Rules and Regulations. Correction to temporary regulations

72,196 words·~328 min read·/register/2007/08/01/07-3712

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

BILLING CODE 4410-10-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [TD 9330] RIN 1545-BG66 Built-in Gains and Losses Under Section 382(h); Correction AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Correction to temporary regulations. SUMMARY: This document contains a correction to temporary regulations (TD 9330) that were published in the **Federal Register** on Thursday, June 14, 2007 (72 FR 32792) applying to corporations that have undergone ownership changes within the meaning of section 382.

These regulations provide guidance regarding the treatment of prepaid income under the built-in gain provisions of section 382(h). DATES: This correction is effective August 1, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keith Stanley at

(202)622-7750 (not a toll-free number). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The correction notice that is the subject of this document is under section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code. Need for Correction As published, temporary regulations (TD 9330) contain an error that may prove to be misleading and is in need of clarification. Correction of Publication Accordingly, the publication of the temporary regulations (TD 9330), which was the subject of FR Doc. E7-11438, is corrected as follows: On page 32794, column 1, in the preamble, under the paragraph heading “Special Analyses”, line 4, the language “Executive Order 12666. Therefore, a” is corrected to read “Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a”. LaNita Van Dyke, Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration). [FR Doc. E7-14802 Filed 7-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [TD 9330] RIN 1545-BG66 Built-in Gains and Losses Under Section 382(h); Correction AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Correcting amendments. SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to temporary regulations (TD 9330) that were published in the **Federal Register** on Thursday, June 14, 2007 (72 FR 32792) applying to corporations that have undergone ownership changes within the meaning of section 382. These regulations provide guidance regarding the treatment of prepaid income under the built-in gain provisions of section 382(h). DATES: These corrections are effective August 1, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keith Stanley at

(202)622-7750 (not a toll-free number). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The temporary regulations that are the subject of this document are under section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code. Need for Correction As published, temporary regulations (TD 9330) contain errors that may prove to be misleading and are in need of clarification. List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1 Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Correction of Publication Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments: PART 1—INCOME TAXES **Paragraph 1** . The authority citation for part 1 continues to read in part as follows: Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * **Par. 2** . Section 1.382-7T is amended by revising paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows: § 1.382-7T Built-in gains and losses (temporary).

(b)* * *

(2)The applicability of this section expires on June 14, 2010. **Par. 3** . The signature block is revised by adding the language “Approved: June 4, 2007.” LaNita Van Dyke, Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration). [FR Doc. E7-14797 Filed 7-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [TD 9349] RIN 1545-BF01 Employee Benefits—Cafeteria Plans AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Removal of temporary regulations. SUMMARY: This document removes the temporary regulations pertaining to benefits that may be offered to participants under a section 125 cafeteria plan. The temporary regulations were published in the **>Federal Register** on February 4, 1986. Guidance issued by the IRS and the Treasury Department under section 125 have made these temporary regulations obsolete. DATES: *Effective Dates:* These regulations are effective August 1, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mireille Khoury at

(202)622-6080 (not a toll-free number). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On February 4, 1986, the IRS and Treasury Department published temporary regulations on section 125. The temporary regulations were published in the **Federal Register** (TD 8073; 51 FR 4318) as section 1.125-2T. A notice of proposed rulemaking issued under section 125 (REG-142695-05) and other guidance issued by the IRS and the Treasury Department under section 125 have made these temporary regulations obsolete. The temporary regulations are removed. Special Analyses It has been determined that this removal of temporary regulations is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to this removal of temporary regulations. This removal of temporary regulations does not impose a collection of information on small entities, thus the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, the preceding temporary regulations were submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business. Drafting Information The principal author of this removal of temporary regulations is Mireille Khoury, Office of Division Counsel/Associate Chief Counsel (Tax Exempt and Government Entities). However, personnel from Treasury participated in its development. List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1 Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Amendments to the Regulations Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is amended as follows: **Paragraph 1** . The authority citation for part 1 continues to read in part, as follows: Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * § 1.125-2T [Removed] **Par. 2** . Section 1.125-2T is removed. Kevin M. Brown, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement. Approved: July 24, 2007. Eric Solomon, Assistant Secretary (Tax Policy). [FR Doc. E7-14823 Filed 7-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2005-MD-0002; FRL-8447-6] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; Clarification of Visible Emissions Exceptions AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan

(SIP)revision submitted by the State of Maryland. This revision consists of clarifications to the exception provisions of the Maryland visible regulations. DATES: *Effective Date:* This final rule is effective on August 31, 2007. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2005-MD-0002. All documents in the docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site. Although listed in the electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential business information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the Maryland Department of the Environment, 1800 Washington Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, Maryland 21230. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Linda Miller,

(215)814-2068, or by e-mail at *miller.linda@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background On December 1, 2003, the State of Maryland submitted a formal SIP revision (#03-10) that clarifies Maryland's federally-approved general visible emissions

(VE)regulations, including those related to specific source categories. The revised language will ensure that sources correctly interpret the exception provisions provided in those regulations. On April 26, 2005 (70 FR 21337), EPA published a direct final rule

(DFR)approving revisions to Maryland's SIP pertaining to its VE regulations. An explanation of the CAA's requirements and EPA's rationale for approving this SIP revision were provided in the DFR and will not be restated here. In accordance with direct final rulemaking procedures, on April 26, 2005 (70 FR 21387), EPA also published a companion notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPR)for this SIP revision inviting interested parties to comment on the DFR. Timely adverse comments were submitted on EPA's April 26, 2005 DFR. On June 27, 2005 (70 FR 36844), due to the receipt of adverse comments submitted in response to the DFR, EPA published a withdrawal of the DFR. A summary of those comments and EPA's responses are provided in Section II of this document. II. Public Comment and EPA Response *Comment:* EPA received the same comment on behalf of two commenters. The commenters state that the federal new source performance standards

(NSPS)and national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAPs) regulations allow exceedance of their respective opacity standards for up to three hours per occurrence during periods of startup, shutdown and repair. These federal regulations require the installation of continuous opacity monitors (COM). The commenters claim that air pollution control equipment on certain municipal waste combustion

(MWC)sources cannot achieve the visible emissions exception requirements as stated in Maryland's clarified visible emissions rule due to the occasional formation of “condensed” plumes after emissions exit the stack, as a result of upset conditions that may occur during the operation of emission control devices used to reduce nitrogen oxides (NO X ) emissions. The commenters believe that Maryland's regulations regarding VE exceptions should be revised to be consistent with the existing federal NSPS and NESHAP regulations for MWCs. *Response:* EPA understands that the VE requirements established in Maryland's regulations differ from those established in the NSPS and NESHAP regulations that currently apply to MWCs. States have frequently used VE limits as part of their efforts to attain the NAAQS. Under the CAA's bifurcated scheme, the State is responsible for choosing how a source must be regulated for purposes of attaining the NAAQS and EPA's role is limited in reviewing the State's choice to ensure it meets the minimum statutory requirements. Here, the commenter is not claiming that the regulations do not meet the statutory minimum, but rather that Maryland is seeking to require more than the minimum statutory requirements. The CAA is based upon “cooperative federalism,” which contemplates that each State will develop its own SIP, and that States retain a large degree of flexibility in choosing which sources to control and to what degree. EPA must approve a State's plan if it meets the “minimum requirements of the CAA. *Union Elec. Co.* v. *EPA* , 427 U.S. 246, 264-266 (1976). III. Final Action EPA is approving revisions to the Maryland VE exception provisions as a revision to the Maryland SIP. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal requirement, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . This rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). C. Petitions for Judicial Review Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 1, 2007. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action to approve revisions to the Maryland regulations which clarify the visible emissions exception provisions may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: July 19, 2007. William T. Wisniewski, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart V—Maryland 2. In § 52.1070, the table in paragraph

(c)is amended by revising the entries for COMAR 26.11.06.02, 10.18.08 (Title), 10.18.08.04, 26.11.09.05, and 26.11.10.03 to read as follows: § 52.1070 Identification of plan.

(c)*EPA approved regulations.* EPA-Approved Regulations in the Maryland SIP Code of Maryland administrative regulations (COMAR) citation Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Additional explanation/citation at 40 CFR 52.1100 * * * * * * * 26.11.06 General Emission Standards, Prohibitions, and Restrictions * * * * * * * 26.11.06.02 [ *Except:* .02A(1)(e), (1)(g), (1)(h), (1)(i)] Visible Emissions 11/24/03 08/01/07 [Insert page number where the document begins] Revised paragraph 26.11.02.02A(2). * * * * * * * 10.18.08/26.11.08 Control of Incinerators * * * * * * * 10.18.08.04/26.11.08.04 Visible Emissions 11/24/03 08/01/07 [Insert page number where the document begins] Revised COMAR citation; revised paragraph 26.11.08.04C. * * * * * * * 26.11.09 Control of Fuel-Burning Equipment and Stationary Internal Combustion Engines, and Certain Fuel-Burning Installations * * * * * * * 26.11.09.05 Visible Emissions 11/24/03 08/01/07 [Insert page number where the document begins] Revised paragraph 26.11.09.05A(3). * * * * * * * 26.11.10 Control of Iron and Steel Production Installations * * * * * * * 26.11.10.03 Visible Emissions 11/24/03 08/01/07 [Insert page number where the document begins] Revised paragraph 26.11.10.03A(2). * * * * * * * [FR Doc. E7-14773 Filed 7-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2007-0462; FRL-8442-4] Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District and San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) and San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) portions of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern oxides of nitrogen (NO X ) emissions from boilers, process heaters, steam generators, and glass melting furnaces. We are approving local rules that regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). DATES: This rule is effective on October 1, 2007 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by August 31, 2007. If we receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the **Federal Register** to notify the public that this direct final rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2007-0462, by one of the following methods: 1. *Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions. 2. *E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov* . 3. *Mail or deliver:* Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901. *Instructions:* All comments will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through the *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. *http://www.regulations.gov* is an “anonymous access” system, and EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. 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. *Docket:* The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at *http://www.regulations.gov* and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Francisco Dóñez, EPA Region IX,

(415)972-3956, *Donez.Francisco@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA. Table of Contents I. The State's Submittal A. What rules did the State submit? B. Are there other versions of these rules? C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions? II. EPA's Evaluation and Action. A. How is EPA evaluating the rules? B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria? C. EPA recommendations to further improve the rules. D. Public comment and final action. III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews. I. The State's Submittal A. What rules did the State submit? Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this proposal with the dates that they were adopted by local air agencies and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Table 1.—Submitted Rules Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted SMAQMD 411 NO X from Boilers, Process Heaters and Steam Generators 10/27/05 06/16/06 SJVAPCD 4354 Glass Melting Furnaces 08/17/06 12/29/06 On July 21, 2006, the submittal of SMAQMD Rule 411 was found to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review. The submittal of SJVAPCD Rule 4354 was found to meet the completeness criteria on February 13, 2007. B. Are there other versions of these rules? We approved a version of Rule 411 into the SIP on February 9, 1996 (61 FR 4887). The SMAQMD adopted revisions to the SIP-approved version on January 9, 1997 and CARB submitted them to us on May 18, 1998. We approved a version of Rule 4354 into the SIP on December 6, 2002 (67 FR 72573). While we can act on only the most recently submitted version, we have reviewed materials provided with previous submittals. C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions? NO X helps produce ground-level ozone, smog and particulate matter, which harm human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that control NO X emissions. Rule 411 has been amended to apply to boilers, process heaters and steam generators with a rated heat input capacity of 1 million Btu per hour or more. Several NO X limits in the rule have been lowered, and some requirements for exemption from the rule's emission limits have been modified. Amended Rule 4354 now applies to glass melting furnaces located at stationary sources with the potential to emit at least 10 tons per year of either NO X or VOC. EPA's technical support documents

(TSD)have more information about these rules. II. EPA's Evaluation and Action A. How is EPA evaluating the rules? Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the Act), must require Reasonably Available Control Technology

(RACT)for each category of sources covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines

(CTG)document as well as each major source in nonattainment areas (see sections 182(a)(2) and 182(f)), and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). The SMAQMD and SJVAPCD both regulate ozone nonattainment areas (see 40 CFR part 81), so Rule 411 and Rule 4354 must fulfill RACT. Guidance and policy documents that we used to help consistently evaluate enforceability and RACT requirements include the following: 1. “State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the General Preamble; Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 Implementation of Title I; Proposed Rule,” (the NO X Supplement), 57 FR 55620, November 25, 1992. 2. “Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,” EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook). 3. “Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,” EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook). 4. “Alternative Control Techniques Document—NO X Emissions from Glass Manufacturing,” EPA, EPA-453/R-94-037, June 1994. 5. “Alternative Control Techniques Document—NO X Emissions from Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Boilers,” EPA, EPA-453/R-94-022, March 1994. 6. “Determination of Reasonably Available Control Technology and Best Available Retrofit Control Technology for Industrial, Institutional, and Commercial Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters,” California Air Resources Board, July 18, 1991. 7. “Suggested Control Measure for the Control of Oxides of Nitrogen Emissions from Glass Melting Furnaces,” California Air Resources Board, September 5, 1980. B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria? We believe these rules are consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP relaxations. Rule 411 has been strengthened by the lowered applicability threshold and NO X emissions limits, and the exemptions from the rule have been appropriately limited. Rule 4354 has also been strengthened by the lowering of its applicability threshold. The TSDs have more information on our evaluation. C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules The TSDs describe additional rule revisions that do not affect EPA's current action but are recommended for the next time the local agency modifies the rules. D. Public Comment and Final Action As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving the submitted rules because we believe they fulfill all relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this **Federal Register** , we are simultaneously proposing approval of the same submitted rules. If we receive adverse comments by August 31, 2007, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the **Federal Register** to notify the public that the direct final approval will not take effect and we will address the comments in a subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do not receive timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be effective without further notice on October 1, 2007. This will incorporate these rules into the federally enforceable SIP. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 1, 2007. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: June 20, 2007. Jane Diamond, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart F—California 2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(345)(i)(B)( *1* ) and (347)(i)(A)( *1* ) to read as follows: § 52.220 Identification of plan.

(c)* * *

(345)* * *

(i)* * *

(B)Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. ( *1* ) Rule 411, adopted on October 27, 2005.

(347)December 29, 2006

(i)Incorporation by reference.

(A)San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. ( *1* ) Rule 4354, adopted on August 17, 2006. [FR Doc. E7-14586 Filed 7-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0729; FRL-8439-2] Revisions To the Arizona State Implementation Plan, Pinal County Air Quality Control District AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing a limited approval and limited disapproval of revisions to the Pinal County Air Quality Control District (PCAQCD) portion of the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP). This action was proposed in the **Federal Register** on October 17, 2006 and concerns particulate matter (PM-10) emissions from fugitive dust. Under authority of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act), this action simultaneously approves local rules that regulate these emission sources and directs Arizona to correct rule deficiencies. DATES: *Effective Date:* This rule is effective on August 31, 2007. ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0729 for this action. The index to the docket is available electronically at *http://www.regulations.gov* and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Francisco Dóñez, EPA Region IX,

(415)972-3956, *Donez.Francisco@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA. I. Proposed Action On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 60934), EPA proposed a limited approval and limited disapproval of the following rules that were submitted for incorporation into the Arizona SIP. Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted PCAQCD 4-2-020 General [Fugitive Dust] 06/29/93 11/27/95 PCAQCD 4-2-030 Definitions [Fugitive Dust] 06/29/93 11/27/95 PCAQCD 4-2-040 Standards [Fugitive Dust] 06/29/93 11/27/95 PCAQCD 4-2-050 Monitoring and Records [Fugitive Dust] 05/14/97 10/07/98 We proposed a limited approval because we determined that these rules improve the SIP and are largely consistent with the relevant CAA requirements. We simultaneously proposed a limited disapproval because some rule provisions conflict with section 110 and part D of the Act. These provisions include the following: 1. The exemption of agricultural activities from fugitive dust rules without justification in Rules 4-2-020 and 4-2-030. 2. Expression of rule requirements in highly general terms, using the vaguely defined criterion of “reasonable precaution,” in Rules 4-2-030 and 4-2-040. 3. The absence of recordkeeping provisions in Rule 4-2-050. Our proposed action contains more information on the basis for this rulemaking and on our evaluation of the submittal. II. Public Comments and EPA Responses EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. During this period, we received comments from the following parties. 1. Donald P. Gabrielson, Pinal County Air Quality Control District (PCAQCD); letter dated November 16, 2006 and received November 16, 2006. 2. Susan Asmus, National Association of Home Builders (NAHB); letter dated November 15, 2006 and received November 16, 2006. The comments and our responses are summarized below. *Comment #1:* PCAQCD commented that EPA's proposed rule incorrectly stated that there are no previous versions of Rules 4-2-020, 4-2-030, 4-2-040, and 4-2-050 in the SIP. The comment pointed out that EPA approved Pinal County Regulation 7-3-1.2 (Fugitive Dust) into the SIP on November 15, 1978 (43 FR 53034). Regulation 7-3-1.2 contains provisions similar to those in the submitted version of 4-2-040. *Response #1:* EPA acknowledges that this correction to our proposed rule is accurate. However, this error does not have any substantive impact on our proposed action. *Comment #2:* PCAQCD commented that the effective agricultural exemption in Rules 4-2-020 and 4-2-030 was removed in a subsequent amendment of these rules, adopted on January 24, 2003. However, these amended rules were not submitted as SIP elements. *Response #2:* EPA acknowledges the 2003 amendments to Rules 4-2-020 and 4-2-030. However, we can only act on rules that have been submitted by the state as SIP amendments. As this comment indicates, the 2003 revisions were never submitted to EPA for inclusion in the SIP. If PCAQCD submits the 2003 version of these rules as a SIP amendment, our objection to the agricultural exemption will be resolved. *Comment #3:* PCAQCD disagreed that the definition and use of “reasonable precaution” in Rules 4-2-030 and 4-2-040, respectively, is not sufficiently clear or enforceable. They commented that formulating specific requirements for every dust-generating activity would be impractical. *Response #3:* In our General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 we explain that procedures for determining compliance with a rule must be “sufficiently specific and nonsubjective so that two independent entities applying the procedures would obtain the same result.” See 57 FR 13498, 13568 (April 16, 1992). A SIP must also include “clear, unambiguous, and measurable requirements” for ensuring that sources are in compliance with control measures (ibid). These rules do not meet EPA's enforceability criteria because they do not establish any standards by which to gauge source compliance with implementation of reasonable precautions. Rules 4-2-030 and 4-2-040 allow Executive Officer discretion in determining when measures have “effectively prevented” the emission of fugitive dust. EPA considers such Executive Officer discretion a violation of Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2)(A). In contrast, analogous rules in other areas describe specific requirements for significant sources of PM-10 by source category. Examples of district rules containing specific source category requirements include: • Maricopa County Environmental Services Department, Arizona (MCESD), Rule 310 (Fugitive Dust). • San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, California (SJVUAPCD), Regulation 8 (Fugitive PM-10 Prohibitions). ○ Rule 8021 (Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities) ○ Rule 8031 (Bulk Materials) ○ Rule 8041 (Carryout and Trackout) ○ Rule 8051 (Open Areas) ○ Rule 8061 (Paved and Unpaved Roads) ○ Rule 8071 (Unpaved Vehicle/Equipment Traffic Areas) ○ Rule 8081 (Agricultural Sources) • South Coast Air Quality Management District, California (SCAQMD), Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust). • Clark County, Nevada. ○ Section 90 (Fugitive Dust From Open Areas and Vacant Lots) ○ Section 91 (Fugitive Dust From Unpaved Roads, Unpaved Alleys, and Unpaved Easement Roads) ○ Section 92 (Fugitive Dust From Unpaved Parking Lots, Material Handling and Storage Yards, and Vehicle and Equipment Storage Yards) ○ Section 93 (Fugitive Dust From Paved Roads and Street Sweeping Equipment) ○ Section 94 (Permitting and Dust Control for Construction Activities) It is PCAQCD's obligation to consider their own inventory and establish specific BACM requirements for significant source categories. EPA will work with PCAQCD to identify measures that are appropriate in light of local circumstances. *Comment #4:* PCAQCD disagreed with EPA's assertion in our proposed rule that the absence of recordkeeping provisions in Rule 4-2-050 constitutes a rule deficiency. They further commented that the “reasonable precaution” standard, combined with monitoring information, is sufficient to ascertain compliance with these rules. *Response #4:* Recordkeeping provisions in prohibitory rules provide the main instruments for effective enforcement of regulatory requirements. Recordkeeping is needed in order to verify compliance with the requirements or limits established by the rule. Section 110(a) of the Clean Air Act requires the inclusion of recordkeeping measures in any submitted SIP rule. Though recordkeeping requirements for fugitive dust may not be as detailed as those in typical stationary source rules, some feasible recordkeeping provisions are nevertheless required. Examples of district rules containing recordkeeping requirements include: • Maricopa County Environmental Services Department, Arizona (MCESD), Rule 310 (Fugitive Dust). • San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, California (SJVUAPCD), Regulation 8 (Fugitive PM-10 Prohibitions), Rule 8011 (General Requirements). • South Coast Air Quality Management District, California (SCAQMD), Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust). • Clark County, Nevada. ○ Section 90 (Fugitive Dust From Open Areas and Vacant Lots) ○ Section 91 (Fugitive Dust From Unpaved Roads, Unpaved Alleys, and Unpaved Easement Roads) ○ Section 92 (Fugitive Dust From Unpaved Parking Lots, Material Handling and Storage Yards, and Vehicle and Equipment Storage Yards) ○ Section 93 (Fugitive Dust From Paved Roads and Street Sweeping Equipment) ○ Section 94 (Permitting and Dust Control for Construction Activities) *Comment #5:* PCAQCD commented that EPA has no basis to impose sanctions on the basis of the currently submitted rules. They noted that the currently approved SIP Rule R7-3-1.2 also applies a “reasonable precaution” standard with respect to agricultural activity, and that EPA is not justified in starting a sanctions clock for the current rules, in which the “reasonable precaution” requirement is repeated. *Response #5:* We approved Rule 7-3-1.2 into the SIP in 1978. Since that time, national policy on particulate matter and fugitive dust requirements has evolved. Sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a) of the CAA require moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas to implement reasonably available control measures (RACM), including reasonably available control technology

(RACT)for stationary sources of PM-10. Section 189(b) requires that serious PM-10 nonattainment areas, in addition to meeting the RACM/RACT requirements, implement best available control measures (BACM), including best available control technology (BACT). In the northern part of PCAQCD is the Apache Junction portion of the Phoenix metropolitan area, which is a serious PM-10 nonattainment area. In the northeastern part of PCAQCD is Hayden-Miami, which is a moderate PM-10 nonattainment area. PCAQCD regulates certain sources of PM-10 within both nonattainment areas. EPA's guidance for both moderate and serious PM-10 nonattainment areas requires that RACM/RACT and BACM/BACT be implemented for all source categories unless the State demonstrates that a particular source category does not contribute significantly to PM-10 levels in excess of the NAAQS (i.e., de minimis sources). See the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 57 FR 13498, 13540 (April 16, 1992) and Addendum to the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 59 FR 41998, 42011 (August 16, 1994). The potential to emit of the emission activities subject to PCAQCD Rules 4-2-020, 4-2-030, 4-2-040, and 4-2-050 comprises a small but significant portion of the total PM-10 emissions in the Phoenix metropolitan area, according to the August 1999 Apache Junction Portion of the Metropolitan Phoenix PM-10 Serious State Implementation Plan (PM-10 Plan). Therefore, Rules 4-2-020, 4-2-030, 4-2-040, and 4-2-050 must meet BACM/BACT control levels. Under this standard, Rules 4-2-020, 4-2-030, 4-2-040, and 4-2-050 are not wholly approvable for inclusion in the SIP, and per Clean Air Act Section 179, a sanctions clock must be started. We also note the following from the preamble to the recently promulgated PM standards: “The United States Department of Agriculture

(USDA)has been working with the agricultural community to develop conservation systems and activities to control coarse particle emissions. Based on current ambient monitoring information, these USDA-approved conservation systems and activities have proven to be effective in controlling these emissions in areas where coarse particles emitted from agricultural activities have been identified as a contributor to violation of the NAAQS. The EPA concludes that where USDA-approved conservation systems and activities have been implemented, these systems and activities have satisfied the Agency's reasonable available control measure and best available control measure requirements. The EPA believes that in the future, when properly implemented, USDA-approved conservation systems and activities should satisfy the requirements for reasonably available control measures or best available control measures.” *Comment #6:* NAHB sent a comment supporting EPA's proposed action. *Response #6:* EPA acknowledges this comment. III. EPA Action No comments were submitted that change our assessment of the rules as described in our proposed action. Therefore, as authorized in sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is finalizing a limited approval of the submitted rules. This action incorporates the submitted rule into the Arizona SIP, including those provisions identified as deficient. As authorized under section 110(k)(3), EPA is simultaneously finalizing a limited disapproval of the rules. As a result, sanctions will be imposed unless EPA approves subsequent SIP revisions that correct the rule deficiencies within 18 months of the effective date of this action. These sanctions will be imposed under section 179 of the Act according to 40 CFR 52.31. In addition, EPA must promulgate a federal implementation plan

(FIP)under section 110(c) unless we approve subsequent SIP revisions that correct the rule deficiencies within 24 months. Note that the submitted rules have been adopted by the PCAQCD, and EPA's final limited disapproval does not prevent the local agency from enforcing them. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)has exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review.” B. Paperwork Reduction Act This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ) C. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act

(RFA)generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. *Union Electric Co.,* v. *U.S. EPA,* 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2). D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Under sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (“Unfunded Mandates Act”), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule. EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action. E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism *Federalism* (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership). 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.” Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule. F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” This final rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It 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. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks *Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks* (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that:

(1)Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and

(2)concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks. H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with NTTAA, EPA must consider and use “voluntary consensus standards”

(VCS)if available and applicable when developing programs and policies unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to the use of VCS. J. Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register.** A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register.** This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective August 31, 2007. K. Petitions for Judicial Review Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 1, 2007. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: June 25, 2007. Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, Region IX. Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart D—Arizona 2. Section 52.120 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(84)(i)(L) and (107)(i)(A)( *2* ) to read as follows: § 52.120 Identification of plan.

(c)* * *

(84)* * *

(i)* * *

(L)Rules 4-2-020, 4-2-030, and 4-2-040, adopted on June 29, 1993.

(107)* * *

(i)* * *

(A)* * * ( *2* ) Rule 4-2-050, adopted on May 14, 1997. [FR Doc. E7-14555 Filed 7-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R07-OAR-2007-0477; FRL-8448-5] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Iowa AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan

(SIP)revision submitted by the state of Iowa for maintenance of the sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) in Muscatine, Iowa. DATES: This direct final rule will be effective October 1, 2007, without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by August 31, 2007. If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the **Federal Register** informing the public that the rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2007-0477, by one of the following methods: 1. *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. *E-mail:* *Hamilton.heather@epa.gov.* 3. *Mail:* Heather Hamilton, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. 4. *Hand Delivery or Courier:* Deliver your comments to Heather Hamilton, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2007-0477. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online 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 through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site 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 *http://www.regulations.gov,* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public 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 electronic docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8 to 4:30 excluding Federal holidays. The interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the office at least 24 hours in advance. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heather Hamilton at

(913)551-7039 or by e-mail at *hamilton.heather@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following questions: What is a SIP? What is the Federal approval process for a SIP? What are the criteria for approval of a maintenance plan? What does Federal approval of a state regulation mean to me? What is in the state's plan to maintain the standard? What is being addressed in this document? Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met? What action is EPA taking? What is a SIP? Section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) requires states to develop air pollution regulations and control strategies to ensure that state air quality meets the national ambient air quality standards established by EPA. These ambient standards are established under section 109 of the CAA, and they currently address six criteria pollutants. These pollutants are: Carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, lead, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. Each state must submit these regulations and control strategies to us for approval and incorporation into the Federally-enforceable SIP. Each Federally-approved SIP protects air quality primarily by addressing air pollution at its point of origin. These SIPs can be extensive, containing state regulations or other enforceable documents and supporting information such as emission inventories, monitoring networks, and modeling demonstrations. What is the Federal approval process for a SIP? In order for state regulations to be incorporated into the Federally-enforceable SIP, states must formally adopt the regulations and control strategies consistent with state and Federal requirements. This process generally includes a public notice, public hearing, public comment period, and a formal adoption by a state-authorized rulemaking body. Once a state rule, regulation, or control strategy is adopted, the state submits it to us for inclusion into the SIP. We must provide public notice and seek additional public comment regarding the proposed Federal action on the state submission. If adverse comments are received, they must be addressed prior to any final Federal action by us. All state regulations and supporting information approved by EPA under section 110 of the CAA are incorporated into the Federally-approved SIP. Records of such SIP actions are maintained in the Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)at title 40, part 52, entitled “Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans.” The actual state regulations which are approved are not reproduced in their entirety in the CFR outright but are “incorporated by reference,” which means that we have approved a given state regulation with a specific effective date. What are the criteria for approval of a maintenance plan? The Clean Air Act requires maintenance plans for areas which are redesignated from nonattainment to attainment for a criteria pollutant. The requirements for the approval and revision of a maintenance plan are found in section 175A of the CAA. A maintenance plan must provide a demonstration of continued attainment for 10 years after redesignation, including the control measures relied upon, provide contingency measures for the prompt correction of any violation of the standard, provide for continued operation of an adequate ambient air quality monitoring network, provide a means of tracking the progress of the plan, and include the attainment emissions inventory. Section 175A(b) requires a revision to the initial maintenance plan to demonstrate continued attainment for 10 years after the initial 10-year period. What does Federal approval of a state regulation mean to me? Enforcement of the state regulation before and after it is incorporated into the Federally-approved SIP is primarily a state responsibility. However, after the regulation is Federally approved, we are authorized to take enforcement action against violators. Citizens are also offered legal recourse to address violations as described in section 304 of the CAA. What is in the state's plan to maintain the standard? Background: A portion of Muscatine County, Iowa, was designated nonattainment for the 24-hour SO 2 NAAQS on March 10, 1994. An attainment demonstration and control strategy SIP were approved by EPA on December 1, 1997 (62 FR 63464). On March 19, 1998, EPA approved a maintenance plan for the area, finding that it met the requirements of section 175A of the Act, and redesignated the area from nonattainment to attainment (63 FR 13343). The SIP revision addressed below is a revision to this maintenance plan to address the requirement of section 175A(b) for a second ten-year maintenance plan. Emission Inventory: Maintenance of the SO 2 standard in the Muscatine area was ensured through continued compliance with emission reductions requirements as prescribed in construction permits and incorporated and approved by EPA as revisions made to the SIP. These measures have been highly effective and attainment will continue to rely on ensuring that emissions are maintained at a level that is at or below current allowable emission rates. Past, current and projected emissions are included in the second 10-year plan. IDNR also reviewed county-wide point source emissions, on-road sources, non-road, and area sources into the current and projected level of SO 2 emissions. Projected levels of SO 2 emissions show decreased levels with the exception of the area source inventory. This is due to predicted increase in gas stations and dry cleaners but the increase is more than off set by the decreases of other sectors. The emissions inventory was reviewed by EPA technical personnel and was found to be acceptable. Demonstration of Continued Attainment: The Iowa Department of Natural Resources

(IDNR)will continue to ensure the enforceable emission limitations and operating conditions at the facilities, included in the previous two federally-approved SIP revisions, are enforced as necessary. Based on a review of the SO 2 ambient monitoring data collected since 1999, and an evaluation of predicted future SO 2 emissions for the area, IDNR has demonstrated that no additional control measures are necessary to maintain the NAAQS in Muscatine. The maintenance plan contains a detailed description of emission limits and operating conditions at each facility which have resulted in maintenance of the SO 2 standard. Contingency Measures: The first maintenance plan identified three facilities in the Muscatine area that were the primary source of SO 2 emissions. IDNR negotiated emission reductions with the facilities and the reductions were incorporated into revised construction permits which were submitted as part of the section 110 SIP revision and thus, were Federally enforceable. Contingency measures for the second 10-year maintenance plan include mechanisms for responding to monitored exceedances of the NAAQS and include reviewing and regulating the allowable emissions for new and modified sources; requiring reduction in emissions from sources contributing to an exceedance of the NAAQS; ambient air quality monitoring, and emissions monitoring. In the event of an exceedance of the NAAQS, IDNR will conduct an investigation of the major SO 2 emitters in the area to determine if they are in compliance with permit conditions limiting SO 2 emissions, and other applicable regulatory requirements. SO 2 sources will be required to submit a written report within 60 days detailing their operations on the day of the exceedance if requested by the IDNR. (Violation of the 24-hour SO 2 standard was the basis for the previous nonattainment designation for the area.) Owners and operators of sources emitting SO 2 will be required to determine possible causes of excess emissions that may have contributed to the exceedance including malfunctions and upset conditions. The analysis will include an evaluation of the meteorological conditions prevailing at the time of the exceedance. Depending on the circumstances of the incident, other activities such as inspections, dispersions modeling, additional monitors, or proposing more stringent emission limitations may be necessary. The state commits to requiring implementation of any additional control measures no later than 24 months after a NAAQS violation. Because the existing control strategy has resulted in readily quantifiable emissions reductions and has been adequate to prevent violations of the SO 2 NAAQS for more than 10 years after redesignation, EPA concludes that these contingency measures to address any subsequent violations are adequate to meet the requirements of section 175A. Air Quality Monitoring: The current monitoring network operated by IDNR consists of three monitors. The Iowa SIP submittal proposed to discontinue two of these monitors as explained below. The Greenwood Cemetery monitoring site has never recorded an exceedance of the NAAQS for SO 2 and the maximum values recorded at the site have declined in recent years. During the last full year of data collection (2005), the maximum value recorded at the site was 17% of the 24-hour NAAQS. The maximum value recorded for the 3-hour averaging period and the 2005 annual value were both 15% or less of the 3-hour and annual NAAQS. Based on this information, IDNR has proposed to discontinue this monitor. EPA has determined that discontinuance of this monitor is acceptable. The second monitor is located at Muscatine Power and Water

(MPW)and, like the Greenwood Cemetery site, has never recorded an exceedance of the NAAQS and the maximum recorded values at the site have also declined. During 2005, the maximum value recorded at the site was 14% of the 24-hour NAAQS; the maximum recorded 3-hour value was less than 14% of the 3-hour NAAQS, and the 2005 annual value was only 10% of the annual NAAQS. Based on this information, IDNR has proposed to discontinue this monitor. EPA has determined that discontinuance of this monitor is acceptable. The third monitor is located at Musser Park and recorded multiple exceedances prior to implementation of the emissions control strategy. Since the control strategy was implemented, only one 24-hour exceedance occurred which was on December 1, 1999, with a monitored value of 387.4 μg/m 3 (0.148 ppm). (The 24-hour SO 2 NAAQS is 0.14 ppm, not to be exceeded more than once per calendar year.) Maximum values recorded at the site have declined in recent years. During the last full year of data collection

(2005)the maximum daily value recorded was 52% of the 24-hour NAAQS. No exceedances of the 3-hour or annual SO 2 NAAQS have been recorded at this site. During 2005, the 3-hour value recorded at the site was 33% of the 3-hour NAAQS. The 2005 annual value was only 20% of the annual NAAQS. IDNR will continue to monitor at this site. The monitoring plan proposed by IDNR continues to meet the monitoring requirements of 40 CFR Part 58. Tracking the Progress of the Plan: An air quality modeling analysis was performed to support the development of the control strategy for the nonattainment area SIP. The inputs, procedures and results were reviewed during the development of the maintenance plan demonstration for the first 10-year maintenance plan, and a review for the second 10-year plan concluded that no additional modeling was necessary. This decision was supported by the Muscatine SO 2 monitoring network measurements which indicate no violations of the 24-hour SO 2 NAAQS since the maintenance plan period started. Any new or modified major stationary source constructed in the state must comply with the state's Federally-approved New Source Review program. For major source construction or modification, implementation of the best available control technology provisions and completion of the ambient air quality impact analyses and additional impacts analyses, requirements of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program will ensure that new or modified sources in the maintenance area, and in the vicinity of the maintenance area, are controlled to the extent necessary to maintain the SO 2 NAAQS. What is being addressed in this document? EPA is approving the State Implementation Plan

(SIP)revision submitted by the state of Iowa for the purpose of establishing the second 10-year maintenance plan for the SO 2 NAAQS in Muscatine, Iowa. This action will continue to ensure the measures in the plan maintain the standard in Muscatine and remain in place as Federal requirements. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met? The state submittal has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submittal also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In addition, as explained above and in more detail in the technical support document which is part of this docket, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 175A. What action is EPA taking? EPA is approving the second 10-year maintenance plan for the Muscatine, Iowa, area to maintain the SO 2 NAAQS. We are processing this action as a direct final action because the revisions are noncontroversial. Therefore, we do not anticipate any adverse comments. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on part of this rule and if that part can be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those parts of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 1, 2007. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: July 22, 2007. John B. Askew, Regional Administrator, Region 7. Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart Q—Iowa 2. In § 52.820(e) the table is amended by adding an entry in numerical order to read as follows: § 52.820 Identification of plan.

(e)* * * EPA-Approved Iowa Nonregulatory Provisions Name of nonregulatory SIP provision Applicable geographic or nonattainment area State submittal date EPA approval date Explanation * * * * * * *

(37)SO 2 Maintenance Plan for the Second 10-year Period Muscatine 04/05/2007 08/01/2007 [insert FR page number where the document begins] [FR Doc. E7-14868 Filed 7-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 and 81 [EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0324; FRL-8447-7] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Redesignation of the Johnstown (Cambria County) Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment and Approval of the Area's Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base Year Inventory AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan

(SIP)revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) is requesting that the Johnstown (Cambria County) ozone nonattainment area (Cambria Area) be redesignated as attainment for the 8-hour ozone ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). EPA is approving the ozone redesignation request for Cambria Area. In conjunction with its redesignation request, PADEP submitted a SIP revision consisting of a maintenance plan for Cambria Area that provides for continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10 years after redesignation. EPA is approving the 8-hour maintenance plan. PADEP also submitted a 2002 base year inventory for the Cambria Area which EPA is approving. In addition, EPA is approving the adequacy determination for the motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) that are identified in the Cambria Area maintenance plan for purposes of transportation conformity, and is approving those MVEBs. EPA is approving the redesignation request, and the maintenance plan and the 2002 base year emissions inventory as revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA). DATES: *Effective Date:* This final rule is effective on August 1, 2007 pursuant to the authority of 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1). ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0324. All documents in the docket are listed in the *www.regulations.gov* Web site. Although listed in the electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential business information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose Quinto,

(215)814-2182, or by e-mail at *quinto.rose@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background On June 1, 2007 (72 FR 30509), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPR)for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The NPR proposed approval of Pennsylvania's redesignation request, a SIP revision that establishes a maintenance plan for the Cambria Area that provides for continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10 years after redesignation, and a 2002 base year emissions inventory. The formal SIP revisions were submitted by PADEP on March 27, 2007. Other specific requirements of Pennsylvania's redesignation request, SIP revision for the maintenance plan, and the rationales for EPA's proposed actions are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here. No public comments were received on the NPR. However, on December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated EPA's Phase 1 Implementation Rule for the 8-hour Ozone Standard. (69 FR 23591, April 30, 2004). *South Coast Air Quality Management Dist.* v. *EPA* , 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006). On June 8, 2007, in *South Coast Air Quality Management Dist.* v. *EPA,* Docket No. 04-1201, in response to several petitions for rehearing, the D.C. Circuit clarified that the Phase 1 Rule was vacated only with regard to those parts of the rule that had been successfully challenged. Therefore, the Phase 1 Rule provisions related to classifications for areas currently classified under subpart 2 of Title I, part D of the Act as 8-hour nonattainment areas, the 8-hour attainment dates and the timing for emissions reductions needed for attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS remain effective. The June 8 decision left intact the Court's rejection of EPA's reasons for implementing the 8-hour standard in certain nonattainment areas under subpart 1 in lieu of subpart 2. By limiting the vacatur, the Court let stand EPA's revocation of the 1-hour standard and those anti-backsliding provisions of the Phase 1 Rule that had not been successfully challenged. The June 8 decision reaffirmed the December 22, 2006 decision that EPA had improperly failed to retain measures required for 1-hour nonattainment areas under the anti-backsliding provisions of the regulations:

(1)Nonattainment area New Source Review

(NSR)requirements based on an area's 1-hour nonattainment classification;

(2)Section 185 penalty fees for the 1-hour severe or extreme nonattainment areas; and

(3)measures to be implemented pursuant to section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of the Act, on the contingency of an area not making reasonable further progress toward attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS, or for failure to attain NAAQS. In addition, the June 8 decision clarified that the Court's reference to conformity requirements for anti-backsliding purposes was limited to requiring the continued use of the 1-hour motor vehicle emissions budgets until 8-hour budgets were available for 8-hour conformity determinations, which is already required under EPA's conformity regulations. The Court thus clarified the 1-hour conformity determinations are not required for anti-backsliding purposes. For the reasons set forth in the proposal, EPA does not believe that the Court's rulings alter any requirements relevant to this redesignation action so as to preclude redesignation, and do not prevent EPA from finalizing this redesignation. EPA believes that the Court's December 22, 2006 and June 8, 2007 decisions impose no impediment to moving forward with redesignation of this area to attainment, because even in the light of the Court's decisions, redesignation is appropriate under the relevant redesignation provisions of the Act and longstanding policies regarding redesignation requests. In the June 1, 2007 NPR, EPA proposed to find that the area had satisfied the requirements under the 1-hour standard whether the 1-hour standard was deemed to be reinstated or whether the Court's decision on the petition for rehearing were modified to require something less than compliance with all applicable 1-hour requirements. Because EPA proposed to find that the area satisfied the requirements under either scenario, EPA is proceeding to finalize the redesignation and to conclude that the area met the requirements under the 1-hour standard applicable for purposes of redesignation under the 8-hour standard. These include the provisions of EPA's anti-backsliding rules, as well as the additional anti-backsliding provisions identified by the Court in its rulings. In its June 8, 2007 decision, the Court limited its vacatur so as to uphold those provisions of the anti-backsliding requirements that were not successfully challenged. Therefore, EPA finds that the area has met the anti-backsliding requirements, *see* 40 CFR 51.900 *et seq;* 70 FR 30592, 30604 (May 26, 2005) which apply by virtue of the area's classification for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, as well as the four additional anti-backsliding provisions identified by the Court, or that such requirements are not applicable for purposes of redesignation. In addition, with respect to the requirement for transportation conformity under the 1-hour standard, the Court in its June 8 decision clarified that for those with 1-hour motor vehicle emissions budgets, anti-backsliding requires only that those 1-hour budgets must be used for 8-hour conformity determinations until replaced by 8-hour budgets. To meet this requirement, conformity determinations in such areas must continue to comply with the applicable requirements of EPA's conformity regulations at 40 CFR part 93. The Court clarified that the 1-hour conformity determinations are not required for anti-backsliding purposes. II. Final Action EPA is approving the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's redesignation request, maintenance plan, and the 2002 base year emissions inventory because the requirements for approval have been satisfied. EPA has evaluated Pennsylvania's redesignation request that was submitted on March 27, 2007 and determined that it meets the redesignation criteria set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA believes that the redesignation request and monitoring data demonstrate that the Cambria Area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard. The final approval of this redesignation request will change the designation of the Cambria Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA is approving the maintenance plan for the Cambria Area submitted on March 27, 2007 as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP. EPA is also approving the MVEBs submitted by PADEP in conjunction with its redesignation request. In addition, EPA is approving the 2002 base year emissions inventory as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP submitted by PADEP on March 27, 2007. In this final rulemaking, EPA is notifying the public that we have found that the MVEBs for nitrogen oxides (NO X ) and volatile organic compounds

(VOCs)in the Cambria Area for the 8-hour ozone maintenance plan are adequate and approved for conformity purposes. As a result of our finding, the Cambria Area must use the MVEBs from the submitted 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for future conformity determinations. The adequate and approved MVEBs are provided in the following table: Adequate and Approved Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in Tons per Day

(TPD)Budget year NO X VOC 2009 3.8 5.6 2018 2.3 2.7 The Cambria Area is subject to the CAA's requirement for the basic nonattainment areas until and unless it is redesignated to attainment. III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Redesignation of an area to attainment under section 107(d)(3)(e) of the Clean Air Act does not impose any new requirements on small entities. Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not impose any new regulatory requirements on sources. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by State law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). This final rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Because this action affects the status of a geographical area, does not impose any new requirements on sources, or allows the state to avoid adopting or implementing other requirements, this action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal requirement, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not impose any new requirements on sources. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register.** This rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). C. Petitions for Judicial Review Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 1, 2007. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action, approving the redesignation of the Cambria Area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the associated maintenance plan, the 2002 base year emission inventory, and the MVEBs identified in the maintenance plan, may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. 40 CFR Part 81 Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas. Dated: July 18, 2007. James W. Newsom, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart NN—Pennsylvania 2. In § 52.2020, the table in paragraph (e)(1) is amended by adding an entry for the 8-hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base Year Emissions Inventory for Johnstown (Cambria County), Pennsylvania at the end of the table to read as follows: § 52.2020 Identification of plan.

(e)* * *

(1)* * * Name of non-regulatory SIP revision Applicable geographic area State submittal date EPA approval date Additional explanation * * * * * * * 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base Year Emissions Inventory Johnstown (Cambria County) 03/27/07 08/01/07 [Insert page number where the document begins] PART 81—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for prt 81 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* 2. In § 81.339, the table entitled “Pennsylvania-Ozone (8-Hour Standard)” is amended by revising the entry for the Johnstown, PA, Cambria County to read as follows: § 81.339 Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania—Ozone (8-Hour Standard) Designated area Designation a Date 1 Type Category/classification Date 1 Type * * * * * * * Johnstown, PA: Cambria County 08/01/07 Attainment * * * * * * * a Includes Indian County located in each county or area, except otherwise noted. 1 This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted. [FR Doc. E7-14745 Filed 7-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 and 81 [EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0245; FRL-8446-9] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Redesignation of the Altoona 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment and Approval of the Area's Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base Year Inventory AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan

(SIP)revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) is requesting that the Altoona 8-hour ozone nonattainment area (“Altoona Area” or “Area”) be redesignated as attainment for the 8-hour ozone ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). The Area is comprised of Blair County, Pennsylvania. EPA is approving the ozone redesignation request for Altoona Area. In conjunction with its redesignation request, PADEP submitted a SIP revision consisting of a maintenance plan for Altoona Area that provides for continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10 years after redesignation. EPA is approving the 8-hour maintenance plan. PADEP also submitted a 2002 base year inventory for the Altoona Area which EPA is approving. In addition, EPA is approving the adequacy determination for the motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) that are identified in the Altoona Area maintenance plan for purposes of transportation conformity, and is approving those MVEBs. EPA is approving the redesignation request, and the maintenance plan and the 2002 base year emissions inventory as revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA). DATES: *Effective Date:* This final rule is effective on August 1, 2007 pursuant to the authority of 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1). ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0245. All documents in the docket are listed in the *www.regulations.gov* Web site. Although listed in the electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential business information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the Pennsylvania Department of Environment Protection, Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Caprio,

(215)814-2156, or by e-mail at *caprio.amy@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background On June 7, 2007 (72 FR 31495), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPR)for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The NPR proposed approval of Pennsylvania's redesignation request, a SIP revision that establishes a maintenance plan for the Altoona Area that provides for continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10 years after redesignation, and a 2002 base year emissions inventory. The formal SIP revisions were submitted by PADEP on February 8, 2007. Other specific requirements of Pennsylvania's redesignation request SIP revision for the maintenance plan and the rationales for EPA's proposed actions are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here. No public comments were received on the NPR. However, on December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated EPA's Phase 1 Implementation Rule for the 8-hour Ozone Standard. (69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004). *South Coast Air Quality Management Dist.* v. *EPA,* 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006). On June 8, 2007, in *South Coast Air Quality Management Dist.* v. *EPA,* Docket No. 04-1201, in response to several petitions for rehearing, the D. C. Circuit clarified that the Phase 1 Rule was vacated only with regard to those parts of the rule that had been successfully challenged. Therefore, the Phase 1 Rule provisions related to classifications for areas currently classified under subpart 2 of Title I, part D of the Act as 8-hour nonattainment areas, the 8-hour attainment dates and the timing for emissions reductions needed for attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS remain effective. The June 8 decision left intact the Court's rejection of EPA's reasons for implementing the 8-hour standard in certain nonattainment areas under subpart 1 in lieu of subpart 2. By limiting the vacatur, the Court let stand EPA's revocation of the 1-hour standard and those anti-backsliding provisions of the Phase 1 Rule that had not been successfully challenged. The June 8 decision reaffirmed the December 22, 2006 decision that EPA had improperly failed to retain measures required for 1-hour nonattainment areas under the anti-backsliding provisions of the regulations:

(1)Nonattainment area New Source Review

(NSR)requirements based on an area's 1-hour nonattainment classification;

(2)Section 185 penalty fees for 1-hour severe or extreme nonattainment areas; and

(3)measures to be implemented pursuant to section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of the Act, on the contingency of an area not making reasonable further progress toward attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS, or for failure to attain that NAAQS. In addition the June 8 decision clarified that the Court's reference to conformity requirements for anti-backsliding purposes was limited to requiring the continued use of 1-hour MVEBs until 8-hour budgets were available for 8-hour conformity determinations, which is already required under EPA's conformity regulations. The Court thus clarified that 1-hour conformity determinations are not required for anti-backsliding purposes. For the reasons set forth in the proposal, EPA does not believe that the Court's rulings alter any requirements relevant to this redesignation action so as to preclude redesignation, and do not prevent EPA from finalizing this redesignation. EPA believes that the Court's December 22, 2006 and June 8, 2007 decisions impose no impediment to moving forward with redesignation of this area to attainment, because even in light of the Court's decisions, redesignation is appropriate under the relevant redesignation provisions of the Act and longstanding policies regarding redesignation requests. In its proposal, EPA proposed to find that the area had satisfied the requirements under the 1-hour standard whether the 1-hour standard was deemed to be reinstated or whether the Court's decision on the petition for rehearing were modified to require something less than compliance with all applicable 1-hour requirements. Because EPA proposed to find that the area satisfied the requirements under either scenario, EPA is proceeding to finalize the redesignation and to conclude that the area met the requirements under the 1-hour standard applicable for purposes of redesignation under the 8-hour standard. These include the provisions of EPA's anti-backsliding rules, as well as the additional anti-backsliding provisions identified by the Court in its rulings. In its June 8, 2007 decision the Court limited its vacatur so as to uphold those provisions of the anti-backsliding requirements that were not successfully challenged. Therefore, EPA finds that the area has met the anti-backsliding requirements, *see* 40 CFR 51.900 *et seq;* 70 FR 30592, 30604 (May 26, 2005) which apply by virtue of the area's classification for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, as well as the four additional anti-backsliding provisions identified by the Court, or that such requirements are not applicable for purposes of redesignation. In addition, with respect to the requirement for transportation conformity under the 1-hour standard, the Court in its June 8 decision clarified that for those areas with 1-hour MVEBs, anti-backsliding requires only that those 1-hour budgets must be used for 8-hour conformity determinations until replaced by 8-hour budgets. To meet this requirement, conformity determinations in such areas must continue to comply with the applicable requirements of EPA's conformity regulations at 40 CFR Part 93. The court clarified that 1-hour conformity determinations are not required for anti-backsliding purposes. II. Final Action EPA is approving the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's redesignation request, maintenance plan, and the 2002 base year emissions inventory because the requirements for approval have been satisfied. EPA has evaluated Pennsylvania's redesignation request that was submitted on February 8, 2007 and determined that it meets the redesignation criteria set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA believes that the redesignation request and monitoring data demonstrate that the Altoona Area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard. The final approval of this redesignation request will change the designation of the Altoona Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA is approving the maintenance plan for the Altoona Area submitted on February 8, 2007 as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP. EPA is also approving the MVEBs submitted by PADEP in conjunction with its redesignation request. In addition, EPA is approving the 2002 base year emissions inventory submitted by PADEP on February 8, 2007 as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP. In this final rulemaking, EPA is notifying the public that we have found that the MVEBs for volatile organic compounds

(VOC)and nitrogen oxides (NO X ) in the Altoona Area for the 8-hour ozone maintenance plan are adequate and approved for conformity purposes. As a result of our finding, the Altoona Area must use the MVEBs from the submitted 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for future conformity determinations. The adequate and approved MVEBs are provided in the following table: Adequate and Approved Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in Tons per Summer Day

(tpsd)Budget year VOC NO X 2009 4.2 6.5 2018 2.8 3.3 The Altoona Area is subject to the CAA's requirement for the basic nonattainment areas until and unless it is redesignated to attainment. III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Redesignation of an area to attainment under section 107(d)(3)(e) of the Clean Air Act does not impose any new requirements on small entities. Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not impose any new regulatory requirements on sources. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Because this action affects the status of a geographical area, does not impose any new requirements on sources, or allows the state to avoid adopting or implementing other requirements, this action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal requirement, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not impose any new requirements on sources. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . This rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). C. Petitions for Judicial Review Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 1, 2007. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action, approving the redesignation of the Altoona Area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the associated maintenance plan, the 2002 base year emission inventory, and the MVEBs identified in the maintenance plan, may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. 40 CFR Part 81 Air pollution Control, National Parks, Wilderness Areas. Dated: July 16, 2007. Donald S. Welsh, Regional Administrator, Region III. 40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart NN—Pennsylvania 2. In (§ 52.2020, the table in paragraph (e)(1) is amended by adding an entry for “8-hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and the 2002 Base Year Emissions Inventory” to the end of the table to read as follows: § 52.2020 Identification of plan.

(e)* * *

(1)* * * Name of non-regulatory SIP revision Applicable geographic area State submittal date EPA approval date Additional explanation * * * * * * * 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base Year Emissions Inventory Blair County 02/08/07 08/01/07 [Insert page number where the document begins] PART 81—[AMENDED] 3. The authority citation for Part 81 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* 4. In § 81.339, the table entitled “Pennsylvania—Ozone (8-Hour Standard)” is amended by revising the entry for “Altoona, PA: Blair County” to read as follows: § 81.339 Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania—Ozone (8-Hour Standard) Designated area Designation a Date 1 Type Category/Classification Date 1 Type * * * * * * * Altoona, PA: Blair County 08/01/07 Attainment. * * * * * * * a Includes Indian County located in each county or area, except otherwise noted. 1 This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted. [FR Doc. E7-14560 Filed 7-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0209; FRL-8139-1] Rimsulfuron; Pesticide Tolerance AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a tolerance for residues of rimsulfuron in or on almond, hulls; fruit, citrus group 10; fruit, pome, group 11; fruit, stone, group 12; grape; nut, tree, group 14; and pistachio. E.I. duPont de Nemours and Company, Inc. requested this tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA). DATES: This regulation is effective August 1, 2007. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before October 1, 2007, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ). ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification

(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0209. To access the electronic docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* , select “Advanced Search,” then “Docket Search.” Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the “Submit” button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov web site to view the docket index or access available documents. All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available in regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information

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

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

(703)305-5704; e-mail address: *walters.vickie@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does This Action Apply to Me? You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to those engaged in the following activities: • Crop production (NAICS code 111), e.g., agricultural workers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; farmers. • Animal production (NAICS code 112), e.g., cattle ranchers and farmers, dairy cattle farmers, livestock farmers. • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311), e.g., agricultural workers; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; ranchers; pesticide applicators. • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532), e.g., agricultural workers; commercial applicators; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; residential users. This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of This Document? In addition to accessing an electronic copy of this **Federal Register** document through the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , you may access this **Federal Register** document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ **Federal Register** ” listings at *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr* . You may also access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's pilot e-CFR site at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr* . C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request? Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0209 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk as required by 40 CFR part 178 on or before October 1, 2007. In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public docket that is described in ADDRESSES . Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit this copy, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0209, 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 Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Docket Facility telephone number is

(703)305-5805. II. Petition for Tolerance In the **Federal Register** of July 14, 2006 (71 FR 40100) (FRL-8058-5), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 5F7019) by E.I. duPont de Nemours and Company, Laurel Run Plaza, P.O. Box 80038, Wilmington, DE 19880-0038. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.478 be amended by establishing a tolerance for residues of the herbicide rimsulfuron, *N* -((4,6-dimethoxypyrimidin-2-yl)aminocarbonyl)-3-(ethylsulfonyl)-2-pyridinesulfonamide, in or on almond hulls, citrus/pome/stone fruit crop group, grapes, pistachios and tree nut crop group at 0.01 parts per million (ppm). That notice included a summary of the petition prepared by E.I. duPont de Nemours and Company, Inc, the registrant. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing. Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has determined that the data support a tolerance of 0.09 ppm for almond, hulls. Based on Agency procedures concerning commodity names, the Agency is correcting the terminology for pending commodities and crop groups to read almond, hulls; fruit, citrus, group 10; fruit, pome, group 11; fruit, stone, group 12; grape; nut, tree, group 14, and pistachio. III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of the FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .” These provisions were added to the FFDCA by the Food Quality Protection Act

(FQPA)of 1996. Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for the petitioned-for tolerance for residues of rimsulfuron on almond, hulls at 0.09 ppm; fruit, citrus, group 10 at 0.01 ppm; fruit, pome, group 11 at 0.01 ppm; fruit, stone, group 12 at 0.01 ppm; grape at 0.01 ppm; nut, tree, group 14 at 0.01 ppm; and pistachio at 0.01 ppm. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with establishing the tolerance follows. A. Toxicological Profile EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by rimsulfuron as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at *http://www.regulations.gov* . The referenced document is entitled *Rimsulfuron: Human Health Risk Assessment for Proposed Uses on Almonds, Citrus Fruits, Grapes, Pistachio, Pome Fruit, Stone Fruit, and Tree Nuts* and is available in the docket established by this action, which is described under ADDRESSES , and is identified as EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0209-0002. B. Toxicological Endpoints For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological level of concern

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

(UF)are used in conjunction with the LOC to take into account uncertainties inherent in the extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and in the variations in sensitivity among members of the human population as well as other unknowns. Safety is assessed for acute and chronic risks by comparing aggregate exposure to the pesticide to the acute population adjusted dose

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

(MOE)called for by the product of all applicable uncertainty/safety factors is not exceeded. For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk and estimates risk in terms of the probability of occurrence of additional adverse cases. Generally, cancer risks are considered non-threshold. For more information on the general principles, EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/1997/November/Day-26/p30948.htm* . A summary of the toxicological endpoints for rimsulfuron used for human risk assessment can be found at *www.regulations.gov* in document *Rimsulfuron, Human Health Risk Assessment for Proposed Uses on Almonds, Citrus Fruits, Grapes, Pistachio, Pome Fruit, Stone Fruit, and Tree Nuts* at page 21 in Document 0002 in Docket ID EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0209. C. Exposure Assessment 1. *Dietary exposure from food and feed uses* . In evaluating dietary exposure to rimsulfuron, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing rimsulfuron tolerances in 40 CFR 180.478. EPA assessed dietary exposures from rimsulfuron in food as follows: i. *Acute exposure* . Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. No such effects were identified in the toxicological studies for rimsulfuron; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary. ii. *Chronic exposure* . In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment, EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 1994-1996 and 1998 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII). As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed all foods for which there are tolerances were treated and contain tolerance-level residues. Anticipated residues or estimates of percent crop treated

(PCT)were not used. iii. *Cancer* . Rimsulfuron is classified as a “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans” based on acceptable chronic/carcinogenic studies in rats and mice. Therefore, a cancer exposure assessment was not performed. 2. *Dietary exposure from drinking water* . The Agency lacks sufficient monitoring data to complete a comprehensive dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for rimsulfuron in drinking water. Because the Agency does not have comprehensive monitoring data, drinking water concentration estimates are made by reliance on simulation or modeling taking into account data on the environmental fate characteristics of rimsulfuron. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at *http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm* . Based on the First Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) and Screening Concentrations in Groundwater (SCI-GROW) models, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of rimsulfuron for acute exposures are estimated to be 5.596 parts per billion

(ppb)for surface water and 0.016 ppb for ground water. The EDWCs for chronic exposures are estimated to be 0.120 ppb for surface water and 0.016 ppb for ground water. Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 0.120 ppb was used to access the contribution to drinking water. 3. *From non-dietary exposure* . The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Rimsulfuron is not registered for use on any sites that would result in residential exposure. 4. *Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of toxicity* . Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of the FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.” Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to rimsulfuron and any other substances and rimsulfuron does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that rimsulfruon has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at *http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative* . D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children 1. * In general* . Section 408 of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional

(10X)tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the data base on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA safety factor. In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X when reliable data do not support the choice of a different factor, or, if reliable data are available, EPA uses a different additional FQPA safety factor value based on the use of traditional uncertainty/safety factors and/or special FQPA safety factors, as appropriate. 2. *Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity* . In the prenatal developmental toxicity study in rats, no developmental toxicity was seen at the highest dose tested. In the prenatal developmental toxicity study in rabbits, and in the 2-generation reproduction study in rats, developmental/offspring toxicity were seen in the presence of maternal/systemic toxicity. Consequently, there is no evidence (quantitative or qualitative) of increased susceptibility following prenatal and postnatal exposures. 3. *Conclusion* . EPA has determined that reliable data show that it would be safe for infants and children to reduce the FQPA safety factor to 1X. That decision is based on the following findings: i. The toxicity database for rimsulfuron is complete. ii. There is no indication that rimsulfuron is a neurotoxic chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional uncertainty factors to account for neurotoxicity. iii. There is no evidence that rimsulfuron results in increased susceptibility in *in utero* rats or rabbits in the prenatal developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction study. iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 100% CT and tolerance-level residues. Conservative ground water and surface water modeling estimates were used. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by rimsulfuron. E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety Safety is assessed for acute and chronic risks by comparing aggregate exposure to the pesticide to the aPAD and cPAD. The aPAD and cPAD are calculated by dividing the LOC by all applicable uncertainty/safety factors. For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the probability of additional cancer cases given aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate- and long-term risks are evaluated by comparing aggregate exposure to the LOC to ensure that the MOE called for by the product of all applicable uncertainty/safety factors is not exceeded. 1. *Acute risk.* The existing data showed no indication that rimsulfuron could cause adverse effects in the U.S. population or any population subgroups based on a single dose. Therefore, there is not a concern for acute dietary exposure to the general population or any population subgroup. 2. *Chronic risk* . Using the exposure assumptions described in Unit III.C.ii. for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that exposure to rimsulfuron from food and water will utilize <1% of the cPAD for the U.S. population, and for each of the population subgroups including the most highly exposed population subgroup (children 1-2 years old). There are no residential uses for rimsulfuron that result in chronic residential exposure to rimsulfuron. Based on the use pattern, chronic residential exposure to residues of rimsulfuron is not expected. 3. *Short-term risk* . Short-term aggregate exposure takes into account residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Rimsulfuron is not registered for use on any sites that would result in residential exposure. Therefore, the aggregate risk is the sum of the risk from food and water. 4. *Intermediate-term risk* . Intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Rimsulfuron is not registered for use on any sites that would result in residential exposure. Therefore, the aggregate risk is the sum of the risk from food and water, which do not exceed the Agency's level of concern. 5. *Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population* . Rimsulfuron is classified as a “not likely human carcinogen.” Therefore, EPA does not expect that rimsulfuron will pose a cancer risk to humans. 6. *Determination of safety* . Based on these risk assessments, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to rimsulfuron residues. IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology Currently, a high pressure liquid chromatography method exists for enforcement of tolerances for residues of rimsulfuron in or on corn, potato, and tomato commodities. Two LC/MS/MS methods have been proposed for enforcement of tolerances on pending crops and crop grouping. Because the extraction procedures do not differ significantly from the extraction procedures of the existing enforcement method, Agency method validation will not be required. Adequate enforcement methodology (high pressure liquid chromatography MS/MS detection) is available to enforce the tolerance expression. The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number:

(410)305-2905; e-mail address: *residuemethods@epa.gov* . B. International Residue Limits There are no Codex, Canadian, or Mexican MRLs established for residues of rimsulfuron in or on almond, hull; citrus fruit; pome fruit; stone fruit; tree nuts; grape; or pistachio. V. Conclusion Therefore, the tolerance is established for residues of rimsulfuron, *N* -((4,6-dimethoxypyrimidin-2-yl)aminocarbonyl)-3-(ethylsulfonyl)-2-pyridinesulfonamide in or on almond, hulls at 0.09 ppm; fruit, citrus, group 10 at 0.01 ppm; fruit, pome, group 11 at 0.01 ppm; fruit, stone, group 12 at 0.01 ppm; grape at 0.01 ppm; nut, tree, group 14 at 0.01 ppm; and pistachio at 0.01 ppm. VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews This final rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled *Regulatory Planning and Review* (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, *Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use* (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled *Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks* (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq* ., nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled *Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations* (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(RFA)(5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq* .) do not apply. This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled *Federalism* (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled *Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments* (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000) do not apply to this rule. In addition, This rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(a)to read as follows: § 180.478 Rimsulfuron; tolerances for residues.

(a)* * * Commodity Parts per million Almond, hulls 0.09 * * * * * Fruit, citrus, group 10 0.01 Fruit, pome, group 11 0.01 Fruit, stone, group 12 0.01 Grape 0.01 Nut, tree, group 14 0.01 Pistachio 0.01 * * * * * [FR Doc. E7-14543 Filed 7-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0154; FRL-8139-5] Bromoxynil, Diclofop-methyl, Dicofol, Diquat, Etridiazole, et al.; Tolerance Actions AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is revoking certain tolerances for the herbicides bromoxynil, diclofop-methyl, and paraquat; the fungicide etridiazole (terrazole); the miticides dicofol and propargite; and the plant growth regulator and herbicide diquat. Also, EPA is removing duplicate tolerances for the herbicides bromoxynil, paraquat, and picloram; the fumigant phosphine; the miticide dicofol; and the insecticides fenbutatin-oxide and hydramethylnon. In addition, EPA is modifying certain tolerances for the insecticide hydramethylnon; the herbicides bromoxynil, paraquat, and triclopyr; the fungicides etridiazole, folpet, and triphenyltin hydroxide (TPTH); the miticides dicofol and propargite; and the plant growth regulator and herbicide diquat. Moreover, EPA is establishing new tolerances for the herbicides bromoxynil, paraquat, and picloram; the fungicides etridiazole, folpet, and TPTH; the miticides dicofol and propargite; the insecticide fenbutatin-oxide; and the plant growth regulator and herbicide diquat. The regulatory actions in this document are follow-up to the Agency's reregistration program under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and reassessment program under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) section 408(q). DATES: This regulation is effective October 30, 2007. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before October 1, 2007, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ). ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification

(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0154. To access the electronic docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* , select “Advanced Search,” then “Docket Search.” Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the “Submit” button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov web site to view the docket index or access available documents. All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available in regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information

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

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

(703)308-8037; e-mail address: *nevola.joseph@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to: • Crop production (NAICS code 111), e.g., agricultural workers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; farmers. • Animal production (NAICS code 112), e.g., cattle ranchers and farmers, dairy cattle farmers, livestock farmers. • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311), e.g., agricultural workers; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; ranchers; pesticide applicators. • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532), e.g., agricultural workers; commercial applicators; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; residential users. This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document? In addition to accessing an electronic copy of this **Federal Register** document through the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , you may access this “ **Federal Register** ” document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ **Federal Register** ” listings at *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr* . You may also access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's pilot e-CFR site at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr* . C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request? Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural regulations which govern the submission of objections and requests for hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0154 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before October 1, 2007. In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public docket that is described in ADDRESSES . Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit your copies, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0154, by one of the following methods. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal* : *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail* : Office of Pesticide Programs

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

(703)305-5805. II. Background A. What Action is the Agency Taking? In the **Federal Register** of August 4, 2004 (69 FR 47051) (FRL-7368-7), EPA issued a proposal to revoke, remove, modify, and establish certain specific tolerances for residues of the insecticides fenbutatin-oxide and hydramethylnon; the herbicides bromoxynil, diclofop-methyl, paraquat, picloram, and triclopyr; the fumigant phosphine; the fungicides etridiazole, folpet, and TPTH; the miticides dicofol and propargite, and the plant growth regulator and herbicide diquat. Also, the proposal of August 4, 2004 (69 FR 47051) (FRL-7368-7) provided a 60-day comment period which invited public comment for consideration and for support of tolerance retention under the FFDCA standards. In the **Federal Register** of October 6, 2004 (69 FR 59843) (FRL-7682-5), EPA extended the comment period from October 4, 2004 to October 18, 2004. In this final rule, EPA is revoking, removing, modifying, and establishing specific tolerances for residues of bromoxynil, diclofop-methyl, dicofol, diquat, etridiazole, fenbutatin-oxide, folpet, hydramethylnon, paraquat, phosphine, picloram, propargite, TPTH, and triclopyr in or on commodities listed in the regulatory text of this document. However, while EPA also proposed on August 4, 2004 (69 FR 47051) to revoke and modify specific tolerances for iprodione, the Agency is not taking any action on iprodione tolerances in this document. EPA is finalizing these tolerance actions in order to implement the tolerance recommendations made during the reregistration and tolerance reassessment processes (including follow-up on canceled or additional uses of pesticides). As part of 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, to 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 at *http://www.regulations.gov* and *http:// www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/status.htm* . In this final rule, EPA is revoking certain tolerances because either they are no longer needed or are associated with food uses that are no longer registered under FIFRA in the United States. Those instances where registrations were canceled were 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 active ingredient. The tolerances revoked by this final rule are no longer necessary to cover residues of the relevant pesticides in or on domestically treated commodities or commodities treated outside but imported into the United States. It is EPA's general practice to issue a final rule revoking those tolerances and tolerance exemptions for residues of pesticide active ingredients on crop uses for which there are no active registrations under FIFRA, unless any person in comments on the proposal indicates a need for the tolerance or tolerance exemption to cover residues in or on imported commodities or domestic commodities legally treated. EPA 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. Generally, EPA will proceed with the revocation of these tolerances on the grounds discussed in this Unit if one of the following conditions applies: 1. Prior to EPA's issuance of a section 408(f) order requesting additional data or issuance of a section 408(d) or

(e)order revoking the tolerances on other grounds, commenters retract the comment identifying a need for the tolerance to be retained. 2. EPA independently verifies that the tolerance is no longer needed. 3. The tolerance is not supported by data that demonstrate that the tolerance meets the requirements under FQPA. This final rule does not revoke those tolerances for which EPA received comments stating a need for the tolerance to be retained. In response to the proposal published in the **Federal Register** of August 4, 2004 (69 FR 47051) (FRL-7368-7), EPA received comments during the 60-day public comment period, as follows: 1. *General—comment by private citizen* . A comment was received from a private citizen on August 15, 2004 which expressed a general concern for chemicals and their toxic effects. In addition, the private citizen stated “I oppose and object to the use/approval/sale of this product” in reference to bromoxynil and diclofop methyl. Also, the individual stated opposition to increasing any tolerances due to a concern about the sale of more product. *Agency response* . Section 408(g) of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(g) and the implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 178, establish procedures for formally challenging EPA rulemakings establishing tolerances or exemptions from tolerances. This formal challenge is initiated through the filing of “objections” with EPA. The procedures for filing objections are summarized in this final rule under the section titled “Objections and Hearing Requests.” As is made clear in that section, all objections must be in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to EPA's Hearing Clerk within 60 days of the publication of the final rule. Because the communication of August 15, 2004 was sent to the public docket of the proposed rule, EPA concludes that the communication does not intend to initiate the formal procedures for objecting under 40 CFR part 178 to the tolerance actions made herein. The communication from the private citizen from New Jersey is considered by EPA to be a “comment” rather than an “objection.” In order to file an objection, one must follow the procedures as explained in the previous paragraph and set forth in 40 CFR part 178. The comment of August 15, 2004 did not refer to any specific scientific studies which supported the reregistration of any active ingredient, or Agency decision document which supported or addressed the reregistration eligibility of any active ingredient. Section 4 of FIFRA directs EPA to make decisions about the future use of older pesticides. Under the pesticide reregistration program, EPA examines health and safety data for pesticide active ingredients initially registered before November 1, 1984, and determines whether they are eligible for reregistration to ensure that they meet current scientific and regulatory standards. During reregistration, EPA considers the human health and ecological effects of pesticides and addresses actions to reduce risks that are of concern. Of 612 cases subject to reregistration, about 40% have been canceled for various reasons, including request for voluntary cancellation by the registrant, cancellation by EPA because required fees were not paid, or cancellation by EPA because unacceptable risk existed that could not be reduced by other actions such as voluntary cancellation of selected uses or changes in the way the pesticide is used. Reducing pesticide risks is an important aspect of the reregistration program. In developing REDs, EPA works with stakeholders including pesticide registrants, growers and other pesticide users, environmental and public health interests, as well as the States, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and other Federal agencies, and others to develop voluntary measures or regulatory controls needed to effectively reduce risks of concern. Such options include voluntary cancellation of pesticide products or deletion of uses, declaring certain uses ineligible or not yet eligible, restricting use of products to certified applicators, limiting the amount or frequency of use, improving use directions and precautions, adding more protective clothing and equipment requirements, requiring special packaging or engineering controls, requiring no-treatment buffer zones, employing environmental and ecological safeguards, and other measures. Also, for all pesticides with food uses, EPA is reassessing tolerances (pesticide residue limits in food) to ensure that they met the safety standard of section 408 of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a, as amended by the FQPA of 1996. Under FFDCA, EPA must make a determination that pesticide residues remaining in or on food are safe; that is, that there is reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide residue from dietary and other sources. EPA has integrated reregistration and tolerance reassessment to most effectively accomplish the goals of both programs. At the end of the reregistration process, after EPA has issued a RED and declared a pesticide reregistration case eligible for reregistration, individual end-use products that contain pesticide active ingredients included in the case still must be reregistered. During this product reregistration, EPA sends registrants a DCI notice requesting any product specific data and specific revised labeling needed to complete reregistration for each of the individual pesticide products covered by the RED. Based on the results of EPA's review of these data and labeling, products found to meet FIFRA and FFDCA standards may be reregistered. 2. *Bromoxynil—comment by the People's Republic of China (PRC)* . After the public comment period extension had ended on October 18, 2004, EPA received comment from the PRC, forwarded by the U.S. Department of Commerce's National Institute of Standards and Technology, on November 3, 2004. The PRC asked for information concerning Good Agricultural Practice

(GAP)basis data for the use of bromoxynil on garlic and onion. *Agency response* . The Agency proposed no action on the existing tolerances in 40 CFR 180.324 for bromoxynil on garlic or onion, dry bulb. Information on study data which support the bromoxynil RED are available in the OPP public docket for the proposed rule of August 4, 2004 (69 FR 47051), OPP-2004-0154, and on the reregistration status website at *http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/status.htm* . The crop field trial references for garlic are MRIDs 42331002 and 42540602, and for onion, dry bulb are MRIDs 42350701 and 42747601. The bromoxynil residues of concern on garlic and onion, dry bulb were below the limit of quantitation

(LOQ)of 0.02 parts per million (ppm), which support their current tolerance levels at 0.1 ppm. Because flax straw is no longer a regulated feed item, the tolerance for bromoxynil residue is no longer needed. Therefore, EPA is revoking the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.324(a)(1) for “flax, straw.” Also, EPA is removing the commodity tolerances in 40 CFR 180.324(a)(1) for residues of bromoxynil in or on “corn, stover” which was previously termed corn, fodder

(dry)in the RED; “corn, fodder (green);” and “corn, grain” because these tolerances are no longer needed since their uses are covered by the existing tolerances for corn, field, stover and corn, grain, field. Further, based on field trial data that indicate residues of bromoxynil as high as 0.14 ppm in or on corn stover, the Agency determined that the tolerance for corn, field, stover should be increased to 0.2 ppm and a tolerance should be established for corn, pop, stover at 0.2 ppm. Therefore, EPA is increasing the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.324(a)(1) on “corn, field, stover” from 0.1 ppm to 0.2 ppm and establishing a tolerance for residues of bromoxynil in or on “corn, pop, stover” at 0.2 ppm. Since the proposal of August 4, 2004 (69 FR 47051), EPA published a final rule in the **Federal Register** on February 10, 2005 (70 FR 7044) (FRL-7690-6) that removed expired time-limited tolerances for emergency exemptions, including those for bromoxynil on timothy, hay and timothy, forage in 40 CFR 180.324(b) and reserved that section. Based on field trial data that indicate residues of bromoxynil in or on alfalfa hay as high as 0.38 ppm and to conform tolerance nomenclature to current Agency practice, the Agency determined that the tolerance for alfalfa, seedling should be revised into alfalfa, forage and alfalfa, hay, and the tolerance on alfalfa, hay should be increased to 0.5 ppm. Therefore, EPA is revising the commodity tolerance “alfalfa, seedling” (shown in paragraph (a)(1) as alfalfa, seeding) in 40 CFR 180.324(a)(1) at 0.1 ppm to “alfalfa, forage,” and “alfalfa, hay” and maintaining the tolerance on alfalfa, forage at 0.1 ppm, while increasing the tolerance on alfalfa, hay to 0.5 ppm. Based on field trial data that indicate residues of bromoxynil in or on grass forage and hay as high as 2.9 ppm and 2.4 ppm, respectively, the Agency determined that the tolerances for grass forage and hay should be increased to 3.0 ppm. Therefore, EPA is revising the commodity terminologies “canarygrass, annual, seed” and “canarygrass, annual, hay” (formerly grass, canary, annual, straw) in 40 CFR 180.324(a)(1) to “grass, forage” and “grass, hay,” respectively, and increasing each of their tolerances from 0.1 ppm to 3.0 ppm. Based on field trial data that indicate residues of bromoxynil in or on barley straw as high as 3.9 ppm, and translating barley data to oat straw, the Agency determined that the tolerances for barley straw and oat straw should be increased to 4.0 ppm. Therefore, EPA is increasing the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.324(a)(1) for residues of bromoxynil in or on “barley, straw” from 0.1 ppm to 4.0 ppm, and “oat, straw” from 0.1 ppm to 4.0 ppm. Based on field trial data that indicate residues of bromoxynil in or on wheat forage and straw as high as 0.6 ppm and 1.2 ppm, respectively, and translating wheat data to rye, the Agency determined that the tolerances for both rye and wheat forage should be increased to 1.0 ppm, and both rye and wheat straw should be increased to 2.0 ppm. Therefore, EPA is increasing the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.324(a)(1) for residues of bromoxynil in or on “rye, forage” from 0.1 ppm to 1.0 ppm; “rye, straw” from 0.1 ppm to 2.0 ppm; “wheat, forage” from 0.1 ppm to 1.0 ppm; and “wheat, straw” from 0.1 ppm to 2.0 ppm. Based on field trial data that indicate residues of bromoxynil in or on barley forage, and translating barley data to oat, the Agency determined that the tolerance for oat forage should be increased to 0.3 ppm. Therefore, EPA is increasing the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.324(a)(1) for residues of bromoxynil in or on “oat, forage” from 0.1 ppm to 0.3 ppm. Based on field trial data that indicate residues of bromoxynil in or on sorghum forage and stover as high as 0.29 and 0.14 ppm, respectively, the Agency determined that the tolerances for sorghum forage and stover should be increased to 0.5 ppm and 0.2 ppm, respectively. Therefore, EPA is increasing the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.324(a)(1) for residues of bromoxynil in or on “sorghum, forage” from 0.1 ppm to 0.5 ppm and revising the commodity terminology to “sorghum, grain, forage;”and “sorghum, grain, stover” from 0.1 ppm to 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 field trial data that indicate residues of bromoxynil in or on grain of barley, corn, sorghum, and wheat at <0.02 ppm and translating barley data to oat grain and rye grain, the Agency determined that the grain tolerances for barley; field corn; oat; rye; sorghum; and wheat should be decreased to 0.05 ppm and a tolerance should be established for corn, pop, grain at 0.05 ppm. Therefore, EPA is decreasing the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.324(a)(1) from 0.1 ppm to 0.05 ppm, for the following: “barley, grain;” “oat, grain;” “rye, grain;” “sorghum, grain;” “wheat, grain;” and “corn, grain, field;” and also revising the terminolgy for “corn, grain, field” to read “corn, field, grain.” Also in 40 CFR 180.324(a)(1), EPA is establishing a tolerance for residues of bromoxynil in or on “corn, pop, grain” at 0.05 ppm. Because residues of bromoxynil are detectable in aspirated grain fractions of wheat (highest), corn, and sorghum, the Agency determined that a tolerance on the aspirated fractions of grain should be established at 0.3 ppm. Therefore, EPA is establishing a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.324(a)(1) for residues of bromoxynil in or on “grain, aspirated fractions” at 0.3 ppm. Based on residue data for hay of wheat and barley that indicate residues of bromoxynil as high as 3.2 ppm for wheat, but not exceeding 9.0 ppm for barley, and translating barley data to oat hay, the Agency determined that tolerances should be established for wheat hay at 4.0 ppm, barley hay at 9.0 ppm, and oat, hay at 9.0 ppm. Therefore, EPA is establishing tolerances in 40 CFR 180.324(a)(1) for residues of bromoxynil in or on “barley, hay” at 9.0 ppm, “oat, hay” at 9.0 ppm, and “wheat, hay” at 4.0 ppm. The 1998 Bromoxynil RED recommended that the tolerance for corn, forage, field (green) be revised to corn, field, forage and increased from 0.1 ppm to 0.3 ppm based on residue data for corn forage. However, at that time, no tolerance for corn, forage, field (green) existed in 40 CFR 180.324(a)(1). Therefore, EPA is establishing a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.324(a)(1) for “corn, field, forage” at 0.3 ppm. In addition, EPA is revising commodity terminology in 40 CFR 180.324 to conform to current Agency practice as follows: “mint hay” to “peppermint, hay” and “spearmint, hay.” The Agency did not propose in a notice for comment to revise the tolerance nomenclature for bromoxynil in 40 CFR 180.324(a)(1) from onion, dry bulb to onion, bulb, as is current Agency practice. However, section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act provides that notice and comment is not necessary “when the agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefore in the rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Consequently, for good cause, EPA is revising the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.324(a)(1) from onion, dry bulb to onion, bulb. The reason for taking this action is because such action has no practical impact on the use of or exposure to the pesticide active ingredient, bromoxynil, in or on that commodity and is made such that the tolerance terminology will conform to current Agency practice. 3. *Dicofol—comment by the PRC* . After the public comment period extension had ended on October 18, 2004, EPA received comment from the PRC, forwarded by the U.S. Department of Commerce's National Institute of Standards and Technology, on November 3, 2004. The PRC expressed concern that the GAP alone is insufficient as the basis for EPA's determination for proposing to establish a tolerance for dicofol residues in milk at 22.0 ppm in the absence of risk assessment support. Also, the PRC was concerned about EPA's proposal to reduce the tolerances for residues of dicofol on nuts from 5.0 ppm to 0.1 ppm and the Agency's determination to translate data from pecan field trials to other nuts such as chestnut and walnut. In addition, the PRC cited nut tolerance levels for dicofol of 3.0 ppm in Canada, 1.0 ppm in Korea, and 5.0 ppm for almond in Australia. *Agency response* . EPA is redesignating the dicofol tolerance expression for plant commodities in 40 CFR 180.163(a) to (a)(1), separately from the animal tolerances, and to revise the expression in terms of the combined residues of 1,1-bis(4-chlorophenyl)-2,2,2-trichloroethanol and 1-(2-chlorophenyl)-1-(4-chlorophenyl)-2,2,2-trichloroethanol. Because dicofol metabolites are the residues of concern for animals, EPA is proposing to redesignate animal tolerances separately from plant tolerances, from 40 CFR 180.163(a) to (a)(2) and for tolerances to be expressed in terms of the combined residues of 1,1-bis(4-chlorophenyl)-2,2,2-trichloroethanol and its metabolites, 1-(2-chlorophenyl)-1-(4-chlorophenyl)-2,2,2-trichloroethanol, 1,1-bis(4-chlorophenyl)-2,2-dichloroethanol, and 1-2(-chlorophenyl)-1-(4-chlorophenyl)-2,2-dichloroethanol. As stated in the proposal of August 4, 2004 (69 FR 47051), based on ruminant metabolism and feeding data, the Agency determined that the tolerance for milk should reflect dicofol residues of 0.75 ppm in whole milk corrected by a factor of 30x to account for concentration in milk fat from whole milk such that 22.0 ppm is appropriate (tolerance is based on milk fat). However, the Agency acknowledges that on August 4, 2004 (69 FR 47051) it proposed to establish a tolerance for “milk” as shown in the dicofol RED, but that the appropriate definition for the tolerance commodity should be termed “milk, fat (reflecting 0.75 ppm in whole milk).” The appropriate level for that tolerance definition is 22.0 ppm. Therefore, EPA is establishing a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.163(a)(2) for milk, fat (reflecting 0.75 ppm in whole milk) at 22.0 ppm. The Agency proposed reducing the nut tolerances based on both pecan and walnut field trials that showed residues of dicofol were non-detectable and determined that 0.1 ppm is appropriate. Pecan, chestnut, and walnut are among commodities included in 40 CFR 180.41 under the tree nut crop group 14. The Agency considers pecans and almonds as representative commodities for that crop group. The Agency determined that the data translated to other nuts and that the tolerances for butternut, chestnut, filbert, hickory nut, macadamia nut, pecan, and walnut should be at 0.1 ppm. The Agency notes that there is a Codex maximum residue limit

(MRL)for dicofol residues on pecan at 0.01 ppm which is at or above the limit of detection. Both the Codex MRL on pecan and proposed U.S. tolerance for nuts are lower than the MRLs cited by the PRC. Different MRLs among countries for a specific pesticide residue on a given commodity may be due to use patterns reflecting different pest and disease pressures. Therefore, EPA is decreasing the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.163(a)(1) on “nut, macadamia” from 5 ppm to 0.1 ppm;” “butternut” from 5 ppm to 0.1 ppm, “chestnut” from 5 ppm to 0.1 ppm, “filbert” from 5 ppm to 0.1 ppm, “nut, hickory” from 5 ppm to 0.1 ppm, “pecan” from 5 ppm to 0.1 ppm, and “walnut” from 5 ppm to 0.1 ppm, all based on available data. EPA is revoking the commodity tolerances in 40 CFR 180.163(a)(1) for residues of dicofol in or on “fig” because the registration for that use was canceled in October 1989 due to non-payment of annual registration maintenance fees. Also, EPA is removing “hazelnuts” because this tolerance is covered by the tolerance on filbert. The Agency did not propose in a notice for comment to revise the tolerance nomenclature for dicofol in 40 CFR 180.163(a)(1) from filbert to hazelnut, as is current Agency practice. However, section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act provides that notice and comment is not necessary “when the agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the findings and a brief statement of the reasons therefore in the rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Consequently, for good cause, EPA is revising the tolerance terminology in 40 CFR 180.163(a)(1) from filbert to hazelnut. The reason for taking this action is because such action has no practical impact on the use of or exposure to the pesticide active ingredient, dicofol, in or on that commodity and is made such that the tolerance terminology will conform to current Agency practice. In addition, the tolerance on “hay, spearmint” in 40 CFR 180.163(a) was removed on June 29, 2007 (72 FR 35663) (FRL-8131-3). Based on field trial data that indicate residues of dicofol were as high as 6.7 ppm in or on apples and in one duplicate sample 10.8 ppm in or on pears (6.8 ppm in pears for the other duplicate sample), the Agency determined that a crop group tolerance of 10.0 ppm is appropriate. Therefore, EPA is combining the commodity tolerances for “apple,” “crabapple,” “pear,” and “quince,” each at 5 ppm in 40 CFR 180.163(a)(1) under the crop group terminology “fruit, pome, group 11” and increasing the tolerance to 10.0 ppm. Based on field trial data that indicate residues of dicofol were as high as 0.84 ppm in or on plums, 3.08 ppm in or on cherries, and 3.79 ppm in or on peaches, the Agency determined that a crop group tolerance of 5.0 ppm is appropriate. Therefore, EPA is combining the commodity tolerances for “apricot” at 10 ppm; “cherry” at 5 ppm, “nectarine” at 10 ppm, “peach” at 10 ppm, and “plum, prune, fresh” at 5 ppm, in 40 CFR 180.163(a)(1) under the crop group terminology “fruit, stone, group 12” and decreasing the tolerance to 5.0 ppm. EPA is combining the commodity tolerances for “blackberry,” “boysenberry,” “dewberry,” “loganberry,” and “raspberry,” each at 5 ppm in 40 CFR 180.163(a)(1) under the crop subgroup terminology “caneberry subgroup 13A” and maintaining the tolerance at 5 ppm, based on new field trials. Based on field trial data that indicate residues of dicofol were as high as 0.35 ppm in or on melons, 0.45 ppm in or on cucumbers, and 1.05 ppm in or on summer squash, the Agency determined that a crop group tolerance of 2.0 ppm is appropriate. Therefore, EPA is combining the commodity tolerances for “cantaloupe,” “cucumber,” “melon,” “muskmelon,” “pumpkin,” “squash, summer;” “squash, winter;” and “watermelon,” each at 5 ppm in 40 CFR 180.163(a)(1) under the crop group terminology “vegetable, cucurbit, group 9” and decreasing the tolerance to 2.0 ppm. Based on field trial data that show that residues of dicofol were as high as 1.34 ppm in or on lemon, 3.55 ppm in or on oranges, and 5.26 ppm in or on grapefruit, the Agency determined that a crop group tolerance of 6.0 ppm is appropriate. Therefore, EPA is combining the commodity tolerances for “grapefruit,” “kumquat,” “lemon,” “lime,” “orange, sweet” and “tangerine” in 40 CFR 180.163(a)(1), each at 10 ppm, under the commodity terminology “fruit, citrus, group 10” and decreasing the tolerance to 6.0 ppm. Based on field trial data that indicate residues of dicofol were as high as 0.46 ppm in or on tomatoes and 1.15 ppm in or on peppers, the Agency determined that a crop group tolerance of 2.0 ppm is appropriate. Therefore, EPA is combining the commodity tolerances for “eggplant,” “pepper,” “pimento,” and “tomato” in 40 CFR 180.163(a)(1), each at 5 ppm, under the crop group terminology “vegetable, fruiting, group 8” and decreasing the tolerance to 2.0 ppm, based on new field trials. Based on field trial data that indicate residues of dicofol as high as 0.46 ppm in or on dry beans and 2.09 ppm in or on succulent beans, the Agency has determined that the appropriate tolerances are 0.5 ppm for dry beans and 3.0 ppm for succulent beans. Therefore, EPA is decreasing the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.163(a)(1) on “bean, dry, seed” from 5.0 ppm to 0.5 ppm, and combining “bean, snap, succulent” and “bean, lima, succulent” into “bean, succulent” and decreasing the tolerance from 5.0 ppm to 3.0 ppm. Based on field trial data that indicate residues of dicofol as high as 64.3 ppm on dried hops, the Agency has determined that the tolerance should be for dried hops at 65.0 ppm. Therefore, EPA is increasing the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.163(a)(1) for “hop” from 30 ppm to 65.0 ppm and revising the commodity tolerance to “hop, dried cones” because the raw agricultural commodity

(RAC)is redefined. 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. Because available data show that residues of dicofol were as high as 9.8 ppm on strawberries, the Agency determined that the tolerance should be at 10.0 ppm. Therefore, EPA is increasing the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.163(a)(1) for “strawberry” from 5 ppm to 10.0 ppm. The Agency determined that the increased tolerance is safe; i.e., there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. Based on highest average field trial

(HAFT)residues of 5.54 ppm on apples, 3.16 ppm on oranges, 0.06 ppm on cotton, 3.02 ppm on grapes, 17.6 ppm on mint, 29.1 ppm on plucked tea leaves, and available processing data showing average concentration factors of 6.6x in wet apple pomace, 3.7x in dried orange pulp, 62.8x in orange oil, 4.9x in refined cotton oil, 6.6x in raisins, 1.6x in mint oil, and 1.6x in dried tea, the Agency determined that tolerances for dicofol are warranted as follows: wet apple pomace at 38 ppm, dried citrus pulp at 12 ppm, citrus oil at 200 ppm, refined cotton oil at 0.5 ppm, raisins at 20.0 ppm, peppermint oil at 30 ppm, spearmint oil at 30 ppm, tea, plucked tea leaves at 30.0 ppm, and dried tea at 50 ppm. Therefore, EPA is increasing the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.163(a)(1) for “tea, dried” from 45 ppm to 50.0 ppm and establishing tolerances in 40 CFR 180.163 (a)(1) for “apple, wet pomace” at 38.0 ppm, “citrus, dried pulp” at 12.0 ppm, “citrus, oil” at 200.0 ppm, “cotton, refined oil” at 0.5 ppm, “grape, raisin” at 20.0 ppm, “peppermint, oil” at 30.0 ppm, “spearmint, oil” at 30.0 ppm, and “tea, plucked leaves” at 30.0 ppm. In the dicofol RED, the Agency recommended the establishment of a tolerance on prunes (currently termed plum, prune, dried) at 3.0 ppm. However, a new tolerance for the processed commodity prunes as “plum, prune, dried” at 3.0 ppm is not needed because that use is covered by the combination of stone fruits into a group tolerance at 5.0 ppm, as described above. Based on hen metabolism and feeding data, and residues in cottonseed meal (20% diet X 0.1 ppm residue), the Agency has determined that tolerances should be established at 0.1 ppm for poultry fat, meat, and meat byproducts. The tolerance for eggs should be decreased to 0.05 ppm for compatibility with Codex. Therefore, EPA is establishing tolerances in 40 CFR 180.163(a)(2) for “poultry, fat;” “poultry, meat;” and “poultry, meat byproducts;” each at 0.1 ppm and “egg” at 0.05 ppm. Based on ruminant metabolism and feeding data, the Agency determined that tolerances for fat of cattle, goats, hogs, horses and sheep should be established at 50.0 ppm; meat and meat byproducts, except liver of cattle, goats, hogs, horses and sheep should be established at 3.0 ppm; and liver of cattle, goats, hogs, horses and sheep should be established at 5.0 ppm. Therefore, EPA is establishing tolerances in 40 CFR 180.163(a)(2) for the following: “cattle, meat;” “cattle, meat byproducts, except liver;” “goat, meat;” “goat, meat byproducts, except liver;” “hog, meat;” “hog, meat byproducts, except liver;” “horse, meat;” “horse, meat byproducts, except liver;” “sheep, meat;” and “sheep, meat byproducts, except liver;” each at 3.0 ppm; “cattle, liver;” “goat, liver;” “hog, liver;” “horse, liver;” and “sheep, liver;” each at 5.0 ppm; and “cattle, fat;” “goat, fat;” “hog, fat;” “horse, fat;” and “sheep, fat;” each at 50.0 ppm. EPA is revising commodity terminology in 40 CFR 180.163 to conform to current Agency practice as follows: “hay, peppermint” to “peppermint, hay.” 4. *Iprodione* . EPA will not take action on iprodione tolerances at this time based on comments and additional submitted data. EPA will respond to comments about iprodione that were received during the public comment period and address iprodione tolerance actions in a future notice to be published in the **Federal Register** . 5. *Paraquat—comment by Syngenta Crop Protection* . On September 9, 2004, Syngenta Crop Protection Inc. requested that the Agency consider the inclusion of commodities from berries group 13 in its proposed revision of the small fruit group tolerance for paraquat into individual tolerances for cranberry and grape. Syngenta stated that berry data was submitted years ago and berry uses appear on active registrations for paraquat dichloride. *Agency response* . EPA proposed to revise the crop group tolerance for small fruit but inadvertently proposed to revise that group into individual tolerances only for cranberry and grape, and maintain these tolerances at 0.05 ppm. However, the old terminology of “small fruit” not only includes cranberry and grape, but also blackberry, blueberry, boysenberry, currant, dewberry, elderberry, gooseberry, huckleberry, loganberry, raspberry, strawberry, and youngberry. In 40 CFR 180.41, berry group 13 includes blackberry (blackberry includes boysenberry, dewberry, and youngberry), blueberry, currant, elderberry, gooseberry, huckleberry, loganberry, and raspberry. Consequently, revising small fruit into the individual tolerances for cranberry, grape, and strawberry, as well as maintaining a tolerance on berry group 13, would cover the commodity uses under the old terminology of small fruit. The Agency agrees with Syngenta that berry uses have active registrations. Some tolerance actions proposed for paraquat on August 4, 2004 (69 FR 47051) have already been made final or revised to different tolerance levels in a final rule published in the **Federal Register** on September 6, 2006 (71 FR 52487)(FRL-8089-3), where EPA established and revised certain tolerances in 40 CFR 180.205 on paraquat in response to multiple petition requests by Syngenta Crop Protection Inc. In the final rule of September 6, 2006 (71 FR 52487), EPA established tolerances in 40 CFR 180.205 at 0.05 ppm on berry group 13, cranberry, and grape. A tolerance already existed on strawberry at 0.25 ppm. However, the tolerance on the obsolete commodity terminology “fruit, small” was inadvertently not revoked and currently remains as a duplicate tolerance that is no longer needed and should be revoked. Consequently, EPA is following up on the proposed rule of August 4, 2004 (69 FR 47051), which included a proposal to remove the small fruit tolerance in 40 CFR 180.205(a) by proposing to revise that crop group tolerance (an obsolete nomenclature) into multiple tolerance definitions that would cover commodity uses previously associated with small fruit. Because multiple tolerances (berry group 13, cranberry, grape, and strawberry) have been established to cover the small fruit uses, EPA is following-up by revoking the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.205(a) on fruit, small in this final rule. Other tolerance actions proposed on August 4, 2004 (69 FR 47051) have also been made final or revised to different tolerance levels. In the final rule of September 6, 2006 (71 FR 52487), EPA increased the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.205(a) on kidney of cattle, goats, hogs, horses, and sheep, each from 0.3 ppm to 0.5 ppm, which harmonize with Codex MRLs; hop, dried cones from 0.2 ppm to 0.5 ppm; sorghum, forage, forage and sorghum, grain, forage from 0.05 ppm to 0.1 ppm; soybean, forage from 0.05 ppm to 0.4 ppm; decreased the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.205(a) on “beet, sugar, tops” from 0.5 ppm to 0.05 ppm; and established tolerances in 40 CFR 180.205(a) for soybean hay at 10.0 ppm, soybean hulls at 4.5 ppm; and soybean seed at 0.7 ppm; fruit, pome, group 11 at 0.05 ppm; fruit, stone, group 12 at 0.05 ppm; barley, straw at 1.0 ppm; wheat, forage at 0.5 ppm; and wheat, straw at 50.0 ppm. In the final rule of September 6, 2006 (71 FR 52487), the Agency inadvertently did not revoke the individual tolerances in 40 CFR 180.205 at 0.05 ppm on apple and pear when it established the fruit, pome, group 11 tolerance at 0.05 ppm; the individual tolerances at 0.05 ppm on apricot, cherry, nectarine, peach, and plum, prune, fresh when it established the fruit, stone, group 12 tolerance at 0.05 ppm; and the individual tolerances at 0.05 ppm on broccoli, cabbage, Chinese cabbage, cauliflower, and collards when it established the vegetable, brassica, leafy, group 5 tolerance at 0.05 ppm. Also, in the **Federal Register** of December 6, 2006 (71 FR 70670) (FRL-8100-3), EPA corrected a typographical error in the codification section on page 52494 of the final rule of September 6, 2006 (71 FR 52487) regarding the commodity terminology name “fruit, stone, group 12.” The notice of August 4, 2004 (69 FR 47051) proposed to combine specific individual tolerances into their respective crop groups (including fruit, pome, group 11, fruit, stone, group 12, and vegetable, brassica, leafy, group 5), with the effect of removing those specific individual tolerances since their uses were to be covered by the group tolerances. Because these group tolerances were established, their respective individual tolerances are no longer needed. Consequently, EPA is following-up on the proposed rule of August 4, 2004 (69 FR 47051), which included proposals to combine specific existing tolerances into group tolerances for fruit, pome, group 11, fruit, stone, group 12, and vegetable, brassica, leafy, group 5; and thereby remove those individual tolerances. Because these group tolerances have been established, EPA is following-up by revoking the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.205 on apple; pear; apricot; cherry; nectarine; peach; plum, prune, fresh; broccoli; cabbage; cabbage, chinese; cauliflower; and collards in this final rule. In addition, EPA is correcting the commodity terminology in 40 CFR 180.205 for the group 5 tolerance from vegetable, Brassica leafy, group 5 to vegetable, brassica, leafy, group 5, which was the group name proposed on August 4, 2004 (69 FR 47051). Also, in the final rule of September 6, 2006 (71 FR 52487), EPA inadvertently did not revoke the individual tolerances in 40 CFR 180.205 at 5.0 ppm on alfalfa, birdsfoot trefoil, and clover, when it established the animal feed, nongrass, group 18, forage and animal feed, nongrass, group 18, hay tolerances at 75.0 ppm and 210.0 ppm, respectively. These individual tolerances are no longer needed. Consequently, EPA is following up on the proposed rule of August 4, 2004 (69 FR 47051), which included proposals to increase the tolerances for alfalfa forage, birdsfoot trefoil forage, and clover forage from 5.0 ppm to 75.0 ppm and combine them under the terminology animal feed, nongrass, group 18, forage and increase alfalfa hay, birdsfoot trefoil hay, and clover hay from 5.0 ppm to 210.0 ppm and combine them under the terminology animal feed, nongrass, group 18, hay. Because these group tolerances have been established, EPA is following-up by revoking the individual tolerances in 40 CFR 180.205(a) on alfalfa, birdsfoot trefoil, and clover. In addition, in the final rule of September 6, 2006 (71 FR 52487), EPA inadvertently established a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.205 on soybean, seed at 0.7 ppm, but should have revised the existing tolerance on soybean to soybean, seed (a nomenclature change that is current Agency practice) and increased it from 0.05 ppm to 0.7 ppm (based on a new use pattern in the petition) to avoid creating a duplicate tolerance. Consequently, there now exists a duplicate tolerance; i.e., soybean at 0.05 ppm, which EPA proposed to increase in the rule of August 4, 2004 (69 FR 47051). That duplicate tolerance is not needed since the use on soybean should be covered by the established soybean, seed tolerance at the appropriate level of 0.7 ppm. Further, section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act provides that notice and comment is not necessary “when the agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefore in the rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Consequently, for good cause, while EPA is maintaining the tolerance on soybean, seed at 0.7 ppm, the Agency is revoking the tolerance on soybean at 0.05 ppm in 40 CFR 180.205(a). The reason for taking this action is because such action has no practical impact on the use of or exposure to the pesticide active ingredient, paraquat, in or on that commodity; i.e., the use is covered by the existing tolerance on soybean, seed at 0.7 ppm, which the Agency considers to be at the appropriate level. Also, in the final rule of September 6, 2006 (71 FR 52487), EPA inadvertently did not revoke the individual tolerances in 40 CFR 180.205 on bean, snap, succulent at 0.05 ppm, when it established the tolerance on vegetable, legume, edible podded, subgroup 6A at 0.05 ppm; bean, lima, succulent and pea, succulent, both at 0.05 ppm, when it established the tolerance on pea and bean, succulent shelled, subgroup 6B at 0.05 ppm; and bean, dry, seed and pea, dry, seed, both at 0.3 ppm, when it established the tolerance on pea and bean, dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup 6C, except guar bean. These established subgroup tolerances cover the uses of the aforementioned individual tolerances, which are no longer needed, and therefore, which should be revoked. In order to provide notice and comment, the Agency intends to address proposing the revocation of these individual tolerances in 40 CFR 180.205 for bean, snap, succulent; bean, lima, succulent; pea, succulent; bean, dry, seed; and pea, dry, seed in a future publication in the **Federal Register** . Moreover, in the final rule of September 6, 2006 (71 FR 52487), EPA established a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.205 on nut, tree, group 14 at 0.05 ppm, but should have revised the existing tolerance at 0.05 ppm on nut to nut, tree, group 14 (a nomenclature change that is current Agency practice). Also, EPA established a tolerance on vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 at 0.05 ppm, but should have revised the existing tolerance at 0.05 ppm on cucurbits to vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 (a nomenclature change that is current Agency practice). Consequently, since the uses are covered by other tolerances, the duplicate tolerances on cucurbits and nut are no longer needed and should be revoked. In order to provide notice and comment, the Agency intends to address proposing the revocation of the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.205(a) on cucurbits and nut in a future publication in the **Federal Register** . Finally, in the final rule of September 6, 2006 (71 FR 52487), EPA established tolerances in 40 CFR 180.205 that were not proposed on August 4, 2006. These include barley hay; cotton, gin byproducts; ginger; grain, aspirated fractions; okra; and wheat hay; and increased the tolerances on cotton, undelinted seed, onion, dry bulb (and revised it to onion, bulb); and wheat grain. EPA is revoking the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.205(a) on “mint, hay, spent” because it is no longer recognized as a raw agricultural commodity, and therefore the tolerance is no longer needed. Also, EPA is removing the “(N)” designation from all entries to conform to current Agency administrative practice (“N” designation means negligible residues), and revising the commodity terminology “fruit, citrus” to “fruit, citrus, group 10;” and redefining the commodity terminology for “bean, forage” to “cowpea, forage” and “bean, hay” to “cowpea, hay.” However, EPA will not revoke the tolerance on mint, hay in 40 CFR 180.205 because the Agency incorrectly based its revocation in the paraquat RED on mint hay no longer being a raw agricultural commodity. While “mint hay” is an obsolete commodity terminology, it should be revised to peppermint, tops and spearmint, tops, which EPA will address in a future publication in the **Federal Register** . Based on field trial data that indicate residues of paraquat as high as 90 ppm in or on rangeland grass forage (which should be revised to grass, forage) and 40 ppm in or on pasture grass hay (which should be revised to grass, hay), the Agency determined that the tolerances should be increased to 90 ppm for grass forage and 40 ppm for grass hay. Therefore, EPA is revising the commodity terminologies in 40 CFR 180.205(a) for “grass, pasture” to “grass, forage” and increasing the tolerance from 5 ppm to 90.0 ppm; and “grass, range” to “grass, hay” and increasing the tolerance from 5 ppm to 40.0 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 a reassessed pineapple tolerance of 0.05 ppm and pineapple processing data that indicate an average concentration factor of 4.5x in dried bran, the Agency determined that a tolerance should be established for pineapple process residue (a wet-waste byproduct from the fresh cut product line, which usually contains pineapple bran) at 0.25 ppm. Therefore, EPA is establishing a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.205(a) for “pineapple, process residue” at 0.25 ppm. Based on a reassessed sugarcane tolerance of 0.5 ppm and sugarcane processing data that indicate an average concentration factor of 5.5x in blackstrap molasses, the Agency determined that a tolerance should be established for sugarcane molasses at 3.0 ppm. Therefore, EPA is establishing a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.205(a) for “sugarcane, molasses” at 3.0 ppm. On September 21, 2001 (66 FR 48593) (FRL-6799-2), EPA published a final rule in the **Federal Register** which in 40 CFR 180.205(a) established tolerances for “corn, field, stover” and “corn, pop, stover” at 10.0 ppm; “corn, field, grain” and “corn, pop, grain” at 0.1 ppm; and “corn, field, forage” at 3.0 ppm; based on proposed tolerances in petition 5F1625 submitted by Zeneca Ag. Products and to harmonize corn, field, grain and corn, pop, grain with the Codex MRL of 0.1 ppm for maize. In the September 2001 final rule, EPA also stated that in the food additive petition 5H5088, Zeneca had proposed a food additive tolerance for “corn flour” at 0.1 ppm which was subsequently withdrawn since EPA determined that the tolerance for corn, field, grain at 0.1 ppm is adequate to cover residues in corn flour. EPA is revising commodity terminologies in 40 CFR 180.205(a) from “corn, fresh (inc. sweet corn), kernel plus cob with husks removed” to “corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed;” and “guar bean” to “guar.” In the proposed rule of August 4, 2004 (69 FR 47051)(FRL-7368-7), EPA stated that peanut hay is no longer considered to be a significant livestock feed commodity. In fact, peanut hay is considered by the Agency to be a significant livestock feed item as shown at *http://www.epa.gov/opptsfrs/OPPTS_Harmonized/860_Residue_Chemistry_Test_Guidelines/Series/* in the Residue Chemistry Test Guidelines OPPTS 860.1000 Table 1. Therefore, the Agency will not revoke the tolerance but rather will maintain the tolerance level at 0.5 ppm in 40 CFR 180.205, which is consistent with the paraquat RED. 6. *Propargite—comment by the PRC* . After the public comment period extension had ended on October 18, 2004, EPA received comment from the PRC, forwarded by the U.S. Department of Commerce's National Institute of Standards and Technology, on November 3, 2004. The PRC cited an evaluation from a Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues

(JMPR)Evaluations of Pesticide Residues in Food for 2002, and stated that it recommends a maximum limit of 100.0 ppm for residues of propargite on dry hops and quoted a GAP data under U.S. supervision GAP (1.7 kilograms active ingredient/hectare (kg ai/ha) to the growing crop at an interval of 14 days). Also, the PRC commented on the tolerance levels for residues of propargite on garlic and nut, tree, group. *Agency response* . Since the time of the proposed rule of August 4, 2004 (69 FR 47051), the Codex Alimentarius Commission adopted an MRL for propargite on hops, dry at 100.0 milligrams/kilogram (mg/kg). The 2002 JMPR report cites a GAP for the United States with an application rate as 1.8 kg ai/ha (about 1.6 lb active ingredient/acre (ai/A)) and states that the meeting recommends a new maximum propargite residue level for hops

(dry)at 100.0 mg/kg (100.0 ppm). The JMPR report is available at the website address *http://www.fao.org/ag/agp/agpp/PesticidJMPR/JMPRreports.htm* . In the **Federal Register** on December 13, 2006 (71 FR 74802) (FRL-8064-3), the Agency finalized tolerance nomenclature changes including a revision of “hop, dried cone” to “hop, dried cones.” Currently in 40 CFR 180.259, there are tolerances for propargite on both hop at 15.0 ppm and dried hops at 30.0 ppm. On August 4, 2004 (69 FR 47051), the Agency proposed no action on the existing tolerance level for propargite residues on hop, dried cones at 30.0 ppm, consistent with the propargite RED. On September 22, 1992, Uniroyal submitted a hops processing study for use of propargite treated hops in typical beer brewing operations. Field trials on hops had used a wettable powder formulation where the label calls for two applications of 1.5 lb ai/A per year. Residues in dried hops did not exceed the existing tolerance of 30.0 ppm following either two applications to hops at 0.9X (1.35 lb ai/A) or three applications at 1.5X (2.25 lb ai/A), both with a PHI of 14 days. Hence, no change in the tolerance level for dried hops was recommended by the Agency in the propargite RED. Moreover, the beer processing study (MRID 42486301 Ball, J.

(1992)Omite CR on Hops: Beer Processing Study: Lab Project Number: RP-90043: ML91-0271UNI: IR#90-747. Unpublished study prepared by Uniroyal Chemical Company, Inc. 369 p.) used hops bearing measurable residues up to 22.5 ppm propargite on dried hop cones from 1.5X treated green hops and demonstrated that propargite residues were not detected in beer (<0.01 ppm). However, at the time of the propargite RED, Codex had a value of 30 mg/kg on dried hops. EPA agrees with the commenter that the 100 mg/kg MRL on dried hops for propargite, established by Codex, is appropriate based on the data reviewed by the 2002 JMPR. However, because EPA did not propose any action on hops, dried cones in 40 CFR 180.259 for propargite on August 4, 2004 (69 FR 47051), the Agency will not take action on that tolerance in this document. Therefore, EPA intends to propose increasing the tolerance on hop, dried cones to harmonize with the Codex MRL in a future publication in the **Federal Register** . Also, the tolerance definition of the raw agricultural commodity

(RAC)for hops is dried cones (PR Notice 93-12; December 23, 1993). Therefore, because the RAC for hops is dried hops, whose use is covered by the existing tolerance at 30.0 ppm, EPA is revoking the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.259(a) on hop at 15.0 ppm. Also, in response to the comment, there is no tolerance in 40 CFR 180.259 for propargite on garlic. According to 40 CFR 180.1(g), on tolerance definitions, a tolerance on onions or onions (dry bulb only) would cover garlic; however, there is also no tolerance in 40 CFR 180.259 for propargite on onion. In the proposed rule of August 4, 2004 (69 FR 47051), the Agency did not propose any action on the existing tolerances in 40 CFR 180.259 for propargite residues on almond and walnut, whose U.S. tolerance levels of 0.1 ppm harmonize with the Codex MRLs of 0.1 mg/kg. The representative commodities for the tree nut group are almond and pecan. There is no pecan tolerance and no tree nut group tolerance for propargite. Both the almond and almond hulls tolerances were recommended in the propargite RED to be maintained at their current tolerance levels based on available data where treated almonds were harvested at 28 days, because a 28-day preharvest interval

(PHI)is specified on active product labels. Based on available data, EPA determined that there is no reasonable expectation of finite residues of propargite in poultry meat and meat byproducts. These tolerances are no longer needed under 40 CFR 180.6(a)(3). Therefore, EPA is revoking the commodity tolerances in 40 CFR 180.259(a) for residues of propargite in or on “poultry, meat” and “poultry, meat byproducts.” Also, EPA is revoking the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.259(a) for residues of propargite in or on “citrus, dried pulp” because residues do not concentrate in dried pulp based on a citrus processing study, and therefore the tolerance is no longer needed. In addition, EPA is revoking the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.259 for residues of propargite in or on “peanut, hulls” because it is no longer considered to be a significant livestock feed commodity and therefore the tolerance is no longer needed. The tolerance for peanut forage, which had been proposed for revocation, was removed on December 13, 2006 (71 FR 74802) (FRL-8064-3), when EPA finalized certain tolerance nomenclature changes, including the revision of the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.259 on peanut, forage to peanut, hay, which then became a duplicate tolerance (covered by an existing tolerance for peanut hay). Based on field trial data that indicate propargite residues as high as 8.3 ppm in or on oranges and 3.8 ppm in or on sorghum grain, the Agency determined that the tolerances should be increased to 10.0 ppm for oranges and decreased to 5.0 ppm for sorghum grain. Therefore, EPA is increasing the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.259(a) on “orange, sweet” from 5 ppm to 10.0 ppm and revising the terminology to “orange,” and decreasing the tolerance on “sorghum, grain” from 10 ppm to 5.0 ppm. The Agency determined that the increased tolerance is safe; i.e., there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. Based on HAFT residues of 4 ppm (residue range 1.6 ppm to 8.3 ppm) in oranges and available processing data showing an average concentration factor of 7.0x in orange oil, the Agency determined that a tolerance should be established for propargite on citrus oil at 30 ppm. Therefore, EPA is establishing a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.259(a) for residues of propargite in “citrus, oil” at 30.0 ppm. Available processing data indicate that propargite residues do not concentrate in aspirated grain fractions of sorghum, but do concentrate in aspirated grain fractions of field corn as high as 0.35 ppm. The Agency determined that a tolerance should be established for aspirated grain fractions at 0.4 ppm. Therefore, EPA is establishing a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.259(a) for residues of propargite in or on “grain, aspirated fractions” at 0.4 ppm. In order to conform to current Agency practice, in 40 CFR 180.259(a), EPA is revising “corn, forage” to “corn, field, forage” and “corn, sweet, forage;” “corn, grain” to “corn, field, grain” and “corn, pop, grain;” “mint” to “peppermint, tops” and “spearmint, tops;” and “sorghum, forage” to “sorghum, grain, forage.” In the proposed rule of August 4, 2004 (69 FR 47051), EPA stated that peanut hay is no longer considered to be a significant livestock feed commodity. In fact, peanut hay is considered by the Agency to be a significant livestock feed item as shown at *http://www.epa.gov/opptsfrs/OPPTS_Harmonized/860_Residue_Chemistry_Test_Guidelines/Series/* in the Residue Chemistry Test Guidelines OPPTS 860.1000 Table 1. However, registration labels prohibit the feeding of propargite-treated peanut hay to livestock as stated in the propargite RED. Nevertheless, because in the proposed rule of August 4, 2004 (69 FR 47051) the Agency did not identify the feeding restriction as a basis for proposing revocation of the peanut hay tolerance, the Agency will take no action on it in this document. EPA intends to address proposing the revocation of the tolerance for residues of propargite in or on peanut, hay in a future document to be published in the **Federal Register** . No comments were received by the Agency concerning the following. 7. *Diclofop-methyl* . As noted in the September 2000 RED, uses of diclofop-methyl on lentils and dry peas have been deleted from registered labels. The use on lentils may have been canceled since 1985. Therefore, EPA is revoking the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.385 for lentil, seed and pea seeds (dry). Also, in support of tolerance reassessment, the registrant developed a new enforcement method HRAV-14 gas liquid chromatogragphy/electron capture detector (HRAV-14 GLC/ECD) and subjected a ruminant metabolism study to independent laboratory validation. However, EPA has not yet determined that the newly submitted method is valid. The current FDA enforcement method for diclofop-methyl is the Pesticide Analytical Manual (PAM)-Volume II, which does not detect a metabolite of concern, diclofop acid. Therefore, at this time, EPA will not establish any new tolerances that are recommended in the diclofop-methyl RED. The Agency will address establishing such tolerances in a future document in the **Federal Register** . 8. *Diquat dibromide* . The Diquat dibromide RED was completed in July 1995 and the existing tolerances were reassessed according to the FQPA standard in the April 2002 TRED. EPA has determined that the tolerance expression in 40 CFR 180.226(a)(1) should be amended by defining diquat as both a plant growth regulator and herbicide. Therefore, EPA is amending the tolerance expression in 40 CFR 180.226(a)(1) to read “ ... residues of the plant growth regulator and herbicide diquat ... ”. On July 1, 2003, (68 FR 39427) (FRL-7308-9) EPA revised potato, waste, dried in 40 CFR 180.226(a)(1) to read potato, processed potato waste, but should have revised it to read potato, processed potato waste, dried. Processed, dried potato waste is no longer a significant animal feed item. Therefore, EPA is revoking the tolerances for potato, processed potato waste in § 180.226(a)(1) and processed, dried potato waste in § 180.226(a)(6) because the associated commodities are no longer significant animal feed items and these tolerances are therefore no longer needed. In order to achieve compatibility with CODEX (see Unit III., below), EPA is increasing the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.226(a)(1) for egg and fat, meat, and meat byproducts of cattle, goats, hogs, horses, poultry, and sheep, from 0.02 ppm to 0.05 ppm. Available data indicate that residues of diquat in fish and shellfish will exceed the established tolerances at current maximum registered use patterns. In order to cover all residues of diquat which may occur as a result of the currently registered uses, increasing the tolerances to 2.0 ppm for fish and 20.0 ppm for shellfish is appropriate. Therefore, EPA is increasing the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.226(a)(2)(i) for residues of diquat on “fish” from 0.1 ppm to 2.0 ppm and “shellfish” from 0.1 ppm to 20.0 ppm. The Agency determined that the increased tolerances are safe; i.e., there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. The available data concerning diquat residues following irrigation indicate that residues in or on blackberry, cowpea, orange, strawberry, mustard greens, pasture grass, and tomato may exceed the current tolerances for the respective crop groups and that tolerances should be increased to 0.05 ppm for citrus fruits, small fruits, fruiting vegetables, legume vegetables, and Brassica leafy vegetables, and to 0.20 ppm for grass forage. Therefore, EPA is increasing the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.226(a)(2)(i) for residues of diquat on “fruit, citrus, group 10” from 0.02 ppm to 0.05 ppm; “vegetable, fruiting, group 8” from 0.02 ppm to 0.05 ppm; “vegetable, leafy” from 0.02 ppm to 0.05 ppm and revising the terminology to read “vegetable, leafy, except brassica, group 4” and “vegetable, brassica, leafy, group 5;” and by increasing the tolerance level for “vegetable, seed and pod” from 0.02 ppm to 0.05 ppm; and “grass, forage” from 0.1 ppm to 0.2 ppm and revising the terminology to read “grass, forage, fodder and hay, group 17.” Also, EPA is increasing the tolerance in 40 CFR 226(a)(2)(i) for residues of diquat on “fruit, small” from 0.02 ppm to 0.05 ppm. Instead of revising the terminology to read “fruit, small and berry group,” as was proposed, EPA is revising the terminology consistent with the Agency response made in this document to a comment on paraquat; i.e., the old terminology of small fruit for diquat will be separated into individual tolerances for cranberry, grape, and strawberry, as well as berry group 13, each at 0.05 ppm. The Agency determined that the increased tolerances are safe; i.e., there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. While no data are available for the miscellaneous commodities avocado, cottonseed, hops, and sugarcane for which tolerances currently exist, the Agency determined that data for other crops could be translated. Based on the highest residues found in other irrigated crops resulting from irrigation with water containing diquat residues, the Agency determined that tolerances of 0.20 ppm are appropriate for avocado, cottonseed, hops, and sugarcane. Therefore, EPA is increasing the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.226(a)(2)(i) for residues of diquat in or on “avocado,” “cotton, undelinted seed,” and “sugarcane, cane;” each from 0.02 ppm to 0.2 ppm, and “hop, dried cones” from 0.02 ppm to 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. Because available data show that residues of diquat were as high as 1.6 ppm on sorghum grain and 0.16 ppm on soybean, the Agency determined that tolerances should be established for sorghum grain at 2.0 ppm, and both soybean and foliage of legume vegetables at 0.2 ppm. Therefore, EPA is establishing tolerances in 40 CFR 180.226(a)(1) for residues of diquat in or on “sorghum, grain, grain” at 2.0 ppm, “soybean, seed” at 0.2 ppm, and increasing the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.226(a)(2)(i) on “vegetable, foliage of legume, group 7” from 0.1 ppm to 0.2 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. In addition, soybean processing data indicate that residues of diquat concentrated about 3x in soybean hulls processed from soybean bearing detectable residues. No concentration of residues was observed in other soybean processed fractions. Based on a recommended tolerance of 0.2 ppm for soybean and a concentration factor of about 3x in soybean hulls, the Agency determined that a tolerance of 0.6 ppm is appropriate for residues of diquat on soybean hulls. Therefore, EPA is establishing a tolerance for residues of diquat in § 180.226(a)(3) for “soybean, hulls” at 0.6 ppm. Based on field trial data on alfalfa grown for seed that show residues of diquat were as high as 2.4 ppm, the Agency determined that a tolerance of 3.0 ppm is appropriate and should be established. Therefore, EPA is establishing a tolerance in § 180.226(a)(1) for “alfalfa, seed” at 3.0 ppm. Also, in the diquat TRED, EPA recommended the establishment of a tolerance on clover seed at 2.0 ppm. However, a tolerance for “clover, seed” is not needed because clover seed is no longer considered by the Agency to be a significant food or feed item. EPA is revising commodity terminology to conform to current Agency practice as follows: in 40 CFR 180.226(a)(2)(i), “grain, crop” to read “grain, cereal, group 15” and “grain, cereal, forage, fodder and straw, group 16.” While the Agency did propose to revise tolerance terminology from coffee to coffee, bean in 40 CFR 180.226(a)(3), the Agency did not propose in a notice for comment to revise that tolerance on coffee to coffee, bean, green, as is current Agency practice. However, section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act provides that notice and comment is not necessary “when the agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefore in the rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Consequently, for good cause, EPA is revising the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.226(a)(3) from coffee to coffee, bean, green. The reason for taking this action is because such action has no practical impact on the use of or exposure to the pesticide active ingredient, diquat, in or on that commodity and is made such that the tolerance terminology will conform to current Agency practice. 9. *5-Ethoxy-3-(trichloromethyl)-1,2,4-thiadiazole (etridiazole or terrazole)* . Based on available data, EPA determined that there is no reasonable expectation of finite residues of etridiazole and its metabolites on or in animal livestock commodities. These tolerances are no longer needed under 40 CFR 180.6(a)(3). Therefore, EPA is revoking the commodity tolerances in 40 CFR 180.370(a) for residues of etridiazole and its monoacid metabolite in or on “cattle, fat;” “cattle, meat byproducts;” “cattle, meat;” “egg;” “goat, fat;” “goat, meat byproducts;” “goat, meat;” “hog, fat;” “hog, meat byproducts;” “hog, meat;” “horse, fat;” “horse, meat byproducts;” “horse, meat;” “milk;” “poultry, fat;” “poultry, meat byproducts;” “poultry, meat;” “sheep, fat;” “sheep, meat byproducts;” and “sheep, meat.” Since 1989, there have been no active registrations for etridiazole use on strawberries and therefore the tolerance is no longer needed. Consequently, EPA is revoking the tolerance for strawberry in 40 CFR 180.370. The Agency determined that metabolism data at exaggerated rates of etridiazole seed treatments on cotton, soybean, and wheat would support seed treatment uses on barley, beans, corn, cotton, peanuts, peas, safflower, sorghum, soybeans, and wheat. Residues of etridiazole per se were non-detectable on soybeans and wheat, but as high as 0.06 ppm on cotton. Residues of the monoacid metabolite are expected not to exceed 0.04 ppm based on the metabolism data from seed treated at 1-fold amounts. Based on these data, the Agency determined that appropriate tolerances for combined residues of etridiazole and its monoacid metabolite for treated seed should be set at the combined limit of quantitation (0.1 ppm) of the available enforcement method. Therefore, EPA is increasing the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.370 for “wheat, grain” from 0.05 ppm to 0.1 ppm, and “corn, field, grain” from 0.05 ppm to 0.1 ppm. Also, EPA is decreasing the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.370 for “cotton, undelinted seed” from 0.20 ppmto 0.1 ppm based on available data. In addition, based on available data, EPA is establishing tolerances in 40 CFR 180.370 at 0.1 ppm for “barley, grain;” “barley, hay;” “cotton, gin byproducts;” “peanut;” “safflower, seed;” “sorghum, grain, forage;” “sorghum, grain, grain;” “vegetable, foliage of legume, group 7;” and “vegetable, legume, group 6.” 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. In order to conform to current Agency practice, in 40 CFR 180.370, EPA is proposing to revise “corn, forage” to read “corn, field, forage” and “corn, sweet, forage,” and “corn, stover” to read “corn, field, stover” and “corn, sweet, stover.” In the proposed rule of August 4, 2004 (69 FR 47051), EPA stated that peanut hay is no longer considered to be a significant livestock feed commodity. In fact, peanut hay is considered by the Agency to be a significant livestock feed item as shown at *http://www.epa.gov/opptsfrs/OPPTS_Harmonized/860_Residue_Chemistry_Test_Guidelines/Series/* in the Residue Chemistry Test Guidelines OPPTS 860.1000 Table 1. Therefore, the Agency intends to address proposing the establishment of a tolerance for residues of etridiazole and its monoacid metabolite in or on peanut hay in a future document to be published in the **Federal Register** . Also in the proposed rule of August 4, 2004 (69 FR 47051), the Agency noted the registrant's support of the tomato tolerance in 40 CFR 180.370 for import purposes and the lack of a FIFRA registration because at the time of the RED, the registrant had committed to provide additional data in order to maintain the tomato tolerance for import purposes. However, since the RED, EPA approved several section 24(c) FIFRA registrations for regional domestic use of etridiazole on tomatoes. Consequently, EPA will not amend the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.370 on tomato with a statement regarding the lack of a FIFRA registration. 10. *Fenbutatin-oxide* . The Fenbutatin-oxide RED was completed in September 1994 and the existing tolerances were reassessed according to the FQPA standard in the May 2002 TRED. EPA determined that in order to better harmonize with Codex, the fenbutatin-oxide (hexakis (2-methyl-2-phenylpropyl) distannoxane) tolerance expression for plants should include the parent compound only. Therefore, in 40 CFR 180.362(a), EPA is recodifying plant tolerances in § 180.362(a)(1) and animal tolerances in § 180.362(a)(2). Moreover, EPA is revising the tolerance expression such that tolerances in § 180.362(a)(1) are established for residues of hexakis (2-methyl-2-phenylpropyl) distannoxane and tolerances in § 180.362(a)(2) are established for the combined residues of hexakis (2-methyl-2-phenylpropyl) distannoxane and its organotin metabolites dihydroxybis(2-methyl-2-phenylpropyl)stannane, and 2-methyl-2-phenylpropylstannoic acid. Also, EPA is removing the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.362 for “plum, prune” because that tolerance is no longer needed since that use is covered by the dried plum tolerance. In addition, EPA is revising the commodity tolerance terminology “plum” to read “plum, prune, fresh.” Because available data for almond, pecan, and walnut support a crop group tolerance; EPA is reassigning their individual tolerances in 40 CFR 180.362 into a group tolerance “nut, tree, group 14” and maintaining the tolerance at 0.5 ppm. The Agency determined that a tolerance on apple wet pomace should be established at 100 ppm because available apple processing data indicate that combined fenbutatin-oxide residues of concern concentrate 1.7x in wet pomace. Based on that processing data, EPA is establishing a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.362(a)(1) for “apple, wet pomace” at 100.0 ppm. In addition, EPA is revising commodity terminology in 40 CFR 180.362 to conform to current Agency practice as follows: “fruit, citrus” to read “fruit, citrus, group 10.” 11. *Folpet* . EPA is recodifying the tolerance for “avocado” at 25 ppm from 40 CFR 180.191(a) into 40 CFR 180.191(c) as a tolerance with regional registration because the use of folpet on avocados is limited to the state of Florida, and there is no need for a national tolerance. Additional residue data would be required to establish a tolerance for folpet use on avocados outside the state of Florida. With the exception of “avocado” and “hop, dried cones,” the registrant is supporting the remaining folpet tolerances for import purposes only and EPA is designating them as import tolerances with no U.S. registrations. These import tolerances are based on the best available field trial and storage stability data and assume use at a maximum single and seasonal application rate, minimum PHI, and minimum retreatment interval for each crop. For some commodities, the import tolerances should be lower than the old tolerance with a U.S. registration because the import tolerances are based on different use information than that on which the previous tolerances were based. Therefore, EPA is modifying certain tolerances for folpet to reflect the best available foreign field trial data. Therefore, use of folpet outside the United States should not exceed the maximum use rate, minimum preharvest interval, and retreatment interval specified herein. Any use pattern exceeding these maximum single and seasonal application rates, minimum PHIs, and minimum retreatment intervals may result in residues exceeding U.S. tolerance levels. Available field trial data indicate that folpet residues ranged up to 3.67 ppm in or on apples harvested 7 to 10 days following the last of several applications (14 day retreatment interval) at 0.8 ppm to 3.59 kg ai/ha. Based on the available residue field trial data, the Agency determined that a tolerance of 5 ppm on apple is appropriate provided that use directions do not exceed a maximum single application rate of 3.6 kg ai/ha, a maximum seasonal application rate of 10.8 kg ai/ha, a minimum PHI of 10 days, and a treatment interval of 14 days. Therefore, EPA is decreasing the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.191(a) on “apple” from 25.0 ppm to 5.0 ppm. Foreign field trial data on cranberries indicate that folpet residues ranged up to 11.2 ppm in or on cranberries harvested 30 days following the last of three broadcast applications (separated by a 12- to 14-day retreatment interval) at 5.0 Kilogram active ingredient/hectare/application (kg a.i./ha/application). Although the submitted data do not reflect the maximum label use pattern of folpet on cranberries (which is limited to only two applications and not three applications as tested here), the Agency accepted the current field trial data and determined that a tolerance of 15 ppm is appropriate on cranberries. Therefore, EPA is decreasing the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.191(a) for “cranberry” from 25.0 ppm to 15.0 ppm. Foreign field trial data on onions indicate that folpet residues ranged up to 0.406 ppm in or on dry bulb onions harvested 7 days following the last of either three or four applications (with a 7-day retreatment interval) of folpet at either 1.5- or 1.95 kg ai/ha per application. Based on the available residue field trial data, the Agency determined that a tolerance of 2.0 ppm is appropriate on dry bulb onions provided that the use directions do not exceed a maximum application rate of 1.95 kg ai/ha, a minimum PHI of 7 days, and a 7-day retreatment interval. Therefore, EPA is decreasing the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.191(a) for “onion, dry bulb” from 15.0 ppm to 2.0 ppm. Foreign field trial data on strawberries indicate that folpet residues ranged up to 2.56 ppm in or on strawberries harvested 2 days following the last of four applications at 1.25 kg ai/ha per application. Based on the available residue field trial data, the Agency determined that a tolerance of 5 ppm on strawberries is appropriate provided the use directions do not exceed a maximum of four applications per season at up to 1.25 kg ai/application, and specify a retreatment interval of 7 days and a preharvest interval of 2 days. Therefore, EPA is decreasing the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.191(a) for “strawberry” from 25.0 ppm to 5.0 ppm. Foreign field trial data on grapes indicate that folpet residues ranged up to 38.3 ppm in or on grapes harvested 14 days following the last of five applications (with a 5- to 7-day retreatment interval) at 1.49 kg ai/ha per application. Based on the available residue field trial data, the Agency determined that a tolerance of 50 ppm on grape is appropriate provided that use rates do not exceed a maximum single application rate of 1.5 kg ai/ha, a maximum seasonal rate of 8.0 kg ai/ha, a minimum PHI of 7 days, and a 7-day retreatment interval. Therefore, EPA is increasing the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.191(a) for “grape” from 25 ppm to 50.0 ppm. The Agency has determined that the increased tolerance is safe; i.e., there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to folpet residues. No U.S. registration exists for use of folpet on raisins. However, grape processing data show that the average concentration factor from grapes to raisins for folpet residues is 1.9x. Based on an average concentration factor of 1.9x and a HAFT of 38.3 ppm, the Agency determined that for import purposes a tolerance of 80.0 ppm should be established for grape, raisin. Therefore, EPA is establishing a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.191(a) for “grape, raisin” at 80.0 ppm. Tolerances for “lettuce” and “tomato” will be maintained at the current level of 50.0 ppm and 25.0 ppm, respectively, for import purposes only. There are no U.S. registrations for use of folpet on these commodities. Foreign field trials for cucumbers harvested 3 to 7 days following the last of several applications indicate residues of folpet up to 0.699 ppm at an application rate up to 1.75 kg/ai/ha. Therefore, EPA has determined that a tolerance of 2.0 ppm is appropriate for imported cucumbers, provided that use of folpet outside the United States does not exceed a maximum single application rate of 1.75 kg ai/ha, a maximum seasonal application rate of 8.0 kg ai/ha, a minimum preharvest interval of at least 3 days, and a minimum retreatment interval of at least 7 days. Also, foreign field trials for melons harvested 7 days following the last of up to 6 applications at a maximum application rate of 1.75 kg ai/ha (with a 5- to 7-day retreatment interval) indicate residues of folpet up to 2.3 ppm. Therefore, EPA has determined that a tolerance of 3.0 ppm is appropriate for imported melons, provided that use of folpet outside the United States does not exceed a maximum single application rate of 1.75 kg ai/ha, a maximum seasonal application rate of 10.5 kg ai/ha, a minimum preharvest interval of at least 7 days, and a minimum retreatment interval of at least 7 days. Based on the available residue field trial data, the Agency has determined that the tolerances on cucumber and melon should be decreased from 15.0 ppm to 2.0 ppm and from 15.0 ppm to 3.0 ppm, respectively. Therefore, EPA is decreasing the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.191(a) on cucumber to 2.0 ppm and melon to 3.0 ppm. The Agency did not propose in a notice for comment to revise the tolerance nomenclature for folpet in 40 CFR 180.191(a) from onion, dry bulb to onion, bulb, as is current Agency practice. However, section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act provides that notice and comment is not necessary “when the agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefore in the rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Consequently, for good cause, EPA is revising the tolerance terminology in 40 CFR 180.191(a) from onion, dry bulb to read onion, bulb. The reason for taking this action is because such action has no practical impact on the use of or exposure to the pesticide active ingredient, folpet, in or on that commodity and is made such that the tolerance terminology will conform to current Agency practice. Since the folpet RED was completed in 1999, a tolerance for the purpose of importation was established in 40 CFR 180.191(a) for “hop, dried cones” (68 FR 10377, March 5, 2003)(FRL-7296-2) and later, based on the Agency's approval of a petition for a FIFRA registration regarding folpet use on U.S. grown hop, dried cones, the tolerance for hop, dried cones was amended to delete the statement regarding the lack of a FIFRA registration on August 25, 2004 (69 FR 52182) (FRL-7369-1. 12. *Hydramethylnon (Pyrimidinone)* . EPA is increasing the following commodity tolerances in 40 CFR 180.395(a): “grass (pasture and rangeland)” from 0.05 ppm to 2.0 ppm and revising the terminology to “grass, forage” and “grass, hay;” based on available field trial data which show residues of hydramethylnon above the current tolerance level and label amendments which reflect parameters of use patterns for which field trials are available; (i.e., reflect a 0 day post harvest interval) since the Agency no longer allows a PHI restriction on grass. The tolerance for “grass hay (pasture and rangeland)” was recommended to be increased from 0.05 ppm to 0.1 ppm, based on available field trial data previously discussed and label amendments which reflect a 0 day post harvest interval. However, because the terminology should be revised to “grass, hay,” that tolerance at 0.1 ppm is no longer needed since it would be a duplicate covered by the proposed tolerance at 2.0 ppm. Therefore, EPA is removing the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.395(a) for grass hay (pasture and rangeland). After the hydramethylnon RED was completed in 1998, a permanent tolerance was established in 40 CFR 180.395(a) on pineapple (68 FR 48302, August 13, 2003)(FRL-7319-5). Since the proposal of August 4, 2004 (69 FR 47051), the time-limited tolerance for hydramethylnon residues on pineapple in 40 CFR 180.395(b), for section 18 emergency exemptions, expired on June 30, 2005. The Agency did not propose in a notice for comment to remove the text and table with the expired tolerance and reserve 40 CFR 180.395(b). However, section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act provides that notice and comment is not necessary “when the agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefore in the rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Consequently, for good cause, EPA is removing the text and table from 40 CFR 180.395(b) and reserving that section for emergency exemptions in this document. The reason for taking this action is because such action has no practical impact on the use of or exposure to the pesticide active ingredient, hydramethylnon, since the sole time-limited tolerance in 40 CFR 180.395(b) had expired and, as it no longer needs to be codified in that section, should be removed for the sake of clarity. 13. *Phosphine* . EPA is removing the commodity tolerance in 40 CFR 180.225(a)(1) for residues of phospine in or on “pimento;” because under 40 CFR 180.1(g) this tolerance is covered by the existing tolerance for pepper. 14. *Picloram* . The Picloram RED was completed in March 1995 and the existing tolerances were reassessed according to the FQPA standard when new tolerances were established on January 5, 1999 (64 FR 418)(FRL-6039-4). Because the tolerances at 3.0 ppm in 40 CFR 180.292(a)(3) for residues of picloram in or on barley, milled fractions (exc flour); oat, groats/rolled oats (previously known as oat, milled fractions (exc flour)); and wheat, milled fractions (exc flour) are duplicates covered by the tolerances at 3.0 ppm in 40 CFR 180.292(a)(2), there is no longer a need for them and therefore, EPA is removing the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.292(a)(3) for residues of picloram in or on barley, milled fractions (exc flour); oat, groats/rolled oats, and wheat, milled fractions (exc flour). Because the time-limited tolerances on aspirated grain fractions, sorghum grain, forage, and stover for indirect or inadvertent residues in 40 CFR 180.292(d) all expired on December 31, 2000, there is no longer a need to codify them in that part. Therefore, EPA is amending 40 CFR 180.292(d) by removing the existing paragraph and table of expired tolerances, and reserving the paragraph designation. Based on the concentration of picloram residues in the aspirated grain fractions of wheat, EPA is establishing tolerances in 40 CFR 180.292(a)(1) for “grain, aspirated fractions” at 4.0 ppm. In order to conform to current Agency practice, in 40 CFR 180.292(a)(2), EPA is revising “barley, milled fractions (exc flour)” to read “barley, pearled barley;” and “wheat, milled fractions (exc flour)” to read “wheat, bran;” “wheat, germ;” “wheat, middlings;” and “wheat, shorts.” EPA will not take action on the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.292(a)(1) for “grass, forage” or establish a tolerance for “grass, hay” at this time due to label and data issues. However, the Agency intends to clarify these issues with the registrants. 15. *Triclopyr* . EPA has determined that the residue which should be regulated in grass and rice commodities and milk, poultry, and eggs is triclopyr per se. The Agency has also determined that the residue which should be regulated in meat and meat byproducts are the combined residues of triclopyr and the metabolite 3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinol (TCP). Therefore, EPA is revising the tolerance expression in 40 CFR 180.417(a)(1) to reflect residues of triclopyr per se as a result of the application/use of butoxyethyl ester of triclopyr and triethylamine salt of triclopyr. In addition, EPA is recodifying tolerances for “egg,” “milk,” “poultry, fat;” “poultry, meat byproducts, except kidney;” “poultry, meat;” “rice, grain;” and “rice, straw;” from 40 CFR 180.417(a)(2) to (a)(1). Also, EPA is amending the tolerance expression in 40 CFR 180.417(a)(2) to reflect the combined residues of the herbicide triclopyr ((3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinyl)oxy) acetic acid and its metabolite 3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinol

(TCP)as a result of the application/use of butoxyethyl ester of triclopyr or the triethylamine salt of triclopyr. Since the time of the Triclopyr RED, the Agency has determined that a proposal by the registrant to increase the tolerance for “grass, forage” from 500 ppm to 700 ppm is acceptable provided that registrations specify a maximum application rate of 2 lb. acid equivalents (ae)/A per annual growing season. The dietary risk assessment performed as part of the triclopyr RED supports this increase. The current tolerances on meat commodities are adequate to cover residues that may occur from grazing areas treated at 2 lb. ae/A. Therefore, EPA is increasing the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.417(a)(1) on “grass, forage” to 700.0 ppm. Also, the Agency is revising in 40 CFR 180.417(a)(1) the commodity terminology “grass, forage, hay” to read “grass, hay” and decreasing the tolerance from 500.0 ppm to 200.0 ppm, based on available data and label amendments. 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. Since the triclopyr RED was completed in 1997, tolerances were established in 40 CFR 180.417(a)(1) for “fish” and “shellfish” (67 FR 58712, September 18, 2002)(FRL-7196-7). 16. *Triphenyltin hydroxide (TPTH)* . Since TPTH residues of concern in plant and animal commodities have been determined to include TPTH and its monophenyltin

(MPTH)and diphenyltin

(DPTH)hydroxide and oxide metabolites, EPA is revising the tolerance definition in 40 CFR 180.236 in terms of the combined residues of TPTH and its MPTH and DPTH hydroxide and oxide metabolites, expressed in terms of parent TPTH. Based on available ruminant feeding data that indicate combined TPTH-regulated residues as high as 1.15 ppm in kidney and 3.7 ppm in liver, the Agency determined that the appropriate tolerances for kidney and liver of cattle, goats, horses, and sheep are 2.0 ppm and 4.0 ppm, respectively. Therefore, EPA is increasing the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.236 for “cattle, liver;” “goat, liver;” “horse, liver;” and “sheep, liver;” each from 0.05 ppm to 4.0 ppm, “cattle, kidney;” “goat, kidney;” “horse, kidney;” and “sheep, kidney;” each from 0.05 ppm to 2.0 ppm. The Agency determined that the increased tolerances are safe; i.e., there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. Also, because available ruminant feeding data show combined TPTH-regulated residues as high as 0.14 ppm in fat and 0.34 ppm in meat, the Agency determined that the appropriate tolerances should be established for fat and meat of cattle, goats, horses, and sheep at 0.2 ppm and 0.5 ppm, respectively. Moreover, based on non-detectable levels and combined LOQs of 0.02 ppm for each metabolite, the Agency determined that a tolerance should be established for milk at 0.06 ppm. Therefore, EPA is establishing tolerances in 40 CFR 180.236 for “cattle, fat;” “goat, fat;” “horse, fat;” and “sheep, fat;” each at 0.2 ppm; “cattle, meat;” “goat, meat;” “horse, meat;” and “sheep, meat;” each at 0.5 ppm, and “milk” at 0.06 ppm. The ruminant feeding data was also used by the Agency to reassess tolerances for swine. EPA determined that tolerances for hog kidney and liver should be increased to 0.3 ppm (the combined LOQs of 0.1 ppm for residues in kidney, liver and fat), and that these separate tolerances should be combined as hog, meat byproducts. In addition, EPA determined that tolerances should also be established for hog fat at 0.3 ppm (the combined LOQs of 0.1 ppm for each metabolite), and in hog meat at 0.06 ppm (the combined LOQs of 0.02 ppm for each metabolite). Therefore, EPA is revising the commodity tolerances in 40 CFR 180.236 for “hog, kidney” and “hog, liver” at 0.05 ppm into the commodity tolerance “hog, meat byproducts” and increasing the tolerance to 0.3 ppm, and establishing tolerances for “hog, fat” at 0.3 ppm and “hog, meat” at 0.06 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 available field trial data that show combined TPTH-regulated residues as high as 9.7 ppm, the Agency determined that a tolerance should be established at 10.0 ppm for beet, sugar, tops. Therefore, EPA is establishing a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.236 for “beet, sugar, tops” at 10.0 ppm. B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action? EPA may issue a regulation establishing, modifying, or revoking a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(e). In this final rule, EPA is establishing, modifying, and revoking tolerances to implement the tolerance recommendations made during the reregistration and tolerance reassessment processes, and as follow-up on canceled uses of pesticides. As part of these processes, EPA is required to determine whether each of the amended tolerances meets the safety standards under FFDCA. The safety finding determination is found 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 bromoxynil, diclofop-methyl, dicofol, etridiazole (terrazole), folpet, hydramethylnon, iprodione, paraquat, phosphine (aluminum and magnesium phosphide), propargite, triclopyr, and triphenyltin hydroxide (TPTH), and TREDs for diquat and fenbutatin-oxide, whose REDs were both completed prior to FQPA. Also, EPA issued a RED prior to FQPA for picloram and in 1999 made a safety finding which reassessed its tolerances according to the FFDCA standard, maintaining them when new tolerances were established as noted in Unit II.A. REDs and TREDs contain the Agency's evaluation of the data base for these pesticides, including statements regarding additional data on the active ingredients that may be needed to confirm the potential human health and environmental risk assessments associated with current product uses, and REDs state conditions under which these uses and products will be eligible for reregistration. The REDs and TREDs recommended the establishment, modification, and/or revocation of specific tolerances. RED and TRED recommendations such as establishing or modifying tolerances, and in some cases revoking tolerances, are the result of assessment under the FFDCA standard of “reasonable certainty of no harm.” However, tolerance revocations recommended in REDs and TREDs that are made final in this document do not need such assessment when the tolerances are no longer necessary. EPA's general practice is to revoke tolerances for residues of pesticide active ingredients on crops for which FIFRA registrations no longer exist and on which the pesticide may therefore no longer be used in the United States. 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. When EPA establishes tolerances for pesticide residues in or on raw agricultural commodities, the Agency gives consideration to possible pesticide residues in meat, milk, poultry, and/or eggs produced by animals that are fed agricultural products (for example, grain or hay) containing pesticides residues (40 CFR 180.6). If there is no reasonable expectation of finite pesticide residues in or on meat, milk, poultry, or eggs, then tolerances do not need to be established for these commodities (40 CFR 180.6(b) and 180.6 (c)). C. When Do These Actions Become Effective? These actions become effective 90 days following publication of this final rule in the **Federal Register** . EPA has delayed the effectiveness of these actions to ensure that all affected parties receive notice of EPA's actions. Consequently, the effective date is October 30, 2007. For this final rule, the tolerances that were revoked because registered uses did not exist concerned uses which have been canceled, in some cases, for many years. The Agency believes that existing stocks of pesticide products labeled for the uses associated with the tolerance revocations have been completely exhausted and that treated commodities have had sufficient time for passage through the channels of trade. Any commodities listed in the regulatory text of this document that are treated with the pesticides subject to this final rule, and that are in the channels of trade following the tolerance revocations, shall be subject to FFDCA section 408(1)(5), as established by the FQPA. Under this section, any residues of these pesticides in or on such food shall not render the food adulterated so long as it is shown to the satisfaction of the Food and Drug Administration that:

(1)The residue is present as the result of an application or use of the pesticide at a time and in a manner that was lawful under FIFRA, and

(2)the residue does not exceed the level that was authorized at the time of the application or use to be present on the food under a tolerance or exemption from tolerance. Evidence to show that food was lawfully treated may include records that verify the dates that the pesticide was applied to such food. III. Are There Any International Trade Issues Raised by this Final Action? In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international 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 the proposed rule cited 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 final rule EPA establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(e), and also modifies and revokes specific tolerances established under FFDCA section 408. The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)has exempted these types of actions (i.e., establishment and modification of a tolerance and tolerance revocation for which extraordinary circumstances do not exist) from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled *Regulatory Planning and Review* (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of significance, this rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, *Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use* (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This final rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq* ., or impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(UMRA)(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 104-13, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(RFA)(5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq* .), the Agency previously assessed whether establishment of tolerances, exemptions from tolerances, raising of tolerance levels, expansion of exemptions, or revocations might significantly impact a substantial number of small entities and concluded that, as a general matter, these actions do not impose a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. These analyses for tolerance establishments and modifications, and for tolerance revocations were published on May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950) and on December 17, 1997 (62 FR 66020), respectively, and were provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. Taking into account this analysis, and available information concerning the pesticides listed in this rule, the Agency hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In a memorandum dated May 25, 2001, EPA determined that eight conditions must all be satisfied in order for an import tolerance or tolerance exemption revocation to adversely affect a significant number of small entity importers, and that there is a negligible joint probability of all eight conditions holding simultaneously with respect to any particular revocation. (This Agency document is available in the docket of the proposed rule, as mentioned in Unit II.A. Furthermore, for the pesticides named in this final rule, the Agency knows of no extraordinary circumstances that exist as to the present revocations that would change EPA's previous analysis. In addition, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled *Federalism* (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers and food retailers, not States. This action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. For these same reasons, the Agency has determined that this rule does not have any “tribal implications” as described in Executive Order 13175, entitled *Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments* (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000). Executive Order 13175, requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” “Policies that have tribal implications” is defined in the Executive order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.” This rule will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. V. Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq* ., generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of this final rule in the **Federal Register** . This final rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: July 23, 2007. Debra Edwards, Director, Office of Pesticide Programs. Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows: PART 180—AMENDED 1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. 2. Section 180.163 is amended by revising the section heading and paragraph

(a)to read as follows: § 180.163 1,1-Bis(4-chlorophenyl)-2,2,2-trichloroethanol; tolerances for residues.

(a)*General* .

(1)Tolerances for the combined residues of the insecticide dicofol, 1,1-bis(4-chlorophenyl)-2,2,2-trichloroethanol and 1-(2-chlorophenyl)-1-(4-chlorophenyl)-2,2,2-trichloroethanol in or on raw agricultural commodities are established as follows: Commodity Parts per million Apple, wet pomace 38.0 Bean, dry, seed 0.5 Bean, succulent 3.0 Butternut 0.1 Caneberry subgroup 13A 5.0 Chestnut 0.1 Citrus, dried pulp 12.0 Citrus oil 200.0 Cotton, refined oil 0.5 Cotton, undelinted seed 0.1 Fruit, citrus, group 10 6.0 Fruit, pome, group 11 10.0 Fruit, stone, group 12 5.0 Grape 5.0 Grape, raisin 20.0 Hazelnut 0.1 Hop, dried cones 65.0 Nut, hickory 0.1 Nut, macadamia 0.1 Pecan 0.1 Peppermint, hay 25.0 Peppermint, oil 30.0 Spearmint, oil 30.0 Spearmint, tops 25.0 Strawberry 10.0 Tea, dried 50.0 Tea, plucked leaves 30.0 Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 2.0 Vegetable, fruiting, group 8 2.0 Walnut 0.1

(2)Tolerances for the combined residues of the insecticide dicofol, 1,1-bis(4-chlorophenyl)-2,2,2-trichloroethanol, 1-(2-chlorophenyl)-1-(4-chlorophenyl)-2,2,2-trichloroethanol, 1,1-bis(4-chlorophenyl)-2,2-dichloroethanol, and 1-(2-chlorophenyl)-1-(4-chlorophenyl)-2,2-dichloroethanol in or on raw agricultural commodities are established as follows: Commodity Parts per million Cattle, fat 50.0 Cattle, liver 5.0 Cattle, meat 3.0 Cattle, meat byproducts, except liver 3.0 Egg 0.05 Goat, fat 50.0 Goat, liver 5.0 Goat, meat 3.0 Goat, meat byproducts, except liver 3.0 Hog, fat 50.0 Hog, liver 5.0 Hog, meat 3.0 Hog, meat byproducts, except liver 3.0 Horse, fat 50.0 Horse, liver 5.0 Horse, meat 3.0 Horse, meat byproducts, except liver 3.0 Milk, fat (reflecting 0.75 ppm in whole milk) 22.0 Poultry, fat 0.1 Poultry, meat 0.1 Poultry, meat byproducts 0.1 Sheep, fat 50.0 Sheep, liver 5.0 Sheep, meat 3.0 Sheep, meat byproducts, except liver 3.0 3. Section 180.191 is amended by revising paragraph

(a)and by adding text to paragraph

(c)after the paragraph heading to read as follows: § 180.191 Folpet; tolerances for residues.

(a)*General* . Tolerances are established for the fungicide folpet ( *N* -(trichloromethylthio)phthalimide) in or on raw agricultural commodities as follows: Commodity Parts per million Apple 1 5.0 Cranberry 1 15.0 Cucumber 1 2.0 Grape 1 50.0 Grape, raisin 1 80.0 Hop, dried cones 120.0 Lettuce 1 50.0 Melon 1 3.0 Onion, bulb 1 2.0 Strawberry 1 5.0 Tomato 1 25.0 1 No U.S. registrations.

(c)*Tolerances with regional registration* . Tolerances with regional registrations as defined in § 180.1(m) are established for the fungicide folpet ( *N* -(trichloromethylthio)phthalimide) in or on the following raw agricultural commodity: Commodity Parts per million Avocado 25.0 4. Section 180.205 is amended by revising the table in paragraph

(a)to read as follows: §180.205 Paraquat; tolerances for residues.

(a)* * * Commodity Parts per million Acerola 0.05 Almond, hulls 0.5 Animal feed, nongrass, group 18, forage 75.0 Animal feed, nongrass, group 18, hay 210.0 Artichoke, globe 0.05 Asparagus 0.5 Avocado 0.05 Banana 0.05 Barley, grain 0.05 Barley, hay 3.5 Barley, straw 1.0 Bean, dry, seed 0.3 Bean, lima, succulent 0.05 Bean, snap, succulent 0.05 Beet, sugar 0.5 Beet, sugar, tops 0.05 Berry group 13 0.05 Cacao bean 0.05 Carrot, roots 0.05 Cattle, fat 0.05 Cattle, kidney 0.5 Cattle, meat 0.05 Cattle, meat byproducts, except kidney 0.05 Coffee, bean, green 0.05 Corn, field, forage 3.0 Corn, field, grain 0.1 Corn, field, stover 10.0 Corn, pop, grain 0.1 Corn, pop, stover 10.0 Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed 0.05 Cotton, gin byproducts 110.0 Cotton, undelinted seed 3.5 Cowpea, forage 0.1 Cowpea, hay 0.4 Cranberry 0.05 Cucurbits 0.05 Egg 0.01 Endive 0.05 Fig 0.05 Fruit, citrus, group 10 0.05 Fruit, pome, group 11 0.05 Fruit, stone, group 12 0.05 Ginger 0.1 Goat, fat 0.05 Goat, kidney 0.5 Goat, meat 0.05 Goat, meat byproducts, except kidney 0.05 Grain, aspirated fractions 65.0 Grape 0.05 Grass, forage 90.0 Grass, hay 40.0 Guar 0.5 Guava 0.05 Hog, fat 0.05 Hog, kidney 0.5 Hog, meat 0.05 Hog, meat byproducts, except kidney 0.05 Hop, dried cones 0.5 Horse, fat 0.05 Horse, kidney 0.5 Horse, meat 0.05 Horse, meat byproducts, except kidney 0.05 Kiwifruit 0.05 Lentil, seed 0.3 Lettuce 0.05 Milk 0.01 Mint, hay 0.5 Nut 0.05 Nut, tree, group 14 0.05 Okra 0.05 Olive 0.05 Onion, bulb 0.1 Onion, green 0.05 Papaya 0.05 Passionfruit 0.2 Pea and bean, dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup 6C, except guar bean 0.3 Pea and bean, succulent shelled, subgroup 6B 0.05 Pea, dry, seed 0.3 Pea, field, hay 0.8 Pea, field, vines 0.2 Pea, succulent 0.05 Peanut 0.05 Peanut, hay 0.5 Persimmon 0.05 Pineapple 0.05 Pineapple, process residue 0.25 Pistachio 0.05 Potato 0.5 Rhubarb 0.05 Rice, grain 0.05 Rice, straw 0.06 Safflower, seed 0.05 Sheep, fat 0.05 Sheep, kidney 0.5 Sheep, meat 0.05 Sheep, meat byproducts, except kidney 0.05 Sorghum, forage, forage 0.1 Sorghum, grain 0.05 Sorghum, grain, forage 0.1 Soybean, forage 0.4 Soybean, hay 10.0 Soybean, hulls 4.5 Soybean, seed 0.7 Strawberry 0.25 Sugarcane, cane 0.5 Sugarcane, molasses 3.0 Sunflower, seed 2.0 Turnip, greens 0.05 Turnip, roots 0.05 Vegetable, brassica, leafy, group 5 0.05 Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 0.05 Vegetable, fruiting, group 8 0.05 Vegetable, legume, edible podded, subgroup 6A 0.05 Wheat, forage 0.5 Wheat, grain 1.1 Wheat, hay 3.5 Wheat, straw 50.0 § 180.225 [Amended] 5. Section 180.225 is amended by removing the entry for “pimento” from the table in paragraph (a)(1). 6. Section 180.226 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1), the tables in paragraph (a)(2)(i) and (a)(3), and by removing paragraph (a)(6) to read as follows: § 180.226 Diquat; tolerances for residues.

(a)*General* .

(1)Tolerances are established for residues of the plant growth regulator and herbicide diquat, (6,7-dihydrodipyrido (1,2-a:2′1′-c)pyrazinediium) derived from application of the dibromide salt and calculated as the cation in or on the following food commodities: Commodity Parts per million Alfalfa, seed 3.0 Cattle, fat 0.05 Cattle, meat 0.05 Cattle, meat byproducts 0.05 Egg 0.05 Goat, fat 0.05 Goat, meat 0.05 Goat, meat byproducts 0.05 Hog, fat 0.05 Hog, meat 0.05 Hog, meat byproducts 0.05 Horse, fat 0.05 Horse, meat 0.05 Horse, meat byproducts 0.05 Milk 0.02 Potato 0.1 Poultry, fat 0.05 Poultry, meat 0.05 Poultry, meat byproducts 0.05 Sheep, fat 0.05 Sheep, meat 0.05 Sheep, meat byproducts 0.05 Sorghum, grain, grain 2.0 Soybean, seed 0.2 (2)(i) * * * Commodity Parts per million Avocado 0.2 Berry group 13 0.05 Cotton, undelinted seed 0.2 Cranberry 0.05 Fish 2.0 Fruit, citrus, group 10 0.05 Fruit, pome, group 11 0.02 Fruit, stone, group 12 0.02 Grain, cereal, forage, fodder and straw, group 16 0.02 Grain, cereal, group 15 0.02 Grape 0.05 Grass, forage, fodder and hay, group 17 0.2 Hop, dried cones 0.2 Nut, tree, group 14 0.02 Shellfish 20.0 Strawberry 0.05 Sugarcane, cane 0.2 Vegetable, brassica, leafy, group 5 0.05 Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 0.02 Vegetable, foliage of legume, group 7 0.2 Vegetable, fruiting, group 8 0.05 Vegetable, leafy, except brassica, group 4 0.05 Vegetable, root and tuber, group 1 0.02 Vegetable, seed and pod 0.05

(3)* * * Commodity Parts per million Banana 0.05 Coffee, bean, green 0.05 Soybean, hulls 0.6 7. Section 180.236 is revised to read as follows: § 180.236 Triphenyltin hydroxide; tolerances for residues.

(a)*General* . Tolerances are established for the combined residues of the fungicide triphenyltin hydroxide

(TPTH)and its monophenyltin

(MPTH)and diphenyltin

(DPTH)hydroxide and oxide metabolites, expressed in terms of parent TPTH, in or on the following raw agricultural commodities: Commodity Parts per million Beet, sugar, roots 0.05 Beet, sugar, tops 10.0 Cattle, fat 0.2 Cattle, kidney 2.0 Cattle, liver 4.0 Cattle, meat 0.5 Goat, fat 0.2 Goat, kidney 2.0 Goat, liver 4.0 Goat, meat 0.5 Hog, fat 0.3 Hog, meat 0.06 Hog, meat byproducts 0.3 Horse, fat 0.2 Horse, kidney 2.0 Horse, liver 4.0 Horse, meat 0.5 Milk 0.06 Pecan 0.05 Potato 0.05 Sheep, fat 0.2 Sheep, kidney 2.0 Sheep, liver 4.0 Sheep, meat 0.5

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

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

(d)*Indirect or inadvertent residues* . [Reserved] 8. Section 180.259 is amended by revising the table in paragraph

(a)to read as follows: § 180.259 Propargite; tolerances for residues.

(a)* * * Commodity Parts per million Almond 0.1 Almond, hulls 55.0 Bean, dry, seed 0.2 Cattle, fat 0.1 Cattle, meat 0.1 Cattle, meat byproducts 0.1 Citrus, oil 30.0 Corn, field, forage 10.0 Corn, field, grain 0.1 Corn, pop, grain 0.1 Corn, stover 10.0 Corn, sweet, forage 10.0 Cotton, undelinted seed 0.1 Egg 0.1 Goat, fat 0.1 Goat, meat 0.1 Goat, meat byproducts 0.1 Grain, aspirated fractions 0.4 Grapefruit 5.0 Grape 10.0 Hog, fat 0.1 Hog, meat 0.1 Hog, meat byproducts 0.1 Hop, dried cones 30.0 Horse, fat 0.1 Horse, meat 0.1 Horse, meat byproducts 0.1 Lemon 5.0 Milk, fat (0.08 ppm in milk) 2.0 Nectarine 4.0 Orange 10.0 Peanut 0.1 Peanut, hay 10.0 Peppermint, tops 50.0 Poultry, fat 0.1 Potato 0.1 Sheep, fat 0.1 Sheep, meat 0.1 Sheep, meat byproducts 0.1 Sorghum, grain 5.0 Sorghum, grain, forage 10.0 Sorghum, grain, stover 10.0 Spearmint, tops 50.0 Tea, dried 10.0 Walnut 0.1 9. Section 180.292 is amended by revising the tables in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2), removing paragraph (a)(3), and by removing the text from paragraph

(d)and reserving the paragraph designation and heading to read as follows: § 180.292 Picloram; tolerances for residues.

(a)* * *

(1)* * * Commodity Parts per million Barley, grain 0.5 Barley, straw 1.0 Cattle, fat 0.2 Cattle, kidney 5.0 Cattle, liver 0.5 Cattle, meat 0.2 Cattle, meat byproducts, except kidney and liver 0.2 Egg 0.05 Goat, fat 0.2 Goat, kidney 5.0 Goat, liver 0.5 Goat, meat 0.2 Goat, meat byproducts, except kidney and liver 0.2 Grain, aspirated fractions 4.0 Grass, forage 80.0 Hog, fat 0.2 Hog, kidney 5.0 Hog, liver 0.5 Hog, meat 0.2 Hog, meat byproducts, except kidney and liver 0.2 Horse, fat 0.2 Horse, kidney 5.0 Horse, liver 0.5 Horse, meat 0.2 Horse, meat byproducts, except kidney and liver 0.2 Milk 0.05 Oat, forage 1.0 Oat, grain 0.5 Oat, straw 1.0 Poultry, fat 0.05 Poultry, meat 0.05 Poultry, meat byproducts 0.05 Sheep, fat 0.2 Sheep, kidney 5.0 Sheep, liver 0.5 Sheep, meat 0.2 Sheep, meat byproducts, except kidney and liver 0.2 Wheat, forage 1.0 Wheat, grain 0.5 Wheat, straw 1.0

(2)* * * Commodity Parts per million Barley, pearled barley 3.0 Oat, groats/rolled oats 3.0 Wheat, bran 3.0 Wheat, germ 3.0 Wheat, middlings 3.0 Wheat, shorts 3.0

(d)*Indirect or inadvertent residues* . [Reserved] 10. Section 180.324 is amended by revising the table in paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows: § 180.324 Bromoxynil; tolerances for residues.

(a)* * *

(1)* * * * Commodity Parts per million Alfalfa, forage 0.1 Alfalfa, hay 0.5 Barley, grain 0.05 Barley, hay 9.0 Barley, straw 4.0 Corn, field, forage 0.3 Corn, field, grain 0.05 Corn, field, stover 0.2 Corn, pop, grain 0.05 Corn, pop, stover 0.2 Flax, seed 0.1 Garlic 0.1 Grain, aspirated fractions 0.3 Grass, forage 3.0 Grass, hay 3.0 Oat, forage 0.3 Oat, grain 0.05 Oat, hay 9.0 Oat, straw 4.0 Onion, bulb 0.1 Peppermint, hay 0.1 Rye, forage 1.0 Rye, grain 0.05 Rye, straw 2.0 Sorghum, grain 0.05 Sorghum, grain, forage 0.5 Sorghum, grain, stover 0.2 Spearmint, hay 0.1 Wheat, forage 1.0 Wheat, grain 0.05 Wheat, hay 4.0 Wheat, straw 2.0 11. Section 180.362 is amended by revising paragraph

(a)to read as follows: § 180.362 Hexakis (2-methyl-2-phenylpropyl)distannoxane; tolerances for residues.

(a)*General* .

(1)Tolerances are established for residues of hexakis (2-methyl-2-phenylpropyl)distannoxane in or on the following raw agricultural commodities: Commodity Parts per million Almond, hulls 80.0 Apple 15.0 Apple, wet pomace 100.0 Cherry, sweet 6.0 Cherry, tart 6.0 Citrus, dried pulp 100.0 Citrus, oil 140.0 Cucumber 4.0 Eggplant 6.0 Fruit, citrus, group 10 20.0 Grape 5.0 Grape, raisin 20.0 Nut, tree, group 14 0.5 Papaya 2.0 Peach 10.0 Pear 15.0 Plum, prune, fresh 4.0 Plum, prune, dried 20.0 Strawberry 10.0

(2)Tolerances are established for the combined residues of hexakis (2-methyl-2-phenylpropyl)distannoxane and its organotin metabolites dihydroxybis(2-methyl-2-phenylpropyl)stannane, and 2-methyl-2phenylpropylstannoic acid in or on the following raw agricultural commodities: Commodity Parts per million Cattle, fat 0.5 Cattle, meat 0.5 Cattle, meat byproducts 0.5 Egg 0.1 Goat, fat 0.5 Goat, meat 0.5 Goat, meat byproducts 0.5 Hog, fat 0.5 Hog, meat 0.5 Hog, meat byproducts 0.5 Horse, fat 0.5 Horse, meat 0.5 Horse, meat byproducts 0.5 Milk, fat 0.1 Poultry, fat 0.1 Poultry, meat 0.1 Poultry, meat byproducts 0.1 Sheep, fat 0.5 Sheep, meat 0.5 Sheep, meat byproducts 0.5 12. Section 180.370 is amended by revising the table in paragraph

(a)to read as follows: § 180.370 5-Ethoxy-3-(trichloromethyl)-1,2,4-thiadiazole; tolerances for residues.

(a)* * * Commodity Parts per million Barley, grain 0.1 Barley, hay 0.1 Corn, field, forage 0.1 Corn, field, grain 0.1 Corn, field, stover 0.1 Corn, sweet, forage 0.1 Corn, sweet, stover 0.1 Cotton, gin byproducts 0.1 Cotton, undelinted seed 0.1 Peanut 0.1 Safflower, seed 0.1 Sorghum, grain, forage 0.1 Sorghum, grain, grain 0.1 Tomato 0.15 Vegetable, foliage of legume, group 7 0.1 Vegetable, legume, group 6 0.1 Wheat, forage 0.1 Wheat, grain 0.1 Wheat, straw 0.1 § 180.385 [Amended] 13. Section 180.385 is amended by removing from the table in paragraph

(a)the entries for “lentil, seed” and “pea seeds (dry)”. 14. Section 180.395 is amended by revising the table in paragraph

(a)and removing the text from paragraph (b), and reserving the paragraph designation and heading to read as follows: § 180.395 Hydramethylnon; tolerances for residues.

(a)* * * Commodity Parts per million Grass, forage 2.0 Grass, hay 2.0 Pineapple 0.05

(b)*Section 18 emergency exemptions* . [Reserved] 15. Section 180.417 is amended by revising paragraph

(a)to read as follows: § 180.417 Triclopyr; tolerances for residues.

(a)*General* .

(1)Tolerances for residues of the herbicide triclopyr per se, as a result of the application/use of butoxyethyl ester of triclopyr and triethyylamine salt of triclopyr, are established in or on the following raw agricultural commodities: Commodity Parts per million Egg 0.05 Fish 3.0 Grass, forage 700.0 Grass, hay 200.0 Milk 0.01 Poultry, fat 0.1 Poultry, meat 0.1 Poultry, meat byproducts, except kidney 0.1 Rice, grain 0.3 Rice, straw 10.0 Shellfish 3.5

(2)Tolerances for the combined residues of the herbicide triclopyr ((3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinyl)oxy) acetic acid and its metabolite 3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinol (TCP), as a result of the application/use of butoxyethyl ester of triclopyr or the triethylamine salt of triclopyr, are established in or on the following raw agricultural commodities: Commodity Parts per million Cattle, fat 0.05 Cattle, kidney 0.5 Cattle, liver 0.5 Cattle, meat 0.05 Cattle, meat byproducts, except kidney and liver 0.05 Goat, fat 0.05 Goat, kidney 0.5 Goat, liver 0.5 Goat, meat 0.05 Goat, meat byproducts, except kidney and liver 0.05 Hog, fat 0.05 Hog, kidney 0.5 Hog, liver 0.5 Hog, meat 0.05 Hog, meat byproducts, except kidney and liver 0.05 Horse, fat 0.05 Horse, kidney 0.5 Horse, liver 0.5 Horse, meat 0.05 Horse, meat byproducts, except kidney and liver 0.05 Sheep, fat 0.05 Sheep, kidney 0.5 Sheep, liver 0.5 Sheep, meat 0.05 Sheep, meat byproducts, except kidney and liver 0.05 FR Doc. E7-14895 Filed 7-31-07; 8:45 am BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0289; FRL-8136-6] Quillaja Saponaria Extract; Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the biochemical pesticide *Quillaja saponaria* extract in or on all food commodities. Desert King Chile, Ltd. submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA), requesting an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of *Quillaja saponaria* extract. DATES: This regulation is effective August 1, 2007. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before October 1, 2007, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ). ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification

(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0289. To access the electronic docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* , select “Advanced Search,” then “Docket Search.” Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the “Submit” button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov web site to view the docket index or access available documents. All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available in regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information

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

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

(703)308-9525; e-mail address: *Benmhend.driss@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. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document? In addition to accessing an electronic copy of this **Federal Register** document through the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , you may access this “ **Federal Register** ” document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ **Federal Register** ” listings at *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr* . You may also access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's pilot e-CFR site at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr* . C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request? Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, as amended by the FQPA, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural regulations which govern the submission of objections and requests for hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0289 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before October 1, 2007. In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public docket that is described in ADDRESSES . Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit your copies, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0289, by one of the following methods. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal* : *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail* : Office of Pesticide Programs

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

(703)305-5805. II. Background and Statutory Findings In the **Federal Register** of March 15, 2006 (71 FR 13388) (FRL-7768-2), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide tolerance petition (PP 5F6982) by Desert King Chile, Ltd., Antonio Bellet 77 OF.401, Providencia, Santiago, Chile 6640209 (submitted by Technology Sciences Group, Inc., 1101 17th St., NW., Suite 500, Washington, DC 20026.) The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of *Quillaja saponaria* extract. The notice included a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner Desert King Chile, Ltd. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing. Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the exemption is “safe.” Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of the FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Pursuant to section 408(c)(2)(B), in establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in section 408(b)(2)(C), which require EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .” Additionally, section 408(b)(2)(D) of the FFDCA requires that the Agency consider “available information concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues ” and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.” EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. First, EPA determines the toxicity of pesticides. Second, EPA examines exposure to the pesticide through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. III. Toxicological Profile Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of the FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. *Quillaja saponaria* , commonly known as Soapbark tree, is a naturally occurring evergreen, originally native to the South American Andes regions. The active ingredient is a water extract from the bark of *Quillaja saponaria* . Extracts of *Quillaja saponaria* are commonly known as saponins, which belong to a group of naturally occurring glycosides produced mainly by plants that form soap-like foams in aqueous solutions. In general, saponins are found primarily in the tree bark and wood, and to a lesser extent in the leaves. They are comprised of a sugar moiety (typically glucose, galactose, glucuronic acid, xylose, rhamnose, or methylpentose) linked to a hydrophobic aglycone (sapogenin) at the C-3 (monodesmosidic) or at the C-3 and C-26 or C-28 (bidesmosidic) positions. Saponins are found in a wide variety of plants of diverse species and many are used in human food such as baked goods, candies, and soft drinks. Saponins can be used as a pesticide to inhibit the growth of pathogenic fungi and nematodes in grapes and food crops. Saponins extracted from *Quillaja saponaria* belong to the bidesmosidic group, and are widely used in human foods. The Food and Drug Administration

(FDA)has classified *Quillaja saponaria* extract as “Generally Recognized as Safe” (GRAS). *Quillaja* extract is used in beverages and other foods with no report of any adverse effects. Other saponins are widely used in commonly consumed human food, flavoring, herbs, and spices also with no report of any adverse effects. According to the World Health Organization (WHO 2002), the established Average Daily Intake

(ADI)of saponins from food additives is about 5 milligrams/kilogram body weight (mg/kg bwt). This is much higher than 0.28 mg/kg bwt which represent the calculated average daily intake of *Quillaja* saponins when used as a pesticide to treat fruits and vegetables. Moreover, up to 100 mg saponin has been measured in a kg of sugar extracted from sugar beets ( *Beta vulgaris* ). According to the United States Department of Agriculture, the U.S. consumption of sugar and sweeteners from sugar beet is over 80 kg a year per capita, or 8,000 mg of saponins. Furthermore, soybean flour and soybean protein has been shown to contain up to 2.5% saponin, and it has been estimated that saponins comprise the pharmacologically active components of approximately 30% of all medicinal plants. In summary, the daily human exposure and intake of saponins for consumed foods and additives and pharmaceutical products is much higher than what would be consumed from pesticidal exposure and uses of *Quillaja* saponins. This exposure has not resulted in any adverse effects on humans. As a result, the Agency has no concerns about dietary exposure of *Quillaja* saponins. Comprehensive reviews and risk assessment have been conducted on *Quillaja* saponins with regard to its toxicity to human health and have concluded that these saponins have low acute toxicity. 1. *Acute toxicity* . *Quillaja* saponins are in Toxicity Category III for acute oral and acute dermal toxicity, Toxicity Category I for primary eye irritation, and Toxicity Category IV for acute inhalation toxicity and primary dermal irritation. *Quillaja* saponins are not dermal sensitizers. Based on the review and analysis of the guideline studies, no additional toxicity data are required to support food or non-food uses of this compound. 2. *Mutagenicity, developmental toxicity, and immunotoxicity* . The applicant requested waivers for the mutagenicity (OPPTS Harmonized Guideline 870.5100), developmental toxicity (OPPTS Harmonized Guideline 870.3700), and immunotoxicity (OPPTS Harmonized Guideline 870.7800). *Quillaja* extracts are used as emulsifiers in baked goods, candies, frozen dairy products, gelatins, and puddings. The active ingredient is not a mutagen nor is it related to any known classes of mutagens. Chronic feeding studies have demonstrated that *Quillaja* saponins are not carcinogenic in mice or rats fed up to 2,200 mg/kg in the diet. Saponins have been demonstrated to have anticarcinogenic properties and to stimulate the immune system. Dietary levels of *Quillaja* saponin (up to 700 ppm in feed) stimulated the immune systems of piglets fed for 20 days post-weaning (Ilsey et al., 2005). Based on the information provided, the request for waivers of mutagenicity, developmental toxicity, and immunotoxicity testing requirements was granted by the Agency. 3. *Subchronic toxicity* . The requirement for a 90-day feeding study (OPPTS Harmonized Guidelines 870.3100) was satisfied by submission of a study in which *Quillaja* extract was administered to 15 CFE rats at dietary concentrations equivalent to 0, 360, 1,180, or 2,470 mg/kg bwt/day for males and 0, 440, 1,370, or 3,030 mg/kg bwt/day for females for 13 weeks. Additional groups of 5 rats were administered 0, 2.0, or 4.0% test material for 2 weeks or 6 weeks for interim evaluations. There were no treatment-related effects on mortality, clinical signs, hematology and erythrocyte osmotic fragility, clinical chemistry, urinalysis, or gross and histologic pathology. The NOAEL for the study was the highest dose tested, 2,470 mg/kg bwt/day for males and 3,030 mg/kg bwt/day for females. IV. Aggregate Exposures In examining aggregate exposure, section 408 of the FFDCA directs EPA to consider available information concerning exposures from the pesticide residue in food and all other non-occupational exposures, including drinking water from ground water or surface water and exposure through pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or buildings (residential and other indoor uses). A. Dietary Exposure 1. *Food* . The Agency is not concerned about dietary exposure to *Quillaja* saponins because humans consume it regularly without any reports of adverse effects. Humans are regularly exposed to *Quillaja* saponins via their use as an FDA-approved flavoring agent and food additive. Undiluted *Quillaja saponaria* extracts are used in soft drinks at levels of 100-500 mg/kg (WHO, 2002). The Joint WHO/FAO Expert Committee on Food Additives (WHO, 2002) established an acceptable daily intake

(ADI)of *Quillaja* saponins of up to 5 mg/kg/day. The mean intake of *Quillaja* extracts in the U.S. just from soft drinks (the major food use) is as much as 0.54 mg/kg/day, or 11% of the ADI (WHO, 2006). According to EPA's review and calculations using a maximum use rate for up to 6 applications per season, the exposure and average daily intake of *Quillaja* saponins from treated crops is estimated to be 0.28 mg/kg bwt. This amount is well below the established ADI of 5 mg/kg bwt (WHO, 2002). Even if the use of *Quillaja* saponins exceeds the maximum proposed use rate, the Agency is not concerned about dietary exposure because of the low toxicity of this active ingredient and the history of its use without any reports of adverse effects. 2. *Drinking water exposure* . No significant drinking water exposure and residues are expected to result from the pesticidal usage of *Quillaja* saponins, especially when compared to ubiquity of the naturally occurring saponins in the environment and their widespread use at higher concentrations in food items and beverages. Moreover, saponins are widely known to biodegrade quickly in the environment. As a result, dietary and drinking water exposure to *Quillaja's* saponins from product applications, are expected to be minimal. B. Other Non-Occupational Exposure There are no residential, school or day care uses proposed for this product. Since the proposed use pattern is for agricultural food crops, the potential for non-occupational, non-dietary exposures to *Quillaja* saponins by the general population, including infants and children, is highly unlikely. 1. * Dermal exposure* . Non-occupational dermal exposures to *Quillaja* saponins when used as a pesticide are expected to be negligible because it is limited to agricultural use. 2. *Inhalation exposure* . Non-occupational dermal exposures to *Quillaja* saponins when used as a pesticide are expected to be negligible because it is limited to agricultural use. V. Cumulative Effects Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of the FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish an exemption from a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.'' These considerations include the possible cumulative effects of such residues on infants and children. EPA has considered the potential for cumulative effects of *Quillaja* saponins and other substances in relation to a common mechanism of toxicity. Common mechanisms of toxicity are not relevant to a consideration of cumulative exposure to *Quillaja* saponins because the extract is not toxic to mammalian systems. Thus, the Agency does not expect any cumulative or incremental effects from exposure to residues of *Quillaja* saponins when applied/used as directed on the label and in accordance with good agricultural practices. VI. Determination of Safety for U.S. Population, Infants, and Children A. U.S. Population There is reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to residues of *Quillaja* saponins to the U.S. population, infants, and children. This includes all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information. The Agency arrived at this conclusion based on the low level of toxicity of *Quillaja* extract and the already widespread exposure to *Quillaja* saponins without any reported adverse effects on human health. The risks from aggregate exposure via oral, dermal and inhalation exposure are a compilation of three low-risk exposure scenarios and are negligible. Since there are no threshold effects of concern, the provision requiring an additional margin of safety does not apply. Moreover, *Quillaja* extracts are classified by the Food and Drug Administration

(FDA)as ‘Generally Recognized as Safe” (GRAS), and are also a part of the human diet when used as emulsifiers in baked goods, candies, frozen dairy products, gelatin, and puddings (WHO, 2002). Humans have had frequent physical contact with *Quillaja saponaria* with no negative health effects. Therefore, the Agency has not used a margin of exposure (safety) approach to assess the safety of saponins of *Quillaja saponaria* . B. Infants and Children FFDCA section 408 provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold margin of exposure (also referred to as a margin of safety) for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database unless EPA determines that a different margin of exposure will be safe for infants and children. Margins of exposure are often referred to as uncertainty or safety factors. In this instance, based on all available information, the Agency concludes that *Quillaja saponaria* extract is non-toxic to mammals, including infants and children. Because there are no threshold effects of concern to infants, children, and adults when *Quillaja saponaria* extract is used as labeled, the provision requiring an additional margin of safety does not apply. As a result, EPA has not used a margin of exposure approach to assess the safety of *Quillaja* saponins. VII. Other Considerations A. Endocrine Disruptors EPA is required under section 408(p) of the FFDCA, as amended by FQPA, to develop a screening program to determine whether certain substances (including all pesticide active and other ingredients) “may have an effect in humans that is similar to an effect produced by a naturally occurring estrogen, or other such endocrine effects as the Administrator may designate.” *Quillaja* saponins are not known endocrine disruptors nor is it related to any class of known endocrine disruptors. Thus, there is no impact via endocrine-related effects on the Agency's safety finding set forth in this final rule for *Quillaja* saponins. B. Analytical Method Through this action, the Agency proposes to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for the saponins extracted from *Quillaja* saponaria when used on fruit and vegetable crops. For the very same reasons that support the granting of this tolerance exemption, the Agency has concluded that an analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes for these proposed uses of *Quillaja saponins* . C. Codex Maximum Residue Level There are no codex maximum residue levels established for *Quillaja* saponins. VIII. Conclusions There are no human health concerns when this food use product containing *Quillaja* saponins is applied according to label use directions. The data submitted by applicant and reviewed by the Agency support the petition for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for *Quillaja* saponins on food when the product is applied/used as directed on the label and in accordance with good agricultural practices. IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews This final rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled *Regulatory Planning and Review* (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, *Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use* (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled *Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks* (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq* ., nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled *Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations* (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the exemption from the requirement of a tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(UMRA)(Public Law 104-4). This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). X. Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq* ., generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of this final rule in the **Federal Register** . This final rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: July 15, 2007. Debra Edwards, Director, Office of Pesticide Programs. Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows: PART 180—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. 2. Section 180.1278 is added to subpart D to read as follows: § 180.1278 Quillaja saponaria extract (saponins); exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. Residues of the biochemical pesticide *Quillaja saponaria* extract (saponins) are exempt from the requirement of a tolerance in or on all food commodities. [FR Doc. E7-14894 Filed 7-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 1 [WT Docket No. 00-230; FCC 07-52] Promoting Efficient Use of Spectrum Through Elimination of Barriers to the Development of Secondary Markets AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Final rule; clarification. SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (“Commission”) determines that, at this time, no further revisions are necessary with regard to the existing policies and rules relating to secondary markets in radio spectrum usage rights. DATES: Effective August 1, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Murray, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, at

(202)418-7240, or via the Internet at *Paul.Murray@fcc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Third Report and Order (hereinafter *Third Report and Order* ) in WT Docket No. 00-230, adopted on April 6, 2007, and released on April 11, 2007. This order addresses comments filed in response to the Commission's Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( *Second Further Notice* ) 69 FR 77560, December 27, 2004, in this docket. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The complete text may be purchased from the FCC's copy contractor, Best Copy & Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone

(800)378-3160 or 863-2893, facsimile

(202)863-2898, or via e-mail at *http://www.bcpiweb.com.* The full text is also available on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.fcc.gov.* Paperwork Reduction Act This *Third Report and Order* does not contain any new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. 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). Synopsis of the Third Report and Order I. Introduction 1. In the *Third Report and Order,* the Commission affirms the Commission's policies and rules regarding “private commons” arrangements. We decline to adopt additional technical requirements regarding devices that might be used within a private commons, finding that such requirements are both premature and unnecessary. In addition, we determine that the proposal for licensing underutilized spectrum to equipment manufacturers for development of private commons is beyond the scope of this proceeding. II. Background 2. In the *Second Report and Order* portion of the *Second Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* in WT Docket No. 00-230, ( *Second Report and Order, Order on Recon,* and *Second Further Notice,* respectively), the Commission took additional steps to facilitate the development of robust secondary markets in spectrum usage rights involving Wireless Radio Services. In particular, in the *Second Report and Order,* 69 FR 77521, December 27, 2004, the Commission established additional policies intended to facilitate the use of advanced technologies, including “smart” or “opportunistic” devices, which have the potential to increase access and use of unused licensed spectrum. First, the Commission clarified that its spectrum leasing rules permit “dynamic” spectrum leasing arrangements, whereby licensees and spectrum lessees may enter into more than one spectrum leasing arrangement involving the shared use of the same spectrum. Second, the Commission expanded the spectrum licensing framework to include a new “private commons” option. The “private commons” was intended as a means of allowing a licensee or spectrum lessee to make spectrum available to individual users or groups of users that do not fit squarely within the existing spectrum leasing framework or within the traditional end-user arrangements associated with the licensee's or lessee's network infrastructure. The Commission stated that it sought to provide for opportunistic uses of spectrum pursuant to the terms and conditions that licensees (and spectrum lessees) agree upon so long as these terms and conditions fall within the licensee's spectrum usage rights and are not inconsistent with applicable technical and other regulations imposed by the Commission to prevent harmful interference to other licensees. 3. By establishing a private commons a licensee (or spectrum lessee) may permit peer-to-peer communications by other users employing devices in a non-hierarchical network arrangement that does not utilize the licensee's (or spectrum lessee's) network infrastructure. The licensee (or lessee) authorizes other users to operate on the licensed frequencies employing particular devices that meet technical parameters specified by the licensee (or lessee). The technical parameters for these devices, in turn, enable users to operate in a manner designed to minimize interference concerns relating to other users in the licensed band. The Commission stated that the licensee (or lessee) must retain both *de facto* control of the use of the spectrum within the private commons and “direct responsibility” for the users’ compliance with the Commission's rules. Further, as manager of the private commons, the licensee (or lessee) is required to notify the Commission about the private commons, and particular features associated with it, prior to permitting users to operate. Requirements pertaining to private commons arrangements are set forth in § 1.9080 of the Commission's rules. 4. In the *Second Further Notice,* the Commission sought comment on additional policies that could facilitate the development of advanced technologies, including whether additional revisions should be made to the private commons regulatory model. The Commission also sought comment on whether the private commons option established in the *Second Report and Order* sufficiently accommodates the wide variety of ways in which licensees (and spectrum lessees) and other users may wish to enter cooperative arrangements that employ “smart” or “opportunistic” devices. For example, the Commission asked whether it should adopt an approach to private commons that would allow intermediaries to facilitate transactions with users, design and set up communications networks for users or provide value-added services or applications. In addition, the Commission sought comment on the appropriate notification process for licensees or *de facto* transfer lessees that choose to offer a private commons to comply with the requirement that a licensee or spectrum lessee managing the private commons must notify the Commission prior to permitting users to begin operating within the private commons. 5. In response to the *Second Further Notice,* the Commission received comments from Cingular Wireless LLC (Cingular Wireless), CTIA—The Wireless Association (CTIA), and Gateway Communications, Inc. (Gateway). Cingular Wireless and CTIA sought clarification of certain aspects of the requirements pertaining to the licensee's or spectrum lessee's responsibility, as manager of the private commons, to ensure that users and devices used in a private commons arrangement comply with applicable Commission rules. Gateway proposed a new scheme for managing a private commons in cases of “market failure.” 6. Cingular Wireless specifically asked for additional clarification regarding the circumstances under which the Commission would hold, and would not hold, the licensee (or lessee) “directly responsible” for users’ interference in geographic areas outside of the private commons, in which they were not authorized to operate. For example, in the case of mobile opportunistic devices, Cingular Wireless argued that the Commission should evaluate a licensee's (or lessee's) compliance with its responsibilities based on the terms and conditions it establishes for operation within the private commons, and that non-compliance with these provisions should not result in liability to the licensee (or lessee). In addition, while agreeing that it may be “beneficial or even necessary” to require that smart devices used in the private commons include technologies enabling the private commons managers to shut down the devices if they were causing harmful interference, Cingular Wireless argued that imposing such a requirement at this time would be premature. 7. CTIA urged the Commission to adopt more detailed technical standards concerning private commons arrangements. Specifically, to ensure that a private commons device cannot be used outside of the licensed spectrum and geographic area of the licensee (or lessee) authorizing the use of its spectrum, CTIA recommended adoption of strict rules and suggested that any private commons device should contain an element of positive control, in the form of technical intelligence, that prevents it from operating in unauthorized spectrum or areas. 8. In response to the *Second Further Notice,* Gateway proposed that the Commission go beyond its secondary markets mechanisms and allow equipment manufacturers to file applications for authority to manage private commons using licensed spectrum in geographic areas where there has been a “market failure” and spectrum is “unwanted” or “underutilized.” Gateway suggested that the Commission could issue licenses to equipment manufacturers in exchange for a reasonable one-time payment to the United States treasury, or for a modest spectrum use fee payable on an annual basis to the Commission, or even at no charge, but did not suggest how the Commission would decide among competing parties who might seek to obtain any such license. Gateway asserted that this new licensing mechanism of offering spectrum to equipment manufacturers would create new opportunities for small businesses and others to obtain access to spectrum for a variety of niche uses and services. 9. In reply comments, CTIA asserted that the Commission should reject Gateway's proposal as outside of the scope of the Commission's *Second Further Notice,* which sought comment only on the use of opportunistic devices in licensed spectrum, not comment on new ways to give an interested party an initial spectrum license for a private commons. Accordingly, the Commission cannot consider Gateway's proposal in this proceeding because doing so would violate the requirement for adequate notice under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). CTIA further asserted that the proposal would create a new licensing scheme in violation of the requirements under section 309(j) of the Communications Act, as amended, which requires that the spectrum be subject to competitive bidding. III. Third Report and Order 10. We determine that the requirements set forth in the *Second Report and Order* and codified in our rules, 47 CFR 1.9080, provide the right balance in encouraging the development of devices for operation within a private commons arrangement while at the same time placing the appropriate degree of responsibility on licensees (or spectrum lessees) to ensure that the users and devices do not cause harmful interference in areas outside of the private commons and the license authorization. Accordingly, we affirm the general policies and rules the Commission adopted for private commons, including the requirement that licensees (or spectrum lessees) retain both *de facto* control over use of the spectrum and direct responsibility for ensuring that users and the devices used within the private commons comply with the Commission technical and services rules under the license authorization, including those relating to interference. Because the licensees (or lessees) themselves, in their capacity as managers of private commons, exercise control under the license authorization and are responsible for establishing the technical parameters of the devices that would be used within the private commons, they must exercise their responsibilities so as to ensure compliance with the rules, including bearing direct responsibility for establishing parameters of use that prevent harmful interference beyond the private commons areas and the boundaries of their licenses. 11. Based on the scant record before us and the wide variety of ways in which a private commons could be implemented, we decline to modify our rules at this time to further detail the responsibilities placed on the managers of private commons. We are in no position, based on what is before us, to make any determination by rule, as Cingular Wireless requests, as to whether a particular mechanism may or may not be sufficient for a licensee (or spectrum lessee) to exercise its responsibilities in a given instance. Nor do we conclude that establishing strict technical rules or requirements, as requested by CTIA, is appropriate. We do not want to limit at this time the various means by which a licensee (or lessee) might fulfill its obligations as manager of a private commons. While a “shut down” mechanism may be effective, it is not the only conceivable means to ensure that a licensee (or lessee) exercises de facto control over the use of the spectrum and complies with the Commission's rules under the license authorization. We see no need at this time to limit other possible means that might be consistent with the Commission's private commons framework. 12. Finally, because Gateway's proposal is outside the scope of the Second Further Notice, and not a logical outgrowth of it, we will not address it in this proceeding. The *Second Further Notice* sought comment on ways to increase spectrum access through opportunistic uses of spectrum specifically within the context of the Commission's spectrum leasing policies and rules set forth in the proceeding addressing the development of secondary markets. The *Second Further Notice* did not contemplate revising the Commission's initial licensing rules. We note that the opportunities that Gateway sees for new uses of spectrum also exist within the private commons framework that the Commission has established in the *Second Report and Order.* IV. Ordering Clauses 13. Pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 301, 303(r), and 503 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 301, 303(r), and 503, *it is ordered that* this *Third Report and Order* is adopted. The Commission's Consumer Information Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of the *Third Report and Order,* including the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-14768 Filed 7-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Parts 2 and 15 [ET Docket No. 03-201; FCC 07-117] Unlicensed Devices and Equipment Approval AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This document dismisses two petitions for reconsideration of the rules adopted in this proceeding. It dismisses a petition filed by Warren C. Havens and Telesaurus Holdings GB LLC (“Havens”) requesting that the Commission suspend the rule changes adopted for unlicensed devices in the 902-928 MHz (915 MHz) band until such time as it completes a formal inquiry with regard to the potential effect of such changes to Location and Monitoring Service

(LMS)licensees in the band. This document also dismisses a petition for reconsideration filed by Cellnet Technology (“Cellnet”) requesting that the Commission adopt spectrum sharing requirements in the unlicensed bands, *e.g.* , a “spectrum etiquette,” particularly in the 915 MHz band. DATES: Effective August 31, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hugh L. Van Tuyl,

(202)418-7506, e-mail: *Hugh.VanTuyl@fcc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's *Memorandum Opinion and Order* , ET Docket No. 03-201, FCC 07-117, adopted June 19, 2007 and released June 22, 2007. The full text of this document is available on the Commission's Internet site at *http://www.fcc.gov.* It is also available for inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street., SW., Washington, DC 20554. The full text of this document also may be purchased from the Commission's duplication contractor, Best Copy and Printing Inc., Portals II, 445 12th St., SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554; telephone

(202)488-5300; fax

(202)488-5563; e-mail *FCC@BCPIWEB.COM.* Summary of the Memorandum Opinion and Order 1. The Commission dismissed two petitions for reconsideration of the rules adopted in the *Report and Order* , 69 FR 54027, September 7, 2004, in this proceeding. It dismissed a petition for reconsideration filed by Warren C. Havens and Telesaurus Holdings GB LLC (“Havens”) requesting that the Commission suspend the rule changes adopted for unlicensed devices in the 902-928 MHz (915 MHz) band until such time as it completes a formal inquiry with regard to the potential effect of such changes to Location and Monitoring Service

(LMS)licensees in the band. The Commission also dismissed a petition for reconsideration filed by Cellnet Technology (“Cellnet”) requesting that the Commission adopt spectrum sharing requirements in the unlicensed bands, *e.g.* , a “spectrum etiquette,” particularly in the 915 MHz band. 2. Havens requested that the Commission suspend the rule changes adopted in this docket for unlicensed devices in the 915 MHz band until such time as the Commission completes a formal inquiry with regard to the potential effect of such changes to M-LMS licensees in the band and it determines either that there will be no material adverse effects or that it will allow counterbalancing changes ( *e.g.* , waivers or forbearance of LMS rules) to maintain the balance between higher power LMS systems and unlicensed devices. Havens does not specify which particular rule changes it believes should be suspended. In support of this request, Havens asserts that it cannot “efficiently or effectively” comply with rule § 90.353(d) which requires that M-LMS licensees design, construct and field test their systems to minimize adverse effects on part 15 devices if unlicensed devices operating in the band change as a result of the new rules adopted in the *Report and Order.* It claims that the new rules will lead to increased spectrum use of the 915 MHz band by unlicensed devices and thus will adversely affect M-LMS systems by changing the “regulatory coexistence” between part 15 and LMS operations ( *i.e.* , the balance of aggregate M-LMS systems and aggregate unlicensed devices) and by altering the premise of the “safe harbor” in rule § 90.361 ( *i.e.* , that unlicensed devices would not operate in close proximity to M-LMS). Havens further alleges that the part 15 rule changes violate § 15.5 of the rules, which requires that unlicensed devices not interfere with licensed system operations. 3. The Commission declines to suspend the part 15 rule changes adopted in the *Report and Order* or consider modifying the M-LMS rules as requested by Havens. The Commission notes that Havens did not raise any objections to any proposals in the *Notice of Proposed Rule Making* (NPRM), 68 FR 68823, September 17, 2003, during the pendancy of this proceeding. A petition for reconsideration that relies on facts not previously presented to the Commission will be granted only if: The facts relied on relate to events which have occurred or circumstances which have changed since the last opportunity to present them to the Commission; the facts relied upon were unknown to the petitioner until after his last opportunity to present them to the Commission, and he could not through the exercise of due diligence have learned of the facts in question prior to such opportunity; or the Commission determines that consideration of the facts relied on is required in the public interest. Havens does not address why it did not previously participate in this proceeding or claim that any of these three conditions are met in this case. 4. The Commission's rules also require that a petition for reconsideration state with particularity the respects in which the petitioner believes the action taken should be changed. The Commission modified several part 15 rules that apply to unlicensed devices that may operate in the 915 MHz band, in addition to other frequency bands. Havens does not identify the particular rule changes that it believes should be suspended. Havens provides only a mere statement of belief that the rule changes in this proceeding will lead to increased use of part 15 devices in the 915 MHz band and thus will result in adverse effects on M-LMS operations. It provides no evidence or analysis to support this assertion. Finally, the Commission notes that Havens raised essentially the same arguments in its petition for reconsideration in ET Docket No. 99-231 concerning changes to the part 15 rules for spread spectrum devices. The Commission rejected these same arguments in that proceeding. Accordingly, the Commission dismissed the Havens petition. 5. The Commission recently initiated a proceeding to reexamine the rules for the M-LMS operating in the 904-909.75 MHz and 919.75-928 MHz portion of the 915 MHz band. *See Amendment of the Commission's Part 90 Rules in the 904-909.75 and 919.75-928 MHz Bands, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* in WT Docket No. 06-49, 21 FCC Rcd 2809 (2006), 71 FR 15658, March 29, 2006. That proceeding was originated by the Commission partly in response to a 2002 petition for rule making filed by Progeny LMS, LLC requesting changes to these rules. That proceeding is the appropriate forum for Havens to address its concerns about the M-LMS rules, including the “safe harbor” rule regarding the operational relationship between part 15 unlicensed devices and part 90 M-LMS devices. 6. Cellnet requests reconsideration of the Commission's decision not to adopt a spectrum etiquette for unlicensed devices. Cellnet produces equipment for the automated reading of gas, water, and electric meters that uses spread spectrum transmitters operating on an unlicensed basis in the 915 MHz band. It states that the Commission should: Adopt a duty cycle limitation and other effective spectrum etiquette for any newly certified devices using digital modulation that operate in the 915 MHz band, and confirm in a public notice the obligation of all operators of unlicensed devices in this band authorized under part 15 to avoid causing harmful interference to licensed and unlicensed devices operating in the band and to work cooperatively with operators of any other devices that may be experiencing interference to resolve any such incidents. Cellnet states that these actions are necessary to assure that users taking advantage of newly authorized technical flexibility in this heavily encumbered band do not create the type of interference that will deny the continued effective use of this band by existing and future users. It submits that prior to the Commission's adoption of the new rules on which new entrants have relied on to operate at higher power and without effective duty cycles, the few problems that arose among devices operating in the band were readily resolved with cost effective engineering solutions by affected manufacturers and users. 7. The Commission's rules require that a petition for reconsideration and any supplement thereto shall be filed within thirty days from the date of public notice of such action. Further, the petition must state with particularity the respects in which the petitioner believes the action taken should be changed. Cellnet's petition does not describe any specific rule changes that it wishes the Commission to make. It simply requests that the Commission adopt “a duty cycle limitation and other effective spectrum etiquette,” but does not recommend any specific duty cycle limitation or provide any technical details of what it believes would constitute an “effective spectrum etiquette.” After the 30 day reconsideration period, Cellnet made an *ex-parte* presentation to the Commission's staff describing a spectrum etiquette that it believes the Commission should require for digitally modulated spread spectrum transmitters operating in the 915 MHz band under § 15.247 of the rules. Because Cellnet's petition and subsequent filings do not satisfy the Commission's rules for specific relief and timeliness, the Commission dismissed its petition. Although the Commission dismissed Cellnet's petition, it is seeking comment on ideas for a spectrum etiquette in the 915 MHz band, in a *Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making.* This action will allow the Commission to fully consider Cellnet's suggestion to develop a spectrum etiquette that is a trade-off between transmission duration and output power, and also to address certain related issues that Cellnet did not discuss such as transition dates by which new equipment would have to comply. Ordering Clauses 9. The petition for reconsideration filed by Havens is hereby dismissed. This action is taken pursuant to the authority contained in sections 4(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f), and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f), and 303(r). 10. The petition for reconsideration filed by Cellnet Technology is hereby dismissed. This action is taken pursuant to the authority contained in sections 4(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f), and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f), and 303(r). Congressional Review Act 8. The Commission will not send a copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order, pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. *See* 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). The Congressional Review Act

(CRA)was addressed in the Report and Order released in this proceeding, FCC 04-165, 69, FR 54027, September 7, 2004. The Memorandum Opinion and Order dismisses the petitions for reconsideration of the Report and Order. List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 15 Communications equipment. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-14882 Filed 7-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Parts 22 and 27 [ET Docket No. 00-258; WT Docket No. 02-353; DA 07-1120] Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services in the 1.7 GHz and 2.1 GHz Bands ACTION: Final rule; announcement of effective date and public information collections approval. SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission

(FCC)received Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)approval on June 25, 2007, pursuant to the Paperwork Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, for the following information collections contained in 47 CFR 27.1166(a),

(b)and (e); 27.1170; 27.1182(a), (b); and 27.1186, that were published at 71 FR 29818, 29836-40 (May 24, 2006). An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. DATES: On June 25, 2007, OMB approved the information collections for 47 CFR 27.1166(a),

(b)and (e); 27.1170; 27.1182(a), (b); and 27.1186, that were published at 71 FR 29818, 29836-40 (May 24, 2006). Accordingly, the effective date for the information collections contained in these rules is June 25, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Mock, Broadband Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau at

(202)418-2483 or via the Internet at *Jennifer.Mock@fcc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *OMB Control No.:* 3060-1030. *OMB Approval Date:* 6/25/2007. *OMB Expiration Date:* 6/31/2010. *Title:* Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services in the 1.7 GHz and 2.1 GHz Bands. *Form No.:* N/A. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 1,716 respondents; 29,147 annual burden hours; 2 hours per respondent; and $2,271,200 annual costs. *Needs and Uses:* The *Ninth Report and Order (Ninth R&O)* adopted relocation procedures to govern the relocation of:

(1)Broadband Radio Service

(BRS)licensees in the 2150-2160/62 MHz band; and

(2)Fixed Microwave Service

(FS)licensees in the 2110-2150 MHz and 2160-2180 MHz bands. The *Ninth R&O* also adopted cost sharing rules that identify the reimbursement obligations for Advanced Wireless Service

(AWS)and Mobile Satellite Service

(MSS)entrants benefiting from the relocation of FS operations in the 2110-2150 MHz band 2160-2200 MHz band and AWS entrants benefiting from the relocation of BRS operations in the 2150-2160/62 MHz band. The adopted relocation and cost sharing procedures generally follow the Commission's relocation and cost sharing policies delineated in the *Emerging Technologies* proceeding, and as modified by subsequent decisions. These relocation policies are designed to allow early entry for new technology providers by allowing providers of new services to negotiate financial arrangements for reaccommodation of incumbent licensees, and have been tailored to set forth specific relocation schemes appropriate for a variety of different new entrants, including AWS, MSS, Personal Communications Service

(PCS)licensees, 18 GHz Fixed Satellite Service

(FSS)licensees, and Sprint Nextel. While these new entrants occupy different frequency bands, each entrant has had to relocate incumbent operations. The relocation and cost sharing procedures adopted in the *Ninth R&O* are designed to ensure an orderly and expeditious transition of, with minimal disruption to, incumbent BRS operations from the 2150-2160/62 MHz band and FS operations from the 2110-2150 MHz and 2160-2180 MHz bands, in order to allow early entry for new AWS licensees into these bands. In the *Ninth R&O* the FCC adopted disclosures related to negotiation and relocation of incumbent FS radio links and incumbent BRS systems, and for the registration of these relocation expenses with a clearinghouse, including documentation of reimbursable costs for FS and BRS relocations, documentation when a new AWS and MSS Ancillary Terrestrial Components (MSS/ATC) operators trigger a cost-sharing obligation, prior coordination notices to identify when a specific site will trigger a cost-sharing obligation, and retention of records by the clearinghouses. (Privately administered clearinghouses, selected by the FCC, will keep track of and administer the cost sharing obligations over the next 10-15 years as AWS and MSS-ATC operators build new stations that require them to relocate incumbents.) In the *Clearinghouse Order* , ET Docket No. 00-258 and WT Docket No. 02-353, DA 07-1120, the FCC's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) requires the AWS clearinghouses to file reports with the FCC and to make disclosures between the clearinghouses. Separately, in a *Public Notice* issued jointly with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), 71 FR 28696 (May 17, 2006), 21 FCC Rcd 4730 (2006), the FCC set forth procedures for AWS licensees to coordinate with Federal Government operators in the 1.7 GHz band, and AWS licenses are granted with a special condition that requires coordination with Federal operators. Federal Communications Commission. William F. Caton, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-14803 Filed 7-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Parts 22, 27 and 101 [ET Docket No. 00-258; WT Docket No. 02-353; DA 07-1120] Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services in the 1.7 GHz and 2.1 GHz Bands AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Final rule; interpretations and general waiver. SUMMARY: The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau sets forth details of the duties and responsibilities of the clearinghouses that will administer the Commission's cost-sharing plan under the incumbent relocation procedures for the 2110-2200 MHz band. We also address several matters raised by commenters and issue interpretations and a general waiver that are intended to avoid confusion and unnecessary burdens. DATES: The interpretations and general waiver are effective August 1, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Mock, Broadband Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau at

(202)418-2483 or via the Internet at *Jennifer.Mock@fcc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the *AWS Relocation and Cost Sharing Report and Order,* 1 71 FR 29818, (May 24, 2006), the Commission established procedures for the relocation of Broadband Radio Service

(BRS)operations from the 2150-2160/62 MHz band and Microwave Service

(FS)operations in the 2.1 GHz band, and adopted cost sharing rules to identify the reimbursement obligations for Advanced Wireless Service

(AWS)and Mobile Satellite Service

(MSS)entrants benefiting from the relocation of incumbent FS and/or BRS operations. The Commission also delegated authority to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB or Bureau) to select one or more entities for the creation and management of a neutral, not-for-profit clearinghouse that would facilitate cost sharing among AWS and MSS entrants benefiting from the relocation of FS incumbents in the 2110-2150 MHz and 2160-2200 MHz bands and AWS entrants benefiting from the relocation of BRS incumbents in the 2150-60/62 MHz bands. 2 Mobile Satellite Service

(MSS)operators are required to participate in the clearinghouse for Ancillary Terrestrial Component

(ATC)base stations, *see e.g.* , 47 CFR 101.82(d), and may elect to submit claims for reimbursement to the AWS clearinghouse for FS links relocated due to interference from the MSS space-to-Earth operations. 3 The Commission stated that selection would be based on criteria established by the Bureau, and that the Bureau would publicly announce the criteria and solicit proposals from qualified parties. 4 The Commission also instructed the Bureau to solicit public comment on all proposals submitted and, after selecting the clearinghouse administrator(s), to announce the effective date of the cost sharing rules, including the filing requirements for reimbursement claims and relocation cost estimates. 5 In doing so, the Commission noted that the Bureau could select more than one clearinghouse. 6 1 Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission's Rules to Allocate Spectrum Below 3 GHz for Mobile and Fixed Service to Support the Introduction of New Advanced Wireless Services, including Third Generation Wireless Systems, ET Docket No. 00-258, Service Rules for Advances Wireless Services in the 1.7 GHz and 2.1 GHz Bands, WT Docket No. 02-353, *Ninth Report and Order and Order,* 21 FCC Rcd 4473

(2006)( *recon. pending* ) ( *AWS Relocation and Cost Sharing Report and Order* ). 2 *See AWS Relocation and Cost Sharing Report and Order* at para. 106-107. The Commission made no determination at the time as to whether a clearinghouse must provide administration for both FS and BRS-related cost sharing. *See id.* at n.374. However, the Commission recognized the efficiencies in a clearinghouse administering the cost sharing processes for the relocation of both FS and BRS incumbents in the subject bands. *See id.* at para. 106. 3 *See AWS Relocation and Cost Sharing Report and Order* at para. 93-94. 4 *See id.* at para. 83, 107. 5 *See id.* at para. 83, 107. Claims for reimbursement are limited to relocation expenses incurred on or after the date when the first AWS license is issued in the relevant AWS band (start date). If a clearinghouse is not selected by that date, claims for reimbursement and notices of operation for activities that occurred after the start date but prior to the clearinghouse selection must be submitted to the clearinghouse within thirty calendar days of the selection date. *See* 47 CFR 27.1166. 6 *See* 47 CFR 27.1178. *See also AWS Relocation and Cost Sharing Report and Order* at para. 107 (“we delegate to WTB the authority to select one or more entities to create and administer a neutral, not-for-profit clearinghouse”). 1. By *public notice* released on June 15, 2006 ( *Clearinghouse PN* ), 71 FR 38162 (July 5, 2006), the Bureau invited proposals from entities interested in serving as a neutral, not-for-profit clearinghouse responsible for facilitating cost sharing among entrants benefiting from the relocation of incumbent licensees in the 2.1 GHz bands. 7 The *Clearinghouse PN* also sought comment on whether more than one clearinghouse would be feasible, and required certifications that the entity would be able and willing to work with other clearinghouses if WTB selected more than one, as well as a certification that the entity is a not-for-profit organization and will retain its not-for-profit status during the term of its operations. We also sought comment on whether proposals that offer to administer cost sharing for both FS and BRS relocations are preferable to proposals that seek to administer cost sharing for only one of these relocation processes. We received two proposals and each proposed to administer cost sharing for both FS and BRS relocations. 8 Five parties filed comments related to those proposals, and PCIA filed reply comments. 9 As noted in the *Qualification PN,* 10 two commenters specifically supported designating PCIA as a clearinghouse 11 and one commenter specifically supported selecting CTIA. 12 Two commenters specifically supported designating both PCIA and CTIA as clearinghouses and none of the commenters opposed the selection of multiple clearinghouse administrators. 13 7 *See* Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Opens Filing Window for Proposals to Develop and Manage the Clearinghouse that will Administer the Relocation Cost Sharing Plan for Licensees in the 2.1 GHz Bands, *Public Notice,* 21 FCC Rcd 6616 (WTB 2006) ( *Clearinghouse PN* ). The notice invited any entity interested in serving as a clearinghouse to submit a business plan detailing how it would perform the functions of a clearinghouse, including the following elements: a description of the entity proposing to be a clearinghouse and its qualifications; information regarding financial data, including a business plan that addresses how the entity intends to raise start-up funds and how much the entity plans to charge for individual transactions; whether the entity is interested in serving as a clearinghouse for FS relocations, BRS relocations, or both; a detailed description of accounting methods; a description of how the entity intends to remain impartial and how it will prevent any conflicts of interest; a description of how the entity intends to address concerns about confidentiality and a description of security measures the entity will take to safeguard submitted information; a description of how the entity intends to resolve disputes between parties; and an assessment of how long it would take the entity to become operational. *Id.* 8 *See* CTIA—The Wireless Association® Clearinghouse Plan, filed July 17, 2006 (CTIA Plan); Clearinghouse Proposal of PCIA—The Wireless Infrastructure Association, filed July 17, 2006 (PCIA Plan). 9 Comments were filed by Keller and Heckman LLP (Keller and Heckman), Association for Maximum Service Television Inc. (MSTV), Sprint Nextel Corporation (Sprint Nextel), T-Mobile USA, Inc. (T-Mobile), and The Wireless Communications Association International, Inc. (WCA). PCIA filed reply comments. 10 *See* Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Finds CTIA and PCIA Qualified to Administer the Relocation Cost-Sharing Plan For Licensees in the 2.1 GHz Bands, *Public Notice,* DA 06-1984 (rel. October 4, 2006) ( *Qualification PN* ). 11 *See Qualification PN* at 1, *citing* Keller and Heckman comments and MSTV comments. 12 *See Qualification PN* at 2, *citing* T-Mobile comments. 13 *See Qualification PN* at 2, *citing* Sprint Nextel comments at 2-3 and WCA comments at 2-3. 2. On October 4, 2006, the Bureau concluded that the benefits of having two or more clearinghouses outweigh any disadvantages because offering participants a choice increases the incentive for all clearinghouses to operate in an efficient manner, thus benefiting the consumers of these services. 14 We also found CTIA and PCIA, the two entities that filed proposals, qualified to serve as clearinghouse administrators, and we advised them to begin preparing their clearinghouse operations. 15 As part of establishing the criteria for clearinghouses, the Bureau also stated that it would issue a subsequent Order setting forth details of the clearinghouses' duties and responsibilities. 16 14 *See Qualification PN* at 2. 15 *Id.* 16 *Id.* 3. Unless the context requires otherwise in the paragraphs below and for convenience only, we refer to the “FCC,” the “Bureau” and “WTB” interchangeably. Also, for brevity, we refer to “clearinghouse administrator(s)” as the “clearinghouse(s),” and our references to AWS include MSS/ATC. A. Duties and Responsibilities of the Clearinghouses 1. Scope; Representations and Acknowledgments 4. As a preliminary matter, we emphasize that the duties and responsibilities of the clearinghouses are set forth chiefly in the Commission's rules and policies adopted in the *AWS Relocation and Cost Sharing Report and Order.* To the extent permitted under our delegated authority, the instant Order clarifies the Commission's cost-sharing rules and policies, including the duties and responsibilities of the clearinghouses delineated therein. In accordance with the Commission's directive and delegation to the Bureau of authority to establish criteria for, and to select one or more, clearinghouse(s), we set forth details of the clearinghouses' duties and responsibilities below. 5. In the *Qualification PN,* the Bureau found CTIA and PCIA qualified to serve as clearinghouses after reviewing each entity's overall plan and the responsive record, but the Bureau did not thereby rule that all provisions of each plan were in accordance with the Commission's rules and policies. Rather, the Bureau relied on each entity's material representations regarding its organization, qualifications, start-up financing, accounting methods, commitment to provide non-discriminatory and impartial services, security measures to protect confidential information, and willingness and capability to cooperate with other clearinghouses in the coordination and sharing of information. Except for these material representations, we are aware that both plans and their projected implementation may need to be modified at some time(s) during the course of the administration of the cost-sharing plan. As such, we do not believe it is necessary to require either PCIA or CTIA to submit a revised plan to include these administrative details, at this juncture. 6. Each clearinghouse will administer the cost-sharing plan by, *inter alia,* determining the cost-sharing obligations of AWS and MSS/ATC entities for the relocation of fixed microwave service

(FS)incumbents from the 2110-2150 MHz and the 2160-2200 MHz bands 17 and the cost sharing obligations of AWS entities for the relocation of BRS incumbents from the 2150-2160/62 MHz band. 18 Given the purpose of establishing a private, industry-based cost sharing plan, CTIA and PCIA are each advised that it is responsible for its acts and omissions and that the Commission and its employees, agents, and representatives are not responsible or liable for the actions or inaction of a clearinghouse. Additionally, CTIA and PCIA each must ensure that neither it nor any affiliated entity is a party to any memorandum of understanding or agreement with the FCC or other governmental entities that would interfere with or prohibit it from performing its duties hereunder. 17 *See* 47 CFR 27.1162. 18 See 47 CFR 27.1178. 2. Non-Discrimination and Impartiality 7. CTIA and PCIA must provide clearinghouse services on a non-discriminatory, impartial basis. 19 Specifically, if CTIA or PCIA has a direct affiliation with a class of relocators, licensees, operators, or other entities that provide services or products to clearinghouse users, the relationship must not affect the manner in which CTIA or PCIA performs clearinghouse services and the treatment of all relocators, licensees, or operators must be non-discriminatory. CTIA and PCIA may only refuse to provide clearinghouse services for good cause and must do so as soon as is practicable after receiving the request for service. 19 CTIA will establish an Advisory Panel made up of entities from the various affected services, *i.e.* , BRS, FS, AWS, and MSS, to provide policy guidance to the clearinghouse and ensure that parties affected by the cost-sharing and relocation processes have an adequate say in the mechanics of the operations. *See* CTIA Plan at 2. PCIA plans to establish the PCIA AWS Clearinghouse as a non-profit subsidiary with its own by-laws and Board of Directors. PCIA, as the incorporator, will select the initial Board of Directors and the Board will establish the general policies including dispute-resolution policies and will examine those policies from time to time to ensure that they are effective but will play no role in the actual dispute resolution process, which will be handled by the PCIA AWS Clearinghouse staff and dispute resolution experts. *See* PCIA Plan at 10, 15. The PCIA Plan includes further details by reference to the PCIA PCS Microwave Clearinghouse. “To ensure fairness, any PCS company that either provides funding or pays a transaction fee becomes a member of the PCIA Microwave Clearinghouse. Membership benefits include participation in the election of the board of directors, who set policy around technical and procedural issues associated with relocation cost-sharing.” PCIA Plan, Exhib. B at 2. See also PCIA Reply Comments at 2 (“PCIA is committed to working with all affected constituencies to ensure that the Commission's relocation cost-sharing rules are implemented in a smooth and efficient manner, on a competitive cost-effective basis that will benefit all affected interests”). 3. Multiple Clearinghouses; Data Exchange and Related Matters 8. To be qualified, CTIA and PCIA each had to certify that it would be able and willing to work with each other and other clearinghouses that may be selected by the FCC in the future. Cooperation among the clearinghouses includes, among other things, exchanging clearinghouse data. As a general matter, the clearinghouses must exchange clearinghouse data in a secure and timely manner as necessary to ensure that:

(1)No clearinghouse participant is required to provide notices or other information relative to a given link or system to more than one clearinghouse; and

(2)each clearinghouse has access to the data required to perform its duties. *See,* *e.g.* , 47 CFR 27.1168 and 27.1184. In the event a clearinghouse makes an error in the shared data, the erring clearinghouse shall be solely responsible for correcting the shared-data error as soon as is practicable. 9. The record reflects that CTIA and PCIA disagree as to certain details of the data exchange (and certain operational or business matters related to the disputed details of the data exchange). 20 Although the scope of this disagreement has narrowed over the past several months, CTIA and PCIA appear to have reached an impasse. 21 Accordingly, to move the cost-sharing process forward, we conclude that the Bureau must set forth additional details that will govern data exchange between the clearinghouses in the absence of a written agreement between CTIA and PCIA. 20 CTIA and PCIA reported their disagreement in October 2006 and the Bureau met with them several times. CTIA and PCIA also held several private meetings at which verbal and written proposals were exchanged in an attempt to reach an agreement. *See,* *e.g.* , CTIA *Ex Parte,* filed Oct. 19, 2006; PCIA *Ex Parte,* filed Oct. 20, 2006. 21 *See,* *e.g.* , CTIA *Ex Parte,* filed Jan. 19, 2007, at 2-3 (stating that FCC should reject PCIA's latest proposal and that significant differences exist between the clearinghouses); PCIA *Ex Parte,* filed Dec. 29, 2006 (describing the disagreement with CTIA and stating that PCIA intends to continue advocating for its approach). 10. *Registration data.* CTIA avers that a clearinghouse should only be required to exchange registration data for a given relocation when an entity that shares in the cost of that relocation has paid-in-full and selected the other clearinghouse to administer its downstream reimbursement rights. 22 PCIA counters that the clearinghouses should exchange all registration data in real time so each clearinghouse has all of the data necessary to assist customers at any stage of the cost-sharing process. 23 CTIA responds that its proposal merely limits the exchange of registration data and emphasizes that its approach would not impede a party from entering a contract to receive assistance from a particular clearinghouse at any time. 24 22 *See CTIA Ex Parte,* filed Jan. 5, 2007, at 1; CTIA *Ex Parte* filed Dec. 21, 2006, at 1. CTIA also notes that the entity receiving a reimbursement is the entity contracting with and paying the clearinghouse. *See CTIA Ex Parte,* filed Jan. 19, 2007, Attachment at 1. 23 PCIA *Ex Parte,* filed Dec. 21, 2006, at 1 (“[e]ach AWS licensee is subject to the cost-sharing rules and thus, should be entitled to assistance from the clearinghouse that it selects at any stage of the cost-sharing process.”). *See also PCIA Ex Parte,* filed Dec. 29, 2006 (“PCIA disagrees with CTIA's proposal to allow a participant to elect a clearinghouse only after it has cleared certain hurdles.”). 24 *See,* *e.g.* , CTIA *Ex Parte,* filed Jan. 19, 2007, Attachment at 2 n.1, *citing* CTIA *Ex Parte,* filed Jan. 5, 2007, at 1 (“[t]here exists no impediment to a party receiving access to assistance in advance of transferring link registration data {between the clearinghouses]”). 11. We find CTIA's distinction unpersuasive. If a party elects to contract with a clearinghouse, the subject clearinghouse will need access to the relevant registration data in order to provide meaningful assistance to the party. 25 In this connection, we will not second guess PCIA's assessment of the market, based on its experience administering the PCS Microwave Clearinghouse, that participants will seek assistance from a clearinghouse before they have reimbursement rights. 26 CTIA further contends that requiring the clearinghouses to exchange registration data will limit competitive opportunities because “for the clearinghouses to be competitive, there must be some differentiation in the product offerings and services provided.” 27 It is our view that competition between the clearinghouses should be based on price, speed, and quality of service; 28 competition based on one clearinghouse's superior access to data submitted by licensees would tend to hamper or eliminate competition. 25 We note that CTIA and PCIA have elected to use a fee structure under which they will be compensated only when their customers have received reimbursement. We have no quarrel with this approach but find that the timing of the payments to the clearinghouses should not be a determining factor in our decision on when registration data must be exchanged given the Commission has not dictated a payment scheme. 26 *See,* *e.g.* , PCIA *Ex Parte,* filed Jan. 26, 2007, at 2 (stating that it is not unusual for a cost sharing participant to require assistance from a clearinghouse when the particpant first enters the cost-sharing process. PCIA explains that assistance, among other things, involves providing the participant with a better understanding of the FCC's cost-sharing plan, the participant's role in the process, and the basis for its obligations. PCIA also notes that the clearinghouse also serves as a body of knowledge regarding cost-sharing procedures and rules and that the clearinghouse serves as the first-level of dispute resolution. *Id.* at 2-3, citing Ninth Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 4510, 4532 para. 68, 122. 27 *See,* *e.g.* , CTIA *Ex Parte,* filed Jan. 19, 2007, Attachment at 2. 28 *See* PCIA *Ex Parte,* filed Jan. 26, 2007, at 4. 12. Based on our administrative experience generally and considering that CTIA and PCIA reached an impasse on this issue after several months of negotiation, we are concerned that requiring the clearinghouses to exchange registration data selectively at the time a contract is established with a customer will risk opening a door to disputes between the clearinghouses. 29 As such, we believe that establishing a bright-line process, under which the clearinghouses promptly exchange registration data for each relocation, will reduce the risk of confusion or disputes between the clearinghouses and among cost-sharing participants. Furthermore, promptly exchanging data for all registrations also provides an additional safeguard against data loss because both clearinghouses will have complete and current data. 30 29 CTIA claims that its proposal mirrors the process used for Wireless Local Numbering Portability (WLNP). *See* CTIA *Ex Parte,* filed Jan 19, 2007, at 2. (CTIA states that the Commission did not require sharing of all data between carriers to effectuate a change in carrier; “[r]ather, customers were required to make a valid request of their contracted carrier that they desired to port their number to a new carrier.” *Id.* at n.3, *citing http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/NumberPortability/welcome.html##FAQS.* ) We note that the cited webpage actually states that “[c]onsumers should contact their prospective new carrier, who will start the porting process. The new carrier will first confirm the consumer's identity and then make a porting request of the old carrier.” Moreover, WLNP is not analogous to the AWS cost-sharing plan because WLNP requests are initiated by consumers voluntarily and expressly for the purpose of contracting with a new carrier whereas most of the data filed with the AWS clearinghouses is mandatory, either prior to operation or to preserve reimbursement rights under the cost-sharing plan. *See also* PCIA *Ex Parte,* filed Jan. 26, 2007, at 4. 30 We emphasize that nothing in this Order prohibits the clearinghouses from reaching an agreement that revises the scope or schedule of the data exchange, assuming their agreement is consistent with our rules, because our concerns regarding disputes would be sufficiently addressed if both clearinghouses have agreed to such revisions. *See* para. 8, *supra* . 13. *Cost-sharing notices.* PCIA proposes that each clearinghouse should only issue notices of reimbursement obligations (cost-sharing notices) *to* its own customers ( *i.e.* , communicate only with its customers) 31 while CTIA proposes that each clearinghouse should only issue cost-sharing notices on behalf of its own customers to any AWS licensee (which could include communications to another clearinghouse's customers). 32 PCIA also proposed that each clearinghouse should exchange, *i.e.* , copy, the other on all cost-sharing notices, as an additional check and courtesy, though it subsequently withdrew this request. 33 CTIA counters that clearinghouses “are not to ‘represent' parties in disputes” and that clearinghouses are not created “to recheck the administration of cost-sharing notifications by other clearinghouses.” 34 PCIA responds that it does not suggest that a clearinghouse “represents” a party in a dispute, and that a clearinghouse's assistance 35 can resolve most disputes with an explanation of the cost-sharing rules and formula, which are objective and precise, thereby avoiding any danger of a clearinghouse favoring one participant over another. 36 Finally, CTIA and PCIA ask us to clarify that cost-sharing notices sent by electronic mail satisfy the requirement that such notices be in writing. 37 31 PCIA *Ex Parte,* filed Jan. 11, 2007, at 1. 32 See CTIA *Ex Parte,* filed Dec. 21, 2006, Attachment at 8. 33 *See* PCIA *Ex Parte,* filed Jan. 26, 2007, at 4. 34 CTIA *Ex Parte,* filed Jan. 19, 2007, at 2. CTIA requests that the Commission reject PCIA's (subsequently withdrawn) proposal that the clearinghouses provide courtesy copies of cost-sharing notifications. Id. at 2-3. 35 *See* note 26, supra. 36 *See* PCIA *Ex Parte,* filed Jan. 26, 2007, at 3. 37 *See* CTIA *Ex Parte,* filed Dec. 7, 2006, at 1; PCIA *Ex Parte,* filed Dec. 21, 2006, at 2. 14. We agree with CTIA that each clearinghouse should identify cost-sharing obligations and issue the notices of reimbursement for obligations owed to its customers to give effect to the market choice by each entity—relocators and downstream cost-sharers. 38 Under PCIA's proposal, by comparison, clearinghouse selections made by the relocator and/or the first or second cost-sharers could be negated by a later cost-sharer's selection of a different clearinghouse. Though we agree with PCIA that a clearinghouse does not merely notify participants of reimbursements due, 39 this is undeniably a core function of the clearinghouses, and we agree with CTIA that each participant's selection should be honored through the date of the sunset of the cost-sharing plan. We recognize that, in some situations, a clearinghouse will be issuing/sending cost-sharing notices (for reimbursement obligations owed to its customers) to customers of the other clearinghouse. Finally, we clarify as a general matter that cost-sharing notices sent by electronic mail satisfy the requirement in Section 27.1170 that such notices be in writing. 38 *See* CTIA *Ex Parte,* filed Dec. 21, 2006, Attachment at 8. 39 *See* PCIA *Ex Parte,* filed Jan. 26, 2007, at 2. 15. We further believe that clearinghouses cannot compete and cannot fully serve their customers if they do not possess complete information. Because a clearinghouse may send a notice on behalf of its own customer to a customer of the other clearinghouse, the second clearinghouse needs to be informed of the contents of the cost-sharing notice in order to complete its records. We believe that this can most readily be accomplished by requiring each clearinghouse to copy the other clearinghouse on all cost-sharing notices because this method will be more convenient for clearinghouse participants. Under CTIA's proposal, the second clearinghouse only would receive this information if its customer communicates the contents of any notices the participant receives. We believe this would place an unnecessary burden on clearinghouse participants, particularly when it should be relatively simple for the clearinghouses to exchange copies of cost-sharing notices electronically. This exchange will ensure that the clearinghouses use the same data and allows for early resolution of any mistakes or disagreements. 16. *Site-notice data.* CTIA asks us to clarify that § 27.1170's requirement to file site data “with the clearinghouse” is a requirement to file such data with both clearinghouses given that we have selected two clearinghouses. 40 PCIA opposes CTIA's request 41 and urges us to clarify that by filing a site notice with a particular clearinghouse, the filer is thereby selecting that clearinghouse's services including assistance for any cost-sharing obligations that may be triggered by the site notice and administration of any reimbursement rights that may arise in the future. 40 *See* CTIA *Ex Parte,* filed Dec. 7, 2007, at 2, *quoting* 47 CFR 27.1170. “Inasmuch as the FCC has authorized two clearinghouses * * * the rule is ambiguous as to whether filing with one clearinghouse is sufficient * * * .” *Id.,* CTIA *Ex Parte.* 41 *See* PCIA *Ex Parte,* filed Dec. 21, 2006, at 2. 17. We decline both requests for clarification. We find no ambiguity in § 27.1170's requirement to file with a clearinghouse; nor is the Commission's intention made ambiguous by WTB's selection of multiple clearinghouses after the rule was adopted in the *AWS Relocation and Cost Sharing Report and Order.* Indeed, the *AWS Relocation and Cost Sharing Report and Order* makes clear that the Commission envisioned that the Bureau might select multiple clearinghouses. 42 42 *See,* *e.g.* , 47 CFR 27.1162 (WTB will select one or more entities to operate as a * * * clearinghouse(s).” *See also* 47 CFR 27.1166(a) (“[t]o obtain reimbursement, an AWS relocator * * * must submit documentation * * * to the clearinghouse * * * .”). 18. Regarding PCIA's request to clarify that participants select their clearinghouse by filing site notices, we agree that each stakeholder should have a choice of which clearinghouse to use—independent of other filers' choices relative to a given relocation. 43 Indeed, although CTIA and PCIA disagree as to timing, CTIA also “advocates permitting participants to switch their clearinghouse at any time.” 44 In this connection, we clarify that merely filing a site notice with a clearinghouse does not form a contract between the filer and the clearinghouse under the Commission's Rules, though a clearinghouse is free to offer its services to the participant and to present a contract. 45 We need not provide additional details in this Order because the formation of contracts is generally a matter of state and local law. However, we note that the record reflects that CTIA and PCIA agree that it is a simple matter to add a column for participants to designate its clearinghouse when filing site notices. 46 43 *See* PCIA *Ex Parte,* filed Dec. 21, 2006, at 3. 44 *See* CTIA *Ex Parte,* filed Jan. 19, 2007, Attachment at 2. 45 We understand that all or most site notices (as well as registrations) will be filed online. 46 *See* PCIA *Ex Parte,* filed Jan. 26, 2007, at 3; CTIA *Ex Parte,* filed Jan. 19, 2007, Attachment at 3. 19. Finally, CTIA and PCIA agree that there is no need to require site notices to include the polarization and emission designator of the relevant station because this data is not needed for clearinghouses to determine cost-sharing obligations. 47 CTIA's and PCIA's point is well taken, though modifying § 27.1170 to eliminate this data collection is beyond the scope of the Bureau's delegated authority. Nonetheless, given that both clearinghouses state that requiring new entrants to submit this data is unnecessary to administer the cost-sharing plan, we find that good cause exists for waiving the requirement that all site notices include this data in the first instance. 48 Accordingly, new entrants will be required to submit the polarization and/or emission designator of a given station to a clearinghouse only upon request. 47 *See* CTIA *Ex Parte,* filed Dec. 7, 2006, at 2; PCIA *Ex Parte,* filed Dec. 21, 2006, at 2. 48 *See* 47 CFR 1.3 (any provision of the rules may be waived by the Commission on its own motion for good cause shown). 20. *Operational matters.* Clearinghouses must exchange registration, site-notice data, and cost-sharing notices, electronically at least once per business day (if a clearinghouse has no new data it shall so indicate) and such data exchange shall include, but is not limited to, both the registration data required under 47 CFR 27.1166 and 1182, and the site-notice data required by and copies of cost-sharing notices issued under 47 CFR 27.1170 and 27.1186. We direct CTIA and PCIA, within ten

(10)calendar days of the release of the instant Order, to establish the exact technical format of these required data exchanges and to report jointly to the Bureau that such an agreement has been reached. 49 The Bureau expressly reserves the right to revisit this matter in the future, if the public interest so requires. 49 We note that CTIA and PCIA have already agreed upon the specific data format and structure to be included in the exchange of site-notice data. *See* CTIA *Ex Parte,* filed October 19, 2006. 4. Confidential (Sensitive Commercial) Information 21. With respect to the issue of maintaining the confidentiality of information, both PCIA and CTIA assert that they will collect and disseminate only that information which is essential to the performance of the clearinghouse functions and will execute confidentiality agreements with all participating entities. Such procedures adequately ensure the necessary confidentiality. We continue to believe that designating multiple clearinghouses is the appropriate approach and believe that the safeguards instituted by both PCIA and CTIA will adequately protect participants from the inadvertent release of any confidential information. We reserve the right, however, to review at any time, the safeguards instituted by both clearinghouses to protect the confidentiality of certain information. Should breach of confidentiality issues develop, we will take the appropriate steps to rectify the situation. 5. Dispute Resolution 22. The Wireless Communications Association International

(WCA)emphasizes in comments filed in response to the *Clearinghouse PN* that the role of the clearinghouses is limited to administration of cost sharing among the AWS and MSS licensees who will benefit from the relocation of BRS and other incumbents in the 2.1 GHz band. 50 Put differently, WCA avers that the clearinghouses do not administer the BRS relocation rules. We are unaware of any claim by CTIA, PCIA, or other commenters that suggest that the clearinghouses will administer BRS relocation. As such, we note that there does not appear to be any dispute on this point. 50 *See* WCA comments at 3 (the process of moving BRS incumbents in the 2.1 GHz band, including the reimbursement of displaced BRS incumbents for their relocation costs, is a separate process from the allocation of responsibility for those costs among multiple AWS licensees who benefit from the relocation). 23. We also note that the Commission's rules provide that “disputes arising out of *the cost sharing plan* , such as disputes over the amount of reimbursement required, must be brought in the first instance to the clearinghouse for resolution. 51 To the extent that disputes cannot be so resolved, the clearinghouse shall encourage the parties to use expedited Alternative Dispute Resolution

(ADR)procedures, such as binding arbitration, mediation, or other ADR techniques. To the extent that disputes cannot be resolved using ADR and one or all parties seek to bring the dispute to the FCC for resolution, the clearinghouse shall cooperate with the parties and the FCC in attending any status conference(s) called by the staff and in producing whatever reports or records that are necessary for FCC resolution of the dispute. 52 The initial FCC point of contact is: Chief, Broadband Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC. In the event a mistake is made by a clearinghouse, it shall be responsible for correcting the mistake as part of any dispute resolution. 51 *See* 47 CFR 27.1172 and 27.1188 ( *emphasis added* ). *See also* 47 CFR 27.1178 (the clearinghouse(s) will administer the cost-sharing plan by *inter alia* , determining the cost sharing obligation of AWS entities for the relocation of BRS incumbents from the 2150-2162 MHz band). 52 We note that CTIA and PCIA are each required to follow the conditions and terms of any separate agreement

(MOU)concerning the resolution of interference complaints that it may have with the Commission. 6. Term; Suspension or Termination 24. The FCC anticipates that, once selected, a clearinghouse will continue its operation until after the sunset date for all relevant AWS bands. However, the FCC's selection of CTIA or PCIA may be terminated by the FCC for cause at any time, upon sixty

(60)days written notice, or suspended for up to 90 days, upon ten

(10)days written notice. Should the FCC give notice of termination due to a breach or violation, the subject clearinghouse will have sixty

(60)days from the date notice is effective to cure such breach or violation. Should the FCC give notice of suspension due to a breach or violation, the subject clearinghouse will have ten

(10)days from the date the notice is effective to cure such breach or violation. A breach or violation is a failure of a clearinghouse to perform its duties and responsibilities in accordance with the Commission's rules and policies and/or the instant Order. A clearinghouse also may terminate its service after ninety

(90)days written notification to the FCC; however, this provision does not absolve the clearinghouse of any private contractual obligations. Notifications required by this paragraph must be provided by Certified Mail—Return Receipt Requested. However, changes associated with rule amendments or decisions adopted by the FCC will be effective on the same date that the rule amendments and/or FCC decisions are effective and we advise CTIA and PCIA that a petition for reconsideration of the *AWS Relocation and Cost Sharing Report and Order* is pending before the FCC in ET Docket No. 00-258 and WT Docket No. 02-353. Nothing in the instant Order limits or otherwise prejudices the Commission's actions in that proceeding(s) and we reserve the discretion to add or delete clearinghouse selections at a later date if circumstances indicate that such action is warranted. 7. No Assignment or Transfer; Notice of Impairment 25. The FCC's clearinghouse selections, *i.e.* , the selections of CTIA and PCIA, may not be sold, assigned, or transferred to any party without the prior written approval of the FCC. Except as explicitly provided herein, the instant Order does not provide and shall not be construed to provide any third party with any remedy, claim, liability, reimbursement, cause of action or other right or privilege. In addition, CTIA and PCIA must agree to report to the FCC, within thirty

(30)days of an occurrence, of any matters that could reasonably be expected to impair its ability to perform the duties authorized under this Agreement, including, but not limited to, a filing for bankruptcy or any legal or administrative proceeding that may bear upon CTIA's or PCIA's ability to perform the duties of a clearinghouse under the Commission's rules and policies or the instant Order. 8. Activity Reports and Special Reports to the FCC 26. As noted above, we are aware that both plans and their projected implementation may need to be modified at some time(s) during the course of the administration of the cost-sharing plan. In this connection, we find it appropriate to monitor both PCIA's and CTIA's implementation of their plans and require that both parties submit reports to the Commission at six-month intervals. The first report will be due on July 31, 2007 (covering the period from the release date of the instant Order through June 30, 2007), and every six months thereafter, *e.g.* , the second report will cover July 1, 2007, through December 31, 2007, and will be due on January 31, 2008. The reports must include an update on the number of links relocated, the amounts paid to relocate these links, updated cost and revenue projections, and any adjustments to existing fee structures. We also reserve the right at any time to inspect the records of or require additional information or reports from CTIA and/or PCIA. B. Requests for Clarification 1. Definition of Triggering “Entity” Under the Cost-sharing Formula 27. CTIA and PCIA request a clarification that—for a given relocated link—a triggering “entity” is a “license,” not a “licensee” 53 and, based on discussions with stakeholders, CTIA states that this is the way that carriers would prefer to have the matter handled. 54 CTIA notes that parties sought clarification of this matter previously and avers that the Commission's response leaves the matter ambiguous. 55 53 *See* CTIA *Ex Parte* , filed Dec. 7, 2006, at 2; PCIA *Ex Parte* , filed Dec. 21, 2006, at 2. 54 *Id.* , CTIA *Ex Parte.* 55 *Id.* , CTIA *Ex Parte, citing AWS Relocation and Cost Sharing Report and Order.* 28. In the *AWS Relocation and Cost Sharing Report and Order* , the Commission addressed a similar proposal 56 by noting that the cost-sharing formula already explicitly states that the *pro rata* reimbursement formula is based on the number of entities that would have interfered with the link. Accordingly, the Commission found that the need for a clarification had not been demonstrated in the record before it. 57 Given this procedural history, we note that the deadline for petitions for reconsideration of the *AWS Relocation and Cost Sharing Report and Order* was June 23, 2006, 58 and that the requested clarification is beyond the scope of the authority that the Commission delegated to the Bureau to select clearinghouses. 59 Therefore, we decline to clarify the rule as requested herein. Regarding CTIA's statement that carriers would prefer to share costs on a per license basis, we note that the cost-sharing obligations established by the Commission's cost-sharing plan merely serves as defaults. As in the PCS cost sharing rules, parties remain free to enter into private cost-sharing arrangements that alter some or all of these default obligations. 60 56 *AWS Relocation and Cost Sharing Report and Order* , 21 FCC Rcd at 4511-12 para. 71 and n.244, *citing* T-Mobile's and PCIA's comments in response to the *Fifth Notice* in ET Docket No. 00-258. (T-Mobile sought a ruling that a new entrant may only trigger a cost sharing obligation for a relocated link only once per license, regardless of the size of the license. PCIA stated that numerous disputes arose as to why larger area licensees did not trigger an obligation for each BTA where sites were in the proximity box and urged the Commission to affirm a “one license—one trigger rule.” *Id.* , n.244. 57 *AWS Relocation and Cost Sharing Report and Order* , 21 FCC Rcd at 4516-17 para. 80, citing 47 CFR 24.243 (PCS cost-sharing formula). *See also* 47 CFR 27.1164 and 27.1180 (AWS cost-sharing formula for FS and BRS relocations, respectively). 58 The *AWS Relocation and Cost Sharing Report and Order* was published in the **Federal Register** on May 24, 2006 (71 FR 29818) and the deadline for filing petitions for reconsideration or clarification was thirty-days thereafter. *See* 47 CFR 1.429(d). 59 *See* 47 CFR 27.1162 and 27.1178. *See also* 47 CFR 1.429(a) (“[w]here the action was taken by the Commission, the petition will be acted on by the Commission”). 60 *See AWS Relocation and Cost Sharing Report and Order* , 21 FCC Rcd at 4509-4510, 4531 para. 67, 123. 2. BAS in the 2025-2110 MHz Band 29. The Association for Maximum Service Television

(MSTV)notes in comments filed in response to the *Clearinghouse PN* that “first-in-time” TV Broadcast Auxiliary operations will continue to operate in the portion of the spectrum from 2025 to 2110 MHz (adjacent to the 2110-2025 band). 61 MSTV urges that all clearinghouses fully inform all new adjacent channel AWS licensees of their responsibility to protect “first-in-time” primary adjacent channel operations. MSTV states that this practice will ensure that all parties are fully aware of their responsibilities with regard to the protection of adjacent channel operations. 62 MSTV notes that PCIA has pledged to work closely with it to ensure that adjacent channel TV broadcast auxiliary operations are taken into account and MSTV has pledged to work similarly with all clearinghouses. 63 Although not within the scope of the Commission's cost-sharing plan, we applaud and encourage these private efforts to inform licensees of their obligations under the Commission's rules. 61 MSTV comments at 1-2. 62 *Id.* 63 *Id.* at 2. 3. Procedures for Federal Coordination and Relocation 30. T-Mobile USA, Inc. (T-Mobile), in comments filed in response to the *Clearinghouse PN* , asks the Commission and NTIA to clarify the procedures for AWS deployments in the 1.7 GHz band. 64 T-Mobile notes that the Commission will be able to grant licenses prior to the relocation of federal government operations in the 1710-1755 MHz band and that the Commission and NTIA have released procedures that must be followed when AWS licensees deploy services in this band. 65 T-Mobile states that these procedures require new licensees to contact the appropriate federal agency to obtain the necessary information to conduct an interference analysis and that the agency must provide the necessary information within 30 days of the request. 66 However, T-Mobile contends that the current procedures do not specify how the information is to be shared, for example, whether it must be in electronic format and what file format should be used. 67 As such, T-Mobile states that it would like the affected federal agencies to begin to create a ready database of microwave system information to facilitate the exchange of data as soon as possible. 68 Additionally, T-Mobile is concerned that Federal agencies will not be prepared to respond to the quantity of requests they may receive at the close of the auction. 69 Accordingly, T-Mobile requests that the Commission and NTIA also clarify the repercussions for federal agencies that do not provide the necessary information within the 30-day time limit they have established. 70 64 T-Mobile comments at 4-5. 65 The Federal Communications Commission and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration—Coordination Procedures in the 1710-1755 MHz Band, *public notice* 21 FCC Rcd 4730 (2006). 66 T-Mobile comments at 4. 67 *Id.* at 5. 68 *Id.* at 4-5. 69 *Id.* 70 *Id.* 31. We find that T-Mobile's request is beyond the scope of the *Clearinghouse PN* and raises matters that are not within the scope of the Commission's directive and delegation to the Bureau of authority to select one or more clearinghouse(s) and to set forth details of the clearinghouses' duties and responsibilities. Accordingly, we do not reach T-Mobile's request herein. C. Thirty-day Deadline for Submitting Claims and Notices to Clearinghouse for Activities That Occurred Between November 29, 2006 and the Clearinghouse “Selection Date” 32. Claims for reimbursement are limited to relocation expenses incurred on or after November 29, 2006 (the “start date”) 71 and, to obtain reimbursement under the cost-sharing plan, an AWS relocator or MSS/ATC relocator must submit documentation of the relocation agreement to the clearinghouse within 30 calendar days of the date a relocation agreement is signed with an incumbent. 72 In addition, prior to initiating operations for a newly constructed site or modified existing site, an AWS entity or MSS/ATC entity is required to file a notice containing site-specific data with the clearinghouse. 73 The clearinghouse filing requirements do not take effect until a clearinghouse is selected. 74 Registrations and notices for activities that occurred after the start date but prior to the clearinghouse selection date must be submitted to a clearinghouse within 30 calendar days of the selection date. 75 We clarify that the selection date for calculating the initial 30-day deadline under these rules will be the date that the instant Order, or a summary thereof, is published in the **Federal Register** , *i.e.* , August 1, 2007. We further clarify that any registrations or notices submitted to a clearinghouse on or after November 29, 2006, need not be resubmitted merely because a clearinghouse received them prior to the selection date. 76 71 *See* 47 CFR 27.1166(a), defining the “start date” as the date when the first AWS license is issued in the relevant AWS band. *See* also Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Grants Advanced Wireless Service Licenses, *public notice* , 21 FCC Rcd 13883

(2006)(announcing the grant of the first AWS licenses on November 29, 2006). 72 *See* 47 CFR 27.1166(a)(1) and 27.1182(a). 73 *See* 47 CFR 27.1170 and 27.1186. 74 *See* 47 CFR 27.1162, 27.1166(a) and 27.1178. 75 *Id.* 76 The Bureau found CTIA and PCIA qualified to serve as clearinghouses on October 4, 2006. *See* note 15, *supra* and accompanying text. II. Ordering Clauses 33. *It is ordered* that CTIA—The Wireless Association®

(CTIA)and PCIA—The Wireless Infrastructure Association

(PCIA)are each selected pursuant to 47 CFR 27.1162 and 27.1178, to serve as a neutral, not-for-profit clearinghouse to administer the Commission's cost-sharing plan in accordance with the Commission's rules, policies, and the instant Order. 34. *It is further ordered* that CTIA and PCIA shall submit to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau reports on progress in implementing their respective plans beginning July 31, 2007 (for the period beginning today, *i.e.* , March 8, 2007, and ending on June 30, 2007), and every six months thereafter until the services of the clearinghouses are no longer needed. 35. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to §§ 0.131, 0.331, 27.1162, and 27.1178 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 0.131, 0.331, 27.1162 and 27.1178. Federal Communications Commission. Joel D. Taubenblatt, Chief, Broadband Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau. [FR Doc. E7-14872 Filed 7-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 73 [DA 07-3153; MB Docket No. 05-273; RM-11273; RM-11307] Radio Broadcasting Services; Charleston and Englewood, TN AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Audio Division, at the request of Englewood Wireless, allots Channel 250A at Englewood, Tennessee, as the community's first local FM service. Channel 250A can be allotted to Englewood, Tennessee, in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements with a site restriction of 13.4 km (8.3 miles) at the following reference coordinates: 35-21-05 North Latitude and 84-36-18 West Longitude. DATES: Effective August 27, 2007. ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah Dupont, Media Bureau,

(202)418-2180. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's *Report and Order* , MB Docket No. 05-273, adopted July 11, 2007, and released July 13, 2007. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this decision also may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC, 20554,

(800)378-3160, or via the company's Web site, *http://www.bcpiweb.com.* The Commission will send a copy of this *Report and Order* in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). List of Subjects in 47 CFR part 73 Radio, Radio broadcasting. As stated in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR Part 73 as follows: PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES 1. The authority citation for Part 73 continues to read as follows: Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336. § 73.202 [Amended] 2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Tennessee, is amended by adding Englewood, Channel 250A. Federal Communications Commission. John A. Karousos, Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau. [FR Doc. E7-14932 Filed 7-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 73 [DA 07-3156; MM Docket No. 99-275; RM-9704] Radio Broadcasting Services; Keno, OR AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Final rule, dismissal of petition for reconsideration. SUMMARY: This document dismisses a Petition for Reconsideration filed by Renaissance Community Improvement Association, Inc. directed against the dismissal of its Petition for Rule Making proposing the allotment of Channel 235A at Keno, Oregon. With this action, this proceeding is terminated. ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Hayne, Media Bureau,

(202)418-2177. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the *Memorandum Opinion and Order* in MM Docket No. 99-275, adopted July 11, 2007, and released July 13, 2007. The full text of this decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center at Portals ll, CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copying 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 is not subject to the Congressional Review Act. (The Commission is, therefore, not required to submit a copy of this Report and Order to GAO, pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), because the petition for reconsideration was dismissed.) List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 Radio, Radio broadcasting. Federal Communications Commission. John A. Karousos, Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau. [FR Doc. E7-14873 Filed 7-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P 72 147 Wednesday, August 1, 2007 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 989 [Docket No. AMS-FV-07-0071; FV07-989-2 PR] Raisins Produced From Grapes Grown In California; Use of Estimated Trade Demand To Compute Volume Regulation Percentages AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This rule invites comments on using an estimated trade demand figure to compute volume regulation percentages for 2007-08 crop Natural (sun-dried) Seedless

(NS)raisins covered under the Federal marketing order for California raisins (order). The order regulates the handling of raisins produced from grapes grown in California and is administered locally by the Raisin Administrative Committee (Committee). This rule would provide parameters for implementing volume regulation for 2007-08 crop NS raisins, if supplies are short, for the purposes of maintaining a portion of the industry's export markets and stabilizing the domestic market. DATES: Comments must be received by August 16, 2007. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this proposal. Comments must be sent to the Docket Clerk, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Fax:

(202)720-8938; or Internet: *http://www.regulations.gov.* All comments should reference the docket number and the date and page number of this issue of the **Federal Register** and will be made available for public inspection in the Office of the Docket Clerk during regular business hours, or can be viewed at: *http://www.regulations.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose M. Aguayo, Marketing Specialist, or Kurt J. Kimmel, Regional Manager, California Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA; Telephone:

(559)487-5901, Fax:

(559)487-5906, or E-mail: *Rose.Aguayo@usda.gov* or *Kurt.Kimmel@usda.gov.* Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Jay Guerber, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone:

(202)720-2491, Fax:

(202)720-8938, or E-mail: *Jay.Guerber@usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposal is issued under Marketing Agreement and Order No. 989 (7 CFR part 989), both as amended, regulating the handling of raisins produced from grapes grown in California, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.” The Department of Agriculture

(USDA)is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Order 12866. This proposal has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect. This proposal will not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule. The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling. This proposal invites comments on using an estimated trade demand figure to compute volume regulation percentages for 2007-08 crop NS raisins covered under the order. This rule would provide parameters for implementing volume regulation for 2007-08 crop NS raisins, if supplies are short, for the purposes of maintaining a portion of the industry's export markets and stabilizing the domestic market. This action was unanimously recommended by the Committee at a meeting on April 12, 2007. Volume Regulation Authority The order provides authority for volume regulation designed to promote orderly marketing conditions, stabilize prices and supplies, and improve producer returns. When volume regulation is in effect, a certain percentage of the California raisin crop may be sold by handlers to any market (free tonnage), while the remaining percentage must be held by handlers in a reserve pool (reserve) for the account of the Committee. Reserve raisins are disposed of through certain programs authorized under the order. For instance, reserve raisins may be sold by the Committee to handlers for free use or to replace part of the free tonnage raisins they exported; used in diversion programs; carried over as a hedge against a short crop the following year; or disposed of in other outlets not competitive with those for free tonnage raisins, such as government purchase, distilleries, or animal feed. Net proceeds from sales of reserve raisins are distributed to the reserve pool's equity holders, primarily producers. Section 989.54 of the order prescribes procedures and time frames to be followed in establishing volume regulation for each crop year, which runs from August 1 through July 31. The Committee must meet by August 15 to review data regarding raisin supplies. At that time, the Committee computes a trade demand for each varietal type of raisins for which a free tonnage percentage might be recommended. Trade demand is equal to 90 percent of the prior year's domestic and export shipments, adjusted by subtracting carryin inventory from the prior year and adding a desirable carryout inventory for the end of the current year. By October 5, the Committee must announce preliminary crop estimates and determine whether volume regulation is warranted for the varietal types for which it computed trade demands. Preliminary volume regulation percentages are then computed to release 85 percent of the computed trade demand if a field price has been established or 65 percent of the trade demand if no field price has been established. Field price is the price that handlers pay for raisins from producers. By February 15, the Committee must recommend final free and reserve percentages that will tend to release the full trade demand. The order also requires that, when volume regulation is in effect, two offers of reserve raisins must be made available to handlers for free use. These offers are known as the “10 plus 10” offers. Each offer consists of a quantity of reserve raisins equal to 10 percent of the prior year's shipments. The order also specifies that “10 plus 10” raisins must be sold to handlers at the current field price plus a 3 percent surcharge and Committee costs. Development of Export Markets With the exception of 11 crop years, volume regulation has been utilized for NS raisins since the order's inception in 1949. The procedures for determining volume regulation percentages have been modified over the years to address the industry's needs. In the past, volume regulation has been utilized primarily to help the industry manage an oversupply of raisins. Through the use of various marketing programs operated through reserve pools and other industry promotional activities, the industry has also developed its export markets. Between 1980 and 1985, exports of California NS raisins averaged about 26 percent (53,700 packed tons, or raisins which have been processed) of the industry's total NS raisin shipments (207,600 packed tons, excluding government purchases) per year. During the last nine years (1997-2005) these exports averaged about 37 percent (105,000 packed tons, or raisins which have been processed) of the industry's total NS raisin shipments (282,000 packed tons, excluding government purchases) per year. Export Replacement Offer One market development program operated through reserve pools, the Export Replacement Offer (ERO), has helped U.S. raisins to be price competitive in export markets. Prices in export markets are generally lower than the domestic market. The ERO began in the early 1980's as a “raisin-back” program whereby handlers who exported California raisins could purchase, at a reduced price, reserve raisins for free use. This effectively blended down the cost of the raisins that were exported. The NS raisin ERO was changed to a “cash-back” program in 1996 whereby handlers could receive cash from the reserve pool for export shipments. The ERO has been operated as a “cash back” program in all years since then, except for 2000, 2001, and a portion of 2002. During 2002 both “cash back” and “raisin back” programs were implemented. Financing for the cash-back ERO program has been primarily from the Committee's “10 plus 10” sales of reserve raisins. Under the 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005 cash-back ERO programs an average of $39.7 million of reserve pool funds were utilized to support the export of about 103,000 packed tons of NS raisins. Current Industry Situation—Declining Production The Committee is concerned that the 2007-08 crop may be short because of grape vine removals over the last several years and an April frost. As a result, volume regulation may not be warranted based on the order's computed trade demand formula. During the last several years, grape production has been declining because of poor grower returns in the wine and raisin segments of the industry. About 40,000 acres of grape vines have been removed in favor of other crops, which have recently been providing higher returns. In addition, a frost in April this year may reduce the crop further. If no 2007-08 reserve were established, the industry would not be able to continue the ERO program and support its export sales. The Committee is concerned that the industry could lose a significant portion, perhaps 50 percent, of its export markets. Further, handlers who could not sell their raisins in export may sell their raisins domestically. Annual domestic shipments of NS raisins for the past 9 years have averaged about 177,000 packed tons. The Committee is concerned that additional raisins sold into the domestic market could create instability. Thus, the Committee formed a working group to review this issue and consider options to continue to support its export sales while maintaining stability in the domestic market. After its meeting on February 1, 2007, the working group presented its recommendation to the subcommittee, and then, in turn, to the Committee. At a meeting on April 12, 2007, the Committee unanimously recommended using an estimated trade demand rather than a computed trade demand to calculate the 2007-08 NS raisin crop volume regulation percentages, if the crop size falls within certain parameters. Section 989.154(b) of the order's administrative rules and regulations would be revised by replacing “1999-2000” with “2007-08” and “235,000” with “215,000.” Implementing Volume Regulation if Supplies Are Short To Maintain the ERO Section 989.54(e) contains a list of factors that the Committee must consider when computing volume regulation percentages. Factor

(4)states that the Committee must consider, if different than the computed trade demand, the estimated trade demand for raisins in free tonnage outlets. The Committee unanimously recommended using an estimated trade demand figure for 2007-08 crop NS raisins, which is a figure different than the computed trade demand, to compute volume regulation percentages to create a reserve if supplies are short. This would allow the Committee to continue its ERO program, thereby maintaining a portion of its export sales and stabilizing the domestic market. Specifically, the Committee recommended that an estimated trade demand be utilized to compute preliminary, interim, and final free and reserve percentages for 2007-08 crop NS raisins if the crop estimate is equal to, less than, or no more than 10 percent greater than the trade demand as computed according to the formula specified in § 989.54(a) of the order. If an estimated trade demand figure is utilized, the final reserve percentage would be no more than 10 percent. Finally, volume regulation would not be implemented if the 2007-08 crop estimate is below 215,000 natural condition tons. To illustrate how this would work, the Committee would compute a trade demand for NS raisins by August 15 (as an example, 245,000 natural condition tons). At that time, the Committee would also announce its intention to use an estimated trade demand of 215,000 natural condition tons to compute volume regulation percentages for the 2007-08 crop. Crop Estimate Below 215,000 Tons—No Regulation The Committee would meet by October 5 to announce a NS crop estimate and determine whether volume regulation was warranted. Under the Committee's proposal, if the 2007-08 crop estimate is under 215,000 natural condition tons, volume regulation would not be recommended. With a crop of 215,000 natural condition tons, and about 108,000 natural condition tons of NS raisins projected to be carried forward from the 2006-07 crop year, a supply of about 323,000 natural condition tons of raisins would be available for the 2007-08 crop year. As previously mentioned, annual NS raisin shipments average about 282,000 packed tons (about 300,000 natural condition tons), excluding government purchases. With an available supply of only 323,000 natural condition tons of NS raisins, the Committee believes that the industry's first priority would be to satisfy the needs of the domestic market, which absorbs annually an average of about 177,000 packed tons (188,000 natural condition tons). Assuming that 188,000 natural condition tons were shipped domestically, the Committee estimates that, with no ERO program to help U.S. raisins be price competitive in export markets, the industry would export about half of its usual tonnage, or about 56,000 natural condition tons. The remaining 79,000 natural condition tons would likely be held in inventory for the following 2008-09 crop year. Annual carryout inventory for NS raisins for the past 9 years has averaged about 108,000 natural condition tons. Crop Estimate Between 215,000 Tons and 10 Percent Above the Computed Trade Demand—Volume Regulation If the October 2007-08 crop estimate for NS raisins falls between 215,000 natural condition tons and 10 percent above the computed trade demand, the Committee would use an estimated trade demand figure to compute preliminary free and reserve percentages for the 2007-08 crop. Thus, using the 245,000 natural condition ton computed trade demand figure, an estimated trade demand would be used to compute volume regulation percentages if the crop estimate falls between 215,000 and 269,500 natural condition tons. The order specifies that preliminary percentages compute to release 85 percent of the computed trade demand as free tonnage once a field price is established. Producers are paid the field price for their free tonnage. Normally, when preliminary percentages are computed, producers receive an initial payment from handlers for 85 percent of the computed trade demand (or 65 percent of the trade demand if no field price has been established). Using the 245,000 natural condition ton computed trade demand figure, this would equate to 208,250 natural condition tons. However, if the lower, 215,000 natural condition ton estimated trade demand figure were utilized to compute preliminary percentages, producers would receive an initial payment from handlers for only 182,750 natural condition tons, or 75 percent. The Committee is concerned with the preliminary percentage computation using an estimated trade demand and its impact on producer returns. The Committee wants to ensure that the producers receive the field price for as much of their crop as possible while still establishing a small pool of reserve raisins to maintain the ERO. The Committee would meet by February 15 to compute final free and reserve percentages. The Committee recommended that if an estimated trade demand figure is used to compute percentages, the final reserve percentage be computed to equal no more than 10 percent of the estimated crop. Producers would ultimately be paid the field price for 90 percent of their crop, or their free tonnage. The remaining 10 percent of the crop would be held in reserve and offered for sale to handlers in the “10 plus 10” offers. As previously described, the “10 plus 10” offers are two offers of reserve raisins that are made available to handlers for free use. The order specifies that each offer consists of a quantity of reserve raisins equal to 10 percent of the prior year's shipments. This requirement would not be met if volume regulation were implemented when raisin supplies were short. However, all of the raisins held in reserve would be made available to handlers for free use. Handlers would pay the Committee for the “10 plus 10” raisins and that money would be utilized to fund a 2007-08 ERO program. Any unused 2007-08 reserve pool funds could be loaned forward to initiate a 2008-09 ERO program or to make a grower payment to the 2007-08 reserve pool growers. Crop Estimate More Than 10 Percent Above the Computed Trade Demand Finally, the Committee recommended that, if the 2007-08 crop estimate is more than 10 percent greater than the computed trade demand (or above 269,500 natural condition tons in the earlier example), the computed trade demand (as an example, 245,000 natural condition tons) would be utilized to compute volume regulation percentages. Under this scenario, enough raisins (over 26,000 natural condition tons) would be available in reserve to continue the ERO program. It is anticipated that allowing the use of an estimated trade demand figure to compute volume regulation percentages for 2007-08 crop NS raisins if supplies are short would assist the industry in maintaining a portion of its export markets and stabilize the domestic market. If the crop estimate is below 215,000 natural condition tons, no volume regulation would be implemented. If this occurs, it is anticipated that domestic market needs would be met, while export markets would likely not be satisfied. However, if the crop falls between 215,000 natural condition tons and 269,500 tons, establishing a small reserve pool would allow the industry to not only satisfy the needs of the domestic market, but also maintain a portion of its export sales, which now account for about 37 percent of the industry's annual shipments. By maintaining an ERO program, even at a reduced level, exporters could continue to be price competitive and sell their raisins abroad. The domestic market would remain stable because it would not have to absorb any additional raisins that handlers could not afford to sell in export markets. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Agricultural Marketing Service

(AMS)has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this initial regulatory flexibility analysis. The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf. There are approximately 23 handlers of California raisins who are subject to regulation under the order and approximately 4,000 raisin producers in the regulated area. Small agricultural service firms have been defined by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.601) as those having annual receipts of less than $6,500,000, and small agricultural producers are defined as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000. No more than 10 handlers, and a majority of producers, of California raisins may be classified as small entities. Thirteen of the 23 handlers subject to regulation have annual sales estimated to be at least $6,500,000, and the remaining 10 handlers have sales less than $6,500,000, excluding receipts from any other sources. This rule would revise § 989.154(b) of the order's administrative rules and regulations by changing the parameters for using an estimated trade demand figure specified in § 989.54(e)(4) of the order to compute volume regulation percentages for 2007-08 crop NS raisins. Section 989.154(b) would provide guidelines for the use of volume regulation if 2007-08 NS raisin supplies are short for the purposes of maintaining a portion of the industry's export markets and stabilizing the domestic market. Regarding the impact of the action on producers and handlers, under the Committee's proposal, if an estimated trade demand figure was used to compute volume regulation percentages, the final reserve percentage would compute to no more than 10 percent. Producers would thus be paid the field price for at least 90 percent of their crop, but would not be paid the field price for about 10 percent of their crop that would go into a reserve pool. The field price for NS raisins for the past 5 years has averaged $1,073 per ton. Handlers in turn would purchase 90 percent of their raisins directly from producers at the field price, but would have to buy remaining raisins out of the reserve pool at a higher price (field price plus 3 percent and Committee costs). The “10 plus 10” price of NS reserve raisins has averaged about $100 higher than the field price for the past 9 years, or $1,173 per ton. Proceeds from the “10 plus 10” sales would be used to support export sales. While there may be some initial costs for both producers and handlers, the long term benefits of this action far outweigh the costs. The Committee believes that with no reserve pool, and hence, no ERO program, export sales would decline dramatically, perhaps up to 50 percent. Handlers would likely sell into the domestic market raisins that they were unable to sell into lower priced export markets. Additional NS raisins sold into the domestic market, which typically absorbs about 177,000 packed tons, could create instability. The industry would likely lose a substantial portion of its export markets, which now account for about 37 percent (105,000 packed tons) of the industry's annual shipments (282,000 packed tons), excluding government purchases). Committee members have also commented that, once export markets were lost, it would be difficult and costly for the industry to recover those sales. Raisins are mostly used as an ingredient in baked goods, cereals, and snacks. Typically, buyers want reliable suppliers from year to year and are generally reluctant to find alternative ingredients or sources. In turn, once buyers change sources, they may not switch back. Export markets for raisins are highly competitive. The U.S. and Turkey are the world's leading producers of raisins. Turkey exports approximately 80 percent of its total production, and represents an alternative product source for raisin buyers. Maintaining the industry's export markets would help the industry maximize its 2007-08 total shipments of NS raisins and prevent handlers from carrying forward large quantities of inventory into the 2008-09 crop year. If the industry is unable to maximize its 2007-08 shipments of NS raisins, carry in inventory could be high, which would result in a lower computed trade demand figure for the 2008-09 crop year. If the industry returns to its pattern of relatively large crops in 2009-10, a low trade demand and large crop estimate would compute to a low free tonnage percentage. Large supplies exert downward pressure on the field price. Since NS raisin producers are paid significantly more for their free tonnage than for reserve tonnage, this would mean reduced returns to producers. Projected reduced 2009-10 returns to producers, coupled with the risks of rain and labor shortages during harvest, may influence producers to “go green,” or sell their raisin-variety grapes to the fresh-grape, wine, or juice concentrate markets. Additional supplies to those outlets could potentially reduce “green” returns as well. A similar scenario occurred in the California raisin industry in the early 1980's where the industry experienced two consecutive short-crop years. The 1981-82 and 1982-83 crops were short, followed by relatively large crops for the remainder of the 1980's. The producer field price for NS raisins was $1,275 per ton for 1981-82 crop raisins, and $1,300 per ton for 1982-83 crop raisins. No volume regulation was implemented in 1982-83. However, a large inventory of high-priced raisins was carried forward into the 1983-84 crop year. When coupled with the largest crop on record at the time, volume regulation was implemented for the 1983-84 crop with the free tonnage percentage at a historically low 37.5 percent. By 1984, the producer field price for free tonnage raisins fell to $700 per ton, causing producers to experience large financial losses. Thus, the industry wants to help avoid a repeat of what happened in the 1980's by utilizing the Federal order to maintain export sales and provide stability in the domestic market. An alternative to the proposed action was considered by the industry. As previously mentioned, the Committee formed a working group to address its concerns. The working group considered utilizing the computed trade demand formula in the order and utilizing about $7.5 million of available funds of the 2005-06 reserve pool and about 20,000 tons of natural condition raisins remaining in the 2006-07 reserve pool to fund the ERO. However, the committee decided that sufficient assets would not be available to fund the 2007-08 crop NS raisin ERO. The Committee's assets are not sufficient, because there was no 2004-05 reserve, and funds from the 2005-06 and 2006-07 pools will ultimately fund the 2007-08 ERO program only until about May 2008. Thus, after much discussion, the working group ultimately recommended to the Committee using an estimated trade demand to compute volume regulation percentages next year if 2007-08 crop NS raisin supplies are short. This action would not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large raisin handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. The AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or conflict with this proposed rule. In addition, the Committee's working group meeting held on February 1, 2007, and the subcommittee and Committee meetings on April 12, 2007, were widely publicized throughout the raisin industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meetings and participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the February 1, 2007, and April 12, 2007, meetings were public meetings and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit information on the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses. A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at: *http://www.ams.usda.gov/fv/moab/html.* Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Jay Guerber at the previously mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. A 15-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to respond to this proposal. Fifteen days is deemed appropriate, because this action, if adopted, should be in place by the beginning of the 2007-08 crop year, August 1. All written comments timely received will be considered before a final determination is made on this matter. List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 989 Grapes, Marketing agreements, Raisins, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 989 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 989—RAISINS PRODUCED FROM GRAPES GROWN IN CALIFORNIA 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 989 continues to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674. 2. Section 989.154, paragraph

(b)is revised to read as follows: § 989.154 Marketing policy computations.

(a)* * *

(b)*Estimated trade demand.* Pursuant to § 989.54(e)(4), estimated trade demand is a figure different than the trade demand computed according to the formula in § 989.54(a). The Committee shall use an estimated trade demand to compute preliminary and interim free and reserve percentages, or determine such final percentages for recommendation to the Secretary for 2007-08 crop Natural (sun-dried) Seedless

(NS)raisins if the crop estimate is equal to, less than, or no more than 10 percent greater than the computed trade demand: *Provided,* That the final reserve percentage computed using such estimated trade demand shall be no more than 10 percent, and no reserve shall be established if the final 2007-08 NS raisin crop estimate is less than 215,000 natural condition tons. Dated: July 26, 2007. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E7-14825 Filed 7-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration 9 CFR Part 201 RIN 0580-AA98 Poultry Contracts; Initiation, Performance, and Termination AGENCY: Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend the regulations issued under the Packers and Stockyards P&S Act, 1921 (7 U.S.C. 181, *et seq.* ) (P&S Act) concerning Records to be Furnished Poultry Growers and Sellers. The regulations list the records live poultry dealers (poultry companies) must furnish poultry growers, including requirements for the timing and contents of poultry growout contracts. The proposed amendments would require poultry companies to timely deliver a copy of an offered contract to growers; to include information about any Performance Improvement Plans

(PIPs)in contracts; to include provisions for written termination notices in contracts; and notwithstanding a confidentiality provision, allow growers to discuss the terms of contracts with designated individuals. DATES: We will consider comments we receive by October 30, 2007. ADDRESSES: We invite you to submit comments on this proposed rule. You may submit comments by any of the following methods: • *E-Mail:* Send comments via electronic mail to *comments.gipsa@usda.gov* . • *Mail:* Send hardcopy written comments to Tess Butler, GIPSA, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 1643-S, Washington, DC 20250-3604. • *Fax:* Send comments by facsimile transmission to:

(202)690-2755. • *Hand Delivery or Courier:* Deliver comments to: Tess Butler, GIPSA, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 1643-S, Washington, DC 20250-3604. • *Federal e-Rulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulation.gov* . Follow the on-line instruction for submitting comments. *Instructions:* All comments should make reference to the date and page number of this issue of the **Federal Register** . *Background Documents:* Regulatory analyses and other documents relating to this action will be available for public inspection in Room 1643-S, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-3604 during regular business hours. *Read Comments:* All comments will be available for public inspection in the above office during regular business hours (7 CFR 1.27(b)). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: S. Brett Offutt, Director, Policy and Litigation Division, P&SP, GIPSA, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20250,

(202)720-7363, *s.brett.offutt@usda.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background As the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA), one of our functions is the enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards (P&S) Act of 1921. Under authority granted us by the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary), we are authorized (7 U.S.C. 228) to make those regulations necessary to carry out the provisions of the P&S Act. Section § 201.100 of the regulations (9 CFR 201.100) specifies what contract terms must be disclosed to growers by poultry companies. We believe the failure to disclose certain terms in a poultry growing out arrangement (growout contract) constitutes an unfair, discriminatory, or deceptive practice in violation of section 202 (7 U.S.C 192) of the P&S Act. Due to the vertical integration and high concentration of the poultry industry, growers are often presented contracts on a “take it or leave it” basis. Growers do not realistically have the option of negotiating contract terms with a large poultry company. Growers often do not have the option of contracting with another poultry company on more favorable terms because there may be no other poultry companies in the area. There is considerable information asymmetry as well as an imbalance in market power: Growers sometimes do not know the full content of their own contract and are constrained by confidentiality clauses from discussing the contract with business advisers, while at the same time poultry companies have detailed information about the market as a whole and about the current terms being offered to other growers. Growers often have much of their net worth invested in poultry houses, which have limited value for purposes other than growing out poultry. Therefore, there is significant potential for poultry companies to engage in unfair and deceptive practices. Growers may decide they have little choice but to sign contracts in which disclosure of terms is incomplete and/or not provided in a timely fashion. In some cases, poultry companies are already providing the information proposed in this rule in a timely fashion; this rule will level the playing field by requiring all companies to adopt these fair and transparent practices in dealing with all growers. Failure to deliver a written contract in a timely fashion is considered by GIPSA to be an unfair and deceptive practice because growers do not know what the contract terms will be. This practice could also be discriminatory if some growers receive written contracts in a timely fashion and others do not. Failure to include notice of written termination procedures in the contract and failure to provide notice of written termination is unfair, discriminatory and deceptive for the same reasons. Failure to include information about Performance Improvement Plans is similarly potentially unfair and discriminatory if some growers receive this information and others do not, and deceptive if growers are unaware that such a program exists until they fail to meet a minimum performance threshold that was not specified in their contract. Prohibiting growers from discussing contract terms with business advisers is unfair because growers are not typically attorneys or accountants, and it is unfair to deprive growers of professional advice before they commit to a contract, particularly when the poultry companies had access to such advice in drafting their growout contracts. Current Poultry Contracting Practices and Proposed Changes The market for growing out broiler chickens is vertically integrated and highly concentrated. USDA GIPSA reported that in 2005, the top four broiler slaughters represented 53% of the total market share based on volume of production. 1 A large number (20,000+) of poultry growers essentially receive contracts on a “take it or leave it” basis from a small number of poultry companies. While this concentration of poultry companies represents certain economies of scale, it also represents a potential for asymmetrical information and a lack of transparency that could lead to market inefficiencies. 1 “Assessment of the Livestock and Poultry Industries, FY 2006 Report” *http://archive.gipsa.usda.gov/pubs/06assessment.pdf.* The poultry companies accept much of the short term financial risk by providing growers with the chicks and feed, and typically pay the growers on a per pound basis when the poultry are ready for slaughter. Growers take the longer term risk by investing in the poultry houses. There is often a tournament or bonus system in which growers for the same poultry company compete with each other over a given period of time. Growers who consistently perform less well than other growers with regard to output (pounds of poultry) produced per unit of input (food and chicks) may be placed on a Performance Improvement Plan, may have their contract terminated, or may not receive a new contract offer or extension to their existing contract. The current contracting process may involve verbal agreements that are made prior to delivery of a written contract. The process by which new growers are recruited can be informal word-of-mouth, although some poultry companies solicit new growers via their website. Prospective growers must have a line of credit sufficient to finance the construction of poultry houses in order to be a successful applicant. The poultry company will also typically inspect the property held by a prospective grower to verify that the grower has sufficient space and suitable soil conditions on which to place the houses, has right of way capable of supporting truck traffic, and has means to dispose of dead birds and bird waste. The discussion between the poultry company and prospective growers to verify these conditions may involve verbal commitments, and therefore growers may not understand all their rights and obligations. Existing growers may make similar verbal commitments for poultry house improvements. Currently, a grower may receive a specification for the poultry houses and use that specification to obtain a construction loan prior to receiving a written contract. New growers typically receive their contracts at about the same time as they receive the specifications for the poultry houses, but in some cases may not receive their written contracts until after construction of the poultry houses has already begun. The existing § 201.100 already protects growers by requiring that the growout contract include the per unit charges for feed and other inputs furnished by each party, the duration of the contract and conditions for the termination of that contract, and the factors to be used when grouping or ranking poultry growers, among other items. This rulemaking proposes amendments to § 201.100 to additionally require that:

(1)The growout contract be delivered to the grower in writing at the same time that the grower receives the specifications for the poultry houses;

(2)The growout contract also include the criteria that will be used to place the grower on a performance improvement plan;

(3)A grower shall be notified in writing 30 days before removal of the flock that a contract is to be terminated;

(4)The contract shall include a provision allowing growers to terminate a contract by written notice 30 days before removal of a flock, and

(5)Notwithstanding any confidentiality clauses, growers shall be permitted to discuss the offered contract with their financial and business advisors. These new requirements should help both growers and poultry companies by providing poultry growers with more information at an earlier stage in the contracting process. In many cases, these requirements are already being met in existing contracts or are being met through verbal agreements; this proposed rule would “level the playing field” by requiring poultry companies to include these provisions in all poultry growout contracts. Growers would have more information upon which to make a decision as to whether to accept the terms of the contract, and would be able to discuss the terms of the contract with business and financial professionals before committing to building or upgrading poultry houses. Poultry growers would understand the criteria that will be used to place them on a Performance Improvement Plan. Poultry companies would benefit from having growers who better understand the obligations of their contract. Poultry companies would also benefit by having more specific contract language to resolve performance issues and contract termination. Timely Contract Delivery In some cases, growers do not currently receive a written copy of their contract from live poultry dealers or poultry companies until after they have obtained financing for the construction or improvement of poultry houses. Lenders that have other contracts on file for a particular poultry company may extend financing to a grower based on a verbal commitment from the poultry company. In a six-month period beginning September 2005, GIPSA received 16 written and/or emailed complaints from growers regarding slow delivery of written contracts by poultry companies. Growers typically invest $200,000 or more for the construction of each poultry house, and they often build at least four houses. Requiring the poultry companies to provide growers with a written copy of their offered contracts on the same date the growers receive the specifications for their poultry houses will provide several benefits: • It provides disclosure to growers of their rights and responsibilities before they sign a written contract to grow poultry for a particular poultry company. This would benefit both parties to the contract by ensuring that growers understand what their rights and obligations are before signing the contract. ○ It allows growers time to ask questions clarifying their responsibilities so they can remain in compliance with the terms of their contracts. ○ It benefits the poultry companies by increasing contract compliance rates among growers. • It may make it easier for growers to obtain financing on favorable terms if they have a copy of the contract to show financing institutions. We therefore propose to amend § 201.100 to require poultry companies to provide growers with a written copy of the offered contract on the same date that the growers receive the specifications for their poultry houses. Right to Discuss Terms of Offer With Business Advisers For the past decade, poultry grower stakeholder groups have been advocating regulation and/or legislation to limit confidentiality clauses in poultry contracts. Earlier this year, over 200 agricultural organizations sent a letter to the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Forestry and Nutrition, the House Committee on Agriculture, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, and the House Committee on the Judiciary. The letter asked, among other things, for fairness standards for agricultural contracts that would include a prohibition of confidentiality clauses. 2 The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (FSRIA) validated this issue as one needing to be addressed. Section 10503 (7 U.S.C. 229b) of FSRIA requires that livestock and poultry companies allow producers/growers to discuss the terms of their contracts with certain individuals. 2 *http://www.rafiusa.oerg/programs/CONTRACTAG/NCSA07FarmBillCompetition.pdf* . Permitting growers the freedom to discuss terms of their contracts with their accountant, lender, or other business advisors would help ensure that growers fully and correctly understand their rights and responsibilities as growers. This would heighten the degree to which growers remain in compliance with their contracts, providing benefits to the poultry companies as well. It would benefit poultry company-grower relationships by promoting communication and thereby decreasing misunderstandings and contract non-compliance issues. We propose to amend § 201.100 to allow growers, notwithstanding a confidentiality clause in a contract, to discuss the terms of their contracts with their business advisors. Performance Improvement Plans All parties to a contract have a right to know all terms and conditions they will be subject to when signing the contract. In some cases, poultry growers are unaware that they are subject to being placed on a Performance Improvement Plan

(PIP)if they do not meet minimum performance criteria. A grower may not be aware of the PIP program until the company sends the grower written or verbal instruction explaining the need to improve performance. In other cases, poultry growers were aware that their poultry company has a PIP program, but were unaware what the minimum performance level is until they fail to meet that level. The minimum performance level often represents an average performance over several growout cycles, which can be difficult to understand if the criteria are not explained in written detail. GIPSA has received complaints from growers that several large poultry companies have provided information on PIPs as additional riders (contract amendments) well after the initial contract was signed, or provided the information only after the grower had failed to meet criteria not previously documented. Not all poultry companies have PIPs, and of those that do, some but not all already provide information on their PIPs in their contracts. A review of the reference library of poultry contracts maintained by the Packers and Stockyards Program Eastern Regional Office found that roughly a quarter of the broiler contracts did have a PIP or “probation” clause. We propose to level the playing field by requiring the disclosure in the written contract of PIP terms by the poultry companies that have them. If a poultry company has a PIP, growers need to know what performance criteria determine if they will be placed on a PIP. Growers need to know what, if any, additional support they can expect from their poultry company while on a PIP. Finally, growers need to know how they can regain their good standing classification and avoid having their contract terminated. We propose to amend § 201.100 to add a requirement that those poultry companies with a PIP include information in their contracts concerning what triggers placement on the PIP and how growers may earn their way back to good standing. Written Termination Notification Existing contracts generally require that growers or the poultry company provide written notice of termination to the other party. Existing notice requirements vary from one contract to the next but typically require that notice of termination be provided anywhere from 3 to 30 days prior to the pick-up or delivery of the final flock. Poultry companies, however, are not consistently abiding by the termination requirements of their contracts. In one case, we found that only 10 percent of growers for one company received written termination notices when the company chose to terminate many contracts in a single region. This occurred despite the fact that the contracts stated that growers were to receive written termination notices. Written contract termination has been an issue for several years. The USDA National Commission on Small Farms recommended in 1998 that, “The Secretary should consider Federal production contract legislation to address issues such as contract termination, duration, and re-negotiation.” 3 Without written termination notices documenting the date and reason for termination, it is difficult for GIPSA to investigate complaints alleging unfair or discriminatory termination. 3 “A time to Act: A Report of the USDA National Commission on Samll Farms”, 1998, Miscellaneous Publication 1545 (MP-1545), page 6 *http://www.csrees.usda.gov/nea/ag_systems/pdfs/time_to_act_1998.pdf* Currently, Section § 201.100(a)(1) states that contract contents must clearly specify, “The duration of the contract and the conditions for the termination of the contract by each of the parties.” (9 CFR 201.100(a)(1)) The regulation does not currently specify the means by which the notice is to be conveyed nor what additional guidance should be provided to the grower. We propose to amend § 201.100 to require that poultry companies notify growers in writing of the termination of contracts at least 30 days in advance of flock removal. We would require the notices to state when the termination is effective and what appeal rights, if any, the grower may have. The proposed amendment would require that contracts include a provision that either side may terminate the contract by providing written notification and 30 days advance notice. Options Considered We considered different alternatives to each of the proposed regulatory changes. These alternatives included issuing policy guidance to GIPSA employees, providing public notice that failure to provide growers with additional contract information was an unfair practice in violation of section 202 of the P&S Act, or recommending that growers seek redress of grievances through civil court action or arbitration. We did not believe that any of these alternatives would meet the needs of poultry growers. Therefore, we determined that § 201.100 needs revision as proposed. Effects on Regulated Entities If we implement these regulatory changes, some poultry companies may have to deliver their contracts to growers earlier than in the past. This would be the case only if the poultry company has historically delivered a written copy of its contracts to growers after delivering the house specifications. These regulatory changes may require some revisions of contracts to include additional required information. Poultry companies, however, add or change contract terms in the normal course of business. There should therefore be little additional cost to the companies. Information on PIPs would only result in changes to contracts if a poultry company already had a PIP. The additional contract wording should require little additional cost to the companies. Companies that do not already use PIPs but add PIPs later will need to revise contracts to reflect the PIP terms. As noted above, most contracts already require that one party notify the other of a contract's termination. The regulatory change proposed here would make it a requirement that termination notices issued by either party be in writing, and require that poultry companies provide relevant termination information. Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)has designated this rule as not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866. We have determined that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). The proposed rule will affect poultry companies (live poultry dealers) in contractual relationships with poultry growers. Most such entities are poultry slaughterers and processors of poultry with more than 500 employees and do not meet the definition for small entities in the Small Business Act (13 CFR 121.201). To the extent the proposed rule does affect small entities, it will not impose substantial new expenses or changes to routine operations on them. The proposed amendments will require changes to the content and timely delivery of contracts. It will require only minor contract modifications in most cases and thus should not impose substantial new expenses for poultry companies or growers, whether small entities or not. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because this rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, we are not providing an initial regulatory flexibility analysis. Executive Order 12988 This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. These actions are not intended to have retroactive effect. This rule will not pre-eempt state or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule. There are no administrative procedures that must be exhausted prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of this rule. Paperwork Reduction Act This proposed rule does not contain new or amended information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). It does not involve collection of new or additional information by the federal government. Government Paperwork Elimination Act Compliance We are committed to compliance with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act, which requires Government agencies provide the public with the option of submitting information or transacting business electronically to the maximum extent possible. List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 201 Contracts, Poultry and poultry products, Trade practices. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, we propose to amend 9 CFR part 201 to read as follows: PART 201—REGULATIONS UNDER THE PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ACT 1. The authority citation for Part 201 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 192, 204, 222, and 228; 7 CFR 2.22 and 2.81. 2. Amend § 201.100 to redesignate paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), and

(e)as (c), (d), (e),

(f)and (g); add new paragraphs (a)(, (b), (c)(3) and (h); and revise the introductory text of paragraph

(c)to read as follows: § 201.100 Records to be furnished poultry growers and sellers.

(a)*Poultry growing arrangement; timing of disclosure.* As a live poultry dealer who offers a contract to a poultry grower, you must provide the poultry grower with a true written copy of the offered contract on the date you provide the poultry grower with poultry house specifications.

(b)*Right to discuss the terms of poultry growing arrangement or contract offer.* As a live poultry dealer, notwithstanding any confidentiality provision, you must allow poultry growers to discuss the terms of a poultry growout contract offer or poultry growing arrangement offer with:

(1)A Federal or State agency;

(2)The grower's financial advisor or lender;

(3)The grower's legal advisor;

(4)An accounting services representative hired by the grower; or

(5)A member of the grower's immediate family or a business associate.

(c)*Contracts; contents.* Each live poultry dealer who enters into a growout contract with a poultry grower shall furnish the grower a true written copy of the contract, which shall clearly specify:

(3)Any performance improvement plan guidelines, including:

(i)The factors considered when placing a poultry grower on a performance improvement plan;

(ii)The guidance and support provided to a poultry grower while on a performance improvement plan; and

(iii)The factors considered to determine if and when a poultry grower is removed from the performance improvement plan and placed back in good standing, or when the contract will be terminated.

(h)*Written termination notice; furnishing, contents.* As a live poultry dealer, when you terminate a poultry growing contract, you must provide the poultry grower with a written termination notice [pen and paper] at least thirty

(30)days prior to the removal of a flock. Your poultry contracts must also provide poultry growers with the opportunity to terminate their poultry growing arrangement in writing at least thirty

(30)days prior to the removal of a flock. Written notice regarding termination shall contain the following:

(1)The reason(s) for termination;

(2)In the case of termination, when the termination is effective; and

(3)Appeal rights, if any, the poultry grower may have with you. Pat Donohue-Galvin, Acting Administrator, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration. [FR Doc. E7-14924 Filed 7-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-KD-P NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION 12 CFR Parts 703 and 704 RIN 3133-AD34 Permissible Foreign Currency Investments for Federal Credit Unions and Corporate Credit Unions AGENCY: National Credit Union Administration (NCUA). ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: NCUA is considering whether to amend its investment rules to permit natural person federal credit unions

(FCUs)and corporate credit unions (corporates) to make certain investments denominated in foreign currency. NCUA seeks comment on whether FCUs and corporates should be permitted to make these investments and the safety and soundness considerations related to such authority. DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 30, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods (Please send comments by one method only): • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • NCUA Web Site: *http://www.ncua.gov/RegulationsOpinionsLaws/proposed_regs/proposed_regs.html* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail:* Address to *regcomments@ncua.gov* . Include “[Your name]—Comments on Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule for Parts 703 and 704” in the e-mail subject line. • *Fax:*

(703)518-6319. Use the subject line described above for e-mail. • *Mail:* Address to Mary Rupp, Secretary of the Board, National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314-3428. • *Hand Delivery/Courier:* Same as mail address. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: *Technical Information:* Kimberly A. Iverson, Senior Investment Officer, Office of Capital Markets and Planning, at the above address or telephone:

(703)518-6620; or *Legal Information:* Moisette I. Green, Staff Attorney, Office of General Counsel, at the above address or telephone:

(703)518-6540. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Background The Federal Credit Union Act

(Act)permits federal credit unions

(FCUs)to make investments denominated in foreign currency under the Act's authority permitting FCUs to invest or deposit their funds in shares or accounts of federally insured banks and corporates. 12 U.S.C. 1757(7), (8). In addition, the Board has authority under the Act to permit corporates to invest in foreign currency. 12 U.S.C. 1766. While the Act does not explicitly restrict FCUs and corporates to making investments only in U.S. dollars, NCUA has imposed this limitation by regulation. NCUA regulations implement the authority in the Act and establish requirements and limitations under which FCUs and corporates, respectively under Parts 703 and 704, can make investments. 12 CFR parts 703, 704. The corporate regulation expressly states corporates may only make investments denominated in U.S. dollars. 12 CFR 704.5(b). For FCUs, the general investment rule does not expressly prohibit foreign currency denominated investments, but ties variable rate investments to a domestic interest rate and, consequently, limits FCU investment authority to U.S. dollars. 12 CFR 703.14(a). Part of the impetus for this advance notice of proposed rulemaking

(ANPR)is that, in 2006, the Board amended NCUA's share insurance rule to permit federally insured credit unions to accept member shares denominated in foreign currency. 12 CFR 745.7; 71 FR 14631 (March 23, 2006) (interim final rule); 71 FR 56001 (September 26, 2006) (final rule). That rulemaking, however, did not address lending or investment in foreign denominated currencies. The Board recognizes that, for some credit unions, the ability to accept member shares denominated in foreign currency—without authority to make investments in foreign denominated currencies—may place them at a competitive disadvantage. Commenters should note that this ANPR's scope is limited to investment in foreign denominated currencies; the Board may consider issues associated with lending in foreign denominated currencies at another time but is not inclined to do so as part of this ANPR. The Board is considering whether to permit FCUs and corporates to make limited investments denominated in foreign currency as a complementary authority to the change in the share insurance rule and allow FCUs and corporates to invest funds from the now-permissible foreign denominated share accounts. Comments from interested parties on the issues associated with investments denominated in foreign currency will assist the Board in determining whether to permit these kinds of investments and, if so, the kinds of appropriate limitations and requirements for the activity to address safety and soundness concerns. B. Discussion U.S. Domiciled Issuers The Board is considering whether to permit FCUs and corporates to invest foreign currency in deposits and instruments issued by federally insured banks, corporates, and government-sponsored enterprises

(GSEs)domiciled in the U.S. or its territories. The Board believes restricting foreign currency investments to shares and deposits in federally insured banks, corporates, and GSEs domiciled in the U.S. or its territories would substantially mitigate exposure to the potential instability of a foreign country. Changes in the political and economic environment of a particular country may adversely affect the exchange rate for that currency, as well as the ability of a foreign domiciled entity to repay an obligation. By limiting investments to shares and deposits in U.S. domiciled depositories or the debt obligations of GSEs, a credit union could avoid settlement risks arising from international payment systems. While the Board recognizes other investments in foreign currency may be permissible under the Act, it believes safety and soundness concerns outweigh their utility. The Board requests comments on whether FCUs or corporates should be permitted to invest foreign currency in vehicles other than deposits and instruments issued by federally insured banks, corporates, and GSEs domiciled in the U.S. or its territories permissible under the Act. If a commenter supports additional authority, the Board requests that commenters specify the statutory authority for the investment and include a description of how the authority would be used and additional risks would be controlled. Exchange Rate Risk Credit unions would have to establish an appropriate process to measure, monitor, and control foreign exchange risk associated with investments denominated in foreign currency and foreign currency denominated shares, and the Board specifically requests comments on appropriate foreign exchange risk limits. Commenters should address how an FCU or corporate would measure, monitor, and control the foreign exchange risk of each currency in which it invests and accepts deposits. An FCU or corporate should be able to evaluate the volatility of each currency in which it invests and takes deposits and the Board requests comments on appropriate limits per foreign currency and aggregate limits across all foreign currencies. Additionally, the Board requests comments on whether it should limit the currencies in which investments may be denominated. Foreign exchange risk may be mitigated, for example, by maintaining a balance between foreign currency denominated assets and the member shares denominated in foreign currencies. To control the risk arising when assets and liabilities denominated in a particular foreign currency are not in balance, NCUA is considering establishing a maximum limit on the out-of-balance amount. For example, NCUA could establish an out-of-balance limit of 10 percent of an FCU's net worth or a corporate's capital between foreign currency denominated assets and liabilities. That limit would require an FCU with $10 million in net worth to maintain an amount of foreign currency denominated assets in a given foreign currency within $1 million of the amount of liabilities in that same foreign currency. Credit and Other Risks While foreign currency denominated investments might be in partially or fully insured accounts, FCUs and corporates must manage the other risks these investments pose. NCUA expects credit unions would have to establish appropriate processes for controlling credit risk, interest rate risk, liquidity risk, transaction risk, compliance risk, strategic risk, and reputation risk associated with investments denominated in foreign currency. Comment is invited on provisions a regulation should contain to control these various risks. Regarding credit risk, NCUA believes a regulation permitting investments denominated in foreign currency would need to address obligor or concentration limits. Any limit on credit risk may include requirements for a counterparty and the instrument or investment type. The Board requests comments on whether it should impose a limit on credit ratings or other requirements to control credit risk. The Board is particularly concerned about a credit union's ability to liquidate foreign currency denominated investments. Liquidity risk relates to the available market for the instruments or activities in which FCUs and corporates invest with foreign currency. The Board requests comments generally on liquidity risk and what requirements or limits would reasonably constrain it. Exit Strategy NCUA may also require credit unions to develop an exit strategy to facilitate divestiture of all investments in a particular currency. An exit strategy would provide for stress testing and the means to evaluate the performance of foreign currency investments. An exit strategy should be commensurate with the level of risk exposure and identify triggering events or scenarios that would alert credit unions as to when divestiture would be appropriate or necessary. The Board requests comments on potential investment policy and exit strategy requirements and the availability of bond coverage to absorb potential losses. As an integral part of an exit strategy, the Board is considering a requirement that members must be notified of any conversion of their shares from foreign currency denominated to U.S. dollar denominated. The Board requests comments on the appropriate notice that members should be given in such an event. Information Systems and Technology Risks The Board believes it is likely that a regulation would need to address information systems and technology risks. For example, a regulation would likely require FCUs and corporates to demonstrate they can effectively manage the inherent risks of running multiple balance sheets in various denominations while simultaneously presenting consolidated information to NCUA. The Board requests comments on FCU and corporate ability to manage this risk, the data NCUA should collect regarding their information systems and investments denominated in foreign currency, and how often NCUA should collect the data. The Board believes additional reporting would be required to monitor foreign currency exposure adequately both on an individual credit union basis and an industry-wide basis. Call reports would likely need to be revised to capture necessary data regarding foreign currency exposures. Additional interim reporting for supervision purposes may also be required of individual credit unions engaging in the activity. Internal Controls A regulation would likely address the need to establish certain internal controls, policies, and procedures to manage investments denominated in foreign currency as well as staff qualifications and potential conflict of interest issues. FCUs and corporates would be expected to have knowledgeable, experienced staff to manage foreign currency investment portfolios. The Board requests comments on whether it should regulate the qualifications of credit union employees involved in foreign currency investment activities. Additionally, the Board requests comments on whether a rule should permit the employment of third parties to meet experience requirements for credit union staff in conducting foreign currency investments and, if so, whether the conflict of interest provision in the member business loan would be an appropriate model for a provision in a rule governing foreign currency investments. 12 CFR 723.5. NCUA Approval The Board believes is it likely that a regulation on this activity would include an approval process for an FCU or corporate to engage in foreign currency denominated investments and deposits. This would be primarily because of the staff expertise and internal systems required for the activity. An approval process could be patterned on the requirements for corporates to obtain expanded authorities under part 704 or by some other method. The NCUA Board is interested in comments regarding an appropriate mechanism for an approval process. C. Request for Comments In addition to the areas of interest noted above, the Board invites comments from all interested parties on any aspects it should consider concerning foreign currency investments by FCUs and corporates. By the National Credit Union Administration Board on July 26, 2007. Mary F. Rupp, Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc. E7-14849 Filed 7-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7535-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28828; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-010-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 707 Airplanes and Model 720 and 720B Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for all Boeing Model 707 airplanes and Model 720 and 720B series airplanes. This proposed AD would require accomplishing an airplane survey to define the configuration of certain system installations, and repair of any discrepancy found. This proposed AD would also require modifying the fuel system by installing lightning protection for the fuel quantity indication system (FQIS), ground fault relays for the fuel boost pumps, and additional power relays for the center tank fuel pumps and uncommanded on-indication lights at the flight engineer's panel. This proposed AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are proposing this AD to prevent certain failures of the fuel pumps or FQIS, which could result in a potential ignition source inside the fuel tank, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 17, 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. • *Fax:*

(202)493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, for the service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathrine Rask, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)917-6505; fax

(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2007-28828; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-010-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 AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* , or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Operations office (telephone

(800)647-5527) is located on the ground floor of the West Building at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a regulation titled “Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review, Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements” (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule included Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (“SFAR 88,” Amendment 21-78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83). Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design (i.e., type certificate

(TC)and supplemental type certificate (STC)) holders to substantiate that their fuel tank systems can prevent ignition sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement applies to type design holders for large turbine-powered transport airplanes and for subsequent modifications to those airplanes. It requires them to perform design reviews and to develop design changes and maintenance procedures if their designs do not meet the new fuel tank safety standards. As explained in the preamble to the rule, we intended to adopt airworthiness directives to mandate any changes found necessary to address unsafe conditions identified as a result of these reviews. In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address the failure types under evaluation: single failures, single failures in combination with a latent condition(s), and in-service failure experience. For all four criteria, the evaluations included consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for further action. Results from the SFAR 88 analysis show that potential ignition sources include: • Fuel pump electrical failures that burn through the pump end cap or case. • Fuel pump electrical failures that burn through the wire and cause electrical arcing through the conduit. • Mechanical failure of center tank fuel pumps due to uncommanded operation that causes an ignition source and an arc in a wing tank due to a latent in-tank degradation of the fuel quantity indication system

(FQIS)and a lightning strike. We have determined that the actions identified in this AD are necessary to prevent certain failures of the fuel pumps or FQIS, which could result in a potential ignition source inside the fuel tank, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of this same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which would require modifying the fuel system by installing lightning protection for the fuel quantity indication system (FQIS), ground fault relays for the fuel boost pumps, and additional power relays for the center tank fuel pumps and uncommanded on-indication lights at the flight engineer's panel. To date, the airframe manufacturer has not developed service information for the modifications proposed by this AD. Due to the age of the subject airplane models, the operator needs to conduct an airplane survey to define the configuration of system installations for the wing leading edges, wing-to-body area, electrical equipment bay, flight deck, and FQIS to facilitate development of the required service information. The survey would identify locations where new components and wire bundles could be installed, as well as the configuration of affected systems. Therefore, to ensure that service information is available within a reasonable time to allow modification of the airplane; this proposed AD would also require conducting an airplane survey, and reporting the results to the FAA. The report would include photographs and sketches, part numbers of certain components, and the actual configuration of certain systems. Due to the age of these airplanes, it is possible that discrepancies (i.e., wear or deterioration) might be detected during the survey. This proposed AD would also require repair of those discrepancies. Ensuring Compliance with Airplane Survey Appendix 1 of this proposed AD contains the 707 SFAR 88 survey areas. The appendix is for informational use and provides highlights of the general content of the required survey to assist operators in developing an acceptable survey plan. Operators may wish to use the appendix as an aid to implement the airplane survey. Costs of Compliance There are about 185 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 52 airplanes of U.S. registry. The proposed survey would take about 20 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed survey for U.S. operators is $83,200, or $1,600 per airplane. Because the manufacturer has not yet developed a modification commensurate with the actions specified by this proposed AD, we cannot provide specific information regarding the required number of work hours or the cost of parts to do the proposed modification. In addition, modification costs will likely vary depending on the operator and the airplane configuration. The proposed compliance time of 72 months should provide ample time for the development, approval, and installation of an appropriate modification. Based on similar modifications accomplished previously on other airplane models, however, we can reasonably estimate that the proposed modification may require as many as 420 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Required parts may cost up to $185,000 per airplane. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed modification for U.S. operators is $11,367,200, or $218,600 per airplane. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this 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. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, 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 Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Boeing:** Docket No. FAA-2007-28828; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-010-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by September 17, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to all Boeing Model 707-100 long body, -200, -100B long body, and -100B short body series airplanes; and Model 707-300, -300B, -300C, and -400 series airplanes; and Model 720 and 720B series airplanes; certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to prevent certain failures of the fuel pumps or fuel quantity indication system (FQIS), which could result in a potential ignition source inside the fuel tank, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane. Compliance

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

(f)Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD: Conduct an airplane survey that defines the configuration of system installations for the wing leading edges, wing-to-body area, electrical equipment bay, flight deck, and FQIS using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (h)(1) of this AD. If any discrepancy is detected, repair before further flight using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (h)(1) of this AD. Submit the survey results to the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356, at the applicable time specified in paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this AD. The report must include the survey results (e.g., photographs and sketches, part numbers of FQIS components and fuel pumps, and the actual configuration of FQIS and the fuel pump control systems), a description of any discrepancy found, the airplane serial number, and the number of landings and flight hours on the airplane. Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements contained in this AD and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

(1)If the survey was done after the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the survey.

(2)If the survey was done before the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date of this AD. Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, “discrepancy” is defined as any wear or deterioration (e.g., damage, fluid leaks, corrosion, cracking, or system failures) that might prevent the airplane from being in an airworthy condition. Modification of Fuel System

(g)Within 72 months after the effective date of this AD: Modify the fuel system as specified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD, using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (h)(1) of this AD.

(1)Replace the FQIS wire bundle along the leading edge of the left and right wings with a new wire bundle that has a lightning shield that is separated from other wiring.

(2)Replace each fuel pump relay with a ground fault interrupter relay.

(3)Install redundant power relays for the center tank fuel pumps and uncommanded on-indication lights at the flight engineer's panel. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (h)(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. BILLING CODE 4910-13-P EP01AU07.005 EP01AU07.006

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

(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 18, 2007. Stephen P. Boyd, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. 07-3712 Filed 7-31-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 40

Traces to 40 documents