Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 64 / Wednesday, April 4, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16315 

appropriate? Should reporting units be 

dependent on the reproductive 

methodology of the crop (e.g., seeds, 

bulbs, or tubers)? Given your response 

to Unit IV.1.a., what types of production 

reporting would provide the Agency 

with information valuable for 

compliance assurance purposes and for 

managing any potential risks associated 

with a violation? 

c. Recordkeeping and inspection (Unit 

III.3.). What establishments or other 

locations are appropriate to be inspected 

for records and samples, and what 

records would be appropriate for 

producers of PIPs to maintain? 

d. Labeling (Unit III.4.). Please 

comment on current labeling practices 

for PIPs. Are current labeling practices 

sufficient? For example, do grower 

agreements offer sufficient information 

and compliance assurance to ensure 

registered PIPs are used in a manner 

that protects human health and the 

environment? Are there circumstances 

where labeling different from that 

currently in practice for PIPs may be 

appropriate? 

e. Experimental use permits (Unit 

III.5.). Are there aspects of production in 

association with PIP EUPs that are 

different from production associated 

with other types of pesticides used in 

EUPs? If there are differences, how 

should they be addressed for PIP EUPs? 

f. Production for export (Unit III.6.). 

What conditions would ensure that a 

PIP is intended for export only, and 

what would be necessary for such a PIP 

to meet the requirements of FIFRA? 

2. Are there other characteristics not 

described in this document unique to 

PIPs that may affect the application of 

the existing regulations associated with 

pesticide establishments and pesticide 

production to PIP producers? 

3. Are there additional sections of 

FIFRA implementing regulations related 

to pesticide establishment and 

production regulations that should be 

modified to more effectively address the 

unique characteristics of PIPs? 

V. Do Any Statutory or Executive Order 

Reviews Apply to this Action? 

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 ANPRMs are 

considered ‘‘significant regulatory 

actions’’ under section 3(f) of the 

Executive Order. The Agency therefore 

submitted this document to OMB for the 

10–day review period afforded under 

this Executive order. Any changes made 

in response to OMB comments during 

that review have been documented in 

the docket as required by the Executive 

order. 

Since this ANPRM does not impose or 

propose any requirements, and instead 

seeks comments and suggestions for the 

Agency to consider in possibly 

developing a subsequent proposed rule, 

the various other review requirements 

that apply when an agency imposes 

requirements do not apply to this 

action. 

As part of your comments on this 

ANPRM, you may include any 

comments or information that you have 

regarding this action. In particular, any 

comments or information that would 

help the Agency to assess the potential 

impact of a rule on small entities 

pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); to 

consider 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); 

to consider environmental health or 

safety effects on children pursuant to 

Executive Order 13045, entitled 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); or 

to consider human health or 

environmental effects on minority or 

low-income populations pursuant to 

Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal 

Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994). The Agency will 

consider such comments during the 

development of any subsequent notice 

of proposed rulemaking as it takes 

appropriate steps to address any 

applicable requirements. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 152, 

156, 167, 168, 169, 172, 174 

Environmental protection, Pesticides 

and pests, Plant-incorporated 

protectants, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: March 22, 2007. 

Stephen L. Johnson, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E7–6151 Filed 4–3–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[DA 07–1350; MB Docket No. 04–319; RM–

10984] 

Radio Broadcasting Services; 

Clinchco, VA and Coal Run, KY 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule, denial. 

SUMMARY: This document denies a 

petition for rule making filed by East 

Kentucky Broadcasting Corp. 

(‘‘Petitioner’’) proposing to substitute 

Channel 221C3 for Channel 276A at 

Coal Run and modify the license of 

Station WPKE–FM to reflect the channel 

upgrade. To accommodate the channel 

upgrade, Petitioner proposes to 

substitute Channel 276A for Channel 

221A at Clinchco, Virginia and modify 

the license of Station WDIC–FM to 

reflect the channel substitution. 

However, Petitioner’s proposed site is 

unacceptable due to major terrain 

obstruction that prevents the requisite 

70 dBu signal over the entire 

community of license. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Hayne, Media Bureau, (202) 418–

2177. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s Report 

and Order, MB Docket No. 04–319, 

adopted March 16, 2007, and released 

March 20, 2007. The full text of this 

Commission decision is available for 

inspection and copying during regular 

business hours at the FCC’s Reference 

Information Center, Portals II, 445 

Twelfth Street, SW., Room CY–A257, 

Washington, DC 20554. The complete 

text of this decision may also be 

purchased from the Commission’s 

duplicating contractor, Best Copy and 

Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., 

Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554, 

telephone 1–800–378–3160 or http:// 

www.BCPIWEB.com. 

This document is not subject to the 

Congressional Review Act. (The 

Commission, is, therefore, not required 

to submit a copy of this Report and 

Order to the Government Accountability 

Office pursuant to the Congressional 

Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) 

because the proposed rule is denied.) 

Federal Communications Commission. 

John A. Karousos, 

Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media 

Bureau. 

[FR Doc. E7–6258 Filed 4–3–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS