meat byproducts, except kidney 0.2 Horse, fat 0.02 Horse, kidney 1.0 Horse, meat 0.02 Horse, meat byproducts, except kidney 0.2 Milk 0.01 Nut, macadamia 0.5 Pepper 30.0 Pineapple 2.0 Poultry, fat 0.02 Poultry, liver 0.05 Poultry, meat 0.01 Poultry, meat byproducts, except liver 0.01 Sheep, fat 0.02 Sheep, kidney 1.0 Sheep, meat 0.02 Sheep, meat byproducts, except kidney 0.2 Sugarcane, molasses 1.5 Tomato 2.0 Walnut 0.5 Wheat, bran 5.0 Wheat, germ 5.0 Wheat, grain 2.0 Wheat, middlings 5.0 Wheat, shorts 5.0 Wheat, straw 10.0 [FR Doc. E7-11324 Filed 6-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 2, 90, and 95 [WP Docket No. 07-100, FCC 07-85] Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) initiates a proceeding to propose miscellaneous changes to its rules that govern new and existing wireless technologies, devices, and services. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment regarding particular changes to its rules governing the 4.9 GHz band and the Wireless Medical Telemetry Service which shares spectrum. The Commission also solicits comment on whether or not to revise or eliminate provisions that are duplicative, outmoded or otherwise unnecessary. DATES: Submit comments on or before August 13, 2007, and reply comments are due on or before September 11, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WP Docket No. 07-100; FCC 07-85, 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: Rodney P. Conway, at Rodney.Conway@FCC.gov , Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418-2904, or TTY (202) 418-7233. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( NPRM ) in WP Docket No. 07-100, FCC 07-85, adopted on May 9, 2007, and released May 14, 2007. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. The full text may also be downloaded at: http://www.fcc.gov. Alternative formats are available to persons with disabilities by sending an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or by calling the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty). 1. Part 90 contains the rules for both the Private Land Mobile Radio (PLMR) Services and certain Commercial Mobile Radio Services (CMRS). PLMR licensees generally do not provide for-profit communications services. Some examples of PLMR licensees are public safety agencies, businesses that use radio only for their internal operations, utilities, transportation entities, and medical service providers. CMRS licensees, by comparison, do provide for-profit communications services, such as paging and Specialized Mobile Radio services that offer customers communications that are interconnected to the public switched network. 2. Frequency Coordination and Related Matters. Pursuant to § 90.621 of the Commission's rules, certain licensees are permitted to modify their licenses to authorize CMRS operations instead of PLMR operations, or vice versa. Currently, such applications require frequency coordination. We propose to eliminate the frequency coordination requirement for such applications. We ask for comment on this proposal. We also invite commenters to suggest other types of applications for which frequency coordination should no longer be required, such as applications to modify a license to reduce the authorized bandwidth. 3. Paging on Public Safety VHF Frequencies. We seek comment on whether we should place any restrictions on paging operations on VHF public safety frequencies, especially those frequencies reserved under the rules for mutual aid/interoperability communications. Finally, we ask whether we should eliminate paging operations in the VHF public safety frequencies altogether. 4. Cross-Banding. Section 90.243(b)(1) of the Commission's rules state that public safety medical service systems operating in the 150-160 MHz band are permitted to be cross-banded in order to communicate with systems operating in the 450-470 MHz band. All public safety licensees may operate cross-band repeaters under the general mobile relay rules in § 90.243. Therefore, we propose to modify this section to specifically state that cross-band repeaters are permitted for all public safety systems. We seek comment on this proposal. 5. Mobile Repeaters. Section 90.247(b) of the Commission's rules states that for frequencies below 450 MHz in the Industrial/Business pool, only low power frequencies (where power is limited to two watts) may be assigned for use by mobile repeaters and associated hand-held units, when separate frequencies are assigned for that purpose. After the part 90 radio services were consolidated, however, a greater number of high-power 150 MHz channels became available for use by Business and Special Industrial Radio (B/ILT) Services licensees and the number of low-power 150 MHz band frequencies available for mobile repeater operations was reduced when the Commission reallocated five channels to the part 95 Multi-Use Radio Service. In light of these developments, we seek tentatively conclude that restricting mobile repeaters to low-power channels is no longer necessary. We seek comment on this proposal. 6. Expired Licenses. The Land Mobile Communications Council (LMCC) has notified the Commission that all part 90 frequency coordinators have now agreed not to coordinate frequencies associated with an expired license until the frequency becomes available for reassignment. LMCC requests the Commission's cooperation in enforcing this policy. We seek comment on whether the rules should be amended to prohibit the coordination of frequencies associated with expired licenses until those frequencies are deleted from the ULS database. 7. Multiple Licensing. In 1999, the Commission sought comment on whether to retain the multiple licensing rules. Since then, however, changes in the Commission's rules have created new means for multiple entities to share facilities. The availability and coverage of commercial communications systems has increased in recent years. Also, some PLMR licensees now may convert their stations to CMRS operation. In addition, users now may obtain spectrum in secondary market transactions. These developments lead us to revisit the Commission's conclusion, in 2000, that multiple licensing should be retained. Against this background, we request comment on whether multiple licensing has become unnecessary and administratively burdensome, considering the options discussed above. 8. Transit Systems and Toll Roads. Under the current rules, publicly-operated transit systems, as governmental entities, are eligible to hold authorizations in the Public Safety Pool. However, not all metropolitan transit systems are publicly-owned. We seek comment on whether 47 CFR 90.20 should be amended to allow privately-run metropolitan transit systems to use frequencies in the Public Safety Pool. When toll roads are operated by government entities, the operator is eligible to hold an authorization in the Public Safety Pool. A private entity that takes over operation of a toll road ordinarily is not eligible for that Public Safety Pool license. We seek comment on how best to administer licenses associated with toll roads that are transferred from government to private operation. 9. Industrial/Business Pool Eligibility . Section 90.35 of the Commission's rules permits licensing of entities engaged in “[t]he operation of a commercial activity,” and does not state that government entities cannot hold licenses in the Industrial/Business Pool for these activities. We seek comment on whether there is any need to amend 47 CFR 90.35 to state explicitly that government entities engaged in commercial enterprises are eligible for Industrial/Business Pool frequencies. We also seek comment on a request filed by National Public Safety Telecommunications Council (NPSTC) requesting that the rule be amended to permit government surveying operations to utilize Industrial/Business Pool itinerant frequencies because modern surveying equipment is manufactured to operate only on Industrial/Business Pool frequencies. 10. Disturbance of AM Broadcast Station Antenna Patterns . The Commission's rules for other services contain requirements for detuning antenna structures constructed near an AM transmitting antenna. We seek comment on the need, if any, for similar provisions in part 90 of the Commission's rules. 11. FB8T Station Class . The Commission established a new station class code, FB8, to identify those trunked radio systems' base and mobile relay channels that are not subject to a monitoring requirement because the applicant/licensee has obtained the necessary consent from co-channel licensees or has exclusive use of the channel. Authorizing temporary base stations anywhere within the licensee's authorized operating area could allow the licensee to expand the contour of its unmonitored operations into areas where it does not have exclusivity potentially resulting in interference to other licensees. Consequently, we no longer issue authorizations for systems with a station class of FB8T. We propose to renew existing FB8T authorizations with a station class code of FBT (temporary base), which would make it clear that these operations are subject to the monitoring requirement. We seek comment on this proposal, and on whether any corresponding amendment to part 90 is necessary. 12. Reorganization of part 90 . The PLMR and CMRS operations governed under part 90 are similar in many respects, thus it may be appropriate to continue to include them in the same rule part. On the other hand, the differences among the services may be sufficient to warrant them being administered under different rule parts. For example, it may be appropriate to move the part 90 CMRS rules to parts 22 or 27, or to move the rules governing the Public Safety Pool to a separate rule part. Another option is to keep the rules in part 90, but reorganize them to minimize confusion and reduce regulatory burdens. We ask commenting parties for an analysis of the comparative costs and benefits associated with the foregoing alternatives. 13. 4.9 GHz Band . We seek comment on M/A-COM's proposal to afford primary status to certain permanent fixed links in the 4.9 GHz band. Commenters should address whether, given the limited amount of spectrum in the 4.9 GHz band, permitting fixed operations on a primary basis may result in severely limiting the spectral availability and reliability of both permanent and ad hoc mobile networks. In addition, we propose to amend 47 CFR 90.1215 to reflect the revised measurement procedures subsequently adopted by the Commission for devices that use digital modulation techniques and are regulated by part 15 of the rules. We find that measurement procedures should remain consistent between the part 15 rules and the 4.9 GHz band rules, given our understanding that manufacturers are considering technologies similar to those covered by part 15 for use in the 4.9 GHz band. We request comment on this proposal. 14. Wireless Medical Telemetry Service Issues . We seek comment on ASHE's proposed rule changes. We seek comment on whether the rules should expressly set forth the terms of the agreement, or if it is sufficient to cross-reference the coordination plan, as ASHE proposes. Although ASHE and LMCC support codifying the coordination plan, we also seek comment on whether this is necessary or appropriate, or if codification of the plan would impede ASHE and LMCC in the event that they agree in the future to modify their procedures. Finally, we note that the WMTS rules do not explicitly permit WMTS systems to operate on a secondary basis in the portion(s) of the 1427-1432 MHz band where non-medical telemetry is primary. The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau has received both a request that it clarify that such operations are permitted, and a request that it clarify that such operations are not permitted. We seek comment on how, or if, we should amend our rules with respect to this issue. I. Procedural Matters A. Ex Parte Rules—Permit-But-Disclose Proceeding 15. This is a permit-but-disclose notice and comment rulemaking proceeding. Ex parte presentations are permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are disclosed as provided in the Commission's rules. B. Comment Dates 16. Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or before August 13, 2007 and reply comments on or before September 11, 2007. All filings related to this NPRM should refer to WT Docket No. 07-100. 17. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), the Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal, or by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998. 18. 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. 19. 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. 20. 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. 21. 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. 22. 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. 23. 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. 24. U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. 25. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Marlene H. Dortch, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. Parties shall also serve one copy with the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 488-5300, or via e-mail to fcc@bcpiweb.com . 26. Availability of documents . The public may view the documents filed in this proceeding during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554, and on the Commission's Internet Home Page: http://www.fcc.gov . Copies of comments and reply comments are also available through the Commission's duplicating contractor: Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-800-378-3160, may be reached by e-mail at fcc@bcpiweb.com or via BCPI's Web site at http://www.bcpiweb.com . 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). C. Paperwork Reduction Act 27. This document does not contain proposed information collection(s) 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). II. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 28. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission has prepared this present 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 as provided in paragraph 49 of the item. The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM , including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration. In addition, a copy of the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register . Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules 29. This proceeding is part of our continuing effort to provide clear and concise rules that facilitate new wireless technologies, devices and services, and are easy for licensees to comprehend and understand. We believe it appropriate to review all of our regulations relating to administering Private Land Mobile Radio (PLMR) Services to determine which regulations can be clarified, streamlined or eliminated. In the NPRM , we seek comment on miscellaneous rule amendments that are intended to clarify part 90 of the Commission's rules. In addition, the NPRM seeks comment on eliminating certain regulatory requirements contained in part 90 of the Commission's rules. The NPRM also seeks comment regarding changes to the rules governing the part 95 Wireless Medical Telemetry Service, to clarify those rules and implement a joint coordination agreement among the relevant frequency coordinators. We also solicit comment on other potential part 90 rules changes, including suggestions to revise or eliminate provisions that are duplicative, outmoded or otherwise unnecessary. Legal Basis for Proposed Rules 30. Authority for issuance of this item is contained in sections 4(i), 11, 303(g), 303(r), and 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 161, 303(g), 303(r), and 332(c)(7). Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply 31. 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 adopted. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” See 5 U.S.C. 601(6). In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. See 5 U.S.C. 601(3). A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). See Small Business Act, 5 U.S.C. 632 (1996). A small organization is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” See 5 U.S.C. 601(4). Below, we further describe and estimate the number of small entity licensees and regulatees that may be affected by the rules changes proposed in this NPRM . 32. Governmental Entities . Nationwide, there are a total of approximately 22.4 million small businesses, according to SBA data. See SBA, Programs and Services, SBA Pamphlet No. CO-0028, at page 40 (July 2002). A “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” See 5 U.S.C. 601(4). Nationwide, as of 2002, there were approximately 1.6 million small organizations. See Independent Sector, The New Nonprofit Almanac & Desk Reference (2002). The term “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally as “governments of cities, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.” See 5 U.S.C. 601(5) . Census Bureau data for 2002 indicate that there were 87,525 local governmental jurisdictions in the United States. See U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2006, section 8, page 272, Table 415. We estimate that, of this total, 84,377 entities were “small governmental jurisdictions.” See U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2006, section 8, page 273, Table 417. Thus, we estimate that most governmental jurisdictions are small. 33. Public Safety Radio Licensees . As a general matter, Public Safety Radio Pool licensees include police, fire, local government, forestry conservation, highway maintenance, and emergency medical services. See subparts A and B of part 90 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 90.1-90.22. The SBA rules contain a definition for cellular and other wireless telecommunications companies which encompass business entities engaged in radiotelephone communications employing no more that 1,500 persons. See 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517212. There are a total of approximately 127,540 licensees within these services. With respect to local governments, in particular, since many governmental entities as well as private businesses comprise the licensees for these services, we include under public safety services the number of government entities affected. 34. Private Land Mobile Radio Licensees . Private land mobile radio (PLMR) systems serve an essential role in a vast range of industrial, business, land transportation, and public safety activities. These radios are used by companies of all sizes operating in all U.S. business categories. Because of the vast array of PLMR users, the Commission has not developed a small business size standard specifically applicable to PLMR users. The SBA rules do, however, contain a size standard for small radiotelephone (wireless) companies which encompasses, business entities engaged in radiotelephone communications employing no more that 1,500 persons. See 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517212. The SBA rules contain a definition for cellular and other wireless telecommunications companies which encompasses business entities engaged in radiotelephone communications employing no more that 1,500 persons. The Commission's fiscal year 1994 annual report indicates that, at the end of fiscal year 1994, there were 1,101,711 licensees operating 12,882,623 transmitters in the PLMR bands below 512 MHz. See Federal Communications Commission, 60th Annual Report, Fiscal Year 1994 at 120-121. 35. Frequency Coordinators . Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically applicable to spectrum frequency coordinators. 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.” See 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517212. 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. See 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517211. 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. See 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517212. 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. 36. RF Equipment Manufacturers . The Census Bureau defines this category as follows: “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and wireless communications equipment. Examples of products made by these establishments are: transmitting and receiving antennas, cable television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile communications equipment, and radio and television studio and broadcasting equipment.” See 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 334220. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing, which is: all such firms having 750 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were a total of 1,041 establishments in this category that operated for the entire year. See U.S. Census Bureau, American FactFinder, 2002 Economic Census, Industry Series, Industry Statistics by Employment Size, NAICS code 334220 (released May 26, 2005). Of this total, 1,010 had employment of under 500, and an additional 13 had employment of 500 to 999. Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small. 37. Hospitals, Nursing Care Facilities, and Other Residential Care Facilities . The SBA has developed small business size standards for these three categories and other, related categories. For the commercial census category of General Medical and Surgical Hospitals, the SBA deems an entity to be small if it has $31.5 million or less in annual revenues. See 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 622110. Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were 3,200 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. See U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series: Health Care and Social Assistance, “Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of Organization,” Table 4, NAICS code 622110 (issued Nov. 2005). Of this total, 1,313 firms had revenues of under $25 million, and 471 had revenues of $25 million to $49, 999,999. Thus, in this category, over 41 percent of the firms can be considered small. For the category of Nursing Care Facilities, the SBA deems an entity to be small if it has $12.5 million or less in annual revenues. See 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 623110. Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were 7,826 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 6,594 firms had revenues of under $10 million, and 871 had revenues of $10 million to $24, 999,999. Thus, in this category, the majority of firms can be considered small. For the category of Other Residential Care Facilities, the SBA deems an entity to be small if it has $6.5 million or less in annual revenues. See 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 623990. Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were 3,131 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. See U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series: Health Care and Social Assistance, “Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of Organization,” Table 4, NAICS code 623990 (issued Nov. 2005). Of this total, 2,774 firms had revenues of under $5 million, and 202 had revenues of $5 million to $9,999,999. Thus, in this category, the majority of firms can be considered small. 38. Aviation and Marine Radio . Small businesses in the aviation and marine radio services use a very high frequency (VHF) marine or aircraft radio and, as appropriate, an emergency position-indicating radio beacon (and/or radar) or an emergency locator transmitter. The Commission has not developed a small business size standard specifically applicable to these small businesses. For purposes of this analysis, the Commission uses the SBA small business size standard for the category “Cellular and Other Telecommunications,” which is 1,500 or fewer employees. See 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517212. Also, between December 3, 1998 and December 14, 1998, the Commission held an auction of 42 VHF Public Coast licenses in the 157.1875-157.4500 MHz (ship transmit) and 161.775-162.0125 MHz (coast transmit) bands. For purposes of the auction, the Commission defined a “small” business as an entity that, together with controlling interests and affiliates, has average gross revenues for the preceding three years not to exceed $15 million dollars. In addition, a “very small” business is one that, together with controlling interests and affiliates, has average gross revenues for the preceding three years not to exceed $3 million dollars. There are approximately 10,672 licensees in the Marine Coast Service, and the Commission estimates that almost all of them, along with the majority of other aviation and marine radio licensees, qualify as “small” businesses under the above special small business size standards. A. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements: 39. There are no projected reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements. B. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered: 40. 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: (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities. See 5 U.S.C. 603(c). 41. We believe the changes proposed in this NPRM will promote flexibility and more efficient use of the spectrum, reduce administrative burdens on both the Commission and licensees, and allow licensees to better meet their communication needs. In this NPRM , we seek comment on the proposals to modify the rules. Many of the proposed changes constitute clarification of existing requirements or elimination of existing limitations. Among other proposals, we seek comment on whether multiple licensing is obsolete and whether we should eliminate this administratively burdensome option in light of the various other services that are now more widely available. We also are considering the alternative of retaining the multiple licensing rules. The NPRM also seeks comment on the feasibility of including protection to broadcast AM station antenna patterns in part 90 of our rules, or whether such a rule is unnecessary. We seek comment on our proposal to reissue licenses that contain an invalid station class of FB8T as they come due for renewal with an appropriate station class of FBT (temporary base), indicating that operations are subject to monitoring. C. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rules 42. None. III. Ordering Clauses 43. Pursuant to sections 4(i), 303(r), and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303(r), and 403, that this NPRM is hereby adopted . 44. Notice is hereby given of the proposed regulatory changes described in this NPRM and comment is sought on these proposals. 45. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this NPRM , including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 2, 90, and 95 Communications equipment, Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. Proposed Rules For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 2, 90, and 95 to read as follows: PART 2—FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS; GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows: Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, and 336, unless otherwise noted. 2. Amend § 2.106 by revising the entry for “US350” to read as follows: § 2.106 Table of Frequency Allocations. US350 In the band 1427-1432 MHz, Federal use of the land mobile service and non-Federal use of the fixed and land mobile services is limited to telemetry and telecommand operations as described further: Location (see § 90.259(b)(4) of this chapter for a detailed description) 1427-1429 MHz 1431.5-1432 MHz 1429-1431.5 MHz Austin/Georgetown, Texas, Battle Creek, Michigan, Detroit, Michigan, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Richmond/Norfolk, Virginia, Spokane, Washington, Washington, DC metropolitan area Non-Government land mobile service is limited to telemetry and telecommand operations. Government and non-Government medical telemetry and telecommand use is permitted on a secondary basis Government and non-Government land mobile service is limited to medical telemetry and telecommand operations. Non-Government telemetry and telecommand use is permitted on a secondary basis. 1427-1429.5 MHz 1429.5-1432 MHz Rest of U.S. Government and non-Government land mobile service is limited to medical telemetry and telecommand operations. Non-Government telemetry and telecommand use is permitted on a secondary basis Non-Government land mobile service is limited to telemetry and telecommand operations. Government and non-Government medical telemetry and telecommand use is permitted on a secondary basis. PART 90—PRIVATE LAND MOBILE RADIO SERVICES 3. The authority citation for part 90 continues to read as follows: Authority: Sections 4(i), 11, 303(g), 303(r), and 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 161, 303(g), 303(r), and 332(c)(7). 4. Amend § 90.20 by adding paragraph (a)(2)(xiv) to read as follows: § 90.20 Public Safety Pool. (a) * * * (2) * * * (xiv) Persons or organizations providing local or regional multiple-occupancy-vehicle passenger services over regular routes under contract or similar arrangement with a governmental entity for the transmission of messages pertaining to either the efficient operation of the service or the safety or general welfare of the passengers they are engaged in transporting. Each transit system operator may be authorized to operate one base station and a number of mobile units not in excess of the total of the number of passenger vehicles and maintenance vehicles regularly engaged in the operation. Additional base stations or mobile units will be authorized only in exceptional circumstances when the applicant can show a specific need. 5. Amend § 90.175 by adding paragraph (j)(18) to read as follows: § 90.175 Frequency coordinator requirements. (j) * * * (18) Applications requesting to modify a license to authorize commercial operations pursuant to § 90.621(e)(2), or to reverse such a modification, if there is no change in technical parameters. 6. Amend § 90.176 by revising the section heading and paragraph (d) to read as follows: § 90.176 Coordinator notification requirements on frequencies below 512 MHz, at 764-776/794-806 MHz, or at 1427-1432 MHz. (d) Frequencies in the 1427-1432 MHz band. Within one business day of making a frequency recommendation, each frequency coordinator must notify and provide the information indicated in paragraph (g) of this section to the WMTS frequency coordinator designated in § 95.1112 of this chapter and to all other frequency coordinators who are also certified to coordinate that frequency. In addition, the frequency coordinator must ensure compliance with all coordination requirements incorporated in the joint WMTS-part 90 coordination plan filed in WT Docket No. 02-8 on August 18, 2004. 7. Amend § 90.243 by revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows: § 90.242 Mobile relay stations. (b) * * * (1) In the Public Safety Pool, systems that operate in the 150 MHz band are permitted to be cross-banded for mobile and central stations operations with mobile relay stations authorized to operate in the 450 and 800 MHz bands. § 90.247 [Amended] 8. Amend § 90.247 by removing and reserving paragraph (b). 9. Amend § 90.259 by revising paragraphs (b)(3) and (b)(4)(ii) to read as follows: § 90.259 Assignment and use of frequencies in the bands 216-220 MHz and 1427-1432 MHz. (b) * * * (3) All operations authorized under this section in the 1429.5-1432 MHz band are primary in status (and Wireless Medical Telemetry Service operations are secondary) except in the locations specified in paragraph (b)(4) of this section. At the locations specified in paragraph (b)(4) of this section, all operations authorized under this section are primary in status (and Wireless Medical Telemetry Service operations are secondary) in the 1427-1429 MHz and 1431.5-1432 MHz bands. (4) * * * (ii) Washington, DC metropolitan area—Counties of Montgomery, Prince George's and Charles in Maryland; Arlington, Prince William, Fauquier, Loudon, and Fairfax, and Cities of Alexandria, Falls Church, Fairfax, Manassas and Manassas Park in Virginia; and District of Columbia. 10. Amend § 90.1215 by revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (c), and by adding paragraph (e) to read as follows: § 90.1215 Power limits. (a) The maximum conducted output power should not exceed: Channel bandwidth (MHz) Low power peak transmitter power (dBm) High power peak transmitter power (dBm) 1 7 20 5 14 27 10 17 30 15 18.8 31.8 20 20 33 High power devices are also limited to a peak power spectral density of 20 dBm per one MHz. High power devices using channel bandwidths other than those listed above are permitted; however, they are limited to a maximum conducted power spectral density of 20 dBm/MHz. If transmitting antennas of directional gain greater than 9 dBi are used, both the maximum conducted output power and the peak power spectral density should be reduced by the amount in decibels that the directional gain of the antenna exceeds 9 dBi. However, high power point-to-point and point-to-multipoint operation (both fixed and temporary-fixed rapid deployment) may employ transmitting antennas with directional gain up to 26 dBi without any corresponding reduction in the maximum conducted output power or spectral density. Corresponding reduction in the transmit power and peak power spectral density should be the amount in decibels that the directional gain of the antenna exceeds 26 dBi. (b) Low power devices are also limited to a peak power spectral density of 8 dBm per one MHz. Low power devices using channel bandwidths other than those listed above are permitted; however, they are limited to a peak power spectral density of 8 dBm/MHz. If transmitting antennas of directional gain greater than 9 dBi are used, both the maximum conducted output power and the peak power spectral density should be reduced by the amount in decibels that the directional gain of the antenna exceeds 9 dBi. (c) The maximum conducted power is measured as a conducted emission over any interval of continuous transmission calibrated in terms of an RMS-equivalent voltage. If the device cannot be connected directly, alternative techniques acceptable to the Commission may be used. The measurement results shall be properly adjusted for any instrument limitations, such as detector response times, limited resolution bandwidth capability when compared to the emission bandwidth, sensitivity, etc., so as to obtain a true maximum conducted power measurement conforming to the definitions in this paragraph for the emission in question. (e) The ratio of the peak excursion of the modulation envelope (measured using a peak hold function) to the maximum conducted output power shall not exceed 13 dB across any 1 MHz bandwidth or the emission bandwidth whichever is less. 11. Add § 90.XXX to read as follows: § 90.XXX Disturbance of AM broadcast station antenna patterns. Public Safety Pool and Industrial/Business Pool licensees that construct or modify towers in the immediate vicinity of AM broadcast stations are responsible for measures necessary to correct disturbance of the AM station antenna pattern which causes operation outside of the radiation parameters specified by the FCC for the AM station, if the disturbance occurred as a result of such construction or modification. (a) Non-directional AM stations. If tower construction or modification is planned within 1 kilometer (0.6 mile) of a non-directional AM broadcast station tower, the Public Safety Pool or Industrial/Business Pool licensee must notify the licensee of the AM broadcast station in advance of the planned construction or modification. Measurements must be made to determine whether the construction or modification would affect the AM station antenna pattern. The Public Safety Pool or Industrial/Business Pool licensee is responsible for the installation and continued maintenance of any detuning apparatus necessary to restore proper non-directional performance of the AM station tower. (b) Directional AM stations. If tower construction or modification is planned within 3 kilometers (1.9 miles) of a directional AM broadcast station array, the Public Safety Pool or Industrial/Business Pool licensee must notify the licensee of the AM broadcast station in advance of the planned construction or modification. Measurements must be made to determine whether the construction or modification would affect the AM station antenna pattern. The Public Safety Pool or Industrial/Business Pool licensee is responsible for the installation and continued maintenance of any detuning apparatus necessary to restore proper performance of the AM station array. PART 95—PERSONAL RADIO SERVICES 12. The authority citation for part 95 continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 4, 303, 48 Stat. 1066, 1082, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 154, 303. 13. Revise § 95.630 to read as follows: § 95.630 WMTS transmitter frequencies. WMTS transmitters may operate in the frequency bands specified as follows: 608-614 MHz 1395-1400 MHz 1427-1432 MHz (see § 90.259(b) of this part regarding where WMTS operations are primary in status, and where they are secondary to part 90 operations) 14. Revise § 95.1101 to read as follows: § 95.1101 Scope. This subpart sets out the regulations governing the operation of Wireless Medical Telemetry Devices in the 608-614 MHz, 1395-1400 MHz, and 1427-1432 MHz frequency bands. 15. Amend § 95.1113 by revising paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(5), and (b)(6) to read as follows: § 95.1113 Frequency coordinator. * * * (b) * * * (1) Review and process registration requests submitted by authorized health cares providers as required in § 95.1111; (5) Upon receipt of a registration request for WMTS equipment operating in the 1427-1432 MHz band, notify all part 90 frequency coordinators of the intended activation in accordance with the joint WMTS-part 90 coordination plan filed in WT Docket No. 02-8 on August 18, 2004. The part 90 frequency coordinators shall, in turn, determine potentially affected part 90 licensees and notify those part 90 licensees operating in the 1427-1432 MHz band in accordance with § 90.259 of this chapter of their obligation to ensure compliance with the field strength limit of § 90.259(b)(11) of this chapter, as measured at the WMTS site. (6) Upon receipt of a registration request for WMTS equipment operating in the 1395-1400 MHz band, notify each party licensed to operate in the 1392-1395 MHz band in the applicable geographic area pursuant to subpart I of part 27 of this chapter of the need to comply with the field strength limit set forth in § 27.804 of this chapter. [FR Doc. E7-11221 Filed 6-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 73 [DA 07-2194; MB Docket No. 07-107; RM-11330] Radio Broadcasting Services; Bokchito and Clayton, OK AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This document requests comments on a petition for rule making filed by Charles Crawford (“Petitioner”) proposing the allotment of Channel 241A at Bokchito, Oklahoma, as a first local service. The proposed coordinates for Channel 241A at Bokchito are 33-55-00 NL and 96-06-00 WL with a site restriction of 11.8 km (7.4 miles) south of town reference. To accommodate the proposed allotment at Bokchito, Petitioner proposes to substitute Channel 263A for vacant Channel 241A at Clayton, Oklahoma. The proposed coordinates for Channel 263A at Clayton are 34-32-48 NL and 95-29-46 WL with a site restriction of 14 km (8.7 miles) west of town reference. DATES: Comments must be filed on or before July 16, 2007, and reply comments on or before July 31, 2007. ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve the Petitioner and her counsel, as follows: Charles Crawford, 4553 Bordeaux Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75205 and Gene A. Bechtel, Esquire, Law Office of Gene Bechtel, 1050 17th Street, NW., Suite 600, Washington, DC 20036. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Helen McLean, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2738. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 07-107, adopted May 23, 2007, and released May 25, 2007. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the Commission's Reference Information Center, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. This document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractors, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-800-378-3160 or http://www.BCPIWEB.com . This document does not contain proposed information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed 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). The Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding. Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject of Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve channel allotments. See 47 CFR Section 1.1204(b) for rules governing permissible ex parte contact. For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, see 47 CFR Sections 1.415 and 1.420. List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 Radio, Radio broadcasting. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows: PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES 1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows: Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336. § 73.202 [Amended] 2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Oklahoma, is amended by removing Channel 241A and by adding Channel 263A at Clayton and by adding Bokchito, Channel 241A. Federal Communications Commission. John A. Karousos, Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau. [FR Doc. 07-2901 Filed 6-12-07; 8:45 am]