20436 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 25, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

requirement of tolerance will permit the 

use of the food commodities in this 

paragraph when treated in accordance 

with the provisions of the experimental 

use permit 67979–EUP–6, which is 

being issued in accordance with the 

provisions of the Federal Insecticide, 

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 

(FIFRA), as amended (7 U.S.C. 136). 

This temporary exemption from the 

requirement of a tolerance expires and 

is revoked March 31, 2008; however, if 

the experimental use permit is revoked, 

or if any experience with or scientific 

data on this pesticide indicate that the 

temporary tolerance exemption is not 

safe, this temporary exemption from the 

requirement of a tolerance may be 

revoked at any time. 

[FR Doc. E7–7768 Filed 4–24–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2007–0224; FRL–8121–2] 

Propiconazole; Pesticide Tolerances 

for Emergency Exemptions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes 

time-limited tolerances for combined 

residues of propiconazole and its 

metabolites containing the 

dichlorobenzoic acid (DCBA) moiety 

expressed as parent compound, in or on 

peach and nectarine. This action is in 

response to EPA’s granting of emergency 

exemptions under section 18 of the 

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) authorizing 

use of the pesticide on peach and 

nectarine as a post-harvest treatment. 

This regulation establishes maximum 

permissible levels for residues of 

propiconazole in these food 

commodities. The tolerances expire and 

are revoked on December 31, 2010. 

DATES: This regulation is effective April 

25, 2007. Objections and requests for 

hearings must be received on or before 

June 25, 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–2007–0224. To access the 

electronic docket, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, select ‘‘Advanced 

Search,’’ then ‘‘Docket Search.’’ Insert 

the docket ID number where indicated 

and select the ‘‘Submit’’ button. Follow 

the instructions on the regulations.gov 

web site to view the docket index or 

access available documents. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the docket index available in 

regulations.gov. Although listed in the 

index, some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either in the electronic docket 

at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only 

available in hard copy, at the Office of 

Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory 

Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One 

Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. 

Crystal Dr., VA. The hours of operation 

of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. 

to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The Docket 

telephone number is (703) 305-5805. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Andrea Conrath, Registration Division 

(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460-0001; telephone number: 

(703) 308-9356; e-mail address: 

conrath.andrea@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this Action Apply to Me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are an agricultural 

producer, food manufacturer, or 

pesticide manufacturer. Potentially 

affected entities may include, but are 

not limited to: 

•Crop production (NAICS code 111). 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112). 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532). 

This listing is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. Other types of 

entities not listed in this unit could also 

be affected. The North American 

Industrial Classification System 

(NAICS) codes have been provided to 

assist you and others in determining 

whether this action might apply to 

certain entities. If you have any 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, consult 

the person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies 

of this Document? 

In addition to accessing an electronic 

copy of this Federal Register document 

through the electronic docket at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, you may access 

this Federal Register document 

electronically through the EPA Internet 

under the ‘‘Federal Register’’ listings at 

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may 

also access a frequently updated 

electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 

through the Government Printing 

Office’s pilot e-CFR site at http:// 

www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr. 

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing 

Request? 

Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, as 

amended by the FQPA, any person may 

file an objection to any aspect of this 

regulation and may also request a 

hearing on those objections. The EPA 

procedural regulations which govern the 

submission of objections and requests 

for hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. 

You must file your objection or request 

a hearing on this regulation in 

accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure 

proper receipt by EPA, you must 

identify docket ID number EPA–HQ–

OPP–2007–0224 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 June 25, 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–2007–0224, 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, 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 25, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 20437 

excluding legal holidays). Special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. The 

Docket telephone number is (703) 305- 

5805. 

II. Background and Statutory Findings 

EPA, on its own initiative, in 

accordance with sections 408(e) and 408 

(l)(6) of the Federal Food, Drug, and 

Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, 

is establishing tolerances for combined 

residues of the fungicide propiconazole, 

and its metabolites containing the 

dichlorobenzoic acid (2,4-DCBA) moiety 

expressed as parent compound, in or on 

peach and nectarine at 2.0 parts per 

million (ppm). These tolerances expire 

and are revoked on December 31, 2010. 

EPA will publish a document in the 

Federal Register to remove the revoked 

tolerances from the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR). 

Section 408(l)(6) of the FFDCA 

requires EPA to establish a time-limited 

tolerance or exemption from the 

requirement for a tolerance for pesticide 

chemical residues in food that will 

result from the use of a pesticide under 

an emergency exemption granted by 

EPA under section 18 of FIFRA. Such 

tolerances can be established without 

providing notice or period for public 

comment. EPA does not intend for its 

actions on section 18 related tolerances 

to set binding precedents for the 

application of section 408 of the FFDCA 

and the new safety standard to other 

tolerances and exemptions. Section 

408(e) of the FFDCA allows EPA to 

establish a tolerance or an exemption 

from the requirement of a tolerance on 

its own initiative, i.e., without having 

received any petition from an outside 

party. 

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. . . .’’

Section 18 of the FIFRA authorizes 

EPA to exempt any Federal or State 

agency from any provision of FIFRA, if 

EPA determines that ‘‘emergency 

conditions exist which require such 

exemption.’’ This provision was not 

amended by the Food Quality Protection 

Act of 1996 (FQPA). EPA has 

established regulations governing such 

emergency exemptions in 40 CFR part 

166. 

III. Emergency Exemption for 

Propiconazole as a Post-Harvest 

Treatment on Peach and Nectarine and 

FFDCA Tolerances 

The applicant states that market 

demands have required producers to 

change storage practices for peaches and 

nectarines, and allow a pre-ripening 

time of 48 hours at 68°F to enhance fruit 

quality, prior to placing the fruit in cold 

storage at 32°F. This extra step has 

inadvertently fostered increased 

incidence of sour rot which has caused 

significant losses to growers. The 

current storage conditions used were 

developed to improve fruit quality and 

satisfy customer demands; returning to 

previous storage conditions would not 

result in acceptable fruit quality for the 

industry or consumer. Without the 

ability to adequately manage sour rot, 

economic data provided indicates that 

significant economic losses will occur. 

EPA has authorized under FIFRA 

section 18 the use of propiconazole on 

peach and nectarine as a post-harvest 

treatment, for control of sour rot in 

California. After having reviewed the 

submission, EPA concurs that 

emergency conditions exist for this 

State. 

As part of its assessment of this 

emergency exemption, EPA assessed the 

potential risks presented by residues of 

propiconazole in or on peach and 

nectarine. In doing so, EPA considered 

the safety standard in section 408(b)(2) 

of the FFDCA, and EPA decided that the 

necessary tolerance under section 

408(l)(6) of the FFDCA would be 

consistent with the safety standard and 

with FIFRA section 18. Consistent with 

the need to move quickly on the 

emergency exemption in order to 

address an urgent non-routine situation 

and to ensure that the resulting food is 

safe and lawful, EPA is issuing these 

tolerances without notice and 

opportunity for public comment as 

provided in section 408(l)(6) of the 

FFDCA. Although these tolerances 

expire and are revoked on December 31, 

2010, under section 408(l)(5) of the 

FFDCA, residues of the pesticide not in 

excess of the amounts specified in the 

tolerances remaining in or on peach and 

nectarine after that date will not be 

unlawful, provided the pesticide is 

applied in a manner that was lawful 

under FIFRA, and the residues do not 

exceed a level that was authorized by 

these tolerances at the time of that 

application. EPA will take action to 

revoke these tolerances earlier if any 

experience with, scientific data on, or 

other relevant information on this 

pesticide indicate that the residues are 

not safe. 

Because these tolerances are being 

approved under emergency conditions, 

EPA has not made any decisions about 

whether propiconazole meets EPA’s 

registration requirements for use on 

peach and nectarine as a post-harvest 

treatment or whether permanent 

tolerance for these uses would be 

appropriate. Under these circumstances, 

EPA does not believe that these 

tolerances serve as bases for registration 

of propiconazole by a State for special 

local needs under section 24(c) of 

FIFRA. Nor do these tolerances serve as 

the basis for any State other than 

California to use this pesticide on these 

crops under section 18 of FIFRA 

without following all provisions of 

EPA’s regulations implementing FIFRA 

section 18 as identified in 40 CFR part 

166. For additional information 

regarding the emergency exemption for 

propiconazole, contact the Agency’s 

Registration Division at the address 

provided under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and 

Determination of Safety 

EPA performs a number of analyses to 

determine the risks from aggregate 

exposure to pesticide residues. For 

further discussion of the regulatory 

requirements of section 408 of the 

FFDCA and a complete description of 

the risk assessment process, see http:// 

www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/1997/ 

November/Day-26/p30948.htm. 

Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) 

of the FFDCA , EPA has reviewed the 

available scientific data and other 

relevant information in support of this 

action. EPA has sufficient data to assess 

the hazards of propiconazole and to 

make a determination on aggregate 

exposure, consistent with section 

408(b)(2) of the FFDCA, for time-limited 

tolerances for combined residues or 

residues of propiconazole in or on 

peach and nectarine at 2.0 ppm. While 

this post-harvest use under section 18 is 

not expected to result in residues 

exceeding 1.0 ppm, there is a preharvest use registered for use on stone 

fruit (includes peach and nectarine) for 

which a permanent tolerance is 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with RULES
20438 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 25, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

established at 1.0 ppm. Therefore, EPA 

does not expect total residues from both 

of these uses to exceed 2.0 ppm in or on 

peach and nectarine. 

On September 22, 2006 the Agency 

published a Final Rule (71 FR 55300, 

FRL–8092–1) establishing tolerances for 

combined residues of propiconazole and 

its metabolites containing the 

dichlorobenzoic acid (2,4-DCBA) moiety 

expressed as parent compound, in or on 

various commodities; and inadvertent 

residues in or on alfalfa, forage, and 

alfalfa, hay. When the Agency 

conducted the risk assessments in 

support of these tolerance actions it 

assumed that propiconazole residues 

would be present on peach and 

nectarine at 2.0 ppm, in association 

with this section 18 post-harvest use 

and the already registered pre-harvest 

use (for which there is a permanent 

tolerance established at 1.0 ppm), as 

well as on all foods covered by the 

proposed and established tolerances. 

Residues on peach and nectarine were 

included because there was a pending 

emergency exemption application under 

the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 

Rodenticide Act, 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq., for 

emergency post-harvest use on these 

commodities. Therefore, establishing 

the peach and nectarine tolerances will 

not change the most recent estimated 

aggregate risks resulting from use of 

propiconazole, as discussed in the 

September 22, 2006 Federal Register. 

Refer to the September 22, 2006 Federal 

Register document, and its associated 

docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0347, for a 

detailed discussion of the aggregate risk 

assessments and determination of 

safety. EPA relies upon those risk 

assessments and the findings made in 

the Federal Register document in 

support of this action. 

Based on the risk assessments 

discussed in the final rule published in 

the Federal Register of September 22, 

2006, EPA concludes that there is a 

reasonable certainty that no harm will 

result to the general population, and to 

infants and children from aggregate 

exposure to propiconazole residues. The 

September 22, 2006 final rule contains 

a docket that has a risk assessment that 

describes the exposure and safety 

findings in detail. 

V. Other Considerations 

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology 

Adequate enforcement methodology 

(a gas chromatography (GC) method 

using electron capture detection 

(Method AG-454) 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; email address: residuemethods@epa.gov. 

B. International Residue Limits 

The Codex Alimentarious 

Commission has established a 

maximum residue limit (MRL) for 

propiconazole in/on stone fruit, which 

includes peach and nectarine, at 1.0 

ppm, expressed in terms of 

propiconazole per se. In addition, 

Canada has established MRLs on peach 

and nectarine of 1.0 ppm, expressed as 

propiconazole and its metabolites 

including the 2,4-DCBA moiety. As 

discussed above, there is a permanent 

U.S. tolerance set at 1.0 ppm for the 

stone fruit crop group, in association 

with a registered pre-harvest use. 

Therefore, to the extent possible, the 

U.S. tolerances are numerically 

harmonized with Codex and Canada. 

However, this section 18 emergency use 

represents a difference in the use 

pattern and the supporting residue data 

indicates a tolerance of 2.0 ppm will be 

necessary to cover total residues which 

may occur as a result of both the 

registered pre-harvest use, as well as 

this section 18 post-harvest use. A 

summary of Codex MRLs, Canadian 

MRLs, and Mexican tolerances and the 

corresponding U.S. tolerances for 

propiconazole is discussed at http:// 

www.regulations.gov Docket No. EPA–

HQ–OPP–2006–0347-0004; pages 53-54. 

VI. Conclusion 

Therefore, the tolerances are 

established for combined residues of 

propiconazole, and its metabolites 

containing the dichlorobenzoic acid 

(DCBA) moiety expressed as parent 

compound in or on peach and nectarine 

at 2.0 ppm. 

VII. 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). 

VIII. 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 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 25, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 20439 

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: April 12, 2007. 

Donald R. Stubbs, 

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 180.434 is amended by 

adding text and table to paragraph (b) to 

read as follows: 

§180.434 Propiconazole; tolerances for 

residue. 

* * * * * 

(b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. 

Time-limited tolerances are established 

for residues of propiconazole (1-[[2-(2,4- 

dichlorophenyl)-4-propyl-1,3-dioxolan2-yl] methyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole) and its 

metabolites determined as 2,4- 

dichlorobenzoic acid and expressed as 

parent compound, in connection with 

use of the pesticide under section 18 

emergency exemptions granted by EPA. 

The tolerances will expire and are 

revoked on the dates specified in the 

following table: 

Commodity Parts per million Expiration/revocation 

date 

Nectarine ............................................................................................................................................ 2.0 12/31/2010 

Peach ................................................................................................................................................. 2.0 12/31/2010 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E7–7678 Filed 4–24–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 22 

[WT Docket No. 04–435; FCC 07–47] 

Amendment of the Commission’s 

Rules To Facilitate the Use of Cellular 

Telephones and Other Wireless 

Devices Aboard Airborne Aircraft 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule, termination of 

proceeding. 

SUMMARY: This document provides 

notice of the termination of the 

proceeding in WT Docket No. 04–435, 

involving the Commission’s ban on the 

airborne use of cellular telephones as set 

out in the Commission’s prohibition on 

airborne operation of cellular 

telephones rules. 

DATES: Effective April 3, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Linda Chang, Mobility Division, 

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 

202–418–1339, Linda.Chang@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s 

Memorandum Opinion and Order, 

released April 3, 2007. The complete 

text of the Memorandum Opinion and 

Order is available for inspection and 

copying during business hours at the 

FCC Reference Information Center, 

Portals II, 445 12th St., SW., Room CY–

A257, Washington, DC 20554. The 

complete text of this document also may 

be purchased from the Commission’s 

copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, 

Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room, CY–

B402, Washington, DC 20554. The 

complete text may also be downloaded 

at: http://www.fcc.gov. 

Synopsis of Memorandum Opinion 

and Order: 

1. On December 15, 2004, the 

Commission adopted a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) at 70 FR 

11916, March 10, 2005 in the abovecaptioned docket proposing to replace 

or relax its ban under § 22.925 of the 

Commission’s rules on the use of 800 

MHz cellular handsets on airborne 

aircraft. The NPRM explored several 

different options for allowing airborne 

use of wireless devices, including a 

proposal to remove the current ban on 

the airborne use of cellular phones. 

Given the lack of technical information 

in the record upon which the 

Commission may base a decision, it has 

determined at this time that this 

proceeding should be terminated. 

2. In the NPRM, the Commission 

specifically requested technical 

comment, emphasizing that the ban on 

the airborne use of cell phones would 

not be removed without sufficient 

information regarding possible technical 

solutions. The NPRM also noted that the 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

prohibits the use of portable electronic 

devices (PEDs) on airborne aircraft, and 

that RTCA, Inc. (RTCA), a Federal 

Advisory Committee, is currently 

studying the effect of PEDs on aircraft 

navigation and safety at the request of 

the FAA. RTCA published findings in 

December 2006, and is expected to issue 

recommendations regarding airplane 

design and certification requirements in 

2007. 

3. The comments filed in this 

proceeding provide insufficient 

technical information that would allow 

the Commission to assess whether the 

airborne use of cellular phones may 

occur without causing harmful 

interference to terrestrial networks. 

Similarly, the December 2006 RTCA 

report does not provide data that would 

allow the Commission to evaluate the 

potential for interference between PED 

operations onboard airplanes and 

terrestrial-based wireless systems. 

Further, because it appears that airlines, 

manufacturers, and wireless providers 

are still researching the use of cell 

phones and other PEDs onboard aircraft, 

the Commission does not believe that 

seeking further comment at this juncture 

will provide the necessary technical 

information in the near term. 

Accordingly, the Commission concludes 

that this proceeding should be 

terminated. The Commission may, 

however, reconsider this issue in the 

future if appropriate technical data is 

available for its review. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E7–7791 Filed 4–24–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with RULES