Rules and Regulations. Interim rule and request for comments

38,494 words·~175 min read·/register/2006/09/15/06-7706

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

BILLING CODE 3410-05-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 9 CFR Part 78 [Docket No. APHIS-2006-0138] Brucellosis in Cattle; State and Area Classifications; Wyoming AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Interim rule and request for comments. SUMMARY: We are amending the brucellosis regulations concerning the interstate movement of cattle by changing the classification of Wyoming from Class A to Class Free. We have determined that Wyoming meets the standards for Class Free status.

This action relieves certain restrictions on the interstate movement of cattle from Wyoming. DATES: This interim rule was effective September 12, 2006. We will consider all comments that we receive on or before November 14, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov,* select “Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service” from the agency drop-down menu, then click “Submit.” In the Docket ID column, select APHIS-2006-0138 to submit or view public comments and to view supporting and related materials available electronically.

Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket after the close of the comment period, is available through the site's “User Tips” link. • *Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery:* Please send four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to Docket No. APHIS-2006-0138, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No.

APHIS-2006-0138. *Reading Room:* You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call

(202)690-2817 before coming. *Other Information:* Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the Internet at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Debbi A. Donch, Senior Staff Veterinarian, Ruminant Health Programs, National Center for Animal Health Programs, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 43, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231;

(301)734-5952. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Brucellosis is a contagious disease affecting animals and humans, caused by bacteria of the genus *Brucella* . The brucellosis regulations, contained in 9 CFR part 78 (referred to below as the regulations), provide a system for classifying States or portions of States according to the rate of *Brucella* infection present and the general effectiveness of a brucellosis control and eradication program. The classifications are Class Free, Class A, Class B, and Class C. States or areas that do not meet the minimum standards for Class C are required to be placed under Federal quarantine. The brucellosis Class Free classification is based on a finding of no known brucellosis in cattle for the 12 months preceding classification as Class Free. The Class C classification is for States or areas with the highest rate of brucellosis. Class A and Class B fall between these two extremes. Restrictions on moving cattle interstate become less stringent as a State approaches or achieves Class Free status. The standards for the different classifications of States or areas entail

(1)maintaining a cattle herd infection rate not to exceed a stated level during 12 consecutive months;

(2)tracing back to the farm of origin and successfully closing a stated percentage of all brucellosis reactor cases found in the course of Market Cattle Identification

(MCI)testing;

(3)maintaining a surveillance system that includes testing of dairy herds, participation of all recognized slaughtering establishments in the MCI program, identification and monitoring of herds at high risk of infection (including herds adjacent to infected herds and herds from which infected animals have been sold or received), and having an individual herd plan in effect within a stated number of days after the herd owner is notified of the finding of brucellosis in a herd he or she owns; and

(4)maintaining minimum procedural standards for administering the program. Before the effective date of this interim rule, Wyoming was classified as a Class A State. To attain and maintain Class Free status, a State or area must

(1)Remain free from field strain *Brucella abortus* infection for 12 consecutive months or longer;

(2)trace back at least 90 percent of all brucellosis reactors found in the course of MCI testing to the farm of origin;

(3)successfully close at least 95 percent of the MCI reactor cases traced to the farm of origin during the consecutive 12-month period immediately prior to the most recent anniversary of the date the State or area was classified Class Free; and

(4)have a specified surveillance system, as described above, including an approved individual herd plan in effect within 15 days of locating the source herd or recipient herd. The last brucellosis-infected cattle herd in Wyoming was depopulated in December 2004. Since then, no brucellosis-affected herds have been detected. After reviewing the brucellosis program records for Wyoming, we have concluded that this State meets the standards for Class Free status. Therefore, we are removing Wyoming from the list of Class A States in § 78.41(b) and adding it to the list of Class Free States in § 78.41(a). This action relieves certain restrictions on moving cattle interstate from Wyoming. Immediate Action Immediate action is warranted to remove unnecessary restrictions on the interstate movement of cattle from Wyoming. Under these circumstances, the Administrator has determined that prior notice and opportunity for public comment are contrary to the public interest and that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553 for making this action effective less than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . We will consider comments we receive during the comment period for this interim rule (see DATES above). After the comment period closes, we will publish another document in the **Federal Register** . The document will include a discussion of any comments we receive and any amendments we are making to the rule. Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. For this action, the Office of Management and Budget has waived its review under Executive Order 12866. Brucellosis is a contagious, costly disease of ruminants and other animals that can also affect humans. It is mainly a threat to cattle, bison, and swine. The disease causes decreased milk production, weight loss in animals, loss of young, infertility, and lameness. There is no known effective treatment. Depopulation of infected and exposed animals is the only effective means of disease containment and eradication. The State of Wyoming has met the requirements for obtaining Class Free status as outlined in the definition of “Class Free State or area” in § 78.1 of the regulations. This interim rule upgrades the brucellosis status of Wyoming from Class A to Class Free. Cattle and bison that are to be moved interstate from Class A States, except those moving directly to slaughter or to quarantined feedlots, must be tested before they are eligible for movement. Attaining Class Free status allows producers in Wyoming to forgo this cost. Brucellosis testing, including veterinary fees and handling expenses, costs about $7.50 to $15 per test. The expenses forgone as a result of this reclassification in status will not be significant for cattle and calves owners in Wyoming. There were 1.127 million cattle and calves in Wyoming in 2002. The average per-head value of cattle in Wyoming was $1,020 in 2005. Thus, the cost of testing would represent between 0.7 and 1.5 percent of the average value of the animals sold. The upgrading of the State to brucellosis Class Free status will result in a small savings for those entities moving cattle interstate other than directly to slaughter or to quarantined feedlots. The Small Business Administration has established standards for determining whether an entity is considered small under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. An enterprise producing cattle and calves is considered small if it has annual receipts of $750,000 or less. There were 4,997 farms with sales of cattle and calves in Wyoming in 2002. Over 97 percent of these farms had annual receipts not exceeding $750,000. These small farms had average sales of $133,000. In sum, we expect that the majority of cattle and calves operations that will be affected by the interim rule are small entities. The interim rule will benefit producers that sell cattle and calves out of State for breeding and feeding purposes. However, the savings from the forgone testing will be very small, estimated to be about 1 percent of the value of the animals sold. Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Executive Order 12372 This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V.) Executive Order 12988 This interim rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule:

(1)Preempts all State and local laws and regulations that are in conflict with this rule;

(2)has no retroactive effect; and

(3)does not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule. Paperwork Reduction Act This interim rule contains no information collection or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 78 Animal diseases, Bison, Cattle, Hogs, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation. Accordingly, we are amending 9 CFR part 78 as follows: PART 78—BRUCELLOSIS 1. The authority citation for part 78 continues to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8301-8317; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4. 2. Section 78.41 is amended as follows: a. In paragraph (a), by removing the word “and” and by adding the words “, and Wyoming” after the word “Wisconsin”. b. By revising paragraph

(b)to read as set forth below. § 78.41 State/area classification.

(b)*Class A.* Idaho and Texas. Done in Washington, DC, this 12th day of September 2006. Nick Gutierrez, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E6-15327 Filed 9-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 97 [Docket No. 30513 Amdt. No. 3184] Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, Weather Takeoff Minimums; Miscellaneous Amendments AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This amendment establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, addition of new obstacles, or changes in air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports. DATES: This rule is effective September 15, 2006. The compliance date for each SIAP and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums is specified in the amendatory provisions. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of September 15, 2006. ADDRESSES: Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows: *For Examination* — 1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; 2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected airport is located; 3. The National Flight Procedures Office, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or, 4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.* *For Purchase* —Individual SIAP and Weather Takeoff Minimums copies may be obtained from: 1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA-200), FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; or 2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected airport is located. *By Subscription* —Copies of all SIAPs and Weather Takeoff Minimums mailed once every 2 weeks, are for sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald P. Pate, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd. Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (mail address: P.O. Box 25082 Oklahoma City, OK 73125) telephone:

(405)954-4164. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This amendment to Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums is contained in official FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA Forms are identified as FAA forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5 and 8260-15A. Materials incorporated by reference are available for examination or purchase as stated above. The large number of SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the **Federal Register** expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums but refer to their depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums contained in FAA form documents is unnecessary. The provisions of this amendment state the affected CFR sections, with the types and effective dates of the SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums. This amendment also identifies the airport, its location, the procedure identification and the amendment number. The Rule This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums as contained in the transmittal. Some SIAP and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums amendments may have been previously issued by the FAA in a Flight Data Center

(FDC)Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need for some SIAP, and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided. Further, the SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting these SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists for making some SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums effective in less than 30 days. Conclusion The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(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. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97 Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, and Navigation (Air). Issued in Washington, DC on September 8, 2006. James J. Ballough, Director, Flight Standards Service. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, under Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or revoking Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Weather Takeoff Minimums effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows: PART 97—STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES 1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722. 2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows: * * * Effective 28 September 2006 Agana, GU, Guam International, RNAV

(GPS)Y RWY 6R, Amdt 1 Agana, GU, Guam International, RNAV

(RNP)Z RWY 24R, Orig * * * Effective 26 October 2006 Atlanta, GA, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 27L, Amdt 15B Atlanta, GA, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta Intl, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 27L, Amdt 1B * * * Effective 23 November 2006 Barter Island, AK, Barter Island LRRS, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 7, Orig Barter Island, AK, Barter Island LRRS, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 25, Orig Barter Island, AK, Barter Island LRRS, GPS RWY 6, Orig, CANCELLED Barter Island, AK, Barter Island LRRS, GPS RWY 24, Orig, CANCELLED Atlanta, GA, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Textual DP, Amdt 3 New Lenox, IL, Howell-New Lenox, VOR OR GPS-A, Orig, CANCELLED Annapolis, MD, Lee, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 30, Orig-D Minneapolis, MN, Minneapolis-St Paul Intl/Wold Chamberlain, ILS OR LOC RWY 35, ILS RWY 35 (CAT II), ILS RWY 35 (CAT III), Orig-A St. Cloud, MN, St Cloud Regional, ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 13, Orig Eugene, OR, Mahlon Sweet Field, LOC/DME RWY 16L, Orig-A, CANCELLED Eugene, OR, Mahlon Sweet Field, ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 16L, Orig St. George, UT, St George Muni, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 34, Amdt 1A Saratoga, WY, Shively Field, NDB-A, Amdt 1 Saratoga, WY, Shively Field, RNAV (GPS)-B, Orig [FR Doc. E6-15251 Filed 9-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 193 Designation of Voluntary Disclosure Reporting Program

(VDRP)Information as Protected From Public Disclosure ACTION: Notice of order. SUMMARY: On August 17, 2006, the Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)issued FAA Order 8000.89, Designation of Voluntary Disclosure Reporting Program

(VDRP)Information as Protected from Public Disclosure under 14 CFR Part 193. There is a regulatory requirement to print the order in its entirety in the **Federal Register** . The entire order follows after the subtitle, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION . DATES: Effective August 17, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Thomas Longridge, Manager, Voluntary Safety Programs, Flight Standards Service; Telephone:

(703)661-0275; E-mail: *thomas.longridge@faa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 1. Purpose This order designates information received by the agency from a Voluntary Disclosure Reporting Program

(VDRP)as protected from public disclosure in accordance with the provisions of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 193. 2. Distribution This order is distributed to the branch level in the Washington headquarters Flight Standards Service; Aviation System Standards; all Regional Administrators; to the Directors of the Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center and the Europe, Africa, and Middle East Area Office; to the Regulatory Standards Division at the FAA Academy; to the branch level in the regional Flight Standards Divisions; to all Flight Standards District Offices; to all International and Aeronautical Quality Assurance Field Offices; to all Flight Standards Certificate Management Offices; and to all Aircraft Evaluation Groups. 3. Background Under Title 49 of the United States Code (49 U.S.C.) 40123, certain voluntarily provided safety and security information is protected from disclosure in order to encourage persons to provide the information to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The FAA must first issue an order that specifies why the agency finds that the information should be protected in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 40123. The FAA's rules for implementing that section are in 14 CFR part 193. If the Administrator issues an order designating information as protected under 49 U.S.C. 40123, that information will not be disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act (Title 5 of the United States Code (5 U.S.C.) 552) or other laws, except as provided in 49 U.S.C. 40123, 14 CFR part 193, and the order designating the information as protected. This order is issued under part 193, § 193.11, which sets out the notice procedure for designating information as protected. 4. Applicability This order is applicable to any FAA office that receives information covered under this designation from a VDRP. The order also is applicable to any other government agency that receives such information from the FAA. In order for any other government agency to receive VDRP information covered under this designation from the FAA, each such agency must first stipulate, in writing, that it will abide by the provisions of part 193 and this order. 5. Summary of the VDRP Voluntary Information Sharing Program a. *Qualified Participants.* Regulated entities as provided in Advisory Circular

(AC)00-58, as amended, or, for hazardous materials, in accordance with AC 121-37, as amended. b. *Voluntarily Provided Information Protected from Disclosure Under This Designation.* The content of all submissions by a regulated entity that are accepted under the VDRP, including, but not limited to, all of the following items:

(1)Information contained in an initial notification to the FAA:

(a)A brief description of the apparent violation, including an estimate of the duration of time that it remained undetected, as well as how and when it was discovered;

(b)Verification that noncompliance ceased after it was identified;

(c)A brief description of the immediate action taken after the apparent violation was identified, the immediate action taken to terminate the conduct that resulted in the apparent violation, and the person responsible for taking the immediate action;

(d)Verification that an evaluation is underway to determine if there are any systemic problems;

(e)Identification of the person responsible for preparing the comprehensive fix; and

(f)Acknowledgment that a detailed written report will be provided to the designated FAA official within 10 working days.

(2)Information contained in a detailed written report:

(a)A list of the specific FAA regulations that may have been violated;

(b)A description of the apparent violation, including the duration of time it remained undetected, as well as how and when it was detected;

(c)A description of the immediate action taken to terminate the conduct that resulted in the apparent violation, including when it was taken, and who was responsible for taking the action;

(d)An explanation that shows the apparent violation was inadvertent;

(e)Evidence that demonstrates the seriousness of the apparent violation and the regulated entity's analysis of that evidence;

(f)A detailed description of the proposed comprehensive fix, outlining the planned corrective steps, the responsibilities for implementing those corrective steps, and a time schedule for completion of the fix; and

(g)Identification of the company official responsible for monitoring the implementation and completion of the comprehensive fix.

(3)FAA generated documentation and electronic information that is directly associated with an accepted VDRP submission, including, but not limited to:

(a)Acknowledgement of receipt of a VDRP submission.

(b)Notification of VDRP acceptance, request for modification, or rejection.

(c)Routine correspondence directly associated with a VDRP submission.

(d)FAA records directly associated with FAA monitoring of a comprehensive fix.

(e)FAA Letter of Correction for an accepted VDRP submission.

(f)A FAA electronic database of VDRP submissions and FAA responses. Note: The type of information or circumstances under which the information listed above would not be protected from disclosure is discussed in paragraph 6e(2) of this order. c. *Ways to Participate.* Regulated entities may participate by submitting a voluntary disclosure in accordance with the procedures in Advisory Circular 00-58, as amended, or, for hazardous materials, in accordance with Advisory Circular 121-37. d. *Duration of this Information-Sharing Program.* This information sharing program will continue in effect indefinitely, unless the FAA terminates the VDRP, or until the order of designation under 14 CFR part 193 for the VDRP is withdrawn by the FAA. 6. Findings The FAA designates information received from an accepted VDRP submission as protected under 49 U.S.C. 40123 and part 193, § 193.7, based on the following findings: a. *Summary of Why the FAA Finds that the Information Will Be Provided Voluntarily.* The FAA finds that the information will be provided voluntarily. No certificate holder is required to participate in the VDRP. Initiation of submissions under the VDRP are indicative of the willingness of regulated entities to identify and correct their own instances of regulatory noncompliance, develop long term comprehensive fixes, and foster safe operating practices. b. * Description of the Type of Information that may be Voluntarily Provided Under the Program and a Summary of Why the FAA Finds that the Information is Safety or Security-Related. *

(1)The information that would be voluntarily submitted under a VDRP is described in AC 00-58, as amended, or AC 121-37, as amended. VDRP information submitted by a certificate holder includes:

(a)Initial notification to the FAA of a VDRP submission. 1. A brief description of the apparent violation, including an estimate of the duration of time that it remained undetected, as well as how and when it was discovered; 2. Verification that noncompliance ceased after it was identified; 3. A brief description of the immediate action taken after the apparent violation was identified, the immediate action taken to terminate the conduct that resulted in the apparent violation, and the person responsible for taking the immediate action; 4. Verification that an evaluation is underway to determine if there are any systemic problems; 5. Identification of the person responsible for preparing the comprehensive fix; and 6. Acknowledgment that a detailed written report will be provided to the designated FAA official within 10 working days.

(b)Information contained in a detailed written report submitted by the certificate holder to the FAA: 1. A list of the specific FAA regulations that may have been violated; 2. A description of the apparent violation, including the duration of time it remained undetected, as well as how and when it was detected; 3. A description of the immediate action taken to terminate the conduct that resulted in the apparent violation, including when it was taken, and who was responsible for taking the action; 4. An explanation that shows the apparent violation was inadvertent; 5. Evidence that demonstrates the seriousness of the apparent violation and the regulated entity's analysis of that evidence; 6. A detailed description of the proposed comprehensive fix, outlining the planned corrective steps, the responsibilities for implementing those corrective steps, and a time schedule for completion of the fix; and 7. Identification of the company official responsible for monitoring the implementation and completion of the comprehensive fix.

(2)Because the Federal Aviation Regulations specify the minimum requirements for safety, and VDRP submissions entail possible violations of those regulations, the FAA finds that the information is inherently safety related. c. *Summary of Why the FAA Finds that the Disclosure of the Information Would Inhibit Persons from Voluntarily Providing that Type of Information.*

(1)The FAA finds that disclosure of VDRP information would inhibit the voluntary provision of that type of information because regulated entities have stated they are reluctant to voluntarily disclose instances of regulatory noncompliance if such submissions might be subject to public disclosure. A significant impediment to participation in the VDRP is concern over public disclosure of the information, and, if disclosed, the potential for it to be used for other than the system safety enhancement purposes for which the VDRP was created. Withholding such information from disclosure is consistent with the FAA's safety and security responsibilities because, unless the FAA can provide assurance that it will not be disclosed, regulated entities will be reluctant to participate in the program.

(2)Although regulated entities have voluntarily disclosed information under the VDRP for several years, they did so after the FAA promised that such information would be deidentified in the Enforcement Information System (EIS), which is the FAA's central and national database of enforcement action information. The entities were reluctant to participate in the VDRP without this promise for fear that information they disclosed would be readily available to the public through a FOIA request for records in the EIS. So that entities continue to use the VDRP, the FAA has not kept the identity of persons reporting, or detailed information about disclosures, under that program in the EIS or any other central database.

(3)The FAA finds that by virtue of designating information provided under the VDRP as protected under 14 CFR part 193, the reluctance of regulated entities to participate due to concerns about possible disclosure of the information will be mitigated. In addition, FAA will be able to retain more information about the disclosures, including the identity of the reporters, in an FAA database, without negatively impacting participation in the VDRP. Disclosures under the VDRP enable the FAA to become aware of many more instances of regulatory noncompliance than it otherwise would, and moreover, the VDRP permits the FAA to assure that appropriate corrective action is taken. If regulated entities do not participate, the FAA and the public will be deprived of the opportunity to make the system safety improvements that receipt of the information otherwise enables. d. *Summary of Why the Receipt of that Type of Information Aids in Fulfilling the FAA's Safety and Security Responsibilities.* The FAA finds that receipt of VDRP information aids in fulfilling the FAA's safety and security responsibilities. A primary purpose of FAA regulations is to assure public safety. Because the VDRP identifies and corrects instances of regulatory noncompliance of which the FAA may be otherwise unaware, the program offers significant potential for enhancement of public safety. Receipt of this otherwise unavailable information would also provide the FAA with an improved basis for modifying procedures, policies, and regulations to improve safety and efficiency. e. *Consistencies and Inconsistencies with FAA Safety and Security Responsibilities.*

(1)The FAA finds that withholding VDRP information provided to the FAA is consistent with the FAA's safety responsibilities. The VDRP specifically provides that appropriate corrective action must be taken by the regulated entity for all instances of regulatory noncompliance accepted under the program. To be accepted by the FAA, apparent violations disclosed under the program must be inadvertent, and, where applicable, must not indicate a lack, or reasonable question of a lack, of qualification of the regulated entity. Corrective action under the VDRP can be accomplished by the regulated entity and verified by the FAA without disclosure of the protected information. If the FAA determines that the steps taken by the entity are not those documented in the written report, the submission may be excluded from the VDRP, and appropriate legal enforcement action may be initiated.

(2)The FAA will release information submitted under a VDRP as specified in part 193 and this order. To explain the need for changes in FAA policies, procedures, and regulations, the FAA may disclose de-identified (i.e., the identity of the source of the information and the names of the certificate holder, employees, and other persons, as well as any other information that could be used to ascertain the identity of the submitter, redacted) summary information that has been extracted from submissions accepted under the VDRP. The FAA may disclose de-identified, summarized VDRP information that identifies a systemic problem in the aviation system, when other persons need to be advised of the problem so that they can take corrective action. The FAA may disclose de-identified aggregate statistical information concerning VDRP submissions. The FAA may disclose independently obtained information relating to any event disclosed in a VDRP report, unless the FAA determines that in the case of an accepted VDRP submission, release of such independently obtained information would be inconsistent with the provisions of this order, or would otherwise be prohibited by public law or regulation. The FAA also may disclose information concerning enforcement action taken for a regulatory violation initially identified in a VDRP submission, when that submission is not accepted by the FAA, or if accepted, it is later excluded by the FAA, because of the regulated entity's failure to comply with the criteria of the VDRP. f. *Summary of How the FAA will Distinguish Information Protected under Part 193 from Information the FAA Receives from Other Sources.* In accordance with AC 00-58, all VRDP submissions must be clearly identified as such by the regulated entity making the submission. Any other information received by the FAA from the regulated entity concerning the content of a VDRP submission must be clearly labeled as follows to be eligible for protection under this designation: “WARNING: The Information in this Document is Protected from Disclosure under 49 U.S.C. 40123 and 14 CFR part 193.” If the information is submitted electronically, the warning notice must be appropriately embedded in the electronic submission in a fashion that assures the visibility of the warning to any viewer. 7. Designation The FAA designates the information described in paragraph 5b of this order to be protected from disclosure in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 40123, and 14 CFR part 193, when obtained by the FAA pursuant to an accepted VDRP submission. Appendix 1.—Summary of Significant Comments Received and the FAA's Response A proposed Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)order designating Voluntary Disclosure Reporting Program

(VDRP)information as protected from disclosure under Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 193 was published in the **Federal Register** on May 25, 2006 ( **Federal Register** , Volume 71, Number 101, pages 30094—30097). Comments were received from five commenters, including two major trade associations, and two large manufacturers. All commenters supported the FAA proposed action to protect VDRP information from disclosure under 14 CFR part 193. However, some commenters provided additional recommendations concerning the proposed FAA action. These comments and the FAA responses are as follows: 1. Documents that the FAA generates in response to a voluntary disclosure should be exempt from public disclosure. a. *Comment.*

(1)We agree with the proposed findings in the order. They describe in some detail the FAA's reasoning for the program and its operation. These conclusions fulfill the findings requirement of 49 U.S.C. 40123(a), which is the statutory foundation for the VDRP.

(2)We, however, urge that the scope of the VDRP be clarified in one important respect. Documents that the FAA generates in response to a carrier's voluntary disclosure, such as Letters of Correction, should be exempt from public disclosure. The self-reporting that the VDRP encourages will be imperiled if agency documents tied to a disclosure are subject to public release. For that reason, we urge that the final order that the FAA issues in this docket make clear that the agency's work product that could identify a carrier be designated as exempt from disclosure. The same policy should also apply to carrier disclosures made under AC 121-37, which contains the voluntary disclosure reporting program for hazardous materials. b. *The FAA Response.* The FAA concurs that the recommendation in the comment is consistent with the intent of this order. FAA generated documentation that is directly associated with an accepted VDRP submission has now been explicitly listed in the FAA order as protected from disclosure under part 193. 2. The proposed provision that the FAA may disclose independently obtained information related to any event disclosed in a VDRP report may undermine the purpose of the VDRP. a. *Comment.* The [production certificate holder] supports the intent of the Proposed Order to protect information from disclosure. However, [the production certificate holder] has the following comment relating to the Proposed Order: “The FAA may disclose independently obtained information relating to any event disclosed in a VDRP report.” We recommend this sentence be removed from the Proposed Order because it could potentially undermine the purpose of the VDRP. For example, a certificate holder's proprietary information should not be disclosed outside of established processes under FOIA, regardless of the source of the information. In addition, there are circumstances under which the FAA may disclose information it believes was independently obtained when, in fact, it had already been provided to the FAA by the certificate holder. For example, the certificate holder could have disclosed the information to a local FAA office, and subsequently the same or related information could have been obtained by another FAA office from another source; in this situation, the second FAA office could disclose without knowing the first FAA office already had the information. b. *The FAA Response.* The FAA does not concur. The FAA routinely receives proprietary information. When such proprietary information is submitted to any FAA office, whether associated with a voluntary disclosure or otherwise, it will be protected from disclosure to the extent permitted by law and with associated long standing FAA policy, provided that the propriety claim concerning that information is prominently displayed in the submission, as is a standard procedure in such cases. With regard to the example cited (in which information voluntarily disclosed to a local FAA office might also have been obtained by another FAA office “from another source”): if the other source did in fact entail information independently obtained by the FAA (as could occur, for example, through FAA surveillance activities, or through an independent FAA investigation, or through third party notification to the FAA), then the fact that such information was also contained in a voluntary disclosure would not ordinarily warrant the protection from release of that information independently obtained by the FAA. FAA policy prohibits acceptance of a submission under the VDRP when the FAA has already learned of the violation on its own. In that example, therefore, if the FAA had obtained this information from another source prior to the VDRP submission, then FAA VDRP policy would preclude acceptance under the VDRP. If, however, the “other source” for information received by the FAA is in fact the production approval holder that submitted the same information in an associated voluntary disclosure, or submitted it outside of a voluntary disclosure wherein the relevance of the information to the regulatory violation was not recognized by the FAA or the production approval holder at the time, it is incumbent upon the submitter to alert the FAA to that fact. To accommodate that hypothetical situation, the language in paragraph 6e of this order now states: “The FAA may disclose independently obtained information relating to any event disclosed in a VDRP report, unless the FAA determines that in the case of an accepted VDRP submission, release of such independently obtained information would be inconsistent with the provisions of this order, or would otherwise be prohibited by public law or regulation”. For accepted submissions under the VDRP, the information contained therein must be protected from disclosure in accordance with the provisions of this FAA order and 14 CFR part 193. 3. The proposed text that suggests or allows release of disclosure information that has been obtained from another source, beyond the control of the “regulated entity,” should be struck from the proposed FAA order. a. *Comment:* [The production certificate holder] has similar reservations as those voiced by another production certificate holder, who also has provided comments to this same proposed order: The proposed text that suggests or allows release of disclosure information that has been obtained from another source, beyond the control of the “regulated entity,” should be struck from the proposed FAA order. To adhere to the requirements of FAA Order 2150.3, Compliance/Enforcement Bulletin 92-2, Advisory Circular 00-58 and 121-37, and to assure that the intent of the VDRP remains robust and without reservation, the production approval holder must step up and be accountable to ensure that immediate and long term corrective action plans developed to mitigate the circumstances of an escape are sound, effective, and implemented as pledged. The “regulated entity” does not have control of information sources outside the chain of the disclosure proper. By the same token, the “regulated entity” making the disclosure actually becomes the expert and information funnel for all factual matters associated with the disclosure. In sum, we consider that provisions for release of information without the counsel of the regulated entity would undermine the intent of the VDRP. It could allow information to be made public that could have negative connotation for, and actually hamper, ongoing investigations and airworthiness evaluations associated with the disclosure. b. *The FAA response.* The FAA does not concur. There are at least two situations in which the FAA cannot assure independently obtained information relating to a voluntary disclosure will not be released. One such situation occurs when a regulatory violation, initially identified in a VDRP submission, is not accepted by the FAA, or if accepted, is later excluded by the FAA, because of the regulated entity's failure to comply with the requirements of the VDRP. In such situations the FAA will conduct an independent investigation of the event, and if warranted, the resulting enforcement record based on the information independently obtained by the FAA is subject to disclosure under FOIA. No change in that policy is deemed necessary or appropriate. Another circumstance under which independently obtained information relating to an event reported under the VDRP may not be fully protected by the FAA occurs when an outside party has observed and reported a regulatory violation to the FAA. In such situations, the FAA must be permitted to assure the reporting party that the FAA has responded to their report(s) and that action has been taken to prevent recurrence of the violation. Such action is necessary to maintain public confidence. The comment expresses concern about the release of information from another source beyond the control, and outside of the chain of command, of the regulated entity. Clearly the FAA also has no control over the submission to the FAA of information related to the voluntary disclosure by a source outside the control or chain of command of the regulated entity. The FAA does not believe that such independently obtained information would ordinarily qualify for protection from public release under this order and part 193. However, in order to accommodate a hypothetical situation in which protection from release is warranted, paragraph 6e of this order now states: “The FAA may disclose independently obtained information relating to any event disclosed in a VDRP report, unless the FAA determines that in the case of an accepted VDRP submission, release of such independently obtained information would be inconsistent with the provisions of this order, or would otherwise be prohibited by public law or regulation.” 4. Depending upon how the proposed right of disclosure is interpreted and put into practice, the following proposed provision could have a negative impact on encouraging voluntary disclosure: “The FAA also may disclose any information about a disclosure initially submitted under the VDRP that is not accepted, or accepted, but later excluded because of the regulated entity's failure to comply with the criteria of the VDRP.” a. *Comment.* [The company] recommends that this sentence be removed from the Proposed Order because, depending upon how the proposed right of disclosure is interpreted and put into practice, it could potentially have a negative impact upon sound FAA policy encouraging voluntary disclosure of information by certificate holders. For example, the local FAA office has approved [the company's] procedure for submittal of voluntary disclosures meeting the intent of AC 00-58. [The company] has various data systems to track information drawn from different databases. Such information drawn from multiple sources could be included in a voluntary disclosure. In that circumstance, the information and the format in which the information is provided meets the intent of the VDRP, but would not necessarily strictly comply with every technical requirement of AC 00-58, where the VDRP criteria is contained. As noted above, the local FAA office has approved a [company] procedure for submittal of voluntary disclosures that meets the intent of AC 00-58. However, if this sentence remains in the Proposed Order, then the FAA could decide to disclose information submitted in connection with a voluntary disclosure because of a technical deviation from the criteria in AC 00-58. If this occurs, certificate holders could potentially be disincentivized [ *sic* ] from providing the FAA with information because of the possibility of disclosure absent discussion and consensus. [The company] believes a better practice would be to permit local FAA offices to maintain flexibility to work with certificate holders relating to the format in which information voluntarily disclosed is received. b. *The FAA Response.* The FAA does not concur. Nothing in this order changes the discretionary authority of a local FAA office to accept or reject a voluntary disclosure. Information contained in an accepted voluntary disclosure will be protected in accordance with the provisions of this order and 14 CFR part 193, regardless of its format. The FAA acknowledges industry concerns regarding sensitive information. This FAA order will establish explicit protections concerning disclosure of such information when it is provided in conjunction with an accepted VDRP submission. Issued in Washington, DC, on August 17, 2006. James J. Ballough, Director, Flight Standards Service. [FR Doc. E6-15257 Filed 9-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 17 CFR Parts 400, 401 402, 403, 404 and 405 [Docket No. BPD GSRS 06-01] RIN 1505-AB70 Government Securities Act Regulations: Applicability to Over-the-Counter Derivatives Dealers AGENCY: Office of the Under Secretary for Domestic Finance, Treasury. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Department of the Treasury (“Treasury” or “We”) is issuing this final rule to amend the regulations issued under the Government Securities Act of 1986 (“GSA”), as amended. This technical amendment makes no substantive changes, but adds language to state explicitly that we deem over-the-counter (“OTC”) derivatives dealers that are also government securities dealers to be in compliance with the GSA regulations if they comply with the applicable Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) OTC derivatives dealer rules and other SEC rules applicable to them. DATES: *Effective Date:* September 15, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may download this final rule from the Bureau of the Public Debt's Web site at *http://www.treasurydirect.gov* or from the Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (e-CFR) Web site at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.* It is also available for public inspection and copying at the Treasury Department Library, Room 1428, Main Treasury Building, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220. To visit the library, call

(202)622-0990 for an appointment. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lori Santamorena (Executive Director) or Chuck Andreatta (Associate Director), Bureau of the Public Debt, Government Securities Regulations Staff,

(202)504-3632 or e-mail us at *govsecreg@bpd.treas.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background In 1998, the SEC adopted various rules and rule amendments (the “OTCDD Rules” 1 ) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“the Exchange Act”) that define and regulate “OTC derivatives dealers (OTCDDs),” a category of registered broker-dealers that engage in certain over-the-counter derivatives activities, but not the full range of securities activities traditionally associated with full-purpose broker-dealers. 2 The OTCDD Rules created a flexible regulatory framework under which U.S. securities firms could establish separately capitalized OTCDDs within the United States that will engage in dealer activities in both securities and non-securities OTC-derivative instruments and be able to “compete more effectively with banks and foreign dealers in global OTC derivatives markets, while also maintaining standards necessary to ensure investor protection.” 3 1 The OTCDD Rules are commonly referred to as the “Broker-Dealer Lite” rules. 2 Exchange Act Release No. 40594 (October 23, 1998), 63 FR 59362 (November 3, 1998). 3 Id. at 59364. Certain securities derivatives transactions in which an OTCDD may engage include options on particular government securities. Such unlisted options constitute “government securities” for purposes of Section 15C of the Exchange Act. 4 If OTCDDs act as “dealers” in OTC derivative instruments that are “government securities,” they are also subject to regulation as “government securities dealers” under Section 15C of the Exchange Act and the GSA regulations. 5 4 For purposes of section 78o-5, a “government security” includes an option on a government security other than an option

(i)that is traded on one or more national securities exchanges; or

(ii)for which quotations are disseminated through an automated quotation system operated by a registered securities association. 15 U.S.C. 78c(42)(D). 5 63 FR 59362. Under 15 U.S.C. 78o-5(a)(1)(B)(1), a broker or dealer effecting, inducing, or attempting to induce the purchase or sale of a government security must file with the appropriate regulatory agency written notice that it is a government securities broker or dealer. Thus, an OTC derivatives dealer that engages in government securities transactions must also file notice of such activities with the SEC on Form BD. The GSA required the Secretary of the Treasury to adopt rules with respect to transactions in government securities effected by government securities brokers and dealers in the areas of financial responsibility, protection of investor securities and funds, recordkeeping, reporting and audit. The regulatory framework established by the GSA required the Secretary in promulgating these rules to “consider the sufficiency and appropriateness of then existing law and rules applicable” to government securities brokers and dealers. 6 In issuing the final GSA rules in 1987, Treasury considered already existing regulation with a view toward preventing overly burdensome and duplicative regulation. 7 Treasury's GSA rules therefore generally provide that compliance by registered brokers and dealers with certain applicable SEC rules constitutes compliance with the GSA rules. 6 15 U.S.C. 78o-5(b)(5)(C). 7 52 FR 27910 (July 24, 1987). Moreover, Treasury has concluded and wishes to affirm that the SEC rules issued in 1998 for registered brokers and dealers that are OTCDDs are sufficient and appropriate for government securities brokers and dealers. Thus, for OTCDDs that write options on government securities, compliance with SEC rules constitutes compliance with the GSA rules. This is the result under the current GSA rules. However, in response to recent questions we have received, and recognizing that the current GSA rules require the reader to refer to other, separate SEC rules, we are amending the GSA rules to be more transparent and explicitly cover OTCDDs. These amendments make no substantive change, but merely add specific references to OTCDDs as a category of registered broker or dealer so that it will be clearer that OTCDDs are treated the same way as other registered brokers and dealers under the GSA rules. These changes appear in one general provision and four specific provisions of the GSA rules addressing financial responsibility, customer protection, recordkeeping, and reporting, respectively. We have consulted with the staff of the SEC in developing this amendment. Special Analysis Because this rule makes no substantive change to the existing rules, and imposes no additional requirements on OTCDDs that are government securities brokers or dealers, we find under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and (d)(3) that there is good cause that notice and public procedures are unnecessary, and that the rule can be issued in direct final form and made effective immediately. The final rule is not a “significant regulatory action” for the purposes of Executive Order 12866. Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ) do not apply. List of Subjects 17 CFR Part 400 Administrative practice and procedure, Banks, Banking, Brokers, Government securities, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 17 CFR Part 401 Banks, Banking, Brokers, Government securities. 17 CFR Part 402 Brokers, Government securities. 17 CFR Part 403 Banks, Banking, Brokers, Government securities. 17 CFR Part 404 Banks, Banking, Brokers, Government securities, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 17 CFR Part 405 Brokers, Government securities, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of the Treasury amends 17 CFR parts 400, 401, 402, 403, 404, and 405 as follows: PART 400—RULES OF GENERAL APPLICATION 1. The authority citation for part 400 continues to read as follows: Authority: 15 U.S.C. 78o-5. 2. Section 400.1 is amended by revising paragraph

(a)to read as follows: § 400.1 Scope of regulations.

(a)Title I of the Government Securities Act of 1986 (Pub. L. 99-571, 100 Stat. 3208) amends the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (48 Stat. 881-905; 15 U.S.C. chapter 2B) (“Act”) by adding section 15C, authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to promulgate regulations concerning the financial responsibility, protection of customer securities and balances, recordkeeping and reporting of brokers and dealers in government securities. Those regulations constitute subchapter A of this chapter. Unless otherwise explicitly provided, all regulations in this subchapter apply to all government securities brokers or dealers, including registered brokers or dealers and financial institutions. Registered brokers or dealers include OTC derivatives dealers. § 400.2 [Amended] 3. Amend § 400.2 as follows: A. In paragraph (c)(3)(vi), remove the reference “Room 553, 999 E Street NW.,” and add in its place “9th Floor, 799 9th Street NW.,”. B. In paragraph (c)(7)(i), remove the reference “Room 5030,” and add it is place “Room 1318,”. 4. Section 400.3 is amended by removing the alphabetical paragraph designations and adding a new definition in alphabetical order for “OTC derivatives dealer” to read as follows: § 400.3 Definitions. *OTC derivatives dealer* has the same meaning set out in 17 CFR 240.3b-12. PART 401—EXEMPTIONS 5. The authority citation for part 401 continues to read as follows: Authority: Sec. 101, Pub. L. 99-571, 100 Stat. 3209 (15 U.S.C. 78o-5(a)(4)). § 401.3 [Amended] 6. In paragraphs (a)(2)(ii)(B) and (a)(2)(ii)(C), remove the reference “§ 400.3(c)” and add in its place “§ 400.3”. § 401.9 [Amended] 7. Amend § 401.9 as follows: A. In paragraph (b), remove the reference “§ 400.3(m)” and add in its place “§ 400.3”. B. In paragraph (i), remove the reference “§§ 400.3

(k)and (l)” and add in its place “§ 400.3”. C. In paragraph (n), remove the reference “§ 400.3(o)” and add in its place “§ 400.3”. D. In paragraph (o), remove the reference “§ 400.3(j)” and add in its place “§ 400.3”. E. In paragraph (p), remove the reference “§ 400.3(b)” and add in its place “§ 400.3”. PART 402—FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY 8. The authority citation for part 402 continues to read as follows: Authority: 15 U.S.C. 78o-5(b)(1)(A), (b)(4). 9. Section 402.1 is amended by revising paragraph

(b)to read as follows: § 402.1 Application of part to registered brokers and dealers and financial institutions; special rules for futures commission merchants and government securities interdealer brokers; effective date.

(b)*Registered brokers or dealers.* This part does not apply to a registered broker or dealer (including an OTC derivatives dealer) that is subject to § 240.15c3-1 of this title (SEC Rule 15c3-1). § 402.2a [Amended] 10. In paragraph (c), under the heading for Schedule B, in paragraph

(1)under the “Columns 3 and 4” paragraph, remove the reference “17 CFR 400.3(m)” and add in its place “17 CFR 400.3”. PART 403—PROTECTION OF CUSTOMER SECURITIES AND BALANCES 11. The authority citation for part 403 continues to read as follows: Authority: Sec. 101, Pub. L. 99-571, 100 Stat. 3209; sec. 4(b), Pub. L. 101-432, 104 Stat. 963; sec. 102, sec. 106, Pub. L. 103-202, 107 Stat. 2344 (15 U.S.C. 78o-5(a)(5), (b)(1)(A), (b)(4). 12. Section 403.1 is revised to read as follows: § 403.1 Application of part to registered brokers and dealers. With respect to their activities in government securities, compliance by registered brokers or dealers with § 240.8c-1 of this title (SEC Rule 8c-1), as modified by § 403.2 (a),

(b)and (c), with § 240.15c2-1 of this title (SEC Rule 15c2-1), with § 240.15c3-2 of this title (SEC Rule 15c3-2), as modified by § 403.3, and with § 240.15c3-3 of this title (SEC Rule 15c3-3), as modified by § 403.4

(a)through (d), (f)(2) through (3),

(g)through (j), and (m), including provisions in those rules relating to OTC derivatives dealers, constitutes compliance with this part. PART 404-RECORDKEEPING AND PRESERVATION OF RECORDS 13. The authority citation for part 404 continues to read as follows: Authority: 15 U.S.C. 78o-5 (b)(1)(B), (b)(1)(C), (b)(2), (b)(4). 14. Section 404.1 is revised to read as follows: § 404.1 Application of part to registered brokers and dealers. Compliance by a registered broker or dealer with § 240.17a-3 of this title (pertaining to records to be made), § 240.17a-4 of this title (pertaining to preservation of records), § 240.17a-13 of this title (pertaining to quarterly securities counts) and § 240.17a-7 of this title (pertaining to records of non-resident brokers or dealers), including provisions in those rules relating to OTC derivatives dealers, constitutes compliance with this part. § 404.4 [Amended] 15. In paragraph (a)(3)(i)(B), remove the reference “§ 400.3(c)” and add in its place “§ 400.3”. PART 405-REPORTS AND AUDITS 16. The authority citation for part 405 continues to read as follows: Authority: 15 U.S.C. 78o-5 (b)(1)(B), (b)(1)(C), (b)(2), (b)(4). 17. Section 405.1 is amended by revising paragraph

(a)to read as follows: § 405.1 Application of part to registered brokers and dealers and to financial institutions; transition rule.

(a)Compliance by registered brokers or dealers with §§ 240.17a-5, 240.17a-8, and 240.17a-11 of this title (Commission Rules 17a-5, 17a-8 and 17a-11), including provisions of those rules relating to OTC derivatives dealers, constitutes compliance with this part. Dated: September 8, 2006. Randal K. Quarles, Under Secretary, Domestic Finance. [FR Doc. E6-15231 Filed 9-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-39-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 73 [Docket No. 1998C-0790] (formerly 98C-0790) Listing of Color Additives Exempt From Certification; Mica-Based Pearlescent Pigments; Confirmation of Effective Date AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Final rule; confirmation of effective date. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration

(FDA)is confirming the effective date of July 5, 2006, for the final rule that appeared in the **Federal Register** of June 2, 2006 (71 FR 31927). The final rule amended the color additive regulations to provide for the safe use of titanium dioxide coated mica-based pearlescent pigments as color additives in the following foods: Cereals, confections and frostings, gelatin desserts, hard and soft candies (including lozenges), nutritional supplement tablets and gelatin capsules, and chewing gum. DATES: Effective date confirmed: July 5, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul C. DeLeo, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-265), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740-3835, 301-436-1302. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the **Federal Register** of June 2, 2006 (71 FR 31927), FDA amended the color additive regulations to add § 73.350 *Mica-based pearlescent pigments* (21 CFR 73.350) to provide for the safe use safe use of titanium dioxide coated mica-based pearlescent pigments as color additives in the following foods: Cereals, confections and frostings, gelatin desserts, hard and soft candies (including lozenges), nutritional supplement tablets and gelatin capsules, and chewing gum. FDA gave interested persons until July 3, 2006, to file objections or requests for a hearing. The agency received no objections or requests for a hearing on the final rule. Therefore, FDA finds that the effective date of the final rule that published in the **Federal Register** of June 2, 2006, should be confirmed. List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 73 Color additives, Cosmetics, Drugs, Medical devices. Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 341, 342, 343, 348, 351, 352, 355, 361, 362, 371, 379e) and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, and redelegated to the Director, Office of Food Additive Safety, notice is given that no objections or requests for a hearing were filed in response to the June 2, 2006, final rule. Accordingly, the amendments issued thereby became effective July 5, 2006. Dated: September 8, 2006. Laura M. Tarantino, Director, Office of Food Additive Safety, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. [FR Doc. E6-15275 Filed 9-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 28 CFR Parts 0 and 45 [AG Order No. 2835-2006] Reporting Violations to the Office of the Inspector General and the Office of Professional Responsibility; Delegations of Authority AGENCY: Department of Justice. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This final rule amends the regulations of the Department of Justice to codify the obligation to report misconduct to the Office of the Inspector General

(OIG)and the Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), to reflect the conferral of statutory law enforcement authority on OIG special agents, to update the structure, functions, and responsibilities of OPR, and to reflect the current organizational structure of the OIG. DATES: *Effective Date:* September 11, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Anne Hoopes, Associate Counsel, Office of Professional Responsibility, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530

(202)514-3365 (regarding matters related to OPR), or Gail A. Robinson, General Counsel, Office of the Inspector General, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530

(202)616-0646 (regarding matters related to the OIG). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 1. This rule amends 28 CFR part 0 to clarify the delegation of authority by the Attorney General to the Counsel for Professional Responsibility and to codify authority of the Inspector General. This rule permits OPR and the OIG to investigate specific matters, make such recommendations as appropriate to the Deputy Attorney General and the Attorney General, and coordinate their activities to improve the professionalism of the Department and to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse. 2. This rule amends 28 CFR part 45 by adding three new sections. The rule codifies the Attorney General's April 12, 2002 Memorandum For Department of Justice Employees Regarding the Duty to Report Misconduct and Cooperate with Investigators. This Memorandum provides for notifying the OIG of fraud, waste, abuse, or misconduct, except for those matters in the jurisdiction of OPR. This rule is not a substantive change, but merely codifies existing practice. The rule also implements section 308 of the Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act for FY 2002 and 2003, Public Law 107-273 (Nov. 2, 2002), which amended 5 U.S.C. app. 3, 8E, and which provides in pertinent part: The Attorney General shall ensure by regulation that any component of the Department of Justice receiving a nonfrivolous allegation of criminal wrongdoing or administrative misconduct by an employee of the Department of Justice, except with respect to allegations described in subsection (b)(3) [matters within the investigative jurisdiction of the Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility], shall report that information to the Inspector General. This rule is also a codification of preexisting principles as set forth in the *United States Attorneys' Manual,* § 1-4.100, *Standards of Conduct Allegations of Misconduct by Department of Justice Employees Reporting Misconduct Allegations.* Although the language of section 308 of P.L. 107-273 is not identical to the prior regulations on this subject, the Attorney General interprets the statutory language as intended to codify the prior and existing practice. 3. This rule revises the description of OPR to reflect the changes made in that Office's jurisdiction since its creation on December 9, 1975, including AG Order 833-79 (45 FR 27754-55, April 24, 1980); AG Order 1931-94 (November 8, 1994), AG Order 2167-98 (63 FR 35847, July 8, 1998), AG Order 2190-98 (63 FR 62937-01, November 10, 1998), and AG Order 2492-2001 (66 FR 37902-01, July 20, 2001). As originally constituted, OPR's jurisdiction was extraordinarily broad. OPR was empowered to “[r]eceive and review any information or allegation concerning conduct by a Department employee that may be in violation of law, regulations or orders, or of applicable standards of conduct or may constitute mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety.” 28 CFR 0.39a(a). Its role in investigating those allegations, however, was relatively narrow, in keeping with its small size. OPR was to “[m]ake such preliminary inquiry as may be necessary to determine whether the matter should be referred to another official within the Department,” 28 CFR 0.39a(c), and then to make an appropriate referral either to the head of the Department of Justice component to which the employee was assigned, or to that component's internal inspection unit, if no violation of law was alleged, or to the appropriate investigative agency, if the conduct appeared to involve a violation of law, 28 CFR 0.39a(d)(1) and (2). OPR then received reports from the investigating component on the status and outcome of investigations referred by OPR. 28 CFR 0.39a(e)(1). If OPR deemed it inappropriate to refer an allegation to the employing component, it was to refer the matter to the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General, or, if that would be inappropriate, to the Associate Attorney General or the Solicitor General. 28 CFR 0.39a(d)(3). In that event, OPR was to “recommend what further action should be undertaken” with respect to the allegation, “including the assignment of any task force or individual to undertake the action recommended.” 28 CFR 0.39a(g). Finally, under 28 CFR 0.39a(h), OPR was authorized to “[u]ndertake any investigation of a matter referred under paragraph (d)(3) of this section that may be assigned by the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, or the Solicitor General, or cooperate with any other organization, task force, or individual that may be assigned by such official to undertake the investigation.” 28 CFR 0.39a(h). Consistent with the Attorney General's authority to assign functions within the Department, the regulations provided that OPR was also authorized to “[u]ndertake any other responsibilities assigned by the Attorney General including duties relating to the improvement of the performance of the Department.” 28 CFR 0.39a(k). Following the creation of the OIG in 1989, the role of OPR was focused specifically on addressing allegations of misconduct by Department attorneys and law enforcement personnel, accomplished through direct investigation by OPR or by OPR's oversight of the Offices of Professional Responsibility of the Federal Bureau of Investigation

(FBI)and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). In 2001, general oversight of those offices was transferred to the OIG, while OPR was charged with investigating allegations of misconduct involving Department attorneys that relate to the exercise of their authority to investigate, litigate, or provide legal advice, as well as allegations of misconduct by law enforcement personnel when they are related to allegations of attorney misconduct within the jurisdiction of OPR. The Department believes that it is appropriate to update the organizational language within 28 CFR part 0 at this time to reflect more accurately the delegations of authority and investigative assignments made by statute and the Attorney General. Although the organic provisions of 28 CFR part 0 do not create substantive or procedural rights as a general proposition, clarity of understanding of the organization of, and responsibilities within, the Department benefits the public in general. In this instance, the Department is clarifying the internal investigative functions of OPR. 4. This rule also amends 28 CFR part 0 to reflect the conferral of statutory law enforcement authority on OIG special agents. The Department's organizational regulations, 28 CFR 0.29j, authorized OIG special agents to perform law enforcement functions as Special Deputy United States Marshals. Section 812 of the Homeland Security Act, Pub. L. 107-296, § 812, 116 Stat. 2135, 2222 (Nov. 25, 2002), amending section 6(e) of the Inspector General Act of 1978, provided that the Attorney General may, through the adoption of guidelines, authorize Special Agents under the direction of an Assistant Inspector General for Investigations to exercise the following law enforcement powers:

(A)To carry a firearm while engaged in official duties or as expressly authorized by the Attorney General;

(B)to make arrests, while engaged in official duties or as expressly authorized by the Attorney General,

(i)for federal offenses committed in the officer's presence, or

(ii)for any federal felony if the agent has reasonable grounds to believe that the person has committed or is committing such felony; and

(C)to seek and execute federal arrest and search warrants issued upon probable cause. As provided for in this section, the Attorney General adopted the *Attorney General Guidelines for Offices of Inspector General with Statutory Law Enforcement Authority* (“Attorney General Guidelines” or “Guidelines”) on December 8, 2003, authorizing and governing the exercise of these authorities for Inspector General offices of the Departments and agencies specified in section 6(e)(3) of the Inspector General Act, as amended. These Guidelines are applicable to Inspectors General under section 6(e) of the Inspector General Act, as amended, and Special Agents under their authority, and apply operational guidelines and policies of the Department of Justice in the performance of criminal law enforcement investigations, *e.g.* , the Attorney General's Guidelines on General Crimes, Racketeering Enterprise, and Terrorism Enterprise Investigations; the Attorney General's Guidelines Regarding the Use of Confidential Informants; and the Attorney General's Memorandum on Procedures for Lawful, Warrantless Monitoring of Verbal Communications, as amended and updated, and any other Attorney General guidelines applicable to criminal investigative practices. The Attorney General Guidelines and these operational guidelines are subject to change. In view of the promulgation of the Attorney General Guidelines, the Department is making conforming amendments to the existing regulations governing the Department's OIG, in order to reflect the provisions of section 6(e) and the issuance of the Attorney General's Guidelines. 5. This rule also amends 28 CFR 0.29(a) to reflect the current organizational structure of the OIG. Regulatory Matters This rule was not published for public comment and takes effect immediately because it pertains to matters of internal agency management. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and (d). In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Attorney General certifies that this rule does not have a significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and does not have an effect beyond the internal operating procedures of the Department. This rule is not considered to be a “rule” within the meaning of section 3(d) of Executive Order 12866, nor does this rule have federalism implications warranting the preparation of a federalism assessment in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 12612. This rule is not a “rule” within the meaning of the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* List of Subjects 28 CFR Part 0 Government employees, Delegations of authority. 28 CFR Part 45 Government employees, Ethics. Accordingly, by virtue of the authority vested in me as Attorney General, including 5 U.S.C. 301 and 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, Part 0 and Part 45 of title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as follows: PART 0—ORGANIZATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1. The authority citation for part 0 continues to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 302; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, 515-519. 2. Paragraph

(a)of § 0.29 is revised to read as follows: § 0.29 Organization.

(a)The Office of the Inspector General consists of an immediate office, which is composed of the Inspector General, the Deputy Inspector General, and the Office of the General Counsel, and five major divisions, each headed by an Assistant Inspector General. The five OIG divisions are: Audit; Investigations; Evaluation and Inspections; Oversight and Review; and Management and Planning. 3. Section 0.29j is revised to read as follows: § 0.29j Law enforcement authority. Subject to guidelines promulgated by the Attorney General, Special Agents of the Office of the Inspector General are authorized to:

(a)Detect and assist in the prosecution of crimes in violation of the laws of the United States and to conduct such other investigations regarding matters that are within the jurisdiction of the Inspector General;

(b)Serve legal writs, summons, complaints, and subpoenas issued by the Inspector General or by a Federal grand jury;

(c)Receive, transport, and provide safekeeping of arrestees and other persons in the custody of the Attorney General or detained aliens;

(d)Arrest without warrant any person for an offense against the United States committed in the presence of the Special Agent or whom the Special Agent has reasonable grounds to believe has committed or is committing a felony cognizable under the laws of the United States;

(e)Seek and execute search and arrest warrants;

(f)Carry firearms while on-duty; and

(g)Carry firearms while off-duty as authorized by the Inspector General. 4. Subpart G-2 is revised to read as follows: Subpart G-2—Office of Professional Responsibility Sec. 0.39 Office of Professional Responsibility. 0.39a Functions. 0.39b Confidentiality of information. 0.39c Relationship to other departmental units. Subpart G-2—Office of Professional Responsibility § 0.39 Office of Professional Responsibility. The Office of Professional Responsibility (DOJ-OPR) shall be headed by a Counsel, who shall be appointed by the Attorney General and subject to the general supervision and direction of the Attorney General or, whenever appropriate, the Deputy Attorney General. § 0.39a Functions.

(a)The Counsel shall:

(1)Receive, review, investigate and refer for appropriate action allegations of misconduct involving Department attorneys that relate to the exercise of their authority to investigate, litigate or provide legal advice, as well as allegations of misconduct by law enforcement personnel when such allegations are related to allegations of attorney misconduct within the jurisdiction of DOJ-OPR;

(2)Receive, review, investigate and refer for appropriate action;

(i)Any allegation of reprisal against an employee or applicant who discloses information pursuant to paragraph (a)(1) of this section; and

(ii)Allegations of reprisal taken against any Federal Bureau of Investigation employee for disclosing information pursuant to 28 CFR 27.1;

(3)Report to the responsible Department official the results of inquiries and investigations arising under paragraphs (a)(1) and

(2)of this section, and, when appropriate, make recommendations for disciplinary and other corrective action;

(4)Refer any allegation not arising under paragraphs (a)(1) or

(2)of this section to the Inspector General or another appropriate Department official;

(5)Notify any person who has made allegations pursuant to paragraphs (a)(1) or

(2)of this section and any person who was the subject of such allegations of the completion and, as appropriate, the results of, any inquiry or investigation undertaken, where such notification is permitted by law and consistent with the law enforcement interests of the Department;

(6)Engage in liaison with the bar disciplinary authorities of the states, territories, and the District of Columbia with respect to professional misconduct matters;

(7)Submit an annual report to the Attorney General summarizing the work of the Office;

(8)Submit recommendations to the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General on the need for changes in policies and procedures that become evident during the course of the Counsel's inquiries and investigations;

(9)Review proposals from Department employees to refer to appropriate licensing authorities apparent professional misconduct by attorneys outside the Department, and make such referrals where warranted, except that referrals made pursuant to 8 CFR 1003.106(d) do not require the Counsel's review; and

(10)Perform any other responsibilities assigned by the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General.

(b)For the purpose of paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section, any disclosure by an employee or applicant to a supervisor, Professional Responsibility Officer, the Office of Professional Responsibility, the Office of the Inspector General, the Executive Office for United States Attorneys, or other appropriate individual or component shall constitute disclosure to the Attorney General or the Counsel. § 0.39b Confidentiality of information. The Counsel shall not disclose the identity of any person submitting an allegation of misconduct or reprisal pursuant to 28 CFR 0.39a(a)(1) or

(2)unless the person consents to the disclosure of his identity or the disclosure is necessary to carry out the authority of the Office of Professional Responsibility, including conducting an investigation or referring the allegation to another component. § 0.39c Relationship to other departmental units.

(a)Primary responsibility for assuring the maintenance of the highest standards of professional responsibility by Department employees rests with the heads of the offices, divisions, bureaus, and boards of the Department.

(b)The heads of the offices, divisions, bureaus, and boards shall assure that any judicial finding of misconduct or serious judicial criticism relating to the duties described in § 0.39(a)(1), or any nonfrivolous allegation of serious misconduct concerning an employee in their component and relating to those duties, is reported to the Counsel.

(c)The heads of the offices, divisions, bureaus, and boards shall provide information and assistance requested by the Counsel in connection with any inquiries or investigations conducted by the Counsel or by the Counsel's staff. As set forth in part 45, all Department personnel, including the subject(s) of any inquiry or investigation, shall cooperate fully with any investigation conducted by the Counsel or his designee. PART 45—EMPLOYEE RESPONSIBILITIES 5. The authority citation for part 45 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 7301, App. 3, 6; 18 U.S.C. 207; 28 U.S.C. 503, 528; DOJ Order 1735.1. 6. Part 45 is amended by adding new §§ 45.11, 45.12, and 45.13, to read as follows: § 45.11 Reporting to the Office of the Inspector General. Department of Justice employees have a duty to, and shall, report to the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General, or to their supervisor or their component's internal affairs office for referral to the Office of the Inspector General:

(a)Any allegation of waste, fraud, or abuse in a Department program or activity;

(b)Any allegation of criminal or serious administrative misconduct on the part of a Department employee (except those allegations of misconduct that are required to be reported to the Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility pursuant to § 45.12); and

(c)Any investigation of allegations of criminal misconduct against any Department employee. § 45.12 Reporting to the Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility. Department employees have a duty to, and shall, report to the Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility (DOJ-OPR), or to their supervisor, or their component's internal affairs office for referral to DOJ-OPR, any allegations of misconduct by a Department attorney that relate to the exercise of the attorney's authority to investigate, litigate or provide legal advice, as well as allegations of misconduct by law enforcement personnel when such allegations are related to allegations of attorney misconduct within the jurisdiction of DOJ-OPR. § 45.13 Duty to cooperate in an official investigation. Department employees have a duty to, and shall, cooperate fully with the Office of the Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility, and shall respond to questions posed during the course of an investigation upon being informed that their statement will not be used to incriminate them in a criminal proceeding. Refusal to cooperate could lead to disciplinary action. Dated: September 11, 2006. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General. [FR Doc. E6-15315 Filed 9-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-BD-P PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION 29 CFR Parts 4022 and 4044 Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans; Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans; Interest Assumptions for Valuing and Paying Benefits AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's regulations on Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans and Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans prescribe interest assumptions for valuing and paying benefits under terminating single-employer plans. This final rule amends the regulations to adopt interest assumptions for plans with valuation dates in October 2006. Interest assumptions are also published on the PBGC's Web site ( *http://www.pbgc.gov* ). DATES: Effective October 1, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine B. Klion, Manager, Regulatory and Policy Division, Legislative and Regulatory Department, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005, 202-326-4024. (TTY/TDD users may call the Federal relay service toll-free at 1-800-877-8339 and ask to be connected to 202-326-4024.) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The PBGC's regulations prescribe actuarial assumptions—including interest assumptions—for valuing and paying plan benefits of terminating single-employer plans covered by title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The interest assumptions are intended to reflect current conditions in the financial and annuity markets. Three sets of interest assumptions are prescribed:

(1)A set for the valuation of benefits for allocation purposes under section 4044 (found in Appendix B to part 4044),

(2)a set for the PBGC to use to determine whether a benefit is payable as a lump sum and to determine lump-sum amounts to be paid by the PBGC (found in Appendix B to part 4022), and

(3)a set for private-sector pension practitioners to refer to if they wish to use lump-sum interest rates determined using the PBGC's historical methodology (found in Appendix C to part 4022). This amendment

(1)adds to Appendix B to part 4044 the interest assumptions for valuing benefits for allocation purposes in plans with valuation dates during October 2006,

(2)adds to Appendix B to part 4022 the interest assumptions for the PBGC to use for its own lump-sum payments in plans with valuation dates during October 2006, and

(3)adds to Appendix C to part 4022 the interest assumptions for private-sector pension practitioners to refer to if they wish to use lump-sum interest rates determined using the PBGC's historical methodology for valuation dates during October 2006. For valuation of benefits for allocation purposes, the interest assumptions that the PBGC will use (set forth in Appendix B to part 4044) will be 6.00 percent for the first 20 years following the valuation date and 4.75 percent thereafter. These interest assumptions represent a decrease (from those in effect for September 2006) of 0.20 percent for the first 20 years following the valuation date and are otherwise unchanged. These interest assumptions reflect the PBGC's recently updated mortality assumptions, which are effective for terminations on or after January 1, 2006. See the PBGC's final rule published December 2, 2005 (70 FR 72205), which is available at *http://www.pbgc.gov/docs/05-23554.pdf.* Because the updated mortality assumptions reflect improvements in mortality, these interest assumptions are higher than they would have been using the old mortality assumptions. The interest assumptions that the PBGC will use for its own lump-sum payments (set forth in Appendix B to part 4022) will be 3.00 percent for the period during which a benefit is in pay status and 4.00 percent during any years preceding the benefit's placement in pay status. These interest assumptions represent a decrease (from those in effect for September 2006) of 0.25 percent in the immediate annuity rate and are otherwise unchanged. For private-sector payments, the interest assumptions (set forth in Appendix C to part 4022) will be the same as those used by the PBGC for determining and paying lump sums (set forth in Appendix B to part 4022). The PBGC has determined that notice and public comment on this amendment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This finding is based on the need to determine and issue new interest assumptions promptly so that the assumptions can reflect current market conditions as accurately as possible. Because of the need to provide immediate guidance for the valuation and payment of benefits in plans with valuation dates during October 2006, the PBGC finds that good cause exists for making the assumptions set forth in this amendment effective less than 30 days after publication. The PBGC has determined that this action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the criteria set forth in Executive Order 12866. Because no general notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this amendment, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 does not apply. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2). List of Subjects 29 CFR Part 4022 Employee benefit plans, Pension insurance, Pensions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 29 CFR Part 4044 Employee benefit plans, Pension insurance, Pensions. In consideration of the foregoing, 29 CFR parts 4022 and 4044 are amended as follows: PART 4022—BENEFITS PAYABLE IN TERMINATED SINGLE-EMPLOYER PLANS 1. The authority citation for part 4022 continues to read as follows: Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1302, 1322, 1322b, 1341(c)(3)(D), and 1344. 2. In appendix B to part 4022, Rate Set 156, as set forth below, is added to the table. Appendix B to Part 4022—Lump Sum Interest Rates for PBGC Payments Rate set For plans with a valuation date On or after Before Immediate annuity rate (percent) Deferred annuities (percent) *i* 1 *i* 2 *i* 3 *n* 1 *n* 2 * * * * * * * 156 10-1-06 11-1-06 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 7 8 3. In appendix C to part 4022, Rate Set 156, as set forth below, is added to the table. Appendix C to Part 4022—Lump Sum Interest Rates for Private-Sector Payments Rate set For plans with a valuation date On or after Before Immediate annuity rate (percent) Deferred annuities (percent) *i* 1 *i* 2 *i* 3 *n* 1 *n* 2 * * * * * * * 156 10-1-06 11-1-06 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 7 8 PART 4044—ALLOCATION OF ASSETS IN SINGLE-EMPLOYER PLANS 4. The authority citation for part 4044 continues to read as follows: Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1301(a), 1302(b)(3), 1341, 1344, 1362. 5. In appendix B to part 4044, a new entry for October 2006, as set forth below, is added to the table. Appendix B to Part 4044—Interest Rates Used to Value Benefits For valuation dates occurring in the month— The values of *i* t are: *i* t for *t* = *i* t for *t* = *i* t for *t* = * * * * * * * October 2006 .0600 1-20 .0475 >20 N/A N/A Issued in Washington, DC, on this 11th day of September 2006. Vincent K. Snowbarger, Interim Director, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. [FR Doc. E6-15314 Filed 9-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7709-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [CGD05-06-093] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Susquehanna River, Havre de Grace, MD AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the Susquehanna River during a fireworks display. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life and property on navigable waters during a fireworks display launched from a barge, located between Havre de Grace, Maryland and Perryville, Maryland, on September 30, 2006. This action will restrict vessel traffic in a portion of the Susquehanna River. DATES: This rule is effective from 7:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on September 30, 2006. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket CGD05-06-093 and are available for inspection or copying at Commander, Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, 2401 Hawkins Point Road, Baltimore, Maryland 21226-1791, between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ronald Houck, Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, at

(410)576-2674. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. Publishing an NPRM and delaying its effective date would be contrary to public interest, since there is not sufficient time to publish a proposed rule in advance of the event and immediate action is necessary to protect persons and vessels against the hazards associated with a fireworks display from a barge, such as premature or accidental detonation and falling burning debris. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . This safety zone of short duration is needed to provide for the safety of persons and vessels on the Susquehanna River. Background and Purpose On September 30, 2006, the Chesapeake Heritage Conservancy in Havre de Grace, Maryland, will sponsor an event that will include a fireworks display launched from a barge moored to a mooring buoy, located at the mouth of the Susquehanna River between Concord Point, at Havre de Grace, Maryland, and Perry Point, at Perryville, Maryland. A fleet of spectator vessels is anticipated for this event. Due to the need for vessel control during the fireworks display, vessel traffic will be restricted to provide for the safety of spectators and transiting vessels. The purpose of this regulation is to promote maritime safety, and to protect the environment and mariners transiting the area from the potential hazards due to a fireworks display from a barge. This rule establishes a safety zone on the waters of the Susquehanna River, near Havre de Grace, Maryland, within a 150 yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position 39°32′42″ N., 076°04′30″ W. Discussion of Rule The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone on specified waters of the Susquehanna River. The safety zone will be in effect from 7:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on September 30, 2006. This safety zone will protect spectators and mariners transiting the area from the potential hazards associated with a fireworks display launched from a barge on the Susquehanna River. This rule limits access to the safety zone to those vessels authorized by the Captain of the Port Baltimore. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Captain of the Port Baltimore, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the zone. The Captain of the Port will notify the maritime community via marine broadcasts of the safety zone. Regulatory Evaluation This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of the Susquehanna River from 7:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on September 30, 2006. This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This rule will be in effect for three hours, vessel traffic not constrained by draft, which are often small entities, can pass safely around the safety zone, and the Coast Guard will issue maritime advisories to users of the river before the effective period. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). Collection of Information This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. This rule establishes a safety zone. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, an “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are not required for this rule. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Add temporary § 165.T05-093 to read as follows: § 165.T05-093 Safety zone; Fireworks Display, Susquehanna River, Havre de Grace, Maryland.

(a)*Location.* The following area is a safety zone: All waters of the Susquehanna River near Havre de Grace, Maryland, surface to bottom, within a 150 yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position 39°32′42″ N., 076°04′30″ W. All coordinates reference Datum NAD.

(b)*Definition.* The Captain of the Port Baltimore means the Commander, Coast Guard Sector Baltimore or any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the Port to act on his behalf.

(c)*Regulations.* The general regulations governing safety zones, found in Sec. 165.23, apply to the safety zone described in paragraph

(a)of this section.

(1)All vessels and persons are prohibited from entering this zone, except as authorized by the Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland.

(2)Persons or vessels requiring entry into or passage within the zone must request authorization from the Captain of the Port or his designated representative by telephone at

(410)576-2693 or by marine band radio on VHF channel 16 (156.8 MHz).

(3)All Coast Guard vessels enforcing this safety zone can be contacted on marine band radio VHF channel 16 (156.8 MHz).

(4)Any person or operator of any vessel within or in the immediate vicinity of this safety zone, upon being hailed by siren, radio, flashing light or other means, shall:

(i)stop the vessel immediately upon being directed to do so by any commissioned, warrant or petty officer on board a vessel displaying a Coast Guard Ensign, and

(ii)proceed as directed by any commissioned, warrant or petty officer on board a vessel displaying a Coast Guard Ensign.

(d)*Enforcement.* The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol and enforcement of the zone by Federal, State and local agencies.

(e)*Effective period.* This section is effective from 7:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on September 30, 2006. Dated: August 31, 2006. Brian D. Kelley, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland. [FR Doc. E6-15297 Filed 9-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [USCG-2006-25411] RIN 1625-ZA11 Geographical Extension of Coast Guard Authority to Enforce Naval Vessel Protection Zones; Conforming Amendment AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is revising its informational, geographic-application regulation for naval vessel protection zones (NVPZs) to reflect a recent expansion of the jurisdiction for NVPZs. Section 201 of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006 amended 14 U.S.C. 91 defines “navigable waters” to include the waters 12 nautical-miles wide, adjacent to the coast of the United States and seaward of the territorial sea baseline. As a result of this legislation, Naval Vessel Protection Zone

(NVPZ)regulations are now enforceable in navigable waters out to the full extent of the U.S. territorial sea, 12 nautical miles seaward from the baseline. This conforming amendment to our regulation reflects this recently-enacted authority. DATES: This final rule is effective September 15, 2006. ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket USCG-2006-25411 and are available for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find this docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule, call Mr. Brad Kieserman, Office of Maritime and International Law, Coast Guard, at telephone 202-372-3798. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-493-0402. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory History We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)for this rule. Under both 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A) and (b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that this rule is exempt from notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements because this it reflects an interpretation of a recent amendment to 14 U.S.C. 91 and good cause exists because it would be contrary to public interest to delay the revision of 33 CFR 165.9 (d), a paragraph that no longer accurately reflects the geographic jurisdiction for NVPZs. For the same reason—the need to correct the NVPZ, geographic jurisdiction limits represented in § 165.9 (d), under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register.** Background and Purpose The Coast Guard is authorized by 14 U.S.C. 91 to control the anchorage and movement of a vessel operating in the vicinity of a U.S. naval vessel. The Coast Guard has implemented the provisions of 14 U.S.C. 91 by establishing and enforcing Naval Vessel Protection Zones (NVPZ), 33 CFR part 165, subpart G. A NVPZ is a 500-yard regulated area of water surrounding a large U.S. naval vessel providing for the safety or security of the vessel. 33 CFR 165.2015. Section 91 of 14 U.S.C. authorizes the Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, to control the anchorage and movement of any vessel in the “navigable waters” of the United States to ensure the safety or security of any U.S. naval vessel in those waters. When the Secretary does not exercise this authority, and immediate action is required, 14 U.S.C. 91 authorizes the senior naval officer present in command to control the anchorage or movement of any vessel in the “navigable waters” of the United States to ensure the safety or security of any U.S. naval vessel under the officer's command. We provide the following definitions, among others, in 33 CFR 165.2015 to identify the persons and vessels involved in the NVPZ regulations: • *Large U.S. naval vessel* means any U.S. naval vessel greater than 100 feet in length overall. • *Senior naval officer present in command* is, unless otherwise designated by competent authority, the senior line officer of the U.S. Navy on active duty, eligible for command at sea, who is present and in command of any part of the Department of the Navy in the area. • *Vessel* means every description of watercraft or other artificial contrivance, used or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on water, except U.S. Coast Guard or U.S. naval vessels. • *U.S. naval vessel* means any vessel owned, operated, chartered or leased by the U.S. Navy; any pre-commissioned vessel under construction for the U.S. Navy, once launched into the water; and any vessel under the operational control of the U.S. Navy or Combatant Command. On July 11, 2006, the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006 (CGMTA), Pub. L. No. 109-241, 120 Stat. 516, was enacted. Through its reference to Presidential Proclamation No. 5928 of December 27, 1988, sec. 201 of CGMTA extends NVPZs (including enforcement by Department of Defense assets) out to the full extent of the U.S. territorial sea, 12 nautical miles from the baseline. Discussion of Final Rule Sections 165.2025 and 165.2030 of 33 CFR apply NVPZs to any vessel or person in the navigable waters of the United States within the boundaries of the U.S. Coast Guard's Atlantic Area or Pacific Area. The term “Navigable waters of the United States” is defined in 33 CFR 2.36 and includes “[t]erritorial seas of the United States.” The definition of “territorial seas of the United States,” in 33 CFR 2.22 includes “the waters, 12 nautical miles wide, adjacent to the coast of the United States and seaward of the territorial sea baseline for * * * [a]ny other * * * statute, * * * or amendment thereto, interpreted by the Coast Guard as incorporating the definition of territorial sea as being 12-nautical-miles wide, adjacent to the coast of the United States and seaward of the territorial sea baseline”. Consistent with 33 CFR 2.22(a)(1)(v), we interpret the amended 14 U.S.C. 91 as incorporating the appropriate 12-nautical-mile-wide definition of territorial sea. Therefore, consistent with 33 CFR 165.9(a), we are revising paragraph

(d)of § 165.9 to reflect this legislative change in the geographic application of NVPZs from 3 nautical miles seaward of the territorial sea baseline to 12 nautical miles seaward of the territorial sea baseline. Regulatory Evaluation This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. It has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under that Order. We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. This rule reflects the expansion of the waters where NVPZs will exist based on the amendment of 14 U.S.C. 91 by sec. 201 of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006. The impact caused by this legislative change will not be significant because:

(i)Individual NVPZs are limited in size;

(ii)the Coast Guard, senior naval officer present in command, or official patrol may authorize access to the naval vessel protection zone; and

(iii)the NVPZ for any given transiting naval vessel will only effect a given geographical location for a limited time. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. This rule does not require a general notice of proposed rulemaking and, therefore, is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Although this rule is exempt, we have reviewed it for potential economic impact on small entities. This rule reflects a legislative change in the geographic scope of NVPZ that will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to operate near or anchor in the vicinity of U.S. naval vessels in the navigable waters of the United States from 3 to 12 miles seaward of the territorial sea baseline. This regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reason: This rule merely updates 33 CFR 165.9 to reflect the current navigable waters where NVPZs occur. The impact of the legislation expanding the waters in which NVPZs occur will be limited because individual NVPZs are limited in size; the official patrol may authorize access to NVPZs; and the NVPZ for any given transiting naval vessel will only affect a given geographic location for a limited time. Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule will have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES. In your comment, explain why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please consult Mr. Brad Kieserman, Office of Maritime and International Law, Coast Guard, at telephone 202-372-3798. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). Collection of Information This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( *e.g.* , specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. If you disagree with our analysis of the voluntary consensus standards listed above or are aware of voluntary consensus standards that might apply but are not listed, please identify them in a comment to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES and explain why they should be used. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. This rule is needed to correct the NVPZ, geographic jurisdiction limits represented in § 165.9(d) to reflect a recent amendment to 14 U.S.C. 91 by section 201 of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006. A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1225, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. § 165.9 [Amended] 2. In § 165.9, amend paragraph

(d)by removing the term “3 nautical miles” and adding, in its place, the term “12 nautical miles”. Dated: September 9, 2006. David Pekoske, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Response. [FR Doc. E6-15295 Filed 9-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 [EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0485; FRL-8219-9] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; West Virginia; Redesignation of the Huntington, WV Portion of the Huntington-Ashland 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment and Approval of the Area's Maintenance Plan AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is approving a redesignation request and a State Implementation Plan

(SIP)revision submitted by the State of West Virginia. The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) is requesting that the Huntington, West Virginia (Huntington) portion of the Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY area be redesignated as attainment for the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). In conjunction with its redesignation request, the State submitted a SIP revision consisting of a maintenance plan for Huntington that provides for continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the next 12 years, until 2018. Concurrently, EPA is approving the maintenance plan as meeting the requirements of Clean Air Act

(CAA)175A(b) with respect to the 1-hour ozone maintenance plan update. EPA is also approving the adequacy determination for the motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) that are identified in the 8-hour maintenance plan for Huntington for purposes of transportation conformity, and is approving those MVEBs. EPA is approving the redesignation request and the maintenance plan revision to the West Virginia SIP in accordance with the requirements of the CAA. DATES: *Effective Date:* This final rule is effective on October 16, 2006. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0485. All documents in the docket are listed in the *www.regulations.gov* website. Although listed in the electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential business information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Air Quality, 601 57th Street, SE., Charleston, WV 25304. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Caprio,

(215)814-2156, or by e-mail at *caprio.amy@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background On July 13, 2006 (71 FR 39618), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPR)for the State of West Virginia. The NPR proposed approval of West Virginia's redesignation request and a SIP revision that establishes a maintenance plan for Huntington that sets forth how Huntington will maintain attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the next 12 years. The formal SIP revision was submitted by the WVDEP on May 17, 2006. Other specific requirements of West Virginia's redesignation request SIP revision for the maintenance plan and the rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here. No public comments were received on the NPR. II. Final Action EPA is approving the State of West Virginia's May 17, 2006 redesignation request and maintenance plan because the requirements for approval have been satisfied. EPA has evaluated West Virginia's redesignation request, submitted on May 17, 2006, and determined that it meets the redesignation criteria set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA believes that the redesignation request and monitoring data demonstrate that Huntington has attained the 8-hour ozone standard. The final approval of this redesignation request will change the designation of the Huntington, West Virginia portion of the Huntington-Ashland area from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA is approving the associated maintenance plan for this area, submitted on May 17, 2006, as a revision to the West Virginia SIP. EPA is approving the maintenance plan for Huntington because it meets the requirements of section 175A and 175A(b) with respect to the 1-hour ozone maintenance plan update. EPA is also approving the MVEBs submitted by West Virginia for this area in conjunction with its redesignation request. Huntington is subject to the CAA's requirements for basic ozone nonattainment areas until and unless it is redesignated to attainment. III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this final action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)). This action approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Redesignation of an area to attainment under section 107(d)(3)(e) of the Clean Air Act does not impose any new requirements on small entities. Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not impose any new regulatory requirements on sources. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This final rule also does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it affects the status of a geographical area, does not impose any new requirements on sources, or allow the state to avoid adopting or implementing other requirements, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This final rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission; to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not impose any new requirements on sources. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this final rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order. B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . This rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). C. Petitions for Judicial Review Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 14, 2006. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action, to approve the redesignation request, maintenance plan and adequacy determination for MVEBs for Huntington, may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Nitrogen dioxides, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. 40 CFR Part 81 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas. Dated: September 6, 2006. W.T. Wisniewski, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart XX—West Virginia 2. In § 52.2520, the table in paragraph

(e)is amended by adding an entry for the 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan, Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY Area at the end of the table to read as follows: § 52.2520 Identification of plan.

(e)* * * Name of non-regulatory SIP revision Applicable geographic area State submittal date EPA approval date Additional explanation * * * * * * * 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan for the Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY Area Cabell and Wayne Counties 05/17/06 09/15/06 [Insert page number where the document begins] PART 81—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* 2. Section 81.349 is amended by revising the ozone table entry for the Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY Area to read as follows: § 81.349 West Virginia. West Virginia—Ozone [8-Hour standard] Designated area Designation a Date 1 Type Category/classification Date 1 Type * * * * * * * Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY Area: Cabell County 09/15/06 Attainment Wayne County 09/15/06 Attainment * * * * * * * a Includes Indian country located in each county or area except otherwise noted. 1 This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted. [FR Doc. E6-15334 Filed 9-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0459; FRL-8077-9] Endosulfan, Fenarimol, Imazalil, Oryzalin, Sodium Acifluorfen, Trifluralin, and Ziram; Tolerance Actions AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is revoking certain tolerances for the insecticide endosulfan; the fungicides fenarimol, imazalil, and ziram; and the herbicide trifluralin. Also, EPA is modifying certain tolerances for the insecticide endosulfan, the fungicides fenarimol and imazalil, and the herbicides sodium acifluorfen and trifluralin. EPA is not modifying tolerances for ziram. In addition, EPA is establishing new tolerances for the insecticide endosulfan, the fungicides fenarimol and imazalil, and the herbicides oryzalin and trifluralin. The regulatory actions in this document are part of the Agency's reregistration program under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). DATES: This regulation is effective September 15, 2006. However, certain regulatory actions will not occur until the date specified in the regulatory text. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before November 14, 2006, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ). ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification

(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0459. All documents in the docket are listed in the index for the docket. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information

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

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

(703)308-0125; e-mail address: *tyler.kendra@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to: • Crop production (NAICS code 111), e.g., agricultural workers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; farmers. • Animal production (NAICS code 112), e.g., cattle ranchers and farmers, dairy cattle farmers, livestock farmers. • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311), e.g., agricultural workers; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; ranchers; pesticide applicators. • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532), e.g., agricultural workers; commercial applicators; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; residential users. This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document? In addition to accessing an electronic copy of this **Federal Register** document through the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , you may access this “ **Federal Register** ” document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ **Federal Register** ” listings at *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr* . You may also access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's pilot e-CFR site at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr* . C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request? Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, as amended by FQPA, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural regulations which govern the submission of objections and requests for hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify the docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0459 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before November 14, 2006. In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public docket that is described in ADDRESSES . Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit your copies, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0459, by one of the following methods. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal* : *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail* : Office of Pesticide Programs

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

(703)305-5805. II. Background A. What Action is the Agency Taking? In the **Federal Register** of April 26, 2006 (71 FR 24615) (FRL-7771-9), EPA issued a proposed rule to revoke, modify, and establish certain tolerances and tolerance exemptions for residues of endosulfan, fenarimol, imazalil, oryzalin, sodium acifluorfen, trifluralin, and ziram. The proposal also provided a 60-day comment period which invited public comment for consideration and for support of tolerance retention under FFDCA standards. EPA is revoking, removing, modifying, and/or establishing specific tolerances for residues of the insectcide endosulfan; the fungicides fenarimol, imazalil, and ziram; and the herbicides oryzalin, sodium acifluorfen, and trifluralin in or on commodities listed in the regulatory text of this document. EPA is finalizing these tolerance actions in order to implement the tolerance recommendations made during the reregistration and when taking action on tolerances and exemptions (including follow-up on canceled or additional uses of pesticides). As part of the reregistration and tolerance reassessment processes, EPA is required to determine whether each of the amended tolerances meets the safety standards under FQPA. The safety finding determination of “reasonable certainty of no harm” is found in detail in each RED and TRED for the active ingredient. REDs and TREDs recommend certain tolerance actions to be implemented to reflect current use patterns, to meet safety findings, and to change commodity names and groupings in accordance with new EPA policy. Printed copies of REDs and TREDs may be obtained from EPA's National Service Center for Environmental Publications (EPA/NSCEP), P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, OH 45242-2419; telephone number: 1-800-490-9198; fax number: 1-513-489-8695; Internet address: *http://www.epa.gov/ncepihom* and from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield, VA 22161; telephone number: 1-800-553-6847 or 703-605-6000; Internet address: *http://www.ntis.gov* . Electronic copies of REDs and TREDs are available on the Internet at *http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/status.htm* . In this final rule, EPA is revoking certain tolerances and tolerance exemptions because the specific tolerances and exemptions correspond to uses no longer current or registered under FIFRA in the United States. The tolerances revoked by this final rule are no longer necessary to cover residues of the relevant pesticides in or on domestically treated commodities or commodities treated outside but imported into the United States. It is EPA's general practice to revoke those tolerances and tolerance exemptions for residues of pesticide active ingredients on crop uses for which there are no active registrations under FIFRA, unless any person in comments on the proposal indicates a need for the tolerance or tolerance exemption to cover residues in or on imported commodities or domestic commodities legally treated. EPA has historically been concerned that retention of tolerances that are not necessary to cover residues in or on legally treated foods may encourage misuse of pesticides within the United States. Thus, it is EPA's policy to issue a final rule revoking those tolerances for residues of pesticide chemicals for which there are no active registrations under FIFRA, unless any person commenting on the proposal demonstrates a need for the tolerance to cover residues in or on imported commodities or domestic commodities legally treated. Generally, EPA will proceed with the revocation of these tolerances on the grounds discussed in Unit II.A., if one of the following conditions applies: • Prior to EPA's issuance of a FFDCA section 408(f) order requesting additional data or issuance of a FFDCA section 408(d) or

(e)order revoking the tolerances on other grounds, commenters retract the comment identifying a need for the tolerance to be retained. • EPA independently verifies that the tolerance is no longer needed. • The tolerance is not supported by data that demonstrate that the tolerance meets the requirements under FQPA. This final rule does not revoke those tolerances for which EPA received comments stating a need for the tolerance to be retained. In response to the proposed rule of April 26, 2006, EPA received one comment during the 60-day public comment period, as follows: • *Comment by private citizen* . A private citizen stated that only zero tolerances should be acceptable. In addition, the commenter expressed a concern for pesticide use in general and their possible toxic effects on plants, wildlife, and humans. • *Agency response* . The private citizen's comments did not take issue with any of the Agency's specific conclusions to modify, revoke, or establish certain tolerances. Also, the commenter did not refer to any specific scientific studies which pertained to the reregistration of any active ingredient, or Agency decision document which pertained to the reregistration eligibility of any active ingredient. Section 4 of FIFRA directs EPA to make decisions about the future use of older pesticides. Under the pesticide reregistration program, EPA examines health and safety data for pesticide active ingredients initially registered before November 1, 1984, and determines whether they are eligible for reregistration to ensure that they meet current scientific and regulatory standards. During reregistration, EPA considers the human health and ecological effects of pesticides and addresses actions to reduce risks that are of concern. Of the 613 cases subject to reregistration, about 40% have been canceled for various reasons, including request for voluntary cancellation by the registrant, cancellation by EPA because required fees were not paid, or cancellation by EPA because unacceptable risk existed that could not be reduced by other actions, such as voluntary cancellation of selected uses or changes in the way the pesticide is used. Reducing pesticide risks is an important aspect of the reregistration program. In developing REDs, EPA works with stakeholders, pesticide registrants, growers and other pesticide users, environmental and public health interests, the States, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), other Federal agencies, and others to develop voluntary measures or regulatory controls needed to effectively reduce risks of concern. Such options include voluntary cancellation of pesticide products or deletion of uses, declaring certain uses ineligible or not yet eligible, restricting use of products to certified applicators, limiting the amount or frequency of use, improving use directions and precautions, adding more protective clothing and equipment requirements, requiring special packaging or engineering controls, requiring no-treatment buffer zones, employing environmental and ecological safeguards, and other measures. Also, for all pesticides with food uses, EPA is reassessing tolerances (pesticide residue limits in food) to ensure that they met the safety standard of FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a, as amended by FQPA. Under FFDCA, EPA must make a determination that pesticide residues remaining in or on food are safe; that is, that there is reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide residue from dietary and other sources. EPA has integrated reregistration and tolerance reassessment to most effectively accomplish the goals of both programs. At the end of the reregistration process, after EPA has issued a RED and declared a pesticide reregistration case eligible for reregistration, individual end-use products that contain pesticide active ingredients included in the case still must be reregistered. During this product reregistration, EPA sends registrants a Data Call-In

(DCI)notice requesting any product specific data and specific revised labelling needed to complete reregistration for each of the individual pesticide products covered by the RED. Based on the results of EPA's review of these data and labelling, products found to meet FIFRA and FFDCA standards may be reregistered. Therefore, EPA believes that the tolerance actions in the proposed rule of April 26, 2006, should be implemented and made final as expressed in this final rule. No comments were received by the Agency specific to endosulfan, fenarimol, imazalil, oryzalin, and sodium acifluorfen. 1. *Endosulfan* . Currently, the tolerance expression for residues is defined in terms of endosulfan and its metabolite endosulfan sulfate in 40 CFR 180.182. Because the tolerance expression should reflect the alpha- and beta- isomers of the parent compound, EPA is modifying the tolerance expression in 40 CFR 180.182 in order to specify the alpha- and beta- isomers of the parent. Also, EPA is removing the “(N)” designation from all entries to conform to current Agency administrative practice (“N” designation means negligible residues). Because no active registrations exist for use of endosulfan on artichoke, globe; beet, sugar, roots; raspberry; safflower, seed; and sunflower, seed, the tolerances are no longer needed. Therefore, EPA is revoking the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.182(a)(1) on artichoke, globe; beet, sugar, roots; raspberry; safflower, seed; and sunflower, seed. Based on available data on almond that show combined endosulfan residues of concern are non-detectable (<0.1 parts per million

(ppm)for each residue of concern) in or on almond kernels, the Agency has determined that the tolerance on almond should be increased to 0.3 ppm, the combined limits of detection. Therefore, EPA is increasing the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.182(a)(1) for combined endosulfan residues of concern in or on almond from 0.2 to 0.3 ppm. The Agency determined that the increased tolerance is safe; i.e., there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. Based on available data on the grain and straw of barley and wheat that show combined endosulfan residues of concern as high as 0.30, 0.30, 0.35, and 0.38 ppm in or on barley grain, wheat grain, barley straw, and wheat straw, respectively, the Agency has determined that the tolerances on barley and wheat grain should be increased to 0.3 ppm and tolerances on barley and wheat straw should be increased to 0.4 ppm. Therefore, EPA is increasing the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.182(a)(1) for combined endosulfan residues of concern in or on barley, grain and wheat, grain from 0.1 to 0.3 ppm, and barley, straw and wheat, straw from 0.2 to 0.4 ppm. The Agency determined that the increased tolerances are safe; i.e., there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. Based on available data on blueberry that show combined endosulfan residues of concern are non-detectable (<0.1 ppm), the Agency has determined that the tolerance on blueberry should be increased to 0.3 ppm, the combined limits of detection. Therefore, EPA is increasing the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.182(a)(1) for combined endosulfan residues of concern in or on blueberry from 0.1 to 0.3 ppm. The Agency determined that the increased tolerance is safe; i.e., there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. Based on available data on broccoli that show combined endosulfan residues of concern as high as 2.41 ppm, the Agency has determined that the tolerance on broccoli should be increased to 3.0 ppm. Therefore, EPA is increasing the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.182(a)(1) for combined endosulfan residues of concern in or on broccoli from 2.0 to 3.0 ppm. The Agency determined that the increased tolerance is safe; i.e., there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. Based on available data that show combined endosulfan residues of concern as high as 3.1 ppm on cabbage with wrapper leaves, the Agency has determined that the tolerance on cabbage should be increased to 4.0 ppm. Therefore, EPA is increasing the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.182(a)(1) for combined endosulfan residues of concern in or on cabbage from 2.0 to 4.0 ppm. The Agency determined that the increased tolerance is safe; i.e., there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. Based on available data on celery that show combined endosulfan residues of concern as high as 7.0 ppm, the Agency has determined that the tolerance on celery should be increased to 8.0 ppm. Therefore, EPA is increasing the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.182(a)(1) for combined endosulfan residues of concern in or on celery from 2.0 to 8.0 ppm. The Agency determined that the increased tolerance is safe; i.e., there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. Based on available data that show combined endosulfan residues of concern as high as 10.11 ppm in or on head lettuce with wrapper leaves and 5.72 ppm in or on leaf lettuce, the Agency has determined that the existing tolerance on lettuce should be split into separate tolerances for head lettuce and leaf lettuce, and increased to 11.0 ppm and 6.0 ppm, respectively. Therefore, EPA is separating the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.182(a)(1) on lettuce into lettuce, head and lettuce, leaf and increasing them for combined endosulfan residues of concern from 2.0 to 11.0 and 6.0 ppm, respectively. The Agency determined that the increased tolerances are safe; i.e., there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. Based on available data on oat grain, oat straw, rye grain, and rye straw that show combined endosulfan residues of concern as high as 0.30, 0.32, 0.30, and 0.30 ppm, respectively, the Agency has determined that the tolerances on oat grain, oat straw, rye grain, and rye straw should be increased to 0.3, 0.4, 0.3, and 0.3 ppm, respectively. Therefore, EPA is increasing the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.182(a)(1) for combined endosulfan residues of concern in or on oat, grain from 0.1 to 0.3 ppm; oat, straw from 0.2 to 0.4 ppm; rye, grain from 0.1 to 0.3 ppm; and rye, straw from 0.2 to 0.3 ppm. The Agency determined that the increased tolerances are safe; i.e., there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. Available ruminant metabolism data indicate that combined endosulfan residues of concern at 1.1x and 1.7x the maximum dietary burden for beef and dairy cattle, respectively were detected at 0.78 ppm in milk, 12 ppm in fat, 0.85 ppm in kidney, 4.6 ppm in liver, and 2.0 ppm in muscle. The Agency determined that separate tolerances for liver should be established and that the tolerances for meat byproducts should be revised to meat byproducts, except liver and the appropriate tolerances for fat, meat byproducts (except liver), liver, and meat of cattle, goats, hogs, horses, and sheep should be increased to 13.0, 1.0, 5.0, and 2.0 ppm, respectively. Also, the Agency determined that the tolerance for milk fat should be increased to 2.0 ppm. Therefore, EPA is increasing the commodity tolerances in 40 CFR 180.182(a)(1) for combined endosulfan residues of concern in or on cattle, fat; goat, fat; hog, fat; horse, fat; and sheep, fat from 0.2 to 13.0 ppm; cattle, meat byproducts, except liver; goat, meat byproducts, except liver; hog, meat byproducts, except liver; horse, meat byproducts, except liver; and sheep, meat byproducts, except liver, from 0.2 to 1.0 ppm; cattle, meat; goat, meat; hog, meat; horse, meat; and sheep, meat from 0.2 to 2.0 ppm; milk, fat from 0.5 to 2.0 ppm; and establish tolerances at 5.0 ppm for cattle, liver; goat, liver; hog, liver; horse, liver; and sheep, liver. The Agency determined that the increased tolerances are safe; i.e., there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. Based on available data on cantaloupes, cucumbers, and summer squash that show combined endosulfan residues of concern as high as 0.76, 0.66, and 0.25 ppm, respectively, the Agency has determined that the tolerances on melon, cucumber, and summer squash should be decreased to 1.0 ppm. Also, the available data for melon, cucumber, and summer squash may be translated to pumpkin and winter squash. Therefore, EPA is combining the individual tolerances in 40 CFR 180.182(a)(1) on cucumber, melon, pumpkin, squash, summer; and squash, winter into vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 and decreasing the tolerance for combined endosulfan residues of concern from 2.0 to 1.0 ppm. Based on available data on tomato that show combined endosulfan residues of concern as high as 0.97 ppm, respectively, the Agency has determined that the tolerance on tomato should be decreased to 1.0 ppm. Also, the available data for tomato may be translated to eggplant. Therefore, EPA is decreasing the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.182(a)(1) for combined endosulfan residues of concern in or on eggplant from 2.0 to 1.0 ppm and tomato from 2.0 to 1.0 ppm. Based on available data on sweet potatoes that show combined endosulfan residues of concern are non-detectable (<0.05 ppm), the Agency has determined that the tolerance on sweet potato should be decreased to 0.15 ppm. Therefore, EPA is decreasing the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.182(a)(1) for combined endosulfan residues of concern in or on sweet potato, roots from 0.2 to 0.15 ppm. Based on available data on apple that show combined endosulfan residues of concern as high as 0.84 ppm, the Agency has determined that the tolerance on apple should be decreased to 1.0 ppm. This level is also compatible with CODEX Alimentarius Commission Maximum Residue Limits

(MRLs)for endosulfan residues on pome fruits. Therefore, EPA is decreasing the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.182(a)(1) for combined endosulfan residues of concern in or on apple from 2.0 to 1.0 ppm. Apple processing data indicate that combined endosulfan residues of concern concentrate by 6x in wet apple pomace. Based on the highest average field trial

(HAFT)combined residues of 0.77 ppm in or on apples, combined residues as high as 4.62 ppm would be expected. Therefore, EPA is establishing a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.182(a)(1) for combined endosulfan residues of concern in or on apple, wet pomace at 5.0 ppm. Based on available data on pineapple that show combined endosulfan residues of concern as high as 0.5 ppm, the Agency has determined that the tolerance on pineapple should be decreased to 1.0 ppm. Therefore, EPA is decreasing the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.182(a)(1) for combined endosulfan residues of concern in or on pineapple from 2.0 to 1.0 ppm. Based on processing data that indicate combined endosulfan residues of concern concentrate 7x in peel and 41x in bran processed from whole pineapple and a HAFT combined residues of 0.44 ppm for in or on pineapple, residues as high as 18.04 ppm would be expected and the Agency determined that a tolerance for pineapple process residue (also known as wet bran) should be established at 20.0 ppm. Although, the RED and Residue Chemistry Chapters have tables which inadvertently are listed as 18 ppm; the text within the RED and Residue Chemistry Chapter both state that 20.0 ppm is appropriate. Therefore, EPA is establishing a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.182(a)(1) for combined endosulfan residues of concern in or on pineapple, process residue at 20.0 ppm. Based on available data on sweet corn that show combined endosulfan residues of concern as high as 12.0 ppm in or on sweet corn forage and 13.92 ppm in or on sweet corn stover, the Agency has determined that tolerances should be established at 12.0 and 14.0 ppm, respectively. Therefore, EPA is establishing tolerances in 40 CFR 180.182(a)(1) for combined endosulfan residues of concern in or on corn, sweet, forage at 12.0 ppm and corn, sweet, stover at 14.0 ppm. Based on available data on cotton gin byproducts that show combined endosulfan residues of concern as high as 27.5 ppm, the Agency has determined that a tolerance on cotton gin byproducts should be established at 30.0 ppm. Therefore, EPA is establishing a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.182(a)(1) for combined endosulfan residues of concern in or on cotton, gin byproducts at 30.0 ppm. Based on the translation of data from carrot and potato, the Agency determined that a tolerance should be established for turnip roots at 0.2 ppm. Therefore, EPA is establishing a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.182(a)(1) for combined endosulfan residues of concern in or on turnip, roots at 0.2 ppm. EPA is revising commodity terminology in 40 CFR 180.182 to conform to current Agency practice as follows: Cherry to cherry, sweet and cherry, tart; pecans to pecan; filbert to hazelnut; and turnip, greens to turnip, tops. Some U.S. tolerances for endosulfan (such as on broccoli, cabbage, celery, lettuce head, lettuce leaf, pineapple, the vegetable curcurbit group, and wheat grain) may be incompatible with the CODEX MRLs because of differences in registrations or good agricultural practices. 2. *Fenarimol* . Because dry apple pomace, grape pomace (wet and dry), and raisin waste are no longer considered to be significant livestock feed items, the tolerances are no longer needed. Therefore, EPA is revoking the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.421(a)(1) for residues of the fungicide fenarimol in or on apple, dry pomace; and in 40 CFR 180.421(a)(2) for residues of the fungicide fenarimol and its metabolites in or on grape pomace (wet and dry) and grape, raisin, waste. Based on available grape processing data, the Agency determined that combined residues of fenarimol and its metabolites marginally concentrated in juice and raisins. However, calculations using the anticipated residue for grape with the processing factors, show that the anticipated combined residues for the grape processed commodities (juice and raisin) are each less than the reassessed tolerance for grape (0.1 ppm). The tolerances for grape juice at 0.6 ppm and raisins at 0.6 ppm are no longer needed. Therefore, EPA is revoking the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.421(a)(2) for residues of the fungicide fenarimol and its metabolites in or on grape, juice and grape, raisin. The Agency extrapolated data from a 28-day ruminant feeding study of exaggerated dietary burdens to the 1x feeding rate, and examined the expected impact of the average theoretical dietary burden from wet apple pomace (calculated using Food and Drug Administration

(FDA)monitoring data for apples). Of the currently registered uses of fenarimol, wet apple pomace is the only commodity considered a livestock feed item. For cattle, goats, horses, and sheep, the Agency concluded from monitoring, feeding, and metabolism data that expected fenarimol residues in muscle, fat, and kidney are calculated to be less than or near the enforcement method's limit of detection (0.003 ppm). Therefore, the Agency determined that for muscle, fat, and kidney of ruminants it is not possible to establish with certainty whether finite residues will be incurred, but there is a reasonable expectation of finite residues under 40 CFR 180.6(a)(2). For cattle, goats, horses, and sheep, EPA reassessed meat, kidney, and fat tolerances at 0.01 ppm, the method limit of quantitation. Therefore, EPA is decreasing the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.421(a)(1) for residues of the fungicide fenarimol in or on cattle, fat; cattle, kidney; goat, fat; goat, kidney; horse, fat; horse, kidney; sheep, fat; and sheep, kidney; each from 0.1 to 0.01 ppm, and maintaining the tolerances at 0.01 ppm for cattle, meat; goat, meat; horse, meat; and sheep, meat. Based on field trial data that show residues of fenarimol per se were non-detectable (less than 0.002 ppm, the method limit of detection) in pecan nut meat samples from six trials and in one trial were detected at 0.02 ppm, the Agency determined that the tolerance should be decreased from 0.1 to 0.02 ppm. Therefore, EPA is decreasing the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.421(a)(1) for residues of fenarimol in or on pecan from 0.1 to 0.02 ppm. FDA monitoring data for apples during the period 1996-1999 showed non-detectable (less than 0.003 ppm, the method limit of detection) residues of fenarimol per se on apples. Based on the HAFT residue of 0.059 ppm for apples and a concentration factor of 3.7-fold for wet pomace, the maximum expected residue in wet pomace is 0.22 ppm and the Agency determined that a tolerance of 0.3 ppm on wet apple pomace is appropriate. Therefore, EPA is decreasing the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.421(a)(1) for residues of fenarimol in or on apple, wet pomace from 2.0 to 0.3 ppm. FDA monitoring data for grapes during the period 1996-1999 showed non-detectable (less than 0.003 ppm, the method limit of detection) residues of fenarimol per se on grapes. Based on field trial data that indicate residues as high as 0.042 ppm for fenarimol and 0.073 for its metabolites in or on grapes harvested after 30 days following the last of 4 applications, the Agency determined that a tolerance of 0.1 ppm on grapes is appropriate. However, since the August 2002 fenarimol TRED the registrant, Gowan Company has requested that the Agency shorten the pre-harvest interval

(PHI)from 30 days to 21 days on grapes. Based on the grape residue data submitted reflecting the 21 day PHI, the decrease in the tolerance reflected in the August 2002 TRED is appropriate at 0.1 ppm in or on grapes with a PHI of 21 days. However, EPA concluded that residues be expressed as fenarimol parent only, rather than the combined residues of fenarimol and its metabolites because parent only would be an adequate indicator of misuse and would harmonize with the CODEX MRLs. Therefore, EPA is decreasing the tolerance for residues of fenarimol and its metabolites in or on grape from 0.2 to 0.1 ppm. Currently, a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.421(a)(2) for combined residues of fenarimol and its metabolites in or on banana exists at 0.5 ppm where not more than 0.25 ppm shall be present in the pulp after peel is removed. Fenarimol is presently not registered for use on banana in the United States. Based on foreign field trial data that indicate residues of fenarimol as high as 0.19 ppm and 0.075 ppm for its metabolites, the Agency determined that a tolerance of 0.25 ppm is appropriate for whole banana. It is current Agency practice to establish a tolerance on the whole commodity (including peel after removing and discarding crown tissue and stalk). Therefore, EPA is revising the tolerance commodity terminology in 40 CFR 180.421(a)(2) from banana (Not more than 0.25 ppm shall be present in the pulp after peel is removed) to banana and decreasing the tolerance from 0.5 to 0.25 ppm. Currently, tolerances in 40 CFR 180.421(a)(1) are expressed in terms of residues of fenarimol, while tolerances in 40 CFR 180.421(a)(2) are expressed in terms of combined residues of fenarimol and specific metabolites (calculated as fenarimol). As stated in the October 2001 Fenarimol Product and Residue Chemistry Chapter, EPA concluded that for enforcement purposes, the tolerances for plant commodities should be expressed in terms of parent only; i.e., residues of fenarimol per se would be an adequate indicator of misuse. The tolerances for banana, cherry, grape are currently regulated under 40 CFR 180.421(a)(2), which has been recodified to 40 CFR 180.421(a). Also, in order to conform to Agency commodity terminology, the current commodity term for cherry should be changed to cherry, sweet and cherry, tart, both at 1.0 ppm. Therefore, EPA is reclassifying the tolerances for residues of fenarimol and it metabolites in or on banana at 0.25 ppm, cherry at 1.0 ppm, and grape at 0.1 ppm. EPA is combining tolerances in 40 CFR 180.421(a)(2) with tolerances in 40 CFR 180.421(a)(1) to create a single paragraph, 40 CFR 180.421(a), for residues of fenarimol. Also, EPA is revising the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.421(a) for residues of fenarimol in/on cherry to “cherry, sweet” and “cherry, tart” at 1.0 ppm. Some U.S. tolerances for fenarimol (such as on banana, cattle kidney, grape, and wheat grain) and the CODEX MRLs may be incompatible because of differences in registrations or good agricultural practices. Since the Agency's proposed rule of April 26, 2006, EPA published a final rule in the **Federal Register** on June 7, 2006 (71 FR 32841) (FRL-8061-4) as a follow-up to a notice of filing of a pesticide petition published on August 31, 2005 (70 FR 51802) (FRL-7733-1). The final rule of June 7, 2006, established a tolerance for fenarimol in 40 CFR 180.421 on filbert at 0.02 ppm, which is reflected in the regulatory text of this document, as “hazelnut,” the current commodity terminology. 3. *Imazalil* . Tolerances for residues in livestock commodities are currently expressed as the combined residues of imazalil, 1-[2-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-2-(2-propenyloxy)ethyl]-1 *H* -imidazole, and its metabolites, 1-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-2-(1 *H* -imidazole-1-yl)-1-ethanol and 3-[1-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-2-(1 *H* -imidazole-1-yl)ethoxyl]-1,2-propane diol. EPA has found that any metabolite containing the 2,4-dichlorophenyl moiety is of toxicological concern and must be included in the tolerance expression along with the parent compound imazalil. In order to account for the 2,4-dichlorophenyl group moiety toxicological concerns, the total toxic residues for imazalil will be adjusted using the ratios of imazalil and the marker metabolites (FK772 and FK284) that were found to account for a high percentage of the total toxic residues in the livestock metabolism studies rather than the currently regulated metabolites. Metabolites (FK772 and FK284), with their parent compound, should serve as marker compounds which should be used to determine residue values for the dietary risk assessment. Therefore, EPA is revising the tolerance expression for livestock commodities for imazalil in 40 CFR 180.413 (a)(2) to regulate imazalil, 3-[2-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-2-(2,3-dihydroxypropoxy)ethyl]-2,4-imidazolidinedione (FK772), and 3-[2-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-2-(hydroxy)]-2,4-imidazolidinedione (FK284). Because a tolerance exists for combined imazalil residues of concern on whole banana at 3.0 ppm and whole bananas are defined as the peel and the pulp after discarding the crown tissue and stalk, the tolerance on banana pulp at 0.2 ppm is no longer necessary. Therefore, the Agency is revoking the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.413(a)(1) for the combined imazalil residues of concern in or on banana, pulp and revising the tolerance commodity terminology from banana (whole) to banana. Because dried citrus is no longer considered to be a significant feed item for hogs, and because there are no other hog feeding commodities associated with existing imazalil tolerances, there is no reasonable expectation of finite residues of imazalil in hog tissues. Therefore, the Agency believes that tolerances on hog fat, hog liver, hog meat, and hog meat byproduct are no longer needed. Hence, the EPA is revoking, in 40 CFR 180.413(a)(2), tolerances for combined imazalil residues of concern in or on the following: Hog, fat; hog, liver; hog, meat; and hog, meat byproducts. In the tolerance summary table for both the imazalil TRED and Residue Chemistry Chapter, the recommendation to revoke horse fat was an inadvertent entry. There is no basis for revocation of horse fat listed in either document. Consequently, the Agency has revised the Imazalil Residue Chemistry Chapter accordingly and the horse, fat tolerance in 40 CFR 180.413(a)(2) will be maintained. Cattle feeding data show that combined imazalil residues of concern ranged as high as just slightly greater than 0.05 ppm in milk at an exaggerated 5x feeding level, and therefore, the tolerance for milk should be increased from 0.01 to 0.02 ppm. Consequently, EPA is increasing the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.413(a)(2) for combined imazalil residues of concern in milk to 0.02 ppm. The Agency determined that the increased tolerance is safe; i.e., there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. Also, the cattle feeding data show that combined imazalil residues of concern ranged as high as 14.7 ppm in liver at an exaggerated 70x feeding level, and therefore, the liver tolerances of cattle, goats, horse, and sheep should be decreased from 0.5 to 0.2 ppm. In addition, because exaggerated feeding data show combined imazalil regulated residues were highest in liver and the tolerance for meat byproducts should be equivalent to the level which is highest for either meat or any individual organ for which residues were measured, tolerances for the meat byproducts of cattle, goats, horses, and sheep should each be increased from 0.01 to 0.2 ppm. Therefore, EPA is increasing the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.413(a)(2) for cattle, meat byproducts; goat, meat byproducts; horse, meat byproducts; and sheep, meat byproducts from 0.01 to 0.2 ppm. The Agency determined that the increased tolerances are safe; i.e., there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. However, because increasing these meat byproduct tolerances to 0.2 ppm would cover their respective animal liver commodities, separate tolerances at 0.2 ppm in 40 CFR 180.413(a)(2) for cattle, liver; goat, liver; horse, liver; and sheep, liver are not needed. Therefore, EPA is removing tolerances in 40 CFR 180.413(a)(2) for cattle, liver; goat, liver; horse, liver; and sheep, liver rather than modifying them because these commodities would be covered. Based on grain data that indicate the regulated residues of imazalil in or on barley grain and wheat grain are above the limit of quantitation

(LOQ)of 0.08 ppm, the Agency determined to increase the tolerances for barley grain and wheat grain, each to 0.1 ppm. Therefore, the Agency is increasing, in 40 CFR 180.413(a)(1), tolerances for residues of imazalil in or on barley, grain and wheat, grain. from 0.05 to 0.1 ppm. The Agency determined that the increased tolerances are safe; i.e., there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. Based on residue data that indicate levels of imazalil and its metabolite in citrus oil as high as 187 ppm, the Agency determined that a tolerance of 200 ppm is warranted for citrus oil. Citrus oils are not considered ready-to-eat and are used primarily as a minor ingredient in chewing gums, baked goods, gelatins, and puddings. The dilution factor for citrus oil

(238x)in its conversion to ready-to-eat form exceeds the average concentration factor (28x based on oranges) from the raw agricultural commodity

(RAC)to the oil by a factor of 8.5. As consumed, the concentration of imazalil and its metabolite, expressed as imazalil equivalents, are expected to be less than the concentration in the RAC (whole fruit). Therefore, EPA is increasing the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.413(a)(1), for residues of imazalil in citrus oil from 25.0 to 200.0 ppm. The Agency determined that the increased tolerance is safe; i.e., there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. Because the Agency now considers barley hay and wheat hay to be RACs, tolerances are warranted. Based on residue data for forage and straw of barley and wheat that indicate residues of concern as high as 0.12 ppm for spring barley straw and 0.24 ppm for winter wheat straw (each after a 2x correction factor for storage stability), and by translating available data for barley forage and straw to barley hay and available data for wheat forage and straw to wheat hay, EPA determined that tolerances on hay should be established at 0.5 ppm. Therefore, EPA is establishing separate tolerances in 40 CFR 180.413(a)(1) for residues of imazalil in or on barley, hay and wheat, hay at 0.5 ppm each. 4. *Oryzalin* . In order to conform to current Agency practice, EPA is revising the commodity terminology in 40 CFR 180.304(a) for small fruit at 0.05 ppm into individual tolerances for berry, group 13; cranberry; grape; and strawberry; each at 0.05 ppm. Also, EPA is revising commodity terminology to conform to current Agency practice as follows: Fruit, citrus to fruit, citrus, group 10; fruit, pome to fruit, pome, group 11; and fruit, stone to fruit, stone, group 12. In addition, in order to conform to current Agency practice, EPA is recodifying the regional tolerances for guava and papaya from 40 CFR 180.304(b) to (c), and establishing and reserving sections for emergency exemptions in 40 CFR 180.304(b) and indirect or inadvertent residues in 40 CFR 180.304(d). 5. *Sodium acifluorfen* . Tolerances for sodium acifluorfen are currently expressed as the combined residues of the herbicide sodium salt of acifluorfen (sodium 5-[2-chloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-2-nitrobenzoic acid) and its metabolites (the corresponding acid, methyl ester, and amino analogues). Typically, the salt form of an acid is expressed with the suffix “ate,” and therefore a salt of nitrobenzoic acid should be termed a nitrobenzoate. While the tolerance expression for sodium acifluorfen in 40 CFR 180.383 is appropriate, EPA is revising only the name of the sodium salt of acifluorfen in the tolerance expression from sodium 5-[2-chloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-2-nitrobenzoic acid to sodium 5-[2-chloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-2-nitrobenzoate. Based on field trial data that indicate residues of sodium acifluorfen in or on rice straw as high as 0.124 ppm, the Agency determined that the tolerance for rice, straw should be increased to 0.2 ppm. Therefore, EPA is increasing the tolerance for rice, straw in 40 CFR 180.383 from 0.1 to 0.2 ppm. The Agency determined that the increased tolerance is safe; i.e., there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. In order to conform to current Agency practice in 40 CFR 180.383, EPA is revising commodity terminology for soybean to soybean, seed. • *Comment.* A comment was received by the Agency from Steve McMaster of Dow AgroSciences

(DAS)pertaining to the chemical trifluralin. The Agency proposed revocation of the tolerance for the commodity mung bean sprouts because there are no active registrations for the commodity. DAS pointed out that there is an active registration for mung bean sprouts on a supplemental label for a triflualin product. DAS also asks that the Agency review residue chemistry data that was submitted in November 1998 and January 2005 in support of the mung bean tolerance. They would like to maintain the tolerance for bean, mung, sprouts at 2.0 ppm. • *Agency Response.* Because there is an active registration for mung bean sprouts, EPA re-evaluated and reassessed the safety of trifluralin, taking into account the mung bean sprout tolerance. With the addition of the mung bean sprout tolerance, EPA has determined that tolerances for trifluralin remain safe. 6. *Trifluralin* . Because there have been no active registered uses for trifluralin on upland cress since 1989, and therefore the tolerances are no longer needed, EPA is revoking the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.207 for residues of trifluralin in or on cress, upland. Because adequate residue data exists for field corn grain and data may be bridged from wheat and sorghum processing studies to barley, sorghum, and wheat, the Agency has determined that the commodity group for grain, crops, except corn, sweet and rice is inappropriate and should be revoked concomitant with the establishment of individual tolerances for barley grain and sorghum grain. No active registrations have existed on oats since cancellation of a soil treatment for oats in May 2001, and therefore an oat grain tolerance is not needed. Separate tolerances already exist for corn and wheat grain. Based on translating available residue data from wheat and sorghum processing studies which showed that trifluralin residues were non-detectable (<0.01 ppm) in or on wheat grain and sorghum grain, the Agency determined that the tolerances for barley grain and sorghum grain should each be established at 0.05 ppm (the enforcement method LOQ). Therefore, EPA is revoking the group tolerance in 40 CFR 180.207 for grain, crop, except corn, sweet and rice grain at 0.05 ppm and establishing individual tolerances for barley, grain and sorghum, grain, grain each at 0.05 ppm. In order to conform to current Agency practice, the obsolete commodity definition for legume, forage should be revised to vegetable, foliage of legume, group 7 and alfalfa, forage. Based on field residue data that indicate residues of trifluralin as high as 2.2 ppm on alfalfa forage, the Agency determined that the appropriate tolerance should be increased from 0.05 to 3.0 ppm. Therefore, EPA is revising the commodity tolerance for legume, forage in 40 CFR 180.207 at 0.05 ppm into vegetable, foliage of legume, group 7 at 0.05 ppm and an individual tolerance for alfalfa, forage, increasing the tolerance for alfalfa, forage from 0.05 to 3.0 ppm. The Agency determined that the increased tolerance is safe; i.e., there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. Because celery data will be translated to endive, and because residue data are not available on all of the representative commodities from crop group 4, the Agency determined that the commodity group for vegetable, leafy should be revised to vegetable, leaves of root and tuber, group 2 and vegetable, brassica, leafy group 5 with separate tolerances for celery and endive. Therefore, EPA is removing the commodity group in 40 CFR 180.207 for vegetable, leafy, except brassica and replacing it with separate tolerances for celery; endive; vegetable, leaves of root and tuber, group 2; and vegetable, brassica, leafy group 5 at 0.05 ppm. In order to conform to current Agency practice, the obsolete commodity definition for vegetables, root (exc. carrots) should be revised to vegetable, root and tuber, group 1, except carrot and vegetable, bulb, group 3. Based on available trifluralin residue data for the representative commodities from each group (residues on radishes as high as 0.026 ppm; residues on green onions as high as 0.016 ppm), EPA determined that a tolerance of 0.05 ppm is appropriate for each group. Therefore, EPA is revising the commodity tolerance for vegetable, root (exc. carrot) in 40 CFR 180.207 at 0.05 ppm to vegetable, root and tuber, group 1, except carrot and vegetable, bulb, group 3, each at 0.05 ppm. In addition, the commodity group, “vegetable, seed and pod,” is obsolete. The commodity term has been revised to “vegetable, legume group 6.” Because of this terminology change, a separate tolerance is being established for okra which is not included in the newly revised “vegetable, crop group 6.” Based on the available data for okra and selected members of crop group 6, a tolerance of 0.05 ppm would be appropriate for each. Therefore, EPA is revising the commodity tolerance in 40 CFR 180.207 for vegetables, seed and pod at 0.05 ppm to vegetable, legume, group 6 and okra each at 0.05 ppm. Based on data that indicate residues of trifluralin in or on alfalfa hay as high as 1.6 ppm, the Agency determined that the alfalfa hay tolerance should be increased to 2.0 ppm. Therefore, EPA is increasing the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.207 for residues of trifluralin in or on alfalfa, hay from 0.2 to 2.0 ppm. The Agency determined that the increased tolerance is safe; i.e., there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. Based on data that indicate residues of trifluralin in or on peanut hay as high as 0.014 ppm, the Agency determined that a tolerance should be established for peanut hay at 0.05 ppm. Therefore, EPA is establishing a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.207 for residues of trifluralin in or on peanut, hay at 0.05 ppm. The available mustard seed data indicate residues of concern are non-detectable (<0.01 ppm). Tree nut field trial data and weight of evidence for trifluralin residues in tree nut indicate residues of trifluralin are non-detectable (<0.01 ppm) in almond hulls. Based on these data supporting each commodity, the Agency determined that tolerances should be established for mustard seed and almond hulls each at 0.05 ppm, the enforcement method LOQ. Therefore, EPA is establishing tolerances in 40 CFR 180.207 for residues of trifluralin in or on mustard, seed and almond, hulls each at 0.05 ppm. Available data show that residues of trifluralin in or on cotton gin byproducts are warranted at 0.05 ppm. Therefore, EPA is establishing a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.207 for residues of trifluralin in or on cotton, gin byproducts at 0.05 ppm. EPA is revising commodity terminology in 40 CFR 180.207 to conform to current Agency practice as follows: Hop to hop, dried cones; and sorghum, forage to sorghum, grain, forage. i. *Comment.* A comment was received by the Agency from VJP Consulting, Inc., on behalf of the Ziram Task Force (ZTF). The comment states that the crop commodity quince may be a commodity of interest in the future, and VJP Consulting, Inc., asks that the tolerance for ziram residues in/on quince not be revoked, as proposed. ZTF requested that residue data for apples and pears could support the quince tolerance. ii. *Comment.* A comment was also received from VJP Consulting, Inc., on behalf of Taminco, a member of the ZTF consortium. Taminco has requested that the tolerances for residues of ziram in/on onion and melon not be revoked. The commenter stated that ziram is registered and used on these crops outside the United States, and import tolerances are needed. • *Agency Response.* The Agency is not addressing tolerances for quince, onion, and melon in this final rule, but will address the tolerances in a future **Federal Register** document. 7. *Ziram* . Because the associated commodity registrations have not been active since 1991 and the tolerances are no longer needed, EPA is revoking, in 40 CFR 180.116, tolerances for residues of ziram in or on the following: Broccoli; brussel sprouts; carrot, roots; collards; gooseberry; kale; kohlrabi; lettuce; loganberry; peanut; pea; radish, roots; radish, tops; raspberry; rutabaga, roots; rutabaga, tops; spinach; turnip, greens; and turnip, roots. Because registrations for the ziram use on eggplant and the use on pepper have not been active since 1994, and the tolerances are no longer needed, EPA is revoking, in 40 CFR 180.116, tolerances for residues of ziram in or on the following: Eggplant and pepper. Because registrations for ziram use on bean, celery, cranberry, cucumber, pumpkin, and squash have not been active since 1995, and the tolerances are no longer needed, EPA is revoking, in 40 CFR 180.116, tolerances for residues of ziram in or on the following: Bean, celery, cranberry, cucumber, pumpkin, squash, and squash, summer. The last U.S. registration for beet, garden, roots; beet, garden, tops; cabbage; and cauliflower was cancelled due to non-payment of the year 2005 maintenance fee as announced in a **Federal Register** notice published on August 3, 2005 (70 FR 44637) (FRL-7726-4). The Agency permitted the sale and distribution of existing stocks until January 15, 2006. The Agency believes that there is sufficient time for end users to exhaust those existing stocks and treated commodities to clear the channels of trade by January 15, 2007. Therefore, EPA is revoking the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.116 for ziram residues in or on beet, garden, roots; beet, garden, tops; cabbage; and cauliflower; each with an expiration/revocation date of January 15, 2007. Active ziram registrations currently exist for blackberry. However, ziram tolerances at 7.0 ppm on boysenberry, dewberry, and youngberry are no longer needed because their uses are covered by the existing tolerance at 7.0 ppm on blackberry. Therefore, EPA is revoking the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.116 for boysenberry, dewberry, and youngberry. In accordance with 40 CFR 180.1(h) which indicates that the tolerance for peach also covers the use in or on nectarines, the tolerance on nectarine is no longer needed. Therefore, EPA is removing the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.116 for residues of ziram in or on nectarine. Also, while the ziram RED recommends revocation for the tolerance on strawberry, active registrations associated with the commodity use currently exist, and therefore the tolerance will not be proposed for revocation at this time. The Agency intends to follow up with the registrants and expects to propose revocation in a future **Federal Register** document. In order to conform to current Agency practice in 40 CFR 180.116, EPA is revising the commodity terminology cherries to cherry, sweet, and cherry, tart. The Agency will address other tolerance actions for ziram in a future **Federal Register** document. B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action? EPA may issue a regulation establishing, modifying, or revoking a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(e). In this final rule, EPA is establishing, modifying, and revoking tolerances to implement the tolerance recommendations made during the reregistration and tolerance reassessment processes, and as follow-up on canceled uses of pesticides. As part of these processes, EPA is required to determine whether each of the amended tolerances meets the safety standards under FQPA. The safety finding determination is found in detail in each RED and TRED for the active ingredient. REDs and TREDs recommend the implementation of certain tolerance actions, including modifications to reflect current use patterns, to meet safety findings, and to change commodity names and groupings in accordance with new EPA policy. Printed and electronic copies of the REDs and TREDs are available as provided in Unit II.A. EPA has issued post-FQPA REDs for endosulfan, imazalil, sodium acifluorfen, and ziram, and TREDs for oryzalin and trifluralin. The imazalil RED was completed after its TRED, and fenarimol had no RED because it was registered after November 1, 1984, and not subject to reregistration. Also, EPA issued a RED prior to FQPA for oryzalin and trifluralin and made a safety finding which reassessed their tolerances according to the FQPA standard, maintaining them when new tolerances were established as noted in Unit II.A. REDs and TREDs contain the Agency's evaluation of the database for these pesticides, including statements regarding additional data on the active ingredients that may be needed to confirm the potential human health and environmental risk assessments associated with current product uses, and REDs state conditions under which these uses and products will be eligible for reregistration. The REDs and TREDs recommended the establishment, modification, and/or revocation of specific tolerances. RED and TRED recommendations such as establishing or modifying tolerances, and in some cases revoking tolerances, are the result of assessment under the FQPA standard of “reasonable certainty of no harm.” However, tolerance revocations recommended in REDs and TREDs that are made final in this document do not need such assessment when the tolerances are no longer necessary. EPA's general practice is to revoke tolerances for residues of pesticide active ingredients on crops for which FIFRA registrations no longer exist and on which the pesticide may therefore no longer be used in the United States. EPA has historically been concerned that retention of tolerances that are not necessary to cover residues in or on legally treated foods may encourage misuse of pesticides within the United States. Nonetheless, EPA will establish and maintain tolerances even when corresponding domestic uses are canceled if the tolerances, which EPA refers to as “import tolerances,” are necessary to allow importation into the United States of food containing such pesticide residues. However, where there are no imported commodities that require these import tolerances, the Agency believes it is appropriate to revoke tolerances for unregistered pesticides in order to prevent potential misuse. When EPA establishes tolerances for pesticide residues in or on RACs, the Agency gives consideration to possible pesticide residues in meat, milk, poultry, and/or eggs produced by animals that are fed agricultural products (for example, grain or hay) containing pesticides residues (40 CFR 180.6). If there is no reasonable expectation of finite pesticide residues in or on meat, milk, poultry, or eggs, then tolerances do not need to be established for these commodities (40 CFR 180.6(b) and (c)). C. When Do These Actions Become Effective? With the exception of certain tolerances for ziram for which EPA is revoking certain tolerances with specific expiration/revocation dates, the Agency is revoking, modifying, establishing tolerances, and revising specific commodity terminologies effective on the date of publication of this final rule in the **Federal Register** . With the exception of ziram, the Agency believes that existing stocks of pesticide products labeled for the uses associated with the revoked tolerances have been completely exhausted and that treated commodities have cleared the channels of trade. EPA is revoking certain ziram tolerances with an expiration/revocation date of January 15, 2007. The Agency believes that this revocation date allows users to exhaust stocks and allows sufficient time for passage of treated commodities through the channels of trade. Any commodities listed in the regulatory text of this document that are treated with the pesticides subject to this final rule, and that are in the channels of trade following the tolerance revocations, shall be subject to FFDCA section 408(1)(5), as established by FQPA. Under this section, any residues of these pesticides in or on such food shall not render the food adulterated so long as it is shown to the satisfaction of FDA that: 1. The residue is present as the result of an application or use of the pesticide at a time and in a manner that was lawful under FIFRA. 2. The residue does not exceed the level that was authorized at the time of the application or use to be present on the food under a tolerance or exemption from tolerance. Evidence to show that food was lawfully treated may include records that verify the dates that the pesticide was applied to such food. III. Are There Any International Trade Issues Raised by this Final Action? EPA considers CODEX MRLs in setting U.S. tolerances and in reassessing them. MRLs are established by the CODEX Committee on Pesticide Residues, a committee within the CODEX Alimentarius Commission, an international organization formed to promote the coordination of international food standards. When possible, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with CODEX MRLs. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a CODEX MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain in a **Federal Register** document the reasons for departing from the CODEX level. EPA's effort to harmonize with CODEX MRLs is summarized in the tolerance reassessment section of individual REDs. EPA has developed guidance concerning submissions for import tolerance support (65 FR 35069, June 1, 2000) (FRL-6559-3). This guidance will be made available to interested persons. Electronic copies are available on the Internet at *http://www.epa.gov* . On the Home Page select “Laws, Regulations, & Dockets” then select “Regulations and Proposed Rules” and then look up the entry for this document under “ **Federal Register** —Environmental Documents.” You can also go directly to the “ **Federal Register** ” listings at *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr* . IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews In this final rule EPA establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(e), and also modifies and revokes specific tolerances established under FFDCA section 408. The Office of Management and Budget

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

(UMRA)(Public Law 104-4). Nor does it require any special considerations as required by Executive Order 12898, entitled *Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations* (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994); or OMB review or any other Agency action under Executive Order 13045, entitled *Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks* (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-13, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(RFA)(5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq* .), the Agency previously assessed whether establishment of tolerances, exemptions from tolerances, raising of tolerance levels, expansion of exemptions, or revocations might significantly impact a substantial number of small entities and concluded that, as a general matter, these actions do not impose a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. These analyses for tolerance establishments and modifications, and for tolerance revocations were published on May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950) and on December 17, 1997 (62 FR 66020), respectively, and were provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. Taking into account this analysis, and available information concerning the pesticides listed in this final rule, the Agency hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In a memorandum dated May 25, 2001, EPA determined that eight conditions must all be satisfied in order for an import tolerance or tolerance exemption revocation to adversely affect a significant number of small entity importers, and that there is a negligible joint probability of all eight conditions holding simultaneously with respect to any particular revocation. (This Agency document is available in the docket for this final rule). Furthermore, for the pesticides named in this final rule, the Agency knows of no extraordinary circumstances that exist as to the present revocations that would change EPA's previous analysis. In addition, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled *Federalism* (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States. This action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. For these same reasons, the Agency has determined that this rule does not have any “tribal implications” as described in Executive Order 13175, entitled *Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments* (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000). Executive Order 13175, requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” “Policies that have tribal implications” is defined in the Executive order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.” This rule will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. V. Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq* ., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of this final rule in the **Federal Register** . This final rule is not a “major rule ”as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: September 8, 2006. James J. Jones, Director, Office of Pesticide Programs. Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows: PART 180—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. 2. Section 180.116 is amended by revising the table in paragraph

(a)to read as follows: § 180.116 Ziram; tolerances for residues.

(a)*General* . * * * Commodity Parts per million Expiration/Revocation Date Almond 0.1 1 None Apple 7.0 1 None Apricot 7.0 1 None Beet, garden, roots 7.0 1 1/15/07 Beet, garden, tops 7.0 1 1/15/07 Blackberry 7.0 1 None Blueberry 7.0 1 None Cabbage 7.0 1/15/07 Cauliflower 7.0 1/15/07 Cherry, sweet 7.0 1 None Cherry, tart 7.0 1 None Grape 7.0 None Huckleberry 7.0 None Melon 7.0 None Onion 7.0 None Peach 7.0 None Pear 7.0 1 None Pecan 0.1 None Quince 7.0 1 None Strawberry 7.0 None Tomato 7.0 1 None 1 See footnote to § 180.114. 3. Section 180.182 is amended by revising paragraph

(a)to read as follows: § 180.182 Endosulfan; tolerances for residues.

(a)*General* .

(1)Tolerances are established for the combined residues of the insecticide endosulfan, 6,7,8,9,10,10-hexachloro-1,5,5a,6,9,9a-hexahydro-6,9-methano-2,4,3-benzodioxathiepin-3-oxide (alpha and beta isomers), and its metabolite endosulfan sulfate, 6,7,8,9,10,10-hexachloro-1,5,5a,6,9,9a-hexahydro-6,9-methano-2,4,3-benzodioxathiepin-3,3-dioxide, in or on the following food commodities: Commodity Parts per million Alfalfa, fresh 0.3 Alfalfa, hay 1.0 Almond 0.3 Almond, hulls 1.0 Apple 1.0 Apple, wet pomace 5.0 Apricot 2.0 Barley, grain 0.3 Barley, straw 0.4 Bean 2.0 Blueberry 0.3 Broccoli 3.0 Brussels sprouts 2.0 Cabbage 4.0 Carrot, roots 0.2 Cattle, fat 13.0 Cattle, liver 5.0 Cattle, meat 2.0 Cattle, meat byproducts, except liver 1.0 Cauliflower 2.0 Celery 8.0 Cherry, sweet 2.0 Cherry, tart 2.0 Collards 2.0 Corn, sweet, forage 12.0 Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed 0.2 Corn, sweet, stover 14.0 Cotton, gin byproducts 30.0 Cotton, undelinted seed 1.0 Eggplant 1.0 Goat, fat 13.0 Goat, liver 5.0 Goat, meat 2.0 Goat, meat byproducts, except liver 1.0 Grape 2.0 Hazelnut 0.2 Hog, fat 13.0 Hog, liver 5.0 Hog, meat 2.0 Hog, meat byproducts, except liver 1.0 Horse, fat 13.0 Horse, liver 5.0 Horse, meat 2.0 Horse, meat byproducts, except liver 1.0 Kale 2.0 Lettuce, head 11.0 Lettuce, leaf 6.0 Milk, fat 2.0 Mustard greens 2.0 Mustard, seed 0.2 Nectarine 2.0 Nut, macadamia 0.2 Oat, grain 0.3 Oat, straw 0.4 Pea, succulent 2.0 Peach 2.0 Pear 2.0 Pecan 0.2 Pepper 2.0 Pineapple 1.0 Pineapple, process residue 20.0 Plum 2.0 Plum, prune 2.0 Potato 0.2 Rapeseed, seed 0.2 Rye, grain 0.3 Rye, straw 0.3 Sheep, fat 13.0 Sheep, liver 5.0 Sheep, meat 2.0 Sheep, meat byproducts, except liver 1.0 Spinach 2.0 Strawberry 2.0 Sugarcane, cane 0.5 Sweet potato, roots 0.15 Tomato 1.0 Turnip, roots 0.2 Turnip, tops 2.0 Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 1.0 Walnut 0.2 Watercress 2.0 Wheat, grain 0.3 Wheat, straw 0.4

(2)A tolerances of 24 parts per million

(ppm)is established for the combined residues of the insecticide endosulfan, 6,7,8,9,10,10-hexachloro-1,5,5a,6,9,9a-hexahydro-6,9-methano-2,4,3-benzodioxathiepin-3-oxide (alpha and beta isomers), and its metabolite endosulfan sulfate, 6,7,8,9,10,10-hexachloro-1,5,5a,6,9,9a-hexahydro-6,9-methano-2,4,3-benzodioxathiepin-3,3-dioxide, in or on dried tea (reflecting less than 0.1 ppm residues in beverage tea) resulting from application of the insecticide to growing tea. 4. Section 180.207 is amended by revising paragraph

(a)to read as follows: § 180.207 Trifluralin; tolerances for residues.

(a)*General* . Tolerances are established for residues of the herbicide and plant growth regulator trifluralin, alpha, alpha, alpha-trifluoro-2,6-dinitro- *N* , *N* -dipropyl- *p* -toluidine, in or on the following raw agricultural commodities: Commodity Parts per million Alfalfa, forage 3.0 Alfalfa, hay 2.0 Almond, hulls 0.05 Asparagus 0.05 Barley, grain 0.05 Barley, hay 0.05 Barley, straw 0.05 Bean, mung, sprouts 2.0 Carrot, roots 1.0 Celery 0.05 Corn, field, forage 0.05 Corn, field, grain 0.05 Corn, field, stover 0.05 Cotton, gin byproducts 0.05 Cotton, undelinted seed 0.05 Endive 0.05 Flax, seed 0.05 Fruit, citrus, group 10 0.05 Fruit, stone, group 12 0.05 Grape 0.05 Hop, dried cones 0.05 Mustard, seed 0.05 Nut, tree, group 14 0.05 Okra 0.05 Peanut 0.05 Peanut, hay 0.05 Peppermint oil 2.0 Peppermint, tops 0.05 Rapeseed, seed 0.05 Safflower, seed 0.05 Sorghum, grain, forage 0.05 Sorghum, grain, grain 0.05 Sorghum, grain, stover 0.05 Spearmint oil 2.0 Spearmint, tops 0.05 Sugarcane, cane 0.05 Sunflower, seed 0.05 Vegetable, brassica, leafy group 5 0.05 Vegetable, bulb, group 3 0.05 Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 0.05 Vegetable, foliage of legume, group 7 0.05 Vegetable, fruiting, group 8 0.05 Vegetable, leaves of root and tuber, group 2 0.05 Vegetable, legume, group 6 0.05 Vegetable, root and tuber, group 1, except carrot 0.05 Wheat, grain 0.05 Wheat, straw 0.05 5. Section 180.304 is revised to read as follows: § 180.304 Oryzalin; tolerances for residues.

(a)*General* . Tolerances are established for residues of the herbicide oryzalin, 3,5-dinitro- *N* 4 , *N* 4 -dipropylsulfanilamide, in or on the following raw agricultural commodities: Commodity Parts per million Almond, hulls 0.05 Avocado 0.05 Berry, group 13 0.05 Cranberry 0.05 Fig 0.05 Fruit, citrus, group 10 0.05 Fruit, pome, group 11 0.05 Fruit, stone, group 12 0.05 Grape 0.05 Kiwifruit 0.05 Nut, tree, group 14 0.05 Olive 0.05 Pistachio 0.05 Pomegranate 0.05 Strawberry 0.05

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

(c)*Tolerances with regional registrations* . Tolerances with regional registration, as defined in § 180.1(n), are established for residues of oryzalin, 3,5-dinitro- *N* 4 , *N* 4 -dipropylsulfanilamide, in or on the following raw agricultural commodities: Commodity Parts per million Guava 0.05 Papaya 0.05

(d)*Indirect or inadvertent residues* . [Reserved] 6. Section 180.383 is amended by revising paragraph

(a)to read as follows: § 180.383 Sodium salt of acifluorfen; tolerances for residues.

(a)*General* . Tolerances are established for combined residues of the herbicide sodium salt of acifluorfen, sodium 5-[2-chloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-2-nitrobenzoate, and its metabolites (the corresponding acid, methyl ester, and amino analogues) in or on the following raw agricultural commodities: Commodity Parts per million Peanut 0.1 Rice, grain 0.1 Rice, straw 0.2 Soybean, seed 0.1 Strawberry 0.05 7. Section 180.413 is amended by revising paragraph

(a)to read as follows: § 180.413 Imazalil; tolerances for residues.

(a)*General* .

(1)Tolerances are established for the combined residues of the fungicide imazalil, 1-[2-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-2-(2-propenyloxy)ethyl]-1 *H* -imidazole, and its metabolite, 1-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-2-(1 *H* -imidazole-1-yl)-1-ethanol, in or on the following food commodities: Commodity Parts per million Banana 3.0 Barley, grain 0.1 Barley, hay 0.5 Barley, straw 0.5 Citrus, dried pulp 25.0 Citrus, oil 200.0 Fruit, citrus, postharvest 10.0 Wheat, forage 0.5 Wheat, grain 0.1 Wheat, hay 0.5 Wheat, straw 0.5

(2)Tolerances are established for the combined residues of the fungicide imazalil, 1-[2-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-2-(2-propenyloxy)ethyl]-1 *H* -imidazole, and its metabolites, 3-[2-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-2-(2,3-dihydroxypropoxy)ethyl]-2,4-imidazolidinedione (FK772) and 3-[2-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-2-(hydroxy)]-2,4-imidazolidinedione (FK284), in or on the following food commodities: Commodity Parts per million Cattle, fat 0.01 Cattle, meat 0.01 Cattle, meat byproducts 0.2 Goat, fat 0.01 Goat, meat 0.01 Goat, meat byproducts 0.2 Horse, fat 0.01 Horse, meat 0.01 Horse, meat byproducts 0.2 Milk 0.02 Sheep, fat 0.01 Sheep, meat 0.01 Sheep, meat byproducts 0.2 8. Section 180.421 is amended by revising paragraph

(a)to read as follows: § 180.421 Fenarimol; tolerances for residues.

(a)*General* . Tolerances are established for residues of the fungicide fenarimol, alpha-(2-chlorophenyl)-alpha-(4-chlorophenyl)-5-pyrimidinemethanol, in or on the following raw agricultural commodities: Commodity Parts per million Apple 0.1 Apple, wet pomace 0.3 Banana 0.25 Cattle, fat 0.01 Cattle, kidney 0.01 Cattle, meat 0.01 Cattle, meat byproducts, except kidney 0.05 Cherry, sweet 1.0 Cherry, tart 1.0 Goat, fat 0.01 Goat, kidney 0.01 Goat, meat 0.01 Goat, meat byproducts, except kidney 0.05 Grape 0.1. Hazelnut 0.02 Horse, fat 0.01 Horse, kidney 0.01 Horse, meat 0.01 Horse, meat byproducts, except kidney 0.05 Pear 0.1 Pecan 0.02 Sheep, fat 0.01 Sheep, kidney 0.01 Sheep, meat 0.01 Sheep, meat byproducts, except kidney 0.05 [FR Doc. E6-15258 Filed 9-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 712 and 716 [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0014 and EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0055; FRL-8094-8] RIN 2070-AB08 and 2070-AB11 Preliminary Assessment Information Reporting Rule and Health and Safety Data Reporting Rule; Revision of Effective Dates AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule; revision of effective dates. SUMMARY: This document is revising the effective date of two rules published in the **Federal Register** of August 16, 2006: The Preliminary Assessment Information Reporting Rule

(PAIR)and the Health and Safety Data Reporting Rule because of the relocation of the dockets for these two rules. Structural damage to the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) caused by flooding in June 2006 necessitated the relocation of the EPA/DC. Although the EPA/DC is continuing operations, the relocation of EPA/DC and resumption of normal operations has taken place during the period that withdrawal requests for removal of chemicals from these two rules would be arriving; therefore, EPA has decided that the effective dates for these two rules will be revised to ensure that all requests that were submitted to EPA by August 30, 2006, for withdrawal of chemicals listed in these two rules have been accounted for and addressed. DATES: The actions in this document are effective Sepember 15, 2006. The effective date for the PAIR rule amending 40 CFR part 712 published at 71 FR 47122, August 16, 2006, is delayed to September 29, 2006, except for the amendments to sections 712.28 and 712.30(c), which contained technical corrections. The effective date for the Health and Safety Data Reporting rule amending 40 CFR part 716 at 71 FR 47130, August 16, 2006, is delayed to September 29, 2006, except for the amendments to sections 716.30, 716.35, 716.60, and 716.105, which contained technical corrections. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification

(ID)numbers EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0014 and EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0055. All documents in the docket are listed on the regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. The EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) suffered structural damage due to flooding in June 2006. Although the EPA/DC is continuing operations, there will be temporary changes to the EPA/DC during the clean-up. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room, which was temporarily closed due to flooding, has been relocated in the EPA Headquarters Library, Infoterra Room (Room Number 3334) in EPA West, located at 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the EPA/DC Public Reading Room is

(202)566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is

(202)566-0280. EPA visitors are required to show photographic identification and sign the EPA visitor log. Visitors to the EPA/DC Public Reading Room will be provided with an EPA/DC badge that must be visible at all times while in the EPA Building and returned to the guard upon departure. In addition, security personnel will escort visitors to and from the new EPA/DC Public Reading Room location. Up-to-date information about the EPA/DC is on the EPA website at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: *For general information contact* : Colby Lintner, Regulatory Coordinator, Environmental Assistance Division (7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:

(202)554-1404; e-mail address: *TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov* . *For technical information contact:* Joe Nash, Chemical Control Division (7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:

(202)564-8886; fax number:

(202)564-4765; e-mail address: *ccd.citb@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture (defined by statute to include import) any of the chemical substances listed in the August 16, 2006 PAIR rule or August 16, 2006 Health and Safety Data Reporting rule. Entities potentially affected by this action may include, but are not limited to: • Chemical manufacturers (including importers), (NAICS codes 325, 32411), e.g., persons who manufacture (defined by statute to include import) one or more of the subject chemical substances. This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. 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 technical 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 the electronic docket, 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 parts 712 and 716 are available on E-CFR Beta Site Two at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr* . II. Background A. What Action is the Agency Taking? EPA is revising the effective dates on which certain chemicals would be subject to the reporting requirements under TSCA section 8(a) and 8(d). On August 16, 2006, EPA issued a final PAIR rule under TSCA section 8(a) (40 CFR part 712) which requires manufacturers (including importers) of chemicals in the category of voluntary HPV Challenge Program orphan (unsponsored) chemicals on the ITC's TSCA section 4(e) *Priority Testing List* to submit a one-time report on general production/importation volume, end use, and exposure-related information to EPA (71 FR 47122) (FRL-7764-9). Also on August 16, 2006, EPA issued a final Health and Safety Data Reporting rule under TSCA section 8(d) (40 CFR part 716) which requires manufacturers (including importers) of chemicals in this category of voluntary HPV Challenge Program orphan (unsponsored) chemicals to submit certain unpublished health and safety data to EPA (71 FR 47130) (FRL-7764-7). The effect of this revision of the rules' effective dates is that the listed chemicals will not be subject to the reporting requirements imposed by the final TSCA section 8(a) and 8(d) rules issued on August 16, 2006, until September 29, 2006. Because of these changes in effective dates the table in paragraph

(e)of § 712.30 of the final PAIR rule published in the **Federal Register** issue of August 16, 2006 (Ref. 1) is amended by removing “September 15, 2006” under the column heading “Effective date” and adding in its place “September 29, 2006.” The table in paragraph

(e)is also amended by removing “November 14, 2006” under the column heading “Reporting date” and adding in its place “November 28, 2006.” In § 716.120 of the final Health and Safety Data Reporting rule published in the **Federal Register** of August 16, 2006 (Ref. 2), the table in paragraph

(d)is amended by removing “September 15, 2006” under the column heading “Effective date” and adding in its place “September 29, 2006.” The table in paragraph

(d)is also amended by removing “November 14, 2006” under the column heading “Sunset date” and adding in its place “November 28, 2006.” The rules published in the **Federal Register** on August 16, 2006, provided manufacturers (including importers) of any of the chemicals included in the two rules the opportunity, as specified in 40 CFR 712.30(c) and 40 CFR 716.105(c), to send a written request to EPA to withdraw a chemical from these two rules. These requests for withdrawal had to provide detailed reasons why reporting required by these rules was not warranted for the chemical and the written requests had to be received by EPA on or before August 30, 2006. All requests for withdrawal were required to be submitted to the OPPT Document Control Office which is linked to EPA/DC. Structural damage to the EPA/DC caused by flooding in June 2006 necessitated the relocation of the EPA/DC. Although the EPA/DC is continuing operations, the relocation of EPA/DC and resumption of normal operations has taken place during the period that withdrawal requests for removal of chemicals from these two rules would be arriving. Consequently, EPA has decided that the effective dates for these two rules will be revised to ensure that all requests that were submitted to EPA by August 30, 2006, for withdrawal of chemicals listed in these two rules have been accounted for and addressed. B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action? EPA promulgated the PAIR rule under TSCA section 8(a) (15 U.S.C. 2607(a)), and it is codified at 40 CFR part 712. The final rule issued by EPA on August 16, 2006, amended the model TSCA section 8(a) rule by adding the ITC category of certain voluntary HPV Challenge Program orphan (unsponsored) chemicals (Ref. 1). This **Federal Register** document announces EPA's decision, under EPA's authority under TSCA section 8(a) (15 U.S.C. 2607(a)), to revise the effective date of the amended TSCA section 8(a) rule issued by EPA on August 16, 2006 (Ref. 1). EPA promulgated the model Health and Safety Data Reporting rule under TSCA section 8(d) (15 U.S.C. 2607(d)), and it is codified at 40 CFR part 716. The final rule issued by EPA on August 16, 2006, amended the model TSCA section 8(d) rule by adding the ITC category of certain voluntary HPV Challenge Program orphan (unsponsored) chemicals (Ref. 2). This **Federal Register** document announces EPA's decision, under EPA's authority under TSCA section 8(d) (15 U.S.C. 2607(d)), to revise the effective date of the amended TSCA section 8(d) rule issued by EPA on August 16, 2006 (Ref. 2). C. Why is this Action Being Issued as a Final Rule? As with the August 16, 2006 rules, EPA is publishing this action as a final rule without prior notice and an opportunity for comment pursuant to the procedures set forth in 40 CFR 712.30(c) and 716.105(c). EPA finds that there is ``good cause'' under the Administrative Procedure Act

(APA)(5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B)) to make these amendments without prior notice and comment. EPA believes notice and an opportunity for comment on this action are unnecessary. Under the PAIR and Health and Safety Data Reporting rules, the August 16, 2006 rules adding chemicals to the lists of subject chemicals were to be effective 30 days after publication. This action revises the effective date of the August 16, 2006 rules from September 15, 2006 to September 29, 2006. EPA is not revising any other provisions of the PAIR or Health and Safety Data Reporting rules. This revision will not have any substantive effect on manufacturers subject to the rules. This revision will simply provide additional time for EPA to account for and address all requests to withdraw chemicals. In light of this, EPA does not believe comments on this action are necessary. III. References The official dockets for this rule are the dockets established for the TSCA section 8(a) PAIR rule (docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0014) (Ref. 1) and the TSCA section 8(d) Health and Safety Data Reporting Health and Safety Data Reporting rule (docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0055) (Ref. 2). These official public dockets are available for review as specified in ADDRESSES . The following is a listing of the materials referenced in this document that have been placed in the official dockets for this rule: 1. EPA. 2006. Preliminary Assessment Information Reporting; Addition of Certain Chemicals. **Federal Register** (71 FR 47122, August 16, 2006) (FRL-7764-9). Available on-line at: *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr* . 2. EPA. 2006. Health and Safety Data Reporting; Addition of Certain Chemicals. **Federal Register** (71 FR 47130, August 16, 2006) (FRL-7764-7). Available on-line at: *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr* . IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)has exempted actions under TSCA sections 8

(a)and

(d)related to the PAIR and Health and Safety Data Reporting rules from the requirements of Executive Order 12866, entitled *Regulatory Planning and Review* (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). In addition, this rule does not impose any new requirements and will result in a burden and cost reduction; therefore it is not subject to OMB review under the Executive Order. B. Paperwork Reduction Act The information collection requirements contained in TSCA sections 8(a) PAIR and 8(d) Health and Safety Data Reporting rules have already been approved by OMB under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq* ., and OMB control numbers 2070-0054 (EPA ICR No. 0586) and 2070-0004 (EPA ICR No. 0575). The collection activities in this final rule are captured by the existing approval and do not require additional review and/or approval by OMB. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act Because this final rule eliminates reporting requirements, the Agency certifies pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq* ., that this revocation of certain requirements under TSCA sections 8(a) and 8(d) will not have a significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year. In addition, EPA has determined that this rule will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Accordingly, the rule is not subject to the requirements of UMRA sections 202, 203, 204, or 205. E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism This rule has no Federalism implications, because it will not have substantial direct effects on States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled *Federalism* (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments This rule has no tribal implications because it will not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, nor on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes as specified in Executive Order 13175, entitled *Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments* (59 FR 22951, November 6, 2000). G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks 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 rule because this is not an “economically significant” regulatory action as defined under Executive Order 12866, and it does not concern an environmental health or safety risk that may have a disproportionate effect on children. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled *Actions that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use* (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because this action is not expected to affect energy supply, distribution, or use. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Because this action does not involve any technical standards, section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), does not apply to this action. J. Executive Order 12898 This action does not involve special considerations of environmental justice-related issues pursuant to Executive Order 12898, entitled *Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations* (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). V. Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq* ., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the Agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . This rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 712 and 716 Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Health and safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: September 12, 2006. Charles M. Auer, Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. Under EPA's authority, TSCA sections 8(a) and 8(d), the documents published on August 16, 2006, amending 40 CFR part 712 (71 FR 47122) and 40 CFR part 716 (71 FR 47130) are corrected as follows: PARTS 712 and 716—[CORRECTED] § 712.30 [Corrected] 1. Beginning at 71 FR 47126, in § 712.30, in the table in paragraph (e), under the column heading, “Effective date,” remove “September 15, 2006” each time it appears and insert “September 29, 2006” in its place. 2. Beginning at 71 FR 47126, in § 712.30, in the table in paragraph (e), under the column heading, “Reporting date,” remove “November 14, 2006” each time it appears and insert “November 28, 2006” in its place. § 716.120 [Corrected] 3. Beginning at 71 FR 47136, in § 716.120, in the table in paragraph (d), under the column heading, “Effective date,” remove “September 15, 2006” each time it appears and insert “September 29, 2006” in its place. 4. Beginning at 71 FR 47136, in § 716.120, in the table in paragraph (d), under the column heading, “Sunset date,” remove “November 14, 2006” each time it appears and insert “November 28, 2006” in its place. [FR Doc. E6-15358 Filed 9-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S 71 179 Friday, September 15, 2006 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 9 CFR Part 3 [Docket No. APHIS-2006-0044] Animal Welfare; Elephants AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of petition and request for comments; extension of comment period. SUMMARY: We are extending the comment period for our notice of petition and request for comments concerning the handling, care, treatment, and transport of elephants covered by the Animal Welfare Act. This action will allow interested persons additional time to prepare and submit comments. DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before November 9, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov,* select “Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service” from the agency drop-down menu, then click “Submit.” In the Docket ID column, select APHIS-2006-0044 to submit or view public comments and to view supporting and related materials available electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket after the close of the comment period, is available through the site's “User Tips” link. • *Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery:* Please send four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to Docket No. APHIS-2006-0044, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. APHIS-2006-0044. *Reading Room:* You may read any comments that we receive on Docket No. APHIS-2006-0044 in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call

(202)690-2817 before coming. *Other Information:* Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the Internet at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Barbara Kohn, Senior Staff Veterinarian, Animal Care, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 84, Riverdale, MD 20737-1234;

(301)734-7833. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 9, 2006, we published in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 45438-45439, Docket No. APHIS-2006-0044) a notice of petition and request for comments. That document notified the public that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service had received a petition from In Defense of Animals requesting that we issue an interpretive rule or policy to clarify the space and living conditions required for captive elephants, and that we enforce the Animal Welfare Act and its implementing regulations by requiring that exhibitors fully comply with the regulations. We solicited comments from the public regarding the petition, and whether we should continue to regulate the handling, care, treatment, and transport of elephants covered by the Animal Welfare Act under the general standards in the regulations or promulgate specific standards for elephants. We also requested comments regarding what should be included in such standards. Comments on the notice were required to be received on or before October 10, 2006. We are extending the comment period on Docket No. APHIS-2006-0044 for an additional 30 days. This action will allow interested persons additional time to prepare and submit comments. Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2131-2159; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.7. Done in Washington, DC, this 12th day of September 2006. Nick Gutierrez, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E6-15328 Filed 9-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-25688; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-44-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; B-N Group Ltd. BN-2, BN-2A, BN-2B, BN-2T, and BN-2T-4R Series (All Individual Models Included in Type A17EU Certificate Data Sheet

(TCDS)A17E, Revision 16, Dated December 9, 2002) Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for all B-N Group Ltd. BN-2, BN-2A, BN-2B, BN-2T, and BN-2T-4R series (all individual models included in Type Certificate Data Sheet

(TCDS)A17EU, Revision 16, dated December 9, 2002) airplanes. This proposed AD would require you to inspect the horizontal stabilizer attachment bolts and anchor nuts for damage and wear and replace damaged and/or worn parts with new, modified parts. If no damaged or worn parts are found during the proposed inspection, this proposed AD would require you to replace the horizontal stabilizer attachment bolts and anchor nuts at a specified time with new, modified parts. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)issued by the airworthiness authority for the United Kingdom. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct damaged and/or worn horizontal stabilizer attachment bolts and anchor nuts, which would result in failure of the horizontal stabilizer. This failure could result in loss of control. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 16, 2006. ADDRESSES: Use of the following addresses to comment on this proposed AD: • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-0001. • *Fax:*

(202)493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact B-N Group Ltd., Bembridge Airport, Isle of Wight, PO35 5PR, United Kingdom; telephone: +44

(0)1983 872511; fax: +44

(0)1983 873246. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Albert J. Mercado, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri, 64106; telephone:

(816)329-4119; facsimile:

(816)329-4090. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number, “FAA-2006-25688; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-44-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing dat and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive concerning this proposed AD. Discussion The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which is the airworthiness authority for the United Kingdom, notified the FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on all B-N Group Ltd. BN-2, BN-2A, BN-2B, BN-2T, and BN-2T-4R series (all individual models included in Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS ) A17EU, Revision 16, dated December 9, 2002) airplanes. The CAA has received reports of loose horizontal stabilizer attachment bolts. This condition, if not corrected, could cause the horizontal stabilizer to fail. This failure could result in loss of control. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed B-N Britten-Norman Aircraft Limited Service Bulletin number SB 302, Issue 2, dated April 12, 2005. The service information describes procedures for: • Inspecting the horizontal stabilizer attachment bolts and anchor nuts or damage and wear; and • Replacing the horizontal stabilizer attachment bolts and anchor nuts with new, modified parts. Foreign Airworthiness Authority Information The CAA classified this service bulletin as mandatory and issued British AD No. G-2004-0014 R1, *Effective Date:* July 29, 2005, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in the United Kingdom. The B-N Group Ltd. BN-2, BN-2A, BN-2B, BN-2T, and BN-2T-4R series airplanes are manufactured in the United Kingdom and are type-certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Under this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the CAA has kept us informed of the situation described above. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We are proposing this AD because we have examined the CAA's findings, evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. This proposed AD would require you to inspect the horizontal stabilizer attachment bolts and anchor nuts for damage and wear and replace damaged and/or worn parts with new, modified parts. If no damaged or worn parts are found during the proposed inspection, this proposed AD would require you to replace the horizontal stabilizer attachment bolts and anchor nuts at a specified time with new, modified parts. Differences Between the Foreign Airworthiness Authority AD, the Service Bulletin, and the Proposed AD The MCAI British AD No. G-2004-0014 R1, Effective Date: July 29, 2005, and B-N Britten-Norman Aircraft Limited Service Bulletin number SB 302, Issue 2, dated April 12, 2005, allows 1,000-hour repetitive inspections of the horizontal stabilizer attachment bolts and anchor nuts with the option of installing the new, modified horizontal stabilizer attachment bolts as a terminating action for the repetitive inspections. This AD does not allow continued repetitive inspections. The actions required by this AD are consistent with the FAA's aging commuter aircraft policy, which briefly states that, when a modification exists that could eliminate or reduce then umber of required critical inspections, the modification should be incorporated. This policy is based on the FAA's determination that reliance on critical repetitive inspections on airplanes utilized in commuter service carries an unnecessary safety risk when a design change exists that could eliminate or, in certain instances, reduce the number of those critical inspections. In determining what inspections are critical, the FAA considers

(1)the safety consequences of the airplane if the known problem is not detected by the inspection;

(2)the reliability of the inspection such as the probability of not detecting the known problem;

(3)whether the inspection area is difficult to access; and

(4)the possibility of damage to an adjacent structure as a result of the problem. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 91 airplanes in the U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to do the proposed inspection: Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane Total cost on U.S. operators 1 work-hour × $80 per hour = $80 Not applicable $80 $80 × 91 = $7,280. We estimate the following costs to do the proposed replacements: Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane Total cost on U.S. operators 3 work-hours × $80 per hour = $240 $1,600 $240 + $1,600 = $1,840 $1,840 × 91 = $167,440. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety, Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart II, section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket that contains the proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone

(800)647-5227) is located at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **B-N Group Ltd:** Docket No. FAA-2006-25688; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-44-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)We must receive comments on this airworthiness directive

(AD)action by October 16, 2006. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to all BN-2, BN-2A, BN-2B, BN-2T, and BN-2T-4R series (all individual models included in Type Certificate Data Sheet

(TCDS)A17EU, Revision 16, dated December 9, 2002) airplanes; that are certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)issued by the airworthiness authority for the United Kingdom. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct damaged and/or worn horizontal stabilizer attachment bolts and anchor nuts, which could result in failure of the horizontal stabilizer. This failure could result in loss of control. Compliance

(e)To address this problem, you must do the following, unless already done: Actions Compliance Procedures

(1)Inspect the horizontal stablilzer attachment bolts and anchor nuts for damage and wear Within the next 50 hours time-in-service

(TIS)or 2 months, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD Follow B-N Britten-Norman Aircraft Limited Service Bulletin number SB 302, Issue 2, dated April 12, 2005.

(2)If you find any damaged or worn horizontal stabilizer attachment bolts and/or anchor nuts during the inspection required in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD, replace with new, modified horizontal stabilizer attachment bolts Before further flight after the inspection required in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD As specified in B-N Britten-Norman Aircraft Limited Service Bulletin number SB 302, Issue 2, dated April 12, 2005. Do any necessary replacements following B-N Group Ltd. Modification Leaflet for Mod NB-M-1787, Issue 1, dated August 1, 2005.

(3)If you do not find damaged or worn horizontal stabilizer attachment bolts and/or anchor nuts during the inspection required in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD, replace the horizontal stabilizer attachment bolts and anchor nuts with new, modified horizontal stabilizer attachment bolts Upon accumulating 1,000 hours TIS after the inspection required in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD Follow B-N Group Ltd. Modification Leaflet for Mod NB-M-1787, Issue 1, dated August 1, 2005.

(4)You may replace the horizontal stabilizer attachment bolts and anchor nuts with the new, modified horizontal stabilizer attachment bolts at any time, but no later than the applicable times specified in paragraphs (e)(2) and (e)(3) of this AD. After installing the new, modified horizontal stabilizer attachment bolts, no further action is required As of the effective date of this AD Follow B-N Group Ltd. Modification Leaflet for Mod NB-M-1787, Issue 1, dated August 1, 2005. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

(f)The Manager, Standards Staff, FAA, ATTN: Albert J. Mercado, Aerospace Engineer, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:

(816)329-4119; facsimile:

(816)329-4090, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in CFR 39.19. Related Information

(g)MCAI British AD No. G-2004-0014 R1, Effective Date: July 29, 2005, also addresses the subject of this AD. To get copies of the service information referenced in this AD, contact B-N Group Ltd., Bembridge Airport, Isle of Wight, PO35 5PR, United Kingdom; telephone: +44

(0)1983 872511; fax: +44

(0)1983 873246. To view the AD docket, go to the Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC, or on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov.* The docket number is Docket No. FAA-2006-25688; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-44-AD. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on September 11, 2006. John R. Colomy, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. 06-7706 Filed 9-14-06; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 47

Traces to 47 documents

U.S. Code