        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        RIN 1018-AI81
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Status for the Dugong in the Republic of Palau

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the re-opening of the comment period on the proposed listing of the population of dugong, Dugong dugon, in the Republic of Palau as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. We are re-opening the comment period to request additional information and comments from the public regarding the proposed rule. Comments previously submitted need not be resubmitted as they will be incorporated into the public record as part of this comment period and will be fully considered in the final rule.

          DATES:
          We will accept public comments until March 3, 2003.

          ADDRESSES:

          Submit any comments, information, and questions by mail to the Chief, Division of Scientific Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 750, Arlington, Virginia 22203, or by fax, 703-358-2276, or by e-mail, Scientificauthority@fws.gov. Comments and supporting information will be available for public inspection, by appointment, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. at the above address. You may obtain copies of the proposed rule from the above address.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Eleanora Babij at the above address, or by phone, 703-358-1708; fax, 703-358-2276; or e-mail, Scientificauthority@fws.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        The dugong, an aquatic, herbivorous mammal, is currently listed under the Endangered Species Act as endangered throughout its entire range, except in the Republic of Palau. It is classified as Vulnerable by The World Conservation Union (IUCN, 2000), and all populations of dugong are listed in Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). The dugong has a large range that covers approximately 37 countries and territories. It is believed that Palauan waters support one of the most isolated populations of dugong in the world. The closest dugong populations are 800 km to the south and 850 km to the west. In both of these areas, dugongs are under threat from human exploitation, and it is unlikely that the Palauan population is supplemented by recruitment from either of these areas. Surveys have been conducted in these waters in 1978, 1983, and 1991. The number of dugongs sighted in the 1991 survey was lower than in the previous two surveys, which suggests a reduction in the number of dugongs in Palauan waters. The major threat to this species in Palau is poaching (UNEP, 2002).
        Prior to the enactment of the Endangered Species Act, species were afforded protection through the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969. Under this Act, the Service prepared two lists: a “Native” and “Foreign” list. Originally, dugong was included in the “Foreign” list of protected species. When the Endangered Species Act became effective in 1973, it supplanted the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969. The “Foreign” and “Native” lists were combined to create one list of endangered and threatened species (39 FR 1171; January 4, 1974). When this happened, the dugong was listed as endangered throughout its entire range.

        When the lists were combined, the United Nations Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (Republic of Palau) was under the jurisdiction of the United States. Section 4(b)(5) of the Endangered Species Act requires that notice of proposed regulations be given to affected States in which the species occurs. The U.S. population of dugong was included on the list without prior notice to the Republic of Palau. Therefore in 1988, the Service amended the Code of Federal Regulations to exclude the U.S. population from the listing. The Republic of Palau was then formally notified and the proposed rule was published in 1993 to extend Endangered status to the dugong population in Palau (58 FR 41688, August 5, 1993). This would then result in the species being classified as endangered throughout its entire range, as intended by the original listing. However, this rule was never finalized, and we are reopening the comment period to allow all interested parties to submit additional information and written comments to be considered by the Service. You may obtain a copy of the 1993 proposed rule by contacting the address listed in ADDRESSES.

        Public Comments Solicited
        We will accept written comments and information during this re-opened comment period from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested party. Comments particularly are sought concerning:
        (1) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning any threat (or lack thereof) to the dugong in the Republic of Palau;
        (2) Additional information concerning the range, distribution, and population size of the dugong in the Republic of Palau;
        (3) Current planned activities in the Republic of Palau and their possible impacts on this species.

        Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Any person commenting may request that we withhold their home address, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. In some circumstances, we may also withhold a commenter's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name or address, you must state this request prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. To the extent consistent with applicable law, we will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public comment in their entirety. Comments and materials received will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.

        References Cited
        UNEP (United Nations Environment Program). 2002. Dugong. Status Report and Action Plans for Countries and Territories. UNEP Early Warning and Assessment Report Series.
        Hilton-Taylor, C. (Compiler) (2000). 2000 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Xviii + 61 pp.
        Author

        The primary author of this notice is Eleanora Babij, Division of Scientific Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see ADDRESSES section).
        Authority

        The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

          Dated: November 1, 2002.
          Matt Hogan,
          Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 02-30297 Filed 11-29-02; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Parts 73 and 76
        [MB Docket No. 19-177; FCC 19-54]
        Review of EEO Compliance and Enforcement in Broadcast and Multichannel Video Programming Industries

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          This Proposed Rule seeks comment on how the Commission can make improvements to equal employment opportunity (EEO) compliance and enforcement and responds to issues raised in comments filed in a recent proceeding to eliminate the obligation to file the Broadcast Mid-term Report (FCC Form 397). In that proceeding, the Commission committed to seek comment on these issues.

          DATES:
          Comments Due: August 21, 2019. Replies Due: September 5, 2019.

          ADDRESSES:
          Interested parties may submit comments and replies, identified by MB Docket No. 19-177, by any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Federal Communications Commission's Website: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Mail: Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although the Commission continues to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
          For more detailed filing instructions, see the Procedural Matters section below.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Radhika Karmarkar, Industry Analysis Division, Media Bureau, Radhika.Karmarkar@fcc.gov, (202) 418-1523.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        This Proposed Rule in MB Docket No. 19-177 was adopted June 12, 2018, and released June 21, 2018. The full text of this document is available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554, or online at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-18-179A1.pdf. To request this document in accessible formats for people with disabilities (e.g., Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format, etc.) or to request reasonable accommodations (e.g., accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the FCC's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).
        Synopsis
        1. Background. The Commission has administered regulations governing the EEO responsibilities of broadcast licensees since 1969, and of cable television operators since 1972. The Commission's EEO rules prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin or sex (and for Multichannel Video Programming Distributors, or MVPDs, also age), and require broadcasters and MVPDs to provide equal employment opportunities. In addition to these broad dictates applicable to all full-power radio and television broadcasters, Low Power TV, Class A TV and MVPDs, employment units of a specific size in each industry must also follow an EEO program. Specifically, the rules require that each broadcast station (or station employment unit) with five or more full-time employees, and each MVPD employment unit with six or more full-time employees establish, maintain, and carry out a positive continuing program to ensure equal opportunity and nondiscrimination in employment policies and practice.
        2. Among other things, EEO recruitment rules require an employment unit to use recruitment sources for each full-time vacancy that, in its reasonable and good faith judgment, are sufficient to widely disseminate information about the job opening. Broadcasters and MVPDs must use a three-pronged approach to recruit for full-time vacancies: (1) Widely disseminate information concerning each full time (30 hours or more) job vacancy, except for a vacancy filled in exigent circumstances, (2) provide vacancy notices to recruiting organizations that request them, and (3) complete longer-term recruitment initiatives within a two-year period. In 2017, in response to a broadcaster petition that received wide support from the industry and other stakeholders, the Commission updated its EEO policy to allow online job postings to be used as a sole recruitment tool to meet the “widely disseminate” prong of its recruiting rules.
        3. In addition to general EEO efforts, the Commission requires broadcasters and MVPDs to undertake specific EEO recruiting initiatives and keep records sufficient to show compliance with these initiatives. To enforce its EEO rules, the Commission may conduct inquiries of broadcasters and MVPDs at random or if it has evidence of a violation. In addition, the Commission conducts random audits each year of approximately five percent of broadcasters and conducts more intensive reviews of MVPD compliance practices once every five years. The Commission can issue appropriate sanctions and remedies for violations of its EEO rules. The public can also file EEO complaints with the Commission based on the contents of broadcaster and MVPD public files or allegations of rule violations. The Commission's EEO enforcement and associated auditing responsibilities are key priorities.
        4. EEO Enforcement and Compliance. The Commission seeks comment on the agency's track record on EEO enforcement and whether it should make improvements to EEO compliance and enforcement. While the relevant comments in the Form 397 proceeding focused primarily on EEO enforcement and compliance in the broadcast industry, today's Proposed Rule seeks comment on improvements to EEO compliance and enforcement for both broadcasters and MVPDs as well as the Commission's track record on EEO enforcement with respect to both categories of regulated entities.
        5. With respect to its current EEO enforcement efforts, the Commission invites commenters to assess their effectiveness. What elements of the Commission's EEO enforcement program are effective? What elements of the program are not effective? What elements could be improved and how could they be improved? Are there elements that should be added to the EEO enforcement program to increase its effectiveness? Are there elements that should be removed from the program because they are not effective?
        6. In the Form 397 proceeding, a group of 34 organizations (EEO Supporters) offered several suggestions for improving the Commission's EEO enforcement. The Commission already has implemented one of these suggestions, namely the relocation of the Commission's EEO staff from the Media Bureau to the Enforcement Bureau.

        7. With respect to enforcement, the EEO Supporters also suggested that the Commission evaluate its audit program “to ensure that auditors have sufficient information to verify that hiring decisions were made after the job postings were made, not before-hand, and that audits are allowed to uncover discrimination at the points of recruitment, interviewing, and selection.” We invite comment on this proposal. Is it necessary for us to modify our audit program to verify that hiring decisions were made after job openings were posted? If so, what modifications would be necessary? Are our current auditing procedures sufficient to uncover discrimination at the points of recruitment, interviewing, and selection? If not, how could we modify those procedures so that they would be sufficient? Any commenters should describe proposed modifications to our audit program with specificity, supply any data or studies indicating that such proposals would further the Commission's goal of nondiscrimination in employment, provide suggestions for overcoming any implementation difficulties, and compare the relative costs and benefits of such proposals.
        8. Aside from exploring modifications to our audit program, are there other types of enforcement and compliance initiatives the Commission should explore to ensure that its EEO rules are an effective deterrent to discrimination in the broadcast and MVPD industries, including other initiatives previously suggested by the EEO Supporters in other Commission proceedings? Again, commenters should explain any initiatives with specificity, supply any data or studies indicating that such proposals would be consistent with the U.S. Constitution and further the Commission goal of nondiscrimination in broadcaster and MVPD employment, and provide suggestions for overcoming any implementation difficulties.
        Procedural Matters
        9. Ex Parte Rules—Permit-But-Disclose. The proceeding that this Proposed Rule initiates shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must: (1) List all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made; and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with section 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. In proceedings governed by section 1.49(f) of the Commission's rules, or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
        10. Filing Requirements—Comments and Replies. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using ECFS.
         Commenting parties may file comments in response to this Proposed Rule in MB Docket No. 19-177.

          Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the internet by accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.

          Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing.
         Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

         All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW, Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.
         Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
         U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.
        11. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires that a regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared for notice and comment rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A “small business concern” is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).

        12. Written public comments are requested on the IFRA and must be filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines as comments on this Proposed Rule, with a distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA. In addition, a copy of this Proposed Rule and the IRFA will be sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA.
        13. Paperwork Reduction Act. This Proposed Rule seeks comment on whether the Commission should adopt new or modified information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens and pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, invites the public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on these information collection requirements. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, the Commission seeks specific comment on how it might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
        14. People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).
        15. Additional Information. For additional information on this proceeding, please contact Radhika Karmarkar of the Media Bureau, Industry Analysis Division, Radhika.Karmarkar@fcc.gov, (202) 418-1523.
        Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
        16. Need for, and Objective of, the Proposed Rules. This Notice seeks comment on how the Commission can make improvements to equal employment opportunity (EEO) compliance and enforcement.
        17. Legal Basis. The proposed action is authorized under sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 334, and 634 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 334, and 554.
        18. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rule revisions, if adopted. Below, we provide a description of such small entities, as well as an estimate of the number of such small entities, where feasible.
        19. Television Broadcasting. This U.S. Economic Census category comprises establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting images together with sound. These establishments operate television broadcast studios and facilities for the programming and transmission of programs to the public. These establishments also produce or transmit visual programming to affiliated broadcast television stations, which in turn broadcast the programs to the public on a predetermined schedule. Programming may originate in the establishment's own studio, from an affiliated network, or from external sources. The SBA has created the following small business size standard for such businesses: Those having $38.5 million or less in annual receipts. The 2012 Economic Census reports that 751 firms in this category operated in that year. Of that number, 656 had annual receipts of $25 million or less, 25 had annual receipts between $25 million and $49,999,999 and 70 had annual receipts of $50 million or more. Based on these data, we estimate that the majority of commercial television broadcast stations are small entities under the applicable size standard.
        20. Additionally, the Commission has estimated the number of licensed commercial television stations as of March 31, 2019, to be 1383. Of this total, 1,282 stations (or 94.2%) had revenues of $38.5 million or less in 2018, according to Commission staff review of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media Access Pro Television Database (BIA) on April 15, 2019, and therefore these stations qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. In addition, the Commission estimates the number of non-commercial educational (NCE) stations to be 378. The Commission does not compile and does not have access to information on the revenue of NCE stations that would permit it to determine how many such stations would qualify as small entities. There are also 387 Class A stations. Given the nature of this service, the Commission presumes that all of these stations qualify as small entities under the applicable SBA size standard.
        21. Radio Broadcasting. This U.S. Economic Census category comprises establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs by radio to the public. Programming may originate in the establishment's own studio, from an affiliated network, or from external sources. The SBA has created the following small business size standard for such businesses: Those having $38.5 million or less in annual receipts. Economic Census data for 2012 show that 2,849 firms in this category operated in that year. Of that number, 2,806 operated with annual receipts of less than $25 million per year, 17 with annual receipts between $25 million and $49,999,999 million and 26 with annual receipts of $50 million or more. Based on these data, we estimate that the majority of commercial radio broadcast stations qualify as small entities under the applicable SBA size standard.
        22. As of March 31, 2019, the Commission has estimated the number of licensed commercial AM radio stations to be 4,613 and the number of commercial FM radio stations to be 6,762 for a total of 11,375 commercial stations. Of this total, 11,366 stations (or 99.9%) had revenues of $38.5 million or less in 2018, according to Commission staff review of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media Access Pro Television Database (BIA) on April 15, 2019, and therefore these stations qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. In addition, there were 4,139 NCE FM stations. The Commission does not compile and does not have access to information on the revenue of NCE stations that would permit it to determine how many such stations would qualify as small entities.
        23. In assessing whether a business concern qualifies as small under the above definition, business (control) affiliations must be included. Our estimate, therefore, likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by our action because the revenue figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. In addition, an element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity not be dominant in its field of operation. We are unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific radio or television station is dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to which the proposed rules may apply does not exclude any radio or television station from the definition of small business on this basis and is therefore possibly over-inclusive.
        24. Cable Companies and Systems (Rate Regulation Standard). The Commission has also developed its own small business size standards for the purpose of cable rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a “small cable company” is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers nationwide. In addition, under the Commission's rules, a “small system” is a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers. Industry data indicate that there are currently 4,300 active cable systems in the United States. Of this total, 3,550 cable systems have fewer than 15,000 subscribers, and 750 systems have 15,000 or more subscribers. Thus, we estimate that most cable systems are small entities.
        25. Cable System Operators (Telecommunications Act Standard). The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, also contains a size standard for a small cable system operator, which is a cable operator that, directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed $250 million. There are approximately 50,504,642 cable video subscribers in the United States today. Accordingly, an operator serving fewer than 505,046 subscribers shall be deemed a small operator if its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the aggregate. Based on available data, we find that all but six incumbent cable operators are small entities under this size standard. We note that the Commission neither requests nor collects information on whether cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million. Although it seems certain that some of these cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million, we are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of cable system operators that would qualify as small cable operators under the definition in the Communications Act.
        26. We also note that there currently are 182 cable antenna relay service (CARS) licensees. The Commission, however, neither requests nor collects information on whether CARS licensees are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million. Although some CARS licensees may be affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million, we are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of CARS licensees that would qualify as small cable operators under the definition in the Communications Act.
        27. Satellite Master Antenna Television (SMATV) Systems, also known as Private Cable Operators (PCOs). SMATV systems or PCOs are video distribution facilities that use closed transmission paths not using any public right-of-way. They acquire video programming and distribute it via terrestrial wiring in urban and suburban multiple dwelling units such as apartments and condominiums, and commercial multiple tenant units such as hotels and office buildings. SMATV systems or PCOs are now included in the SBA's broad economic census category, “Wired Telecommunications Carriers,” which was developed for small wireline firms. Under this category, the SBA deems a wireline business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Economic Census data for 2012 indicate that in that year there were 3,117 firms operating businesses as wired telecommunications carriers. Of that 3,117, 3,059 operated with 999 or fewer employees. Based on this data, we estimate that a majority of operators of SMATV/PCO companies were small under the applicable SBA size standard.
        28. Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) Service. DBS Service is a nationally distributed subscription service that delivers video and audio programming via satellite to a small parabolic dish antenna at the subscriber's location. DBS is now included in SBA's economic census category “Wired Telecommunications Carriers.” The Wired Telecommunications Carriers industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired telecommunications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution, and wired broadband internet services. By exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry. The same SBA and Economic census data criterial apply to DBS Service as apply to SMATV/PCO companies described in the preceding paragraph. Currently only two entities provide DBS service, which requires a great deal of capital for operation: DIRECTV (owned by AT&T) and DISH Network. DIRECTV and DISH Network each report annual revenues that are in excess of the threshold for a small business. Accordingly, we conclude that, in general, DBS service is provided only by large firms.
        29. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and other Compliance Requirements. The Notice seeks comment on the Commission's track record on EEO enforcement and whether the agency should make improvements to EEO compliance and enforcement.
        30. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities. The Proposed Rule seeks comment on the Commission's track record on EEO enforcement and whether the agency should make improvements to EEO compliance and enforcement. The Commission is open to consideration of alternatives that will minimize the burden on small entities.

          Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap or Conflict with the Proposed Rule. None.
        31. Ordering Clauses. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 334, and 634 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 334, and 554, this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.

        32. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Marlene Dortch,
          Secretary.

      [FR Doc. 2019-15505 Filed 7-19-19; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        [Docket No. 051003254-5254-01; I.D. 092105C]
        RIN 0648-AT88
        Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper-Grouper Fishery Off the Southern Atlantic States; Control Date

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; consideration of a control date.

          SUMMARY:
          This notice announces that the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) is considering management measures to further limit participation or effort in the commercial fishery for snapper grouper species (excluding wreckfish) in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the South Atlantic. Possible measures include individual fishing quotas (IFQ), days-at-sea (DAS), or other programs to further limit participation or effort. If such measures are established, the Council is considering October 14, 2005 as a possible control date.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Julie A. Weeder, 727-551-5753; fax 727-824-5308; e-mail julie.weeder@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The snapper grouper fishery in the EEZ off the southern Atlantic states is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the Council and is implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
        The Council previously established July 30, 1991 (56 FR 36052), as the control date for the snapper grouper fishery (excluding wreckfish), and April 23, 1997 (62 FR 22995), as the control date for the black sea bass pot segment of this fishery. If adopted, the proposed control date of October 14, 2005 would replace both of those control dates for the entire fishery (excluding wreckfish).
        Many species in the South Atlantic snapper grouper fishery are or have been overfished or are undergoing overfishing. A limited access program for the commercial fishery was instituted in Amendment 8 to the FMP in 1998. Implementation of a program that further limits effort or participation in the commercial fishery for snapper grouper species (excluding wreckfish) in the EEZ would require preparation of an amendment to the FMP by the Council and publication of a proposed rule with a public comment period. NMFS' approval of the amendment and issuance of a final rule would also be required.
        As the Council considers these management options, some fishermen who do not currently harvest snapper grouper, or harvest small quantities, may decide to begin or increase participation for the sole purpose of establishing or improving their record of commercial landings. When management authorities begin to consider implementation or expansion of a limited access management regime, this kind of speculative behavior is often responsible for a rapid increase in fishing effort in fisheries that are already fully developed or over developed. The original fishery problems, such as overcapitalization or overfishing, may be exacerbated by this increased participation.
        In order to avoid this problem, if management measures to limit participation or effort in the fishery are determined to be necessary, the Council is considering October 14, 2005 as the control date. After that date, anyone entering the commercial fishery for snapper grouper species (excluding wreckfish) may not be assured of future participation in the fishery if a management regime is developed and implemented that limits the number of fishery participants.

        Consideration of a control date does not commit the Council or NMFS to any particular management regime or criteria for entry into the commercial fishery for snapper grouper species (excluding wreckfish). Fishermen are not guaranteed future participation in this fishery, regardless of their entry date or intensity of participation in the fishery before or after the control date under consideration. The Council may subsequently choose a different control date, or it may choose a management regime that does not make use of such a date. The Council also may choose to take no further action to control entry or access to the fishery, in which case the control date may be rescinded.

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

          Dated: October 7, 2005.
          James W. Balsiger,
          Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 05-20612 Filed 10-13-05; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 180
        [EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0766; FRL-8887-8]
        Tolerance Crop Grouping Program III

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          EPA is proposing revisions to its pesticide tolerance crop grouping regulations, which allow the establishment of tolerances for multiple, related crops based on data from a representative set of crops. The present revisions would expand existing crop groups for stone fruits and tree nuts by establishing new crop subgroups and/or adding new commodities. EPA expects these revisions to promote greater use of crop groupings for tolerance-setting purposes and, in particular, to assist in making available lower risk pesticides for minor crops, both domestically and in countries that export food to the United States. This is the third in a series of planned crop group updates expected to be proposed over the next several years.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before January 9, 2012.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0766, 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 Facility'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.

            Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0766. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or email. The regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

            Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Laura Nollen, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 305-7390; email address: nollen.laura@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 or food 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. 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 email. 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. Tolerance-Setting Requirements and Petitions To Expand the Existing Crop Grouping System
        EPA is authorized to establish maximum residue limits or tolerances for pesticide chemical residues in or on food commodities under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) (21 U.S.C. 346a). EPA establishes pesticide tolerances only after determining that aggregate exposure to the pesticide is considered safe. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) enforce compliance with tolerance limits.
        Traditionally, tolerances are established for a specific pesticide and commodity combination. However, under EPA's crop grouping regulations (40 CFR 180.41), a single tolerance may be established that applies to a group of related commodities. For example, the current Stone Fruit Crop Group 12 includes 11 stone fruit commodities, including cherry, peach, and plum. The proposed Stone Fruit Crop Group 12-11 expands on the existing crop group and will include 22 commodities, if adopted. Crop group tolerances may be established based on residue data from designated representative commodities within the group. Representative commodities are selected based on EPA's determination that they are likely to bear the maximum level of residue that could occur on any crop within the group. Once a crop group tolerance is established, the tolerance level applies to all commodities within the group.

        This proposed rule is the third in a series of planned crop group amendments expected to be completed over the next several years. Specific information regarding the history of the crop group regulations, the previous amendments to the regulations and the process for amending crop groups can be found in the Federal Register of May 23, 2007 (72 FR 28920) (FRL-8126-1). Specific information regarding how the Agency implements crop group amendments can be found in 40 CFR 180.40(j).
        Today's proposal is based upon two petitions developed by the International Crop Grouping Consulting Committee (ICGCC) workgroup and submitted to EPA by a nation-wide cooperative project, the Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4). These petitions and the monographs supporting them have been included in the docket for the proposed rule. EPA expects that a series of additional petitions seeking amendments and changes to the crop grouping regulations (40 CFR 180.41) will originate from the ICGCC workgroup over the next several years.
        EPA believes that this proposal is a burden-reducing regulation. It will provide for greater sharing of data by permitting the results from a magnitude of residue field trial studies in one crop to be applied to other, similar crops. The primary beneficiaries are minor crop producers and consumers. Minor crop producers will benefit because lower registration costs will encourage more products to be registered for use on minor crops, providing additional tools for pest control. Consumers are expected to benefit by having more affordable and abundant food products available. Secondary beneficiaries include pesticide registrants, as expanded markets for pesticide products will lead to increased sales.
        EPA believes that data from representative crops will not underestimate the public exposure to pesticide residues through the consumption of treated crops. IR-4, which is publicly funded, will also more efficiently use resources as a result of this rule. Revisions to the crop grouping scheme will result in no appreciable costs or negative impacts to consumers, minor crop producers, pesticide registrants, the environment, or human health.
        B. International Considerations
        1. North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) partner involvement in proposal. EPA's Chemistry Science Advisory Council (ChemSAC), an internal Agency peer review committee, provided a detailed analysis for each proposed crop group to Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA), IR-4, and the government of Mexico for their review and comment, and invited these parties to participate in the ChemSAC meeting to finalize the recommendations for each petition.
        PMRA has indicated that it will, in parallel with the United States effort and under the authority of Canada's Pest Control Products (PCP) Act (2002), establish equivalent crop groups. Additionally, once the new crop groups become effective in the United States, Mexico will have them as a reference for the establishment of maximum residue limits in Mexico.
        2. Relationship of proposal to Codex activities. The American and Canadian Delegations to the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues (CCPR) have an ongoing effort to harmonize the NAFTA crop groups and representative commodities with those being developed by Codex, an international commission created to develop international food standards, guidelines and related texts, as part of their revision of the Codex Classification of Foods and Feeds. Canada and the United States are working closely with the Chairs of the Codex group for this project (Netherlands and the United States) to coordinate the U. S. crop group amendments with the efforts to amend the Codex crop groups. The goals of coordinating these NAFTA activities with Codex activities are to minimize differences within and among the U. S. and Codex groups and to develop representative commodities for each group that will be acceptable on an international basis. These efforts could lead to the increased harmonization of tolerances and maximum residue level recommendations.
        C. Scheme for Organization of Revised and Pre-Existing Crop Groups
        EPA has amended the generic crop group regulations to include an explicit scheme for how revised crop groups will be organized in the regulations.

        In brief, the regulations now specify that when a crop group is amended in a manner that expands or contracts its coverage of commodities, EPA will (1) Retain the pre-existing crop group in § 180.41; (2) insert the new, related crop group immediately after the pre-existing crop group in the CFR; and (3) title the new, related crop group in a way that clearly differentiates it from the pre-existing crop group. The new, related crop group will retain roughly the same name and number as the pre-existing group except that the number will be followed by a hyphen and the final two digits of the year it is established. For example, EPA is proposing to revise crop group 12: Stone Fruit Group. The revised group will be titled Crop Group 12-11: Stone Fruit Group. Although EPA will initially retain pre-existing crop groups that have been superseded by new crop groups, EPA will not establish new tolerances under the pre-existing groups. Further, EPA plans to eventually convert tolerances for any pre-existing crop groups to tolerances with the coverage of the new crop group. This conversion will be effected both through the registration review process and in the course of establishing new tolerances for a pesticide. To this end, EPA requests that petitioners for tolerances address this issue in their petitions.
        For example, assuming EPA adopts the proposed amendment that would create Crop Group 14-11: Tree Nut Group, any tolerance petition for a pesticide that has a Group 14 tolerance should include a request that the Group 14 tolerance be superseded by a Group 14-11 tolerance, since the representative commodities are equivalent. When all crop group tolerances for a superseded crop group have been revised or removed, EPA will remove the superseded group from § 180.41.
        III. Specific Proposed Revisions
        This Unit explains the proposed amendments to the crop group regulations.
        A. Crop Group 12-11: Stone Fruit Group
        EPA is proposing to revise Stone Fruit Crop Group 12 in the following manner.
        1. Add commodities. EPA proposes to amend existing Crop Group 12 by expanding it from 11 to 22 commodities. The existing Crop Group 12 contains the following 11 commodities:
        • Apricot, Prunus armeniaca;

        • Cherry, sweet, Prunus avium;

        • Cherry, tart, Prunus cerasus;

        • Nectarine, Prunus persica;

        • Peach, Prunus persica;

        • Plum, Prunus domestica, Prunus spp.;
        • Plum, Chickasaw, Prunus angustifolia;

        • Plum, Damson, Prunus domestica spp. insititia;

        • Plum, Japanese, Prunus salicina;

        • Plumcot, Prunus armeniaca x P. domestica;

        • Prune (fresh), Prunus domestica, Prunus spp.
        EPA proposes to expand Crop Group 12 by adding the following 11 additional commodities to the commodities already included in Crop Group 12 and naming the new crop grouping as Crop Group 12-11:
        • Apricot, Japanese, Prunus mume Siebold & Zucc.;
        • Capulin, Prunus serotina Ehrh. subsp. capuli (Cav.) McVaugh;
        • Cherry, black, Prunus serotina Ehrh. subsp. Serotina;

        • Cherry, Nanking, Prunus tomentosa Thunb.;
        • Chokecherry, Prunus virginiana L.;
        • Plum, American, Prunus americana Marshall;
        • Plum, beach, Prunus maritima Marshall;
        • Plum, Canada, Prunus nigra Aiton;
        • Plum, cherry, Prunus cerasifera Ehrh.;
        • Plum, Klamath, Prunus subcordata Benth.;
        • Sloe, Prunus spinosa L.;

        Including cultivars, varieties, and/or hybrids of these.

        The additional commodities proposed for Stone Fruit Crop Group 12-11 were chosen based on similarities and characteristics of the Rosaceae family, of which all existing and proposed commodities are members. The commodities were also chosen based on similarities to the existing stone fruit commodities in cultural practices, edible food and animal feed portions, residue levels, geographical locations, pest problems, established tolerances, and for international harmonization purposes. The scientific names for each commodity entry proposed for Stone Fruit Crop Group 12-11 are also being proposed to be updated to reflect the current taxonomic name.
        2. Create crop subgroups. EPA proposes to add three crop subgroups to Crop Group 12-11: Stone Fruit Group, as follows:
        i. Cherry subgroup 12-11A. (Representative commodities- Sweet cherry or Tart cherry). Six commodities proposed in this subgroup are: Cherry, black; Capulin; Cherry, Nanking; Cherry, sweet; Cherry, tart; and Chokecherry; including cultivars, varieties and/or hybrids of these.
        ii. Peach subgroup 12-11B. (Representative commodity- Peach). Two commodities proposed in this subgroup are: Nectarine and Peach, including cultivars, varieties and/or hybrids of these.
        iii. Plum subgroup 12-11C. (Representative commodities- Plum or Prune, plum). Fourteen commodities proposed in this subgroup are: Apricot; Apricot, Japanese; Plum; Plum, American; Plum, beach; Plum, Canada; Plum, cherry; Plum, Chickasaw; Plum, Damson; Plum, Japanese; Plum, Klamath; Plumcot; Plum, prune; Sloe; including cultivars, varieties and/or hybrids of these.
        The creation of these subgroups and the choice of representative commodity designations are based on similarities in pest pressures, cultural practices, and the edible portion of the commodity. The Agency also determined that three subgroups would be appropriate, as listed above, in order to harmonize with Codex subgroups and representative commodities for stone fruit. EPA has determined that residue data on the designated representative crops will provide adequate information on residue levels in crops and subgroups.
        B. Crop Group 14-11: Tree Nut Group
        EPA is proposing to revise Tree Nuts Crop Group 14 in the following manner.

          Add commodities. EPA proposes to amend the existing Tree Nuts Crop Group 14 by expanding it from 12 to 39 commodities. The existing Crop Group 14 contains the following 12 commodities:
        • Almond, Prunus dulcis;

        • Beechnut, Fagus spp.;
        • Brazil nut, Bertholletia excelsa;

        • Butternut, Juglans cinerea;

        • Cashew, Anacardium occidentale;

        • Chestnut, Castanea spp.;
        • Chinquapin, Castanea pumila;

        • Filbert (hazelnut), Corylus spp.;
        • Hickory nut, Carya spp.;
        • Macadamia nut (bush nut), Macadamia spp.;
        • Pecan, Carya illinoensis;

        • Walnut, black and English (Persian), Juglans spp.
        EPA proposes to expand crop group 14 by adding the following 26 commodities and naming the new crop grouping as Crop Group 14-11. The added commodities are:
        • African nut-tree, Ricinodendron heudelotii (Baill.) Heckel;
        • Brazilian pine, Araucaria angustifolia (Bertol.) Kuntze;
        • Bunya, Araucaria bidwillii Hook.;
        • Bur oak, Quercus macrocarpa Michx.;
        • Cajou nut, Anacardium giganteum Hance ex Engl.;
        • Candlenut, Aleurites moluccanus (L.) Willd.;
        • Coconut, Cocos nucifera L.;
        • Coquito nut, Jubaea chilensis (Molina) Baill.;
        • Dika nut, Irvingia gabonensis (Aubry-Lecomte ex O'Rorke) Baill.;

        • Ginkgo, Ginkgo biloba L.;
        • Guiana chestnut, Pachira aquatica Aubl.;
        • Heartnut, Juglans ailantifolia Carrière var. cordiformis (Makino) Rehder, J. ailantifolia Carrière;
        • Japanese horse-chestnut, Aesculus turbinata Blume;
        • Mongongo nut, Schinziophyton rautanenii (Schinz) Radcl.-Sm.;
        • Monkey-pot, Lecythis pisonis Cambess.;
        • Monkey puzzle nut, Araucaria araucana (Molina) K. Koch;
        • Okari nut, Terminalia kaernbachii Warb.;
        • Pachira nut, Pachira insignis (Sw.) Savigny;
        • Peach palm nut, Bactris gasipaes Kunth var. gasipaes, B. gasipaes Kunth;
        • Pequi, Caryocar brasiliense Cambess., C. villosum (Aubl.) Pers., C. nuciferum L.;
        • Pili nut, Canarium ovatum Engl., C. vulgare Leenh., C. indicum L.;
        • Pine nut, Pinus edulis Engelm., P. koraiensis Siebold & Zucc., P. sibirica Du Tour, P. pumila (Pall.) Regel, P. gerardiana Wall. ex D. Don, P. monophylla Torr. & Frém., P. quadrifolia Parl. ex Sudw., P. pinea L.;
        • Pistachio, Pistacia vera L.;
        • Sapucaia nut, Lecythis zabucaja Aubl.;
        • Tropical almond, Terminalia catappa L.;
        • Yellowhorn, Xanthoceras sorbifolium Bunge
        Including cultivars, varieties, and/or hybrids of these.

        EPA additionally proposes to include the current Crop Group 14 entry for Walnut, black and English (Persian) (Juglans spp.) as two separate commodity entries in the new crop group, as follows: Walnut, black, Juglans hindsii Jeps. ex R. E. Sm., J. microcarpa Berland., J. nigra L.; and Walnut, English, Juglans regia L., including cultivars, varieties, and/or hybrids of these.
        There are 18 different plant families represented in the proposed Tree Nut Crop Group 14-11. The proposed commodities were chosen based on similarities in edible food and animal feed items, residue levels, geographical locations, established tolerances, and for international harmonization purposes. The commodities were also chosen based on similar cultural practices and uses, including harvesting, processing (hulling, drying), marketing, and nutritional values. Therefore, all of these commodities were found to have similar characteristics and uses to become a member of Tree Nut Crop Group 14-11. The scientific names for each commodity entry proposed for Tree Nut Crop Group 14-11 have also been updated to reflect the current taxonomic name.
        Pistachio was previously rejected as a member of Tree Nuts Crop Group 14, because there were concerns that the unsealed husks or shells surrounding pistachio nuts would expose the edible portion to significantly higher pesticide residues than would be found in other tree nuts. Subsequent to that decision, EPA examined scientific literature (Refs. 1 and 2) and found that although the pistachio shell splits before harvest, the nutmeat remains inside an intact hull, so it may not be exposed to a pesticide. Based on this information, a study was conducted to determine how intact the outer hull that surrounds the shell and nutmeat remains during the season, from flowering to harvest. The results of this study confirmed that the shells of pistachio nuts split naturally in the orchard [≤ 80%] prior to harvest, but the hull stays intact, covering and protecting the kernel from invasion by molds, insects, and nonsystemic pesticides (Ref. 3). Therefore, the concerns that the unsealed husks or shells (splits) found in pistachio nuts would expose the edible portion to significantly higher pesticide residues than would occur in other tree nuts proved to be unfounded. Additionally, the EPA conducted an analysis of tolerances that had been established for 15 pesticides on pistachios and compared the tolerance levels with those registered on the same pesticides for other tree nuts. In all cases except for permethrin, the established tolerances were identical. Even with permethrin (§ 180.378), the tolerance of 0.1 ppm established on pistachio was well within the Crop Group limit of 5X for the other tree nuts, which were established at 0.05 ppm. As a result, the Agency concluded that pesticide residues on pistachio nutmeat should be similar to the other nut crops that are members of the existing Tree Nut Crop Group, and are therefore appropriate for inclusion in the revised crop group proposed in this rule.
        IV. References
        The following references are used in this document and are available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking.

          1. Sommer, N.F., J.R. Buchanan, and R.J. Fortlage. 1986. “Relation of Early Splitting and Tattering of Pistachio Nuts to Aflatoxin in the Orchard.” Phytopathology 76:692-694
          2. Sommer, N.F. 1994. “Genetic Variation in the Resistance of Various Cultivars of Tree Nut to Aspergillus flavus,” Univ. CA. Project Report #0500-00029-006-01S. USDA Current Research Information Service.
          3. Schneider, Bernard A. 2000. “Review of Request for Residue Data Developed for Almonds To Be Translatable to Pistachios for Establishing Tolerances.”

        V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
        A. Executive Order 12866
        This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).
        EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action in the first proposed rule published May 23, 2007 (77 FR 28920). This analysis is contained in “Economic Analysis Proposed Expansion of Crop Grouping Program.” A copy of the analysis is available in the docket and is briefly summarized here.
        This is a burden-reducing regulation. Crop grouping has saved money by permitting the results of pesticide exposure studies for one crop to be applied to other, similar crops. This regulation expands certain existing crop groups and adds one new crop group.
        The primary beneficiaries of the regulation are minor crop producers and consumers. Specialty crop producers will benefit because lower registration costs will encourage manufacturers to register more pesticides on minor crops, providing these growers with additional pesticide options. The greater availability of pesticides for use in the United States as well as increased coverage of tolerances to imported commodities may result in a larger supply of imported and domestically produced specialty produce at potentially lower costs benefiting consumers. Secondary beneficiaries are pesticide registrants, who benefit because expanded markets for pesticides will lead to increased sales. IR-4 and EPA, which are publicly funded Federal government entities, will more efficiently use resources as a result of the rule.

        EPA will conserve resources if, as expected, new or expanded crop groups result in fewer emergency pesticide use requests from specialty crop growers. Further, new and expanded crop groups will likely reduce the number of separate risk assessments and tolerance rulemaking that EPA will have to conduct. The public will further benefit from the increased international harmonization of crop classification and nomenclature, harmonized commodity import and export standards, and increased potential for resource sharing between EPA and other pesticide regulatory agencies. Revisions to the crop grouping program will result in no appreciable costs or negative impacts to consumers, specialty crop producers, and pesticide registrants.
        The benefits of the proposed rule can be shown through the example of the impact of changes to Crop Group 3 in a prior rulemaking from December 7, 2007 (72 FR 69150). That rulemaking established Bulb Vegetable Crop Group 3-07, which expanded upon the related Crop Group 3, Bulb Vegetables from 7 to 25 crops, an increase of 18 from the original crop group. Prior to the establishment of the expanded crop group, adding tolerances for the 18 crops would have required a minimum of 18 field trials at a cost of approximately $5.4 million (assuming $300,000 per field trial). However, after promulgation of the new group, these 18 new crops could obtain pesticide tolerances under a Crop Group 3-07 tolerance with no field trials in addition to those required on the representative commodities (which did not change with the expansion of the group). Fewer field trials mean a greater likelihood that these commodities will obtain tolerance coverage under the FFDCA, aiding growers and reducing the costs of both the IR-4 data development process and the EPA review process.
        B. Paperwork Reduction Act

        This action does not impose any new information collection requirements that would require additional review or approval by OMB under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. However, the proposed rule is expected to reduce mandatory paperwork due to a reduction in required studies. The proposed rule will have the effect of reducing the number of residue chemistry studies because fewer representative crops would need to be tested under a crop grouping scheme, than would otherwise be required.
        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 this rule will not have a significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule does not have any direct adverse impacts on small businesses, small non-profit organizations, or small local governments.
        For the purpose of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule on small entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
        In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify and address regulatory alternatives “which minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities” (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604). Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on all of the small entities subject to the rule.
        This proposed action provides regulatory relief and regulatory flexibility. The new crop groups ease the process for pesticide manufacturers to obtain pesticide tolerances on greater numbers of crops. Pesticides will be more widely available to growers for use on crops, particularly specialty crops.
        D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
        Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4), EPA has determined that this proposed regulatory action 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 the private sector in any one year. Accordingly, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202, 203, 204, and 205 of UMRA.
        E. Executive Order 13132
        Pursuant to Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), EPA has determined that this action does not have federalism implications, because 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 the Order. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this proposed rule.
        F. Executive Order 13175
        As required by Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), EPA has determined that this proposed rule does not have tribal implications because it will not have any effect on tribal governments, 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, as specified in the Order. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule.
        G. Executive Order 13045
        Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) does not apply to this proposed rule because this action is not designated as an economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 (see Unit IV.A.), nor does it establish an environmental standard, or otherwise have a disproportionate effect on children.
        H. Executive Order 13211

        This action is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not designated as a regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 (see Unit IV.A.), nor is it likely to have any adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
        I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

        Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), (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 impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, and sampling procedures) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This proposed rule does not impose any technical standards that would require EPA to consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.
        J. Executive Order 12898

        This action does not have an adverse impact on the environmental and health conditions in low-income and minority communities. Therefore, this action does not involve special consideration of environmental justice related issues as specified in Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
          Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, pesticides and pests.

          Dated: October 27, 2011.
          Stephen A. Owens,
          Assistant Administrator for Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.

        Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR chapter I be amended as follows:
        1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
           21 U.S.C. 321(q). 346a and 371.

        2. In § 180.41 amend as follows:
        a. Redesignate paragraphs (c)(17) through (c)(26) as paragraphs (c)(18) through (c)(27), respectively, and add a new paragraph (c)(17).
        b. Redesignate newly redesignated paragraphs (c)(21) through (c)(27) as paragraphs (c)(22) through (c)(28), respectively, and add a new paragraph (c)(21).
        These proposed amendments read as follows:

          § 180.41
          Crop group tables.

          (c) * * *
          (17) Crop Group 12-11: Stone Fruit Group.
          (i) Representative commodities. Sweet cherry or Tart cherry, Peach, and Plum or Prune plum.
          (ii) Commodities. The following Table 1 is a list of all commodities included in Crop Group 12-11.

            Table 1—Crop Group 12-11: Stone Fruit Group

              Commodities
              Related crop
                subgroup

              Apricot (Prunus armeniaca L.)
              12-11C

              Apricot, Japanese (Prunus mume Siebold & Zucc.)
              12-11C

              Capulin (Prunus serotina Ehrh. subsp. capuli (Cav.) McVaugh)
              12-11A

              Cherry, black (Prunus serotina Ehrh. subsp. Serotina)
              12-11A

              Cherry, Nanking (Prunus tomentosa Thunb.)
              12-11A

              Cherry, sweet (Prunus avium L.)
              12-11A

              Cherry, tart (Prunus cerasus L.)
              12-11A

              Chokecherry (Prunus virginiana L.)
              12-11A

              Nectarine (Prunus persica (L.) Batsch var. nucipersica (Suckow) C.K. Schneid)
              12-11B

              Peach (Prunus persica (L.) Batsch var. persica)
              12-11B

              Plum (Prunus domestica L. subsp. Domestica)
              12-11C

              Plum, American (Prunus americana Marshall)
              12-11C

              Plum, beach (Prunus maritima Marshall)
              12-11C

              Plum, Canada (Prunus nigra Aiton)
              12-11C

              Plum, cherry (Prunus cerasifera Ehrh.)
              12-11C

              Plum, Chickasaw (Prunus angustifolia Marshall)
              12-11C

              Plum, Damson (Prunus domestica L. subsp. insititia (L.) C.K. Schneid.)
              12-11C

              Plum, Japanese (Prunus salicina Lindl.; P. salicina Lindl. var. salicina)
              12-11C

              Plum, Klamath (Prunus subcordata Benth)
              12-11C

              Plum, prune (Prunus domestica L. subsp. Domestica)
              12-11C

              Plumcot (Prunus hybr.)
              12-11C

              Sloe (Prunus spinosa L.)
              12-11C

              Cultivars, varieties, and/or hybrids of these

           (iii) Crop subgroups. The following Table 2 identifies the crop subgroups for Crop Group 12-11, specifies the representative commodities for each subgroup, and lists all the commodities included in each subgroup.

            Table 2—Crop Group 12-11: Subgroup Listing

              Representative commodities
              Commodities

              Crop subgroup 12-11A. Cherry subgroup

              Cherry, sweet or Cherry, tart
              Capulin; Cherry, black; Cherry, Nanking; Cherry, sweet; Cherry, tart; Chokecherry; cultivars, varieties, and/or hybrids of these.

              Crop subgroup 12-11B. Peach subgroup

              Peach
              Peach; Nectarine; cultivars, varieties, and/or hybrids of these.

              Crop subgroup 12-11C. Plum subgroup

              Plum or Prune plum
              Apricot; Apricot, Japanese; Plum; Plum, American; Plum, beach; Plum, Canada; Plum, cherry; Plum, Chickasaw; Plum, Damson; Plum, Japanese; Plum, Klamath; Plumcot; Plum, prune; Sloe; cultivars, varieties, and/or hybrids of these.

          (21) Crop Group 14-11. Tree Nut Group.
          (i) Representative commodities. Almond and Pecan.
          (ii) Commodities. The following is a list of all commodities included in Crop Group 14-11.
          Crop Group 14-11: Tree Nut Group—Commodities
          African nut-tree (Ricinodendron heudelotii (Baill.) Heckel)
          Almond (Prunus dulcis (Mill.) D.A. Webb)
          Beechnut (Fagus grandifolia Ehrh., F. sylvatica L., F. sylvatica L. subsp. Sylvatica)
          Brazil nut (Bertholletia excelsa Humb. & Bonpl.)
          Brazilian pine (Araucaria angustifolia (Bertol.) Kuntze)
          Bunya (Araucaria bidwillii Hook.)
          Bur oak (Quercus macrocarpa Michx.)
          Butternut (Juglans cinerea L.)
          Cajou nut (Anacardium giganteum Hance ex Engl.)
          Candlenut (Aleurites moluccanus (L.) Willd.)
          Cashew (Anacardium occidentale L.)
          Chestnut (Castanea crenata Siebold & Zucc., C. dentata (Marshall) Borkh., C. mollissima Blume, C. sativa Mill.)
          Chinquapin (Castanea pumila (L.) Mill., C. ozarkensis Ashe)
          Coconut (Cocos nucifera L.)
          Coquito nut (Jubaea chilensis (Molina) Baill.)
          Dika nut (Irvingia gabonensis (Aubry-Lecomte ex O'Rorke) Baill.)
          Ginkgo (Ginkgo biloba L.)
          Guiana chestnut (Pachira aquatica Aubl.)
          Hazelnut, Filbert (Corylus americana Marshall, C. avellana L., C. californica (A. DC.) Rose, C. chinensis Franch.)
          Heartnut (Juglans ailantifolia Carrière var. cordiformis (Makino) Rehder, J. ailantifolia Carrière)
          Hickory nut (Carya cathayensis Sarg., C. glabra (Mill.) Sweet, C. laciniosa (F. Michx.) W. P. C. Barton, C. myristiciformis (F. Michx.) Elliott, C. ovata (Mill.) K. Koch, C. tomentosa (Lam.) Nutt.)
          Japanese horse-chestnut (Aesculus turbinata Blume)
          Macadamia nut (Macadamia integrifolia Maiden & Betche, M. tetraphylla L.A.S. Johnson)
          Mongongo nut (Schinziophyton rautanenii (Schinz) Radcl.-Sm.)
          Monkey-pot (Lecythis pisonis Cambess.)
          Monkey puzzle nut (Araucaria araucana (Molina) K. Koch)
          Okari nut (Terminalia kaernbachii Warb.)
          Pachira nut (Pachira insignis (Sw.) Savigny)
          Peach palm nut (Bactris gasipaes Kunth var. gasipaes, B. gasipaes Kunth)
          Pecan (Carya illinoinensis (Wangenh.) K.Koch)
          Pequi (Caryocar brasiliense Cambess., C. villosum (Aubl.) Pers, C. nuciferum L.)
          Pili nut (Canarium ovatum Engl., C. vulgare Leenh., C. indicum L.)
          Pine nut (Pinus edulis Engelm., P. koraiensis Siebold & Zucc., P. sibirica Du Tour, P. pumila (Pall.) Regel, P. gerardiana Wall. ex D. Don, P. monophylla Torr. & Frém., P. quadrifolia Parl. ex Sudw., P. pinea L.)
          Pistachio (Pistacia vera L.)
          Sapucaia nut (Lecythis zabucaja Aubl.)
          Tropical almond (Terminalia catappa L.)
          Walnut, black (Juglans hindsii Jeps. ex R. E. Sm., J. microcarpa Berland., J. nigra L.)
          Walnut, English (Juglans regia L.)
          Yellowhorn (Xanthoceras sorbifolium Bunge)
          Cultivars, varieties, and/or hybrids of these.

      [FR Doc. 2011-29071 Filed 11-8-11; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Federal Aviation Administration
        14 CFR Part 71
        [Docket No. FAA-2008-0137]
        Airspace Docket No. 08-AWP-2 Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Death Valley, CA

          AGENCY:
          Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at Death Valley, CA. Controlled airspace is necessary to facilitate vectoring of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) traffic from en route airspace to Las Vegas, NV. The FAA is proposing this action to enhance the safety and management of IFR aircraft operations near Las Vegas, NV.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before October 27, 2008.

          ADDRESSES:

          Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2008-0137; Airspace Docket No. 08-AWP-2, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Richard Roberts, Federal Aviation Administration, Western Service Area, Operations Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203-4517.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Comments Invited
        Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.

        Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2008-0137 and Airspace Docket No. 08-AWP-2) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov.

        Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2008-0137 and Airspace Docket No. 08-AWP-2”. The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
        All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
        Availability of NPRM's

        An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov or the Federal Register's Web page at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.

        You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service Area, Operations Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057.
        Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-9677, for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.
        The Proposal
        The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to establish controlled airspace at Death Valley, CA. This action would enhance the safety and management of IFR aircraft operations by vectoring IFR aircraft from en route airspace to Las Vegas, NV.
        Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6006 of FAA Order 7400.9R, signed August 15, 2007, and effective September 15, 2007, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in this Order.
        The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this proposed regulation; (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

        The FAAs authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes the authority for the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would establish controlled airspace at Death Valley, CA.

          List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
          Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

        The Proposed Amendment
        Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

          PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS
          1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

            § 71.1
            [Amended]
            2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the FAA Order 7400.9R, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, signed August 15, 2007, and effective September 15, 2007 is amended as follows:

              Paragraph 6006 En route domestic airspace areas.

              AWP CA E6 Death Valley, CA [New]
              Clarr Intersection
              (Lat. 35°40′08″ N., long. 115°40′19″  W.)

              That area extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within an area beginning at lat. 36°51′00″ N., long. 116°33′33″ W; thence northwest to lat. 36°56′33″ N., long. 117°11′21″ W; thence southeast to lat. 35°15′25″ N., long. 116°13′00″ W; thence northeast along VOR Federal Airway V-394 to the Clarr Intersection; thence northwest along VOR Federal Airway V-135 to lat. 36°27′39″ N., long. 116°26′33″ W; thence north to lat. 36°46′00″ N., long. 116°26′33″  W.; thence to the point of origin.

            Issued in Seattle, Washington, on August 26, 2008.
            Kevin Nolan,
            Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Area.

      [FR Doc. E8-20985 Filed 9-9-08; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 158
        [OPP-2005-0415; FRL-7734-2]
        RIN 2070-AD51
        Pesticides; Data Requirements for Biochemical and Microbial Pesticides; Notification to the Secretary of Agriculture

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Notification to the Secretary of Agriculture.

          SUMMARY:
          This document notifies the public that the Administrator of EPA has forwarded to the Secretary of Agriculture a draft proposed rule as required by section 25(a) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). As described in the Agency's semi-annual Regulatory Agenda, the draft proposed rule updates and revises data requirements for the registration of microbial and biochemical pesticide products to reflect current scientific knowledge and understanding. These data requirements and those already codified in part 158 of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), are intended to provide EPA with data and other information necessary for the registration of biochemical and microbial pesticide products.

          ADDRESSES:

          EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket identification (ID) number OPP-2005-0415. All documents in the docket are listed in the EDOCKET index at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in EDOCKET or in hard copy at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1801 S. Bell St., Arlington, VA, Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Candace Brassard, Field and External Affairs Division (7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington DC 20460-0001; telephone number: 703-305-6598; e-mail address: brassard.candace@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        I. General Information
        A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

        This action is directed to the public in general. It simply announces the submission of a draft proposed rule to USDA and does not otherwise affect any specific entities. This action may, however, be of particular interest to producers or registrants of a biochemical or microbial pesticide product. This proposal also may affect any person or company who might petition the Agency for new tolerances for biochemical or microbial pesticides, or hold a pesticide registration with existing tolerances, or any person or company who is interested in obtaining or retaining a tolerance in the absence of a registration, that is, an import tolerance for biochemical or microbial pesticides. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be interested in this action. If you have any questions regarding this action, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
        B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of This Document and Other Related Information?
        In addition to using EDOCKET (http://www.epa.gov/edocket/), you may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “Federal Register” listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. A frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 is available at E-CFR Beta Site Two at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr/.

        II. What Action Is EPA Taking?

        Section 25(a)(2) of FIFRA requires the Administrator to provide the Secretary of Agriculture with a copy of any proposed regulation at least 60 days before signing it for publication in the Federal Register. The draft proposed rule is not available to the public until after it has been signed by EPA. If the Secretary comments in writing regarding the draft proposed rule within 30 days after receiving it, the Administrator shall include the comments of the Secretary and the Administrator's response to those comments in the proposed rule when published in the Federal Register. If the Secretary does not comment in writing within 30 days after receiving the draft proposed rule, the Administrator may sign the proposed regulation for publication in the Federal Register anytime after the 30-day period.
        III. Do Any Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Apply to This Notification?
        No. This document is not a proposed rule, it is merely a notification of submission to the Secretary of Agriculture. As such none of the regulatory assessment requirements apply to this document.
        IV. Will This Notification Be Subject to the Congressional Review Act?
        No. This action is not a rule for purposes of the Congressional Review Act (CRA), 5 U.S.C. 804(3), and will not be submitted to Congress and the Comptroller General. EPA will submit the final rule to Congress and the Comptroller General as required by the CRA.

          List of Subjects in 40 Part 158
          Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: October 13, 2005.
          James Jones,
          Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

      [FR Doc. 05-21093 Filed 10-20-05; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-M