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

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2007-09-19 · Department of the Navy, DoD · Rules and Regulations

Rules and Regulations. Interim Final Rule

108,338 words·~492 min read·/register/2007/09/19/07-4642

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

BILLING CODE 9111-14-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy 32 CFR Part 750 [USN-2006-0038] RIN 0703-AA78 General Claims Regulations AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD. ACTION: Interim Final Rule. SUMMARY: This rule reflects administrative changes to the regulations concerning the administrative processing and consideration of claims on behalf of and against the United States. The revisions will ensure the proper administrative processing and consideration of claims on behalf of and against the United States.
This rule is being published by the Department of the Navy for guidance and interest of the public in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(1). DATES: This rule is effective September 19, 2007. Comments must be received by November 19, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number and/or Regulatory Information Number
(RIN)and title, by any of the following methods: *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. *Mail:* Federal Docket Management System Office, 1160 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1160. *Instructions:* All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number or RIN for this **Federal Register** document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at *http://regulations.gov* as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Dan Fields, Head, Tort Claims Branch, Claims and Tort Litigation Division (Code 15), Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1322 Patterson Avenue, SE., Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374, telephone 202-685-4600. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review.” It has been determined that the changes to 32 CFR part 750 are not considered a “significant regulatory action.” The rule does not:
(1)Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector in the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or communities;
(2)Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3)Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of the recipients thereof; or
(4)Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (Sec. 202, Pub. L. 104-4). It has been certified that 32 CFR part 750 does not contain Federal Mandates that result in expenditures by State, local and tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Public Law 96-354, “Regulatory Flexibility Act” (5 U.S.C. 601). It has been determined that this rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601) because it would not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule implements the processing of the proper administrative processing and consideration of claims on behalf of and against the United States, and does not economically impact the Federal government's relations with the private sector. Public Law 96-511, “Paperwork Reduction Act” (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). This rule does not impose collection of information requirements for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, 5 CFR part 1320). Executive Order 13132, “Federalism”. It has been certified that 32 CFR part 750 does not have federalism implications as set forth in Executive Order 13132. This rule does not have substantial direct effects on:
(1)The States;
(2)The relationship between the National Government and the States; or
(3)The distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of Government. List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 750 Claims Accordingly, 32 CFR part 750 is amended to read as follows: PART 750—GENERAL CLAIMS REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 750 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 5 U.S.C. 552, 10 U.S.C. 5013, and 5148. Subpart A—General Provisions for Claims 2. Section 750.1 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1), the first two sentences of paragraph (a)(2), and paragraph (a)(3), and by adding footnote 1 to read as follows: § 750.1 Scope of subpart A.
(a)*General.*
(1)The Judge Advocate General is responsible for the administration and supervision of the resolution of claims arising under the Federal Tort Claims Act (subpart B of this part), the Military Claims Act (subpart C of this chapter), the Nonscope Claims Act (subpart D of this part), the Personnel Claims Act (part 751 of this chapter), the Foreign Claims Act, the International Agreements Claims Act pertaining to cost sharing of claims pursuant to international agreements, the Federal Claims Collection Act (subpart A of part 757 of this chapter), the Medical Care Recovery Act and Health Care Services Incurred on Behalf of Covered Beneficiaries: Collection from Third-party Payers (subpart B of part 757 of this chapter), and postal claims.
(2)The Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (Claims and Tort Litigation) (Code 15) is the manager of the Navy claims system established to evaluate, adjudicate, and provide litigation support for claims arising under the acts listed above and is responsible to the Judge Advocate General for the management of that system. The claims system consists of the Claims and Tort Litigation Division of the Office of the Judge Advocate General (Code 15), and the attorneys and support personnel assigned to the Tort Claims Unit at Naval Station, Norfolk, Virginia. * * *
(3)Commanding officers of commands receiving claims are responsible for complying with the guidance on investigations in Sec. 750.2 and Sec. 750.3, the guidance on handling and forwarding claims found in Sec. 750.5, and the guidance provided in the JAG Instruction 5800.7E (JAGMAN) 1 of 20 June 2007. 1 JAG Instruction 5800.7E (JAGMAN) may be retrieved at the official Web site of the United States Navy Judge Advocate General's Corps at *http://www.jag.navy.mil.* 3. Section 750.2 is amended by revising paragraphs
(c)and
(f)to read as follows: § 750.2 Investigations: In general.
(c)*Recovery barred.* Even when recovery must be barred by statute or case law, all deaths, serious injuries, and substantial losses to property that are likely to give rise to claims must be investigated while the evidence is available. Claims against persons in the naval service arising from the performance of their official duties shall be investigated as though they were claims against the United States. When an incident involves an actual or potential claim against the United States for property damage only and the total amount likely to be paid does not exceed $5,000.00, an abbreviated investigative report may be submitted. Where this monetary figure may be exceeded, but the circumstances indicate an abbreviated report may be adequate to preserve the facts and protect the Government's claims interests, approval to submit a limited investigative report may be sought from the Office of the Judge Advocate General (Claims and Tort Litigation Division) (Code 15), the Tort Claims Unit Norfolk, or the nearest Naval Legal Service Command activity.
(f)*Advance copy.* An advance copy of an investigation conducted because a claim has been, or is likely to be, submitted shall be forwarded to the Tort Claims Unit Norfolk. 4. Section 750.3 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(6),
(d)introductory text, (j)(1), and (j)(3) to read as follows: § 750.3 Investigations: The report.
(b)* * *
(6)To furnish claim forms to any person expressing an interest in filing a claim and to refer such personnel to the Office of the Judge Advocate General, Tort Claims Unit Norfolk, 9620 Maryland Avenue, Suite 100, Norfolk, Virginia 23511-2989.
(d)*Immediate report of certain events.* The Navy or Marine Corps activity most directly involved in the incident shall notify the Judge Advocate General immediately by message, electronic mail, or telephone in any of the following circumstances:
(j)* * *
(1)The command initiating the investigation in accordance with § 750.3 or § 750.5 shall review the report of investigation. If additional investigation is required or omissions or other deficiencies are noted, the investigation should be promptly returned with an endorsement indicating that a supplemental investigative report will be submitted. If the original or supplemental report is in order, it shall be forwarded by endorsement, with any pertinent comments and recommendations. An advance copy of the investigation shall be forwarded to the Tort Claims Unit Norfolk.
(3)It is essential that each investigative report reflect that a good faith effort was made to comply with the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a) as implemented by 32 CFR 701, subpart F. Any indication of noncompliance shall be explained either in the preliminary statement of the forwarding endorsements and, when required, corrected. 5. Section 750.4 is amended by revising paragraph
(c)to read as follows: § 750.4 Claims: In general.
(c)*Assistance to claimants.* Claimants or potential claimants who inquire about their rights or the procedures to be followed in the resolution of their claims should be referred to the Tort Claims Unit Norfolk. The Tort Claims Unit Norfolk will provide claims forms, advise where the forms should be filed, and inform the requester of the type of substantiating information required. Claims officers may provide advice on the claims process but shall not provide advice or opinions about the merits or the wisdom of filing a particular claim. While claims officers have a responsibility to provide general information about claims, they must consider 18 U.S.C. 205, which makes it a crime for an officer or employee of the United States to act as an agent or an attorney in the prosecution of any claim against the United States. 6. Section 750.5 is amended by revising paragraph
(c)to read as follows: § 750.5 Claims: Proper claimants.
(c)*Subrogation.* A subrogor and a subrogee may file claims jointly or separately. When separate claims are filed and each claim individually is within the Tort Claims Unit Norfolk's adjudicating authority limits, they may be processed by the Tort Claims Unit, even if the aggregate of such claims exceeds the Tort Claims Unit's monetary authority. However, if the aggregate of the claims exceeds the sum for which approval of the Department of Justice
(DoJ)is required, currently $200,000.00 under the Federal Tort Claims Act, then the Tort Claims Unit Norfolk must obtain DoJ approval via the Office of the Judge Advocate General, Claims and Tort Litigation Division, before the claims may be settled. 7. Section 750.6 is revised to read as follows: § 750.6 Claims: Presentment.
(a)*Written demand and Standard Form 95.* A claim shall be submitted by presenting a written statement with the amount of the claim expressed in a sum certain, and, as far as possible, describing the detailed facts and circumstances surrounding the incident from which the claim arose. The Claim for Damage or Injury, Standard Form 95, shall be used whenever practical for claims under the Federal Tort and Military Claims Acts. Claims under the Personnel Claims Act shall be submitted on DD Form 1842. 2 The claim and all other papers requiring the signature of the claimant shall be signed by the claimant personally or by a duly authorized agent. If signed by an agent or legal representative, the claim shall indicate the title or capacity of the person signing and be accompanied by evidence of appointment. When more than one person has a claim arising from the same incident, each person shall file a claim separately. 2 The Claim for Damage or Injury, Standard Form 95 and the DD Form 1842 are available at the Web site of the United States Navy Judge Advocate General's Corps at *http://www.jag.navy.mil.*
(b)*To whom submitted.* Claims under the Federal Tort and Military Claims Acts should be submitted to the Tort Claims Unit Norfolk at the address provided in Sec. 750.3 above, or the Office of the Judge Advocate General, Claims and Tort Litigation Division, 1322 Patterson Avenue, SE., Suite 3000, Washington Navy Yard, Washington, DC 20374-5066. Claims may also be submitted to the commanding officer of the Navy or Marine Corps activity involved if known, the commanding officer of any Navy or Marine activity, preferably the one nearest to where the accident occurred, or the local Naval Legal Service Command activity. The claim should be immediately forwarded to the Tort Claims Unit Norfolk. 8. Section 750.7 is amended by correcting the word “recipt” to read “receipt” in paragraph (a), and revising paragraphs
(b)and
(c)to read as follows: § 750.7 Claims: Action by receiving command.
(b)*Determine the military activity involved.* The receiving command shall determine the Navy or Marine Corps activity most directly involved with the claim—usually the command where the incident is alleged to have occurred—and forward a copy of the claim to that activity. The original claim (and the transmittal letter, if a copy is forwarded to a more appropriate activity) should immediately be sent to the Tort Claims Unit Norfolk.
(c)*Initiate an investigation.* A JAGMAN Litigation Report Investigation shall be commenced immediately by the command most directly involved with the claim. Once the investigation has been completed, an advance copy shall be forwarded by the convening authority to the Tort Claims Unit Norfolk. Waiting until endorsements have been obtained before providing a copy of the investigation to the Tort Claims Unit Norfolk is neither required nor desirable. The facts of the incident must be made known to cognizant claims personnel as soon as possible. 9. Section 750.8 is revised to read as follows: § 750.8 Claims Responsibility of the Tort Claims Unit Norfolk.
(a)*Reviewing prior actions.* The adjudicating authority (Tort Claims Unit Norfolk) determines whether an adequate investigation has been conducted, whether the initial receipt date is recorded on the face of the claim, and whether all holders of the investigation, if completed, are advised of the receipt of the claim.
(b)*Determining the sufficiency of the claim.* The claim should be reviewed and a determination of its sufficiency made. If the claim is not sufficient as received, it shall be immediately returned to the party who submitted it along with an explanation of the insufficiency. This does not constitute denial of the claim. The claim shall not be considered “presented” until it is received in proper form.
(c)*Adjudicating the claim.*
(1)The Tort Claims Unit Norfolk shall evaluate and either approve or disapprove all claims within its authority, except where the payment of multiple Federal Torts Claims Act claims arising from the same incident will exceed $200,000.00 in the aggregate and thereby require approval of DoJ. In this latter instance, the Torts Claims Unit Norfolk shall contact the Office of the Judge Advocate General, Claims and Tort Litigation Division (OJAG Code 15).
(2)The Tort Claims Unit Norfolk shall evaluate and, where liability is established, attempt to settle claims for amounts within its adjudicating authority. Negotiation at settlement figures above the Tort Claims Unit Norfolk's payment limits may be attempted if the claimant is informed that the final decision on the claim will be made at a higher level.
(3)If a substantiated claim cannot be approved, settled, or compromised within the settlement authority limits of the Tort Claims Unit Norfolk, the Tort Claims Unit Norfolk shall contact OJAG Code 15 to seek additional settlement authority. To obtain the additional settlement authority, the following materials shall be forwarded to OJAG Code 15:
(i)A letter of transmittal containing a recommendation on resolution of the claim.
(ii)A memorandum of law containing a review of applicable law, an evaluation of liability, and a recommendation on the settlement value of the case. This memorandum should concentrate on the unusual aspects of applicable law, chronicle the attempts to resolve the case, provide information about the availability of witnesses, and outline any other information material to a resolution of the claim, i.e., prior dealings with the claimant's attorney, local procedural rules, or peculiarities that may make trial difficult. The memorandum should be tailored to the complexity of the issues presented and provide any expert opinions that have been obtained in the case by the Navy or the claimant.
(d)*Preparing litigation reports.* The Tort Claims Unit Norfolk will prepare a litigation report when a lawsuit is filed and the complaint is received. The report is sent directly to the DoJ official or the U.S. Attorney having cognizance of the matter. The report is a narrative summary of the facts upon which the suit is based and has as enclosures the claims file and a memorandum of law on the issues presented. A copy of the report and all enclosures should be sent to the Judge Advocate General (OJAG Code 15). 10. Section 750.10 is amended by revising the first sentence of paragraph
(a)to read as follows: § 750.10 Claim: Settlement and release.
(a)*Fully and partially approved claims.* When a claim is approved for payment in the amount claimed, settlement agreement may not be necessary. * * * 11. Section 750.11 is amended by revising paragraph
(b)to read as follows: § 750.11 Claims: Denial.
(b)If the claim is cognizable under the Military Claims Act, appeal in writing to the Office of the Judge Advocate General, Claims and Tort Litigation Division within 30 days of the receipt of the denial notification. The notice of denial shall inform the claimant or his representative that is suit is not possible under the act. 12. Section 750.12 is amended by revising the first sentence of paragraph
(a)and revising paragraph
(b)to read as follows: § 750.12 Claims: Action when suit filed.
(a)*Action required of any Navy official receiving notice of suit.* The commencement, under the civil action provisions of the Federal Tort Claims Act (28 U.S.C. 1346(b)), of any action against the United States and involving the Navy, that comes to the attention of any official in connection with his official duties, shall be reported immediately to the Tort Claims Unit Norfolk to take any necessary action and provide prompt notification to the Judge Advocate General. * * *
(b)*Steps upon commencement of civil action.* Upon receipt by the Judge Advocate General or Tort Claims Unit Norfolk of notice from the DoJ or other source that a civil action involving the Navy has been initiated under the civil action provisions of the Federal Tort Claims Act, and there being no investigative report available at the headquarters, a request shall be made to the commanding officer of the appropriate Naval Legal Service Command activity for an investigative report into the incident. If there is not a completed investigation, the request shall be forwarded to the appropriate naval activity to convene and complete such a report. The commanding officer of the Naval Legal Service Command activity shall contact the Tort Claims Unit Norfolk to determine whether an administrative claim had been filed and, if available information indicates none had, the Tort Claims Unit Norfolk shall advise the Office of the Judge Advocate General (Claims and Tort Litigation Division) immediately. 13. Section 750.13 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(7), (b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3); and removing footnote 1 in paragraph (a). § 750.13 Claims: Single service responsibility.
(a)* * *
(7)Federal Claims Collection Act (31 U.S.C. Sections 3701, 3702, and 3711), claims and demands by the United States Government; and
(b)* * *
(1)Department of the Army: Austria, Belgium, El Salvador, the Federal Republic of Germany, Grenada, Honduras, Hungary, Korea, Iraq, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, the Marshall Islands, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Switzerland, and as the Receiving State Office in the United States under 10 U.S.C. Sections 2734a—2734b and the NATO Status of Forces Agreement, and other Status of Forces Agreements with countries not covered by the NATO agreement. Claims arising from Operation Joint Endeavor, including the former Yugoslavia, Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic, as well as the Rwanda Refugee Crisis Area are also assigned to the Army.
(2)Department of the Navy: Bahrain, Greece, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Spain and the United Arab Emirates.
(3)Department of the Air Force: Australia, Azores, Canada, Cyprus, Denmark, India, Japan, Luxembourg, Morocco, Nepal, Norway, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Turkey, the United Kingdom, Egypt, Oman, and claims involving, or generated by, the United States Central Command (CENTCOM) and the United States Special Operations Command (SOCOM), that arise in countries not specifically assigned to the Departments of the Army and the Navy. § 750.27 [Amended] 14. Section 750.27 is amended by removing the extra word “any” following the word “any” in paragraph (a)(2)(i). § 750.33 [Amended] 15. Section 750.33(c) is amended by removing the word “CHAMPUS” and adding in its place the word “TRICARE”. 16. Section 750.34 is amended by revising the first sentence of paragraph(c)(1), revising paragraphs (c)(2)(i), (c)(2)(ii), and removing the table in (c)(2)(ii) to read as follows: § 750.34 Settlement and payment.
(c)*Payment of the claim* —(1) *Statutory authority.* Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2672 and in accordance with 28 CFR 14.6(a), the Secretary of the Navy or designee, acting on behalf of the United States may compromise or settle any claim filed against the Navy under the FTCA, provided any award, compromise, or settlement by the Navy in excess of $200,000.00 may be effected only with the prior written approval of the Attorney General or designee. * * *
(2)*Specific delegation and designation* —(i) *Payment authority.* Delegated and Designated Authority Federal Tort Claims Act Judge Advocate General—$200,000.00 Deputy Judge Advocate General—$200,000.00 Assistant Judge Advocate General (General Law)—$200,000.00 Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (Claims and Tort Litigation) and Deputy Division Director—$200,000.00 Head, Tort Claims Branch (Claims and Tort Litigation)—$200,000.00 Any payment of over $200,000.00 must be approved by DoJ. The Judge Advocate General, the Deputy Judge Advocate General, the Assistant Judge Advocate General (General Law), Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (Claims and Tort Litigation), and the Head, Tort Claims Branch (Claims and Tort Litigation) may deny Federal Tort Claims in any amount.
(ii)*Adjudicating authority.* The Department of the Navy's tort claims adjudication function is consolidated as the Tort Claims Unit Norfolk
(TCU)located at Naval Station, Norfolk, VA. The address is as follows: Department of the Navy, Office of the Judge Advocate General, Tort Claims Unit Norfolk, 9620 Maryland Avenue Suite 100, Norfolk, VA 23511-2989. Subpart C—Military Claims Act 17. Section 750.44 is amended by adding paragraph
(n)to read as follows: § 750.44 Claims not payable.
(n)Any claim to which the exceptions in 28 U.S.C. 2680 apply. 18. Section 750.45 is amended by revising paragraph
(d)to read as follows: § 750.45 Filing claim.
(d)*Where to file.* The claim shall be submitted by the claimant to the commanding officer of the naval activity involved, if it is known. Otherwise, it shall be submitted to the commanding officer of any naval activity, preferably the one within which, or nearest to which, the incident occurred, or to the Office of the Judge Advocate General of the Navy, (Claims and Tort Litigation), 1322 Patterson Avenue, SE., Suite 3000, Washington Navy Yard, DC 20375-5066. 19. Section 750.46 is amended by redesignating paragraph
(c)as paragraph (d), revising newly redesignated paragraph (d), and adding new paragraph
(c)to read as follows: § 750.46 Applicable law.
(c)*Principles applicable to all MCA claims.*
(1)“Scope of employment” is determined in accordance with Federal law. Reported FTCA cases provide guidance on this determination;
(2)Claims for emotional distress will be considered only from the injured person or members of the injured person's immediate family. Claims from the injured person's immediate “zone of danger” (i.e., immediate vicinity of the incident) and the claimant substantiates the claim with proof of the physical manifestation(s) of the emotional distress; and
(3)Claims under the MCA do not include the principles of absolute liability and punitive damages.
(d)*Clarification of terms.* Federal law determines the meaning and construction of the MCA. 20. Section 750.49 is amended by revising the first sentence in paragraph (a)(1), revising paragraph (a)(3), removing paragraphs (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6), and (b), adding new paragraph (a)(4), redesignating paragraph
(c)as paragraph
(b)and revising newly designated paragraph
(b)to read as follows: § 750.49 Delegation of adjudicating authority.
(a)* * *
(1)The Secretary of the Navy may settle or deny claims in any amount. * * *
(3)The Deputy Judge Advocate General, the Assistant Judge Advocate General (General Law), the Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (Claims and Tort Litigation), and Head, Tort Claims Branch (Claims and Tort Litigation), have delegated authority to settle claims for $25,000.00 or less, and have denial authority in any amount.
(4)Individuals with settlement authority under paragraph (a)(3) of this section may delegate all or part of their settlement authority. Such delegation must be in writing.
(b)*Appellate authority.* Adjudicating authorities have the same authority as delegated in paragraph
(a)of this section to act upon appeals. No appellate authority below the Secretary of the Navy may deny an appeal of a claim it had previously denied. 21. Section 750.50 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(3) to read as follows: § 750.50 Advance payments.
(c)* * *
(3)The Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (Claims and Tort Litigation) and the Head, Tort Claims Branch (Claims and Tort Litigation) have delegated authority to make advance payments up to $25,000.00. Subpart D—Claims Not Cognizable Under Any Other Provision of Law 22. Section 750.66 is revised to read as follows: § 750.66 Officials with authority to settle. Judge Advocate General; Deputy Judge Advocate General; Assistant Judge Advocate General (General Law); Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (Claims and Tort Litigation); and Head, Tort Claims Branch (Claims and Tort Litigation) may settle a nonscope claim. Dated: September 10, 2007. T.M. Cruz, Lieutenant, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer. [FR Doc. E7-18198 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy 32 CFR Part 751 [USN-2006-0039] RIN 0703-AA79 Personnel Claims Regulations AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD. ACTION: Interim final rule. SUMMARY: This rule reflects administrative changes to the regulations concerning the administrative processing and consideration of claims on behalf of and against the United States. The revisions will ensure the proper administrative processing and consideration of claims on behalf of and against the United States. This rule is being published by the Department of the Navy for guidance and interest of the public in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(1). DATES: This rule is effective September 19, 2007. Comments must be received by November 19, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number and/or Regulatory Information Number
(RIN)and title, by any of the following methods: *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. *Mail:* Federal Docket Management System Office, 1160 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1160. *Instructions:* All submissions received must include the agency name and docket or RIN number for this **Federal Register** document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Enrique Mendez, Head Affirmative and Personnel Claims Branch, Claims and Tort Litigation Division (Code 15), Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1322 Patterson Avenue, SE., Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374, telephone 202-685-4600. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review.” It has been determined that the changes to 32 CFR part 751 are not considered a “significant regulatory action.” The rule does not:
(1)Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector in the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;
(2)Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3)Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of the recipients thereof; or
(4)Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (Sec. 202, Pub. L. 104-4). It has been certified that 32 CFR part 751 does not contain Federal Mandates that result in expenditures by State, local and tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Public Law 96-354, “Regulatory Flexibility Act” (5 U.S.C. 601). It has been determined that this rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601) because it would not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule implements the processing of the proper administrative processing and consideration of claims on behalf of and against the United States, and does not economically impact the Federal government's relations with the private sector. Public Law 96-511, “Paperwork Reduction Act” (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). This rule does not impose collection of information requirements for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, 5 CFR part 1320). Executive Order 13132, “Federalism.” It has been certified that 32 CFR part 751 does not have federalism implications as set forth in Executive Order 13132. This rule does not have substantial direct effects on:
(1)The States;
(2)The relationship between the National Government and the States; or
(3)The distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of Government. List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 751 Claims; Government employees; Military personnel. Accordingly, 32 CFR part 751 is amended to read as follows: PART 751—PERSONNEL CLAIMS REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 751 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 10 U.S.C. 5013 and 5148; E.O. 12473, 3 CFR, 1984 Comp., p. 201. 2. Section 751.1 is revised to read as follows: § 751.1 Scope. This part prescribes procedures and substantive bases for administrative settlement of claims against the United States submitted by Department of Navy
(DoN)personnel and civilian employees of the naval establishment. 3. Section 751.2 is amended by revising paragraph
(a)to read as follows: § 751.2 Claims against the United States: In general.
(a)*Maximum amount payable.* The Military and Civilian Employees' Personnel Claims Act (Personnel Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3701, 3702, and 3721 (2004)), provides that the maximum amount payable for any loss or damage arising from a single incident is limited to $40,000.00. Where the loss of or damage to personal property arose from emergency evacuations or other extraordinary circumstances, the maximum is $100,000.00. 4. Section 751.3 is revised to read as follows: § 751.3 Authority. The Personnel Claims Act provides the authority for maximum payment up to $40,000, $100,000 in extraordinary circumstances for loss, damage, or destruction of personal property of military personnel or civilian employees incident to their service. No claim may be paid unless it is presented in writing within 2 years of the incident that gave rise to the claim. 5. Section 751.5 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(3), removing the word “officers” and replacing it with the word “personnel” in paragraph (a)(4), adding paragraph (a)(5), revising the first sentence in paragraph (c), and revising paragraph
(f)to read as follows: § 751.5 Definitions.
(a)* * *
(3)*Claims by non-appropriated fund employees.* Claims by employees of Navy and Marine Corps non-appropriated fund activities for loss, damage, or destruction of personal property incident to their employment will be processed and adjudicated in accordance with this part and forwarded to the appropriate local non-appropriated fund activity that employs the claimant for payment from non-appropriated funds.
(5)*Agent or legal representative.* The authorized agent or legal representative of a proper claimant may file on behalf of the claimant if the agent provides a power of attorney that complies with local law. Certain relatives of a deceased proper claimant may file any claim the claimant could have filed. The PCA identifies these relatives in order of priority. If multiple persons who the statute lists as equals in priority file separate claims, the first claim settled extinguishes the rights of the other claimants. The estate of a deceased proper party claimant is not a proper claimant, nor is an executor or personal representative who cannot file as a survivor. The PCA ranks surviving relatives in the following order of priority:
(i)Spouse;
(ii)Child or children;
(iii)Father, mother, or both;
(iv)Brother, sister, or both.
(c)*Unusual occurrence.* Serious events and natural disaster not expected to take place in the normal course of events and hazards outside the normal risks of day-to-day living and working. * * *
(f)*Vehicles.* Include automobiles, motorcycles, mopeds, jet skis, utility trailers, camping trailers, trucks, mounted camper bodies, motor homes, boats, boat trailers, bicycles, and aircraft. Mobile homes and other property used as dwelling places are not considered vehicles. 6. Section 751.6 is amended by revising the introductory text and paragraph (a)(5), the first four sentences of paragraph (b), paragraph (c)(1), the first sentence of paragraph (c)(2), paragraph (c)(3), the first sentence of paragraph (c)(5), paragraph (d), and the first four sentences of paragraph (k)(2) to read as follows: § 751.6 Claims payable. Claims for loss, damage, or destruction of property may be considered as set out below if possession of the property was reasonable and useful under the circumstances and the loss did not result from the negligence of the claimant. The following are examples of more common claims. Not all situations that may result in a claim are covered, but the processes described in the examples on how to approach, investigate, and adjudicate claims are applicable to all claims filed.
(a)* * *
(5)*Shipment or storage at the claimant's expense.* The Government will not compensate a claimant for loss or damage that occurs while property is being shipped or stored at the claimant's expense, even if the Government reimburses the claimant for the shipment or storage fees. The reason for this is that there is no contract, called a Government Bill of Lading, between the Government and the carrier. In such cases, the claimant must claim against the carrier.
(b)*Losses at assigned quarters or other authorized places.* Damage or loss caused by fire, explosion, theft, vandalism, lightning, flood, earthquake, and unusual occurrences is cognizable. Losses due to theft may only be paid if the claimant took reasonable measures to safeguard the property and theft occurred as a result of a forced entry. Claimants are expected to secure windows and doors of their barracks, quarters, wall lockers, and other storage areas so that the thief must force an entry. If a police report states that there were no signs of forced entry and the claimant asserts with absolute certainty that the area was in fact secure, the claims examiner must consider whether forced entry would have left visible signs. * * *
(c)*Vehicle losses.*
(1)Losses incurred while a vehicle is used in the performance of a military duty, if such use was authorized or directed for the convenience of the Government, provided the travel did not include commuting to or from a permanent place of duty, and did not arise from mechanical or structural defect of the vehicle. There is no requirement that the loss be due to fire, flood, hurricane, or other unusual occurrence, or to theft or vandalism. As a general rule, however, travel is not considered to be for the convenience of the Government unless it was pursuant to written orders authorizing use for which the claimant is entitled to reimbursement. The claimant must be free from negligence in order to be paid for a collision loss. Travel by the claimant to other buildings on the installation is not loss. Travel by the claimant to other buildings on the installation is not considered to be under orders for the convenience of the Government. Travel off the installation without written orders may only be deemed to be for the convenience of the Government if the claimant was authorized mileage reimbursement for the travel. The issuance of written orders after the fact raises the presumption that travel was not authorized for the convenience of the Government. The maximum payment authorized by the Allowance List-Depreciation Guide
(ALDG)still applies to loss of or damage to vehicles and contents. This maximum does not apply to DITY moves.
(2)Losses incurred while a vehicle is shipped at Government expense are compensable provided the loss or damage did not arise from mechanical or structural defect of the vehicle during such shipment. * * *
(3)Losses incurred while a vehicle is located at quarters or other authorized place of lodging, including garages, carports, driveways, assigned parking spaces, if the loss or damage is caused by fire, flood, hurricane, theft, or vandalism, or other unusual occurrence. Vandalism is damage intentionally caused. Stray marks caused by children playing, falling branches, gravel thrown by other vehicles, or similar occurrences are not vandalism. The amount payable on vandalism claims is limited to the maximum payment authorized by the ALDG.
(5)*Theft of property stored inside a vehicle.* A loss resulting from theft of property stored inside a vehicle is compensable if it was reasonable for the claimant to have the property in the vehicle and neither the claimant nor the claimant's agents were negligent in protecting the property. * * *
(d)*Mobile homes and contents in shipment.* Claims for damage to mobile homes and contents in shipment are payable unless the damage was caused by structural or mechanical defects or by the claimant's negligence in securing the mobile home or packing its contents.
(k)* * *
(2)*Estimate fees.* An estimate fee is a fixed cost charged by a person in the business of repairing property to provide an estimate of what it would cost to repair property. An estimate fee in excess of $75.00 should be examined with great care to determine whether it is reasonable. A person becomes obligated to pay an estimated fee when the estimate is prepared. An estimate fee should not be confused with an appraisal fee, which is not compensable (see § 751.7(m)). * * * 7. Section 751.7 is amended by revising paragraphs
(b)and (e), and removing the parenthetical in the last sentence of paragraph
(f)that states, “(NAVSUP Publication 490, Transportation of Personal Property)” to read as follows: § 751.7 Claims not payable.
(b)*Currency or jewelry shipped or stored in baggage.* Claims for lost currency, shipped or stored in baggage are not payable. Small, valuable, highly pilferable items should normally be hand-carried rather than shipped, however, if expensive or valuable jewelry or coin collections are shipped, a full description of each item of expensive jewelry and of any coin or money collection must be listed and described on the inventory for its loss to be payable. Each item must also be listed as missing at the time of delivery. If not noted at the time of delivery, the claimant must satisfactorily explain why.
(e)*Loss or Damage to Property to the Extent of any Available Insurance Coverage.* Except for claims for loss or damage to household goods or privately-owned vehicles
(POVS)while shipped or stored at Government expense, when the property lost, damaged, or destroyed is insured, the claimant must make a demand for payment against the insurance company under the terms of the policy. 8. Section 751.8 is revised to read as follows: § 751.8 Adjudicating authorities.
(a)*Claims by Navy personnel.*
(l)The following officials are authorized to adjudicate and authorize payment of PCA claims up to $100,000:
(i)The Judge Advocate General;
(ii)The Deputy Judge Advocate General;
(iii)Any Assistant Judge Advocate General; and
(iv)The Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (Claims and Tort Litigation).
(2)Any individual, when designated by the Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (Claims and Tort Litigation Division), may adjudicate and authorize payment of PCA claims up to any designated amount.
(b)*Claims by Marine Corps personnel.*
(1)The following officials are authorized to adjudicate and authorize payment of PCA claims up to $40,000:
(i)Commandant of the Marine Corps;
(ii)Deputy Commandant, Manpower and Reserve Affairs Department;
(iii)Director, Personal and Family Readiness Division;
(iv)Head, Military Personnel Services Branch;
(v)Head, Personal Property Claims Section; and
(vi)Any individual personally designated by the Commandant of the Marine Corps may adjudicate and authorize payment of PCA claims up to any delegated amount not to exceed $40,000.
(2)The Assistant Head, Personal Property Claims Section is authorized to adjudicate and authorize payment of PCA claims up to $25,000.
(3)Any individual at Marine Corps Field Transportation Management Office/Claims Activities, when personally designated by the Director, Personal and Family Readiness Division, may be authorized to adjudicate and authorize payment of PCA claims up to any delegated amount not to exceed $40,000. 9. Section 751.9 is amended by revising paragraph (a), (c)(3), (c)(4), and (c)(5) to read as follows: § 751.9 Presentment of claims.
(a)*General.* A claim shall be submitted in writing and, if practicable, be presented to the Personnel Claims Unit or Marine Corps claims office serving the area where the claim accrued, such as where the House Hold Goods were delivered. If submission in accordance with the foregoing is impractical under the circumstance, the claim may be submitted in writing to any installation or establishment of the Armed Forces which will forward the claim to the appropriate Navy or Marine Corps claims office for processing. To constitute a filing, a claim must be presented in writing to one of the military departments.
(c)* * *
(3)*Damage to POVs in shipment.* Persons shipping POVs are expected to list damage on DD Form 788 (Private Vehicle Shipping Document for Automobile) when they pick up the vehicle. Obvious external damage that is not listed is not payable. Damage the claimant could reasonably be expected not to notice at the pickup point should be considered if the claimant reports the damage to claims or transportation office personnel within a short time, normally a few days after arriving at the installation.
(4)*Credibility.* Factors that indicate a claimant's credibility is questionable include amounts claimed that are exaggerated in comparison with the cost of similar items, insignificant or almost undetectable damage, very recent purchase dates for most items claimed, and statements that appear incredible. Such claimants should be required to provide more evidence than is normally expected.
(5)*Inspections.* Whenever a question arises about damage to property, the best way to determine a proper award is to examine the items closely to determine the nature of the damage. For furniture, undersurfaces and the edges of drawers and doors should be examined to determine whether the material is solid hardwood, fine quality veneer over hardwood, veneer over pressed wood, or other types of material. If the inspection is conducted at the claimant's quarters, the general quality of property should be determined. Observations by repairmen and transportation inspectors are very valuable, but on occasion, claims examiners may request an inspection. Such inspections are necessary to reduce the number of reconsiderations and fraudulent claims and are invaluable in enabling claims personnel to understand the facts in many situations. 10. Section 751.10 is amended by revising footnote / 1 / to read as follows: § 751.10 Form of claim. 1 Copies of these forms may be obtained by contacting the legal office or personal property office serving the installation where the claimant is stationed, or nearest to the point where the loss or damage occurred or on the Internet at *http://www.jag.navy.mil.* 11. Section 751.11 is revised to read as follows: § 751.11 Investigation of claim. Upon receipt of a claim, the claim shall be stamped with the date and receiving office, forwarded to the cognizant PCU and be referred to a claims examiner. The examiner shall consider all information and evidence submitted with the claim and shall conduct such further investigation as may be necessary and appropriate. § 750.12 [Removed] 12. Section 750.12 is removed. 13. Redesignate 750.13 as § 750.12 and revise newly redesignated § 751.12 to read as follows: § 751.12 Payments. Payment of approved personnel claims will be made by the Navy or Marine Corps disbursing officer serving the adjudicating authority. Payments will be charged to funds made available to the adjudicating authority for this purpose. 14. Section 751.14 is redesignated as § 751.13, and newly redesignated § 751.13 is revised to read as follows: § 751.13 Partial payments.
(a)*Partial payments when hardship exists.* When claimants suffer a significant, compensable loss of items that are needed for daily living, and can demonstrate a need for immediate funds to replace some of those items (e.g., food, clothes, baby items, etc.) the adjudicating authority may authorize a partial payment of an appropriate amount, normally one-half of the estimated total payment. When a partial payment is made a copy of the payment voucher and all other information related to the partial payment shall be placed in the claim file. Action shall be taken to ensure the amount of the partial payment is deducted from the adjudicated value of the claim when final payment is made.
(b)*Marine hardship payments.* The Marine claimant's Transportation Management Office shall ensure compliance with all requirements of § 751.14(a), and may request authority for payment by message from the Commandant of the Marine Corps (MRP-2).
(c)*Effect of partial payment.* Partial payments are to be subtracted from the adjudicated value of the claim before payment of the balance due. Overpayments are to be properly recouped. 15. Section 751.15 is redesignated as § 751.14 and newly redesignated § 751.14 is revised to read as follows: § 751.14 Reconsideration and appeal.
(a)*General.* When a claim is denied either in whole or in part, the claimant shall be given written notification of the initial adjudication and of the right to submit a written request for reconsideration to the original adjudicating authority within 6 months from the date the claimant receives notice of the initial adjudication of the claim. If a claimant requests reconsideration and if it is determined that the original action was erroneous or incorrect, it shall be modified and, when appropriate, a supplemental payment shall be approved. If full additional payment is not granted, the file shall be forwarded for reconsideration to the next higher adjudicating authority. For claims originally adjudicated by the Head, Personnel Claims Unit Norfolk, the files will be forwarded to the Judge Advocate General (Claims and Tort Litigation)(Code 15) for final action. The claimant shall be notified of this action either by letter or by copy of the letter forwarding the file to higher adjudicating authority. The forwarding letter shall include a synopsis of action taken on the file and reasons for the action or denial, as well as a recommendation of further action or denial.
(b)*Files forwarded to JAG.* For files forwarded to JAG in accordance with § 751.14(a), the forwarding endorsement shall include the specific reasons why the requested relief was not granted and shall address the specific points or complaints raised by the claimant's request for reconsideration.
(c)*Appeals procedure for claims submitted by Marine Corps personnel.* Where any of the Marine Corps adjudication authorities listed in § 751.8(b) fail to grant the relief requested, or otherwise resolve the claim to the satisfaction of the claimant, the request for reconsideration shall be forwarded together with the entire original file and the adjudicating authority's recommendation, to the Judge Advocate General. Subpart B—Demand on Carrier, Contractor, or Insurer [Removed and Reserved] 16. Remove and reserve subpart B consisting of §§ 751.21 through 751.35. Dated: September 10, 2007. T.M. Cruz, Lieutenant, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer. [FR Doc. E7-18204 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy 32 CFR Part 756 [USN-2006-0040] RIN 0703-AA80 Nonappropriated-Fund Claims Regulations AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD. ACTION: Interim final rule. SUMMARY: This rule reflects administrative changes to the regulations concerning the administrative processing of non-appropriated funds. The revisions will ensure the proper administrative processing and consideration of claims on behalf of and against the United States. This rule is being published by the Department of the Navy
(DoN)for guidance and interest of the public in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(1). DATES: This rule is effective September 19, 2007. Comments must be received by November 19, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number and/or Regulatory Information Number
(RIN)and title, by any of the following methods: *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. *Mail:* Federal Docket Management System Office, 1160 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1160. *Instructions:* All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number or RIN for this **Federal Register** document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at *http://regulations.gov* as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Dan Fields, Head, Tort Claims Branch, Claims and Tort Litigation Division (Code 15), Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1322 Patterson Avenue, SE., Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374, telephone 202-685-4600. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review.” It has been determined that the changes to 32 CFR part 756 are not considered a “significant regulatory action.” The rule does not:
(1)Have an annual affect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector in the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;
(2)Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3)Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of the recipients thereof; or
(4)Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (Sec. 202, Pub. L. 104-4). It has been certified that 32 CFR part 756 does not contain Federal Mandates that result in expenditures by State, local and tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Public Law 96-354, “Regulatory Flexibility Act” (5 U.S.C. 601). It has been determined that this rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601) because it would not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule implements the processing of the proper administrative processing and consideration of claims on behalf of and against the United States, and does not economically impact the Federal government's relations with the private sector. Public Law 96-511, “Paperwork Reduction Act” (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). This rule does not impose collection of information requirements for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, 5 CFR part 1320). Executive Order 13132, “Federalism”. It has been certified that 32 CFR part 756 does not have federalism implications as set forth in Executive Order 13132. This rule does not have substantial direct effects on:
(1)The States;
(2)The relationship between the National Government and the States; or
(3)The distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of Government. List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 756 Claims. Accordingly, 32 CFR part 756 is amended to read as follows: PART 756—PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING CLAIMS INVOLVING NON-APPROPRIATED FUND ACTIVITIES AND THEIR EMPLOYEES 1. The authority citation for part 756 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 10 U.S.C. 5013 and 5148. 2. The heading for part 756 is revised to read as set forth above. 3. Section 756.1 is revised to read as follows: § 756.1 Scope. This part explains how to settle claims for and against the United States for property damage, personal injury, or death arising out of the operation of non-appropriated fund activities (NAFI). 1 1 DoD Directive 5515.6 establishes policy governing the administrative processing of claims arising out of the operation of non-appropriated fund activities. 4. Section 756.2 is amended by revising paragraph
(c)to read as follows: § 756.2 Definitions.
(c)*Employees of NAFIs.* Personnel employed by NAFIs whose salaries are paid from non-appropriated funds. 5. Revise § 756.4 to read as follows: § 756.4 Responsibility.
(a)All claims resulting from NAFIs should be submitted to the command having cognizance over the NAFI involved. The claim will then be forwarded to the Tort Claims Unit
(TCU)Norfolk located at the following address: Department of the Navy, Office of the Judge Advocate General, Tort Claims Unit Norfolk, 9620 Maryland Avenue, Suite 100, Norfolk, VA 23511-2989.
(b)The TCU Norfolk has cognizance over all DoN claims. Normally, the TCU Norfolk has primary responsibility for the negotiation and settlement of NAFI claims. This is because NAFIs are Federal agencies within the meaning of the Federal Tort Claims Act
(FTCA)if the NAFI is charged with an essential function of the DoN and if the degree of control and supervision by the Navy is more than casual or perfunctory. Compare *United States* v. *Holcombe,* 277 F.2d 143 (4th Cir. 1960) and *Scott* v. *United States,* 226 F. Supp. 846, (D. Ga. 1963). Consequently, to the extent sovereign immunity is waived by the FTCA, 28 U.S.C. 1346(b), 2671-2672, 2674-2680, the United States remains ultimately liable for payment of NAFI claims. 6. Section 756.5 is revised to read as follows: § 756.5 Investigation. Claims arising out of the operation of NAFIs, in and outside the United States, shall be investigated in accordance with the procedures for investigating similar claims against appropriated fund activities. The Manual of the Judge Advocate General (JAGMAN), Chapter II 2 provides guidance in conducting an investigation of an incident or event likely to result in claims or civil litigation against or for DoN or the United States. 2 JAGMAN Chapter II (JAG Instruction 5800.7E) is available at the Web site of the Navy Judge Advocate General's Corps at *http://www.jag.navy.mil.* 7. Section 756.6 is revised to read as follows: § 756.6 Negotiation.
(a)*General.* Claims from NAFIs should be processed primarily through procedures, regulations, and statutes applicable to similar appropriated fund activity claims.
(b)*When the NAFI is insured.* When a NAFI is insured, the insurer or the contracted third-party claims administrator
(TPA)will normally conduct negotiations with claimants. The TCU Norfolk shall monitor the negotiations conducted by the insurer or TPA. Monitoring is normally limited to ascertaining that someone has been assigned to negotiate, to obtain periodic status reports, and to close files on settled claims. Any dissatisfaction with the insurer's or TPA's handling of the negotiations should be referred directly to the Judge Advocate General (Claims and Tort Litigation) for appropriate action. If requested by the insurer or TPA, the TCU Norfolk may conduct negotiations. If TCU Norfolk negotiates a final settlement, however, request for payment will be forwarded to the insurer or TPA for payment. Concurrence by the insurer or TPA in the amount of the settlement is not necessary.
(c)*When the NAFI is not insured.* When there is no private commercial insurer and the NAFI has made no independent arrangements for negotiations, the TCU Norfolk is responsible for conducting negotiations. When an appropriate settlement is negotiated by the Navy, the recommended award will be forwarded to the NAFI for payment from non-appropriated funds. 8. Section 756.7 is revised to read as follows: § 756.7 Payment.
(a)*Claims that can be settled for less than 1,500.00.* A claim not covered by insurance (or not paid by the insurer), that can be settled for $1,500.00 or less, may be adjudicated by the TCU Norfolk or single-service authority and forwarded to the commanding officer of the activity concerned or designee for payment out of funds available to the commanding officer. The TCU Norfolk or single-service authority will obtain the required release from the claimant.
(b)*Claims that cannot be settled for less than $1,500.00.* A claim negotiated by the Navy, not covered by insurance, that is for more than $1,500.00 will be forwarded to the appropriate non-appropriated fund headquarters command for payment from its non-appropriated funds.
(c)*When payment is possible under another statute.* In some cases, neither the NAFI nor its insurer may be legally responsible. In those instances when there is no negligence, and payment is authorized under some other statute, such as the Foreign Claims Act, 10 U.S.C. 2734-2736, the claim may be considered for payment from appropriated funds or may be referred to the TCU Norfolk for appropriate action.
(d)*Other claims.* A NAFI's private insurance policy is usually not available to cover losses that result from some act or omission of a mere participant in a non-appropriated fund activity. In the event the NAFI declines to pay the claim, the file shall be forwarded to the TCU Norfolk for determination. 9. Section 756.8 is revised to read as follows: § 756.8 Denial. Claims resulting from non-appropriated fund activities may be denied only by the TCU Norfolk. The denial will begin the six-month limitation on filing suit against the United States for claims filed under the FTCA. Denial of a claim shall be in writing and in accordance with subparts A and B of part 750 of this chapter, as appropriate. The TCU Norfolk should not deny claims that have initially been processed and negotiated by a non-appropriated fund activity, its insurer, or TPA, until the activity or its insurer has clearly stated in writing that it does not intend to pay the claim and has elected to defend the claim in court. 10. Section 756.9 is revised to read as follows: § 756.9 Claims by employees.
(a)*Property.* Claims by employees of NAFIs for loss, damage, or destruction of personal property incident to their employment shall be processed and adjudicated in accordance with subparts A or B of part 751 of this chapter, as appropriate. The claims will then be forwarded to the appropriate NAFI for payment from non-appropriated funds.
(b)*Personal injury or death.*
(1)Personal injury or death of citizens or permanent residents of the United States employed anywhere, or foreign nationals employed within the United States. Compensation is provided by the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 901-950) for employees of NAFIs who have suffered injury or death arising out of, and in the course of, their employment (5 U.S.C. 8171). That Act is the exclusive basis for Government liability for such injuries or deaths that are covered (5 U.S.C. 8173). A claim should first be made under that Act if there is a substantial possibility the injury or death is covered under the Act's provisions.
(2)Personal injury or death of foreign nationals employed outside of the continental United States. Employees who are not citizens or permanent residents, and who are employed outside the continental United States, may be protected by private insurance of the NAFI or by other arrangements. When a non-appropriated fund activity has elected not to obtain insurance coverage or to make other arrangements, compensation is separately provided by Federal statute, military regulations, and agreements with foreign countries. See 5 U.S.C. 8172, DoD 1401.1-M, Personnel Policy Manual for Non-appropriated Fund Instrumentalities and BUPERINST 5300.10A, NAF Personnel Manual. Dated: September 10, 2007. T.M. Cruz, Lieutenant, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer. [FR Doc. E7-18205 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy 32 CFR Part 757 [USN-2006-0041] RIN 0703-AA81 Affirmative Claims Regulations AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD. ACTION: Interim final rule. SUMMARY: This rule reflects administrative changes to the regulations concerning the administrative processing and consideration of claims on behalf of and against the United States. The revisions will ensure the proper administrative processing and consideration of claims on behalf of and against the United States. This rule is being published by the Department of the Navy for guidance and interest of the public in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(1). DATES: This rule is effective September 19, 2007. Comments must be received by November 19, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number and/or Regulatory Information Number
(RIN)and title, by any of the following methods: *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. *Mail:* Federal Docket Management System Office, 1160 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1160. *Instructions:* All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number or RIN for this **Federal Register** document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at *http://regulations.gov* as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Enrique Mendez, Head, Affirmative and Personnel Claims Branch, Claims and Tort Litigation Division (Code 15), Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1322 Patterson, Avenue SE., Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374, telephone 202-685-4621. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review.” It has been determined that the changes to 32 CFR part 757 are not considered a “significant regulatory action.” The rule does not:
(1)Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector in the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;
(2)Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3)Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of the recipients thereof; or
(4)Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (Sec. 202, Pub. L. 104-4). It has been certified that 32 CFR part 757 does not contain Federal Mandates that result in expenditures by State, local and tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Public Law 96-354, “Regulatory Flexibility Act” (5 U.S.C. 601). It has been determined that this rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601) because it would not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule implements the processing of the proper administrative processing and consideration of claims on behalf of and against the United States, and does not economically impact the Federal government's relations with the private sector. Public Law 96-511, “Paperwork Reduction Act” (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). This rule does not impose collection of information requirements for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, 5 CFR part 1320). Executive Order 13132, “Federalism.” It has been certified that 32 CFR part 757 does not have federalism implications as set forth in Executive Order 13132. This rule does not have substantial direct effects on:
(1)The States;
(2)The relationship between the National Government and the States; or
(3)The distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of Government. List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 757 Claims; Health care. Accordingly, 32 CFR part 757 is amended to read as follows: PART 757—AFFIRMATIVE CLAIMS REGULATIONS Subpart A—Property Damage Claims 1. Section 757.2 is revised to read as follows: § 757.2 Statutory authority.
(a)*General.* All affirmative claims for damage to or loss of Government property in favor of the United States are processed in accordance with the Federal Collections Claims Act (31 U.S.C. 3711), as amended by the Debt Collection Act of 1982, PL 97-365, 96 Stat. 1749 (25 October 1982), PL 101-552, 104 Stat. 2736 (15 November 1990) and the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, PL 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321, 1358 (26 April 1996). Department of Defense Directive designees, the authority granted to the Secretary of Defense under the Federal Claims Collection Act.
(b)*Statute of limitations.* Subject to specific provisions in other statutes, there is a general 3-year statute of limitations on affirmative Government tort claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2415(b). § 757.3 [Amended] 2. Section 757.3 is amended by removing the citation “4 CFR chapter II” wherever it appears and replacing it with “31 CFR Chapter IX.” 3. Section 757.4 is revised to read as follows: § 757.4 Claims that may be collected.
(a)*Against responsible third parties for damage to Government property, or the property of non-appropriated fund activities* . It should be noted, however, that as a general rule, the Government does not seek payment from service members and Government employees for damages caused by their simple negligence while acting within the scope of their employment. Exceptions to this general policy will be made when the incident involves aggravating circumstances.
(b)*For money paid or reimbursed by the government for damage to a rental car in accordance with the Joint Federal Travel regulations (volume 1, paragraph U 3415-C and volume 2, paragraph C 2101-2)* . Collection action shall be taken against third parties liable in tort. Collection action shall not be taken against Government personnel who rented the vehicle.
(c)*Other claims.* Any other claim for money or property in favor of the United States cognizable under the Federal Claims Collections Act not specifically listed above. 4. Section 757.5 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (e)(1)(iii), (e)(1)(iv), (e)(2), (f), first sentence in paragraph (g), and paragraph (k), to read as follows: § 757.5 Assertion of claims and collection procedures.
(a)*General.* The controlling procedures for administrative collection of claims are established in 31 CFR part 901.
(b)*Officials authorized to pursue claims.* The Judge Advocate General; the Deputy Judge Advocate General; any Assistant Judge Advocate General; the Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (Claims and Tort Litigation) are authorized to pursue and collect all affirmative claims in favor of the United States, except in countries where another service has single service responsibility in accordance with DoD Directive 5515.8.
(c)*Dollar limitations.* All of the officers listed in § 757.5(b) are authorized to compromise and terminate collection action on affirmative claims of $100,000.00 or less.
(e)* * *
(1)* * *
(iii)A description of damage and estimate of repair;
(iv)A description of the incident, including date and place; and
(2)See also 31 CFR part 901.
(f)*Full payment.* When a responsible party or insurer tenders full payment or a compromise settlement on a claim, the payment should be in the form of a check or money order made payable to “United States Treasury.” The check or money order shall then be forwarded to the disbursing officer serving the collecting activity for deposit in accordance with the provisions of the Navy Comptroller Manual. For collections for damages to real property, the collection is credited to the account available for the repair or replacement of the real property at the time of recovery. (10 U.S.C. 2782.) For damages to personal property, the money is returned to the general treasury.
(g)*Installment payments.* See 31 CFR 901.8 for specific procedures. * * *
(k)*Release.* The Supervisory Attorney, Tort Claims Unit, Norfolk is authorized to execute a release of the claim when all repairs have been completed to the Government's satisfaction, and when all repair bills have been paid. No prior approval from the Judge Advocate General is required for this procedure. If repair or replacement is made, a notation shall be made in any investigation or claims file. 5. Amend 757.6 by revising paragraph
(d)to read as follows: § 757.6 Waiver, compromise, and referral of claims.
(d)*Litigation reports.* Litigation reports prepared in accordance with 31 CFR part 904 shall be forwarded through the Judge Advocate General (Claims and Tort Litigation) to the Department of Justice along with any case file for further collection action or litigation as required by the Federal Claims Collections Standards. 6. The heading of subpart B is revised to read as follows: Subpart B—Medical Care Recovery Act
(MCRA)Claims and Claims Asserted Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 1095 7. Section 757.11 is revised to read as follows: § 757.11 Scope of Subpart B. Subpart B describes the assertion and collection of claims for medical care under the MCRA and 10 U.S.C. 1095. The MCRA states that when the Federal government provides treatment or pays for treatment of an individual who is injured or suffers a disease, the Government is authorized to recover the reasonable value of that treatment from any third party who is legally liable for the injury or disease. Title 10 U.S.C. 1095 provides for the collection from third-party payers for the value of health care services incurred by the Government on behalf of covered beneficiaries. 8. Section 757.12 is revised to read as follows: § 757.12 Statutory authorities.
(a)*Medical Care Recovery Act* , 42 U.S.C. 2651-2653 (2005).
(b)*Title 10 U.S.C. 1095* (Health Care Services Incurred on Behalf of Covered Beneficiaries: Collection from Third-Party Payers).
(c)*Title 10 U.S.C. 1079a* (CHAMPUS: Treatment of Refunds and Other Amounts Collected). 9. Section 757.13 is revised to read as follows: § 757.13 Responsibility for MCRA actions.
(a)*JAG designees.*
(1)Primary responsibility for investigating, asserting, and collecting Department of the Navy
(DON)MCRA claims and properly forwarding MCRA claims to other Federal departments or agencies rests with the following personnel:
(i)Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (Claims and Tort Litigation Division) (Code 15); and the
(ii)Commanding Officer, Naval Legal Service Command Europe and Southwest Asia (NLSC EURSWA), Naples, Italy, in its area of geographic responsibility.
(2)JAG designee may assert and receive full payment on any MCRA claim. Code 15 may agree to compromise or waive claims for $100,000 or less. NLSC EURSWA may agree to compromise or waive claims for $40,000.00 or less. NLSC EURSWA claims in excess of $40,000.00 may be compromised or waived only with Code 15 approval. See Sec. 757.19 for further discussion of waiver and compromise.
(b)*Navy Medical Treatment Facility (MTF).*
(1)Naval MTFs are responsible for ensuring potential MCRA/10 U.S.C. 1095 claims are brought to the attention of the appropriate JAG designee.
(2)The MTF reports all potential MCRA/10 U.S.C. 1095 cases by forwarding a copy of the daily injury log entries and admission records to the cognizant JAG designee within 7 days of treatment for which a third party may be liable. The JAG designee makes the determination of liability. Recovery for the costs of MTF care is based on Diagnostic Related Group rates or a Relative Value Unit. Rates are established by the Office of Management and Budget and/or the DoD, and published annually in the **Federal Register** .
(c)*TRICARE Fiscal Intermediary.* The TRICARE fiscal intermediary is required to identify and promptly mail claims involving certain diagnostic codes to the cognizant JAG designee. Claims are asserted for the actual amount that TRICARE paid.
(d)*Department of Justice (DoJ).* Only the DoJ may authorize compromise or waiver of an MCRA/10 U.S.C. 1095 claim in excess of $100,000.00 or settle an MCRA/10 U.S.C. 1095 claim in which the third party has filed a suit against the United States as a result of the incident which caused the injury and upon which the claim is based. 10. Section 757.14 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (c), (d)(1),
(e)introductory text, and (e)(1), to read as follows: § 757.14 Claims asserted.
(a)*General.* The DoN asserts MCRA and 10 U.S.C. 1095 claims when medical care is furnished to Navy and Marine Corps active duty personnel, retirees, or their dependents, or any other person when appropriate, and third-party tort or contract liability exists for payment of medical expenses resulting from an injury or disease. Claims are asserted when the injured party is treated in a MTF or when the DoN is responsible for reimbursing a non-Federal care provider.
(c)*Liable parties.* MCRA and 10 U.S.C 1095 claims may be asserted against individuals, corporations, associations and non-Federal Government agencies subject to the limitation described in § 757.15.
(d)* * *
(1)By using the rate set as described in § 757.13 (b)(2) in bills issued by the MTF; or
(2)* * *
(e)*Alternate theories of recovery.*
(1)Often, recovery under the MCRA is not possible because no third-party tort liability exists. For example, if a member, retiree, or dependent is driving a vehicle and is injured in single-car accident, there is no tortfeasor. Title 10 U.S.C. 1095 provides the Government alternate means for recovery as a third-party beneficiary of an insurance contract of the injured party. 11. Section 757.15 is amended by revising the introductory text and revising paragraphs
(b)and
(d)to read as follows: § 757.15 Claims not asserted. In some cases, public policy considerations limit the DoN's assertion of claims against apparent third-party tortfeasors or a contract where the Government would be a third party beneficiary. Claims are not asserted against:
(b)*Injured service members, dependents, and employees of the United States.* Claims are not asserted directly against a servicemember, the dependent of a servicemember, or an employee of the United States who is injured as a result of his own willful or negligent acts. The United States does assert, however, against policies that cover the injury.
(d)*Department of Veterans' Affairs care for service-connected disability.* Claims are not asserted for care provided to a veteran by the Department of Veterans' Affairs when the care is for a service-connected disability. The United States will, however, claim for the reasonable value of care provided an individual before he is transferred to a Department of Veterans' Affairs hospital. This policy does not apply in cases where the MTF referred the patient to the Veterans' Affairs hospital and then paid for the care. 12. Section 757.16 is revised to read as follows: § 757.16 Claims asserted only with OJAG approval.
(a)*Certain Government contractors.* JAG approval is required before asserting a claim against a Federal government contractor when the contract provides that the contractor will be indemnified or held harmless by the Federal government for tort liability.
(b)*U.S. personnel.* JAG approval is required before asserting MCRA claims directly against servicemembers, their dependents and federal employees and their dependents for injury to another person. No approval is necessary to assert claims against their insurance policies, however, except for injuries caused by servicemembers and federal employees acting “within the scope of their employment.” Intra-familial tort immunity would not preclude the Government from asserting any claims for care furnished to a tortfeasor's family members. 13. Section 757.17 is revised to read as follows: § 757.17 Statute of limitations.
(a)*Federal.* Claims asserted under the MCRA or against an automobile liability insurer through 10 U.S.C. 1095 are founded in tort and must be brought within 3 years after the action “first accrues” (28 U.S.C. 2415b). Normally, a medical care claim “first accrues” on the initial date of treatment.
(b)*Claims Asserted under 10 U.S.C. 1095.* Although legal arguments can be made that claims asserted under 10 U.S.C. 1095 against a no-fault or personal injury protection insurer are founded in contract and can be brought within 6 years (28 U.S.C. 2415a), all claims should be asserted within 3 years of the date when the claim accrued. However, some states require notice of such claims to be filed within a shorter period of time. 14. Section 757.18 is revised to read as follows: § 757.18 Asserting the claim.
(a)*Initial action by the JAG designee.* When advised of a potential claim, the JAG designee will determine the Federal agency or department responsible for investigating and asserting the claim.
(1)When DoN has reimbursed a non-Federal provider for health care, or when TRICARE has made payment for a Navy health care beneficiary, the JAG designee will assert any resulting claim.
(2)When care is provided in a Federal treatment facility, the status of the injured person will determine the agency that will assert a resulting claim. Cost of treatment provided or paid for by an MTF is deposited in that MTF's account, regardless of which service is making the collection.
(i)Where DoN members, retirees, or their dependents receive medical treatment from another Federal agency or department, the DoN will assert any claim on behalf of the United States based on information provided by the treating agency or department.
(ii)Similarly, where a DoN MTF provides care to personnel of another Federal agency or department, that other agency or department will assert any claim on behalf of the United States.
(3)If the claim is one which the DoN should assert, the JAG designee will forward all available information to the appropriate department or agency.
(4)If the claim is one which the DoN should assert, the JAG designee will ensure an appropriate investigation into the circumstances underlying the claim is initiated and will provide notice to the injured party and all third parties who may be liable to the injured person and the United States under the MCRA or 10 U.S.C. 1095.
(b)*Investigating the claim* . While there is no prescribed form or content for investigating these claims, the claims file will contain sufficient information on which to base valuation, assertion, settlement, waiver, and/or compromise decisions.
(c)*Notice of claim* .
(1)The JAG designee will assert claims by mailing a notice of claim to identified third-party tortfeasors and their insurers or insurers for third-party beneficiary coverage. Many insured tortfeasors fail to notify their insurance companies of incidents. This failure may be a breach of the cooperation clause in the policy and may be grounds for the insurer to refuse to defend the insured or be responsible for any liability. The United States, as a claimant, may preclude such an invocation by giving the requisite notification itself. The purpose of the insurance clause is satisfied if the insurer receives actual notice of the incident, regardless of the informant. This notice should be mailed as soon as it appears an identified third party may be liable for the injuries. The prompt assertion of the claim will ensure that the government is named on the settlement draft. If the United States is not so named, and the claim has been asserted, the insurer settles at its own risk.
(2)The JAG designee will also notify the injured person or his legal representative of the Government's interest in the value of the medical care provided by the United States. This notice will advise that:
(i)The United States may be entitled to recover the reasonable value of medical care furnished or paid by the Federal government;
(ii)The injured person is required to cooperate in the efforts of the United States to recover the reasonable value of medical care furnished or paid for by the Federal government;
(d)*Administering the claim* .
(1)After investigating and asserting the claim, the JAG designee will maintain contact with all parties, their legal representatives, and insurers.
(2)An effort should be made to coordinate collection of the Federal government's interest with the injured person's action to collect on a claim for damages.
(i)Attorneys representing an injured person may be authorized to include the Federal government's claim as an item of special damages with the injured person's claim or suit.
(ii)An agreement that the Government's claim will be made a party of the injured person's action should be in writing and state the counsel fees will not be paid by the Government or computed on the basis of the Government's portion of recovery.
(3)If the injured person is not bringing an action for damages or is refusing to include the Federal Government's interest, the JAG designee will pursue independent collection. The United States is specifically allowed to intervene or join in any action at law brought by or through the injured person against the liable third person or brings an original suit in its own name or in the name of the injured person. The JAG designee will ensure all parties are aware that the United States must be a party to all subsequent collection negotiation.
(4)When the Government's interests are not being represented by the injured person or his/her attorney, and independent collection efforts have failed, the JAG designee will refer the claims to the DoJ for possible suit.
(e)*Access to DoN records and information* .
(1)Copies of medical records in cases that have potential claims will be sent by the MTFs to the cognizant JAG designee. It is considered a routine use of the records for the JAG designee to release them to an insurance company, if requested, in order to substantiate the claim. However, only the MTF as “keepers of the records” has the authority to make official releases of medical records to anyone else. Records will be protected in accordance with the provisions of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a, and confidentiality of quality assurance medical records, 10 U.S.C. 1102. Non-routine release requires the authorization from the injured individual or legal representative or an order from a court of competent jurisdiction. A clerk or attorney signed subpoena is not “an order from a court of competent jurisdiction.” Subpoenas are processed in accordance with 32 CFR part 725.
(2)Requests for testimony of any Navy employees will be processed in accordance with DoD Directive 5405.2, 32 CFR part 725, and SECNAVINST 5820.8A. If the injured person, or his or her attorney has signed an agreement to protect the Government's interest and is requesting the testimony of a locally available physician who treated the injured person, however, this request falls within an exception to the regulations. See 32 CFR 725.5(g)(3). In this situation, the injured person or the attorney need only ask the JAG designee for assistance in scheduling the testimony of the treating physician and the JAG designee will coordinate with the physician's command to determine availability. Such testimony is limited to factual issues. The definition of factual issues is slightly different under the regulations than it is in civil litigation. Opinions that are formed prior to, or contemporaneously with, the treatment at issue and are routinely required in the course of the proper performance of professional duties constitute essentially factual matters. For example, the physician will have opined at the time of treatment if further treatment will be necessary. The physician may testify to that as factual, not opinion, testimony. Opinions that are formed after treatment and are not required for continuing treatment, especially those that respond to hypothetical questions, are not factual and are considered to be expert testimony. This expert testimony, regardless of who requests it, will be processed in accordance with 32 CFR part 725, and must be forwarded to OJAG Code 14, General Litigation Division. Requests for expert testimony are rarely granted. 15. Section 757.19 is amended by revising paragraphs (a),
(b)introductory text, (b)(6), and removing paragraph
(c)to read as follows: § 757.19 Waiver and compromise.
(a)*General* . OJAG Code 15 (Claims and Tort Litigation) may authorize waiver or compromise of any claim that does not exceed $100,000.00. NLSO EURSWA may agree to compromise or waive claims for $40,000.00 or less. NLSO EURSWA claims in excess of $40,000.00 may be compromised or waived only with Code 15 approval.
(b)*Waiver and compromise* . The JAG designee may waive the Federal government's MCRA interest when a responsible third-party tortfeasor cannot be located, is judgment proof, or has refused to pay and litigation is not feasible. Waiver or compromise is also appropriate when, upon written request by the injured person or legal representative, it is determined that collection of the full amount of the claim would result in undue hardship to the injured person. In assessing undue hardship, the following should be considered:
(6)Amount of settlement or award from third-party tortfeasor or contract insurer; and 16. Section 757.20 is revised to read as follows: § 757.20 Receipt and release. The JAG designee will execute and deliver appropriate releases to third parties who have made full or agreed upon compromised payments. A copy of the release will be kept in the claims file. Dated: September 10, 2007. T.M. Cruz, Lieutenant, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer. [FR Doc. E7-18199 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. CGD07-07-203] Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Pinellas County, FL AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations. SUMMARY: The Commander, Seventh Coast Guard District, has issued a temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the Welch Causeway/Tom Stuart (SR 666) Bridge across the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, mile 122.8, at Madeira Beach, Pinellas County, Florida. This deviation is necessary to expedite repairs to the Welch Causeway Bridge. This deviation allows the bridge to open a single-leaf only with double-leaf openings available upon three hours notice to the bridge tender. DATES: This deviation is effective from 7 a.m. on September 19, 2007 through 5 p.m. on November 30, 2007. ADDRESSES: Materials referred to in this document are available for inspection or copying at Commander (dpb), Seventh Coast Guard District, 909 S.E. 1st Avenue, Room 432, Miami, Florida 33131 between 7 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is
(305)415-6744. The Seventh Coast Guard District Bridge Branch maintains the public docket for this temporary deviation. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Michael Lieberum, Bridge Branch,
(305)415-6744 or e-mail *Michael.b.lieberum@uscg.mil.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Coastal Marine Construction has requested a deviation from the regulation published in 33 CFR 117.287(l) that states “the draw of the Welch Causeway (SR 699) bridge, mile 122.8 at Madeira Beach shall open on signal * * *” A deviation from the aforementioned schedule in 33 CFR 117.287(l) is necessary for worker safety and to expedite repairs to the Welch Causeway Bridge. This deviation will remain in effect from 7 a.m. on September 19, 2007 through 5 p.m. on November 30, 2007. The Welch Causeway/Tom Stuart Bridge will open a single-leaf only on the hour and half-hour. A double-leaf opening will be available so long as a three hour notice to the bridge tender is provided. Vessels in any situation that endangers life or property will be allowed to pass through the bridge on signal. In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35, the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule on November 30, 2007. Dated: August 30, 2007. Greg Shapley, Chief, Bridge Administration, Seventh Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E7-18403 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 38 CFR Part 38 RIN 2900-AM64 Government-Furnished Headstone and Marker Regulations AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This final rule amends the Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA)regulations applicable to Government-furnished headstones or markers for placement in a national, State veterans, or private cemetery. The final rule specifies that a veteran's spouse or surviving spouse, whose remains are unavailable for burial, and who died after November 11, 1998, is eligible for a memorial headstone or marker for placement in a national or State veterans cemetery. This final rule also specifies that a veteran's dependent child, whose remains are unavailable for burial, and who died after December 22, 2006, is eligible for a memorial headstone or marker for placement in a national or State veterans cemetery. Lastly, this final rule extends for 1 year the authority to provide a Government-furnished headstone or marker for already marked graves of eligible veterans whose deaths occurred on or after September 11, 2001, for placement in private cemeteries. This final rule is necessary to incorporate statutory amendments into VA regulations. DATES: *Effective Date:* September 19, 2007. *Applicability Dates:* The amendments to 38 CFR 38.630 shall apply to requests for memorialization of a veteran's spouse or surviving spouse whose death occurred after November 11, 1998, and to requests for memorialization of a veteran's dependent child whose death occurred after December 22, 2006. The amendments to 38 CFR 38.631 apply to eligible veteran deaths occurring on or after September 11, 2001. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deanna Wilson, Chief, Legislative and Regulatory Division, National Cemetery Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420. Telephone:
(202)273-5306 (this is not a toll-free number). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Cemetery Administration administers VA's memorial benefit programs, which include providing interment or memorialization of eligible deceased veterans, their spouses, and eligible dependents in national or State veterans cemeteries. For eligible veterans, VA provides, upon request, to any cemetery in the world, a Government-furnished headstone or marker to mark the burial location of a deceased veteran's remains. Under Public Law 107-103, the Veterans Education and Benefits Expansion Act of 2001, VA had authority to furnish a Government marker to mark the grave of a veteran buried in a private cemetery, regardless of whether the grave was already marked with a privately purchased headstone or marker. This authority expired on December 31, 2006; however, Public Law 109-461, the Veterans Benefits, Health Care, and Information Technology Act of 2006, extended this authority until December 31, 2007. The Act also amended the governing statute, 38 U.S.C. 2306(d), to clarify that VA could furnish either a headstone or a marker and to clarify the requirements for delivery and placement of Government-furnished headstones and markers. This final rule amends 38 CFR 38.631 to make it consistent with the amended statute. VA also furnishes a memorial headstone or marker with the mandatory inscription “In Memory Of” to commemorate certain individuals whose remains are not available for interment, i.e., have not been recovered or identified, were buried at sea, were donated to science, or were cremated and the ashes scattered. Originally, VA was authorized to furnish a memorial headstone or marker only for an eligible veteran, and the headstone or marker had to be placed in a national cemetery. However, Public Law 105-368, the Veterans Programs Enhancement Act of 1998, permitted a veteran's memorial headstone or marker to be placed in a national, state or private cemetery. Public Law 105-368 also expanded eligibility to include a veteran's spouse or surviving spouse whose remains are unavailable and permitted a memorial headstone or marker to be placed in a national or State veterans cemetery for deaths occurring after November 11, 1998. Public Law 109-461 recently expanded eligibility to an eligible dependent child of a veteran whose remains are unavailable and permits placement of a memorial headstone or marker in a national or State veterans cemetery. The expanded eligibility applies to individuals who die after December 22, 2006. This final rule amends 38 CFR 38.630 to make it consistent with the amended statute. Administrative Procedure Act Because these amendments merely reflect statutory changes, this rule-making is exempt from the prior notice-and-comment and delayed-effective-date requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553. Paperwork Reduction Act This document contains no provisions constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)previously approved all collections of information referenced in this final rule under control number 2900-0222. This rule does not change those collections. Executive Order 12866 Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). The Executive Order classifies a “significant regulatory action,” requiring review by OMB unless OMB waives such review, as any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1)Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;
(2)create a serious inconsistency or interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3)materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4)raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. The economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this final rule have been examined and it has been determined not to be a significant regulatory action under the Executive Order 12866. Regulatory Flexibility Act The initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, are not applicable to this rule because a notice of proposed rulemaking is not required for this rule. Even so, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act. This final rule would not affect any small entities. Only individual VA beneficiaries would be directly affected. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this final rule is also exempt from the regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604. Unfunded Mandates The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in an expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. This final rule would have no such effect on State, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers and Titles The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance program numbers and titles for this final rule are 64.201, National Cemeteries; and 64.202, Procurement of Headstones and Markers and/or Presidential Memorial Certificates. List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 38 Administrative practice and procedure, Cemeteries, Veterans. Approved: August 27, 2007. Gordon H. Mansfield, Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs. For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Veterans Affairs amends 38 CFR part 38 as set forth below: PART 38—NATIONAL CEMETERIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 1. The authority citation for part 38 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a), 2306, unless otherwise noted. 2. Revise § 38.630(c) to read as follows: § 38.630 Headstones and markers.
(c)*Memorial headstones or markers.* VA will furnish, when requested, a *memorial* headstone or marker to commemorate an eligible individual whose remains are unavailable. A Government memorial headstone or marker for placement in a national cemetery will be of the standard design authorized for the cemetery in which it will be placed. In addition to the authorized inscription on a Government memorial headstone or marker, the phrase “In Memory Of” is mandatory.
(1)*Eligible individuals.* An eligible individual for purposes of paragraph
(c)is:
(i)A veteran, which includes an individual who dies in the active military, naval, or air service;
(ii)The spouse or surviving spouse of a veteran, which includes an unremarried surviving spouse whose subsequent remarriage was terminated by death or divorce; or
(iii)An eligible dependent child of a veteran.
(A)A dependent child of a veteran is eligible if the child is under the age of 21 years, or under the age of 23 years if pursuing a course of instruction at an approved educational institution.
(B)A dependent child of a veteran is also eligible if the child is unmarried and became permanently physically or mentally disabled and incapable of self-support before reaching the age of 21 years, or before reaching the age of 23 years if pursuing a course of instruction at an approved educational institution.
(2)*Unavailable remains.* An individual's remains are considered unavailable if they:
(i)Have not been recovered or identified;
(ii)Were buried at sea, whether by the individual's own choice or otherwise;
(iii)Were donated to science; or
(iv)Were cremated and the ashes scattered without interment of any portion of the ashes.
(3)*Placement of memorial headstones or markers.*
(i)*Veterans.* A Government memorial headstone or marker to commemorate a veteran may be placed in a national cemetery, in a State veterans cemetery, or in a private cemetery.
(ii)*Other eligible individuals.* A Government memorial headstone or marker to commemorate a veteran's spouse or surviving spouse, who died after November 11, 1998, may be placed in a national cemetery or in a State veterans cemetery. A Government memorial headstone or marker to commemorate a veteran's dependent child who died after December 22, 2006, may be placed in a national cemetery or in a State veterans cemetery. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 2306) § 38.631 [Amended] 3. Amend § 38.631 as follows: a. In paragraphs (a), (c), (d), and (e), remove “marker” each place it appears and add, in its place, “headstone or marker”. b. In paragraph
(f)remove “markers” and add, in its place, “headstones or markers”. c. In paragraph
(g)remove “marker” and add, in its place, “headstone or marker” and remove “December 31, 2006” and add, in its place, “December 31, 2007”. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 2306) [FR Doc. E7-18503 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 [EPA-R04-OAR-2007-0548-200741; FRL-8466-4] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Georgia: Redesignation of Macon, Georgia 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment for Ozone AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to approve a request submitted on June 15, 2007, from the State of Georgia, through the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD), to redesignate the Macon 8-hour ozone nonattainment area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The Macon 8-hour ozone area is comprised of Bibb County, and a portion of Monroe County located in middle Georgia (hereafter referred to as the “Macon Area”). EPA's approval of the redesignation request is based on the determination that Georgia has demonstrated that the Macon Area has met the criteria for redesignation to attainment specified in the Clean Air Act (CAA), including the determination that the Macon Area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard. Additionally, EPA is approving a revision to the Georgia State Implementation Plan
(SIP)including the 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for the Macon Area that contains the new regional 2020 motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) for nitrogen oxides (NO <sup>X</sup> ) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Through this action, EPA is also finding the new regional 2020 MVEBs adequate for the purposes of transportation conformity. DATES: *Effective Date:* This rule will be effective October 19, 2007. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2007-0548. All documents in the docket are listed on the *www.regulations.gov* Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stacy Harder, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, Region 4, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Harder can be reached via telephone number at
(404)562-9042 or electronic mail at *Harder.Stacy@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. What Is the Background for the Actions? II. What Actions Is EPA Taking? III. Why Is EPA Taking These Actions? IV. What Are the Effects of These Actions? V. Final Action VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What is the Background for the Actions? On June 15, 2007, Georgia, through EPD, submitted a request to redesignate the Macon Area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard, and for EPA approval of the Georgia SIP revision containing a maintenance plan for the Macon Area. In an action published on August 2, 2007 (72 FR 42354), EPA proposed to approve the redesignation of Macon Area to attainment. EPA also proposed approval of Georgia's plan for maintaining the 8-hour NAAQS as a SIP revision, and proposed to approve the new regional 2020 MVEBs for the Macon Area that were contained in the maintenance plan. In the August 2, 2007, proposed action, EPA also provided information on the status of its transportation conformity adequacy determination for the Macon Area MVEBs. EPA received no comments on the August 2, 2007, proposal. This rule is EPA's final action following the August 2, 2007, proposal. In this action, EPA is also finalizing its determination that the new regional MVEBs for the Macon Area are adequate for transportation conformity purposes. The new regional MVEBs included in the maintenance plan area as follows: Macon 2020 MVEBs [Tons per day] 2020 VOCs 7.8744 NO <sup>X</sup> 14.7712 EPA's adequacy public comment period on these MVEBs began on June 21, 2007, and closed on July 23, 2007. No comments were received during EPA's adequacy public comment period. Through this **Federal Register** document, EPA is finding the new regional 2020 MVEBs, as contained in Georgia's submittal, adequate. These MVEBs meet the adequacy criteria contained in the Transportation Conformity Rule. The new regional MVEBs must be used for future transportation conformity determinations. As was discussed in greater detail in the August 2, 2007, proposal, this redesignation is for the 8-hour ozone designations finalized in 2004 (69 FR 23857, April 30, 2007). Various aspects of EPA's Phase 1 8-hour ozone implementation rule were challenged in court and on December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit Court) 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. (SCAQMD)* v. *EPA* , 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006). On June 8, 2007, in response to several petitions for rehearing, the D.C. Circuit Court 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 CAA 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 8th 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 8th decision affirmed 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 CAA, 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. The June 8th 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. With respect to the requirement for transportation conformity under the 1-hour standard, the Court in its June 8th decision clarified that for those areas with 1-hour MVEBs in their 1-hour maintenance plans, 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 Macon Area was never designated nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone standard and thus does not have 1-hour MVEBs to consider. For the above reasons, and those set forth in the August 2, 2007, proposal for the redesignation of the Macon Area, 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 Macon to attainment. Even in light of the Court's decisions, redesignation is appropriate under the relevant redesignation provisions of the CAA and longstanding policies regarding redesignation requests. II. What Actions Is EPA Taking? EPA is taking final action to approve Georgia's redesignation request and to change the legal designation of the Macon Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The Macon Area is composed of Bibb County, and a portion of Monroe County located in middle Georgia. EPA is also approving Georgia's 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for the Macon Area (such approval being one of the CAA criteria for redesignation to attainment status). The maintenance plan is designed to help keep the Macon Area in attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2020. These approval actions are based on EPA's determination that Georgia has demonstrated that the Macon Area has met the criteria for redesignation to attainment specified in the CAA, including a demonstration that the Macon Area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA's analyses of Georgia's 8-hour ozone redesignation request and maintenance plan are described in detail in the proposed rule published August 2, 2007 (72 FR 42354). Consistent with the CAA, the maintenance plan that EPA is approving also includes new regional 2020 MVEBs for NO <sup>X</sup> and VOCs for the Macon Area. In this action, EPA is approving these new regional 2020 MVEBs. For regional emission analysis years that involve years prior to 2020, there are no applicable budgets (for the purpose of conducting transportation conformity analyses), so the transportation conformity partners should consult with the area's interagency consultation group to determine the appropriate interim tests to use. For regional emission analysis years that involve the year 2020 and beyond, the applicable budgets, for the purpose of conducting transportation conformity analyses, are the new regional 2020 MVEBs. In this action, EPA is also finding adequate and approving the Macon Area's new regional MVEBs for NO <sup>X</sup> and VOCs. III. Why Is EPA Taking These Actions? EPA has determined that the Macon Area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard and has also determined that Georgia has demonstrated that all other criteria for the redesignation of the Macon Area from nonattainment to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS have been met. See, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA is also taking final action to approve the maintenance plan for the Macon Area as meeting the requirements of sections 175A and 107(d) of the CAA. Furthermore, EPA is finding adequate and approving the new regional 2020 MVEBs contained in Georgia's maintenance plan because these MVEBs are consistent with maintenance for the Macon Area. In the August 2, 2007, proposal to redesignate the Macon Area, EPA described the applicable criteria for redesignation to attainment and its analysis of how those criteria have been met. The rationale for EPA's findings and actions is set forth in the proposed rulemaking and summarized in this rulemaking. IV. What Are the Effects of These Actions? Approval of the redesignation request changes the legal designation of the Macon Area for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, found at 40 CFR Part 81. The approval also incorporates into the Georgia SIP a plan for maintaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Macon Area through 2020. The maintenance plan includes contingency measures to remedy future violations of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and establishes new regional MVEBs for the year 2020 for the Macon Area. V. Final Action After evaluating Georgia's redesignation request, EPA is taking final action to approve the redesignation and change the legal designation of Macon, Georgia from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Through this action, EPA is also approving into the Georgia SIP the 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for the Macon Area, which includes the new regional 2020 MVEBs of 7.8744 tpd for VOCs, and 14.7712 tpd for NO <sup>X</sup> . Within 24 months from the publication date for this final rule, the Georgia transportation partners will need to demonstrate conformity to these new regional MVEBs pursuant to 40 CFR 93.104(e) as effectively amended by section 172(c)(2)(E) of the CAA as added by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act—A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), which was signed into law on August 10, 2005. VI. 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 affects the status of a geographical area, does not impose any new requirements on sources or allow a state to avoid adopting or implementing other requirements, 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 is not economically significant and because the Agency does not have reason to believe that the rule concerns an environmental health risk or safety risk that may disproportionately affect children. 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 CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 19, 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) of the CAA.) List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. 40 CFR Part 81 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas. Dated: September 4, 2007. J.I. Palmer, Jr., Regional Administrator, Region 4. 40 CFR part 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 L—Georgia 2. Section 52.570(e) is amended by adding a new entry “25” at the end of the table to read as follows: § 52.570 Identification of plan.
(e)* * * EPA-Approved Georgia Non-Regulatory Provisions Name of nonregulatory SIP provision Applicable geographic or nonattainment area State submittal date/effective date EPA approval date * * * * * * * 25. Macon 8-hour Ozone Maintenance Plan Macon, GA encompassing a portion of Monroe County 06/15/07 09/19/07 [Insert first page of publication] 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 § 81.311, the table entitled “Georgia-Ozone (8-Hour Standard)” is amended by revising the entries for “Bibb County” and “Monroe County (part),” to read as follows: § 81.311 Georgia. Georgia-Ozone (8-Hour Standard) Designated area Designation a Date 1 Type Category/classification Date 1 Type * * * * * * * Macon, GA: 3 Bibb County 10/19/07 Attainment. Monroe County
(part)10/19/07 Attainment. From the point where Bibb and Monroe Counties meet at U.S. Hwy 23/Georgia Hwy 87 follow the Bibb/Monroe County line westward 150′ from the U.S. Hwy 23/Georgia Hwy 87 centerline, proceed northward 150′ west of and parallel to the U.S. Hwy 23/Georgia Hwy 87 centerline to 33 degrees, 04 minutes, 30 seconds; proceed westward to 83 degrees, 49 minutes, 45 seconds; proceed due south to 150′ north of the Georgia Hwy 18 centerline, proceed eastward 150′ north of and parallel to the Georgia Hwy 18 centerline to 1150′ west of the U.S. Hwy 23/Georgia Hwy 87 centerline, proceed southward 1150′ west of and parallel to the U.S. Hwy 23/Georgia Hwy 87 centerline to the Monroe/Bibb County line; then follow the Monroe/Bibb County line to 150′ west of the U.S. Hwy 23/Georgia Hwy 87 centerline * * * * * * * a Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified. 1 This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted. * * * * * * * 3 The boundary change is effective October 13, 2006. * * * * * * * [FR Doc. E7-17976 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0106; FRL-8147-8] Pendimethalin; Pesticide Tolerance AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for combined residues of pendimethalin in or on artichoke, globe; asparagus; brassica head and stem, subgroup 5-A; and grape. Interregional Research Project Number 4 requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). DATES: This regulation is effective September 19, 2007. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before November 19, 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-2007-0106. 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 website 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: Susan Stanton, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703)305-5218; e-mail address: *stanton.susan@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 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-2007-0106 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 November 19, 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-2007-0106, by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal* : *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail* : Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP)Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. • *Delivery* : OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only accepted during the Docket’s normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Docket Facility telephone number is
(703)305-5805. II. Petition for Tolerance In the **Federal Register** of April 4, 2007 (72 FR 16352-16356) (FRL-8119-2), 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 6E7129) by Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.361 be amended by establishing tolerances for combined residues of the herbicide pendimethalin, *N* -(1-ethylpropyl)-3,4-dimethyl-2,6-dinitrobenzenamine, and its metabolite, 4-[(1-ethylpropyl)amino]-2-methyl-3,5-dinitrobenzyl alcohol, in or on artichoke, globe at 0.05 parts per million (ppm); asparagus at 0.1 ppm; brassica head and stem, subgroup 5A at 0.05; and grape at 0.05 ppm. That notice referenced a summary of the petition prepared by BASF Corporation, the registrant, which is available to the public in the docket, *http://www.regulations.gov* . There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing. Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has revised the tolerances for artichoke, globe; asparagus; brassica, head and stem vegetables, subgroup 5-A; and grape. The reason for these changes is explained in Unit V. III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue....” These provisions were added to FFDCA by the Food Quality Protection Act
(FQPA)of 1996. Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA 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 combined residues of pendimethalin and its metabolite on artichoke, globe at 0.1 ppm; asparagus at 0.15 ppm; brassica head and stem, subgroup 5-A at 0.1; and grape at 0.1 ppm. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with establishing the tolerance follows. A. Toxicological Profile EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by pendimethalin, 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* in Appendix A of the document *Pendimethalin. Human Health Risk Assessment for the Proposed Food Uses of the Herbicide on Artichoke, Globe; Asparagus; Brassica Head and Stem Vegetables, Subgroup 5A; and Grape (PP#6E7129)* . The referenced document is available in the docket established by this action, which is described under ADDRESSES , and is identified as EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0106-0003 in that docket. 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
(UFs)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 UFs. 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 UFs 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/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm* . A summary of the toxicological endpoints for pendimethalin used for human risk assessment can be found at *http://www.regulations.gov* in document *Pendimethalin. Human Health Risk Assessment for the Proposed Food Uses of the Herbicide on Artichoke, Globe; Asparagus; Brassica Head and Stem Vegetables, Subgroup 5A; and Grape (PP#6E7129)* at pages 11-12. The referenced document is identified as EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0106-0003 in that docket. C. Exposure Assessment 1. *Dietary exposure from food and feed uses* . In evaluating dietary exposure to pendimethalin, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing pendimethalin tolerances in (40 CFR 180.361). EPA assessed dietary exposures from pendimethalin 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 pendimethalin; 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 United States Department of Agriculture
(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. iii. *Cancer* . EPA has classified pendimethalin as a “Group C” (possible human) carcinogen, based on thyroid follicular cell adenomas observed in rats. The chronic dietary risk assessment based on the cPAD, however, is considered to be protective of any potential cancer effects, because mode of action studies are available that demonstrate that the thyroid tumors are due to a thyroid-pituitary imbalance, and also since pendimethalin was shown to be nonmutagenic in mammalian somatic cells and germ cells. Therefore, a separate cancer exposure assessment was not conducted. iv. *Anticipated residue and percent crop treated
(PCT)information* . EPA did not use anticipated residue or PCT information in the dietary assessment for pendimethalin. Tolerance level residues and 100 PCT were assumed for all food commodities. 2. *Dietary exposure from drinking water* . The Agency lacks sufficient monitoring data to complete a comprehensive dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for pendimethalin 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 pendimethalin. 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 Pesticide Root Zone Model /Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) models, the estimated environmental concentrations
(EECs)of pendimethalin for acute exposures are estimated to be 77.7 parts per billion
(ppb)for surface water and 0.036 ppb for ground water. The EECs for chronic exposures are estimated to be 6.0 ppb for surface water and 0.036 ppb for ground water. Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. As explained in Unit III.C.1., an acute dietary risk assessment was not conducted for pendimethalin. For the chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 6.0 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). Pendimethalin is currently registered for the following residential non-dietary sites: Recreational and residential turf (including home lawns, golf courses, athletic fields, etc.) and ornamentals. EPA assessed residential exposure based on applications to residential turf (i.e., home lawns), since this use is expected to result in the greatest residential exposure. There is a potential for short-term exposure of homeowners applying products containing pendimethalin on home lawns. There is also a potential for short-term post-application exposure of adults and children entering lawn and recreation areas previously treated with pendimethalin. Exposures from treated recreational sites are expected to be similar to, or lower than, those from treated residential turf sites; therefore, a separate exposure assessment for recreational turf sites was not conducted. EPA assessed exposures from the following residential turf post-application scenarios: • Adult and toddler post-application dermal exposure from contact with treated lawns. • Toddlers’ incidental ingestion of pesticide residues on lawns from hand-to-mouth transfer. • Toddlers’ object-to-mouth transfer from mouthing of pesticide-treated turfgrass. • Toddlers’ incidental ingestion of soil from pesticide-treated residential areas. The post-application risk assessment was conducted in accordance with the *Residential Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)* and recommended approaches of the Health Effects Division’s (HED’s) Science Advisory Council for Exposure (ExpoSAC). 4. *Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of toxicity* . Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of 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 pendimethalin and any other substances and pendimethalin 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 pendimethalin 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 database 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 UFs and/or special FQPA safety factors, as appropriate. 2. *Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity* . The pre- and postnatal toxicology database for pendimethalin includes rat and rabbit developmental toxicity studies and a 2-generation reproduction toxicity study in rats. In the rat developmental study, there were no maternal or developmental effects noted at any dose level tested. However, the study is considered adequate and a new study is not required because in other rat studies, thyroid toxicity was seen at significantly lower doses than the highest dose tested (500 milligrams/kilograms/day (mg/kg/day)) in this study. If thyroid parameters had been measured, maternal toxicity would likely have been demonstrated. The rabbit toxicity study with pendimethalin did not demonstrate maternal or developmental toxicity at doses up to 60 mg/kg/day (highest dose tested). Since neither maternal nor developmental toxicity was seen at the highest dose tested, potential for increased sensitivity of the offspring could not be determined. In the 2-generation reproduction study in rats, there was no evidence of increased susceptibility of offspring. Effects in the pups (decreased pup body weight gain and possible decreased pups born alive and pup survival) were seen at doses that also resulted in parental toxicity (decreased body weight). 3. *Conclusion* . EPA has determined that the FQPA safety factor of 10X must be retained. This decision is based on the following findings: i. The toxicity database for pendimethalin contains all of the standard toxicity studies. However, there is uncertainty regarding potential thyroid effects seen in some of these studies. Based on the hormonal changes (alterations in thyroid weights and histopathological lesions) observed in several studies following oral administration of pendimethalin, it is likely that pendimethalin may cause disruption in the endocrine system. There is concern that perturbation of thyroid homeostasis may lead to hypothyroidism and possibly result in adverse effects on the developing nervous system. Consequently, EPA has recommended that a developmental thyroid assay be conducted to evaluate the impact of pendimethalin on thyroid hormones, structure, and/or thyroid hormone homeostasis during development. This study has not yet been submitted. ii. There is no indication that pendimethalin is a neurotoxic chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity. iii. There is no evidence that pendimethalin 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. However, the developmental studies were not adequate to fully assess the potential for susceptibility. Consequently, there is concern for potential increased sensitivity or susceptibility in offspring regarding thyroid effects. iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. Conservative ground and surface water modeling estimates were used. Similarly, conservative Residential SOPs were used to assess post-application exposure of children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by pendimethalin. Although the exposure estimate is very conservative and there are no neurotoxic concerns for pendimethalin, there is sufficient uncertainty regarding thyroid effects, particularly thyroid effects in the young, that EPA is retaining the 10X FQPA safety factor. EPA has also determined that the traditional 10X uncertainty factor to account for interspecies variation may be reduced to 3X, since it has been established that rats are more susceptible to thyroid effects than humans. These factors, together with the traditional 10X uncertainty factor to account for intraspecies variation, result in a total uncertainty factor of 300X (10X, 3X, and 10X). E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety 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 UFs. 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 margin of exposure
(MOE)called for by the product of all applicable UFs is not exceeded. 1. *Acute risk* . None of the toxicology studies available for pendimethalin has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a 1-day or single exposure; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary. 2. *Chronic risk* . Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that exposure to pendimethalin from food and water will utilize 16% of the cPAD for children, 1 to 2 years old, the population group with the greatest estimated exposure. Based the use pattern, chronic residential exposure to residues of pendimethalin is not expected. 3. *Short-term risk* . Short-term aggregate exposure takes into account residential exposure plus chronic exposure from food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Pendimethalin is currently registered for uses that could result in short-term residential exposure and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic food and water and short-term exposures for pendimethalin. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures, EPA has concluded that food, water and residential exposures aggregated result in aggregate MOEs of 650 for adult males, 580 for adult females, and 390 to 410 for children, 1 to 2 years old (depending on the application rate assessed). The aggregate MOEs for adults are based on the residential turf scenario and include combined food, drinking water and post-application dermal exposures. The aggregate MOEs for children include food, drinking water, post-application dermal and incidental oral exposures from entering turf areas previously treated with pendimethalin. 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). Pendimethalin is not registered for use on any sites that would result in intermediate-term 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* . Pendimethalin has been classified as a “Group C” (possible human) carcinogen, based on thyroid follicular cell adenomas observed in rats. As explained in Unit III.C.1., risk assessments based on the endpoint selected for the cPAD are considered to be protective of any potential carcinogenic risk from exposure to pendimethalin. Based on the results of the chronic risk assessment discussed above in Unit III.E.2., EPA concludes that pendimethalin is not expected to pose a cancer risk. 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 Pendimethalin residues. IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology Adequate enforcement methodology is available to enforce the tolerance expression. The PAM VII lists four gas chromatography, with electron capture detection (GC/ECD), methods for the determination of pendimethalin residues of concern in plant commodities. Methods I and III determine residues of the parent, whereas Methods II and IV determine residues of the regulated metabolite. An adequate confirmatory GC/MS method is also available and 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 currently no Canadian, Mexican, or Codex maximum residue limits
(MRLs)for pendimethalin on the commodities for which tolerances are being established. V. Conclusion Based upon review of the data supporting the petitions, EPA has modified the proposed tolerances as follows: Artichoke, globe from 0.05 ppm to 0.1 ppm; asparagus from 0.1 ppm to 0.15 ppm; brassica head and stem, subgroup 5-A from 0.05 ppm to 0.1 ppm; and grape from 0.05 ppm to 0.1 ppm. The tolerances for artichoke, globe; brassica head and stem, subgroup 5-A; and grape were determined based on the sum of the method Limits of Quantitation
(LOQ)for parent pendimethalin (0.05 ppm) and its regulated metabolite (0.05 ppm), since no detectable residues were found in the submitted residue field trials. The tolerance for asparagus was determined using the Agency’s Tolerance Spreadsheet in accordance with the Agency’s *Guidance for Setting Pesticide Tolerances Based on Field Trial Data* . Therefore, tolerances are established for combined residues of pendimethalin, *N* -(1-ethylpropyl)-3,4-dimethyl-2,6-dinitrobenzenamine, and its metabolite, 4-[(1-ethylpropyl)amino]-2-methyl-3,5-dinitrobenzyl alcohol, in or on artichoke, globe at 0.1 ppm; asparagus at 0.15 ppm; brassica head and stem, subgroup 5-A at 0.1 ppm; and grape at 0.1 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
(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). VII. Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq* ., generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of this final rule in the **Federal Register** . This final rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: September 7, 2007. Lois Rossi, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows: PART 180—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. 2. Section 180.361 is amended by alphabetically adding the following commodities to the table in paragraph
(a)to read as follows: 180.361 Pendimethalin; tolerances for residues.
(a)* * * Commodity Parts per million * * * * * Artichoke, globe 0.1 Asparagus 0.15 * * * * * Brassica head and stem, subgroup 5-A 0.1 * * * * * Grape 0.1 * * * * * [FR Doc. E7-18259 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0539; FRL-8147-3] Trifloxystrobin; Pesticide Tolerance AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a tolerance for combined residues of Trifloxystrobin and the acid metabolite CGA-321113 in or on grass, forage and grass, hay. Bayer CropScience requested this tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). DATES: This regulation is effective September 19, 2007. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before November 19, 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-2007-0539. 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 website 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: Janet Whitehurst, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703)305-6129; e-mail address: *whitehurst.janet@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-2007-0539 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 November 19, 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-2007-0539, by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal* : *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail* : Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP)Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. • *Delivery* : OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Docket Facility telephone number is
(703)305-5805. II. Petition for Tolerance In the **Federal Register** of August 1, 2007 (72 FR 42072) (FRL-8138-1), 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 petition (PP 6F7024) by Bayer CropScience, P.O. Box 12014, 2 T.W. Alexander Dr., Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.555 be amended by establishing a tolerance for combined residues of the fungicide Trifloxystrobin, (benzeneacetic acid, (E,E)-α-(methoxyimino)-2-[[[[1-[3-(trifluoromethyl) phenyl]ethylidene]amino]oxy] methyl]-methyl ester) and the free form of its acid metabolite CGA-321113 (E,E)-methoxyimino-[2-[1-(3-trifluoromethylphenyl)-ethylideneaminooxymethyl]-phenyl] acetic acid, in or on grass, forage at 10 parts per million
(ppm)and grass, hay at 14 ppm. That notice referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Bayer CropScience, the registrant, which is available to the public in the docket, *http://www.regulations.gov* . Comments were received on the notice of filing. EPA's response to these comments is discussed in Unit IV.C. below. Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has modified the tolerances proposed for grass, forage and grass, hay. The appropriate tolerances for grass forage and hay were calculated to be 12 and 17 ppm, respectively. Although residue data were also provided for grass straw and seed screenings, tolerances are not required on these commodities as the Agency no longer considers them to be significant livestock feedstuffs. The recommended tolerance levels for grass forage and hay were determined considering recent Agency Guidance (Guidance for Setting Pesticide Tolerances Based on Field Trial Data). 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 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 FFDCA 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 combined residues of Trifloxystrobin, (benzeneacetic acid, (E,E)-α-(methoxyimino)-2-[[[[1-[3-(trifluoromethyl) phenyl]ethylidene]amino]oxy] methyl]-methyl ester) and the free form of its acid metabolite CGA-321113 (E,E)-methoxyimino-[2-[1-(3-trifluoromethylphenyl)-ethylideneaminooxymethyl]-phenyl] acetic acid (hereinafter referrred to as Trifloxsytrobin) on grass, forage at 12 ppm and grass, hay at 17 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 Trifloxystrobin 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 in the *Trifloxystrobin: Human Health Risk Assessment for Section 3 Registration for the Proposed Uses on Grasses Grown for Seed.* at *http://www.regulations.gov* . The referenced document is available in the docket established by this action, which is described under ADDRESSES , and is identified as EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0539 in that docket. 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
(UFs)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 UFs. Short-term, intermediate-term, 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 UFs 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/oppfead1/trac/science* ; *http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm* ; *http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/trac/science/aggregate.pdf* A summary of the toxicological endpoints for Trifloxystrobin used for human risk assessment can be found at *http://www.regulations.gov* in document *Trifloxystrobin: Human Health Risk Assessment for Section 3 Registration for the Proposed Uses on Grasses Grown for Seed. Petition No: 6F7024* at page 16 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0539. C. Exposure Assessment 1. *Dietary exposure from food and feed uses* . In evaluating dietary exposure to Trifloxystrobin, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing Trifloxystrobin tolerances in (40 CFR 180.555). EPA assessed dietary exposures from Trifloxystrobin 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. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption information from the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA)1994-1996 and 1998 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII). As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed 100% crop treated
(CT)and tolerance level residues for each commodity. ii. *Chronic exposure* . In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 1994-1996 and 1998 CSFII. As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed 100% CT and tolerance level residues for each commodity. iii. *Cancer* . The Agency classified trifloxystrobin as a “not likely carcinogen;” therefore, quantification of human cancer risk is not required and a cancer dietary assessment was not performed. iv. *Anticipated residue and percent crop treated
(PCT)information* . The Agency did not use anticipated residue estimates or PCT information in the trifloxystrobin dietary exposure assessment. 2. *Dietary exposure from drinking water* . The Agency lacks sufficient monitoring data to complete a comprehensive dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for Trifloxystrobin 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 Trifloxystrobin. 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), Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) models, and rice paddies method the estimated environmental concentrations
(EECs)of Trifloxystrobin and the metabolite CGA-321113 for acute exposures are estimated to be 92 parts per billion
(ppb)for surface water and 3.4 ppb for ground water. The EECs for chronic exposures are estimated to be 140 ppb for surface water and 3.4 ppb for ground water. Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 92 ppb was used to access the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 140 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). Trifloxystrobin is currently registered for the following residential non-dietary sites: Turfgrass and ornamentals. EPA assessed residential exposure using the following assumption: Non-occupational postapplication contact with trifloxystrobin following Compass® use on turfgrass is the most common and worst case contributor to such exposures. 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 Trifloxystrobin and any other substances and Trifloxystrobin 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 Trifloxystrobin 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 the 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 database 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 UFs and/or special FQPA safety factors, as appropriate. 2. *Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity* . In the prenatal developmental study in rats there was no developmental toxicity at the Limit Dose. In the prenatal developmental study in rabbits, developmental toxicity was seen at a dose that was higher than the dose that caused maternal toxicity. In the 2-generation reproduction study, there was no offspring toxicity at the highest dose tested. 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 Trifloxystrobin is complete except for an acute neurotoxicity study which is classified as unacceptable. The toxicity database contains developmental toxicity studies in two species (rats and rabbits) and a 2-generation reproduction study in rats which are adequate to assess pre and/or post natal susceptibility to infants and children. Although the available, submitted acute neurotoxicity study was found to be unacceptable, based on a weight-of-the evidence review of the available data, the lack of this study does not impact the Agency's ability to make an FQPA safety factor decision. Given that there was no evidence of neurotoxicity in this study at the Limit Dose nor in the other subchronic and chronic studies in the database there is not an uncertainty concerning neurotoxic effects and EPA has reliable data to show that removal of the FQPA safety factor is safe for children. Additionally, these data demonstrate that a developmental neurotoxicity study is not required for this pesticide. ii. There is no residual concern for pre- or post-natal toxicity or increased sensitivity in infants and children. In both the rat developmental study and the 2-generation reproduction study there were no effects in fetal animals or offspring at the highest dose tested. Although developmental effects were seen in the rabbit developmental study, there was a clear NOAEL identified for these effects and that NOAEL was used in setting the aPAD. Moreover, adverse effects were seen in the adult animals in this study at a lower level. iii. 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. Similarly conservative Residential SOPs were used to assess post-application exposure to children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by Trifloxystrobin]. 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 UFs. For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the probability of additional cancer cases given aggregate exposure. Short-term, intermediate-term, and long-term risks are evaluated by comparing aggregate exposure to the LOC to ensure that the MOE called for by the product of all applicable UFs is not exceeded. 1. *Acute risk* . Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water to Trifloxystrobin will occupy <1% of the aPAD for the population group (females 13-49 years old) receiving the greatest exposure. 2. *Chronic risk* . Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that exposure to Trifloxystrobin from food and water will utilize 81% of the cPAD for the population group (children 1-2 years old, the most highly exposed subgroup). Based on the use pattern, chronic residential exposure to residues of Trifloxystrobin 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). Trifloxystrobin is currently registered for uses that could result in short-term residential exposure and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic food and water and short-term exposures for Trifloxystrobin. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures, EPA has concluded that food, water, and residential exposures aggregated result in aggregate MOEs greater than 100 for adults and children 1-2 years. Therefore, the Agency does not consider short term aggregate risk to be of concern. 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). Though residential exposure could occur intermediate-term aggregate risk is not expected based on the short soil half-life (about 2 days). Therefore, an intermediate-term aggregate risk assessment was not performed. 5. *Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population* . The Agency classified trifloxystrobin as a “not likely” human carcinogen. Therefore, trifloxystrobin is not expected to pose a cancer risk. 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 trifloxystrobin residues. IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology Adequate enforcement methodology (Gas Chromatography with a nitrogen phosphorus detector (GC/NPD method (Method AG-659A)) 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 currently no Canadian Maximum Residue Levels
(MRLs)for trifloxystrobin. Codex and Mexican MRLs have been established for trifloxystrobin in/on various commodities; however, there are no MRLs for the commodities associated with the proposed use of trifloxystrobin in/on grasses grown for seed. Also, the residue definition for both Codex and Mexican MRLs includes only parent compound in plant commodities, but the definition for Codex MRLs in livestock commodities includes parent and the acid metabolite, CGA321113. Therefore, harmonization in plant commodities is not possible at this time as the current U.S. tolerance definition includes the combined residues of trifloxystrobin and its free acid metabolite. Harmonization of the tolerance level in meat by-products of cattle, goats, and sheep is not possible at this time as the U.S. tolerance in meat by-products reflects higher potential exposures to various feedstuffs. C. Response to Comments One comment was received from B. Sachau. Ms. Sachau's comments regarding general exposure to pesticides contained no scientific data or evidence to rebut the Agency's conclusion that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to trilfoxystrobin, including all anticipated dietary exposures and other exposures for which there is reliable information. This comment as well as her comments regarding animal testing have been responded to by the Agency on several occasions. For examples, see the **Federal Register** issues of January 7, 2005 (70 FR 1349) (FRL-7691-4) and October 29, 2004 (69 FR 63083) (FRL-7681-9). V. Conclusion Therefore, the tolerance is established for combined residues of Trifloxystrobin, (benzeneacetic acid, (E,E)-α-(methoxyimino)-2-[[[[1-[3-(trifluoromethyl) phenyl]ethylidene]amino]oxy] methyl]-methyl ester) and the free form of its acid metabolite CGA-321113 (E,E)-methoxyimino-[2-[1-(3-trifluoromethylphenyl)-ethylideneaminooxymethyl]-phenyl] acetic acid in or on grass, forage at tolerance level 12 ppm and grass, hay at tolerance level 17 ppm. VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews This final rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of the 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 the 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 the FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled *Federalism* (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled *Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments* (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000) do not apply to this rule. In addition, This rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA)(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). VII. Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq* ., generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of this final rule in the **Federal Register** . This final rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: September 10, 2007. Daniel J. Rosenblatt, Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows: PART 180—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. 2. Section 180.555 is amended by alphabetically adding the following commodities in the table in paragraph (a): § 180.555 Trifloxystrobin; tolerances for residues.
(a)* * * Commodity Parts per million * * * * * Grass, forage 12 Grass, hay 17 * * * * * [FR Doc. E7-18371 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0297; FRL-8146-8] Desmedipham; Pesticide Tolerance AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a tolerance for residues of desmedipham in or on beet, garden, roots; beet, garden, tops and spinach. The Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR-4) requested this tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). DATES: This regulation is effective September 19, 2007. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before November 19, 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-2006-0297. 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 website 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: Sidney Jackson, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703)305-7610; e-mail address: jackson.sidney *@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-2006-0297 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 November 19, 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-2006-0297, by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal* : *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail* : Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP)Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. • *Delivery* : OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Docket Facility telephone number is
(703)305-5805. II. Petition for Tolerance In the **Federal Register** of April 21, 2006 (71 FR 20666) (FRL-8064-7), 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 6E7027) by the Interregional Research Group (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.353 be amended by establishing a tolerance for residues of the herbicide, desmedipham, (ethyl- *m* -hydroxycarbanilate carbanilate) in or on the raw agricultural commodities: Beet, garden, roots at 0.05 parts per million (ppm), beet, garden, tops at 1.0 ppm, and spinach at 6.0 ppm. That notice referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Bayer CropScience, the registrant, which is available to the public in the docket, *http://www.regulations.gov* . There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing. 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 FFDCA 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 beet, garden, roots at 0.05 ppm, beet, garden, tops at 1.0 ppm, and spinach at 6.0 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 desmedipham 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 in the Reregistration Eligibility Decision
(RED)for desmedipham and FQPA Tolerance Reassessment Progress Report
(TRED)for desmedipham (http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/desmedipham/) and at *www.regulations.gov* in document “Desmedipham: Human Health Risk Assessment for Petition 6E7027 dated February 1, 2007” in Docket ID EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0297. 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
(UFs)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 UFs. Short-term, intermediate-term, 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 UFs 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 desmedipham used for human risk assessment can be found at *http://www.regulations.gov* in document “Desmedipham: Human Health Risk Assessment for Petition 6E7027 dated February 1, 2007” at page number 6 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0297. Subsequent to completion of the February 1, 2007 risk assessment, EPA reevaluated the cancer classification of desmedipham. Previously, desmedipham was “tentatively” classified as a Group E carcinogen (evidence of non-carcinogenicity for humans) under the classification scheme in effect at the time. The classification was “tentative” pending submission of historical control data on the incidence of mammary gland fibroadenomas and information to address the number of animals examined at the low and mid-doses for histopathology in the chronic/carcinogenicity study in Wistar rats. To date, historical control data for the Wistar rat cancer study have not been submitted to the Agency. However, the need for this historical control data is alleviated by the submission of a new chronic/carcinogenicity study in Sprague Dawley rats. The new Sprague Dawley rat study examined doses comparable to those examined in the Wistar rat study. In this new cancer rat study, there was no treatment related increase in the incidence of mammary gland fibroadenomas and no increase in any other tumor type or in the total number of tumors. EPA has concluded that desmedipham should now be classified as “Not likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans” based on the lack of carcinogenic potential noted in the available studies. EPA's re-evaluation of the cancer classification can be found at *www.regulations.gov* in document “Desmedipham: Re-evaluation of Cancer Classification” in Docket ID EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0297. To assess acute dietary exposure, an endpoint and dose were selected from a developmental study in the rat. The maternal NOAEL was 10 milligrams/kilogram (mg/kg)/day based on increased methemoglobin at 100 mg/kg/day (LOAEL). An UF of 100 was applied to the acute toxicity endpoint resulting in an aPAD of 0.1 mg/kg bodyweight (bw)/day. The FQPA safety factor was reduced from 10x to 1x. To assess chronic dietary exposure, an endpoint and dose were selected from a two-generation reproduction study in rats. The NOAEL from this study was 4 mg/kg bw/day and the LOAEL was 20 mg/kg/day based on parental systemic toxicity of hemolytic anemia accompanied by significant increases in splenic weights and compensatory functioning of the thyroid. An UF of 100 (10x for interspecies extrapolation and 10x for intraspecies variability) was applied to the chronic toxicity endpoint resulting in a cPAD of 0.04 mg/kg bw/day. The FQPA Safety Factor
(SF)was reduced from 10x to 1x. C. Exposure Assessment 1. *Dietary exposure from food and feed uses* . In evaluating dietary exposure to desmedipham, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing desmedipham tolerances in (40 CFR 180.353). EPA assessed dietary exposures from desmedipham 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. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption information from the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(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 existing and proposed tolerances were treated and contain tolerance-level residues. ii. *Chronic exposure* . In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 1994-1996, and 1998 Nationwide CSFII. As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed all foods for which there are tolerances existing and proposed were treated and contain tolerance-level residues. iii. *Cancer* . Desmedipham has been classified as “Not Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans”. Therefore, the Agency concluded that desmedipham is not expected to pose a carcinogenic risk and quantification of exposure for the purpose of assessing cancer risk is not necessary. 2. *Dietary exposure from drinking water* . The Agency lacks sufficient monitoring data to complete a comprehensive dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for desmedipham 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 desmedipham. 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* . In the environment, at neutral to alkaline pH, desmedipham is rapidly hydrolyzed to EHPC (ethyl-(3-hydroxyphenyl) carbamate). Given that EHPC has a sub-structure that has been associated with methemoglobin effects, the endpoint of concern for the parent desmedipham for acute and chronic exposures, EHPC has been included in the dietary risk assessment for drinking water. The Agency calculated Tier 1 (upper-bound) Drinking Water Concentrations (EDWCs) for the combined residues of parent desmedipham plus EHPC. EDWCs for desmedipham plus EHPC were calculated using the FQPA Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) (surface water) and Screening Concentration In - Ground Water (SCI-GROW) (ground water) drinking water models. Both models provide estimates suitable for screening purposes. Modeled EDWCs for peak and average concentrations of desmedipham plus EHPC in surface water are 130 parts per billion
(ppb)and 71 ppb, respectively. The modeled peak and average EDWCs for ground water are 0.04 ppb. Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 130 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 71 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. 3. *From non-dietary exposure* . The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Desmedipham is not registered for use in or 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 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.” EPA has determined that desmedipham does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with the other N-methyl carbamate pesticides. 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 desmedipham and any other substances and desmedipham 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 desmedipham 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 the 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 database 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 UFs and/or special FQPA safety factors, as appropriate. 2. *Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity* . Desmedipham is not considered a developmental toxicant or a mutagen. Developmental toxicity studies show no increased sensitivity in fetuses as compared to maternal animals following in utero exposures in rats and rabbits. A two-generation reproduction toxicity study in rats showed no increased susceptibility in pups when compared to adults, There was no evidence of abnormalities in the development of the fetal nervous system in the pre/post natal studies. Neither brain weight nor histopathology of the nervous system was affected in the subchronic and chronic toxicity studies. 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: The toxicology database is complete and there are no data gaps. There are no residual concerns regarding pre- or post-natal toxicity. There is no evidence requiring a developmental neurotoxicity study, and i. The toxicology database is complete and there are no data gaps. ii. There are no residual concerns regarding pre- or post-natal toxicity. iii. There is no evidence requiring a developmental neurotoxicity study, and iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 100% crop treated
(CT)and tolerance-level residues. Conservative ground and surfacewater modeling estimates were used. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by desmedipham. 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 UFs. For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the probability of additional cancer cases given aggregate exposure. Short-term, intermediate-term, and long-term risks are evaluated by comparing aggregate exposure to the LOC to ensure that the MOE called for by the product of all applicable UFs is not exceeded. 1. *Acute risk* . Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water to desmedipham will occupy 26% of the aPAD for the population group (all infants less than 1 yr old) receiving the greatest exposure. 2. *Chronic risk* . Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that exposure to desmedipham from food and water will utilize 13% of the cPAD for the population group all infants less than 1 yr old. 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). Desmedipham 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). Desmedipham 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* . Desmedipham is classified as “Not Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans” and is not expected to pose a cancer risk. 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 desmedipham residues. IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology Adequate enforcement methodology (Liquid Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry/Mass Spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) method AL/01/02) 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 established or proposed Codex, Canadian or Mexican MRLs for desmedipham. V. Conclusion Therefore, the tolerance is established for residues of the herbicide, desmedipham (ethyl- *m* -hydroxycarbanilate carbanilate) in or on the raw agricultural commodities: Beet, garden, roots at 0.05 ppm, beets, garden, tops at 1.0 ppm, and spinach at 6.0 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 the 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 the FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled *Federalism* (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled *Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments* (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000) do not apply to this rule. In addition, This rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA)(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). VII. Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq* ., generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of this final rule in the **Federal Register** . This final rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: September 7, 2007. Lois Rossi, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows: PART 180—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. 2. In § 180.353, paragraph
(a)is revised to read as follows: § 180.353 Desmedipham; tolerances for residues.
(a)*General* . Tolerances are established for residues of the herbicide desmedipham, (ethyl- *m* -hydroxycarbanilate carbanilate) in or on the following raw agricultural commodities in the table that follows: Commodity Parts per million Beet, garden, roots 0.05 Beet, garden, tops 1.0 Beet, sugar, roots 0.2 Beet, sugar, tops 0.2 Spinach 6.0 [FR Doc. E7-18373 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0187; FRL-8147-5] Amitraz, Atrazine, Ethephon, Ferbam, Lindane, Propachlor, and Simazine; Tolerance Actions AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is revoking certain tolerances for the insecticides amitraz and lindane; the herbicides atrazine, propachlor, and simazine; the plant growth regulator ethephon; and the fungicide ferbam. Also, EPA is modifying certain tolerances for the herbicide atrazine, propachlor, and simazine; the insecticide amitraz; the plant growth regulator ethephon; and the fungicide ferbam. In addition, EPA is establishing new tolerances for the herbicide atrazine and the plant growth regulator ethephon. The regulatory actions finalized in this document are in follow-up to the Agency's reregistration program under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and tolerance reassessment program under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) section 408(q). DATES: This regulation is effective September 19, 2007. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before November 19, 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-2007-0187. 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 website 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: Monisha Dandridge, Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703)308-0410; e-mail address: *Dandridge.monisha@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to: • Crop production (NAICS code 111). • Animal production (NAICS code 112). • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311). • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532). This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. 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 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-2007-0187 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 November 19, 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-2007-0187, by one of the following methods. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal* : *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail* : Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP)Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. • *Delivery* : OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Docket Facility telephone number is
(703)305-5805. II. Background A. What Action is the Agency Taking? In the **Federal Register** of June 13, 2007 (72 FR 32570) (FRL-8133-3), EPA issued a proposal to revoke, modify, and establish specific tolerances for residues of the fungicide ferbam; the herbicides atrazine, propachlor, and simazine; the insecticides amitraz and lindane, and the plant growth regulator ethephon. Also, the proposal of June 13, 2007, provided a 60-day comment period which invited public comment for consideration and for support of tolerance retention under FFDCA standards. In this final rule, EPA is revoking, modifying, and establishing specific tolerances for residues of the fungicide ferbam; the herbicides atrazine, propachlor, and simazine; the insecticides amitraz and lindane, and the plant growth regulator ethephon in or on commodities listed in the regulatory text of 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 FFDCA. The safety finding determination of “reasonable certainty of no harm” is discussed in detail in each Reregistration Eligibility Decision
(RED)and Report on FQPA Tolerance Reassessment Progress and Interim Risk Management Decision
(TRED)for the active ingredient. REDs and TREDs recommend 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 number: 1-800-490-9198; fax number: 1-513-489-8695; Internet at *http://www.epa.gov/ncepihom* and from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield, VA 22161, telephone number: 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 and/or tolerance exemptions 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 who comments on the proposal indicates a need for the tolerance or tolerance exemption to cover residues in or on imported commodities or legally treated domestic commodities. Historically, EPA has 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 Unit II.A. if one of the following conditions applies: 1. Prior to EPA's issuance of a FFDCA section 408(f) order requesting additional data or issuance of a FFDCA 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 June 13, 2007 (72 FR 32570), EPA received comments during the 60-day public comment period, as follows: i. *General* — *Comment by private citizen* . A private citizen stated that only zero tolerance levels should be acceptable. In addition, the commenter expressed a concern for pesticide use in general and their possible toxic effects on wildlife and humans. *Agency response* . The private citizen's comments did not take issue with any of the Agency's specific conclusions to modify, revoke, or establish certain tolerances. Also, the commenter did not refer to any specific studies which pertained to those conclusions. EPA believes that the tolerance actions finalized herein meet the safety standard of FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a. In developing REDs and TREDs, EPA worked with stakeholders, pesticide registrants, growers and other pesticide users, environmental and public health interests, the States, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 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. ii. *Comment by a member of the U.S. Geological Survey* . A comment was received by EPA from a member of the U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior, who inquired whether the source of simazine, such as a contaminant of atrazine, could affect the Agency's proposed tolerance determinations for simazine. *Agency response* . Combined simazine residues of concern (simazine and its two chlorinated degradates) detectable on food commodities are regulated by tolerances established in 40 CFR 180.213. These two chlorinated degradates of simazine are also regulated as combined atrazine residues of concern in 40 CFR 180.220. The selection of an individual tolerance level by EPA is based on available crop field residue studies designed to produce the maximum residues under the existing or proposed product label. Generally, the level selected for a tolerance is a value slightly above the maximum residue found in such studies, provided that the tolerance is safe. In addition, for a food-use pesticide to be sold and distributed for domestic use in the United States, the pesticide must not only have appropriate tolerances under the FFDCA, but also must be registered under FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136 *et seq* .). Under FFDCA section 408(l)(5), residues on food shall not render the food adulterated so long as it is shown to the satisfaction of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that 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 that 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 a tolerance. In establishing, modifying, leaving in effect, or revoking a tolerance or exemption for a pesticide chemical residue, the Agency considers, among other relevant factors, available information such as aggregate human exposure levels to the pesticide residue. The tolerance actions finalized herein for simazine are based on the available data which EPA has reviewed during the simazine RED process, and which the Agency has determined meet the FFDCA standard, are safe, and that there is a reasonable certainty (with appropriate mitigation) that no harm to any population subgroup will result from aggregate exposure. However, EPA may propose to revoke tolerances for residues of a pesticide under FFDCA section 408(e)(1) when the Agency has determined that the existing tolerances do not meet requirements of FFDCA section 408(b)(2). Any data on potential contamination of atrazine with detectable levels of simazine will be considered by the Agency and appropriate tolerance actions, if needed, will be proposed for public comment. With the exception of the general comment on simazine, EPA did not receive any specific comments, during the 60-day comment period, on the following pesticide active ingredients: Amitraz, atrazine, ethephon, ferbam, lindane, propachlor, and simazine. Therefore, the Agency is finalizing the amendments proposed in the **Federal Register** of June 13, 2007 (72 FR 32570). For a detailed discussion of the Agency's rationale for the establishments, revocations, and modifications to the tolerances, and revisions to tolerance expressions and commodity terminologies, refer to the proposed rule of June 13, 2007. In addition, the Agency is making the following revisions in this final rule. 1. *Amitraz.* Currently, direct animal treatments of amitraz are registered for use on cattle and hogs. In the proposal of June 13, 2007 (72 FR 32570), EPA inadvertently stated that there is a 3-day pre-slaughter interval for cattle when in fact there is a 7-day retreatment interval and no pre-slaughter interval. 2. *Ethephon.* EPA proposed to establish a tolerance for filbert at 0.80 ppm but did not propose in a notice for comment to revise the tolerance nomenclature for ethephon in 40 CFR 180.300(a) 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 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 terminology from filbert to hazelnut and therefore the Agency is establishing a tolerance for hazelnut in 40 CFR 180.300(a) at 0.80 ppm. 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, ethephon, in or on that commodity and is made such that the tolerance terminology will conform to current Agency practice. 3. *Simazine.* EPA proposed to decrease the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.213 on filbert to 0.20 ppm but did not propose in a notice for comment to revise the tolerance nomenclature for simazine in 40 CFR 180.213 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 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 180.213 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, simazine, in or on that commodity and is made such that the tolerance terminology will conform to current Agency practice. 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 atrazine, ferbam, lindane, propachlor, and simazine, and TREDs for amitraz and ethephon, whose REDs were completed prior to FQPA. REDs and TREDs contain the Agency's evaluation of the database 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? With the exception of certain tolerances for ferbam and lindane, which EPA is revoking with specific expiration/revocation dates, the Agency is revoking, modifying, and establishing specific tolerances, and revising specific commodity terminologies effective on the date of publication of this final rule in the **Federal Register** . With the exception of the tolerances for ferbam and lindane, the Agency believes that existing stocks of pesticide products labeled for the uses associated with the revoked tolerances have been completely exhausted and that treated commodities have had sufficient time for passage through the channels of trade. EPA is revoking certain ferbam and lindane tolerances with expiration/revocation dates of October 27, 2007, for the ferbam tolerances on bean, cabbage, lettuce, and raspberry and October 2, 2009 for the lindane tolerances on the fat of cattle, goats, hops, horses, and sheep. The Agency believes that these revocation dates allow users to exhaust stocks and allow sufficient time for passage of treated commodities through the channels of trade. 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 FQPA. Under this unit, 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. 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 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. of the proposal. 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) (FRL-5753-1), 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 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: September 12, 2007. Anne E. Lindsay, Acting 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 180.114 is amended by revising paragraph
(a)and adding text to paragraph
(c)to read as follows: § 180.114 Ferbam; tolerances for residues.
(a)*General* . Tolerances are established for residues of the fungicide ferbam (ferric dimethyldithiocarbamate), calculated as carbon disulfide, in or on the following food commodities: Commodity Parts per million Expiration/Revocation Date Apple 4.0 1 None Bean 7.0 1 10/27/07 Cabbage 7.0 1 10/27/07 Cherry 4.0 1 None Cranberry 4.0 1 None Fruit, citrus, group 10 4.0 1 None Grape 4.0 1 None Lettuce 7.0 1 10/27/07 Nectarine 4.0 1 None Peach 4.0 1 None Pear 4.0 1 None Raspberry 7.0 1 10/27/07 1 Some of these tolerances were established on the basis of data acquired at the public hearings held in 1950 (formerly §180.101) and the remainder were established on the basis of pesticide petitions presented under the procedure specified in the amendment to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act by Pub. L. 518, 83d Congress (68 Stat. 511)
(c)*Tolerances with regional registrations* . Tolerances with regional registrations, as defined in § 180.1(m), are established for residues of the fungicide ferbam (ferric dimethyldithiocarbamate), calculated as carbon disulfide, in or on the following food commodities: Commodity Parts per million Mango 4.0 1 1 This tolerance was established on the basis of data acquired at the public hearings held in 1950 (formerly §180.101) and the remainder was established on the basis of pesticide petitions presented under the procedure specified in the amendment to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act by Pub. L. 518, 83d Congress (68 Stat. 511) 3. Section 180.133 is amended by revising the table in paragraph
(a)to read as follows: §180. 133 Lindane; tolerances for residues.
(a)*General* . * * * Commodity Parts per million Expiration/Revocation Date Cattle, fat 7.0 10/2/09 Goat, fat 7.0 10/2/09 Hog, fat 4.0 10/2/09 Horse, fat 7.0 10/2/09 Sheep, fat 7.0 10/2/09 4. Section 180.211 is amended by revising the section heading and paragraph
(a)to read as follow: § 180.211 Propachlor; tolerances for residues.
(a)*General* . Tolerances are established for the combined residues of the herbicide propachlor (2-chloro-N-isopropylacetanilide) and its metabolites containing the N-isopropylaniline moiety, calculated as 2-chloro-N-isopropylacetanilide, in or on the following raw agricultural commodities: Commodity Parts per million Cattle, fat 0.05 Cattle, kidney 0.2 Cattle, meat 0.02 Cattle, meat byproducts, except kidney 0.05 Corn, field, forage 3.0 Corn, field, grain 0.2 Corn, field, stover 1.0 Corn, sweet, forage 3.0 Goat, fat 0.05 Goat, kidney 0.2 Goat, meat 0.02 Goat, meat byproducts, except kidney 0.05 Hog, fat 0.02 Hog, meat 0.02 Hog, meat byproducts 0.02 Horse, fat 0.05 Horse, kidney 0.2 Horse, meat 0.02 Horse, meat byproducts, except kidney 0.05 Milk 0.02 Sheep, fat 0.05 Sheep, kidney 0.2 Sheep, meat 0.02 Sheep, meat byproducts, except kidney 0.05 Sorghum, forage, forage 8.0 Sorghum, grain, forage 8.0 Sorghum, grain, grain 0.25 Sorghum, grain, stover 12.0 5. Section 180.213 is amended by revising paragraph
(a)to read as follows: § 180.213 Simazine; tolerances for residues.
(a)*General* . Tolerances are established for the combined residues of the herbicide simazine (2-chloro-4,6-bis(ethylamino)-s-triazine) and its two chlorinated degradates (2-amino-4-chloro-6-ethylamino-s-triazine and 2,4-diamino-6-chloro-s-triazine), the total residue to be measured in or on the following food commodities: Commodity Parts per million Almond 0.25 Almond, hulls 0.25 Apple 0.20 Avocado 0.20 Blackberry 0.20 Blueberry 0.20 Cattle, meat 0.03 Cattle, meat byproducts 0.03 Cherry 0.25 Corn, field, forage 0.20 Corn, field, grain 0.20 Corn, field, stover 0.25 Corn, pop, grain 0.20 Corn, pop, stover 0.25 Corn, sweet, forage 0.20 Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed 0.25 Corn, sweet, stover 0.25 Cranberry 0.25 Currant 0.25 Egg 0.03 Goat, meat 0.03 Goat, meat byproducts 0.03 Grape 0.20 Grapefruit 0.25 Hazelnut 0.20 Horse, meat 0.03 Horse, meat byproducts 0.03 Lemon 0.25 Loganberry 0.20 Milk 0.03 Nut, macadamia 0.25 Olive 0.20 Orange 0.25 Peach 0.20 Pear 0.25 Pecan 0.20 Plum 0.20 Raspberry 0.20 Sheep, meat 0.03 Sheep, meat byproducts 0.03 Strawberry 0.25 Walnut 0.2 6. Section 180.220 is amended by revising paragraph
(a)to read as follows: § 180.220 Atrazine; tolerances for residues.
(a)*General* . Tolerances are established for the combined residues of the herbicide atrazine (2-chloro-4-ethylamino-6-isopropylamino-s-triazine) and its chlorinated metabolites 2-amino-4-chloro-6-isopropylamino-s-triazine, 2-amino-4-chloro-6-ethylamino-s-triazine, and 2,4-diamino-6-chloro-s-triazine, in or on the following food commodities: Commodity Parts per million Cattle, fat 0.02 Cattle, meat 0.02 Cattle, meat byproducts 0.02 Corn, field, forage 15 Corn, field, grain 0.20 Corn, field, stover 0.5 Corn, pop, forage 1.5 Corn, pop, grain 0.20 Corn, pop, stover 0.5 Corn, sweet, forage 15 Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed 0.20 Corn, sweet, stover 2.0 Goat, fat 0.02 Goat, meat 0.02 Goat, meat byproducts 0.02 Grass, forage 4.0 Grass, hay 4.0 Guava 0.05 Horse, fat 0.02 Horse, meat 0.02 Horse, meat byproducts 0.02 Milk 0.02 Nut, macadamia 0.20 Sheep, fat 0.02 Sheep, meat 0.02 Sheep, meat byproducts 0.02 Sorghum, forage, forage 15 Sorghum, grain forage 15 Sorghum, grain, grain 0.20 Sorghum, grain, stover 0.50 Sugarcane, cane 0.20 Wheat, forage 1.5 Wheat, grain 0.10 Wheat, hay 5.0 Wheat, straw 0.50 7. Section 180.287 is amended by revising paragraph
(a)to read as follows: § 180.287 Amitraz; tolerances for residues.
(a)*General* . Tolerances are established for residues of the insecticide amitraz (N′-[2,4-dimethylphenyl]-N- [[(2,4-dimethylphenyl)imino] methyl]]- N-methylmethanimidamide) and its metabolites containing the 2,4-dimethylaniline moiety (calculated as the parent) in or on the following food commodities: Commodity Parts per million Cattle, fat 0.1 Cattle, meat 0.02 Cattle, meat byproducts 0.2 Cotton, undelinted seed 1 1.0 Hog, fat 0.1 Hog, kidney 0.1 Hog, liver 0.1 Hog, meat 0.05 Hog, meat byproducts 0.3 Milk 0.03 Milk, fat 0.2 Pear 3.0 1 There are no U.S. registrations on cottonseed as of May 3, 2006. 8. Section 180.300 is amended by revising the table in paragraph
(a)to read as follows: § 180.300 Ethephon; tolerances for residues.
(a)* * * Commodity Parts per million Apple 5.0 Apple, juice 10.0 Barley, bran 5.0 Barley, grain 2.0 Barley, straw 10.0 Blackberry 30.0 Blueberry 20.0 Cantaloupe 2.0 Cattle, fat 0.02 Cattle, kidney 1.0 Cattle, meat 0.02 Cattle, meat byproducts, except kidney 0.2 Cherry 10.0 Coffee, bean, green 0.5 Cotton, gin byproducts 180.0 Cotton, undelinted seed 6.0 Cucumber 0.1 Egg 0.002 Goat, fat 0.02 Goat, kidney 1.0 Goat, meat 0.02 Goat, meat byproducts, except kidney 0.2 Grape 2.0 Grape, raisin 12.0 Hazelnut 0.80 Hog, fat 0.02 Hog, kidney 1.0 Hog, meat 0.02 Hog, meat byproducts, except kidney 0.2 Horse, fat 0.02 Horse, kidney 1.0 Horse, meat 0.02 Horse, meat byproducts, except kidney 0.2 Milk 0.01 Nut, macadamia 0.5 Pepper 30.0 Pineapple 2.0 Poultry, fat 0.02 Poultry, liver 0.05 Poultry, meat 0.01 Poultry, meat byproducts, except liver 0.01 Sheep, fat 0.02 Sheep, kidney 1.0 Sheep, meat 0.02 Sheep, meat byproducts, except kidney 0.2 Sugarcane, molasses 1.5 Tomato 2.0 Walnut 0.5 Wheat, bran 5.0 Wheat, germ 5.0 Wheat, grain 2.0 Wheat, middlings 5.0 Wheat, shorts 5.0 Wheat, straw 10.0 [FR Doc. E7-18508 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0036; FRL-8143-2] Chloroneb, Cypermethrin, Methidathion, Nitrapyrin, Oxyfluorfen, Pirimiphos-methyl, Sulfosate, Tebuthiuron, Thiabendazole, Thidiazuron, and Tribuphos; Tolerance Actions AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is revoking certain tolerances for the fungicides chloroneb and thiabendazole; the herbicide sulfosate; the defoliant thidiazuron; the insecticides cypermethrin, methidathion, and pirimiphos-methyl; and the soil microbiocide nitrapyrin. Also, EPA is modifying certain tolerances for the fungicides chloroneb and thiabendazole; the herbicides oxyfluorfen and tebuthiuron; the defoliants thidiazuron and tribuphos; the insecticides cypermethrin, methidathion, and pirimiphos-methyl; and the soil microbiocide nitrapyrin. In addition, EPA is establishing new tolerances for the fungicides chloroneb and thiabendazole; the herbicide oxyfluorfen; the defoliants thidiazuron and tribuphos; the insecticides cypermethrin, methidathion, and pirimiphos-methyl; and the soil microbiocide nitrapyrin. The regulatory actions finalized in this document are in follow-up to the Agency's reregistration program under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and tolerance reassessment program under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) section 408(q). DATES: This regulation is effective September 19, 2007. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before November 19, 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-2007-0036. 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 website 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-2007-0036 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 November 19, 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-2007-0036, 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 May 2, 2007 (72 FR 24198) (FRL-8120-3), EPA issued a proposal to revoke, remove, modify, and establish certain specific tolerances for residues of the fungicides chloroneb and thiabendazole; the herbicides oxyfluorfen, sulfosate, and tebuthiuron; the defoliants thidiazuron and tribuphos; the insecticides cypermethrin, methidathion, and pirimiphos-methyl; and the soil microbiocide nitrapyrin. Also, the proposal of May 2, 2007 (72 FR 24198) provided a 60-day comment period which invited public comment for consideration and for support of tolerance retention under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) standards. In this final rule, EPA is revoking, removing, modifying, and establishing specific tolerances for residues of chloroneb, cypermethrin, methidathion, nitrapyrin, oxyfluorfen, pirimiphos-methyl, sulfosate, tebuthiuron, thiabendazole, thidiazuron, and tribuphos in or on commodities listed in the regulatory text of 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 number: 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 number: 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 legally treated domestic commodities. 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 Unit II.A. if one of the following conditions applies: 1. Prior to EPA's issuance of a FFDCA section 408(f) order requesting additional data or issuance of a FFDCA 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 May 2, 2007 (72 FR 24198), EPA received one comment during the 60-day public comment period, as follows: *Comment by a private citizen.* A private citizen stated that only zero tolerance levels should be acceptable. In addition, the commenter expressed a concern for pesticide use in general and their possible toxic effects on wildlife and humans. *Agency response.* The private citizen's comments did not take issue with any of the Agency's specific conclusions to modify, revoke, or establish certain tolerances. Also, the commenter did not refer to any specific studies which pertained to those conclusions. EPA believes that the tolerance actions finalized herein meet the safety standard of FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a. In developing REDs and TREDs, EPA worked with stakeholders, pesticide registrants, growers and other pesticide users, environmental and public health interests, the States, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 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. The Agency did not receive any specific comments, during the 60-day comment period, on the following chemicals: Chloroneb, cypermethrin, methidathion, nitrapyrin, oxyfluorfen, pirimiphos-methyl, sulfosate, tebuthiuron, thiabendazole, thidiazuron, and tribuphos. Therefore, the Agency is finalizing the amendments proposed in the **Federal Register** of May 2, 2007 (72 FR 24198). For a detailed discussion of the Agency's rationale for the establishments, revocations, and modifications to the tolerances, refer to the proposed rule of May 2, 2007. In addition, the Agency is making the following revisions in this final rule. • *Oxyfluorfen* . The Agency did not propose in a notice for comment to revise the tolerance nomenclature for oxyfluorfen in 40 CFR 180.381(a) from cocoa bean, dried bean to cacao bean, dried bean, 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 commodity terminology in 40 CFR 180.381(a) from cocoa bean, dried bean to cacao bean, dried bean. 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, oxyfluorfen, in or on that commodity and is made such that the tolerance terminology will conform to current Agency practice. • *Thiabendazole* . The Agency did not propose in a notice for comment to revise the tolerance nomenclature for thiabendazole in 40 CFR 180.242(a)(1) from “sweet potato (POST-H to sweet potato intended only for use as seed)” to “sweet potato (postharvest to sweet potato intended only for use as seed),” 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 commodity terminology in 40 CFR 180.242(a)(1) from “sweet potato (POST-H to sweet potato intended only for use as seed)” to “sweet potato (postharvest to sweet potato intended only for use as seed).” 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, thiabendazole, in or on that commodity and is made such that the tolerance terminology will conform to current Agency practice. Note: Sugar beet commodities were not included in the human dietary risk assessment for thiabendazole because the use was not supported by the technical registrant. (Metabolic fate data of thiabendazole in sugar beets had been submitted to EPA and reviewed by the Agency as acceptable. Efficacy, storage, foliar use and post-harvest use data had also been submitted some years ago, but some of that data was incomplete.) Therefore, the thiabendazole RED recommended revocation of the tolerances on sugar beet commodities. Currently, there is an active end use registration for thiabendazole use on sugar beets. Since the thiabendazole RED, based on the estimated acute and chronic dietary risks of thiabendazole, which are 77% of the acute population adjusted dose
(aPAD)and 2% of the chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD), the Agency determined that the addition of sugar beet commodities to the dietary risk assessment for thiabendazole would not significantly contribute to dietary or drinking water risk estimates. Consequently, the Agency did not propose to take action on the sugar beet tolerances in 40 CFR 180.242(a) on May 2, 2007 (72 FR 24198), but is in the process of getting the sugar beet use removed from the one remaining active registration and does expect to address the sugar beet tolerances in a future publication in the **Federal Register** . • *Zeta-cypermethrin* . The Agency also did not propose in a notice for comment to revise the tolerance nomenclature for zeta-cypermethrin in 40 CFR 180.418(a)(2) from “food/feed items (other than those covered by a higher tolerance as a result of use on growing crops) in food/feed handling establishments” to “food commodities/feed commodities (other than those covered by a higher tolerance as a result of use on growing crops) in food/feed handling establishments” and from “sunflower” to “sunflower, seed,” as is current Agencv practice. However, section 553(h)(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 commodity terminolgy in 40 CER 180.418(a)(2) from “food/feed items (other than those covered by a higher tolerance as a result of use on growing crops) in food/feed handling establishments” to “food commodities/feed commodities (other than those covered by a higher tolerance as a result of use on growing crops) in food/feed handling establishments” and from “sunflower” to “sunflower, seed.” 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, zeta-cypermethrin, in or on these commodities and is made such that the tolerance terminology will conform to current Agency practice. 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 chloroneb, cypermethrin, methidathion, nitrapyrin, oxyfluorfen, pirimiphos-methyl, thiabendazole, thidiazuron, and tribuphos, and a TRED for tebuthiuron, whose RED was completed prior to FQPA. A RED for sulfosate was not needed because it was registered after November 1, 1984, and not subject to reregistration eligibility, and its tolerances were reassessed prior to completion of a TRED, such that a TRED for sulfosate was no longer needed because EPA 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? With the exception of regional tolerances for methidathion on alfalfa forage, alfalfa hay, timothy forage, and timothy hay, which EPA is revoking with specific expiration/revocation dates, the Agency is revoking, modifying, and establishing specific tolerances, and revising specific commodity terminologies effective September 19, 2007. With the exception of the revoked four regional tolerances for methidathion, the Agency believes that existing stocks of pesticide products labeled for the uses associated with the revoked tolerances have been completely exhausted and that treated commodities have had sufficient time for passage through the channels of trade. EPA is revoking certain methidathion tolerances with an expiration/revocation date of March 31, 2008, for alfalfa forage, alfalfa hay, timothy forage, and timothy hay. The Agency believes that, because their regional registrations expire on December 31, 2007, the revocation date of March 31, 2008, allows sufficient time for passage of treated commodities 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 unit, 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. 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 a 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. of the proposal. 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) (FRL-5753-1), 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, 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: September 11, 2007. Anne E. Lindsay, Acting 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 180.242 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) and the introductory text to paragraph
(b)to read as follows: § 180.242 Thiabendazole; tolerances for residues.
(a)*General* .
(1)Tolerances are established for the combined residues of the fungicide thiabendazole (2-(4-thiazolyl)benzimidazole) and its metabolite benzimidazole (free and conjugated) in or on the following food commodities: Commodity Parts per million Apple, wet pomace 12.0 Avocado 1 10.0 Banana, postharvest 3.0 Bean, dry, seed 0.1 Beet, sugar, dried pulp 3.5 Beet, sugar, roots 0.25 Beet, sugar, tops 10.0 Cantaloupe 1 15.0 Carrot, roots, postharvest 10.0 Citrus, oil 15.0 Fruit, citrus, group 10, postharvest 10.0 Fruit, pome, group 11, postharvest 5.0 Mango 10.0 Mushroom 40.0 Papaya, postharvest 5.0 Potato, postharvest 10.0 Soybean 0.1 Strawberry 1 5.0 Sweet potato (postharvest to sweet potato intended only for use as seed) 0.05 Wheat, grain 1.0 Wheat, straw 1.0 1 There are no U.S. registrations on the indicated commodity.
(2)Tolerances are established for the combined residues of thiabendazole (2-(4-thiazolyl)benzimidazole) and its metabolites 5-hydroxythiabendazole (free and conjugated) and benzimidazole in or on the following food commodities: Commodity Parts per million Cattle, meat 0.1 Cattle, meat byproducts 0.4 Goat, meat byproducts 0.4 Hog, meat byproducts 0.3 Horse, meat byproducts 0.4 Milk 0.1 Sheep, meat byproducts 0.4
(b)*Section 18 emergency exemptions* . Time-limited tolerances are established for the combined residues of thiabendazole (2-(4-thiazolyl)benzimidazole) and its metabolite benzimidazole (free and conjugated), in connection with use of the pesticide under section 18 emergency exemptions granted by EPA. The tolerances are specified in the following table. The tolerances will expire on the dates specified in the table. 3. Section 180.257 is amended by revising paragraph
(a)to read as follows: § 180.257 Chloroneb; tolerances for residues.
(a)*General* . Tolerances are established for residues of the fungicide chloroneb (1,4-dichloro-2,5-dimethoxybenzene) and its metabolite 2,5-dichloro-4-methoxyphenol (free and conjugated), calculated as chloroneb, in or on the following raw agricultural commodities: Commodity Parts per million Bean, dry, seed 0.2 Bean, succulent 0.2 Beet, sugar, roots 0.2 Beet, sugar, tops 0.2 Cowpea, forage 2.0 Cowpea, hay 2.0 Cattle, fat 0.2 Cattle, meat 0.2 Cattle, meat byproducts 0.2 Cotton, gin byproducts 1.0 Cotton, undelinted seed 0.2 Goat, fat 0.2 Goat, meat 0.2 Goat, meat byproducts 0.2 Hog, fat 0.2 Hog, meat 0.2 Hog, meat byproducts 0.2 Horse, fat 0.2 Horse, meat 0.2 Horse, meat byproducts 0.2 Milk 0.05 Sheep, fat 0.2 Sheep, meat 0.2 Sheep, meat byproducts 0.2 Soybean, forage 2.0 Soybean, hay 2.0 Soybean, seed 0.2 4. Section 180.272 is amended by revising the table in paragraph
(a)to read as follows: § 180.272 Tribuphos; tolerances for residues.
(a)*General* . * * * Commodity Parts per million Cattle, fat 0.15 Cattle, meat 0.02 Cattle, meat byproducts 0.02 Cotton, gin byproducts 40.0 Cotton, undelinted seed 4.0 Goat, fat 0.15 Goat, meat 0.02 Goat, meat byproducts 0.02 Hog, fat 0.15 Hog, meat 0.02 Hog, meat byproducts 0.02 Horse, fat 0.15 Horse, meat 0.02 Horse, meat byproducts 0.02 Milk 0.01 Sheep, fat 0.15 Sheep, meat 0.02 Sheep, meat byproducts 0.02 5. Section 180.298 is amended by revising the tables in paragraphs
(a)and
(c)to read as follows: § 180.298 Methidathion; tolerances for residues.
(a)*General* . * * * Commodity Parts per million Almond, hulls 6.0 Artichoke, globe 0.05 Citrus, oil 420.0 Cotton, undelinted seed 0.2 Fruit, citrus, group 10, except tangerine 4.0 Fruit, pome, group 11 0.05 Fruit, stone, group 12 0.05 Mango 0.05 Nut, tree, group 14 0.05 Olive 0.05 Safflower, seed 0.5 Sorghum, forage, forage 2.0 Sorghum, grain, forage 2.0 Sorghum, grain, grain 0.2 Sorghum, grain, stover 2.0 Sunflower, seed 0.5 Tangerine 6.0
(c)* * * Commodity Parts per million Expiration/Revocation Date Alfalfa, forage 5.0 3/31/2008 Alfalfa, hay 5.0 3/31/2008 Kiwifruit 0.1 None Longan 0.1 None Starfruit 0.1 None Sugar apple 0.2 None Timothy, forage 5.0 3/31/2008 Timothy, hay 5.0 3/31/2008 6. Section 180.350 is amended by revising the table in paragraph
(a)to read as follows: § 180.350 Nitrapyrin; tolerances for residues.
(a)*General* . * * * Commodity Parts per million Corn, field, forage 1.0 Corn, field, grain 0.1 Corn, field, milled byproducts 0.2 Corn, field, stover 1.0 Corn, pop, grain 0.1 Corn, pop, stover 1.0 Corn, sweet, forage 1.0 Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed 0.1 Corn, sweet, stover 1.0 Sorghum, forage, forage 0.5 Sorghum, grain, forage 0.5 Sorghum, grain, grain 0.1 Sorghum, grain, stover 0.5 Wheat, bran 3.0 Wheat, forage 2.0 Wheat, grain 0.5 Wheat, milled byproducts, except flour 2.0 Wheat, straw 6.0 7. Section 180.381 is amended by revising the tables in paragraphs
(a)and
(c)to read as follows: § 180.381 Oxyfluorfen; tolerances for residues.
(a)*General* . * * * Commodity Parts per million Almond, hulls 0.1 Artichoke, globe 0.05 Avocado 0.05 Banana 0.05 Broccoli 0.05 Cabbage 0.05 Cacao bean, dried bean 0.05 Cattle, fat 0.01 Cattle, meat 0.01 Cattle, meat byproducts 0.01 Cauliflower 0.05 Coffee, bean, green 0.05 Corn, field, grain 0.05 Corn, pop, grain 0.05 Cotton, undelinted seed 0.05 Date 0.05 Egg 0.03 Feijoa 0.05 Fig 0.05 Fruit, pome, group 11 0.05 Fruit, stone, group 12 0.05 Goat, fat 0.01 Goat, meat 0.01 Goat, meat byproducts 0.01 Grape 0.05 Hog, fat 0.01 Hog, meat 0.01 Hog, meat byproducts 0.01 Horse, fat 0.01 Horse, meat 0.01 Horse, meat byproducts 0.01 Horseradish 0.05 Kiwifruit 0.05 Milk 0.01 Nut, tree, group 14 0.05 Olive 0.05 Onion, bulb 0.05 Peppermint, tops 0.05 Persimmon 0.05 Pistachio 0.05 Pomegranate 0.05 Poultry, fat 0.2 Poultry, meat 0.01 Poultry, meat byproducts 0.01 Sheep, fat 0.01 Sheep, meat 0.01 Sheep, meat byproducts 0.01 Soybean 0.05 Spearmint, tops 0.05
(c)* * * Commodity Parts per million Blackberry 0.05 Chickpea, seed 0.05 Grass, forage 0.05 Grass, hay 0.05 Grass, seed screenings 0.05 Guava 0.05 Papaya 0.05 Raspberry 0.05 Taro, corm 0.05 Taro, leaves 0.05 8. Section 180.390 is revised to read as follows: § 180.390 Tebuthiuron; tolerances for residues.
(a)*General* .
(1)Tolerances are established for the combined residues of the herbicide tebuthiuron (N-(5-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl)-N,N'-dimethylurea) and its metabolites N-(5-(2-hydroxy-1,1-dimethylethyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl)-N,N'-dimethylurea, N-(5-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl)-N-methylurea, and N-(5-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl)-N'-hydroxymethyl-N-methylurea in or on the following raw agricultural commodities: Commodity Parts per million Grass, forage 10.0 Grass, hay 10.0
(2)Tolerances are established for the combined residues of the herbicide tebuthiuron (N-(5-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl)-N,N'-dimethylurea) and its metabolites N-(5-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl)-N-methylurea, N-(5-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl)urea, 2-dimethylethyl-5-amino-1,3,4-thiadiazole, and N-(5-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl)-N'-hydroxymethyl-N-methylurea in or on the following raw agricultural commodities: Commodity Parts per million Cattle, fat 1.0 Cattle, meat 1.0 Cattle, meat byproducts 5.0 Goat, fat 1.0 Goat, meat 1.0 Goat, meat byproducts 5.0 Horse, fat 1.0 Horse, meat 1.0 Horse, meat byproducts 5.0 Sheep, fat 1.0 Sheep, meat 1.0 Sheep, meat byproducts 5.0
(3)A tolerance is established for the combined residues of the herbicide tebuthiuron (N-(5-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl)-N,N'-dimethylurea) and its metabolites N-(5-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl)-N-methylurea, N-(5-(2-hydroxy-1,1-dimethylethyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl)-N-methylurea, N-(5-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl)urea, N-(5-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl)-N'-hydroxymethyl-N-methylurea, and N-(5-(2-hydroxy-1,1-dimethylethyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl)-N'-hydroxymethyl-N-methylurea in or on the following raw agricultural commodities: Commodity Parts per million Milk 0.8
(b)*Section 18 emergency exemptions* . [Reserved]
(c)*Tolerances with regional registrations* . [Reserved]
(d)*Indirect or inadvertent residues* . [Reserved] 9. Section 180.403 is amended by revising the table in paragraph
(a)to read as follows: § 180.403 Thidiazuron; tolerances for residues.
(a)*General* . * * * Commodity Parts per million Cattle, fat 0.4 Cattle, meat 0.4 Cattle, meat byproducts 0.4 Cotton, gin byproducts 24.0 Cotton, undelinted seed 0.3 Goat, fat 0.4 Goat, meat 0.4 Goat, meat byproducts 0.4 Hog, fat 0.4 Hog, meat 0.4 Hog, meat byproducts 0.4 Horse, fat 0.4 Horse, meat 0.4 Horse, meat byproducts 0.4 Milk 0.05 Sheep, fat 0.4 Sheep, meat 0.4 Sheep, meat byproducts 0.4 10. Section 180.409 is amended by revising paragraph
(a)to read as follows: § 180.409 Pirimiphos-methyl; tolerances for residues.
(a)*General* . Tolerances are established for residues of the insecticide pirimiphos-methyl (O-(2-diethylamino-6-methyl-4-pyrimidinyl) O,O-dimethyl phosphorothioate) in or on the following raw agricultural commodities: Commodity Parts per million Cattle, fat 0.02 Cattle, meat byproducts 0.02 Corn, field, grain 8.0 Corn, pop, grain 8.0 Goat, fat 0.02 Goat, meat byproducts 0.02 Grain, aspirated fractions 20.0 Hog, fat 0.02 Hog, meat byproducts 0.02 Horse, fat 0.02 Horse, meat byproducts 0.02 Poultry, fat 0.02 Sheep, fat 0.02 Sheep, meat byproducts 0.02 Sorghum, grain, grain 8.0 11. Section 180.418 is amended by revising the tables in paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), and
(b)to read as follows: § 180.418 Cypermethrin and an isomer zeta-cypermethrin; tolerances for residues.
(a)*General* .
(1)* * * Commodity Parts per million Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A 2.0 Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B 14.0 Cattle, fat 1.0 Cattle, meat 0.2 Cattle, meat byproducts 0.05 Cotton, gin byproducts 11.0 Cotton, undelinted seed 0.5 Egg 0.05 Goat, fat 1.0 Goat, meat 0.2 Goat, meat byproducts 0.05 Hog, fat 0.1 Hog, meat 0.05 Horse, fat 1.0 Horse, meat 0.2 Horse, meat byproducts 0.05 Lettuce, head 4.0 Milk, fat (reflecting 0.10 in whole milk) 2.5 Onion, bulb 0.1 Onion, green 6.0 Pecan 0.05 Poultry, fat 0.05 Poultry, meat 0.05 Sheep, fat 1.0 Sheep, meat 0.2 Sheep, meat byproducts 0.05
(2)* * * Commodity Parts per million Alfalfa, hay 15.00 Alfalfa, forage 5.00 Alfalfa, seed 0.50 Almond, hulls 6 Animal feed, nongrass, group 18, forage 8 Animal feed, nongrass, group 18, hay 40 Beet, sugar, roots 0.05 Beet, sugar, tops 0.20 Berry, group 13 0.8 Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A 2.00 Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B 14.00 Cabbage 2.00 Cattle, fat 1.00 Cattle, meat 0.2 Cattle, meat byproducts 0.05 Cilantro, leaves 10 Corn, field, forage 0.20 Corn, field, grain 0.05 Corn, field, stover 3.00 Corn, pop, grain 0.05 Corn, pop, stover 3.00 Corn, sweet, forage 15.00 Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed 0.05 Corn, sweet, stover 15.00 Cotton, undelinted seed 0.5 Egg 0.05 Food commodities/feed commodities (other than those covered by a higher tolerance as a result of use on growing crops) in food/feed handling establishments 0.05 Fruit, pome, group 11 2 Fruit, stone, group 12 1 Goat, fat 1.00 Goat, meat 0.2 Goat, meat byproducts 0.05 Grain, aspirated fractions 10.0 Grape 2 Grass, forage, group 17 10 Grass, hay, group 17 35 Hog, fat 0.1 Hog, meat 0.05 Horse, fat 1.00 Horse, meat 0.2 Horse, meat byproducts 0.05 Milk, fat (reflecting 0.10 in whole milk) 2.50 Nut, tree, group 14 0.05 Onion, bulb 0.10 Onion, green 3.00 Pea and bean, dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup 6C 0.05 Pea and bean, succulent shelled, subgroup 6B 0.1 Peanut 0.05 Pecan 0.05 Poultry, fat 0.05 Poultry, meat 0.05 Rapeseed 0.2 Rice, grain 1.50 Rice, hulls 6.00 Rice, straw 2.00 Sheep, fat 1.00 Sheep, meat 0.2 Sheep, meat byproducts 0.05 Sorghum, grain, forage 0.1 Sorghum, grain, grain 0.5 Sorghum, grain, stover 5.0 Soybean, seed 0.05 Sugarcane, cane 0.60 Sunflower, refined oil 0.5 Sunflower, seed 0.2 Turnip, greens 14 Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 0.2 Vegetable, fruiting, group 8 0.2 Vegetable, leafy, except brassica, group 4 10.00 Vegetable, legume, edible podded, subgroup 6A 0.5 Vegetable, root and tuber, group 1, except sugar beet 0.1 Wheat, forage 3.0 Wheat, grain 0.2 Wheat, hay 6.0 Wheat, straw 7.0
(b)* * * Commodity Parts per million Expiration/Revocation Date Flax, meal 0.2 6/30/2008 Flax, seed 0.2 6/30/2008 § 180.489 [Removed] 12. Section 180.489 is removed. FR Doc. E7-18496 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0072, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0074, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0078, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2006-0759, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2003-0010, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0079, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0080; FRL-8468-4] RIN 2050-AD75 National Priorities List, Final Rule AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (“CERCLA” or “the Act”), as amended, requires that the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (“NCP”) include a list of national priorities among the known releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants throughout the United States. The National Priorities List (“NPL”) constitutes this list. The NPL is intended primarily to guide the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA” or “the Agency”) in determining which sites warrant further investigation. These further investigations will allow EPA to assess the nature and extent of public health and environmental risks associated with the site and to determine what CERCLA-financed remedial action(s), if any, may be appropriate. This rule adds seven sites to the General Superfund Section of the NPL. EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date for this amendment to the NCP is October 19, 2007. ADDRESSES: For addresses for the Headquarters and Regional dockets, as well as further details on what these dockets contain, see section II, “Availability of Information to the Public” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION portion of this preamble. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terry Jeng, phone
(703)603-8852, State, Tribal and Site Identification Branch; Assessment and Remediation Division; Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (mail code 5204P); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; or the Superfund Hotline, phone
(800)424-9346 or
(703)412-9810 in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Background A. What are CERCLA and SARA? B. What is the NCP? C. What is the National Priorities List (NPL)? D. How are Sites Listed on the NPL? E. What Happens to Sites on the NPL? F. Does the NPL Define the Boundaries of Sites? G. How are Sites Removed from the NPL? H. May EPA Delete Portions of Sites From the NPL as They Are Cleaned Up? I. What is the Construction Completion List (CCL)? J. What is the Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use Measure? II. Availability of Information to the Public A. May I Review the Documents Relevant to this Final Rule? B. What Documents are Available for Review at the Headquarters Docket? C. What Documents are Available for Review at the Regional Dockets? D. How Do I Access the Documents? E. How May I Obtain a Current List of NPL Sites? III. Contents of This Final Rule A. Additions to the NPL B. What did EPA Do with the Public Comments It Received? IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review 1. What is Executive Order 12866? 2. Is this Final Rule Subject to Executive Order 12866 Review? B. Paperwork Reduction Act 1. What is the Paperwork Reduction Act? 2. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act Apply to This Final Rule? C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 1. What is the Regulatory Flexibility Act? 2. How Has EPA Complied with the Regulatory Flexibility Act? D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 1. What is the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)? 2. Does UMRA Apply to This Final Rule? E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism What Is Executive Order 13132 and Is It Applicable to This Final Rule? F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments 1. What is Executive Order 13175? 2. Does Executive Order 13175 Apply to This Final Rule? G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risks 1. What is Executive Order 13045? 2. Does Executive Order 13045 Apply to This Final Rule? H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Usage Is this Rule Subject to Executive Order 13211? I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 1. What is the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act? 2. Does the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Apply to this Final Rule? J. Congressional Review Act 1. Has EPA Submitted This Rule to Congress and the General Accounting Office? 2. Could the Effective Date of This Final Rule Change? 3. What Could Cause a Change in the Effective Date of This Rule? I. Background A. What Are CERCLA and SARA? In 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675 (“CERCLA” or “the Act”), in response to the dangers of uncontrolled releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, and releases or substantial threats of releases into the environment of any pollutant or contaminant that may present an imminent or substantial danger to the public health or welfare. CERCLA was amended on October 17, 1986, by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (“SARA”), Public Law 99-499, 100 Stat. 1613 *et seq.* B. What Is the NCP? To implement CERCLA, EPA promulgated the revised National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (“NCP”), 40 CFR part 300, on July 16, 1982 (47 FR 31180), pursuant to CERCLA section 105 and Executive Order 12316 (46 FR 42237, August 20, 1981). The NCP sets guidelines and procedures for responding to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, or releases or substantial threats of releases into the environment of any pollutant or contaminant that may present an imminent or substantial danger to the public health or welfare. EPA has revised the NCP on several occasions. The most recent comprehensive revision was on March 8, 1990 (55 FR 8666). As required under section 105(a)(8)(A) of CERCLA, the NCP also includes “criteria for determining priorities among releases or threatened releases throughout the United States for the purpose of taking remedial action and, to the extent practicable, taking into account the potential urgency of such action, for the purpose of taking removal action.” “Removal” actions are defined broadly and include a wide range of actions taken to study, clean up, prevent or otherwise address releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants (42 U.S.C. 9601(23)). C. What Is the National Priorities List (NPL)? The NPL is a list of national priorities among the known or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants throughout the United States. The list, which is appendix B of the NCP (40 CFR part 300), was required under section 105(a)(8)(B) of CERCLA, as amended by SARA. Section 105(a)(8)(B) defines the NPL as a list of “releases” and the highest priority “facilities” and requires that the NPL be revised at least annually. The NPL is intended primarily to guide EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation to assess the nature and extent of public health and environmental risks associated with a release of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants. The NPL is only of limited significance, however, as it does not assign liability to any party or to the owner of any specific property. Also, placing a site on the NPL does not mean that any remedial or removal action necessarily need be taken. For purposes of listing, the NPL includes two sections, one of sites that are generally evaluated and cleaned up by EPA (the “General Superfund Section”), and one of sites that are owned or operated by other Federal agencies (the “Federal Facilities Section”). With respect to sites in the Federal Facilities Section, these sites are generally being addressed by other Federal agencies. Under Executive Order 12580 (52 FR 2923, January 29, 1987) and CERCLA section 120, each Federal agency is responsible for carrying out most response actions at facilities under its own jurisdiction, custody, or control, although EPA is responsible for preparing a Hazard Ranking System
(HRS)score and determining whether the facility is placed on the NPL. EPA's role is less extensive than at other sites. D. How Are Sites Listed on the NPL? There are three mechanisms for placing sites on the NPL for possible remedial action (see 40 CFR 300.425(c) of the NCP):
(1)A site may be included on the NPL if it scores sufficiently high on the Hazard Ranking System (“HRS”), which EPA promulgated as appendix A of the NCP (40 CFR part 300). The HRS serves as a screening tool to evaluate the relative potential of uncontrolled hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants to pose a threat to human health or the environment. On December 14, 1990 (55 FR 51532), EPA promulgated revisions to the HRS partly in response to CERCLA section 105(c), added by SARA. The revised HRS evaluates four pathways: ground water, surface water, soil exposure, and air. As a matter of Agency policy, those sites that score 28.50 or greater on the HRS are eligible for the NPL;
(2)Pursuant to 42 U.S.C 9605(a)(8)(B), each State may designate a single site as its top priority to be listed on the NPL, without any HRS score. This provision of CERCLA requires that, to the extent practicable, the NPL include one facility designated by each State as the greatest danger to public health, welfare, or the environment among known facilities in the State. This mechanism for listing is set out in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(2);
(3)The third mechanism for listing, included in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(3), allows certain sites to be listed without any HRS score, if all of the following conditions are met: • The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) of the U.S. Public Health Service has issued a health advisory that recommends dissociation of individuals from the release. • EPA determines that the release poses a significant threat to public health. • EPA anticipates that it will be more cost-effective to use its remedial authority than to use its removal authority to respond to the release. EPA promulgated an original NPL of 406 sites on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40658) and generally has updated it at least annually. E. What Happens to Sites on the NPL? A site may undergo remedial action financed by the Trust Fund established under CERCLA (commonly referred to as the “Superfund”) only after it is placed on the NPL, as provided in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(b)(1). (“Remedial actions” are those “consistent with permanent remedy, taken instead of or in addition to removal actions * * *.” 42 U.S.C. 9601(24).) However, under 40 CFR 300.425(b)(2) placing a site on the NPL “does not imply that monies will be expended.” EPA may pursue other appropriate authorities to respond to the releases, including enforcement action under CERCLA and other laws. F. Does the NPL Define the Boundaries of Sites? The NPL does not describe releases in precise geographical terms; it would be neither feasible nor consistent with the limited purpose of the NPL (to identify releases that are priorities for further evaluation), for it to do so. Indeed, the precise nature and extent of the site are typically not known at the time of listing. Although a CERCLA “facility” is broadly defined to include any area where a hazardous substance release has “come to be located” (CERCLA section 101(9)), the listing process itself is not intended to define or reflect the boundaries of such facilities or releases. Of course, HRS data (if the HRS is used to list a site) upon which the NPL placement was based will, to some extent, describe the release(s) at issue. That is, the NPL site would include all releases evaluated as part of that HRS analysis. When a site is listed, the approach generally used to describe the relevant release(s) is to delineate a geographical area (usually the area within an installation or plant boundaries) and identify the site by reference to that area. However, the NPL site is not necessarily coextensive with the boundaries of the installation or plant, and the boundaries of the installation or plant are not necessarily the “boundaries” of the site. Rather, the site consists of all contaminated areas within the area used to identify the site, as well as any other location where that contamination has come to be located, or from where that contamination came. In other words, while geographic terms are often used to designate the site (e.g., the “Jones Co. plant site”) in terms of the property owned by a particular party, the site, properly understood, is not limited to that property (e.g., it may extend beyond the property due to contaminant migration), and conversely may not occupy the full extent of the property (e.g., where there are uncontaminated parts of the identified property, they may not be, strictly speaking, part of the “site”). The “site” is thus neither equal to, nor confined by, the boundaries of any specific property that may give the site its name, and the name itself should not be read to imply that this site is coextensive with the entire area within the property boundary of the installation or plant. In addition, the site name is merely used to help identify the geographic location of the contamination, and is not meant to constitute any determination of liability at a site. For example, the name “Jones Co. plant site,” does not imply that the Jones company is responsible for the contamination located on the plant site. EPA regulations provide that the “nature and extent of the problem presented by the release” will be determined by a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) as more information is developed on site contamination (40 CFR 300.5). During the RI/FS process, the release may be found to be larger or smaller than was originally thought, as more is learned about the source(s) and the migration of the contamination. However, the HRS inquiry focuses on an evaluation of the threat posed and therefore the boundaries of the release need not be exactly defined. Moreover, it generally is impossible to discover the full extent of where the contamination “has come to be located” before all necessary studies and remedial work are completed at a site. Indeed, the known boundaries of the contamination can be expected to change over time. Thus, in most cases, it may be impossible to describe the boundaries of a release with absolute certainty. Further, as noted above, NPL listing does not assign liability to any party or to the owner of any specific property. Thus, if a party does not believe it is liable for releases on discrete parcels of property, it can submit supporting information to the Agency at any time after it receives notice it is a potentially responsible party. For these reasons, the NPL need not be amended as further research reveals more information about the location of the contamination or release. G. How Are Sites Removed From the NPL? EPA may delete sites from the NPL where no further response is appropriate under Superfund, as explained in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(e). This section also provides that EPA shall consult with states on proposed deletions and shall consider whether any of the following criteria have been met:
(i)Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required;
(ii)All appropriate Superfund-financed response has been implemented and no further response action is required; or
(iii)The remedial investigation has shown the release poses no significant threat to public health or the environment, and taking of remedial measures is not appropriate. H. May EPA Delete Portions of Sites From the NPL as They Are Cleaned Up? In November 1995, EPA initiated a new policy to delete portions of NPL sites where cleanup is complete (60 FR 55465, November 1, 1995). Total site cleanup may take many years, while portions of the site may have been cleaned up and available for productive use. I. What Is the Construction Completion List (CCL)? EPA also has developed an NPL construction completion list (“CCL”) to simplify its system of categorizing sites and to better communicate the successful completion of cleanup activities (58 FR 12142, March 2, 1993). Inclusion of a site on the CCL has no legal significance. Sites qualify for the CCL when:
(1)Any necessary physical construction is complete, whether or not final cleanup levels or other requirements have been achieved;
(2)EPA has determined that the response action should be limited to measures that do not involve construction (e.g., institutional controls); or
(3)the site qualifies for deletion from the NPL. For the most up-to-date information on the CCL, see EPA's Internet site at *http://www.epa.gov/superfund* . J. What Is the Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use Measure? The Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use measure (formerly called Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse) represents important Superfund accomplishments and the measure reflects the high priority EPA places on considering anticipated future land use as part of our remedy selection process. See Guidance for Implementing the Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse Measure, May 24, 2006, OSWER 9365.0-36. This measure applies to final and deleted sites where construction is complete, all cleanup goals have been achieved, and all institutional or other controls are in place. EPA has been successful on many occasions in carrying out remedial actions that ensure protectiveness of human health and the environment, including current and future land users, in a manner that allows contaminated properties to be restored to environmental and economic vitality while ensuring protectiveness for current and future land users. For further information, please go to *http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/recycle/tools/sitewide.htm.* II. Availability of Information to the Public A. May I Review the Documents Relevant to This Final Rule? Yes, documents relating to the evaluation and scoring of the sites in this final rule are contained in dockets located both at EPA Headquarters and in the Regional offices. An electronic version of the public docket is available through *www.regulations.gov* (see table below for Docket Identification numbers). Although not all Docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available Docket materials through the Docket facilities identified below in section II D. Site name City/state FDMS docket ID number Halaco Engineering Company Oxnard, CA EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0072. Eagle Zinc Co Div T L Diamond Hillsboro, IL EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0074. South Minneapolis Residential Soil Contamination Minneapolis, MN EPA-HQ-SFUND-2006-0759. Standard Chlorine Kearny, NJ EPA-HQ-SFUND-2003-0010. Eagle Picher Carefree Battery Socorro, NM EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0078. Formosa Mine Douglas County, OR EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0079. Five Points PCE Plume Woods Cross/Bountiful UT EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0080. B. What Documents Are Available for Review at the Headquarters Docket? The Headquarters Docket for this rule contains, for each site, the HRS score sheets, the Documentation Record describing the information used to compute the score, pertinent information regarding statutory requirements or EPA listing policies that affect the site, and a list of documents referenced in the Documentation Record. For sites that received comments during the comment period, the Headquarters Docket also contains a Support Document that includes EPA's responses to comments. C. What Documents Are Available for Review at the Regional Dockets? The Regional Dockets contain all the information in the Headquarters Docket, plus the actual reference documents containing the data principally relied upon by EPA in calculating or evaluating the HRS score for the sites located in their Region. These reference documents are available only in the Regional Dockets. For sites that received comments during the comment period, the Regional Docket also contains a Support Document that includes EPA's responses to comments. D. How Do I Access the Documents? You may view the documents, by appointment only, after the publication of this rule. The hours of operation for the Headquarters Docket are from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. Please contact the Regional Dockets for hours. Following is the contact information for the EPA Headquarters: Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; CERCLA Docket Office; 1301 Constitution Avenue; EPA West, Room 3340, Washington, DC 20004, 202/566-1744. The contact information for the Regional Dockets is as follows: Joan Berggren, Region 1 (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT), U.S. EPA, Superfund Records and Information Center, Mailcode HSC, One Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02114-2023; 617/918-1417. Dennis Munhall, Region 2 (NJ, NY, PR, VI), U.S. EPA, 290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866; 212/637-4343. Dawn Shellenberger (ASRC), Region 3 (DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV), U.S. EPA, Library, 1650 Arch Street, Mailcode 3PM52, Philadelphia, PA 19103; 215/814-5364. Debbie Jourdan, Region 4 (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN), U.S. EPA, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, 9th floor, Atlanta, GA 30303; 404/562-8862. Janet Pfundheller, Region 5 (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI), U.S. EPA, Records Center, Superfund Division SRC-7J, Metcalfe Federal Building, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604; 312/353-5821. Brenda Cook, Region 6 (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX), U.S. EPA, 1445 Ross Avenue, Mailcode 6SF-RA, Dallas, TX 75202-2733; 214/665-7436. Michelle Quick, Region 7 (IA, KS, MO, NE), U.S. EPA, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, KS 66101; 913/551-7335. Gwen Christiansen, Region 8 (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY), U.S. EPA, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Mailcode 8EPR-B, Denver, CO 80202-1129; 303/312-6463. Dawn Richmond, Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI, NV, AS, GU), U.S. EPA, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105; 415/972-3097. Ken Marcy, Region 10 (AK, ID, OR, WA), U.S. EPA, 1200 6th Avenue, Mail Stop ECL-115, Seattle, WA 98101; 206/553-2782. E. How May I Obtain a Current List of NPL Sites? You may obtain a current list of NPL sites via the Internet at *http://www.epa.gov/superfund/* (look under the Superfund sites category) or by contacting the Superfund Docket (see contact information above). III. Contents of This Final Rule A. Additions to the NPL This final rule adds the following seven sites to the NPL, all to the General Superfund Section: State Site name City/county CA Halaco Engineering Company Oxnard. IL Eagle Zinc Co Div T L Diamond Hillsboro. MN South Minneapolis Residential Soil Contamination Minneapolis. NJ Standard Chlorine Kearny. NM Eagle Picher Carefree Battery Socorro. OR Formosa Mine Douglas County. UT Five Points PCE Plume Woods Cross/Bountiful. B. What Did EPA Do With the Public Comments It Received? EPA reviewed all comments received on the sites in this rule and responded to all relevant comments. For the Five Points PCE Plume site, EPA received only comments urging the site be listed on the NPL. For the Formosa Mine site, EPA received a number of comments urging the site be listed. EPA also received one comment saying “don't worry about the Formosa Mine site” and another saying there was no point in cleaning up a natural mine site unless EPA was going to remove the entire mountain and clean every adit. For these two sites, EPA did not receive any comments questioning the HRS documentation record or score. For the reasons set forth in the Administrative Record for these two sites, EPA is adding them to the NPL. EPA also received comments on the following sites: Halaco Engineering Company, Eagle Zinc Co Div T L Diamond, South Minneapolis Residential Soil Contamination, Standard Chlorine and Eagle Picher Carefree Battery. EPA's responses to these comments are addressed in the “Support Document for the Revised National Priorities List Final Rule—September 2007.” All comments that were received by EPA are contained in the Headquarters Docket and are also listed in EPA's electronic public Docket and comment system at *www.regulations.gov.* IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review 1. What Is Executive Order 12866? Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)), the Agency must determine whether a regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1)Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;
(2)create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3)materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4)raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. 2. Is This Final Rule Subject to Executive Order 12866 Review? No. The listing of sites on the NPL does not impose any obligations on any entities. The listing does not set standards or a regulatory regime and imposes no liability or costs. Any liability under CERCLA exists irrespective of whether a site is listed. It has been determined that this action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB review. B. Paperwork Reduction Act 1. What Is the Paperwork Reduction Act? According to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* , an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information that requires OMB approval under the PRA, unless it has been approved by OMB and displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations, after initial display in the preamble of the final rules, are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 2. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act Apply to This Final Rule? This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* EPA has determined that the PRA does not apply because this rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require approval of the OMB. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 1. What Is the Regulatory Flexibility Act? Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* , as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996) whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 2. How Has EPA Complied With the Regulatory Flexibility Act? This rule listing sites on the NPL does not impose any obligations on any group, including small entities. This rule also does not establish standards or requirements that any small entity must meet, and imposes no direct costs on any small entity. Whether an entity, small or otherwise, is liable for response costs for a release of hazardous substances depends on whether that entity is liable under CERCLA 107(a). Any such liability exists regardless of whether the site is listed on the NPL through this rulemaking. Thus, this rule does not impose any requirements on any small entities. For the foregoing reasons, I certify that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 1. What Is the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)? Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal Agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Before EPA promulgates a rule where a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. 2. Does UMRA Apply to This Final Rule? No, EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments in the aggregate, or by the private sector in any one year. This rule will not impose any federal intergovernmental mandate because it imposes no enforceable duty upon State, tribal or local governments. Listing a site on the NPL does not itself impose any costs. Listing does not mean that EPA necessarily will undertake remedial action. Nor does listing require any action by a private party or determine liability for response costs. Costs that arise out of site responses result from site-specific decisions regarding what actions to take, not directly from the act of listing a site on the NPL. For the same reasons, EPA also has determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. In addition, as discussed above, the private sector is not expected to incur costs exceeding $100 million. EPA has fulfilled the requirement for analysis under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism What Is Executive Order 13132 and Is It Applicable to This Final Rule? Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” Under section 6 of 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 final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule. F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments 1. What is Executive Order 13175? Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 6, 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.” “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.” 2. Does Executive Order 13175 Apply to This Final Rule? This final rule does not have tribal implications. 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, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this final rule. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risks 1. What Is Executive Order 13045? Executive Order 13045: “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that:
(1)Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and
(2)concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. 2. Does Executive Order 13045 Apply to This Final Rule? This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not an economically significant rule as defined by Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this section present a disproportionate risk to children. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Usage Is This Rule Subject to Executive Order 13211? This rule is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 1. What Is the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act? 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), directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. 2. Does the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Apply to This Final Rule? No. This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards. J. Congressional Review Act 1. Has EPA Submitted This Rule to Congress and the Government Accountability Office? 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, that includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA has submitted 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 rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 2. Could the Effective Date of This Final Rule Change? Provisions of the Congressional Review Act
(CRA)or section 305 of CERCLA may alter the effective date of this regulation. Under the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801(a), before a rule can take effect the federal agency promulgating the rule must submit a report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General. This report must contain a copy of the rule, a concise general statement relating to the rule (including whether it is a major rule), a copy of the cost-benefit analysis of the rule (if any), the agency's actions relevant to provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (affecting small businesses) and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (describing unfunded federal requirements imposed on state and local governments and the private sector), and any other relevant information or requirements and any relevant Executive Orders. EPA has submitted a report under the CRA for this rule. The rule will take effect, as provided by law, within 30 days of publication of this document, since it is not a major rule. Section 804(2) defines a major rule as any rule that the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
(OIRA)of the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)finds has resulted in or is likely to result in: An annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets. NPL listing is not a major rule because, as explained above, the listing, itself, imposes no monetary costs on any person. It establishes no enforceable duties, does not establish that EPA necessarily will undertake remedial action, nor does it require any action by any party or determine its liability for site response costs. Costs that arise out of site responses result from site-by-site decisions about what actions to take, not directly from the act of listing itself. Section 801(a)(3) provides for a delay in the effective date of major rules after this report is submitted. 3. What Could Cause a Change in the Effective Date of This Rule? Under 5 U.S.C. 801(b)(1) a rule shall not take effect, or continue in effect, if Congress enacts (and the President signs) a joint resolution of disapproval, described under section 802. Another statutory provision that may affect this rule is CERCLA section 305, which provides for a legislative veto of regulations promulgated under CERCLA. Although *INS* v. *Chadha,* 462 U.S. 919,103 S. Ct. 2764
(1983)and *Bd. of Regents of the University of Washington* v. *EPA,* 86 F.3d 1214,1222 (D.C. Cir. 1996) cast the validity of the legislative veto into question, EPA has transmitted a copy of this regulation to the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives. If action by Congress under either the CRA or CERCLA section 305 calls the effective date of this regulation into question, EPA will publish a document of clarification in the **Federal Register** . List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations, Natural resources, Oil pollution, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply. Dated: September 4, 2007. Susan Parker Bodine, Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. 40 CFR part 300 is amended as follows: PART 300—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193. 2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 is amended by adding the following sites in alphabetical order to read as follows: Appendix B to Part 300—National Priorities List Table 1.—General Superfund Section State Site name City/County Notes
(a)* * * * * * * CA Halaco Engineering Company Oxnard * * * * * * * IL Eagle Zinc Co Div T L Diamond Hillsboro * * * * * * * MN South Minneapolis Residential Soil Contamination Minneapolis * * * * * * * NJ Standard Chlorine Kearny * * * * * * * NM Eagle Picher Carefree Battery Socorro * * * * * * * OR Formosa Mine Douglas County * * * * * * * WA Five Points PCE Plume Woods Cross/Bountiful * * * * * * *
(a)A = Based on issuance of health advisory by Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry (HRS score need not be ≥ 28.50). C = Sites on Construction Completion list. S = State top priority (HRS score need not be ≥ 28.50) P = Sites with partial deletion(s). [FR Doc. E7-18155 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 721 [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2006-0898; FRL-8135-8] RIN 2070-AB27 Significant New Use Rules on Certain Chemical Substances AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is promulgating significant new use rules (SNURs) under section 5(a)(2) of the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA)for 38 chemical substances which were the subject of premanufacture notices (PMNs). One of these chemical substances is also subject to a TSCA section 5(e) consent order issued by EPA. This action requires persons who intend to manufacture, import, or process any of these 38 chemical substances for an activity that is designated as a significant new use by this rule to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing that activity. The required notification will provide EPA with the opportunity to evaluate the intended use and, if necessary, to prohibit or limit that activity before it occurs. DATES: The effective date of this rule is November 19, 2007 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse or critical comments, or notice of intent to submit adverse or critical comments before October 19, 2007. This rule shall be promulgated for purposes of judicial review at 1 p.m. (e.s.t.) on October 3, 2007. If EPA receives adverse or critical comments, or notice of intent to submit adverse or critical comments, on one or more of these SNURs before October 19, 2007 EPA will withdraw the relevant sections of this direct final rule before its effective date. EPA will then issue a proposed SNUR for the chemical substance(s) on which adverse or critical comments were received, providing a 30-day period for public comment. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2006-0898, by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail* : Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. • *Hand Delivery* : OPPT Document Control Office (DCO), EPA East, Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. Attention: Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2006-0898. The DCO is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the DCO is
(202)564-8930. Such deliveries are only accepted during the DCO's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions* : Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2006-0898. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available on-line at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-mail. The regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the 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. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm* . *Docket* : All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available in regulations.gov. To access the electronic docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* , select “Advanced Search,” then “Docket Search.” Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the “Submit” button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov web site to view the docket index or access available documents. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available electronically at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPPT Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC Public Reading Room is
(202)566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is
(202)566-0280. Docket visitors are required to show photographic identification, pass through a metal detector, and sign the EPA visitor log. All visitor bags are processed through an X-ray machine and subject to search. Visitors will be provided an EPA/DC badge that must be visible at all times in the building and returned upon departure. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: *For general information contact* : Colby Lintner, Regulatory Coordinator, Environmental Assistance Division (7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202)554-1404; e-mail address: *TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov.* *For technical information contact* : Karen Chu, Chemical Control Division (7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202)564-8773; e-mail address: *chu.karen@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture, import, process, or use the chemical substances contained in this rule. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to: • Manufacturers, importers, or processors of one or more subject chemical substances (NAICS codes 325 and 324110), e.g., Chemical manufacturing and petroleum refineries. This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. To determine whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability provisions in 40 CFR 721.5. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . This action may also affect certain entities through pre-existing import certification and export notification rules under TSCA. Persons who import any chemical substance governed by a final SNUR are subject to the TSCA section 13 (15 U.S.C. 2612) import certification requirements and the corresponding regulations at 19 CFR 12.118 through 12.127 and 19 CFR 127.28. Those persons must certify that the shipment of the chemical substance complies with all applicable rules and orders under TSCA, including any SNUR requirements. The EPA policy in support of import certification appears at 40 CFR part 707, subpart B. In addition, any persons who export or intend to export a chemical substance that is the subject of this rule on or after October 19, 2007 are subject to the export notification provisions of TSCA section 12(b) (15 U.S.C. 2611(b)) (see 40 CFR 721.20), and must comply with the export notification requirements in 40 CFR part 707, subpart D. B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 1. *Submitting CBI* . Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 2. *Tips for preparing your comments* . When submitting comments, remember to: i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)part or section number. iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives. vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. II. Background A. What Action is the Agency Taking? EPA is promulgating these SNURs using direct final procedures. These SNURs will require persons to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing the manufacture, import, or processing of a chemical substance for any activity designated by these SNURs as a significant new use. Additional rationale and background to this rule are more fully set out in the preamble to EPA's first direct final SNUR published in the **Federal Register** of April 24, 1990 (55 FR 17376). Consult that preamble for further information on the objectives, rationale, and procedures for SNURs and on the basis for significant new use designations, including provisions for developing test data. B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action? Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(2)) authorizes EPA to determine that a use of a chemical substance is a “significant new use.” EPA must make this determination by rule after considering all relevant factors, including those listed in TSCA section 5(a)(2). Once EPA determines that a use of a chemical substance is a significant new use, TSCA section 5(a)(1)(B) requires persons to submit a significant new use notice
(SNUN)to EPA at least 90 days before they manufacture, import, or process the chemical substance for that use. The mechanism for reporting under this requirement is established under 40 CFR 721.5. C. Applicability of General Provisions General provisions for SNURs appear under 40 CFR part 721, subpart A. These provisions describe persons subject to the rule, recordkeeping requirements, exemptions to reporting requirements, and applicability of the rule to uses occurring before the effective date of the final rule. Provisions relating to user fees appear at 40 CFR part 700. According to 40 CFR 721.1(c), persons subject to these SNURs must comply with the same notice requirements and EPA regulatory procedures as submitters of PMNs under TSCA section 5(a)(1)(A). In particular, these requirements include the information submission requirements of TSCA section 5(b) and 5(d)(1), the exemptions authorized by TSCA section 5(h)(1), (h)(2), (h)(3), and (h)(5), and the regulations at 40 CFR part 720. Once EPA receives a SNUN, EPA may take regulatory action under TSCA section 5(e), 5(f), 6, or 7 to control the activities on which it has received the SNUN. If EPA does not take action, EPA is required under TSCA section 5(g) to explain in the **Federal Register** its reasons for not taking action. Persons who export or intend to export a chemical substance identified in a proposed or final SNUR are subject to the export notification provisions of TSCA section 12(b). The regulations that interpret TSCA section 12(b) appear at 40 CFR part 707, subpart D. Persons who import a chemical substance identified in a final SNUR are subject to the TSCA section 13 import certification requirements, codified at 19 CFR 12.118 through 12.127 and 19 CFR 127.28. Such persons must certify that the shipment of the chemical substance complies with all applicable rules and orders under TSCA, including any SNUR requirements. The EPA policy in support of the import certification appears at 40 CFR part 707, subpart B. III. Substances Subject to this Rule EPA is establishing significant new use and recordkeeping requirements for 38 chemical substances under 40 CFR part 721, subpart E. In this unit, EPA provides the following information for each chemical substance: • PMN number. • Chemical name (generic name if the specific name is claimed as CBI). • CAS number (if assigned for non-confidential chemical identities). • Basis for the section 5(e) consent order, or, for non-5(e) SNURs, the basis for the SNUR. • Toxicity concerns. • Tests recommended by EPA to provide sufficient information to evaluate the chemical substance (see Unit VI. for more information). • CFR citation assigned in the regulatory text section of this rule. The specific activities designated as significant new uses are listed in the regulatory text section of 40 CFR part 721, subpart E. Certain new uses, including production limits and other uses designated in the rule are claimed as CBI. The procedure for obtaining confidential information is set out in Unit VII. This rule includes a SNUR on one PMN substance that is subject to a “risk-based” consent order under TSCA section 5(e)(1)(A)(ii)(I) wherein EPA determined that activities associated with the PMN substance may present unreasonable risk to health or the environment. The consent order requires protective measures to limit exposures or otherwise mitigate the potential unreasonable risk. The so-called “5(e) SNUR” on this substance is promulgated pursuant to 40 CFR 721.160, and is based on and consistent with the provisions in the underlying consent order. The SNUR designates as a “significant new use” the absence of the protective measures required in the consent order. This rule also includes SNURs on 37 PMN substances that are not subject to consent orders under TSCA section 5(e). In these cases, EPA did not find that the use scenario described in the PMN triggered the determinations set forth under section 5(e) of TSCA. EPA, however, does believe that certain changes from the use scenario described in the PMN could result in increased exposures, thereby constituting a “significant new use.” These so-called “non-5(e) SNURs” are promulgated pursuant to 40 CFR 721.170. EPA has determined that every activity designated as a “significant new use” in all the non-5(e) SNURs issued under 40 CFR 721.170 satisfies the two requirements stipulated in § 721.170(c)(2), i.e., these significant new use activities, “(i) are different from those described in the premanufacture notice for the substance, including any amendments, deletions, and additions of activities to the premanufacture notice, and
(ii)may be accompanied by changes in exposure or release levels that are significant in relation to the health or environmental concerns identified” for the PMN substance. **PMN Numbers P-01-759 and P-05-555** *Chemical name:* Dodecandioic acid, 1, 12-dihydrazide. *CAS number:* 4080-98-2. *Basis for action:* The PMNs state that the generic (non-confidential) uses of the substance will be as a raw material for coating and sealants and as a curing agent. Based on molecular structure and test data on analogous substances, EPA has identified health concerns for carcinogenicity, developmental toxicity, and irritation to mucous membranes. Also, based on test data on the PMN substance, EPA has identified concerns for dermal sensitization. As described in the PMNs and accompanying Material Safety Data Sheets, workers will be warned that the substance may cause dermal sensitization and will wear gloves and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) approved respirators with an assigned protection factor
(APF)of 50 or greater. Based on adequate personal protective equipment and hazard communication, significant worker exposure is unlikely. Further, consumer use is not expected. Therefore, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, or use of the substance may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that use of the substance without workers wearing gloves and a respirator, and without an appropriate hazard communication program, may cause serious human health effects. Respirators must provide a NIOSH APF of at least 50. The following NIOSH-approved respirators meet the minimum requirement for § 721.63(a)(4): Air-purifying, tight-fitting full-face respirator equipped with N100 (if oil aerosols absent), R100, or P100 filters; powered air-purifying respirator equipped with a tight-fitting full facepiece and High Efficiency Particulate Air
(HEPA)filters; supplied air respirator operated in pressure demand or continuous flow mode and equipped with a tight-fitting full facepiece. Because the substance is a dermal sensitizer and irritates mucous membranes, half-face respirators do not provide adequate protection. Based on this information, the PMN substance meets the concern criteria at § 721.170 (b)(1)(i)(C) and (b)(3)(ii). *Recommended testing:* EPA has determined that the results of a 90-day oral toxicity test in rats (OPPTS 870.3100 test guideline) and a mammalian erythrocyte micronucleus test (OPPTS 870.5395 test guideline) would help characterize the human health effects of the PMN substance. *CFR citation:* 40 CFR 721.10057. **PMN Numbers P-03-546, P-03-550, and P-03-551** *Chemical names:* (P-03-546) Reaction product of alkylphenol, aromatic cyclicamine, alkyl diglycidyl dibenzene, and formaldehyde (generic); (P-03-550) Reaction product of alkylphenyl glycidyl ether, polyalkylenepolyamine, and alkyl diglycidyl dibenzene (generic); and (P-03-551) Reaction product of alkylphenyl glycidyl ether, polyalkylenepolyamine, alkyl diglycidyl dibenzene, and polyalkylcyclicdiamine (generic). *CAS numbers:* Not available. *Basis for action:* The PMNs state that the substances will be used as epoxy curing agents. Based on test data on structurally analogous polycationic polymers, EPA is concerned that toxicity to aquatic organisms may occur at concentrations at or above 20 parts per billion
(ppb)of the PMN substances in surface waters. As described in the PMNs, the substances are not released to surface waters. Therefore, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, or use of the substances may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that uses of the substances resulting in release to surface waters may cause significant adverse environmental effects. Based on this information, the PMN substances meet the concern criteria at § 721.170(b)(4)(ii). *Recommended testing:* EPA has determined that the results of the following tests would help characterize the environmental effects of the PMN substances: A fish acute toxicity test, freshwater and marine (OPPTS 850.1075 test guideline (public draft)); a fish acute toxicity test mitigated by humic acid (OPPTS 850.1085 test guideline (public draft)); an aquatic invertebrate acute toxicity test, freshwater daphnids (OPPTS 850.1010 test guideline (public draft)); and an algal toxicity test, tiers I and II (OPPTS 850.5400 test guideline (public draft)). *CFR citations:* 40 CFR 721.10058 (P-03-546); 40 CFR 721.10059 (P-03-550); and 40 CFR 721.10060 (P-03-551). **PMN Number P-04-341** *Chemical name:* Pentane, 1,1,1,2,2,3,4,5,5,5-decafluoro-3-methoxy-4-(trifluoromethyl)-. *CAS number:* 132182-92-4. *Basis for action:* The PMN states that the substance will be used as a solvent coating and heat transfer fluid. EPA has identified health and environmental concerns because the substance is potentially a persistent, bio-accumulative, and toxic
(PBT)chemical, consistent with the New Chemical Program's PBT Category (64 FR 60194; November 4, 1999). EPA estimates that the PMN substance will persist in the environment more than six months and estimates a bioaccumulation factor of greater than or equal to 1,000, based on test data indicating a fish bioaccumulation factor of 3.2 and a log K <sup>ow</sup> of 4.70. As described in the PMN, the substance is not released to surface water. Therefore, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, or use of the substance may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that any release of the PMN substance to surface waters may cause significant adverse environmental effects, since the PMN substance has been characterized by EPA as a PBT. Based on this information, the PMN substance meets the concern criteria at § 721.170(b)(4)(ii). *Recommended testing:* EPA has determined that the results of the tiered testing as described in the New Chemicals Program's PBT Category would help characterize the PBT attributes of the substance. EPA has determined that the results of an algal toxicity test, tiers I and II (OPPTS 850.5400 test guideline (public draft)), a fish early-life stage toxicity test (OPPTS 850.1400 test guideline (public draft)), and a daphnid chronic toxicity test (OPPTS 850.1300 test guideline (public draft)) would further characterize the environmental effects of the PMN substance. *CFR citation:* 40 CFR 721.10061. **PMN Number P-04-627** *Chemical name:* 2,5-Furandione, polymer with oxybis[propanol], benzoate. *CAS number:* 103458-14-6. *Basis for action:* The PMN states that the generic (non-confidential) use of the substance will be as a spray-applied filled backing resin. Based on test data on structurally similar acrylates and esters, EPA is concerned that toxicity to aquatic organisms may occur at concentrations at or above 9 ppb of the PMN substance in surface waters. As described in the PMN, the substance is not released to surface waters. Therefore, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, or use of the substances may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that other uses of the substances resulting in release to surface waters may cause significant adverse environmental effects. Based on this information, the PMN substance meets the concern criteria at § 721.170(b)(4)(ii). *Recommended testing:* EPA has determined that the results of a fish acute toxicity test, freshwater and marine (OPPTS 850.1075 test guideline (public draft)), an aquatic invertebrate acute toxicity test, freshwater daphnids (OPPTS 850.1010 test guideline (public draft)), and an algal toxicity test, tiers I and II (OPPTS 850.5400 test guideline (public draft)) would help characterize the environmental effects of the PMN substance. *CFR citation:* 40 CFR 721.10062. **PMN Number P-04-792** *Chemical name:* Halo substituted hydroxy nitrophenyl amide (generic). *CAS number:* Not available. *Basis for action:* The PMN states that generic (non-confidential) use of the substance will be as a chemical intermediate. Based on test data on structurally analogous phenols, EPA is concerned that toxicity to aquatic organisms may occur at concentrations at or above 2 ppb of the PMN substance in surface waters. As described in the PMN, the substance is not released to surface waters. Therefore, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, or use of the substance may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that other uses of the substance resulting in release to surface waters may cause significant adverse environmental effects. Based on this information, the PMN substance meets the concern criteria at § 721.170(b)(4)(ii). *Recommended testing:* EPA has determined that the results of the following tests would help characterize the environmental effects of the PMN substance: An algal toxicity test, tiers I and II (OPPTS 850.5400 test guideline (public draft)); a fish early-life stage toxicity test (OPPTS 850.1400 test guideline (public draft)); a daphnid chronic toxicity test (OPPTS 850.1300 test guideline (public draft)); and either a porous pot test (OPPTS 835.3220 test guideline) or an aerobic sewage treatment test (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD)303A test guideline). The algal toxicity study should be performed using the static method with measured concentrations and the fish and daphnid tests should be performed using the flow-through method with measured concentrations. *CFR citation:* 40 CFR 721.10063. **PMN Number P-04-909** *Chemical name:* 2-Propenoic acid, 2-[2-(ethenyloxy)ethoxy]ethyl ester. *CAS number:* 86273-46-3. *Effective date of section 5(e) consent order:* 6-26-2006. *Basis for section 5(e) consent order:* The PMN states the substance will be used as an ultraviolet-curable monomer for polymerization. The order was issued under section 5(e)(1)(A)(i) and (e)(1)(A)(ii)(I) of TSCA, based on a finding that this substance may present an unreasonable risk of injury to human health. To protect against this risk, the consent order requires use of gloves demonstrated by testing to be impervious (North Butyl Black gloves and T-1 Dailove Ethylene Vinylalcohol Copolymer Laminated Blue gloves have satisfied this requirement) and a hazard communication program. The SNUR designates as a ‘significant new use’ the absence of these protective measures. *Toxicity concern:* Based on test data on chemicals analogous to the PMN substance, EPA has concerns that the PMN substance may cause developmental toxicity, mutagenicity, reproductive toxicity, and oncogenicity. Also, EPA has health concerns for sensitization based on submitted test data on the PMN substance and via analogy to TSCA section 8(e) submission number 8EHQ-1092-11387, skin irritation and kidney toxicity concerns based on data for a bismethacrylate analog TSCA section 8(e) submission number 8EHQ-0695-13474, and skin cancer concerns (if exposed individuals are not protected from skin damage from the irritant properties of the chemical) based on male mouse chronic dermal toxicity test data for an analog, For Your Information
(FYI)submission number FYI-0691-01262. *Recommended testing:* EPA has determined that the results of a combined repeated dose toxicity test with reproduction/developmental screening (OPPTS 870.3650 test guideline) would help characterize the human health effects of the PMN substance. The test should be done in rats, through the oral route of exposure, and be modified to dose for 70 days, an entire sperm cycle, before mating occurs. The PMN submitter has agreed not to exceed the production volume limit without performing this test. *CFR citation:* 40 CFR 721.10064. **PMN Numbers P-04-961 and P-04-962** *Chemical names:* (P-04-961) 1-Tetradecanesulfonic acid, (dimethylphenyl)- and (P-04-962) 1-Hexanesulfonic acid, (dimethylphenyl)-. *CAS numbers:* (P-04-961) 671756-61-9 and (P-04-962) 676143-36-5. *Basis for action:* The PMNs state that the generic (non-confidential) use of the substances will be to help recover additional quantities of oil from subterranean reservoirs and also to impart improved properties to products derived from such recovered oil. Based on test data on chemicals with molecular structures similar to the PMN substances, EPA is concerned that toxicity to aquatic organisms may occur at concentrations at or above 20 ppb of the PMN substances in surface waters. As described in the consolidated PMNs, the substances will not be released to surface waters. Therefore, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, or use of the substances may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that other uses of the substances resulting in release to surface waters may cause significant adverse environmental effects. Based on this information, the PMN substances meet the concern criteria at § 721.170(b)(4)(ii). *Recommended testing:* EPA has determined that the results of the following tests would help characterize the environmental effects of the PMN substances: A porous pot test (OPPTS 835.3220 test guideline); a fish acute toxicity test, freshwater and marine (OPPTS 850.1075 test guideline (public draft)); an aquatic invertebrate acute toxicity test freshwater in daphnids (OPPTS 850.1010 test guideline (public draft)); and an algal toxicity test, tiers I and II (OPPTS 850.5400 test guideline (public draft)). *CFR citations:* 40 CFR 721.10065 (P-04-961) and 40 CFR 721.10066 (P-04-962). **PMN Numbers P-05-57, P-05-58, P-05-59, P-05-60, P-05-61, P-05-62, P-05-63, P-05-64, and P-05-65** *Chemical names:* (P-05-57, P-05-58, P-05-59, P-05-61, P-05-62, P-05-63, P-05-64, and P-05-65) Ether amine phosphonate salt (generic) and (P-05-60) Ether amine phosphonate (generic). *CAS numbers:* Not available. *Basis for action:* The PMNs state that the generic (non-confidential) use of the substances will be as a contained use in energy production. Based on test data on chemicals with molecular structures similar to the PMN substances, EPA is concerned that toxicity to aquatic organisms may occur at concentrations at or above 30 ppb of the PMN substances in surface waters. As described in the consolidated PMNs, the substances will not be released to surface waters. Therefore, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, or use of the substances may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that other uses of the substances resulting in release to surface waters may cause significant adverse environmental effects. Based on this information, the PMN substances meet the concern criteria at § 721.170(b)(4)(ii). *Recommended testing:* EPA has determined that the results of an algal toxicity test, tiers I and II (OPPTS 850.5400 test guideline (public draft)) on P-05-57, P-05-58, and P-05-64 and a ready biodegradation test (OPPTS 835.3110 test guideline) on P-05-57, P-05-59, and P-05-61 or P-05-64 would help characterize the environmental effects of the PMN substances. *CFR citations:* 40 CFR 721.10067 (P-05-57, P-05-58, P-05-59, P-05-61, P-05-62, P-05-63, P-05-64, and P-05-65) and 40 CFR 721.10069 (P-05-60). **PMN Number P-05-309** *Chemical name:* 1,3-Butanediol, 3-methyl-. *CAS number:* 2568-33-4. *Basis for action:* The PMN states that the substance will be used as inkjet ink. Based on test data on the PMN substance and on analogous chemicals, the PMN substance may cause developmental toxicity, liver toxicity, blood/immune system effects and possibly digestive tract and kidney effects. As described in the PMN, the substance is imported in an inkjet cartridge so domestic worker exposure is not expected. Although there is potential for short-term, infrequent consumer dermal exposure, based on test data on the closest analog, the margin of exposure is greater than 1,000. Therefore, EPA has not determined that the proposed use of the substance may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that domestic manufacturing or use other than as described in the PMN could result in serious health effects. Based on this information, the PMN substance meets the concern criteria at § 721.170 (b)(3)(i) and (b)(3)(ii). *Recommended testing:* EPA has determined that the results of a 90-day oral toxicity test in rodents (OPPTS 870.3100 test guideline) and a prenatal developmental toxicity study (OPPTS 870.3700 test guideline) would help characterize the human health effects of the PMN substance. *CFR citation:* 40 CFR 721.10070. **PMN Number P-05-364** *Chemical name:* 9H-Thioxanthenium, 10-[1,1′-biphenyl]-4-yl-2-(1-methylethyl)-9-oxo-, hexafluorophosphate (1-) (1:1). *CAS number:* 591773-92-1. *Basis for action:* The PMN states that the generic (non-confidential) use of the substance will be as a benzene-free cationic photoinitiator. Based on submitted test data on the PMN substance, the substance may cause mutagenicity, lung toxicity, thyroid toxicity, irritation to eyes, mucous membranes and lung, dermal sensitization, and developmental toxicity resulting from thyroid effects. In addition, based on submitted test data on the PMN substance, EPA is concerned that toxicity to aquatic organisms may occur at concentrations at or above 6 ppb of the PMN substance in surface waters. As described in the PMN, significant inhalation exposure is unlikely, and the substance is not released to water. Therefore, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, or use of the substance may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that domestic manufacture or any import, processing, or use of the PMN substance in a solid form may cause serious health and environmental effects. Based on this information, the PMN substance meets the concern criteria at § 721.170 (b)(3)(i) and (b)(4)(i). *Recommended testing:* EPA has determined that the results of a fish early-life stage toxicity test (OPPTS 850.1400 test guideline (public draft)), a daphnid chronic toxicity test (OPPTS 850.1300 test guideline (public draft)), and a 90-day oral toxicity test in rodents (OPPTS 870.3100 test guideline) would help characterize the environmental and human health effects of the PMN substance. The fish and daphnid tests should be performed using the flow-through method with measured concentrations. *CFR citation:* 40 CFR 721.10071. **PMN Number P-05-380** *Chemical name:* Benzene, 1,1′-methylenebis[4-isocyanato-, polymer with benzenedicarboxylic acid, butyl dialkyl ester, poly[oxy(methyl-1,2-ethanediyl)], .alpha.-hydro-.omega.-hydroxy-, oxirane, alkyl-, polymer with oxirane, ether with propanepolyol and Sartomer's HLBH P-3000 and Lexorez 1180 (generic). *CAS number:* Not available. *Basis for action:* The PMN states that the substance will be used as a roofing adhesive for bonding roof membranes. Based on test data on analogous substances, the PMN substance may cause lung toxicity. As described in the PMN, significant worker inhalation exposure is unlikely. Therefore, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, or use of the substance may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that use of the substance involving an application method that generates a vapor, mist, or aerosol may cause serious health effects. Based on this information, the PMN substance meets the concern criteria at § 721.170(b)(3)(ii). *Recommended testing:* EPA has determined that the results of a 90-day inhalation toxicity test in rats (OPPTS 870.3465 test guideline) would help characterize the human health effects of the PMN substance. *CFR citation:* 40 CFR 721.10072. **PMN Number P-05-536** *Chemical name:* Modified alkyl acrylamide (generic). *CAS number:* Not available. *Basis for action:* The PMN states that the generic (non-confidential) use of the substance will be as a chemical intermediate. Based on analogy to acrylamide, the PMN substance may cause neurotoxicity, mutagenicity, carcinogenicity, reproductive toxicity, developmental toxicity, and immunotoxicity. As described in the PMN, worker dermal exposure is not expected and inhalation exposure is expected to be negligible. Therefore, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, or use of the PMN substance may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that use of the PMN substance other than as described in the PMN may cause serious health effects. Based on this information, the PMN substance meets the concern criteria at § 721.170 (b)(1)(i)(C) and (b)(3)(ii). *Recommended testing:* EPA has determined that the results of a 90-day oral toxicity test with neuropathology in rodents (OPPTS 870.3100 test guideline) would help characterize the human health effects of the PMN substance. *CFR citation:* 40 CFR 721.10073. **PMN Number P-05-568** *Chemical name:* Acetic acid, 2-chloro-, 1-(3,3-dimethylcyclohexyl)ethyl ester. *CAS number:* 477218-59-0. *Basis for action:* The PMN states that the substance will be used as an isolated intermediate. Based on test data on analogous esters, the PMN substance may cause toxicity to aquatic organisms at concentrations at or above 6 ppb of the PMN substance in surface waters. As described in the PMN, the substance is not released in significant amounts to surface waters. Therefore, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, or use of the substance may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that use of the PMN substance other than as a site-limited intermediate may cause significant adverse environmental effects. Based on this information, the PMN substance meets the concern criteria at § 721.170(b)(4)(ii). *Recommended testing:* EPA has determined that the results of a fish acute toxicity test, freshwater and marine (OPPTS 850.1075 test guideline (public draft)), an aquatic invertebrate acute toxicity test, freshwater daphnids (OPPTS 850.1010 test guideline (public draft)), and an algal toxicity test, tiers I and II (OPPTS 850.5400 test guideline (public draft)) would help characterize the environmental effects of the PMN substance. *CFR citation:* 40 CFR 721.10074. **PMN Number P-05-722** *Chemical name:* Carbon black, 4-[[2-(Sulfooxy)ethyl] substituted] phenyl-modified, sodium salts (generic). *CAS number:* Not available. *Basis for action:* The PMN states that the generic (non-confidential) use of this substance will be as a step 1 black pigment intermediate. Based on test data on analogous respirable, poorly soluble, particulates, the PMN substance may cause lung effects. Based on its physical properties, dermal exposure to the PMN substance may cause systemic effects. As described in the PMN, dermal and inhalation exposure are not expected. Therefore, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, or use of the substance may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that use of the substance other than as described in the PMN, or any manufacturing, processing, or use of the substance as a powder may cause serious health effects. Based on this information, the PMN substance meets the concern criteria at § 721.170(b)(3)(ii). *Recommended testing:* EPA has determined that the results of a 90-day inhalation toxicity test (OPPTS 870.3465 test guideline) would help characterize the human health effects of the PMN substance. *CFR citation:* 40 CFR 721.10075. **PMN Number P-05-792** *Chemical name:* Substituted benzenediamine (generic). *CAS number:* Not available. *Basis for action:* The PMN states that the generic (non-confidential) use of the substance will be as a chemical intermediate that will be destroyed during use. Based on test data on analogous chemicals, EPA is concerned that toxicity to aquatic organisms may occur at concentrations above 2 ppb of the PMN substance in surface waters. As described in the PMN, releases of the PMN substance are not expected to result in surface water concentrations above 2 ppb. Therefore, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, or use of the substance may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that other uses of the substance resulting in surface water concentrations above 2 ppb may cause significant adverse environmental effects. Based on this information, the PMN substance meets the concern criteria at § 721.170(b)(4)(ii). *Recommended testing:* EPA has determined that the results of the following tests would help characterize the environmental effects of the PMN substance: A ready biodegradability test (OPPTS 835.3110 test guideline); a fish acute toxicity test, freshwater and marine (OPPTS 850.1075 test guideline (public draft)); an aquatic invertebrate acute toxicity test, freshwater daphnids (OPPTS 850.1010 test guideline (public draft)); and an algal toxicity test, tiers I and II (OPPTS 850.5400 test guideline (public draft)). *CFR citation:* 40 CFR 721.10076. **PMN Numbers P-06-1 and P-06-166** *Chemical name:* 3H-1,2,4-Triazol-3-one, 1,2-dihydro-. *CAS number:* 930-33-6. *Basis for action:* The PMNs state that the substance will be used as a chemical intermediate. Based on test data on 1,2,4-Triazole, EPA has concern for developmental toxicity. Also, based on test data on structural analogues, EPA is concerned that toxicity to aquatic organisms may occur at concentrations at or above 20 ppb of the PMN substance in surface waters. As described in the PMNs, the substance will not be released to surface water and worker exposure will be minimal due to adequate personal protective equipment. Therefore, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, or use of the substance may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that use of the substance resulting in release to surface waters or use of the substance without appropriate hazard communication and worker respiratory protection may cause significant adverse environmental and human health effects. Based on this information, the PMN substance meets the concern criteria at § 721.170 (b)(3)(ii) and(b)(4)(ii). *Recommended testing:* EPA has determined that the results of the following tests would help characterize the environmental and health effects of the PMN substance: A ready biodegradability test using any of the six methods (OPPTS 835.3110 test guideline); a porous pot test (OPPTS 835.3220 test guideline); a fish acute toxicity test, freshwater and marine (OPPTS 850.1075 test guideline (public draft)); an aquatic invertebrate acute toxicity test, freshwater daphnids (OPPTS 850.1010 test guideline (public draft)); an algal toxicity test, tiers I and II (OPPTS 850.5400 test guideline (public draft)); and a prenatal developmental toxicity study (OPPTS 870.3700 test guideline). The porous pot test is suggested only if the substance does not pass the ready biodegradation test. *CFR citation:* 40 CFR 721.10077. **PMN Number P-06-4** *Chemical name:* Butanamide, 2-[(2-methoxy-4-nitrophenyl)azo]- *N* -(2- methoxyphenyl)-3-oxo-, 4-[(17-substituted-3,6,9,12,15-pentaazaheptadec-1-yl)substituted]phenyl derivs., hydrochlorides (generic). *CAS number:* Not available. *Basis for action:* The PMN states that the generic (non-confidential) use of the substance will be as a step 2 yellow pigment intermediate. Based on test data on other aliphatic polyamines and cationic dyes, EPA is concerned that toxicity to aquatic organisms may occur at concentrations above 10 ppb of this substance in surface waters. As described in the PMN, releases of the PMN substance are not expected to result in surface water concentrations above 10 ppb. Therefore, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, or use of the substance may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that uses of the substance resulting in surface water concentrations above 10 ppb may cause significant adverse environmental effects. Based on this information, the PMN substance meets the concern criteria at § 721.170(b)(4)(ii). *Recommended testing:* EPA has determined that the results of the following tests would help characterize the environmental effects of the PMN substance: A Zahn-Wellens/EMPA test (OPPTS 835.3200 test guideline); a fish acute toxicity test, freshwater and marine (OPPTS 850.1075 test guideline (public draft)); an aquatic invertebrate acute toxicity test, freshwater daphnids (OPPTS 850.1010 test guideline (public draft)); and an algal toxicity test, tiers I and II (OPPTS 850.5400 test guideline (public draft)). *CFR citation:* 40 CFR 721.10078. **PMN Number P-06-7** *Chemical name:* Quino[2,3-b]acridine-7, 14-dione, 5,12-dihydro-2,9-dimethyl-, 4-[(17-substituted-3,6,9,12,15-pentaazaheptadec-1-yl)substituted]phenyl derivs., hydrochlorides (generic). *CAS number:* Not available. *Basis for action:* The PMN states that the generic (non-confidential) use of the substance will be as a step 2 magenta pigment intermediate. Based on test data on analogous respirable, poorly soluble, particulates, the PMN substance may cause lung toxicity. Based on its physical properties, EPA has concerns for dermal exposure to the PMN substance. Based on test data on analogous aliphatic polyamines and cationic dyes, EPA is concerned that toxicity to aquatic organisms may occur at concentrations above 10 ppb of the PMN substance in surface waters. As described in the PMN, dermal and inhalation exposures to the PMN substance are not expected and environmental releases of the substance are not expected to result in surface water concentrations above 10 ppb. Therefore, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, or use of the substance may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that use of the substance without appropriate worker protection, use other than as described in the PMN, and manufacturing, processing, or use as a solid may cause serious health effects. Additionally, use of the substance resulting in surface water concentrations above 10 ppb may cause significant adverse environmental effects. Based on this information, the PMN substance meets the concern criteria at § 721.170 (b)(3)(ii) and (b)(4)(ii). *Recommended testing:* EPA has determined that the results of the following tests would help characterize the environmental and health effects of the PMN substance: A Zahn-Wellens/EMPA test (OPPTS 835.3200 test guideline); a fish acute toxicity test, freshwater and marine (OPPTS 850.1075 test guideline (public draft)); an aquatic invertebrate acute toxicity test, freshwater daphnids (OPPTS 850.1010 test guideline (public draft)); an algal toxicity test, tiers I and II (OPPTS 850.5400 test guideline (public draft)); and a 90-day inhalation toxicity test (OPPTS 870.3465 test guideline). *CFR citation:* 40 CFR 721.10079. **PMN Number P-06-8** *Chemical name:* Carbon black, 4-[(17-substituted-3,6,9,12,15-pentaazaheptadec-1-yl) substituted] phenyl-modified, hydrochlorides (generic). *CAS number:* Not available. *Basis for action:* The PMN states that the generic (non-confidential) use of the substance will be as a step 2 black pigment intermediate. Based on test data on analogous respirable, poorly soluble, particulates, the PMN substance may cause lung toxicity. Based on its physical properties, EPA has concerns for dermal exposure to the PMN substance. Based on test data on analogous aliphatic polyamines and cationic dyes, EPA is concerned that toxicity to aquatic organisms may occur at concentrations above 10 ppb of the PMN substance in surface waters. As described in the PMN, dermal and inhalation exposures to the PMN substance are not expected and environmental releases of the substance are not expected to result in surface water concentrations above 10 ppb. Therefore, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, or use of the substance may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that use of the substance without appropriate worker protection, use other than as described in the PMN, and manufacturing, processing, or use as a solid may cause serious health effects. Additionally, use of the substance resulting in surface water concentrations above 10 ppb may cause significant adverse environmental effects. Based on this information, the PMN substance meets the concern criteria at § 721.170 (b)(3)(ii) and (b)(4)(ii). *Recommended testing:* EPA has determined that the results of the following tests would help characterize the environmental and health effects of the PMN substance: A Zahn-Wellens/EMPA test (OPPTS 835.3200 test guideline); a fish acute toxicity test, freshwater and marine (OPPTS 850.1075 test guideline (public draft)); an aquatic invertebrate acute toxicity test, freshwater daphnids (OPPTS 850.1010 test guideline (public draft)); an algal toxicity test, tiers I and II (OPPTS 850.5400 test guideline (public draft)); and a 90-day inhalation toxicity test (OPPTS 870.3465 test guideline). *CFR citation:* 40 CFR 721.10080. **PMN Number P-06-26** *Chemical name:* Aromatic urethane acrylate oligomer (generic). *CAS number:* Not available. *Basis for action:* The PMN states that the substance will be used as an aromatic urethane acrylate oligomer in ultraviolet-curable inks and coatings. Based on test data on structurally analogous polyanionic polymers and monomers, EPA is concerned that toxicity to aquatic organisms may occur at concentrations at or above 90 ppb of the PMN substance in surface waters. As described in the PMN, the substance will not be released to surface waters. Therefore, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, or use of the substance may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that other uses of the substance resulting in release to surface waters may cause significant adverse environmental effects. Based on this information, the PMN substance meets the concern criteria at § 721.170(b)(4)(ii). *Recommended testing:* EPA has determined that the results of a fish acute toxicity test, freshwater and marine (OPPTS 850.1075 test guideline (public draft)), an aquatic invertebrate acute toxicity test, freshwater daphnids (OPPTS 850.1010 test guideline (public draft)), and an algal toxicity test, tiers I and II (OPPTS 850.5400 test guideline (public draft)) would help characterize the environmental effects of the PMN substance. The fish and daphnid tests should use flow-through conditions and measured concentrations. The algal test should use the static method and measured concentrations. *CFR citation:* 40 CFR 721.10081. **PMN Number P-06-29** *Chemical name:* Amine modified monomer acrylate (generic). *CAS number:* Not available. *Basis for action:* The PMN states that the substance will be used as an amine-modified monomer acrylate in ultraviolet-curable inks and coatings. Based on structural analogy to polyanionic polymers/monomers, EPA is concerned that toxicity to aquatic organisms may occur at concentrations at or above 10 ppb of the PMN substance in surface waters. As described in the PMN, the substance will not be released to surface waters. Therefore, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, or use of the substance may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that other uses of the substance resulting in release to surface waters may cause significant adverse environmental effects. Based on this information, the PMN substance meets the concern criteria at § 721.170(b)(4)(ii). *Recommended testing:* EPA has determined that the results of the following tests would help characterize the environmental effects of the PMN substance: A ready biodegradability test (OPPTS 835.3110 test guideline); a fish acute toxicity test, freshwater and marine (OPPTS 850.1075 test guideline (public draft)); an aquatic invertebrate acute toxicity test, freshwater daphnids (OPPTS 850.1010 test guideline (public draft)); and an algal toxicity test, tiers I and II (OPPTS 850.5400 test guideline (public draft)). EPA recommends that the biodegradability testing be performed first. The fish and daphnid tests should use flow-through conditions and measured concentrations. The algal test should use the static method and measured concentrations. *CFR citation:* 40 CFR 721.10082. **PMN Number P-06-70** *Chemical name:* Copper, [29H, 31H-phthalocyaninato (2-)-κ *N* 29, κ *N* 30, κ *N* 31, κ *N* 32]-, 4-[(17-substituted-3,6,9,12,15- pentaazaheptadec-1-yl) substituted] phenyl derivs., hydrochlorides (generic). *CAS number:* Not available. *Basis for action:* The PMN states that the generic (non-confidential) use of the substance will be as a step 2 cyan pigment intermediate. Based on test data on analogous respirable, poorly soluble, particulates, the PMN substance may cause lung toxicity. Based on its physical properties, EPA has concerns for dermal exposure to the PMN substance. Based on test data on analogous aliphatic amines, EPA is concerned that toxicity to aquatic organisms may occur at concentrations above 10 ppb of the PMN substance in surface waters. As described in the PMN, dermal and inhalation exposures to the PMN substance are not expected and environmental releases of the substance are not expected to result in surface water concentrations above 10 ppb. Therefore, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, or use of the substance may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that use of the substance without appropriate worker protection, use other than as described in the PMN, and manufacturing, processing, or use as a solid may cause serious health effects. Additionally, use of the substance resulting in surface water concentrations above 10 ppb may cause significant adverse environmental effects. Based on this information, the PMN substance meets the concern criteria at § 721.170 (b)(3)(ii) and (b)(4)(ii). *Recommended testing:* EPA has determined that the results of the following tests would help characterize the environmental and health effects of the PMN substance: A Zahn-Wellens/EMPA test (OPPTS 835.3200 test guideline); a fish acute toxicity test, freshwater and marine (OPPTS 850.1075 test guideline (public draft)); an aquatic invertebrate acute toxicity test, freshwater daphnids (OPPTS 850.1010 test guideline (public draft)); an algal toxicity test, tiers I and II (OPPTS 850.5400 test guideline (public draft)); and a 90-day inhalation toxicity test (OPPTS 870.3465 test guideline). *CFR citation:* 40 CFR 721.10083. **PMN Number P-06-124** *Chemical name:* Modified thionocarbamate (generic). *CAS number:* Not available. *Basis for action:* The PMN states that generic (non-confidential) use of the substance will be as a sulfide mineral processing reagent. Based on test data on structurally similar analogs, EPA is concerned that toxicity to aquatic organisms may occur at concentrations at or above 2 ppb of the PMN substance in surface waters. As described in the PMN, the substance will not be released to surface waters. Therefore, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, or use of the substance may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that other uses of the substance resulting in release to surface waters may cause significant adverse environmental effects. Based on this information, the PMN substance meets the concern criteria at § 721.170(b)(4)(ii). *Recommended testing:* EPA has determined that the results of an activated sludge sorption isotherm test (OPPTS 835.1100 test guideline), a fish early-life stage toxicity test (OPPTS 850.1400 test guideline (public draft)), and a daphnid chronic toxicity test (OPPTS 850.1300 test guideline (public draft)) would help characterize the environmental effects of the PMN substance. *CFR citation:* 40 CFR 721.10084. **PMN Number P-06-232** *Chemical name:* Substituted polyaryl sulfonium polyhalide phosphate salt (generic). *CAS number:* Not available. *Basis for action:* The PMN states that the substance will be used as a photo initiator used in photo-curable compositions. Based on test data on the PMN substance, EPA has concerns for widespread systemic toxicity in most organ systems, persistent eye irritation, male reproductive toxicity, and developmental-neurotoxicity in off-spring (caused by maternal thyroid toxicity) for the PMN material. As described in the PMN, worker inhalation and eye exposure are not expected. Therefore, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, or use of the substance may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that domestic manufacture or the use of the substance other than as described in the PMN may cause serious health effects. Based on this information, the PMN substance meets the concern criteria at § 721.170(b)(3)(i). *Recommended testing:* EPA has determined that the results of a combined repeated dose toxicity study with the reproduction/developmental screening test (OPPTS 870.3650 test guideline) would help characterize the human health effects of the PMN substance. *CFR citation:* 40 CFR 721.10085. **PMN Number P-06-295** *Chemical name:* Ethane, 2-(difluoromethoxy)-1,1,1-trifluoro-. *CAS number:* 1885-48-9. *Basis for action:* The PMN states that the generic (non-confidential) use of the substance will be as an intermediate. Based on test data on structural analogues, EPA has concerns for solvent neurotoxicity, solvent irritation, and developmental toxicity for the PMN substance. As described in the PMN, only limited worker dermal and inhalation exposures are expected. Therefore, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, or use of the substance may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that use of the substance other than as an intermediate with workers wearing impervious gloves may cause serious human health effects. Based on this information, the PMN substance meets the concern criteria at § 721.170(b)(3)(ii). *Recommended testing:* EPA has determined that the results of a 90-day inhalation toxicity study (OPPTS 870.3465 test guideline) with a neurotoxicity functional observational battery (National Technical Information Service
(NTIS)PB 91-154617) and neuropathology would help characterize the human health effects of the PMN substance. *CFR citation:* 40 CFR 721.10086. **PMN Number P-06-332** *Chemical name:* Substituted alkyl phosphine oxide (generic). *CAS number:* Not available. *Basis for action:* The PMN states that the generic (non-confidential) use of the substance will be as a bonded flame retardant. Based on test data on analogous alkyl and aryl phosphates, EPA believes the PMN substance may cause delayed neurotoxicity in humans. At the production volume stated in the PMN, significant human exposure is unlikely. Therefore, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, or use of the substance may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that increased importation or production volumes may result in increased exposure to the PMN substance which may cause significant adverse human health effects. Based on this information, the PMN substance meets the concern criteria at § 721.170(b)(3)(ii). *Recommended testing:* EPA has determined that the results of an acute and 28-day delayed neurotoxicity of organophosphorus substances study (OPPTS 870.6100 test guideline) would help characterize the human health effects of the PMN substance. *CFR citation:* 40 CFR 721.10087. **PMN Number P-07-283** *Chemical name:* Thiophene, 2,5-dibromo-3-hexyl-. *CAS number:* 116971-11-0. *Basis for action:* The PMN states that the substance will be used as a reactive intermediate monomer for use in manufacturing a p-type organic semiconductor polymer. The polymer will be used in printed organic electronics applications. Based on structure activity relationship analyses for thiophenes, EPA is concerned that toxicity to aquatic organisms may occur at concentrations above 1 ppb of the PMN substance in surface waters. At the production volume stated in the PMN, releases of the PMN substance are not expected to result in surface water concentrations above 1 ppb. Therefore, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, or use of the substance may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that increased production or importation volumes or other uses of the substance resulting in surface water concentrations above 1 ppb may cause significant adverse environmental effects. Based on this information, the PMN substance meets the concern criteria at § 721.170(b)(4)(ii). *Recommended testing:* EPA has determined that the results of an algal toxicity test, tiers I and II (OPPTS 850.5400 test guideline (public draft)), a fish early-life stage toxicity test (OPPTS 850.1400 test guideline (public draft)), and a daphnid chronic toxicity test (OPPTS 850.1300 test guideline (public draft)) would help characterize the environmental effects of the PMN substance. The fish and daphnid tests should use flow-through conditions and measured concentrations. *CFR citation:* 40 CFR 721.10088. IV. Objectives and Rationale of the Rule A. Rationale During review of the PMNs submitted for the chemical substances that are subject to these SNURs, EPA concluded that for one of the 38 chemical substances, regulation was warranted under section 5(e) of TSCA, pending the development of information sufficient to make a reasoned evaluation of the health effects of the chemical substance. The basis for such findings is outlined in Unit III. Based on these findings, a TSCA section 5(e) consent order requiring the use of appropriate exposure controls was negotiated with the PMN submitter; the SNUR provisions for this chemical substance listed in this document are consistent with the provisions of the TSCA section 5(e) consent order. In the other 37 cases for which the proposed uses are not regulated under a TSCA section 5(e) consent order, EPA determined that one or more of the criteria of concern established at 40 CFR 721.170 were met, as discussed in Unit III. B. Objectives EPA is issuing these SNURs for specific chemical substances which have undergone premanufacture review because the Agency wants to achieve the following objectives with regard to the significant new uses designated in this rule: 1. EPA will receive notice of any person's intent to manufacture, import, or process a listed chemical substance for the described significant new use before that activity begins. 2. EPA will have an opportunity to review and evaluate data submitted in a SNUN before the notice submitter begins manufacturing, importing, or processing a listed chemical substance for the described significant new use. 3. EPA will be able to regulate prospective manufacturers, importers, or processors of a listed chemical substance before the described significant new use of that chemical substance occurs, provided that regulation is warranted pursuant to TSCA sections 5(e), 5(f), 6 or 7. 4. EPA will ensure that all manufacturers, importers, and processors of the same chemical substance that is subject to a TSCA section 5(e) consent order are subject to similar requirements. Issuance of a SNUR for a chemical substance does not signify that the chemical substance is listed on the TSCA Inventory. Manufacturers, importers, and processors are responsible for ensuring that a new chemical substance subject to a final SNUR is listed on the TSCA Inventory. V. Direct Final Procedures EPA is issuing these SNURs as a direct final rule, as described in 40 CFR 721.160(c)(3) and 721.170(d)(4). In accordance with 40 CFR 721.160(c)(3)(ii) and 721.170(d)(4)(i), this rule will be effective November 19, 2007, unless EPA receives a written notice by October 19, 2007 of adverse or critical comments, or notice of intent to submit adverse or critical comments, on EPA's action. If EPA receives such a notice, EPA will publish a document to withdraw the direct final SNUR for the specific chemical substance to which the adverse or critical comments apply. EPA will then propose a SNUR for the specific chemical substance providing a 30-day comment period. This action establishes SNURs for a number of chemical substances. Any person who submits adverse or critical comments or notice of intent to submit adverse or critical comments, must identify the chemical substance and the new use to which it applies. EPA will not withdraw a SNUR for a chemical substance not identified in a notice. VI. Test Data and Other Information EPA recognizes that TSCA section 5 does not require developing any particular test data before submission of a SNUN. Persons are required only to submit test data in their possession or control and to describe any other data known to or reasonably ascertainable by them. However, upon review of PMNs and SNUNs, the Agency has the authority to require appropriate testing. In cases where EPA issued a TSCA section 5(e) consent order that requires or recommends certain testing, Unit III. lists those tests. Unit III. also lists recommended testing for the chemical substances that would be covered by the non-5(e) SNURs. Descriptions of tests are provided for informational purposes. EPA strongly encourages persons, before performing any testing, to consult with the Agency pertaining to protocol selection. Many test guidelines are now available on the Internet at *http://www.epa.gov/opptsfrs/home/guidelin/htm* . OECD test guidelines are available from the OECD Bookshop ( *http://www.oecdbookshop.org* ) or Source OECD ( *http://www.sourceoecd.org* ). In the TSCA section 5(e) consent order for the chemical notified under P-04-909, EPA has established a production volume limit which cannot be exceeded unless the PMN submitter first submits the results of toxicity tests that would permit a reasoned evaluation of the potential risks posed by this chemical substance. Under recent consent orders, the PMN submitter is required to submit the results of the required studies at least 14 weeks (earlier consent orders required submissions at least 12 weeks) before reaching the specified production limit. The tests specified in the TSCA section 5(e) consent order are included in Unit III. The SNUR contains the same production volume limit as the consent order. Exceeding this production limit is defined as a significant new use. Persons who intend to exceed the production limit must notify the Agency by submitting a SNUN at least 90 days in advance. The recommended tests may not be the only means of addressing the potential risks of the chemical substances regulated under this rule. However, SNUNs submitted for significant new uses without any test data may increase the likelihood that EPA will take action under TSCA section 5(e), particularly if satisfactory test results have not been obtained from a prior submitter. EPA recommends that potential SNUN submitters contact EPA early enough so that they will be able to conduct the appropriate tests. SNUN submitters should be aware that EPA will be better able to evaluate SNUNs which provide detailed information on the following: 1. Human exposure and environmental release that may result from the significant new use of the chemical substances. 2. Potential benefits of the chemical substances. 3. Information on risks posed by the chemical substances compared to risks posed by potential substitutes. VII. Procedural Determinations EPA is establishing through this rule certain significant new uses which have been claimed as CBI subject to Agency confidentiality regulations at 40 CFR part 2. EPA is required to keep this information confidential to protect the CBI of the original PMN submitter. EPA promulgated a procedure to deal with the situation where a specific significant new use is CBI. This procedure appears in 40 CFR 721.1725(b)(1) and is similar to that in § 721.11 for situations where the chemical identity of the chemical substance subject to a SNUR is CBI. This procedure is cross-referenced in each of these SNURs that include specific significant new uses that are CBI. A manufacturer or importer may request EPA to determine whether a proposed use would be a significant new use under this rule. Under the procedure in § 721.1725(b)(1), a manufacturer or importer must show that it has a *bona fide* intent to manufacture or import the chemical substance and must identify the specific use for which it intends to manufacture or import the chemical substance. If EPA concludes that the person has shown a *bona fide* intent to manufacture or import the chemical substance, EPA will tell the person whether the use identified in the *bona fide* submission would be a significant new use under the rule. Since most of the chemical identities of the chemical substances subject to these SNURs are also CBI, manufacturers and processors can combine the *bona fide* submission under the procedure in § 721.1725(b)(1) with that under § 721.11 into a single step. If a manufacturer or importer is told that the production volume identified in the *bona fide* submission would not be a significant new use, i.e., it is below the level that would be a significant new use, that person can manufacture or import the chemical substance as long as the aggregate amount does not exceed that identified in the *bona fide* submission to EPA. If the person later intends to exceed that volume, a new *bona fide* submission would be necessary to determine whether that higher volume would be a significant new use. EPA is considering whether to adopt a special procedure for use when CBI production volume is designated as a significant new use. Under such a procedure, a person showing a *bona fide* intent to manufacture or import the chemical substance, under the procedure described in § 721.11, would automatically be informed of the production volume that would be a significant new use. Thus, the person would not have to make multiple *bona fide* submissions to EPA for the same chemical substance to remain in compliance with the SNUR, as could be the case under the procedures in § 721.1725(b)(1). VIII. Applicability of Rule to Uses Occurring Before Effective Date of the Final Rule To establish a significant “new” use, EPA must determine that the use is not ongoing. The chemical substances subject to this rule have recently undergone premanufacture review. A TSCA section 5(e) consent order has been issued for one chemical substance and the notice submitter is prohibited by the TSCA section 5(e) consent order from undertaking activities which EPA is designating as significant new uses. In cases where EPA has not received a notice of commencement
(NOC)and the chemical substance has not been added to the TSCA Inventory, no other person may commence such activities without first submitting a PMN. For chemical substances for which an NOC has not been submitted at this time, EPA has concluded that the uses are not ongoing. However, EPA recognizes in cases when chemical substances identified in this SNUR are added to the TSCA Inventory prior to the effective date of the rule, the chemical substances may be manufactured, imported, or processed by other persons for a significant new use as defined in this rule before the effective date of the rule. However, 26 of the 38 chemical substances contained in this rule have CBI chemical identities, and since EPA has received a limited number of post-PMN *bona fide* submissions (per 40 CFR 720.25 and 721.11), the Agency believes that it is highly unlikely that any of the significant new uses described in the following regulatory text are ongoing. EPA solicits comments on whether any of the uses described as significant new uses are ongoing. As discussed in the **Federal Register** of April 24, 1990 (55 FR 17376), EPA has decided that the intent of section 5(a)(1)(B) of TSCA is best served by designating a use as a significant new use as of the date of publication of this direct final rule rather than as of the effective date of the rule. If uses begun after publication were considered ongoing rather than new, it would be difficult for EPA to establish SNUR notice requirements because a person could defeat the SNUR by initiating the significant new use before the rule became final, and then argue that the use was ongoing as of the effective date of the final rule. Thus, persons who begin commercial manufacture, import, or processing of the chemical substances regulated through this SNUR will have to cease any such activity before the effective date of this rule. To resume their activities, these persons would have to comply with all applicable SNUR notice requirements and wait until the notice review period, including all extensions, expires. EPA has promulgated provisions to allow persons to comply with this SNUR before the effective date. If a person were to meet the conditions of advance compliance under § 721.45(h), the person would be considered to have met the requirements of the final SNUR for those activities. IX. SNUN Submissions EPA recommends that submitters consult with the Agency prior to submitting a SNUN to discuss what data may be useful in evaluating a significant new use. Discussions with the Agency prior to submission can afford ample time to conduct any tests that might be helpful in evaluating risks posed by the substance. According to 40 CFR 721.1(c), persons submitting a SNUN must comply with the same notice requirements and EPA regulatory procedures as persons submitting a PMN, including submission of test data on health and environmental effects as described in 40 CFR 720.50. SNUNs must be mailed to the Environmental Protection Agency, OPPT Document Control Office (7407M), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. Information must be submitted in the form and manner set forth in EPA Form No. 7710-25. This form is available from the Environmental Assistance Division (7408M), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001 (see 40 CFR 721.25 and 720.40). Forms and information are also available electronically at *http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/newchems/pubs/pmnforms.htm* . X. Economic Analysis EPA has evaluated the potential costs of establishing SNUN requirements for potential manufacturers, importers, and processors of the chemical substances subject to this rule. EPA's complete economic analysis is available in the public docket. XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866, entitled *Regulatory Planning and Review* (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has determined that proposed or final SNURs are not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by OMB, because they do not meet the criteria in section 3(f) of the Executive order. B. Paperwork Reduction Act According to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq* ., an Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information that requires OMB approval under the PRA, unless it has been approved by OMB and displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the **Federal Register** , are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and included on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The information collection requirements related to this action have already been approved by OMB pursuant to the PRA under OMB control number 2070-0012 (EPA ICR No. 574). This action does not impose any burden requiring additional OMB approval. If an entity were to submit a SNUN to the Agency, the annual burden is estimated to average between 30 and 170 hours per response. This burden estimate includes the time needed to review instructions, search existing data sources, gather and maintain the data needed, and complete, review, and submit the required SNUN. Send any comments about the accuracy of the burden estimate, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques, to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, Office of Environmental Information (2822T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. Please remember to include the OMB control number in any correspondence, but do not submit any completed forms to this address. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA)(5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq* .), the Agency hereby certifies that promulgation of this SNUR will not have a significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The rationale supporting this conclusion is as follows. A SNUR applies to any person (including small or large entities) who intends to engage in any activity described in the rule as a “significant new use.” By definition of the word “new,” and based on all information currently available to EPA, it appears that no small or large entities presently engage in such activity. Since a SNUR only requires that any person who intends to engage in such activity in the future must first notify EPA by submitting a SNUN, no economic impact will even occur until someone decides to engage in those activities. Although some small entities may decide to conduct such activities in the future, EPA cannot presently determine how many, if any, there may be. However, EPA's experience to date is that, in response to the promulgation of over 1,000 SNURs, the Agency receives on average only 10 notices per year. Of those SNUNs submitted, none appear to be from small entities in response to any SNUR. In addition, the estimated reporting cost for submission of a SNUN (see Unit IX.), are minimal regardless of the size of the firm. Therefore, EPA believes that the potential economic impacts of complying with this SNUR are not expected to be significant or adversely impact a substantial number of small entities. In a SNUR that published on June 2, 1997 (62 FR 29684) (FRL-5597-1), the Agency presented it's general determination that proposed and final SNURs are not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, which was provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Based on EPA's experience with proposing and finalizing SNURs, State, local, and Tribal governments have not been impacted by these rulemakings, and EPA does not have any reasons to believe that any State, local, or Tribal government will be impacted by this rulemaking. As such, EPA has determined that this regulatory action does not impose any enforceable duty, contain any unfunded mandate, or otherwise have any affect on small governments subject to the requirements of sections 202, 203, 204, or 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA)(Public Law 104-4). E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 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). F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments This rule does not have Tribal implications because it is not expected to have substantial direct effects on Indian Tribes. This does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian Tribal governments, nor does it involve or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 13175, entitled *Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments* (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), do not apply to this rule. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045, entitled *Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks* (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because this is not an economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, and this action does not address environmental health or safety risks disproportionately affecting children. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled *Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use* (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because this action is not expected to affect energy supply, distribution, or use. I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act In addition, since this action does not involve any technical standards, 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), does not apply to this action. J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations This action does not entail special considerations of environmental justice related issues as delineated by Executive Order 12898, entitled *Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations* (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). K. Executive Order 12630: Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights (Takings) EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630, entitled *Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights* (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988), by examining the takings implications of this rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the Executive order. L. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform In issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct, as required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988, entitled *Civil Justice Reform* (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996). XII. Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq* ., generally provides that before a final rule may take effect, the Agency promulgating it must submit a final rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this final rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the 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 721 Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: September 6, 2007. Charles M. Auer, Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. Therefore, 40 CFR part 721 is amended as follows: PART 721—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 721 continues to read as follows: Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2604, 2607, and 2625(c). 2. By adding new § 721.10057 to subpart E to read as follows: § 721.10057 Dodecanedioic acid, 1, 12-dihydrazide.
(a)*Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to reporting* .
(1)The chemical substance identified as dodecanedioic acid, 1, 12-dihydrazide (PMNs P-01-759 and P-05-555; CAS No. 4080-98-2) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(2)The significant new uses are:
(i)*Protection in the workplace* . Requirements as specified in § 721.63 (a)(1), (a)(2)(i), (a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6), (b), and (c). Respirators must provide a National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) assigned protection factor
(APF)of at least 50. The following NIOSH-approved respirators meet the minimum requirement for § 721.63(a)(4): Air-purifying, tight-fitting full-face respirator equipped with N100 (if oil aerosols absent), R100, or P100 filters; powered air-purifying respirator equipped with a tight-fitting full facepiece and High Efficiency Particulate Air
(HEPA)filters; supplied air respirator operated in pressure demand or continuous flow mode and equipped with a tight-fitting full facepiece. Because the substance is a dermal sensitizer and irritates mucous membranes, half-face respirators do not provide adequate protection.
(ii)*Hazard communication program* . Requirements as specified in § 721.72 (a), (b), (c), (d),
(e)(concentration set at 0.1 percent), (f), (g)(1)(i), (g)(1)(vii), (g)(1)(ix), and (g)(2)(i).
(b)*Specific requirements* . The provisions of subpart A of this part apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph.
(1)*Recordkeeping* . Recordkeeping requirements as specified in § 721.125 (a), (b), (c), (d), (f), (g), and
(h)are applicable to manufacturers, importers, and processors of this substance.
(2)*Limitations or revocation of certain notification requirements* . The provisions of § 721.185 apply to this section. 3. By adding new § 721.10058 to subpart E to read as follows: § 721.10058 Reaction product of alkylphenol, aromatic cyclicamine, alkyl diglycidyl dibenzene, and formaldehyde (generic).
(a)*Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to reporting* .
(1)The chemical substance identified generically as reaction product of alkylphenol, aromatic cyclicamine, alkyl diglycidyl dibenzene, and formaldehyde (PMN P-03-546) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(2)The significant new uses are:
(i)*Release to water* . Requirements as specified in § 721.90 (a)(1), (b)(1), and (c)(1).
(ii)[Reserved]
(b)*Specific requirements* . The provisions of subpart A of this part apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph.
(1)*Recordkeeping* . Recordkeeping requirements as specified in § 721.125 (a), (b), (c), and
(k)are applicable to manufacturers, importers, and processors of this substance.
(2)*Limitations or revocation of certain notification requirements* . The provisions of § 721.185 apply to this section. 4. By adding new § 721.10059 to subpart E to read as follows: § 721.10059 Reaction product of alkylphenyl glycidyl ether, polyalkylenepolyamine, and alkyl diglycidyl dibenzene (generic).
(a)*Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to reporting* .
(1)The chemical substance identified generically as reaction product of alkylphenyl glycidyl ether, polyalkylenepolyamine, and alkyl diglycidyl dibenzene (PMN P-03-550) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(2)The significant new uses are:
(i)*Release to water* . Requirements as specified in § 721.90 (a)(1), (b)(1), and (c)(1).
(ii)[Reserved]
(b)*Specific requirements* . The provisions of subpart A of this part apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph.
(1)*Recordkeeping* . Recordkeeping requirements as specified in § 721.125 (a), (b), (c), and
(k)are applicable to manufacturers, importers, and processors of this substance.
(2)*Limitations or revocation of certain notification requirements* . The provisions of § 721.185 apply to this section. 5. By adding new § 721.10060 to subpart E to read as follows: § 721.10060 Reaction product of alkylphenyl glycidyl ether, polyalkylenepolyamine, alkyl diglycidyl dibenzene, and polyalkylcyclicdiamine (generic).
(a)*Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to reporting* .
(1)The chemical substance identified generically as reaction product of alkylphenyl glycidyl ether, polyalkylenepolyamine, alkyl diglycidyl dibenzene, and polyalkylcyclicdiamine (PMN P-03-551) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(2)The significant new uses are:
(i)*Release to water* . Requirements as specified in § 721.90 (a)(1), (b)(1), and (c)(1).
(ii)[Reserved]
(b)*Specific requirements* . The provisions of subpart A of this part apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph.
(1)*Recordkeeping* . Recordkeeping requirements as specified in § 721.125 (a), (b), (c), and
(k)are applicable to manufacturers, importers, and processors of this substance.
(2)*Limitations or revocation of certain notification requirements* . The provisions of § 721.185 apply to this section. 6. By adding new § 721.10061 to subpart E to read as follows: § 721.10061 Pentane, 1,1,1,2,2,3,4,5,5,5-decafluoro-3-methoxy-4-(trifluoromethyl)-.
(a)*Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to reporting* .
(1)The chemical substance identified as pentane, 1,1,1,2,2,3,4,5,5,5-decafluoro-3-methoxy-4-(trifluoromethyl)- (PMN P-04-341; CAS No. 132182-92-4) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(2)The significant new uses are:
(i)*Release to water* . Requirements as specified in § 721.90 (a)(1), (b)(1), and (c)(1).
(ii)[Reserved]
(b)*Specific requirements* . The provisions of subpart A of this part apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph.
(1)*Recordkeeping* . Recordkeeping requirements as specified in § 721.125 (a), (b), (c), and
(k)are applicable to manufacturers, importers, and processors of this substance.
(2)*Limitations or revocation of certain notification requirements* . The provisions of § 721.185 apply to this section. 7. By adding new § 721.10062 to subpart E to read as follows: § 721.10062 2,5-Furandione, polymer with oxybis[propanol], benzoate.
(a)*Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to reporting* .
(1)The chemical substance identified as 2,5-furandione, polymer with oxybis[propanol], benzoate (PMN P-04-627; CAS No. 103458-14-6) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(2)The significant new uses are:
(i)*Release to water* . Requirements as specified in § 721.90 (a)(1), (b)(1), and (c)(1).
(ii)[Reserved]
(b)*Specific requirements* . The provisions of subpart A of this part apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph.
(1)*Recordkeeping* . Recordkeeping requirements as specified in § 721.125 (a), (b), (c), and
(k)are applicable to manufacturers, importers, and processors of this substance.
(2)*Limitations or revocation of certain notification requirements* . The provisions of § 721.185 apply to this section. 8. By adding new § 721.10063 to subpart E to read as follows: § 721.10063 Halo substituted hydroxy nitrophenyl amide (generic).
(a)*Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to reporting* .
(1)The chemical substance identified generically as halo substituted hydroxy nitrophenyl amide (PMN P-04-792) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(2)The significant new uses are:
(i)*Release to water* . Requirements as specified in § 721.90 (a)(1), (b)(1), and (c)(1).
(ii)[Reserved]
(b)*Specific requirements* . The provisions of subpart A of this part apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph.
(1)*Recordkeeping* . Recordkeeping requirements as specified in § 721.125 (a), (b), (c), and
(k)are applicable to manufacturers, importers, and processors of this substance.
(2)*Limitations or revocation of certain notification requirements* . The provisions of § 721.185 apply to this section. 9. By adding new § 721.10064 to subpart E to read as follows: § 721.10064 2-Propenoic acid, 2-[2-(ethenyloxy)ethoxy]ethyl ester.
(a)*Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to reporting* .
(1)The chemical substance identified as 2-propenoic acid, 2-[2-(ethenyloxy)ethoxy]ethyl ester (PMN P-04-909; CAS No. 86273-46-3) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(2)The significant new uses are:
(i)*Protection in the workplace* . Requirements as specified in § 721.63 (a)(1), (a)(2)(i), (a)(3)(i), (b), and (c). North Butyl Black gloves and T-1 Dailove Ethylene Vinylalcohol Copolymer Laminated Blue gloves have been demonstrated to satisfy (a)(3)(i). Other demonstrated impervious gloves that satisfy (a)(3)(i) are also permissible.
(ii)*Hazard communication program* . Requirements as specified in § 721.72 (a), (b), (c), (d), (f), (g)(1)(i), (g)(1)(iv), (g)(1)(vi), (g)(1)(ix), (g)(2)(i), (g)(2)(ii), (g)(2)(iii), (g)(2)(v), and (g)(5).
(iii)*Industrial, commercial, and consumer activities* . Requirements as specified in § 721.80(q).
(b)*Specific requirements* . The provisions of subpart A of this part apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph.
(1)*Recordkeeping* . Recordkeeping requirements as specified in § 721.125 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), and
(i)are applicable to manufacturers, importers, and processors of this substance.
(2)*Limitations or revocation of certain notification requirements* . The provisions of § 721.185 apply to this section.
(3)*Determining whether a specific use is subject to this section* . The provisions of § 721.1725(b)(1) apply to this section. 10. By adding new § 721.10065 to subpart E to read as follows: § 721.10065 1-Tetradecanesulfonic acid, (dimethylphenyl)-.
(a)*Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to reporting* .
(1)The chemical substance identified as 1-tetradecanesulfonic acid, (dimethylphenyl)- (PMN P-04-961; CAS No. 671756-61-9) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(2)The significant new uses are:
(i)*Release to water* . Requirements as specified in § 721.90 (a)(1), (b)(1), and (c)(1).
(ii)[Reserved]
(b)*Specific requirements* . The provisions of subpart A of this part apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph.
(1)*Recordkeeping* . Recordkeeping requirements as specified in § 721.125 (a), (b), (c), and
(k)are applicable to manufacturers, importers, and processors of this substance.
(2)*Limitations or revocation of certain notification requirements* . The provisions of § 721.185 apply to this section. 11. By adding new § 721.10066 to subpart E to read as follows: § 721.10066 1-Hexanesulfonic acid, (dimethylphenyl)-.
(a)*Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to reporting* .
(1)The chemical substance identified as 1-hexanesulfonic acid, (dimethylphenyl)- (PMN P-04-962; CAS No. 676143-36-5) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(2)The significant new uses are:
(i)*Release to water* . Requirements as specified in § 721.90 (a)(1), (b)(1), and (c)(1).
(ii)[Reserved]
(b)*Specific requirements* . The provisions of subpart A of this part apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph.
(1)*Recordkeeping* . Recordkeeping requirements as specified in § 721.125 (a), (b), (c), and
(k)are applicable to manufacturers, importers, and processors of this substance.
(2)*Limitations or revocation of certain notification requirements* . The provisions of § 721.185 apply to this section. 12. By adding new § 721.10067 to subpart E to read as follows: § 721.10067 Ether amine phosphonate salt (generic).
(a)*Chemical substances and significant new uses subject to reporting* .
(1)The chemical substances identified generically as ether amine phosphonate salt (PMNs P-05-57, P-05-58, P-05-59, P-05-61, P-05-62, P-05-63, P-05-64, and P-05-65) are subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(2)The significant new uses are:
(i)*Release to water* . Requirements as specified in § 721.90 (a)(1), (b)(1), and (c)(1).
(ii)[Reserved]
(b)*Specific requirements* . The provisions of subpart A of this part apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph.
(1)*Recordkeeping* . Recordkeeping requirements as specified in § 721.125 (a), (b), (c), and
(k)are applicable to manufacturers, importers, and processors of this substance.
(2)*Limitations or revocation of certain notification requirements* . The provisions of § 721.185 apply to this section. 13. By adding new § 721.10069 to subpart E to read as follows: § 721.10069 Ether amine phosphonate (generic).
(a)*Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to reporting* .
(1)The chemical substance identified generically as ether amine phosphonate (PMN P-05-60) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(2)The significant new uses are:
(i)*Release to water* . Requirements as specified in § 721.90 (a)(1), (b)(1), and (c)(1).
(ii)[Reserved]
(b)*Specific requirements* . The provisions of subpart A of this part apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph.
(1)*Recordkeeping* . Recordkeeping requirements as specified in § 721.125 (a), (b), (c), and
(k)are applicable to manufacturers, importers, and processors of this substance.
(2)*Limitations or revocation of certain notification requirements* . The provisions of § 721.185 apply to this section. 14. By adding new § 721.10070 to subpart E to read as follows: § 721.10070 1,3-Butanediol, 3-methyl-.
(a)*Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to reporting* .
(1)The chemical substance identified as 1,3-butanediol, 3-methyl- (PMN P-05-309; CAS No. 2568-33-4) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(2)The significant new uses are:
(i)*Industrial, commercial, and consumer activities* . Requirements as specified in § 721.80
(f)and (j)(use as inkjet ink).
(ii)[Reserved]
(b)*Specific requirements* . The provisions of subpart A of this part apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph.
(1)*Recordkeeping* . Recordkeeping requirements as specified in § 721.125 (a), (b), (c), and
(i)are applicable to manufacturers, importers, and processors of this substance.
(2)*Limitations or revocation of certain notification requirements* . The provisions of § 721.185 apply to this section. 15. By adding new § 721.10071 to subpart E to read as follows: § 721.10071 9H-Thioxanthenium, 10-[1,1′-biphenyl]-4-yl-2-(1-methylethyl)-9-oxo-, hexafluorophosphate (1-) (1:1).
(a)*Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to reporting* .
(1)The chemical substance identified as 9H-thioxanthenium, 10-[1,1′-biphenyl]-4-yl-2-(1-methylethyl)-9-oxo-, hexafluorophosphate (1-) (1:1) (PMN P-05-364; CAS No. 591773-92-1) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(2)The significant new uses are:
(i)*Industrial, commercial, and consumer activities* . Requirements as specified in § 721.80 (f), (v)(2), (w)(2), and (x)(2).
(ii)[Reserved]
(b)*Specific requirements* . The provisions of subpart A of this part apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph.
(1)*Recordkeeping* . Recordkeeping requirements as specified in § 721.125 (a), (b), (c), and
(i)are applicable to manufacturers, importers, and processors of this substance.
(2)*Limitations or revocation of certain notification requirements* . The provisions of § 721.185 apply to this section. 16. By adding new § 721.10072 to subpart E to read as follows: § 721.10072 Benzene, 1,1′-methylenebis[4-isocyanato-, polymer with benzenedicarboxylic acid, butyl dialkyl ester, poly[oxy(methyl-1,2-ethanediyl)], .alpha.-hydro-.omega.-hydroxy-, oxirane, alkyl-, polymer with oxirane, ether with propanepolyol and Sartomer's HLBH P-3000 and Lexorez 1180 (generic).
(a)*Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to reporting* .
(1)The chemical substance identified generically as benzene, 1,1′-methylenebis[4-isocyanato-, polymer with benzenedicarboxylic acid, butyl dialkyl ester, poly[oxy(methyl-1,2-ethanediyl)], .alpha.-hydro-.omega.-hydroxy-, oxirane, alkyl-, polymer with oxirane, ether with propanepolyol and Sartomer's HLBH P-3000 and Lexorez 1180 (PMN P-05-380) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(2)The significant new uses are:
(i)*Industrial, commercial, and consumer activities* . Requirements as specified in § 721.80(y)(1).
(ii)[Reserved]
(b)*Specific requirements* . The provisions of subpart A of this part apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph.
(1)*Recordkeeping* . Recordkeeping requirements as specified in § 721.125 (a), (b), (c), and
(i)are applicable to manufacturers, importers, and processors of this substance.
(2)*Limitations or revocation of certain notification requirements* . The provisions of § 721.185 apply to this section. 17. By adding new § 721.10073 to subpart E to read as follows: § 721.10073 Modified alkyl acrylamide (generic).
(a)*Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to reporting* .
(1)The chemical substance identified generically as modified alkyl acrylamide (PMN P-05-536) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(2)The significant new uses are:
(i)*Industrial, commercial, and consumer activities* . Requirements as specified in § 721.80(j).
(ii)[Reserved]
(b)*Specific requirements* . The provisions of subpart A of this part apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph.
(1)*Recordkeeping* . Recordkeeping requirements as specified in § 721.125 (a), (b), (c), and
(i)are applicable to manufacturers, importers, and processors of this substance.
(2)*Limitations or revocation of certain notification requirements* . The provisions of § 721.185 apply to this section.
(3)*Determining whether a specific use is subject to this section* . The provisions of § 721.1725(b)(1) apply to this section. 18. By adding new § 721.10074 to subpart E to read as follows: § 721.10074 Acetic acid, 2-chloro-, 1-(3,3-dimethylcyclohexyl)ethyl ester.
(a)*Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to reporting* .
(1)The chemical substance identified as acetic acid, 2-chloro-, 1-(3,3-dimethylcyclohexyl)ethyl ester (PMN P-05-568; CAS No. 477218-59-0) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(2)The significant new uses are:
(i)*Industrial, commercial, and consumer activities* . Requirements as specified in § 721.80(h).
(ii)[Reserved]
(b)*Specific requirements* . The provisions of subpart A of this part apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph.
(1)*Recordkeeping* . Recordkeeping requirements as specified in § 721.125 (a), (b), (c), and
(i)are applicable to manufacturers, importers, and processors of this substance.
(2)*Limitations or revocation of certain notification requirements* . The provisions of § 721.185 apply to this section. 19. By adding new § 721.10075 to subpart E to read as follows: § 721.10075 Carbon black, 4-[[2-(Sulfooxy) ethyl]substituted] phenyl- modified, sodium salts (generic).
(a)*Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to reporting* .
(1)The chemical substance identified generically as carbon black, 4-[[2-(Sulfooxy) ethyl]substituted] phenyl-modified, sodium salts (PMN P-05-722) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(2)The significant new uses are:
(i)*Protection in the workplace* . Requirements as specified in § 721.63 (a)(1), (a)(2)(i), (a)(3),
(b)(concentration set at 1 percent), and (c).
(ii)*Industrial, commercial, and consumer activities* . Requirements as specified in § 721.80 (j), (v)(1), (w)(1), and (x)(1).
(b)*Specific requirements* . The provisions of subpart A of this part apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph.
(1)*Recordkeeping* . Recordkeeping requirements as specified in § 721.125 (a), (b), (c), (d),
(e)and
(i)are applicable to manufacturers, importers, and processors of this substance.
(2)*Limitations or revocation of certain notification requirements* . The provisions of § 721.185 apply to this section.
(3)*Determining whether a specific use is subject to this section* . The provisions of § 721.1725(b)(1) apply to this section. 20. By adding new § 721.10076 to subpart E to read as follows: § 721.10076 Substituted benzenediamine (generic).
(a)*Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to reporting* .
(1)The chemical substance identified generically as substituted benzenediamine (PMN P-05-792) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(2)The significant new uses are:
(i)*Release to water* . Requirements as specified in § 721.90 (a)(4), (b)(4), and (c)(4) (N=2).
(ii)[Reserved]
(b)*Specific requirements* . The provisions of subpart A of this part apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph.
(1)*Recordkeeping* . Recordkeeping requirements as specified in § 721.125 (a), (b), (c), and
(k)are applicable to manufacturers, importers, and processors of this substance.
(2)*Limitations or revocation of certain notification requirements* . The provisions of § 721.185 apply to this section. 21. By adding new § 721.10077 to subpart E to read as follows: § 721.10077 3H-1,2,4-Triazol-3-one, 1,2-dihydro-.
(a)*Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to reporting* .
(1)The chemical substance identified as 3H-1,2,4-triazol-3-one, 1,2-dihydro- (PMNs P-06-1 and P-06-166; CAS No. 930-33-6) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(2)The significant new uses are:
(i)*Protection in the workplace* . Requirements as specified in § 721.63 (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6), (b), and (c). Respirators must provide a National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) assigned protection factor of at least 10. The following NIOSH-approved respirators with an assigned protection factor
(APF)of 10-25 meet the minimum requirements for § 721.63(a)(4): Air-purifying, tight-fitting respirator equipped with N100 (if aerosols absent), R100, or P100 filters (either half- or full-face); powered air-purifying respirator equipped with a loose-fitting hood or helmet and High Efficiency Particulate Air
(HEPA)filters; powered air-purifying respirator equipped with a tight-fitting facepiece (either half- or full-face) and HEPA filters; and supplied-air respirator operated in pressure demand or continuous flow mode and equipped with a hood or helmet or tight-fitting facepiece (either half- or full-face).
(ii)*Hazard communication program* . Requirements as specified in § 721.72 (g)(1)(ix), (g)(2)(iv), (g)(3)(ii), and (g)(4)(iii).
(iii)*Release to water* . Requirements as specified in § 721.90 (a)(1), (b)(1), and (c)(1).
(b)*Specific requirements* . The provisions of subpart A of this part apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph.
(1)*Recordkeeping* . Recordkeeping requirements as specified in § 721.125 (a), (b), (c), (d), (f), (g), (h), and
(k)are applicable to manufacturers, importers, and processors of this substance.
(2)*Limitations or revocation of certain notification requirements* . The provisions of § 721.185 apply to this section. 22. By adding new § 721.10078 to subpart E to read as follows: § 721.10078 Butanamide, 2-[(2-methoxy-4-nitrophenyl)azo]- *N* -(2-methoxyphenyl)-3-oxo-, 4-[(17-substituted-3,6,9,12,15-pentaazaheptadec-1-yl)substituted]phenyl derivs., hydrochlorides (generic).
(a)*Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to reporting* .
(1)The chemical substance identified generically as butanamide, 2-[(2-methoxy-4-nitrophenyl)azo]- *N* -(2-methoxyphenyl)-3-oxo-, 4-[(17-substituted-3,6,9,12,15-pentaazaheptadec-1-yl)substituted]phenyl derivs., hydrochlorides (PMN P-06-4) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(2)The significant new uses are:
(i)*Release to water* . Requirements as specified in § 721.90 (a)(4), (b)(4), and (c)(4) (N=10).
(ii)[Reserved]
(b)*Specific requirements* . The provisions of subpart A of this part apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph.
(1)*Recordkeeping* . Recordkeeping requirements as specified in § 721.125 (a), (b), (c), and
(k)are applicable to manufacturers, importers, and processors of this substance.
(2)*Limitations or revocation of certain notification requirements* . The provisions of § 721.185 apply to this section. 23. By adding new § 721.10079 to subpart E to read as follows: § 721.10079 Quino[2,3-b]acridine-7, 14-dione, 5,12-dihydro-2,9-dimethyl-, 4-[(17-substituted-3,6,9,12,15-pentaazaheptadec-1-yl)substituted]phenyl derivs., hydrochlorides (generic).
(a)*Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to reporting* .
(1)The chemical substance identified generically as quino[2,3-b]acridine-7, 14-dione, 5,12-dihydro-2,9-dimethyl-, 4-[(17-substituted-3,6,9,12,15-pentaazaheptadec-1-yl)substituted]phenyl derivs., hydrochlorides (PMN P-06-7) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(2)The significant new uses are:
(i)*Protection in the workplace* . Requirements as specified in § 721.63 (a)(1), (a)(2)(i), (a)(3),
(b)(concentration set at 1 percent), and (c).
(ii)*Industrial, commercial, and consumer activities* . Requirements as specified in § 721.80 (j), (v)(1), (w)(1), and (x)(1).
(iii)*Release to water* . Requirements as specified in § 721.90 (a)(4), (b)(4), and (c)(4) (N=10).
(b)*Specific requirements* . The provisions of subpart A of this part apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph.
(1)*Recordkeeping* . Recordkeeping requirements as specified in § 721.125 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (i), and
(k)are applicable to manufacturers, importers, and processors of this substance.
(2)*Limitations or revocation of certain notification requirements* . The provisions of § 721.185 apply to this section.
(3)*Determining whether a specific use is subject to this section* . The provisions of § 721.1725(b)(1) apply to this section. 24. By adding new § 721.10080 to subpart E to read as follows: § 721.10080 Carbon black, 4-[(17-substituted-3,6,9,12,15-pentaazaheptadec-1-yl) substituted] phenyl-modified, hydrochlorides (generic).
(a)*Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to reporting* .
(1)The chemical substance identified generically as carbon black, 4-[(17-substituted-3,6,9,12,15-pentaazaheptadec-1-yl) substituted] phenyl-modified, hydrochlorides (PMN P-06-8) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(2)The significant new uses are:
(i)*Protection in the workplace* . Requirements as specified in § 721.63 (a)(1), (a)(2)(i), (a)(3),
(b)(concentration set at 1 percent), and (c).
(ii)*Industrial, commercial, and consumer activities* . Requirements as specified in § 721.80 (j), (v)(1), (w)(1), and (x)(1).
(iii)*Release to water* . Requirements as specified in § 721.90 (a)(4), (b)(4), and (c)(4) (N=10).
(b)*Specific requirements* . The provisions of subpart A of this part apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph.
(1)*Recordkeeping* . Recordkeeping requirements as specified in § 721.125 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (i), and
(k)are applicable to manufacturers, importers, and processors of this substance.
(2)*Limitations or revocation of certain notification requirements* . The provisions of § 721.185 apply to this section.
(3)*Determining whether a specific use is subject to this section* . The provisions of § 721.1725(b)(1) apply to this section. 25. By adding new § 721.10081 to subpart E to read as follows: § 721.10081 Aromatic urethane acrylate oligomer (generic).
(a)*Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to reporting* .
(1)The chemical substance identified generically as aromatic urethane acrylate oligomer (PMN P-06-26) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(2)The significant new uses are:
(i)*Release to water* . Requirements as specified in § 721.90 (a)(1), (b)(1), and (c)(1).
(ii)[Reserved]
(b)*Specific requirements* . The provisions of subpart A of this part apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph.
(1)*Recordkeeping* . Recordkeeping requirements as specified in § 721.125 (a), (b), (c), and
(k)are applicable to manufacturers, importers, and processors of this substance.
(2)*Limitations or revocation of certain notification requirements* . The provisions of § 721.185 apply to this section. 26. By adding new § 721.10082 to subpart E to read as follows: § 721.10082 Amine modified monomer acrylate (generic).
(a)*Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to reporting* .
(1)The chemical substance identified generically as amine modified monomer acrylate (PMN P-06-29) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(2)The significant new uses are:
(i)*Release to water* . Requirements as specified in § 721.90 (a)(1), (b)(1), and (c)(1).
(ii)[Reserved]
(b)*Specific requirements* . The provisions of subpart A of this part apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph.
(1)*Recordkeeping* . Recordkeeping requirements as specified in § 721.125 (a), (b), (c), and
(k)are applicable to manufacturers, importers, and processors of this substance.
(2)*Limitations or revocation of certain notification requirements* . The provisions of § 721.185 apply to this section. 27. By adding new § 721.10083 to subpart E to read as follows: § 721.10083 Copper, [29H, 31H-phthalocyaninato (2-)-κ *N* 29, κ *N* 30, κ *N* 31, κ *N* 32]-, 4-[(17-substituted-3,6,9,12,15- pentaazaheptadec-1-yl) substituted] phenyl derivs., hydrochlorides (generic).
(a)*Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to reporting* .
(1)The chemical substance identified generically as copper, [29H, 31H-phthalocyaninato (2-)-κ *N* 29, κ *N* 30, κ *N* 31, κ *N* 32]-, 4-[(17-substituted-3,6,9,12,15- pentaazaheptadec-1-yl) substituted] phenyl derivs., hydrochlorides (PMN P-06-70) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(2)The significant new uses are:
(i)*Protection in the workplace* . Requirements as specified in § 721.63 (a)(1), (a)(2)(i), (a)(3),
(b)(concentration set at 1 percent), and (c).
(ii)*Industrial, commercial, and consumer activities* . Requirements as specified in § 721.80 (j), (v)(1), (w)(1), and (x)(1).
(iii)*Release to water* . Requirements as specified in § 721.90 (a)(4), (b)(4), and (c)(4) (N=10).
(b)*Specific requirements* . The provisions of subpart A of this part apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph.
(1)*Recordkeeping* . Recordkeeping requirements as specified in § 721.125 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (i), and
(k)are applicable to manufacturers, importers, and processors of this substance.
(2)*Limitations or revocation of certain notification requirements* . The provisions of § 721.185 apply to this section.
(3)*Determining whether a specific use is subject to this section* . The provisions of § 721.1725(b)(1) apply to this section. 28. By adding new § 721.10084 to subpart E to read as follows: § 721.10084 Modified thionocarbamate (generic).
(a)*Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to reporting* .
(1)The chemical substance identified generically as modified thionocarbamate (PMN P-06-124 is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(2)The significant new uses are:
(i)*Release to water* . Requirements as specified in § 721.90 (a)(1), (b)(1), and (c)(1).
(ii)[Reserved]
(b)*Specific requirements* . The provisions of subpart A of this part apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph.
(1)*Recordkeeping* . Recordkeeping requirements as specified in § 721.125 (a), (b), (c), and
(k)are applicable to manufacturers, importers, and processors of this substance.
(2)*Limitations or revocation of certain notification requirements* . The provisions of § 721.185 apply to this section. 29. By adding new § 721.10085 to subpart E to read as follows: § 721.10085 Substituted polyaryl sulfonium polyhalide phosphate salt (generic).
(a)*Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to reporting* .
(1)The chemical substance identified generically as substituted polyaryl sulfonium polyhalide phosphate salt (PMN P-06-232) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(2)The significant new uses are:
(i)*Industrial, commercial, and consumer activities* . Requirements as specified in § 721.80
(f)and
(j)(photo initiator used in photo-curable compositions).
(ii)[Reserved]
(b)*Specific requirements* . The provisions of subpart A of this part apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph.
(1)*Recordkeeping* . Recordkeeping requirements as specified in § 721.125 (a), (b), (c), and
(i)are applicable to manufacturers, importers, and processors of this substance.
(2)*Limitations or revocation of certain notification requirements* . The provisions of § 721.185 apply to this section. 30. By adding new § 721.10086 to subpart E to read as follows: § 721.10086 Ethane, 2-(difluoromethoxy)-1,1,1-trifluoro-.
(a)*Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to reporting* .
(1)The chemical substance identified as ethane, 2-(difluoromethoxy)-1,1,1-trifluoro- (PMN P-06-295; CAS No. 1885-48-9) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(2)The significant new uses are:
(i)*Protection in the workplace* . Requirements as specified in § 721.63 (a)(1), (a)(2)(i), (a)(3), (b), and (c).
(ii)*Industrial, commercial, and consumer activities* . Requirements as specified in § 721.80(g).
(b)*Specific requirements* . The provisions of subpart A of this part apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph.
(1)*Recordkeeping* . Recordkeeping requirements as specified in § 721.125 (a), (b), (c), (d),
(e)and
(i)are applicable to manufacturers, importers, and processors of this substance.
(2)*Limitations or revocation of certain notification requirements* . The provisions of § 721.185 apply to this section. 31. By adding new § 721.10087 to subpart E to read as follows: § 721.10087 Substituted alkyl phosphine oxide (generic).
(a)*Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to reporting* .
(1)The chemical substance identified generically as substituted alkyl phosphine oxide (PMN P-06-332) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(2)The significant new uses are:
(i)*Industrial, commercial, and consumer activities* . Requirements as specified in § 721.80(s) (100,000 kilograms/year).
(ii)[Reserved]
(b)*Specific requirements* . The provisions of subpart A of this part apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph.
(1)*Recordkeeping* . Recordkeeping requirements as specified in § 721.125 (a), (b), (c), and
(i)are applicable to manufacturers, importers, and processors of this substance.
(2)*Limitations or revocation of certain notification requirements* . The provisions of § 721.185 apply to this section. 32. By adding new § 721.10088 to subpart E to read as follows: § 721.10088 Thiophene, 2,5-dibromo-3-hexyl-.
(a)*Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to reporting* .
(1)The chemical substance identified as thiophene, 2,5-dibromo-3-hexyl- (PMN P-07-283; CAS No. 116971-11-0) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(2)The significant new uses are:
(i)*Industrial, commercial, and consumer activities* . Requirements as specified in § 721.80(s) (500 kilograms).
(ii)*Release to water* . Requirements as specified in § 721.90 (a)(4), (b)(4), and (c)(4) (N=1).
(b)*Specific requirements* . The provisions of subpart A of this part apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph.
(1)*Recordkeeping* . Recordkeeping requirements as specified in § 721.125 (a), (b), (c), (i), and
(k)are applicable to manufacturers, importers, and processors of this substance.
(2)*Limitations or revocation of certain notification requirements* . The provisions of § 721.185 apply to this section. [FR Doc. E7-18502 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S 72 181 Wednesday, September 19, 2007 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2004-18583; Directorate Identifier 2002-NM-285-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747-100, -100B, -100B SUD, -200B, -200C, -300, -400, and -400D Series Airplanes; and Model 747SR Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal. SUMMARY: The FAA withdraws a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)that proposed a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for certain Boeing Model 747-100, -100B, -100B SUD, -200B, -200C, -300, -400, and -400D series airplanes; and Model 747SR series airplanes. The proposed AD would have required repetitive inspections of the forward corner reveal of the number 3 main entry doors
(MEDs)for cracking, and corrective actions if necessary. Since the proposed AD was issued, we have received comments for the NPRM and new data showing other issues related to the unsafe condition. The data include reports that additional airplanes are affected by the identified unsafe condition; and that a “sharp edge” detail may be present on certain one-piece machined 6061 aluminum reveals, which could lead to fatigue cracking. We have determined from these data that the corrective actions proposed by the NPRM are inadequate for addressing the identified unsafe condition. We are considering requiring other rulemaking, which provides corrective actions for the identified unsafe condition. Accordingly, the proposed AD is withdrawn. ADDRESSES: 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, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC. This docket number is FAA-2004-18583; Directorate Identifier 2002-NM-285-AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ivan Li, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)917-6437; fax
(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion We proposed to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) with a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)for a new AD for certain Boeing Model 747-100, -100B, -100B SUD, -200B, -200C, -300, -400, and -400D series airplanes; and Model 747SR series airplanes. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on July 13, 2004 (69 FR 41997). The NPRM would have required repetitive inspections of the lower forward corner reveal of the number 3 main entry doors
(MEDs)for cracking, and corrective actions if necessary. The NPRM resulted from reports of cracking in the forward corner reveal of the number 3 MEDs. The proposed actions were intended to detect and correct misalignment of the girt bar fitting due to fatigue failure of the forward corner reveal of the number 3 MEDs, which could lead to the door escape slide departing from the airplane if the door is opened when the slide is deployed, and consequent injuries to passengers and crew using the door escape slide during an emergency evacuation. Actions Since NPRM Was Issued Since we issued the NPRM, we have received comments for the NPRM and new data showing other issues related to the unsafe condition. The data include reports that additional airplanes, on which a one-piece machined 6061 aluminum reveal is installed, are affected by the identified unsafe condition. In addition, a “sharp edge” detail may be present on certain one-piece machined 6061 aluminum reveals, which could lead to fatigue cracking. We have determined from these data that the corrective actions proposed by the NPRM are inadequate for addressing the identified unsafe condition. We are considering requiring other rulemaking, which provides corrective actions for the identified unsafe condition. FAA's Conclusions Upon further consideration, we have determined that the corrective actions proposed by the NPRM are inadequate for addressing the identified unsafe condition. Accordingly, the NPRM is withdrawn. Withdrawal of the NPRM does not preclude the FAA from issuing another related action or commit the FAA to any course of action in the future. Regulatory Impact Since this action only withdraws an NPRM, it is neither a proposed nor a final rule and therefore is not covered under Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, or DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Withdrawal Accordingly, we withdraw the NPRM, Docket No. FAA-2004-18583; Directorate Identifier 2002-NM-285-AD, which was published in the **Federal Register** on July 13, 2004 (69 FR 41997). Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 7, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-18449 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-27257; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-131-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300 Series Airplanes and Model A300-600 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of comment period. SUMMARY: The FAA is revising an earlier NPRM for an airworthiness directive
(AD)that applies to all Airbus Model A300 airplanes; and all Airbus Model A300 B4-601, A300 B4-603, A300 B4-620, A300 B4-622, A300 B4-605R, A300 B4-622R, A300 F4-605R, A300 F4-622R, and A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes. The original NPRM would have required inspecting to determine the part number of the sliding rods of the main landing gear
(MLG)retraction actuators. For MLG retraction actuators equipped with sliding rods having certain part numbers, the original NPRM would also have required inspecting for discrepancies, including but not limited to cracking, of the sliding rod; and performing corrective actions if necessary. The original NPRM resulted from a report of a failure of a sliding rod of the MLG retraction actuator before the actuator reached the life limit established by the manufacturer. This action revises the original NPRM by proposing to require the return of affected sliding rods to the manufacturer. We are proposing this supplemental NPRM to prevent failure of the sliding rod of the MLG retraction actuator, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the MLG. DATES: We must receive comments on this supplemental NPRM by October 15, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this supplemental NPRM. • *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 Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, for service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Stafford, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-1622; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this supplemental NPRM. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2007-27257; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-131-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this supplemental NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this supplemental NPRM in light of those comments. We will post all comments submitted, 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 supplemental NPRM. 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 the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Examining the Docket You may examine the 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 DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion We proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)for an airworthiness directive
(AD)(the “original NPRM”). The original NPRM applies to all Airbus Model A300 airplanes; and all Airbus Model A300 B4-601, A300 B4-603, A300 B4-620, A300 B4-622, A300 B4-605R, A300 B4-622R, A300 F4-605R, A300 F4-622R, and A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes. The original NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on February 14, 2007 (72 FR 6977). The original NPRM proposed to require inspecting to determine the part number of the sliding rods of the main landing gear
(MLG)retraction actuators. For MLG retraction actuators equipped with sliding rods having certain part numbers, the original NPRM also proposed to require inspecting for discrepancies, including but not limited to cracking, of the sliding rod; and performing corrective actions if necessary. Comments We have considered the following comments on the original NPRM. Request To Require That Retraction Actuator Sliding Rods Be Returned Airbus, the airplane manufacturer, requests that we require that retraction actuator sliding rods be returned to the part manufacturer when the life limit threshold of 32,000 flight cycles is reached. Airbus states that because the reported failure of the sliding rod of the MLG retraction actuator was before the life limit of 32,000 flight cycles, the part manufacturer has been requested to identify the root cause. Airbus states that for this purpose, the part manufacturer must be provided with any removed retraction actuator sliding rod. We agree with the commenter for the reasons stated by the commenter. We have added paragraph
(i)to this supplemental NPRM to require returning the sliding rods to the part manufacturer when the life limit is reached for the first replacement cycle only. We have also reidentified subsequent paragraphs. Request To Allow Records Review UPS requests that we allow operators to do a records review instead of the inspection specified in paragraph
(g)of the original NPRM. UPS states that if the records review can conclusively determine whether or not the part is installed, it will be an equivalent level of safety to the proposed inspection. We agree with the comment for the reasons stated by the commenter. We have revised paragraph
(g)of this supplemental NPRM to allow operators to do a records review instead of the inspection. Request To Revise Compliance Time An anonymous commenter requests that we revise the compliance time specified in paragraph
(g)of the original NPRM to match the compliance time specified in the corresponding European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA)airworthiness directive. The commenter states that the EASA airworthiness directive 2006-0075 R2, dated January 4, 2007, specifies doing the inspection at the accumulation of 27,000 flight cycles within 1,000 flight cycles or one year, whichever occurs first. The commenter points out that the original NPRM would require the inspection be done before the accumulation of 27,000 total flight cycles. The commenter notes that the original NPRM would result in a threshold of 26,999 flight cycles whereas the EASA airworthiness directive specifies that the inspection be done between 27,000 flight cycles and 28,000 flight cycles. We agree with the commenter to revise the compliance time. We intended to match the compliance times specified in EASA airworthiness directive. We have revised paragraphs
(g)and
(h)of this supplemental NPRM to match the intent of the EASA airworthiness directive. We have also added new paragraph
(k)to this supplemental NPRM to ensure that any replaced parts are inspected at the compliance time specified in paragraph
(h)of this supplemental NPRM. Explanation of Changes to NPRM We have revised the applicability of this supplemental NPRM to identify model designations as published in the most recent type certificate data sheet for the affected models. We have also revised this action to clarify the appropriate procedure for notifying the principal inspector before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies. FAA's Determination and Proposed Requirements of the Supplemental NPRM Certain changes discussed above expand the scope of the original NPRM; therefore, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for public comment on this supplemental NPRM. Costs of Compliance The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this supplemental NPRM, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour, per inspection cycle. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Parts Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost Inspection to determine part number 1 None $80 168 $13,440 Inspections for discrepancies 11 None 880 168 147,840 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 supplemental NPRM 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): **Airbus:** Docket No. FAA-2007-27257; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-131-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by October 15, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to all Airbus Model A300 series airplanes; and all Airbus Model A300-600 series airplanes; certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from a report of a failure of a sliding rod of the main landing gear
(MLG)retraction actuator before the actuator reached the life limit established by the manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the sliding rod of the MLG retraction actuator, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the MLG. 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. Service Bulletin Reference
(f)The term “service bulletin,” as used in this AD, means the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletins identified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD, as applicable.
(1)For Model A300 series airplanes: Airbus Service Bulletin A300-32-0450, Revision 01, excluding Appendix 01, dated May 10, 2006.
(2)For Model A300-600 series airplanes: Airbus Service Bulletin A300-32-6097, Revision 01, excluding Appendix 01, dated May 10, 2006. Note 1: The Airbus service bulletins refer to Messier-Dowty Special Inspection Service Bulletin 470-32-806, dated October 27, 2005, as an additional source of service information for performing detailed and high-frequency eddy current
(HFEC)inspections to detect discrepancies of the sliding rod. Inspection To Determine Part Number (P/N) of Sliding Rod
(g)At the applicable time specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, do a one-time inspection to determine the part number of the sliding rod of the MLG retraction actuator, in accordance with the applicable service bulletin. If no sliding rod having P/N C69029-2 or C69029-3 is installed, no further action is required by this paragraph. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the part number of the sliding rod of the MLG retraction actuator can be conclusively determined from that review.
(1)For airplanes that have accumulated less than 27,000 flight cycles on the MLG retraction actuator as of the effective date of this AD: After accumulating 27,000 flight cycles on the MLG retraction actuator, do the inspection within the next 1,000 flight cycles or 12 months, whichever occurs first.
(2)For airplanes that have accumulated 27,000 or more flight cycles on the MLG retraction actuator as of the effective date of this AD: Do the inspection within 1,000 flight cycles or 12 months, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD. Inspection for Discrepancies of Sliding Rod and Corrective Actions
(h)For MLG retraction actuators equipped with sliding rods having P/N C69029-2 or C69029-3: At the applicable time specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD, perform detailed and HFEC inspections of the sliding rod of the MLG retraction actuators on the left-hand and right-hand MLGs, in accordance with the applicable service bulletin. Then, before further flight, perform all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the applicable service bulletin.
(1)For airplanes that have accumulated less than 27,000 flight cycles on the MLG retraction actuator as of the effective date of this AD: After accumulating 27,000 flight cycles on the MLG retraction actuator, do the inspections within the next 1,000 flight cycles or 12 months, whichever occurs first.
(2)For airplanes that have accumulated 27,000 or more flight cycles on the MLG retraction actuator as of the effective date of this AD: Do the inspections within 1,000 flight cycles or 12 months, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD. Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is: “An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface cleaning and elaborate procedures may be required.” Note 3: Operators should note that the MLG retraction actuator rod must be replaced with a new or serviceable actuator rod before the 32,000-flight-cycle life limit specified in the applicable airworthiness limitations document, regardless of the inspection findings. Return of MLG Retraction Actuator Sliding Rod
(i)For airplanes having any retraction actuator sliding rods specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD: After the effective date of this AD, for the first replacement of the retraction actuator sliding rod, return the retraction actuator sliding rod to Messier-Dowty, SA Product Support Engineering, BP10—78142 Velizy Cedex, France, within 30 days after the retraction actuator sliding rod is removed from the airplane.
(1)Any retraction actuator sliding rod that is found to have cracking during the actions specified in paragraph
(h)of this AD.
(2)Any retraction actuator sliding rod, P/N C69029-2 or C69029-3, removed that has accumulated between 27,000 total flight cycles and 32,000 total flight cycles. Parts Installation for MLG Retraction Actuator Rod
(j)As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install, on any airplane, an MLG retraction actuator that is equipped with a sliding rod having P/N C69029-2 or C69029-3, and on which the retraction actuator rod has accumulated 27,000 total flight cycles or more, unless paragraph
(h)of this AD is accomplished.
(k)As of the effective date of this AD, any MLG retraction actuator that is equipped with a sliding rod having P/N C69029-2 or C69029-3, and on which the retraction actuator rod has accumulated less than 27,000 total flight cycles, may be installed, on any airplane, provided that the inspections specified in paragraph
(h)of this AD are accomplished at the time specified in paragraph (h)(1) of this AD. Actions Accomplished According to a Previous Issue of the Service Bulletins
(l)Inspections and corrective actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with the following service bulletins are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements of this AD:
(1)For Model A300 series airplanes: Airbus Service Bulletin A300-32-0450, excluding Appendix 01, dated December 1, 2005.
(2)For Model A300-600 series airplanes: Airbus Service Bulletin A300-32-6097, excluding Appendix 01, dated December 1, 2005. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (m)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. Related Information
(n)European Aviation Safety Agency airworthiness directive 2006-0075R2, dated January 4, 2007, also addresses the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 10, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-18448 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28367; Directorate Identifier 2007-NE-19-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company
(GE)CF6-80C2 Series and CF6-80E1 Series Turbofan Engines 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 GE CF6-80C2 series and CF6-80E1 series turbofan engines. This proposed AD would require installing doubler pads (deflectors) on stage 5 of certain LPT cases, or replacing those LPT cases with LPT cases that have the deflectors already installed. This proposed AD results from four events of hardware fragments, which liberated into the flowpaths and wore through LPT cases on CF6-80C2 and -80E1 series engines. We are proposing this AD to prevent an uncontained release of engine debris and loss of the structural integrity of the mount system that supports the engine. Loss of the mount system structural integrity could result in the engine separating from the airplane. DATES: We must receive any comments on this proposed AD by November 19, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to comment on this proposed AD. • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You can get the service information identified in this proposed AD from Customer Support Center, GE Aircraft Engines, M/D Center Rm. 285, One Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45216, U.S.A.; e-mail: *geae.csc@ae.ge.com* ; International phone No.:
(513)552-3272; U.S.A. phone No.: 877-432-3272. You may examine the comments on this proposed AD in the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Green, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail: *robert.green@faa.gov* ; telephone
(781)238-7754; fax
(781)238-7199. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send us any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2007-28367; Directorate Identifier 2007-NE-19-AD” in the subject line 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 the DOT 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 the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov* . Examining the AD Docket You may examine the docket that contains the proposal, any comments received and, any final disposition in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is located at the street address stated in ADDRESSES . Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management Facility receives them. Discussion We have received reports of four events, three on CF6-80C2 engines, and one on a CF6-80E1 engine, where the LPT case experienced up to 360 degrees circumferentially of wear and breach of the casing from separate failures of the high pressure turbine
(HPT)stage 2 nozzle and the fan mid shaft. Such internal engine failures can result in rotor blade and nozzle vane fragments entering the LPT. The geometry of the blade plane of the stage 5 LPT rotor allows the liberated fragments to accumulate between the LPT blade tips and the LPT case. Engine operation, even at reduced power or windmilling, causes accumulated debris to wear through the LPT case wall. Such a breach from internal engine failure can result in an uncontained release of engine debris and loss of the structural integrity of the mount system that supports the engine. This condition, if not corrected, could result in the engine separating from the airplane. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed and approved the technical contents of Service Bulletin
(SB)CF6-80E1 S/B 72-0303, Revision 1, dated February 1, 2006; SB CF6-80C2 S/B 72-1171, Revision 1, dated February 1, 2006; and GE Repair Document RD 935-314-S3, dated August 10, 2006, that describes procedures for installing case skin doubler pads (deflectors) on stage 5 of the LPT case. 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 products of this same type design. We are proposing this AD, which would require installing case skin doubler pads (deflectors) on stage 5 of the affected LPT case or replacing the case with a case that has deflectors installed, at the next disassembly of the LPT module after the effective date of the proposed AD. The proposed AD would require you to use the service information described previously to perform these actions. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 854 GE CF6 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 30 work-hours per engine to perform the proposed actions, and that the average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $10,170 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of the proposed AD to U.S. operators to be $10,734,780. 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 AD: 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. Would 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. You may get a copy of this summary at the address listed under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive: **General Electric Company:** Docket No. FAA-2007-28367; Directorate Identifier 2007-NE-19-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD)action by November 19, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to the CF6-80C2 and CF6-80E1 engines specified in the following Table 1 of this AD. These engines are installed on, but not limited to, Airbus A300, A310, and A330 series airplanes, Boeing 747 and 767 series airplanes, and McDonnell Douglas MD11 series airplanes. Table 1.—Applicable Engines by Engine Model Engine model With low pressure turbine
(LPT)case part No. (P/N) installed CF6-80C2A1, -80C2A2, -80C2A3, -80C2A5, -80C2A5F, -80C2A8, -80C2B1, -80C2B1F, -80C2B1F1, -80C2B1F2, -80C2B2, -80C2B2F, -80C2B3F, -80C2B4, -80C2B4F, -80C2B5F, -80C2B6, -80C2B6F, -80C2B6FA, -80C2B7F, -80C2B8F, -80C2D1F, and -80C2L1F 1336M99G01, 1336M99G02, 1336M99G03, 1336M99G04, 1336M99G06, 1336M99G07, 1336M99G08, 1336M99G09, 1336M99G10, 1336M99G12, 1336M99G13, or 1336M99G15. 1647M68G05, 1647M68G08, 1647M68G09, 1647M68G15. 1713M73G01, 1713M73G02, or 1713M73G05. 9367M99G11or 9367M99G17. CF6-80E1A1, -80E1A2, -80E1A3, -80E1A4, -80E1A4/B 1647M68G02, 1647M68G04, 1647M68G07, 1647M68G12, or 1647M68G13. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from four events of hardware fragments, which liberated into the flowpaths and wore through LPT cases on CF6-80C2 and -80E1 series engines. We are issuing this AD to prevent an uncontained release of engine debris and loss of the structural integrity of the mount system that supports the engine. Loss of the mount system structural integrity could result in the engine separating from the airplane. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed the next time the LPT module is disassembled, but not to exceed 8 years after the effective date of this AD, unless the actions have already been done. CF6-80C2 Engines
(f)For CF6-80C2 engines specified in Table 1 of this AD that have an LPT case with a P/N specified in Table 1 of this AD, do either of the following:
(1)Rework the LPT case to install deflectors. Use the Accomplishment Instructions of GE Service Bulletin
(SB)CF6-80C2 S/B 72-1171, Revision 1, dated February 1, 2006, and Repair Document
(RD)935-314-S3, dated August 10, 2006, to rework the LPT case, or
(2)Install an LPT case that has case skin doubler pads. CF6-80E1 Engines
(g)For CF6-80E1 engines specified in Table 1 of this AD, that have an LPT case with a P/N specified in Table 1 of this AD, do either of the following:
(1)Rework the LPT case to install deflectors. Use the Accomplishment Instructions of SB CF6-80E1 S/B 72-0303, Revision 1, dated February 1, 2006, and RD 935-314-S3, dated August 10, 2006, to rework the LPT case, or
(2)Install an LPT case that has case skin doubler pads. Alternative Methods of Compliance
(h)The Manager, Engine Certification Office, has the authority to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Related Information
(i)None.
(j)Contact Robert Green, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail: *robert.green@faa.gov;* telephone
(781)238-7754; fax
(781)238-7199, for more information about this AD. Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on September 11, 2007. Francis A. Favara, Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-18418 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28670; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-060-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; GROB-WERKE GMBH & CO KG Models G102 CLUB ASTIR III, G102 CLUB ASTIR IIIb, and G102 STANDARD ASTIR III Gliders AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: GROB received isolated difficulty reports regarding cracks on welded parts of the flight control system of the type G102, model CLUB ASTIR III & IIIb, and STANDARD ASTIR III. The cracks progress slowly from the welding seams periphery, and may eventually result in rupture at a matured stage. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 19, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *DOT Docket Web Site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov;* or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg Davison, Glider Program Manager, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:
(816)329-4130; fax:
(816)329-4090. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2007-28670; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-060-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued Emergency AD No.: 2007-0135-E, dated May 14, 2007 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: GROB received isolated difficulty reports regarding cracks on welded parts of the flight control system of the type G102, model CLUB ASTIR III & IIIb, and STANDARD ASTIR III. The cracks progress slowly from the welding seams periphery, and may eventually result in rupture at a matured stage. The MCAI requires all welded parts to be inspected and replaced if any cracks are found. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD. Relevant Service Information Grob Aerospace has issued Service Bulletin No. MSB 306-35, dated April 27, 2007. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 35 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $2,800, or $80 per product. In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 5 work-hours and require parts costing $5,058, for a cost of $5,458 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions. 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 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 this 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. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **Grob-Werke Gmbh & Co Kg:** Docket No. FAA-2007-28670; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-060-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments by October 19, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to the gliders Model G102 CLUB ASTIR III, serial numbers
(SNs)5501 (suffix C) through 5652 (suffix C); Model G102 CLUB ASTIR IIIb, SNs 5501 (suffix Cb) through 5652 (suffix Cb); and Model G102 STANDARD ASTIR III, SNs 5501 (suffix S) through 5652 (suffix S), that are certificated in any category. Subject
(d)Air Transport Association of America
(ATA)Code 27: Flight Controls. Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: GROB received isolated difficulty reports regarding cracks on welded parts of the flight control system of the type G102, model CLUB ASTIR III & IIIb, and STANDARD ASTIR III. The cracks progress slowly from the welding seams periphery, and may eventually result in rupture at a matured stage. The MCAI requires all welded parts to be inspected and replaced if any cracks are found. Actions and Compliance
(f)Unless already done, do the following actions:
(1)Within the next 25 hours time-in-service
(TIS)after the effective date of this AD or within the next 6 calendar months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, inspect the welded parts of the flight control system for any cracks, deformations, or distortions following Grob Aerospace Service Bulletin No. MSB 306-35, dated April 27, 2007. Thereafter, repetitively inspect at intervals not to exceed 12 calendar months.
(2)If you find any cracks, deformations, or distortions as a result of any inspection required by paragraph (e)(1) of this AD, before further flight, replace the affected part following Grob Aerospace Service Bulletin No. MSB 306-35, dated April 27, 2007. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions
(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Greg Davison, Glider Program Manager, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:
(816)329-4130; fax:
(816)329-4090. 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.
(2)Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(3)Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in this AD, 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 and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information
(h)Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA)Emergency AD No.: 2007-0135-E, dated May 14, 2007, and Grob Aerospace Service Bulletin No. MSB 306-35, dated April 27, 2007, for related information. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on September 13, 2007. Kim Smith, Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-18443 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-29226; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-256-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-81 (MD-81) and DC-9-82 (MD-82) 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 certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-81 (MD-81) and DC-9-82 (MD-82) airplanes. This proposed AD would require, for certain airplanes, inspecting for cracking of the fuselage skin at the upper corners of the forward passenger doorjamb, installing or replacing doublers as applicable, and doing applicable repairs. This proposed AD results from reports of fatigue cracking in the fuselage skin at the upper corners of the forward passenger doorjamb. We are proposing this AD to prevent cracking of the fuselage skin at the upper corners of the forward passenger doorjamb, which could lead to loss of overall structural integrity of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 5, 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, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024), for the service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roger Durbin, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone
(562)627-5233; fax
(562)627-5210. 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-2007-29226; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-256-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 level of the West Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion We have received a report that fatigue cracking has been discovered in the fuselage skin at the upper corners of the forward passenger doorjamb on certain Model DC-9/MD-80 airplanes. This condition, if not corrected, could lead to loss of overall structural integrity of the airplane. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-53A298, dated August 1, 2006. The alert service bulletin describes procedures for a low-frequency eddy current
(LFEC)or a high-frequency eddy current
(HFEC)inspection, depending on airplane configuration, for cracking of the fuselage skin at the upper corners of the forward passenger doorjamb; and applicable corrective actions. The compliance time for the initial inspection is before accumulating 37,500 total flight cycles, or within 3,575 flight cycles (whichever is later). The corrective actions include: • For Group 1, Configuration 1, airplanes on which no cracking is found: Either repeating the LFEC inspection at intervals of 3,575 flight cycles; or installing external aluminum doublers within 3,575 flight cycles after the last inspection, and doing an HFEC inspection within 28,000 flight cycles after doing the installation, and repetitively at 20,000-flight-cycle intervals. • For Group 1, Configuration 1, airplanes on which any crack is found that is 2.0 inches or shorter in length: Repair before further flight, and do an HFEC inspection within 28,000 flight cycles after the repair, and repetitively at 20,000-flight-cycle intervals. • For Group 1, Configuration 1, airplanes on which any crack is found that is longer than 2.0 inches; for Group 1, Configurations 2 and 3, airplanes on which any crack is found beyond the edge of the doublers; and for Group 1, Configuration 4, airplanes: Contact Boeing for repair instructions before further flight. • For Group 1, Configuration 2, airplanes on which no crack is found beyond the edge of the steel doublers: Replace existing steel doublers with aluminum doublers, and repair upper corners within 6,000 flight cycles after the initial inspection; and do an HFEC inspection within 28,000 flight cycles after the repair, and repetitively at 20,000-flight-cycle intervals. • For Group 1, Configuration 3, airplanes on which no cracks are found beyond the edge of the aluminum doublers: Repeat the HFEC inspection at 20,000-flight-cycle intervals. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. 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 accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between Proposed AD and Alert Service Bulletin.” Differences Between Proposed AD and Alert Service Bulletin For all airplanes, the alert service bulletin specifies to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD would require repairing those conditions in one of the following ways: • Using a method that we approve; or • Using data that meet the certification basis of the airplane, and that have been approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization whom we have authorized to make those findings. *For airplane configuration 4:* Where the alert service bulletin specifies to contact the manufacturer for repair instructions before further flight, to avoid unnecessarily grounding airplanes, this proposed AD would require performing repairs within 90 days after the effective date of this proposed AD. Costs of Compliance There are about 76 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 46 airplanes of U.S. registry. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. The proposed actions vary depending upon the airplane configuration. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Parts Cost per airplane Fleet cost LFEC inspection 1 None needed $80, per inspection cycle Up to $3,680, per inspection cycle. HFEC inspection 1 None needed $80, per inspection cycle Up to $3,680, per inspection cycle. 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): **McDonnell Douglas:** Docket No. FAA-2007-29226; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-256-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by November 5, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-81 (MD-81) and DC-9-82 (MD-82) airplanes; certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-53A298, dated August 1, 2006. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from a report of fatigue cracking in the fuselage skin at the upper corners of the forward passenger doorjamb. We are issuing this AD to prevent cracking of the fuselage skin at the upper corners of the forward passenger doorjamb, which could lead to loss of overall structural integrity 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. Repetitive Inspections and Corrective Actions for Configuration 1, 2, and 3 Airplanes
(f)For airplanes identified as Configuration 1, 2, or 3 in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-53A298, dated August 1, 2006: At the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of the alert service bulletin, do a low-frequency eddy current
(LFEC)or high-frequency eddy current
(HFEC)inspection, as applicable, for cracking of the fuselage skin at the upper corners of the forward passenger doorjamb; and do all applicable corrective actions (repetitive inspections, installation of doublers, replacements, and repairs), except as provided by paragraph
(g)of this AD. Do the actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the alert service bulletin. Where the alert service bulletin specifies a compliance time after the date on the service bulletin, this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD. Repair of Certain Conditions
(g)If any crack is found during any inspection required by paragraph
(f)of this AD and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-53A298, dated August 1, 2006, specifies to contact Boeing for repair instructions: Before further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(i)of this AD. Corrective Action for Configuration 4 Airplanes
(h)For airplanes identified as Configuration 4 in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-53A298, dated August 1, 2006: Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(i)of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (i)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(3)An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane and 14 CFR 25.571, Amendment 45, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 10, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-18447 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-29227; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-100-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, and 747SR 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 certain Boeing Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, and 747SR series airplanes. For certain airplanes, this proposed AD would require a material type inspection to determine if the lower forward corner reveal of the number 3 main entry doors
(MEDs)is a casting. If the reveals are castings, this proposed AD would require repetitive inspection of the reveals for cracking, and corrective action if necessary. If the reveals are not castings, this proposed AD would require a detailed inspection of the reveals for a sharp edge and repetitive inspection of the reveals for cracking, and corrective action if necessary. For certain other airplanes, this AD would require only a detailed inspection of the reveals for a sharp edge and repetitive inspection of the reveals for cracking, and corrective action if necessary. For certain other airplanes, this AD would require repetitive inspection of the reveals for cracking only, and corrective action if necessary. This proposed AD results from reports of cracking and/or a sharp edge in the lower forward corner reveal of the number 3 MEDs. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the lower forward corner reveal of the number 3 MEDs, which could lead to the door escape slide departing from the airplane when the door is opened and the slide is deployed, and consequent injuries to passengers and crew using the door escape slide during an emergency evacuation. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 5, 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: Ivan Li, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)917-6437; 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-2007-29227; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-100-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 DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion On June 30, 2004, we issued an NPRM, Docket No. FAA-2004-18583, to address the identified unsafe condition. That NPRM was prompted by reports from eight operators indicating that cracking of the lower forward corner reveal of the number 3 main entry doors
(MEDs)was found on several Model 747 airplanes. Of the twelve reveals that were cracked, eleven were made of cast 356 aluminum and one was made of machined 6061 aluminum. The cause of the cracking of the reveals made of cast 356 aluminum is fatigue. The cause of the cracking of the reveal made of machined 6061 aluminum was a manufacturing defect, which led to fatigue cracking. Subsequent to issuing the NPRM, we have been working with the manufacturer to ensure that the unsafe condition is adequately addressed and appropriate service instructions are available. We have also received new data showing other issues related to the unsafe condition. In addition to the comments received for that NPRM, the data include reports that forward corner reveals installed on certain airplanes have a “sharp edge” detail at the forward edge, which could lead to fatigue cracking, and that additional airplanes are affected by the identified unsafe condition. We have determined from these data that the corrective actions proposed by that NPRM are inadequate for addressing the identified unsafe condition; therefore, we have withdrawn that NPRM and are issuing this new proposed AD. Explanation of Related AD We have previously issued AD 2007-12-11, amendment 39-15089 (72 FR 31984, June 11, 2007), which applies to certain Boeing Model 747 series airplanes. That AD requires repetitive inspections to detect cracks and/or corrosion of the girt bar support fitting at certain main entry doors (MED), and repair or replacement of the support fitting. That AD also provides for various terminating actions for the repetitive inspections. That AD also requires an inspection, for certain airplanes, for correct installation of square and conical washers in the girt bar support fitting; an inspection, for certain other airplanes, to determine if the washers are installed; and related investigative and corrective action if necessary. Actions required by that AD are done in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2378, Revision 1, dated March 10, 1994; or Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2378, Revision 3, dated August 11, 2005. Accomplishment of the applicable repair in this proposed AD would constitute compliance with the requirements of paragraph (q)(2)(ii) of AD 2007-12-11 for the repair of the lower forward corner casting (reveal) of the number 3 MEDs only. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-53-2460, Revision 1, dated February 13, 2007. The service bulletin describes procedures for inspections of the lower forward corner reveal of the number 3 MEDs, depending on the configuration of the airplane. For airplanes identified as Group 3 airplanes: The service bulletin describes procedures for a repetitive detailed inspection for cracking of the lower forward corner reveals for cracking, and corrective action if necessary. Corrective action includes replacing the reveal with a new or reworked two-piece reveal, which would end the repetitive inspections; or replacing the reveal with a new or reworked one-piece machined aluminum reveal without a sharp edge, doing repetitive inspections at a new compliance time after the replacement, and doing corrective action if necessary. For airplanes identified as Group 2 airplanes and Group 1, Configuration 2 airplanes: The service bulletin describes procedures for a repetitive detailed inspection of the lower forward corner reveals for cracking, a one-time detailed inspection of the lower forward corner reveals for a sharp edge, and corrective action if necessary. The corrective actions include the following: • If no cracking and no sharp edge are found: Replace the reveal with a new or reworked two-piece reveal, which would end the repetitive inspections; or do repetitive detailed inspections at a new compliance time, and corrective action if necessary (as specified above in procedures for Group 3 airplanes). • If no cracking is found but a sharp edge is found: Replace the reveal with a new or reworked two-piece reveal, which would end the repetitive inspections; or replace the reveal with a new or reworked one-piece machined aluminum reveal without a sharp edge, do the repetitive detailed inspections at a new compliance time after doing the replacement, and do corrective action if necessary (as specified above in procedures for Group 3 airplanes). • If cracking is found: Replace the reveal with a new or reworked two-piece reveal, which would end the repetitive inspection; or replace the reveal with a new or reworked one-piece machined aluminum reveal without a sharp edge, do the repetitive detailed inspections at a new compliance time after doing the replacement, and do corrective action if necessary (as specified above in procedures for Group 3 airplanes). For airplanes identified as Group 1, Configuration 1 airplanes: The service bulletin describes procedures for a one-time material type inspection to determine if the lower forward corner reveals are castings. If the forward corner reveal is not a casting: Do a one-time detailed inspection of the reveal for a sharp edge, repetitive inspection of the reveal for cracking, and corrective action if necessary (as specified above in procedures for Group 2 and Group 1, Configuration 2 airplanes). If the reveal is a casting: Do repetitive detailed inspections of the reveal for cracking, and corrective action if necessary. Corrective actions include the following: Weld repair the reveal and repeat the detailed inspection; replace the reveal with a new or reworked two-piece reveal, which ends the repetitive inspections; or replace the reveal with a new or reworked one-piece machined aluminum reveal without a sharp edge, do the repetitive inspections again at a new compliance time after the replacement, and do corrective action if necessary (as specified above in procedures for Group 2 and Group 1, Configuration 2 airplanes). Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. 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 accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Difference Between the Proposed AD and the Service Bulletin.” Difference Between the Proposed AD and the Service Bulletin Although Step 5 of Figure 8 of the service bulletin specifies that operators may accomplish the actions on forward corner reveals made of cast 356 aluminum in accordance with “an operator's equivalent procedure,” this proposed AD would require operators to accomplish Step 5 of Figure 8 only in accordance with the procedures specified in Boeing Standard Overhaul Practices Manual
(SOPM)20-20-02. An “operator's equivalent procedure” may be used only if approved as an alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph
(p)of this AD. The difference described above has been coordinated with the manufacturer. Costs of Compliance There are about 715 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Average labor rate per hour Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost Inspections 4 $80 $320, per inspection cycle 119 $38,080, per inspection cycle. 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-2007-29227; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-100-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by November 5, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)Certain requirements of this AD terminate certain requirements of AD 96-23-05, amendment 39-9810. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Boeing Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, and 747SR series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-53-2460, Revision 1, dated February 13, 2007, except airplanes that have been converted to an all-cargo configuration. The requirements of this AD also become applicable at the time when a converted airplane operating in an all-cargo configuration is converted back to a passenger or passenger/cargo configuration. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from reports of cracking and/or a sharp edge in the lower forward corner reveal of the number 3 main entry doors (MEDs). We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the lower forward corner reveal of the number 3 MEDs, which could lead to the door escape slide departing from the airplane when the door is opened and the slide is deployed, and consequent injuries to passengers and crew using the door escape slide during an emergency evacuation. 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. Service Bulletin Reference
(f)The term “service bulletin,” as used in this AD, means the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-53-2460, Revision 1, dated February 13, 2007. Actions for Group 3 Airplanes
(g)For airplanes identified as Group 3 airplanes in the service bulletin: Before the accumulation of 10,000 total flight cycles, or within 1,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, do a detailed inspection for cracking of the lower forward corner reveals in accordance with Part 8 of the service bulletin.
(1)If no cracking is found, repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight cycles until a new or reworked two-piece reveal is installed in accordance with Part 2 of the service bulletin. No further action is required by this paragraph for that location only after the replacement. Note 1: For the purpose of this AD, a one-piece machined aluminum reveal may be reworked into a two-piece reveal in accordance with Part 7 of the service bulletin after it was verified to be crack free and without a sharp edge in accordance with Part 5 of the service bulletin, or after it was confirmed to be crack free in accordance with Part 5 of the service bulletin and reworked to remove a sharp edge in accordance with Part 6 of the service bulletin.
(2)If cracking is found, do the replacement specified in paragraph (g)(2)(i) or (g)(2)(ii) of this AD.
(i)Before further flight, replace the reveal with a new or reworked two-piece reveal in accordance with Part 2 of the service bulletin. No further action is required by this paragraph for that location only after the replacement.
(ii)Before further flight, replace the reveal with a new or reworked one-piece machined aluminum reveal without a sharp edge in accordance with Part 3 of the service bulletin. Within 10,000 flight cycles after doing the replacement, do the inspection specified in paragraph
(g)of this AD and repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight cycles until a new or reworked two-piece reveal is installed in accordance with Part 2 of the service bulletin. No further action is required by this paragraph for that location only after the replacement with a two-piece reveal. Note 2: For the purpose of this AD, a one-piece machined aluminum reveal with a sharp edge may be reworked into a one-piece machined aluminum reveal without a sharp edge in accordance with Part 6 of the service bulletin after it was confirmed to be crack free in accordance with Part 5 of the service bulletin. After the sharp edge was removed, the one-piece machined aluminum reveal without a sharp edge may be further reworked into a two-piece reveal in accordance with Part 7 of the service bulletin. Actions for Group 2 Airplanes and Group 1, Configuration 2 Airplanes
(h)For airplanes identified as Group 2 airplanes in the service bulletin: Before the accumulation of 1,500 total flight cycles, or within 1,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, do the inspection specified in paragraph
(j)of this AD.
(i)For airplanes identified as Group 1, Configuration 2 airplanes in the service bulletin: Within 1,500 flight cycles after the lower forward corner reveal was last replaced or 1,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, do the inspection specified in paragraph
(j)of this AD.
(j)At the applicable times specified in paragraphs
(h)and
(i)of this AD: Do a detailed inspection of the lower forward corner reveals for cracking and a sharp edge in accordance with Part 5 of the service bulletin.
(1)If no cracking and no sharp edge is found, before the accumulation of another 10,000 flight cycles on the lower forward corner reveal, do the detailed inspection for cracking specified in paragraph
(j)of this AD and inspect thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight cycles, until a new or reworked two-piece reveal is installed in accordance with Part 2 of the service bulletin. No further action is required by this paragraph for that location only after the replacement.
(2)If no cracking is found but a sharp edge is found, do the action specified in paragraph (j)(2)(i) or (j)(2)(ii) of this AD.
(i)Before further flight, replace the lower forward corner reveal with a new or reworked two-piece reveal, in accordance with Part 2 of the service bulletin. No further action is required by this paragraph for that location only after the replacement.
(ii)Before further flight, replace the reveal with a new or reworked one-piece machined aluminum reveal without a sharp edge, in accordance with Part 3 of the service bulletin. Within 10,000 flight cycles after doing the replacement, do the actions specified in paragraph
(j)of this AD, except for the inspection for a sharp edge.
(3)If cracking is found, do the action specified in paragraph (j)(3)(i) or (j)(3)(ii) of this AD.
(i)Before further flight, replace the reveal with a new or reworked two-piece reveal, in accordance with Part 2 of the service bulletin. No further action is required by this paragraph for that location only after the replacement.
(ii)Before further flight, replace the lower forward corner reveal with a new or reworked one-piece machined aluminum reveal without a sharp edge, in accordance with Part 3 of the service bulletin. Within 10,000 flight cycles after doing the replacement, do the actions specified in paragraph
(j)of this AD, except for the inspection for a sharp edge. Actions for Group 1, Configuration 1 Airplanes
(k)For airplanes identified as Group 1, Configuration 1 airplanes in the service bulletin: Before the accumulation of 1,500 total flight cycles, or within 1,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, do a material type inspection to determine if the lower forward corner reveals are castings, in accordance with the service bulletin.
(1)If the forward corner reveal is not a casting: Before further flight, do the actions specified in paragraph
(j)of this AD, except for the inspection for a sharp edge.
(2)If the forward corner reveal is a casting: Before the accumulation of 7,000 total flight cycles, within 2,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, or within 3,000 flight cycles since the forward corner reveal was inspected in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2378, whichever is later, do a detailed inspection for cracking of the lower forward corner reveal, in accordance with Part 1 of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-53-2460, Revision 1, dated February 13, 2007.
(i)If no cracking is found: Repeat the inspection specified in paragraph (k)(2) of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed 3,000 flight cycles until a new or reworked two-piece lower forward corner reveal is installed in accordance with Part 2 of the service bulletin. No further action is required by this paragraph for that location only after the replacement.
(ii)If cracking is found: Do the actions specified in paragraph (k)(2)(ii)(A), (k)(2)(ii)(B), or (k)(2)(ii)(C) of this AD.
(A)Before further flight, weld repair the reveal in accordance with Part 4 of the service bulletin. Repeat the inspection specified in paragraph (k)(2) of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed 3,000 flight cycles until a new or reworked two-piece reveal is installed in accordance with Part 2 of the service bulletin.
(B)Before further flight, replace the reveal with a new or reworked two-piece reveal, in accordance with Part 2 of the service bulletin. No further action is required by this paragraph for that location only after the replacement.
(C)Before further flight, replace the reveal with a new or reworked one-piece machined aluminum reveal without a sharp edge, in accordance with Part 3 of the service bulletin. Within 10,000 flight cycles after doing the replacement, do the actions specified in paragraph
(j)of this AD, except for the inspection for a sharp edge. Operator's Equivalent Procedure
(l)Although Step 5 of Figure 8 of the service bulletin specifies that operators may accomplish the actions in accordance with “an operator's equivalent procedure,” this AD requires operators to accomplish Step 5 of Figure 8 in accordance with only the procedures specified in Boeing Standard Overhaul Practices Manual
(SOPM)20-20-02 as given in the service bulletin. An “operator's equivalent procedure” may be used only if approved as an alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph
(p)of this AD. Compliance With AD 2007-12-11 for MED 3 Only
(m)Accomplishment of the applicable repair required by this AD constitutes compliance with the repair of the lower forward corner casting (reveal) of the number 3 MEDs only, as required by paragraph (q)(2)(ii) of AD 2007-12-11 (which specifies the actions be done in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2378, Revision 1, dated March 10, 1994; or Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2378, Revision 3, dated August 11, 2005). Accomplishment of the actions of this AD does not terminate the remaining requirements of AD 2007-12-11. Parts Installation
(n)As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a door lower forward corner reveal made of cast 356 aluminum on any airplane at a location specified by this AD.
(o)As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a door lower forward corner reveal made of machined 6061 aluminum on any airplane at a location specified by this AD, unless it has been confirmed/reworked to be without a sharp edge in accordance with the service bulletin. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (p)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(3)An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 10, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-18420 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-29248; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-155-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Saab Model SAAB-Fairchild SF340A (SAAB/SF340A) and SAAB 340B Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: Subsequent to accidents involving Fuel Tank System explosions in flight * * * and on ground, * * * Special Federal Aviation Regulation 88 (SFAR88) * * * required a safety review of the aircraft Fuel Tank System * * *. Fuel Airworthiness Limitations are items arising from a systems safety analysis that have been shown to have failure mode(s) associated with an ‘unsafe condition’ * * *. These are identified in Failure Conditions for which an unacceptable probability of ignition risk could exist if specific tasks and/or practices are not performed in accordance with the manufacturers' requirements. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 19, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *DOT Docket Web Site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Fax* :
(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* 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. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Examining the AD 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 AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Borfitz, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-2677; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2007-29248; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-155-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2006-0221, dated July 20, 2006 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: Subsequent to accidents involving Fuel Tank System explosions in flight * * * and on ground, the FAA published Special Federal Aviation Regulation 88 (SFAR 88) in June 2001. SFAR 88 required a safety review of the aircraft Fuel Tank System to determine that the design meets the requirements of FAR (Federal Aviation Regulation) § 25.901 and § 25.981(a) and (b). A similar regulation has been recommended by the JAA (Joint Aviation Authorities) to the European National Aviation Authorities in JAA letter 04/00/02/07/03-L024 of 3 February 2003. The review was requested to be mandated by NAA's (National Aviation Authorities) using JAR (Joint Aviation Regulation) § 25.901(c), § 25.1309. In August 2005 EASA published a policy statement on the process for developing instructions for maintenance and inspection of Fuel Tank System ignition source prevention (EASA D 2005/CPRO, *http://www.easa.eu.int/home/cert_policy_statements_en.html* ) that also included the EASA expectations with regard to compliance times of the corrective actions on the unsafe and the not unsafe part of the harmonised design review results. On a global scale the TC (type certificate) holders committed themselves to the EASA published compliance dates (see EASA policy statement). The EASA policy statement has been revised in March 2006: The date of 31-12-2005 for the unsafe related actions has now been set at 01-07-2006. Fuel Airworthiness Limitations are items arising from a systems safety analysis that have been shown to have failure mode(s) associated with an ‘unsafe condition' as defined in FAA's memo 2003-112-15 ‘SFAR 88—Mandatory Action Decision Criteria'. These are identified in Failure Conditions for which an unacceptable probability of ignition risk could exist if specific tasks and/or practices are not performed in accordance with the manufacturers' requirements. This EASA Airworthiness Directive mandates the Fuel System Airworthiness Limitations (comprising maintenance/inspection tasks and Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCL)) for the type of aircraft, that resulted from the design reviews and the JAA recommendation and EASA policy statement mentioned above. The corrective action is revising the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate new limitations for fuel tank systems. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. 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. The Joint Aviation Authorities
(JAA)has issued a regulation that is similar to SFAR 88. (The JAA is an associated body of the European Civil Aviation Conference
(ECAC)representing the civil aviation regulatory authorities of a number of European States who have agreed to co-operate in developing and implementing common safety regulatory standards and procedures.) Under this regulation, the JAA stated that all members of the ECAC that hold type certificates for transport category airplanes are required to conduct a design review against explosion risks. We have determined that the actions identified in this AD are necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. Relevant Service Information Saab has issued Saab 340 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations Document 340 LKS 009033, dated February 14, 2006. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 144 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $11,520, or $80 per product. 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 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 this 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. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **SAAB Aircraft AB:** Docket No. FAA-2007-29248; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-155-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments by October 19, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to all Saab Model SAAB-Fairchild SF340A (SAAB/SF340A) and SAAB 340B airplanes, certificated in any category, all serial numbers. Note 1: This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new inspections. Compliance with these inspections is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by these inspections, the operator may not be able to accomplish the inspections described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph
(g)of this AD. The request should include a description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure the continued operational safety of the airplane. Subject
(d)Air Transport Association
(ATA)of America Code 28: Fuel. Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: Subsequent to accidents involving Fuel Tank System explosions in flight * * * and on ground, the FAA published Special Federal Aviation Regulation 88 (SFAR 88) in June 2001. SFAR 88 required a safety review of the aircraft Fuel Tank System to determine that the design meets the requirements of FAR (Federal Aviation Regulation) § 25.901 and § 25.981(a) and (b). A similar regulation has been recommended by the JAA (Joint Aviation Authorities) to the European National Aviation Authorities in JAA letter 04/00/02/07/03-L024 of 3 February 2003. The review was requested to be mandated by NAA's (National Aviation Authorities) using JAR (Joint Aviation Regulation) § 25.901(c), § 25.1309. In August 2005 EASA published a policy statement on the process for developing instructions for maintenance and inspection of Fuel Tank System ignition source prevention (EASA D 2005/CPRO, *http://www.easa.eu.int/home/cert_policy_statements_en.html* ) that also included the EASA expectations with regard to compliance times of the corrective actions on the unsafe and the not unsafe part of the harmonised design review results. On a global scale the TC (type certificate) holders committed themselves to the EASA published compliance dates (see EASA policy statement). The EASA policy statement has been revised in March 2006: The date of 31-12-2005 for the unsafe related actions has now been set at 01-07-2006. Fuel Airworthiness Limitations are items arising from a systems safety analysis that have been shown to have failure mode(s) associated with an “unsafe condition” as defined in FAA's memo 2003-112-15 “SFAR 88—Mandatory Action Decision Criteria”. These are identified in Failure Conditions for which an unacceptable probability of ignition risk could exist if specific tasks and/or practices are not performed in accordance with the manufacturers' requirements. This EASA Airworthiness Directive mandates the Fuel System Airworthiness Limitations (comprising maintenance/inspection tasks and Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCL)) for the type of aircraft, that resulted from the design reviews and the JAA recommendation and EASA policy statement mentioned above. The corrective action is revising the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate new limitations for fuel tank systems. Actions and Compliance
(f)Unless already done, do the following actions.
(1)Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, revise the Airworthiness Limitations Section
(ALS)of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate the maintenance and inspection instructions in Part 1 of Saab 340 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations Document 340 LKS 009033, dated February 14, 2006. For all tasks identified in Part 1 of Saab 340 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations Document 340 LKS 009033, dated February 14, 2006, the initial compliance times start from the effective date of this AD, and the repetitive inspections must be accomplished thereafter at the interval specified in Part 1 of Saab 340 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations Document 340 LKS 009033, dated February 14, 2006.
(2)Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, revise the ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate the CDCCLs as defined in Part 2 of Saab 340 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations Document 340 LKS 009033, dated February 14, 2006.
(3)Except as provided by paragraph
(g)of this AD: After accomplishing the actions specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD, no alternative inspection, inspection intervals, or CDCCLs may be used.
(4)Where Saab 340 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations Document 340 LKS 009033, dated February 14, 2006, allows for exceptional short-term extensions, an exception is acceptable to the FAA if it is approved by the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office. FAA AD Differences Note 2: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions
(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Mike Borfitz, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-2677; fax
(425)227-1149. 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.
(2)Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(3)Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information
(h)Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA)Airworthiness Directive 2006-0221, dated July 20, 2006, and Saab 340 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations Document 340 LKS 009033, dated February 14, 2006, for related information. Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 10, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-18478 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 153 [Docket No. FAA-2007-29237] RIN 2120—AJ07 Aviation Safety Inspector Airport Access AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: Two rulemakings finalized several years ago removed regulatory language that implemented FAA Aviation Safety Inspector
(ASI)statutory authority to access air operations areas, secured areas, and security identification display areas. This proposal reiterates and clarifies the authority of an ASI with the proper credentials to access air operations areas, secured areas, and security identification areas of an airport. The proposal would make sure ASIs have access to these areas of an airport so they can perform official duties in support of the FAA's safety mission. DATES: Send your comments on or before October 19, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2007-29237 by any of the following methods: • *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:* Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-001. • *Fax:* 1-202-493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also read background documents or comments received at the addresses above. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pat Hempen, Federal Aviation Administration, Flight Standards Service, Air Transportation Division (AFS-200), 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; Telephone 202-267-8166, E-mail *patrick.hempen@faa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Later in this preamble under the Additional Information section, we discuss how you can comment on this proposal and how we will handle your comments. Included in this discussion is related information about the docket, privacy, and the handling of proprietary or confidential business information. We also discuss how you can get a copy of this proposal and related rulemaking documents. Authority for This Rulemaking The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority set forth in 49 U.S.C. section 44701(a)(5), section 40113, and section 44713. Under section 44701(a)(5), the Administrator is charged with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft by, among other things, prescribing regulations the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. Sections 40113 and 44713 relate to the Administrator's authority to conduct safety inspections. Purpose of This Rule The FAA proposes to re-codify in Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations existing statutory authority concerning Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)safety inspections. In order to execute such authority, FAA aviation safety inspectors
(ASIs)must have access to air operations areas (AOA), secured areas, and security identification display areas (SIDAs) in airports. Airport operators grant authority to access these areas in airports in accordance with an Airport Security Program (ASP). An airport operator develops and submits an ASP to the Transportation Security Administration
(TSA)for approval. It is the airport operator that implements the ASP and grants access to AOAs, secured areas, and SIDAs, to individuals such as ASIs, Customs Inspectors, Postal Inspectors, and other Federal Inspectors. This rulemaking will not require changes in TSA documents for airport operators, such as the ASP, or for part 119 certificate holders, such as the Aircraft Operator's Standard Security Program (AOSSP). However, an airport operator or aircraft operator may decide to submit to TSA proposed changes to its security program, or TSA may decide to require changes to the program. The FAA has coordinated this rulemaking with TSA. Background ASI Authority Congress has granted the FAA and its inspectors broad authority to carry out the Agency's mission by performing any necessary tests, inspections, surveillance, and investigations without limitations as to when and where those activities may be carried out to preserve the safety and integrity of the national airspace system. Under Title 49 U.S.C. Section 40113, the FAA Administrator is empowered to conduct such investigations and inspections as necessary to ensure the safety of civil aviation ( *http://uscode.house.gov/search/criteria.shtml* ). The statute does not restrict such activities by time and place. Section 40113 states, in part, that the Administrator may take action that the Administrator “considers necessary to carry out this part, including conducting investigations, prescribing regulations, standards, and procedures, and issuing orders.” Title 49 U.S.C. 44713 also clearly outlines the inspection duties and inspection authority of ASIs and does not restrict such activities by time and place ( *http://uscode.house.gov/search/criteria.shtml* ). This section states, in part, that the Administrator employs ASIs to “inspect aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, and appliances designed for use in air transportation, during manufacture and when in use by an air carrier in air transportation, to enable the Administrator to decide whether the aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, or appliances are in safe condition and maintained properly.” Statement of the Problem Recently, two rulemaking events have occurred that have unintentionally removed some rule language in Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) that gave ASIs specific regulatory authority to access sterile areas, AOAs, secured areas, and SIDAs of an airport to conduct official duties. Removal of 14 CFR parts 107 and 108 The Aviation and Transportation Security Act
(ATSA)(Pub. L. 107-71, 115 Stat. 597, November 19, 2001) vested TSA with broad authorities and responsibilities over the security of all modes of transportation. These include authorities relating specifically to aviation security that were formerly vested in the FAA as well as general inter-modal authorities. 1 FAA security rules, which clearly addressed FAA's authority to access airports to perform official security duties, were contained in 14 CFR parts 107 and 108. When responsibility for aviation security was transferred to TSA, the rules contained in parts 107 and 108 were removed from 14 CFR (67 FR 8339; February 22, 2002) and placed in TSA's regulations at 49 CFR parts 1542 and 1544. 1 Generally, the Assistant Secretary for Homeland Security (Transportation Security Administrator) (hereinafter “Administrator”), “shall be responsible for security in all modes of transportation, including—(1) Carrying out chapter 449, relating to civil aviation security, and related research and development activities; and
(2)security responsibilities over other modes of transportation that are exercised by the Department of Transportation.” 49 U.S.C. 114(d). A few months before the enactment of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, the FAA issued the Airport Security Final Rule (66 FR 37274; July 17, 2001), which included extensive revisions to parts 107 and 108. When parts 107 and 108 were revised the FAA had a continuum of inspection authority sections showing its authority to inspect for compliance with aircraft operator safety rules (see 14 CFR 119.59), airport safety rules (see 14 CFR 139.105), and aircraft operator and airport operator security rules (see 14 CFR 107.7 and 108.5). Reading all these FAA rules together, it was evident that FAA inspectors, both security and safety, had the necessary authority to conduct inspections at any place on airports necessary to perform their official duties, including those areas that otherwise are controlled for security purposes. However, since parts 107 and 108 were removed and these authorities transferred to TSA, there has been some misunderstanding about the continuing authority of FAA safety inspectors to access various areas of the airport that are controlled for security purposes. This proposed rule makes clear that FAA aviation safety inspectors continue to have authority to access such areas as needed to perform their duties. 14 CFR Part 139 Certification of Airports, Final Rule (69 FR 6380) ( *http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf89/268866_web.pdf* ) On February 10, 2004, the FAA revised the airport certification regulations and established certification requirements for airports serving scheduled air carrier operations in aircraft designed for more than 9 passenger seats. One change to § 139.105, Inspection Authority, updated language referencing statutory authority and deleted terms that were no longer applicable. The revised language in new § 139.105 was not as clear regarding ASI airport access. The original § 139.105 required airport operators to allow ASIs to make any inspection to determine compliance with the broad safety provisions contained in the Federal Aviation Act of 1958. This included inspections of airports, aircraft, aircraft operators, and operations personnel. Revised § 139.105 deleted the reference to the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 and instead referenced the authority for ASIs to make inspections to determine compliance with the more current 49 U.S.C. 44706 and part 139, Certification of Airports. This revision to the regulatory language unintentionally made the operational implementation of FAA's statutory authority to conduct inspections more challenging. ASI access to AOAs, secured areas, and SIDAs of airports extends beyond part 139 airports. Part 139 airports, which serve scheduled air carrier operations in aircraft designed for more than 9 passenger seats, represent only a portion of the airports in the United States. The intent of this proposed rule is to re-codify FAA statutory authority for ASI access to perform any necessary tests, inspections, surveillance, and investigations without limitations as to when and where those activities may be carried out, not just at part 139 airports. Therefore, we are not proposing to change part 139, but instead we propose adding a new part 153, with a subpart A devoted to ASI access. New Part 153 This proposal would require airport operators to grant ASIs with proper credentials free and uninterrupted access to airports and facilities to conduct safety inspections. The FAA issues ASIs credentials (FAA Form 110A) for identification during the performance of official safety inspection duties. The FAA will continue the policy that its local inspectors should display access or identification media (such as the SIDA identification badge) issued or approved by the airport operator. However due to the transient nature of an FAA inspector, the 110A credential will continue as a stand-alone identification media. For example, during unannounced inspections, FAA personnel display their FAA credentials in the same manner they would display access or identification media issued by the airport to establish their authority to conduct such inspections. In addition, when entering the sterile area through the TSA screening checkpoint, FAA personnel will continue to comply with TSA's screening procedures. This proposal would also define several terms previously contained in part 107 and currently used by TSA. Conclusion This proposal clearly defines FAA's statutory authority to access secure areas by ASIs with proper credentials. Such access is necessary so ASIs can perform official duties in support of the FAA's safety mission. This proposal does not substantively change any requirements in 14 CFR. Also, reestablishing these requirements in new part 153 would not impose any additional requirements on operators affected by these rules. Paperwork Reduction Act The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. We have determined that this rulemaking would impose no new information collection requirements. International Compatibility In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with International Civil Aviation Organization
(ICAO)Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices that correspond to these proposed regulations. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” dated September 30, 1993 (58 FR 51736) directs the FAA to assess both the costs and the benefits of a regulatory change. We are not allowed to propose or adopt a regulation unless we make a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify the costs. Our assessment of this rulemaking indicates that its economic impact is minimal because it does not impose any costs on airport operators. Because the costs and benefits of this action do not make it a “significant regulatory action” as defined in the Order, we have not prepared a “regulatory evaluation,” which is the written cost/benefit analysis ordinarily required for all rulemaking under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures. We do not need to do a full evaluation where the economic impact of a rule is minimal. Economic Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Act, Trade Impact Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment Proposed changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs each Federal agency to propose or adopt a regulation only after a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, this Trade Act also requires agencies to consider international standards and, where appropriate, use them as the basis of U.S. standards. And fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-04) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation.) The Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. If it is determined that the expected cost impact is so minimal that a rule does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement to that effect and the basis for it be included in the preamble; a full regulatory evaluation need not, then, be prepared. Such a determination has been made for this rule. The reasoning for that determination follows. When parts 107 and 108 were revised the FAA had a continuum of inspection authority sections showing its authority to inspect for compliance with aircraft operator safety rules (see 14 CFR 119.59), airport safety rules (see 14 CFR 139.105), and aircraft operator and airport operator security rules (see 14 CFR 107.7 and 108.5). Reading all these FAA rules together, it was evident that FAA inspectors, both security and safety, had the authority to conduct inspections at any place on airports necessary to perform their official duties, including those areas that otherwise are controlled for security purposes. However, since parts 107 and 108 were removed and these authorities transferred to TSA, there has been some misunderstanding about the continuing authority of FAA safety inspectors to access various areas of the airport that are controlled for security purposes. This proposed rule makes clear that FAA aviation safety inspectors continue to have authority to access such areas as needed to perform their duties. This proposed rule would put the specific regulatory authority into a new part 153 and clearly defines the authority of properly credentialed ASIs to access AOAs, secured areas, and SIDAs of an airport so they can perform official duties in support of the FAA's safety mission. Adding this language has a positive safety impact, because properly credentialed ASIs will be able to perform necessary inspections that support the FAA's safety mission. The intended effect of this proposed rule is to make sure ASIs have access to AOAs, secured areas, and SIDAs of an airport so they can perform official duties in support of the FAA's safety mission. Its economic impact on airport operators is minimal. Regulatory Flexibility Act Determination The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
(RFA)directs the FAA to fit regulatory requirements to the scale of the business, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to the regulation. We are required to determine whether a proposed or final action will have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities” as they are defined in the Act. If we find that the action will have a significant impact, we must do a “regulatory flexibility analysis.” However, if an agency determines that a proposed or final rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be clear. The proposed rule clearly defines the authority of properly credentialed ASIs to access AOAs, secured areas, and SIDAs of an airport so they can perform official duties in support of the FAA's safety mission. Its economic impact for airport operators is minimal. Therefore, the FAA certifies that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The FAA solicits comments about this determination. Trade Impact Assessment The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits Federal agencies from engaging in any standards or related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this proposed rule and has determined that it would have only a domestic impact, and, therefore, no effect on international trade. Unfunded Mandates Assessment The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-04) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in a $100 million or more expenditure (adjusted annually for inflation). The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value of $128.1 million in lieu of $100 million. This NPRM does not contain such a mandate. Therefore, the requirements of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not apply to this regulation. Executive Order 13132, Federalism The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We determined that this action would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, we determined that this proposed rule would not have federalism implications. Environmental Analysis FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has determined this proposed rule qualifies for the categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 312f and involves no extraordinary circumstances. Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 18, 2001). We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under the executive order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, and it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its jurisdiction. Therefore, any small entity that has a question regarding this document may contact their local FAA official, or the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . You can find out more about SBRFA on the Internet at our site, *http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/* . Additional Information Comments Invited The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. We ask that you send us two copies of written comments. We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. The docket is available for public viewing before and after the comment closing date, by any of the means discussed in the ADDRESSES section below. Before acting on this proposal, we will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive. If you want the FAA to acknowledge receipt of your comments on this proposal, include with your comments a pre-addressed, stamped postcard on which the docket number appears. We will stamp the date on the postcard and mail it to you. Privacy Act Statement You should be aware that anyone can find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.) via the Internet using the Docket Number. 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.* Proprietary or Confidential Business Information Do not file in the docket information that you consider to be proprietary or confidential business information. Send or deliver this information directly to the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. You must mark the information that you consider proprietary or confidential. If you send the information on a disk or CD-ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM and identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is proprietary or confidential. Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), when we are aware of proprietary information filed with a comment, we do not place it in the docket. We hold it in a separate file to which the public does not have access, and place a note in the docket that we have received it. If we receive a request to examine or copy this information, we treat it as any other request under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). We process such a request under the DOT procedures found in 49 CFR part 7. Sensitive Security Information Do not submit comments that include sensitive security information
(SSI)to the public regulatory docket. Please submit such comments separately from other comments on the rulemaking. Comments containing this type of information should be appropriately marked as containing such information and submitted by mail to the address listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Upon receipt of such comments, we will not place the comments in the public docket and will handle them in accordance with applicable safeguards and restrictions on access. FAA will hold them in a separate file to which the public does not have access and place a note in the public docket that FAA has received such materials from the commenter. If we receive a request to examine or copy this information, we will treat it as any other request under the Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA)(5 U.S.C. 552). Availability of Rulemaking Documents You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by:
(1)Searching the Department of Transportation's electronic Docket Management System
(DMS)Web page ( *http://dms.dot.gov/search* );
(2)Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policy Web page at *http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/* ; or
(3)Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html* . You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling
(202)267-9680. Make sure to identify the docket number, notice number, or amendment number of this rulemaking. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 153 Airports, Aviation safety. The Proposed Rule In consideration of the foregoing the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend Chapter I of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations by adding part 153 to read as follows: PART 153—AIRPORT OPERATIONS Subpart A—Aviation Safety Inspector Access Sec. 153.1 Applicability. 153.3 Definitions. 153.5 Aviation safety inspector airport access. Subpart B—[Reserved] Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, and 44701. Subpart A—Aviation Safety Inspector Access § 153.1 Applicability. This subpart prescribes requirements governing Aviation Safety Inspector access to airports to perform official duties. § 153.3 Definitions. The following definitions apply in this subpart: *Air Operations Area (AOA)* means a portion of an airport, specified in the airport security program, in which security measures specified in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations are carried out. This area includes aircraft movement areas, aircraft parking areas, loading ramps, and safety areas, for use by aircraft regulated under 49 CFR parts 1542, 1544, and 1546, and any adjacent areas (such as general aviation areas) that are not separated by adequate security systems, measures, or procedures. This area does not include the secured area. *Airport* means any public use airport, including heliports, as defined in 49 U.S.C. 47501, including:
(1)Any airport which is used or to be used for public purposes, under the control of a public agency, the landing area of which is publicly owned;
(2)Any privately owned reliever airport; and
(3)Any privately owned airport which is determined by the Secretary of Transportation to enplane annually 2,500 or more passengers and receive scheduled passenger service of aircraft, which is used or to be used for public purposes. *Airport Operator* means the operator of an airport as defined in 49 U.S.C. 47501. *Aviation Safety Inspector* means a properly credentialed individual who bears FAA Form 110A and is authorized under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 40113 to perform inspections and investigations. *FAA Form 110A* means the credentials issued to qualified Aviation Safety Inspectors by the FAA for use in the performance of official duties. *Secured area* means a portion of an airport, specified in the airport security program, in which certain security measures specified in Chapter 1 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations are carried out. This area is where aircraft operators and foreign air carriers that have a security program under 49 CFR part 1544 or part 1546 enplane and deplane passengers and sort and load baggage and any adjacent areas that are not separated by adequate security systems, measures, or procedures. *Security Identification Display Area (SIDA)* means a portion of an airport, specified in the airport security program, in which security measures specified in Chapter 1 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations are carried out. This area includes the secured area and may include other areas of the airport. § 153.5 Aviation safety inspector airport access. Airport operators, aircraft operators, aircraft owners, airport tenants, and air agencies must grant Aviation Safety Inspectors bearing FAA Form 110A free and uninterrupted access to airports and facilities, including AOAs, secured areas, SIDAs, and other restricted areas. Aviation Safety Inspectors displaying FAA Form 110A do not require access media or identification media issued or approved by an airport operator or aircraft operator in order to inspect or test compliance, or perform other such duties as the FAA may direct. Subpart B—[Reserved] Issued in Washington, DC, on September 12, 2007. James J. Ballough, Director, Flight Standards Service. [FR Doc. E7-18349 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 17 CFR Parts 210, 228, 229, 230, 239, 240 and 249 [Release Nos. 33-8831A; 34-56217A; IC-27924A; File No. S7-20-07] RIN 3235-AJ93 Concept Release on Allowing U.S. Issuers to Prepare Financial Statements in Accordance With International Financial Reporting Standards AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission. ACTION: Correcting amendment. SUMMARY: In Release No. 33-8831, the Securities and Exchange Commission issued a concept release on allowing U.S. issuers to prepare financial statements in accordance with international financial reporting standards which appeared in the **Federal Register** of August 14, 2007 (72 FR 45599). The Commission is issuing this correction to change the incorrect web addresses listed in the concept release. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katrina A. Kimpel, Professional Accounting Fellow, Office of the Chief Accountant at
(202)551-5300. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc. E7-15865 appearing on page 45600 in the **Federal Register** of Tuesday, August 14, 2007, the following corrections are made: 1. In the first column, revise the first bulleted point under the section titled *Electronic Comments* to read, “Use the *Commission's Internet comment form* ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/concept.shtml* ); or”. 2. Revise the Web site address found in the parenthetical beginning on line three of the second column to read, “ *http://www.sec.gov/rules/concept.shtml* ”. Dated: September 13, 2007. Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-18405 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD 36 CFR Parts 1193 and 1194 RIN 3014-AA22 Telecommunications Act Accessibility Guidelines; Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility Standards AGENCY: Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) has established a Telecommunications and Electronic and Information Technology Advisory Committee (Committee) to assist it in revising and updating accessibility guidelines for telecommunications products and accessibility standards for electronic and information technology. This notice announces the dates and times of four upcoming conference calls. DATES: The conference calls are scheduled for October 9, October 16, October 23 and October 30, 2007 (beginning at 1 p.m. and ending at 3 p.m. Eastern time each day). ADDRESSES: Individuals can participate in the conference calls by dialing into the teleconference numbers which will be posted on the Access Board's Web site at: *http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/update-index.htm.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Timothy Creagan, Office of Technical and Information Services, Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, 1331 F Street, NW., suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004-1111. Telephone number: 202-272-0016 (Voice); 202-272-0082 (TTY). Electronic mail address: *creagan@access-board.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) established the Telecommunications and Electronic and Information Technology Advisory Committee (Committee) to assist it in revising and updating accessibility guidelines for telecommunications products and accessibility standards for electronic and information technology. The next committee meetings will take place on October 9, 16, 23 and 30, 2007 (all four meetings will be from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. Eastern time) by teleconference. The meetings will focus on issues yet to be resolved by the Committee. The agendas, instructions (including information on captioning), and dial-in telephone numbers for the teleconferences are available at: *http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/update-index.htm.* Notices of future meetings will be published in the **Federal Register** . The Committee may cancel any one of these four teleconferences before they are scheduled to take place depending on the needs of the committee and its progress in discussing and resolving outstanding issues. Notices of cancellation of any of these teleconferences will be posted at: *http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/update-index.htm.* The conference calls are open to the public and interested persons can dial into the teleconferences and communicate their views. Members of the public will have opportunities to address the committee on issues of interest to them and the committee during public comment periods scheduled during each conference call. Participants may call into the teleconferences from any location of their choosing. Lawrence W. Roffee, Executive Director. [FR Doc. E7-18492 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8150-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0685, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0686, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0687, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0688, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0689, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0690, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0691, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0692, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0693, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0694, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0695, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0696; FRL-8468-5] RIN 2050-AD75 National Priorities List, Proposed Rule No. 47 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA” or “the Act”), as amended, requires that the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (“NCP”) include a list of national priorities among the known releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants throughout the United States. The National Priorities List (“NPL”) constitutes this list. The NPL is intended primarily to guide the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA” or “the Agency”) in determining which sites warrant further investigation. These further investigations will allow EPA to assess the nature and extent of public health and environmental risks associated with the site and to determine what CERCLA-financed remedial action(s), if any, may be appropriate. This rule proposes to add twelve new sites to the NPL, all to the General Superfund Section. DATES: Comments regarding any of these proposed listings must be submitted (postmarked) on or before November 19, 2007. ADDRESSES: Identify the appropriate FDMS Docket Number from the table below. FDMS Docket Identification Numbers by Site Site name City/State FDMS Docket ID No. Lusher Street Ground Water Contamination Elkhart, IN EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0685 Plating, Inc. Great Bend, KS EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0686 Washington County Lead District—Old Mines Old Mines, MO EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0687 Washington County Lead District—Potosi Potosi, MO EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0688 Washington County Lead District—Richwoods Richwoods, MO EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0689 East Troy Contaminated Aquifer Troy, OH EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0690 Chem-Fab Doylestown, PA EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0691 San German Ground Water Contamination San German, PR EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0692 Donna Reservoir and Canal System Donna, TX EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0693 Midessa Ground Water Plume Odessa, TX EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0694 San Jacinto River Waste Pits Houston, TX EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0695 Hidden Lane Landfill Sterling, VA EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0696 Submit your comments, identified by the appropriate FDMS Docket number, by one of the following methods: • *www.regulations.gov:* Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: superfund.Docket@epa.gov.* • *Mail:* Mail comments (no facsimiles or tapes) to Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; CERCLA Docket Office; (Mail Code 5305T); 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.; Washington, DC 20460. • *Hand Delivery or Express Mail:* Send comments (no facsimiles or tapes) to Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; CERCLA Docket Office; 1301 Constitution Avenue; EPA West, Room 3340, Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday excluding Federal holidays). Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to the appropriate FDMS Docket number (see table above). EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public Docket without change and may be made available online at *www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system; that 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 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. For additional Docket addresses and further details on their contents, see section II, “Public Review/Public Comment,” of the Supplementary Information portion of this preamble. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terry Jeng, phone
(703)603-8852; State, Tribal and Site Identification Branch; Assessment and Remediation Division; Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (Mail Code 5204P); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.; Washington, DC 20460; or the Superfund Hotline, Phone
(800)424-9346 or
(703)412-9810 in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Background A. What Are CERCLA and SARA? B. What Is the NCP? C. What Is the National Priorities List (NPL)? D. How Are Sites Listed on the NPL? E. What Happens to Sites on the NPL? F. Does the NPL Define the Boundaries of Sites? G. How Are Sites Removed From the NPL? H. May EPA Delete Portions of Sites From the NPL as They Are Cleaned Up? I. What Is the Construction Completion List (CCL)? J. What Is the Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use Measure? II. Public Review/Public Comment A. May I Review the Documents Relevant to This Proposed Rule? B. How Do I Access the Documents? C. What Documents Are Available for Public Review at the Headquarters Docket? D. What Documents Are Available for Public Review at the Regional Dockets? E. How Do I Submit My Comments? F. What Happens to My Comments? G. What Should I Consider When Preparing My Comments? H. May I Submit Comments After the Public Comment Period Is Over? I. May I View Public Comments Submitted by Others? J. May I Submit Comments Regarding Sites Not Currently Proposed to the NPL? III. Contents of This Proposed Rule A. Proposed Additions to the NPL IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review 1. What Is Executive Order 12866? 2. Is This Proposed Rule Subject to Executive Order 12866 Review? B. Paperwork Reduction Act 1. What Is the Paperwork Reduction Act? 2. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act Apply to This Proposed Rule? C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 1. What Is the Regulatory Flexibility Act? 2. How Has EPA Complied With the Regulatory Flexibility Act? D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 1. What Is the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)? 2. Does UMRA Apply to This Proposed Rule? E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism What Is Executive Order 13132 and Is It Applicable to This Proposed Rule? F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments 1. What Is Executive Order 13175? 2. Does Executive Order 13175 Apply to This Proposed Rule? G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks 1. What Is Executive Order 13045? 2. Does Executive Order 13045 Apply to This Proposed Rule? H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Usage Is this Rule Subject to Executive Order 13211? I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 1. What Is the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act? 2. Does the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Apply to This Proposed Rule? I. Background A. What Are CERCLA and SARA? In 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675 (“CERCLA” or “the Act”), in response to the dangers of uncontrolled releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, and releases or substantial threats of releases into the environment of any pollutant or contaminant that may present an imminent or substantial danger to the public health or welfare. CERCLA was amended on October 17, 1986, by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (“SARA”), Public Law 99-499, 100 Stat. 1613 *et seq.* B. What Is the NCP? To implement CERCLA, EPA promulgated the revised National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (“NCP”), 40 CFR part 300, on July 16, 1982 (47 FR 31180), pursuant to CERCLA section 105 and Executive Order 12316 (46 FR 42237, August 20, 1981). The NCP sets guidelines and procedures for responding to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, or releases or substantial threats of releases into the environment of any pollutant or contaminant that may present an imminent or substantial danger to the public health or welfare. EPA has revised the NCP on several occasions. The most recent comprehensive revision was on March 8, 1990 (55 FR 8666). As required under section 105(a)(8)(A) of CERCLA, the NCP also includes “criteria for determining priorities among releases or threatened releases throughout the United States for the purpose of taking remedial action and, to the extent practicable, taking into account the potential urgency of such action, for the purpose of taking removal action.” “Removal” actions are defined broadly and include a wide range of actions taken to study, clean up, prevent or otherwise address releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants (42 U.S.C. 9601(23)). C. What Is the National Priorities List (NPL)? The NPL is a list of national priorities among the known or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants throughout the United States. The list, which is appendix B of the NCP (40 CFR part 300), was required under section 105(a)(8)(B) of CERCLA, as amended by SARA. Section 105(a)(8)(B) defines the NPL as a list of “releases” and the highest priority “facilities” and requires that the NPL be revised at least annually. The NPL is intended primarily to guide EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation to assess the nature and extent of public health and environmental risks associated with a release of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants. The NPL is only of limited significance, however, as it does not assign liability to any party or to the owner of any specific property. Also, placing a site on the NPL does not mean that any remedial or removal action necessarily need be taken. For purposes of listing, the NPL includes two sections, one of sites that are generally evaluated and cleaned up by EPA (the “General Superfund Section”), and one of sites that are owned or operated by other Federal agencies (the “Federal Facilities Section”). With respect to sites in the Federal Facilities Section, these sites are generally being addressed by other Federal agencies. Under Executive Order 12580 (52 FR 2923, January 29, 1987) and CERCLA section 120, each Federal agency is responsible for carrying out most response actions at facilities under its own jurisdiction, custody, or control, although EPA is responsible for preparing a Hazard Ranking System
(HRS)score and determining whether the facility is placed on the NPL. At Federal Facilities Section sites, EPA's role is less extensive than at other sites. D. How Are Sites Listed on the NPL? There are three mechanisms for placing sites on the NPL for possible remedial action (see 40 CFR 300.425(c) of the NCP):
(1)A site may be included on the NPL if it scores sufficiently high on the Hazard Ranking System (“HRS”), that EPA promulgated as appendix A of the NCP (40 CFR part 300). The HRS serves as a screening device to evaluate the relative potential of uncontrolled hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants to pose a threat to human health or the environment. On December 14, 1990 (55 FR 51532), EPA promulgated revisions to the HRS partly in response to CERCLA section 105(c), added by SARA. The revised HRS evaluates four pathways: ground water, surface water, soil exposure, and air. As a matter of Agency policy, those sites that score 28.50 or greater on the HRS are eligible for the NPL;
(2)Pursuant to 42 U.S.C 9605(a)(8)(B), each State may designate a single site as its top priority to be listed on the NPL, without any HRS score. This provision of CERCLA requires that, to the extent practicable, the NPL include one facility designated by each State as the greatest danger to public health, welfare, or the environment among known facilities in the State. This mechanism for listing is set out in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(2);
(3)The third mechanism for listing, included in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(3), allows certain sites to be listed without any HRS score, if all of the following conditions are met: • The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) of the U.S. Public Health Service has issued a health advisory that recommends dissociation of individuals from the release. • EPA determines that the release poses a significant threat to public health. • EPA anticipates that it will be more cost-effective to use its remedial authority than to use its removal authority to respond to the release. EPA promulgated an original NPL of 406 sites on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40658) and generally has updated it at least annually. E. What Happens to Sites on the NPL? A site may undergo remedial action financed by the Trust Fund established under CERCLA (commonly referred to as the “Superfund”) only after it is placed on the NPL, as provided in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(b)(1). (“Remedial actions” are those “consistent with permanent remedy, taken instead of or in addition to removal actions. * * *” 42 U.S.C. 9601(24).) However, under 40 CFR 300.425(b)(2) placing a site on the NPL “does not imply that monies will be expended.” EPA may pursue other appropriate authorities to respond to the releases, including enforcement action under CERCLA and other laws. F. Does the NPL Define the Boundaries of Sites? The NPL does not describe releases in precise geographical terms; it would be neither feasible nor consistent with the limited purpose of the NPL (to identify releases that are priorities for further evaluation), for it to do so. Indeed, the precise nature and extent of the site are typically not known at the time of listing. Although a CERCLA “facility” is broadly defined to include any area where a hazardous substance has “come to be located” (CERCLA section 101(9)), the listing process itself is not intended to define or reflect the boundaries of such facilities or releases. Of course, HRS data (if the HRS is used to list a site) upon which the NPL placement was based will, to some extent, describe the release(s) at issue. That is, the NPL site would include all releases evaluated as part of that HRS analysis. When a site is listed, the approach generally used to describe the relevant release(s) is to delineate a geographical area (usually the area within an installation or plant boundaries) and identify the site by reference to that area. However, the NPL site is not necessarily coextensive with the boundaries of the installation or plant, and the boundaries of the installation or plant are not necessarily the “boundaries” of the site. Rather, the site consists of all contaminated areas within the area used to identify the site, as well as any other location where that contamination has come to be located, or from where that contamination came. In other words, while geographic terms are often used to designate the site (e.g., the “Jones Co. plant site”) in terms of the property owned by a particular party, the site, properly understood, is not limited to that property (e.g., it may extend beyond the property due to contaminant migration), and conversely may not occupy the full extent of the property (e.g., where there are uncontaminated parts of the identified property, they may not be, strictly speaking, part of the “site”). The “site” is thus neither equal to, nor confined by, the boundaries of any specific property that may give the site its name, and the name itself should not be read to imply that this site is coextensive with the entire area within the property boundary of the installation or plant. In addition, the site name is merely used to help identify the geographic location of the contamination and is not meant to constitute any determination of liability at a site. For example, the name “Jones Co. plant site,” does not imply that the Jones company is responsible for the contamination located on the plant site. EPA regulations provide that the “nature and extent of the problem presented by the release” will be determined by a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (“RI/FS”) as more information is developed on site contamination (40 CFR 300.5). During the RI/FS process, the release may be found to be larger or smaller than was originally thought, as more is learned about the source(s) and the migration of the contamination. However, the HRS inquiry focuses on an evaluation of the threat posed and therefore the boundaries of the release need not be exactly defined. Moreover, it generally is impossible to discover the full extent of where the contamination “has come to be located” before all necessary studies and remedial work are completed at a site. Indeed, the boundaries of the contamination can be expected to change over time. Thus, in most cases, it may be impossible to describe the boundaries of a release with absolute certainty. Further, as noted above, NPL listing does not assign liability to any party or to the owner of any specific property. Thus, if a party does not believe it is liable for releases on discrete parcels of property, it can submit supporting information to the Agency at any time after it receives notice it is a potentially responsible party. For these reasons, the NPL need not be amended as further research reveals more information about the location of the contamination or release. G. How Are Sites Removed From the NPL? EPA may delete sites from the NPL where no further response is appropriate under Superfund, as explained in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(e). This section also provides that EPA shall consult with states on proposed deletions and shall consider whether any of the following criteria have been met:
(i)Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required;
(ii)All appropriate Superfund-financed response has been implemented and no further response action is required; or
(iii)The remedial investigation has shown the release poses no significant threat to public health or the environment, and taking of remedial measures is not appropriate. H. May EPA Delete Portions of Sites From the NPL as They Are Cleaned Up? In November 1995, EPA initiated a new policy to delete portions of NPL sites where cleanup is complete (60 FR 55465, November 1, 1995). Total site cleanup may take many years, while portions of the site may have been cleaned up and made available for productive use. I. What Is the Construction Completion List (CCL)? EPA also has developed an NPL construction completion list (“CCL”) to simplify its system of categorizing sites and to better communicate the successful completion of cleanup activities (58 FR 12142, March 2, 1993). Inclusion of a site on the CCL has no legal significance. Sites qualify for the CCL when:
(1)Any necessary physical construction is complete, whether or not final cleanup levels or other requirements have been achieved;
(2)EPA has determined that the response action should be limited to measures that do not involve construction (e.g., institutional controls); or
(3)The site qualifies for deletion from the NPL. For the most up-to-date information on the CCL, see EPA's Internet site at *http://www.epa.gov/superfund.* J. What Is the Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use Measure? The Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use measure (formerly called Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse) represents important Superfund accomplishments and the measure reflects the high priority EPA places on considering anticipated future land use as part of our remedy selection process. See Guidance for Implementing the Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse Measure, May 24, 2006, OSWER 9365.0-36. This measure applies to final and deleted sites where construction is complete, all cleanup goals have been achieved, and all institutional or other controls are in place. EPA has been successful on many occasions in carrying out remedial actions that ensure protectiveness of human health and the environment, including current and future land users, in a manner that allows contaminated properties to be restored to environmental and economic vitality while ensuring protectiveness for current and future land users. For further information, please go to *http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/recycle/tools/sitewide.htm.* II. Public Review/Public Comment A. May I Review the Documents Relevant to This Proposed Rule? Yes, documents that form the basis for EPA's evaluation and scoring of the sites in this rule are contained in public Dockets located both at EPA Headquarters in Washington, DC, in the Regional offices and by electronic access at *www.regulations.gov* (see instructions in the ADDRESSES section above). B. How Do I Access the Documents? You may view the documents, by appointment only, in the Headquarters or the Regional Dockets after the publication of this proposed rule. The hours of operation for the Headquarters Docket are from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday excluding Federal holidays. Please contact the Regional Dockets for hours. The following is the contact information for the EPA Headquarters Docket: Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; CERCLA Docket Office; 1301 Constitution Avenue; EPA West, Room 3340, Washington, DC 20004; 202/566-1744. (Please note this is a visiting address only. Mail comments to EPA Headquarters as detailed at the beginning of this preamble.) The contact information for the Regional Dockets is as follows: Joan Berggren, Region 1 (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT), U.S. EPA, Superfund Records and Information Center, Mailcode HSC, One Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02114-2023; 617/918-1417 Dennis Munhall, Region 2 (NJ, NY, PR, VI), U.S. EPA, 290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866; 212/637-4343 Dawn Shellenberger (ASRC), Region 3 (DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV), U.S. EPA, Library, 1650 Arch Street, Mailcode 3PM52, Philadelphia, PA 19103; 215/814-5364 Debbie Jourdan, Region 4 (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN), U.S. EPA, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 9th floor, Atlanta, GA 30303; 404/562-8862 Janet Pfundheller, Region 5 (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI), U.S. EPA, Records Center, Superfund Division SRC-7J, Metcalfe Federal Building, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604; 312/353-5821 Brenda Cook, Region 6 (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX), U.S. EPA, 1445 Ross Avenue, Mailcode 6SF-RA, Dallas, TX 75202-2733; 214/665-7436 Michelle Quick, Region 7 (IA, KS, MO, NE), U.S. EPA, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, KS 66101; 913/551-7335 Gwen Christiansen, Region 8 (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY), U.S. EPA, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Mailcode 8EPR-B, Denver, CO 80202-1129; 303/312-6463 Dawn Richmond, Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI, NV, AS, GU), U.S. EPA, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105; 415/972-3097 Ken Marcy, Region 10 (AK, ID, OR, WA), U.S. EPA, 1200 6th Avenue, Mail Stop ECL-115, Seattle, WA 98101; 206/553-2782 You may also request copies from EPA Headquarters or the Regional Dockets. An informal request, rather than a formal written request under the Freedom of Information Act, should be the ordinary procedure for obtaining copies of any of these documents. You may use the Docket at *www.regulations.gov* to access documents in the Headquarters Docket (see instructions included in the “Addresses” section above). Please note that there are differences between the Headquarters Docket and the Regional Dockets and those differences are outlined below. C. What Documents Are Available for Public Review at the Headquarters Docket? The Headquarters Docket for this rule contains the following for the sites proposed in this rule: HRS score sheets; Documentation Records describing the information used to compute the score; information for any sites affected by particular statutory requirements or EPA listing policies; and a list of documents referenced in the Documentation Record. D. What Documents Are Available for Public Review at the Regional Dockets? The Regional Dockets for this rule contain all of the information in the Headquarters Docket, plus, the actual reference documents containing the data principally relied upon and cited by EPA in calculating or evaluating the HRS score for the sites. These reference documents are available only in the Regional Dockets. E. How Do I Submit My Comments? Comments must be submitted to EPA Headquarters as detailed at the beginning of this preamble in the “Addresses” section. Please note that the mailing addresses differ according to method of delivery. There are two different addresses that depend on whether comments are sent by express mail or by postal mail. F. What Happens to My Comments? EPA considers all comments received during the comment period. Significant comments are typically addressed in a support document that EPA will publish concurrently with the **Federal Register** document if, and when, the site is listed on the NPL. G. What Should I Consider When Preparing My Comments? Comments that include complex or voluminous reports, or materials prepared for purposes other than HRS scoring, should point out the specific information that EPA should consider and how it affects individual HRS factor values or other listing criteria ( *Northside Sanitary Landfill* v. *Thomas,* 849 F.2d 1516 (D.C. Cir. 1988)). EPA will not address voluminous comments that are not specifically cited by page number and referenced to the HRS or other listing criteria. EPA will not address comments unless they indicate which component of the HRS documentation record or what particular point in EPA's stated eligibility criteria is at issue. H. May I Submit Comments After the Public Comment Period Is Over? Generally, EPA will not respond to late comments. EPA can only guarantee that it will consider those comments postmarked by the close of the formal comment period. EPA has a policy of generally not delaying a final listing decision solely to accommodate consideration of late comments. I. May I View Public Comments Submitted by Others? During the comment period, comments are placed in the Headquarters Docket and are available to the public on an “as received” basis. A complete set of comments will be available for viewing in the Regional Dockets approximately one week after the formal comment period closes. All public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in the electronic public Docket at *www.regulations.gov* as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Once in the public Dockets system, select “search,” then key in the appropriate Docket ID number. J. May I Submit Comments Regarding Sites Not Currently Proposed to the NPL? In certain instances, interested parties have written to EPA concerning sites that were not at that time proposed to the NPL. If those sites are later proposed to the NPL, parties should review their earlier concerns and, if still appropriate, resubmit those concerns for consideration during the formal comment period. Site-specific correspondence received prior to the period of formal proposal and comment will not generally be included in the Docket. III. Contents of This Proposed Rule A. Proposed Additions to the NPL In today's proposed rule, EPA is proposing to add twelve new sites to the NPL; all to the General Superfund Section of the NPL. All of the sites in this proposed rulemaking are being proposed based on HRS scores of 28.50 or above. The sites are presented in the table below. State Site name City/county IN Lusher Street Ground Water Contamination Elkhart. KS Plating, Inc. Great Bend. MO Washington County Lead District—Old Mines Old Mines. MO Washington County Lead District—Potosi Potosi. MO Washington County Lead District—Richwoods Richwoods. OH East Troy Contaminated Aquifer Troy. PA Chem-Fab Doylestown. PR San German Ground Water Contamination San German. TX Donna Reservoir and Canal System Donna. TX Midessa Ground Water Plume Odessa. TX San Jacinto River Waste Pits Houston. VA Hidden Lane Landfill Sterling. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review 1. What Is Executive Order 12866? Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)), the Agency must determine whether a regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1)Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;
(2)create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3)materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4)raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. 2. Is This Proposed Rule Subject to Executive Order 12866 Review? No. The listing of sites on the NPL does not impose any obligations on any entities. The listing does not set standards or a regulatory regime and imposes no liability or costs. Any liability under CERCLA exists irrespective of whether a site is listed. It has been determined that this action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB review. B. Paperwork Reduction Act 1. What Is the Paperwork Reduction Act? According to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* , an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information that requires OMB approval under the PRA, unless it has been approved by OMB and displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations, after initial display in the preamble of the final rules, are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 2. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act Apply to This Proposed Rule? This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* EPA has determined that the PRA does not apply because this rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require approval of the OMB. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 1. What Is the Regulatory Flexibility Act? Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* , as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996) whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities ( *i.e.* , small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 2. How Has EPA Complied With the Regulatory Flexibility Act? This proposed rule listing sites on the NPL, if promulgated, would not impose any obligations on any group, including small entities. This proposed rule, if promulgated, also would establish no standards or requirements that any small entity must meet, and would impose no direct costs on any small entity. Whether an entity, small or otherwise, is liable for response costs for a release of hazardous substances depends on whether that entity is liable under CERCLA 107(a). Any such liability exists regardless of whether the site is listed on the NPL through this rulemaking. Thus, this proposed rule, if promulgated, would not impose any requirements on any small entities. For the foregoing reasons, I certify that this proposed rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 1. What Is the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)? Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal Agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Before EPA promulgates a rule where a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. 2. Does UMRA Apply to This Proposed Rule? No, EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments in the aggregate, or by the private sector in any one year. This rule will not impose any Federal intergovernmental mandate because it imposes no enforceable duty upon State, tribal or local governments. Listing a site on the NPL does not itself impose any costs. Listing does not mean that EPA necessarily will undertake remedial action. Nor does listing require any action by a private party or determine liability for response costs. Costs that arise out of site responses result from site-specific decisions regarding what actions to take, not directly from the act of listing a site on the NPL. For the same reasons, EPA also has determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. In addition, as discussed above, the private sector is not expected to incur costs exceeding $100 million. EPA has fulfilled the requirement for analysis under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism What Is Executive Order 13132 and Is It Applicable to This Proposed Rule? Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” Under section 6 of 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 proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule. F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments 1. What Is Executive Order 13175? Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 6, 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.” “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.” 2. Does Executive Order 13175 Apply to This Proposed Rule? This proposed rule does not have tribal implications. 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, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks 1. What Is Executive Order 13045? Executive Order 13045: “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that:
(1)Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and
(2)concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. 2. Does Executive Order 13045 Apply to This Proposed Rule? This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not an economically significant rule as defined by Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this proposed rule present a disproportionate risk to children. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Usage 3. Is This Rule Subject to Executive Order 13211? This rule is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 1. What Is the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act? 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), directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. 2. Does the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Apply to This Proposed Rule? No. This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations, Natural resources, Oil pollution, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply. Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193. Dated: September 4, 2007. Susan Parker Bodine, Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. [FR Doc. E7-18154 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 679 [Docket No. 070705262-7266-01] RIN 0648-AV38 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Groundfish Fisheries of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area and Gulf of Alaska, Seabird Avoidance Measures Revisions AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments. SUMMARY: NMFS issues a proposed rule that would revise the seabird avoidance measures for the Alaska hook-and-line groundfish and halibut fisheries. The proposed rule would strengthen gear standards for small vessels and eliminate certain seabird avoidance requirements that are not needed or not effective. This action is necessary to revise seabird avoidance measures based on the latest scientific information and to reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens and associated costs. DATES: Written comments must be received by October 19, 2007. ADDRESSES: Send comments to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Comments may be submitted by: • Mail: P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802. • Hand delivery: 709 West 9th Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK. • Fax: 907-586-7557. • E-mail: *0648-AV38-SeabirdPR@noaa.gov* . Include in the subject line the following document identifier: “Seabird Avoidance PR.” E-mail comments, with or without attachments, are limited to 5 megabytes. • Webform at the Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions at that site for submitting comments. Copies of the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) for this action may be obtained from the addresses stated above or from the Alaska Region NMFS website at *http://www.fakr.noaa.gov* . Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed rule may be submitted to Alaska Region NMFS and by e-mail to *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* , or fax to 202-395-7285. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melanie Brown, 907-586-7228 or email at *melanie.brown@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The groundfish fisheries in the exclusive economic zone
(EEZ)off Alaska are managed under the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area and the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMPs). The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared the FMPs under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801, *et seq.* Regulations implementing the FMPs appear at 50 CFR part 679. General regulations governing U.S. fisheries also appear at 50 CFR part 600. Management of the Pacific halibut fisheries in and off Alaska is governed by an international agreement between Canada and the United States. This agreement, entitled the “Convention Between the United States of America and Canada for the Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of the Northern Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea Convention,” was signed at Ottawa, Canada, on March 2, 1953, and was amended by the “Protocol Amending the Convention,” signed at Washington, D.C., March 29, 1979. The Convention is implemented in the United States by the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (Halibut Act). The directed commercial Pacific halibut fishery in Alaska is managed under an individual fishing quota
(IFQ)program, as is the fixed gear sablefish fishery. The IFQ Program is a limited access management system. This program is codified at 50 CFR part 679. Background The purpose of the proposed action is to revise the seabird avoidance measures based on the best available information regarding seabird occurrence and efficient application of the avoidance measures. Seabird avoidance measures reduce the incidental mortality of seabirds in the hook-and-line fisheries off Alaska. Since 1997, NMFS has implemented and revised seabird avoidance measures to mitigate interactions between the Federal hook-and-line fisheries and seabirds (62 FR 23176, April 29, 1997; 63 FR 11161, March 6, 1998; and 69 FR 1930, January 13, 2004). Based largely on Washington Sea Grant
(WSG)research on seabird avoidance by larger vessels, the seabird avoidance measures include requiring streamer lines on hook-and-line vessels greater than 55 ft (16.8 m) in length overall (LOA)(§ 679.24(e)(4)). These measures mitigate potential adverse effects of hook-and-line fisheries on Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed seabirds and other seabird species. However, the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee identified the need for additional study of methods for reducing incidental take of seabirds on small vessels (greater than 26 ft (7.9 m) to less than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA), especially those fishing the inside waters of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). The Council and NMFS have promoted research to improve the efficiency and success of the seabird avoidance measures and to ensure that no unnecessary burdens on fishermen are imposed. Recent research by the WSG and the Alaska Sea Grant Marine Advisory Program (ASGMAP) has indicated ways of further refining seabird avoidance measures to improve the efficacy of seabird avoidance gear. The WSG and ASGMAP recently completed several research projects including
(1)the performance of seabird avoidance gear on small vessels using hook-and-line gear (greater than 26 ft (7.9 m) to less than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA);
(2)the frequency of observations of seabirds in inside waters of Southeast Alaska, Prince William Sound, and Cook Inlet; and 3) the efficacy of various types of seabird avoidance gear on small vessels. These research projects indicate that seabird avoidance measures may not be needed in Prince William Sound (NMFS Area 649), State of Alaska (State) waters of Cook Inlet, and Eastern GOA Regulatory Area Southeast Inside District (NMFS Area 659) because of the scarcity of seabirds of concern in these areas, particularly albatross and other Procellariiform seabirds. These studies further indicate that smaller vessels fishing in the EEZ should comply with specified standards for seabird avoidance, given both the improved efficacy of measures employing certain standards and the potential overlap of fishing locations with foraging seabirds. Based on the latest WSG and ASGMAP research, the Council recommended revisions to the seabird avoidance measures. These revisions would eliminate seabird avoidance measures in areas where most seabird species are not likely to occur; and therefore, are not likely to result in reduced seabird mortality. In addition, the revisions would increase seabird avoidance measures for vessels greater than 26 ft (7.9 m) to less than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA fishing in the EEZ. Seabird avoidance measures would be increased for these vessels by requiring gear standards. These vessels may encounter seabirds in the EEZ, and the standards are necessary to reduce potential seabird mortality. Seabird avoidance measures would be eliminated in all of Prince William Sound (NMFS Area 649), all State waters of Cook Inlet, and in most waters of the Eastern GOA Regulatory Area Southeast Inside District (NMFS Area 659). Pelagic seabirds (particularly the ESA-listed short-tailed albatross and other seabird species of concern) are rarely observed in these waters; and therefore, are not likely to interact with hook-and-line fisheries. Three areas adjacent to the EEZ in NMFS Area 659 have had observations of pelagic seabird species and would continue to have seabird avoidance requirements. These areas are further described below. Eliminating certain unnecessary seabird avoidance measures is intended to remove associated economic burdens on affected vessels. Increased measures for certain small vessels in the EEZ would require specific deployment procedures intended to improve the effectiveness of avoidance devices in reducing seabird bycatch. These revisions are an example of adaptive management using the best available information to focus regulatory requirements where they are needed and to ensure requirements are effective and efficient. Research results and the environmental and economic considerations of the proposed action are in the EA/RIR/IRFA for this action (see ADDRESSES ). Regulatory Amendments In February 2007, the Council unanimously recommended revisions to the seabird avoidance measures. These measures would continue to apply to operators of vessels fishing for
(1)Pacific halibut in the IFQ and Community Development Quota
(CDQ)management programs in waters from 0 to 200 nm;
(2)IFQ sablefish in waters from 0 nm to 200 nm, except waters of Prince William Sound and areas in which sablefish fishing is managed under a State limited entry program (Clarence Strait, Chatham Strait); and
(3)groundfish with hook-and-line gear in the EEZ. The Council recommended that NMFS request that the State of Alaska Board of Fisheries consider modifying the current State regulations on seabird avoidance for groundfish vessels operating in State waters to match the Federal requirements. This would ensure consistent requirements to avoid seabirds for groundfish vessels operating in State and Federal waters of Alaska. The proposed rule would revise § 679.24(e) to eliminate redundant paragraphs, match subparagraph citations to the new section structure, and make the text more concise. Gear Requirements The proposed rule would revise § 679.24(e)(4)(i) and Table 20 to 50 CFR part 679 to require seabird avoidance gear standards for hook-and-line vessels greater than 26 ft (7.9 m) and less than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA fishing in the EEZ as follows: 1. Vessels with masts, poles, or rigging using snap-on hook-and-line gear are required to use standards when deploying one streamer line. The streamer line must be at least 147.6 ft (45 m) in length and must be deployed before the first hook is set in such a way that streamers are in the air for 65.6 ft (20 m) aft of the stern and within 6.6 ft (2 m) horizontally of the point where the main groundline enters the water. 2. Vessels with masts, poles, or rigging using conventional hook-and-line gear (vessels not using snap-on gear) are required to use standards when deploying one streamer line. The streamer line must be a minimum of 300 ft (91.4 m) in length and must be in the air for a minimum of 131.2 ft (40 m) aft of the stern. 3. Vessels without masts, poles, or rigging and not capable of adding poles or davits to accommodate a streamer line (including bowpickers) must tow a buoy bag line. The best available scientific information indicates that vessels greater than 26 ft (7.9 m) and less than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA are capable of meeting the proposed standards, and that these standards are effective at reducing potential seabird incidental takes. The proposed rule also would revise § 679.24(e)(4)(i) and Table 20 to 50 CFR part 679 to eliminate seabird avoidance gear requirements for all hook-and-line vessels fishing in Prince William Sound (NMFS Area 649), the State waters of Cook Inlet, and Southeast Alaska (NMFS Area 659) with certain area exceptions in the inside waters of Southeast Alaska. Three exception areas exist: 1. Lower Chatham Strait south of a straight line between Point Harris (latitude 56°17.25 N.) and Port Armstrong, 2. Dixon Entrance defined as the State groundfish statistical areas 325431 and 325401, and 3. Cross Sound west of a straight line from Point Wimbledon extending south through the Inian Islands to Point Lavinia (longitude 136°21.17 E.). Maps of these exception areas are in the EA/RIR/IRFA for this action (see ADDRESSES ) and are available from the NMFS Alaska Region website at *http://www.fakr.noaa.gov* . To prevent potential seabird mortality in the exception areas, hook-and-line vessels would be subject to the same seabird avoidance gear requirements and standards in these exception areas as when fishing in the EEZ. The best available scientific information regarding seabird observations in the State waters of Prince William Sound, Cook Inlet, and Southeast Alaska indicate that ESA-listed seabirds and other seabird species of concern are not likely to occur in these waters, except for the areas listed above in NMFS Area 659. Therefore, the proposed rule would eliminate seabird avoidance measures where seabird mortality is not likely to occur and ensure that they are used in waters where ESA-listed seabirds and seabird species of concern are likely to occur. Seabird Avoidance Plan The proposed rule would remove § 679.24(e)(3) and the Seabird Avoidance Plan
(SAP)requirement for all vessels. The Council recommended eliminating the SAP requirement based on recommendations from the NOAA Office of Law Enforcement and the NMFS Alaska Region Protected Resources Division. A number of vessels omitted technical SAP violations but were in compliance with the seabird avoidance substantive gear requirements. Because the requirement for a SAP does not seem to impact the use of seabird avoidance gear, removing this requirement should have no effect on seabird mortality. Other Seabird Avoidance Device The proposed rule would remove the requirement to use one “other device” (weighted groundline, buoy bag, streamer line, or strategic offal discharge) as described in § 679.24(e)(4)(ii), (e)(4)(iii), (e)(6), and Table 20 to 50 CFR part 679. NOAA Office of Law Enforcement reports that the “other device” requirement is difficult to enforce, and reduced seabird mortality from the proposed gear standards for small vessels likely would offset any protection lost by removing this requirement. Weather Exception The proposed rule would revise § 679.24(e)(5) to allow discretion for vessels more than 26 ft (7.9 m) to less than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA to use seabird avoidance devices when winds exceed 30 knots (near gale or Beaufort 7 conditions). The Council raised concerns that the use of seabird avoidance gear on these small vessels in winds exceeding 30 knots may be unsafe because most or all small vessel crew members need to be engaged fully in vessel operations during inclement weather, rather than deploying and retrieving seabird avoidance gear. Information in the EA/RIR/IRFA indicates that seabird foraging activity on hook-and-line gear is likely to decrease with increased wind speeds. Also, streamer lines and buoy bags pose a greater risk of fouling on the fishing gear during high winds. The weather exception would address potential small vessel safety issues related to deploying seabird avoidance gear during high winds and would ensure devices are used when seabirds are more likely to be interacting with hook-and-line gear. Classification Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the FMPs, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment. This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866. An IRFA was prepared as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. A summary of the analysis follows. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ). The vessels that are directly regulated by the proposed action fish for groundfish or halibut with hook-and-line gear in the waters off Alaska. The seabird avoidance measures presently in place, and the alternatives and options considered, apply directly to the operator of a vessel deploying hook-and-line gear in the waters off Alaska. These regulations apply to the operation of a vessel and not directly to the holder of an IFQ for halibut or sablefish unless the holder is also the owner/operator of a vessel. Multiple IFQs may be used on a single vessel. Thus, the IRFA analysis of large and small entities is conducted at the vessel level and not the IFQ level. This analysis is complicated by the fact that the halibut fishery is managed somewhat separately than the Federal groundfish fisheries. Thus, data from multiple sources and years have been used to estimate the numbers of large and small entities. In 2004, approximately 1,523 vessels participated in the Pacific halibut fishery off Alaska, and 674 vessels participated in the Federal hook-and-line groundfish fisheries off Alaska. Logbook research indicates that 506 of the hook-and-line vessels that caught halibut also harvested groundfish in the waters off Alaska that year. Because of overlap between these two fishery groups, the total count of unique vessels is 1,691. The IRFA uses actual revenue reported by fishing entities for the year 2005 as compiled and supplied in a comprehensive database by the Alaska Fish Information Network (AKFIN). Vessels were considered small, according to the Small Business Administration criteria, if they had estimated 2004 gross revenues less than or equal to $4 million, and were not known to be affiliated with other firms whose combined receipts exceeded $4 million. The analysis revealed that 141 eligible vessels had total gross revenue from all directed fishing sources that was greater than $4 million in 2005. This implies that, ignoring affiliations, 1,550 vessels could be considered small entities. A review of American Fisheries Act
(AFA)permit data revealed that none of the vessels with gross revenue less than $4 million in 2004 are AFA-permitted vessels. Because AFA affiliations are relatively stable across years, very few of these vessels are large because of AFA affiliations. The IRFA indicated that this proposed action is not likely to impose significant costs on directly regulated small entities. The action reduces the regulatory burden on some vessels by eliminating all seabird avoidance requirements for vessels operating in State waters of Prince William Sound, Cook Inlet and most of Southeast Alaska. In addition, vessels operating in the EEZ and State waters may benefit by elimination of the need for an other seabird avoidance device. Vessel operational cost of production data are not presently collected, making it impossible to quantify the net effect on operational costs that might occur under each alternative and option. However, the alternatives and options to the status quo are expected to impose only a slight additional burden, if any. The increased requirement to meet the gear standards for smaller vessels is likely to result in minimal additional costs because these vessels are already using gear manufactured to meet the standards and vessel crew are experienced with using the gear. Any additional costs in training and labor to ensure gear deployment meets the standards would be offset by the reduced costs from no longer being required to deploy the “other device.” Since the initial adoption of seabird avoidance regulations, research has been conducted to more precisely identify the geographical distribution and range of seabirds of concern, and on the efficacy of required seabird avoidance devices. Recent research has addressed whether small vessels can properly deploy seabird avoidance devices, given a small vessel's inherent physical limitations, and whether those devices are effective and necessary. The proposed action, which is partly intended to reduce the economic, operational, and reporting burden placed on small entities operating in these fisheries, is a direct result of this research. An IRFA must describe any significant alternatives to the proposed rule that accomplish the stated objectives of the proposed action, consistent with applicable statutes, and that would minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities. Including status quo, this proposed action has three alternatives and three options. Alternative 2 reduces the regulatory burden on small entities by eliminating seabird avoidance measures in the inside waters of Prince William Sound, Cook Inlet, and Southeast Alaska. Alternative 3 reduces the seabird avoidance measures in the same locations except for three areas of the Southeast Alaska inside waters where seabirds of concern have been observed. Both Alternatives 2 and 3 increase the regulatory burden on small entities by requiring vessels more than 26 ft (7.9 m) to less than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA to meet gear standards while operating in the EEZ and certain State waters. Options 1 and 2 to Alternatives 2 and 3 reduce the regulatory burden and improve safety by removing the Seabird Avoidance Plan requirement and providing discretion for using seabird avoidance gear in high winds, respectively. Option 3 would reduce burden by reducing seabird avoidance gear requirements to only a buoy bag line for hook-and-line vessels more than 26 ft (7.9 m) to less than or equal to 32 ft (16.8 m) LOA operating in the EEZ waters of International Pacific Halibut Commission
(IPHC)Area 4E. The suboption to Option 3 would further reduce the regulatory burden in IPHC Area 4E by eliminating the seabird avoidance measures for vessels between 26 ft (7.9 m) and 32 ft (16.8 m) LOA. One of the objectives of the action was to use new information to better protect seabirds of concern while reducing the burden on fishermen. The status quo does not meet the objectives of the action because it does not reflect new information on the range and geographic distribution of seabirds of concern nor does it reflect new research on the efficacy of seabird avoidance devices. The status quo alternative was rejected in part because it imposed a heavier burden on fishing operations. Alternative 2 was rejected because it did not provide for seabird avoidance measures in those State waters of Southeast Alaska with observed ESA-listed seabirds and other seabird species of concern and, thus, did not meet the objectives of the action. Option 3 and its suboption also were rejected because sufficient information was not available to support reducing or eliminating seabird avoidance measures for IPHC Area 4E; and therefore, did not meet the objectives of the action. The Council recommended Alternative 3 with options 1 and 2 because it would meet the objective to use the latest scientific information available regarding seabird occurrence and effective gear standards for small vessels and to reduce regulatory burden, where possible. The proposed action alleviates the small entity compliance burden by eliminating seabird avoidance measures in certain State waters where seabirds of concern are absent or very rarely present and where many small entities operate. The action also adopts performance standards, rather than design standards in the EEZ and in State waters. The use of performance standards allows flexibility in the type of avoidance gear used while ensuring an acceptable level of avoidance is achieved. The action also bases requirements on vessel capability (e.g., superstructure configuration, vessel length). Basing the requirements on vessel capability ensures that vessel owners are able to meet the seabird avoidance gear requirements without making costly changes to the vessel structure. Further, the action would eliminate preparation of a seabird avoidance plan, which eases the compliance and reporting requirements for all affected entities, including the large number of small entities that are potentially directly regulated by the proposed action. No Federal rules duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed action. This proposed rule would remove a collection-of-information requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)and which has been approved by Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)under Control Number 0648-474. Public reporting burden for the Seabird Avoidance Plan is estimated to average 8 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection-of-information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate, or any other aspect of this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS (see ADDRESSES ) and by e-mail to *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* , or fax to
(202)395-7285. Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection-of-information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection-of-information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. An informal consultation under the Endangered Species Act was concluded for this proposed action on August 8, 2007. As a result of the informal consultation, NMFS determined that fishing activities under this rule are not likely to adversely affect endangered or threatened species or their critical habitat. By requiring gear performance standards for vessels more than 26 ft (7.9 m) and less than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA, this proposed action should result in reduced potential for incidental takes of ESA-listed seabirds. Other provisions of this proposed rule would have no effect on ESA-listed species. List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679 Alaska, Fisheries, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Dated: September 13, 2007. Samuel D. Rauch III Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. For reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 679 as follows: PART 679—FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA 1. The authority citation for part 679 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 *et seq.* ; 1801 *et seq.* ; 3631 *et seq.* ; and Pub. L. 108-199, 118 Stat. 110. 2. Section 679.24 is amended by: a. Removing paragraphs (e)(3) and (e)(6). b. Redesignating paragraphs (e)(4) and (e)(5) as paragraphs (e)(3) and (e)(4), respectively. c. Redesignating paragraphs (e)(7) and (e)(8) as paragraphs (e)(5) and (e)(6), respectively. d. Revising paragraphs (e)(1), (e)(2)(i), (e)(2)(iii), and newly redesignated paragraphs (e)(3) and (e)(5). e. Adding paragraph (e)(4)(v). The revisions and additions read as follows: § 679.24 Gear limitations.
(e)* * *
(1)*Applicability.* The operator of a vessel that is longer than 26 ft (7.9 m) LOA fishing with hook-and-line gear must comply with the seabird avoidance requirements as specified in paragraphs (e)(2) and (e)(3) of this section while fishing for:
(i)IFQ halibut or CDQ halibut,
(ii)IFQ sablefish, and
(iii)Groundfish in the EEZ off Alaska.
(2)* * *
(i)*Gear onboard.* Have onboard the vessel the seabird avoidance gear as specified in paragraph (e)(3) of this section;
(iii)*Gear use.* Use seabird avoidance gear as specified in paragraph (e)(3) of this section that meets standards as specified in paragraph (e)(4) of this section, while hook-and-line gear is being deployed.
(3)(See also Table 20 this part.) The operator of a vessel identified in paragraph (e)(1) of this section must comply with the following requirements while fishing with hook-and-line gear for groundfish, IFQ halibut, CDQ halibut, or IFQ sablefish in Federal waters
(EEZ)and for IFQ halibut, CDQ halibut, or IFQ sablefish in the State of Alaska waters, excluding NMFS Reporting Area 649 (Prince William Sound), State waters of Cook Inlet, and NMFS Reporting Area 659 (Eastern GOA Regulatory Area, Southeast Inside District), but including waters in the areas south of a straight line at 56°17.25 N. lat. between Point Harris and Port Armstrong in Chatham Strait, State statistical areas 325431 and 325401, and west of a straight line at 136°21.17 E. long. from Point Wimbledon extending south through the Inian Islands to Point Lavinia:
(i)Using other than snap gear,
(A)A minimum of 1 buoy bag line as specified in paragraph (e)(4)(i) of this section must be used by vessels greater than 26 ft (7.9 m) LOA and less than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA without masts, poles, or rigging.
(B)A minimum of a single streamer line as specified in paragraph (e)(4)(ii) of this section must be used by vessels greater than 26 ft (7.9 m) LOA and less than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA with masts, poles, or rigging.
(C)A minimum of a paired streamer line of a standard as specified in paragraph (e)(4)(iii) of this section must be used by vessels greater than 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA.
(ii)Using snap gear,
(A)A minimum of 1 buoy bag line as specified in paragraph (e)(4)(i) of this section must be used by vessels greater than 26 ft (7.9 m) LOA and less than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA without masts, poles, or rigging.
(B)A minimum of a single streamer line as specified in paragraph (e)(4)(iv) of this section must be used by vessels greater than 26 ft (7.9 m) LOA and less than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA with masts, poles, or rigging.
(C)A minimum of a single streamer line as specified in paragraph (e)(4)(iv) of this section must be used by vessels greater than 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA.
(4)* * *
(v)*Weather Safety Standard.* The use of seabird avoidance devices required by paragraph (e)(3) of this section is discretionary for vessels greater than 26 ft (7.9 m) and less than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA in conditions of wind speeds exceeding 30 knots (near gale or Beaufort 7 conditions).
(5)*Other methods.* The following measures or methods must be accompanied by the applicable seabird avoidance gear requirements as specified in paragraph (e)(3) of this section:
(i)Night-setting,
(ii)Line shooter, or
(iii)Lining tube. 3. In 50 CFR part 679, Table 20 is revised to read as follows: Table 20 to Part 679—Seabird Avoidance Gear Requirements for Vessels, based on Area, Gear, and Vessel Type (See § 679.24(e) for complete seabird avoidance program requirements; see § 679.24(e)(1) for applicable fisheries) If you operate a vessel deploying hook-and-line gear, other than snap gear, in waters specified at § 679.24(e)(3), and your vessel is... Then you must use this seabird avoidance gear in conjunction with requirements at § 679.24(e)... >26 ft to 55 ft LOA and without masts, poles, or rigging minimum of one buoy bag line >26 ft to 55 ft LOA and with masts, poles, or rigging minimum of a single streamer line of a standard specified at § 679.24(e)(4)(ii) >55 ft LOA minimum of paired streamer lines of a standard specified at § 679.24(e)(4)(iii) If you operate a vessel deploying hook-and-line gear and use snap gear in waters specified at § 679.24(e)(3), and your vessel is... Then you must use this seabird avoidance gear in conjunction with requirements at § 679.24(e)... >26 ft to 55 ft LOA and without masts, poles, or rigging minimum of one buoy bag line >26 ft to 55 ft and with masts, poles, or rigging minimum of a single streamer line of a standard specified at § 679.24(e)(4)(iv) >55 ft LOA minimum of a single streamer line of a standard specified at § 679.24(e)(4)(iv) If you operate a vessel < 32 ft in the State waters of IPHC Area 4E, or operate a vessel in NMFS Reporting Area 649 (Prince William Sound), State waters of Cook Inlet, and NMFS Reporting Area 659 (Eastern GOA Regulatory Area, Southeast Inside District), but not including waters in the areas south of a straight line at latitude 56 deg. 17.25 N between Point Harris and Port Armstrong in Chatham Strait, State statistical areas 325431 and 325401, and west of a straight line at longitude 136 deg. 21.17 E from Point Wimbledon extending south through the Inian Islands to Point Lavinia... Then you are exempt from seabird avoidance regulations. [FR Doc. E7-18489 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 72 181 Wednesday, September 19, 2007 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request September 12, 2007. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding
(a)whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), *OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV* or fax
(202)395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling
(202)720-8681. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Rural Housing Service *Title:* 7 CFR 1942-C, “Fire and Rescue Loans.” *OMB Control Number:* 0575-0120. *Summary of Collection:* The Rural Housing Service
(RHS)is authorized by Section 306 of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1926) to make loans to public agencies, nonprofit corporations, and Indian tribes for the development of essential community facilities primarily servicing rural residents. The primary regulation for administering this Community Facility program is 7 CFR 1942-A. The information must be collected to determine eligibility, analyze financial feasibility, take security, monitor the use of loan funds, and monitor the financial condition of borrowers, and otherwise assisting borrowers. *Need and Use of the Information:* The Rural Development field offices will collect the information from applicant/borrowers. This information will be used to determine applicant/borrower eligibility, project feasibility, and ensure borrowers operate on a sound basis and use loan funds for authorized purposes. *Description of Respondents:* Not-for-profit institutions; State, Local or Tribal Government. *Number of Respondents:* 1,735. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: On occasion; Quarterly; Annually. *Total Burden Hours:* 10,004. Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E7-18394 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-XT-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request September 13, 2007. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding
(a)whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), *OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV* or fax
(202)395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling
(202)720-8681. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. National Agriculture Statistics Service *Title:* Agricultural Surveys Program. *OMB Control Number:* 0535-0213. *Summary of Collection:* National Agriculture Statistics Service
(NASS)primary functions are to prepare and issue state and national estimates of crop and livestock production and collect information on related environmental and economic factors. The Agricultural Surveys Program is a series of surveys that contains basic agricultural data from farmers and ranchers throughout the Nation for preparing agricultural estimates and forecasts. The surveys results provide the foundation for setting livestock and poultry inventory numbers. Estimates derived from the surveys supply information needed by farmers to make decisions for both short and long-term planning. The General authority for these data collection is granted under U.S. Code Title 7, section 2206. *Need and Use of the Information:* The surveys provide the basis for estimates of the current season's crop and livestock production and supplies of grain in storage. Crop and livestock statistics help develop a stable economic atmosphere and reduce risk for production, marketing, and distribution operations. These commodities affect the well being of the nation's farmers, commodities markets, and national and global agricultural policy. Users of agricultural statistics are farm organizations, agribusiness, state and national farm policy makers, and foreign buyers of agricultural products but the primary user of the statistical information is the producer. Agricultural statistics are also used to plan and administer other related federal and state programs in such areas as school lunch program, conservation, foreign trade, education, and recreation. Collecting the information less frequent would eliminate needed data to keep the government and agricultural industry abreast of changes at the state and national levels. *Description of Respondents:* Farms. *Number of Respondents:* 273,133. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: Quarterly; Semi-annually; Monthly; Annually. *Total Burden Hours:* 165,161. Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E7-18395 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-20-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request September 13, 2007. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding
(a)whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), *OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV* or fax
(202)395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling
(202)720-8958. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Animal Plant and Health Inspection Service *Title:* Commercial Transportation of Equines to Slaughter. *OMB Control Number:* 0579-0160. *Summary of Collection:* Title 21, U.S. C. 117, Animal Industry Act of 1884, authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to issue guidelines for regulating the commercial transportation of horses to slaughter by person regularly engaged in that activity within the United States. To fulfill this responsibility, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) established regulations in title 9, part 88 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The minimum standards cover among other things the food, water, and rest provided to these horses while they are in transit; and to review other related issues that may be appropriate to ensuring that these animals are treated humanely. Implementing these regulations entails the use of two information collection activities in the form of an owner-shipper certificate, as well as the collection of employment information on any person found to be transporting horses to a slaughtering facility. *Need and Use of the Information:* APHIS will collect the following information:
(1)Shippers name and address and the owner's name and address;
(2)description of the transporting vehicle, including the license plate number;
(3)a description of the horse's physical characteristics, including its sex, coloring, distinguishing marks, permanent brands, electronic means of identification, or other characteristics that can be use to accurately identify the horse;
(4)the number of the USDA back tag that has been applied to the horse for identification purposes;
(5)a statement of the animal's fitness to travel, which must indicate that the horse is able to bear weight on all four limbs, is able to walk unassisted, is not blind in both eyes, is older than 6 months of age, and is not likely to give birth during the trip;
(6)a description of anything unusual with regard to the physical condition of the horse, such as a wound or blindness in one eye, and any special handling needs;
(7)the date, time, and place the horse was loaded on the conveyance; and
(8)a statement that the horse was provided access to food, water, and rest prior to transport. This information is helpful in those instances in which APHIS must conduct a trace back investigation of any possibly stolen horses. *Description of Respondents:* Business or Other For-Profit; Individuals or Households; Farms. *Number of Respondents:* 200. *Frequency of Responses:* Recordkeeping; Reporting: On occasion. *Total Burden Hours:* 4,203. Animal Plant & Health Inspection Service *Title:* Pseudorabies In Swine; Payment To Indemnity. *OMB Control Number:* 0579-0137. *Summary of Collection:* The United States Department of Agriculture is responsible for preventing the interstate spread of pest and diseases of livestock within the United States and for conducting eradication programs. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) established an accelerated pseudorabies program, including the payment of indemnity, to further pseudorabies eradication efforts in cooperation with States and industry and to protect swine not infected with pseudorabies from the disease. Pseudorabies is a contagious, infectious, and communicable disease of livestock, primarily swine. Regulations in 9 CFR part 85 govern the interstate movement of swine and other livestock (cattle, sheep, and goats) in order to help prevent the spread of pseudorabies. APHIS will collect information using several APHIS forms. *Need and Use of the Information:* APHIS will collect information on the number of animals being relinquished, their estimated weight, and the market price of the animals for the particular week, and the total compensation amount that the owner can expect to receive. If the information were not collected, APHIS would not be able to launch the accelerated pseudorabies eradication program. *Description of Respondents:* Business or other for-profit; Farms; State, Local or Tribal Government. *Number of Respondents:* 5,700. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: On occasion. *Total Burden Hours:* 3,156. Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service *Title:* Restrictions on Importation of Live Poultry, Poultry Meat, and Other Poultry Products from Specified Regions. *OMB Control Number:* 0579-0228. *Summary of Collection:* Title 21 U.S.C. 117, Animal Industry Act of 1884, authorizes the Secretary to prevent, control and eliminate domestic diseases such as brucellosis, as well as to take actions to prevent and manage exotic diseases such as classical swine fever and other foreign animal diseases. Veterinary Services of the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is responsible for administering regulations intended to prevent the introduction of animal diseases into the United States. The regulations in 9 CFR Part 94 allow the importation of poultry meat and products and live poultry from Argentina and the Mexican States of Campeche, Quintana Roo, and Yucatan under certain conditions. APHIS will collect information through the use of a certification statement that must be completed by Mexican veterinary authorities prior to export. *Need and Use of the Information:* The information collected from the certificate will provide APHIS with critical information concerning the origin and history of the items destined for importation in the United States. Without the information APHIS' ability to ensure that poultry, poultry meat, or other poultry products from certain States within Mexico pose a minimal risk of introducing exotic Newcastle disease and other exotic animal diseases into the United States. *Description of Respondents:* Federal Government. *Number of Respondents:* 10. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: On occasion. *Total Burden Hours:* 100. Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E7-18397 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request September 14, 2007 The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding
(a)whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), *OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV* or fax
(202)395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling
(202)720-8681. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Risk Management Agency *Title:* Risk Management and Crop Insurance Education; Activity Log. *OMB Control Number:* 0563-0070. *Summary of Collection:* The Federal Crop Insurance Act, Title 7 U.S.C. Chapter 36 Section 1508(k) authorizes the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation
(FCIC)to establish crop insurance education and information programs in States that have been historically underserved by theFederal Crop insurance program (7 U.S.C. 1524(a)(2); and provide agricultural producers with training opportunities in risk management. The Risk Management Agency
(RMA)refers to these four programs as the Community Outreach and Assistance Partnership, Commodity Partnerships, Targeted States and Small Sessions programs available to carry out certain risk management education provisions of the Federal Crop Insurance Act. *Need and Use of the Information:* RMA will use Form RMA-300, Activity Log, to collect information to monitor certain educational activities. Agreement holders are required to record specific information about each educational activity conducted under the agreement in an Activity Log and submit it as part of the required quarterly progress report. In addition, RMA will use information provided by agreement holders to ensure that funded educational projects are progressing. *Description of Respondents:* Not-for-profit institutions; Business or other for-profit; State, Local, or Tribal Government. *Number of Respondents:* 180. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: Quarterly. *Total Burden Hours:* 778. Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E7-18519 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-08-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Off-Highway Vehicle Travel Management Plan AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Revised Notice of Intent to prepare an environmental impact statement. SUMMARY: On August 27, 2007, The Mt. Hood National Forest (Forest) published a Notice of Intent in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 48982) to prepare an environmental impact statement
(EIS)to document and disclose the potential environmental effects of establishing and designating a system of roads, trails and areas for off-highway vehicles (OHV). The proposed action will change OHV access through much of the Forest in order to meet the intent of the *Travel Management; Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use; Final Rule* that was published on November 9, 2005 (70 FR 216). The original Notice of Intent listed the final date to receive comments concerning the scope of the analysis as October 1, 2007. The Notice of Intent is being revised to extend the final date for receiving comments concerning the scope of the analysis to November 1, 2007. DATES: Comments concerning the scope of this analysis must be received no later than November 1, 2007 to ensure they are fully incorporated into the Draft EIS. ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to Jennie O'Connor, Off-Highway Vehicle Travel Management Plan Leader, Mt. Hood National Forest, 6780 Highway 35, Parkdale, Oregon 97041. Electronic comments can be submitted to *comments-pacificnorthwest-mthood@fs.fed.us.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennie O'Connor, Natural Resource Planner, Mt. Hood National Forest, 6780 Highway 35, Parkdale, Oregon 97041
(541)352-6002 x634, or by e-mailing *jmoconnor@fs.fed.us.* Dated: September 12, 2007. Gary L. Larsen, Forest Supervisor, Mt. Hood National Forest. [FR Doc. 07-4642 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 77
Traces to 77 documents
U.S. Code
CFR
128 references not yet in our index
  • 32 CFR 750
  • Pub. L. 104-4
  • Pub. L. 96-354
  • Pub. L. 96-511
  • 5 CFR 1320
  • 10 USC 5013
  • 32 CFR 701
  • 32 CFR 751
  • 32 CFR 756
  • 277 F.2d 143
  • 226 F. Supp. 846
  • 10 USC 2734-2736
  • 33 USC 901-950
  • 32 CFR 757
  • 96 Stat. 1749
  • 31 CFR 901
  • 31 CFR 904
  • 42 USC 2651-2653
  • 28 USC 2415b
  • 28 USC 2415a
  • 32 CFR 725
  • 33 CFR 117
  • 38 CFR 38
  • Pub. L. 107-103
  • Pub. L. 109-461
  • Pub. L. 105-368
  • 44 USC 3501-3521
  • 5 USC 601-612
  • 472 F.3d 882
  • 40 CFR 93
  • 40 CFR 81
  • 40 CFR 93.104(e)
  • 40 CFR 52
  • 40 CFR 180
  • 40 CFR 178
  • 40 CFR 2
  • 40 CFR 180.361
  • Pub. L. 104-113
  • 40 CFR 180.555
  • 40 CFR 180.353
+ 88 more
Citation graph
cites case law
Rules and Regulations
Interim Final Rule
U.S.C.§ 552
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 601
Fed. Reg.Proposed Rules
U.S.C.§ 301
U.S.C.§ 552a
U.S.C.§ 205
U.S.C.§ 1346
U.S.C.§ 3701
F. App'x277 F.2d 143
F. Supp.226 F. Supp. 846
F. App'x472 F.3d 882
Cites 205 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

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

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