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

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2006-12-29 · Coast Guard, DHS · Rules and Regulations

Rules and Regulations. Temporary final rule

22,948 words·~104 min read·/register/2006/12/29/06-9918

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

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [CGD05-07-123] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone: Transit of Industrial Cranes, Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone from the mouth of the Cape Fear River to the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge to provide for the safety of the public during the transit and mooring of a vessel carrying four
(4)large industrial cranes. The cranes are of such size and dimension that they will create a significant obstruction to safe navigation for other vessels operating in the vicinity. Restricting vessel traffic is necessary to ensure the safety of the public. Vessel traffic will only be restricted during the transit of the vessel. DATES: This rule is effective from 1 a.m. on February 1, 2007 until 11 p.m. on February 15, 2007. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket CGD05-06-123 and are available for inspection or copying at the Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Wilmington, North Carolina between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LT Tim Grant, Chief of Response, Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Wilmington, North Carolina at
(910)772-2191. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)was not published for this regulation. Good cause exists for not publishing a NPRM. Any delay encountered in this regulation's effective date by publishing a NPRM would be contrary to public interest since immediate action is needed to prevent traffic from transiting the waters of the Cape Fear River. A safety zone is needed in order to provide for the safety of life and property on navigable waters of the Cape Fear River. The regulated area will consist of the complete closure of the Cape Fear River to vessel traffic movement beginning at the International Regulations for Prevention of Collisions at Sea, 1972 (COLREGS, 72) Demarcation Line drawn from Oak Island Light House to Bald Head Island Abandon Light House noted on NOAA chart 11537 and proceeding north up the Cape Fear River bank to bank to the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge. The safety zone will be enforced until the vessel transporting the cranes has been safely moored at North Carolina State Port Authority berth #8. Background and Purpose Sometime between February 1, 2007 and February 15, 2007, The North Carolina State Port Authority (NCSPA) intends to bring in four
(4)new cranes to enhance container operations at the NCSPA's facility located on the Cape Fear River, Wilmington, North Carolina. The combination of the size of the cranes and the restricted maneuverability in the Cape Fear River necessitates the temporary restriction of all commercial vessel movement in the Cape Fear River to protect mariners from the hazards associated with this event. This temporary safety zone will be enforced for approximately five
(5)to seven
(7)hours on a day between February 1 and February 15 when the transit of the vessel carrying four large industrial cranes occurs. The zone will only be enforced on the day during the transit. The zone will not be enforced on subsequent days during the duration of the effective period. The zone will have minimal impact on vessel transits because the waterway will only be closed for five to seven hours. Discussion of Rule The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone on the specified waters of the Cape Fear River. The regulated area will consist of the complete closure of the Cape Fear River to vessel traffic movement beginning at the International Regulations for Prevention of Collisions at Sea, 1972 (COLREGS, 72) Demarcation Line drawn from Oak Island Light House to Bald Head Island Abandon Light House noted on NOAA chart 11537 and proceeding north up the Cape Fear River bank to bank to the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge. The safety zone will be in effect from 1 a.m. on February 1, 2007 to 11 p.m. on February 15, 2007. The zone will be enforced for approximately five
(5)to seven
(7)hours on a day between February 1 and February 15 when the transit of the vessel carrying four large industrial cranes occurs. After February 15, 2007 the zone will no longer be in effect. Except for participants and vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area. 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. Although this regulation restricts access to the regulated area, the effect of this rule will not be significant because:
(i)The COTP may authorize access to the safety zone;
(ii)the safety zone will be in effect for a limited duration; and
(iii)the Coast Guard will make notifications via maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. 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 and operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in that portion of the Cape Fear River between the dates of February 1, 2007 and February 15, 2007. The safety zone will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, because the zone will only be in place for approximately five
(5)to seven
(7)hours and maritime advisories will be issued, so the mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. 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 contact LT Tim Grant, Chief of Response, Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Wilmington, North Carolina at
(910)772-2191. 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 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 U.S. 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 might 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, which guides 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 will 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. A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” will be 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, and Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 subpart C 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; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5.; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064. 2. Add Temporary § 165.T05-123, to read as follows: § 165.T05-123 Safety Zone: Cape Fear River, Wilmington, North Carolina.
(a)*Location:* The following area is a safety zone: All waters of the Cape Fear River from COLREGS Demarcation Line drawn from Oak Island Light House to Bald Head Island Abandon Light House noted on NOAA chart 11537 and proceeding north up the Cape Fear River bank to bank to the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge, in the Captain of the Port Cape Fear River, Wilmington North Carolina zone as defined in 33 CFR § 3.25-20.
(b)*Definition:* As used in this section; Captain of the Port: means any U.S. Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the Port, Cape Fear River, Wilmington, North Carolina to act on his behalf.
(c)*Regulation:*
(1)In accordance with the general regulations in 165.23 of this part, entry into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Cape Fear River, Wilmington, North Carolina, or designated representative.
(2)The operator of any vessel in the immediate vicinity of this safety zone 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 U.S. Coast Guard Ensign.
(ii)Proceed as directed by any commissioned, warrant or petty officer on board a vessel displaying a U.S. Coast Guard Ensign.
(3)The Captain of the Port, Cape Fear River Wilmington, North Carolina can be contacted at telephone number
(910)772-2191/94 or
(910)512-5830/31.
(4)Coast Guard vessels enforcing the safety zone can be contacted on VHF-FM marine band radio, channel 13 (156.65 MHz) and channel 16 (156.8 MHz).
(d)*Enforcement period:* The zone will be enforced for approximately five
(5)to seven
(7)hours on a day between February 1 and February 15 when the transit of the vessel carrying four large industrial cranes occurs. If the transit occurs as planned on a day during this period, then the zone will not be enforced on subsequent days during the duration of the effective period.
(e)*Effective Date:* This regulation is effective from 1 a.m. on February 1, 2007 until 11 p.m. on February 15, 2007. Dated: December 18, 2006. Byron L. Black, Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Cape Fear River, Wilmington, North Carolina. [FR Doc. E6-22440 Filed 12-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [CGD05-06-121] RIN 1625-AA00 Security Zone; Choptank River, Cambridge, MD AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary security zone encompassing certain waters of the Choptank River. This action is necessary to ensure the safety of persons and property, and prevent terrorist acts or incidents during the U.S. House Republican Issues Conference, being held during January 24-26, 2007. This rule prohibits vessels and people from entering the security zone and requires vessels and persons in the security zone to depart the security zone, unless specifically exempt under the provisions in this rule or granted specific permission from the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Baltimore. DATES: This rule is effective from 7 a.m. on January 24, 2007, through 7 a.m. on January 27, 2007. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket CGD05-06-121 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 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ronald Houck, Waterways Management Division, at Commander, Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, 2401 Hawkins Point Road, Baltimore, Maryland 21226-1791, telephone number
(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 and for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . The Coast Guard is establishing this security zone to support the United States Capitol Police Dignitary Protection Division, the lead federal agency coordinating security for the U.S. House Republican Issues Conference, in their efforts to coordinate security operations and establish a secure environment for this highly visible and publicized event. This temporary security zone of short duration is necessary to provide for the security of a large gathering of high-ranking United States officials, their families and staff. Additionally, the publication of an NPRM is contrary to the public interest as our Nation continues its heightened security posture. Therefore, immediate action is required to address the ongoing threat to U.S. national interests. For the same reasons, 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** . The measures contemplated by the rule are intended to protect the public by preventing waterborne acts of terrorism, which terrorists have demonstrated a capability to carry out. Immediate action is needed to defend against and deter these terrorist acts. Any delay in the effective date of this rule is contrary to public and national interests. Background and Purpose The ongoing hostilities in Afghanistan and Iraq have made it prudent for U.S. ports and waterways to be on a higher state of alert because the al Qaeda organization and other similar organizations have declared an ongoing intention to conduct armed attacks on U.S. interests worldwide. Due to increased awareness that future terrorist attacks are possible the Coast Guard, as lead federal agency for maritime homeland security, has determined that the Coast Guard Captain of the Port must have the means to be aware of, deter, detect, intercept, and respond to asymmetric threats, acts of aggression, and attacks by terrorists on the American homeland while still maintaining our freedoms and sustaining the flow of commerce. This security zone is part of a comprehensive port security regime designed to safeguard human life, vessels, and waterfront facilities against sabotage or terrorist attacks. The Captain of the Port Baltimore is establishing a security zone to address the aforementioned security concerns and to take steps to prevent the catastrophic impact that a terrorist attack against a large gathering of high-ranking United States officials, their families, and staff at or near the Hyatt Regency Chesapeake Bay Golf Resort, Spa and Marina, in Cambridge, Maryland, would have. This temporary security zone applies to all waters of the Choptank River, within 500 yards of the resort's River Marsh Marina Breakwater Pavilion, in approximate position latitude 38°33.76′ N longitude 076°02.75′ W (North American Datum of 1983). Vessels underway at the time this security zone is implemented will immediately proceed out of the zone. We will issue written and broadcast Notices to Mariners to further publicize the security zone and any revisions to the zone. Except for Public vessels and vessels at berth, mooring or at anchor, this rule temporarily requires all vessels in the designated security zone as defined by this rule to depart the security 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). 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 operate, transit or anchor on the Choptank River, within 500 yards of the Hyatt Regency Chesapeake Bay Golf Resort, Spa and Marina's Breakwater Pavilion, in approximate position latitude 38°33.76′ N longitude 076°02.75′ W (North American Datum of 1983) from 7 a.m. on January 24, 2007 through 7 a.m. on January 27, 2007. This security zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities due to its limited size, vessels requiring to transit the federal navigation channel will be able to do so, and a lack of seasonal vessel traffic associated with recreational boating and commercial fishing during the effective period. Further, vessels with compelling interests that outweigh the port's security needs may be granted waivers from the requirements of the security zone. 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. If your small business or organization would be affected by this final rule and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact one of the points of contact listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . 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 security zone. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, an “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are available in the docket. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Vessels, 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.T05-121 to read as follows: § 165.T05-121 Security Zone; Choptank River, Cambridge, MD.
(a)*Definitions.* For the purposes of this section, *Captain of the Port Baltimore* means the Commander, U.S. Coast Guard sector Baltimore, Maryland and any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been authorized by the Commander, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, Maryland to act as a designated representative on his behalf.
(b)*Location.* The following area is a security zone: All waters of the Choptank River, within 500 yards of the Hyatt Regency Chesapeake Bay Golf Resort, Spa and Marina's Breakwater Pavilion, in approximate position latitude 38° 33.76′ N longitude 076° 02.75′ W (North American Datum of 1983).
(c)*Regulations.*
(1)The general regulations governing security zones found in § 165.33 of this part apply to the security zone described in paragraph
(b)of this section.
(2)Entry into or remaining in this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Baltimore or his designated representative. Except for Public vessels and vessels at berth, mooring or at anchor, all vessels in this zone are to depart the security zone.
(3)Persons desiring to transit the area of the security zone must first obtain authorization from the Captain of the Port Baltimore. To seek permission to transit the area, the Captain of the Port Baltimore can be contacted at telephone number
(410)576-2693. The Coast Guard vessels enforcing this section can be contacted on Marine Band Radio, VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed as directed. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Baltimore and proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course while within the zone.
(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)*Enforcement period.* This section will be enforced from 7 a.m. on January 24, 2007, through 7 a.m. on January 27, 2007. Dated: December 18, 2006. Brian D. Kelley, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland. [FR Doc. E6-22441 Filed 12-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [COTP JACKSONVILLE 06-276] RIN 1625-AA87 Security Zones; Escorted Vessels in the Captain of the Port Jacksonville Zone AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is temporarily establishing security zones around any vessel escorted by one or more Coast Guard, State, or local law enforcement assets within the Captain of the Port Zone Jacksonville, FL. No vessel or person is allowed within 100 yards of an escorted vessel, while within the navigable waters of the Captain of the Port Zone, Jacksonville, FL, unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Jacksonville, FL or designated representative. Additionally, all vessels within 500 yards of an escorted vessel in the Captain of the Port Zone Jacksonville, FL will be required to operate at a minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course. This action is necessary to protect personnel, vessels, and facilities from sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents, or other events of a similar nature while we undertake a separate, notice-and-comment rulemaking to establish a permanent security zone for escorted vessels in the COTP Jacksonville Zone. DATES: This rule is effective from December 7, 2006, through April 1, 2007. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket (COTP Jacksonville 06-276) and are available for inspection or copying at Coast Guard Sector Jacksonville Prevention Department, 7820 Arlington Expressway, Suite 400, Jacksonville, FL 32211, between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ensign Kira Peterson at Coast Guard Sector Jacksonville Prevention Department, Florida tel:
(904)232-2640, ext. 108. 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. Security zones around escorted vessels are necessary to ensure the safe transit of the escorted vessels as well as the public. Certain vessel movements are more vulnerable to terrorist acts and it would be contrary to the public interest to publish an NPRM which would incorporate a notice and comment period that would delay the effective date of this regulation. For the same reasons and 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 terrorist attacks of September 2001 heightened the need for development of various security measures throughout the seaports of the United States, particularly around vessels and facilities whose presence or movement creates a heightened vulnerability to terrorist acts; or those for which the consequences of terrorist acts represent a threat to national security. Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, the President of the United States found the security of the United States to be endangered (E.O. 13224, 66 FR 49079, September 25, 2001) and the President has continued the national emergencies he declared in 2001 (71 FR 52733, September 7, 2006, continuing the emergency declared with respect to terrorist attacks; and 71 FR 55725, September 22, 2006, continuing the emergency with respect to persons who commit, threaten to commit or support terrorism). Additionally, national security and intelligence officials continue to warn that future terrorist attacks are likely. King's Bay, GA, and the Ports of Jacksonville, FL, and Canaveral, FL, receive vessels that carry sensitive Department of Defense cargoes as well as foreign naval vessels that require additional safeguards. The Captain of the Port
(COTP)Jacksonville has determined that these vessels have a significant vulnerability to subversive activity by vessels or persons within the Jacksonville Captain of the Port Zone, as described in 33 CFR 3.35-20. This rule enables the COTP Jacksonville to provide effective port security, while minimizing the public's confusion and ease the administrative burden of implementing separate temporary security zones for each escorted vessel. In the near future, the Captain of the Port Jacksoniville will publish a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)in the **Federal Register** and seek comments on a proposal to establish a permanent security zone for escorted vessels in the COTP Jacksonville Zone. While that rulemaking is underway, this temporary rule is necessary to continue to ensure security for the Port. Discussion of Rule This rule prohibits persons and vessels from coming within 100 yards of all escorted vessels within the navigable waters of the Captain of the Port Zone Jacksonville, FL, as described in 33 CFR 3.35-20. No vessel or person may enter within a 100 yard radius of an escorted vessel unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Jacksonville, FL or his designated representative. Persons or vessels that receive permission to enter the security zone must proceed at a minimum safe speed and must comply with all orders issued by the COTP or his designated representative. Additionally, a vessel operating within 500 yards of an escorted vessel must proceed at a minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course, unless otherwise required to maintain speed by the navigation rules, and must comply with the orders of the COTP Jacksonville or his designated representative. 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). While recognizing the potential impacts to the public, the Coast Guard believes the security zones are necessary for the reasons described above. However, 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. There is generally enough room for vessels to navigate around these security zones. Where such room is not available and security conditions permit, the Captain of the Port will attempt to provide flexibility for individual vessels as needed. 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 would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit King's Bay and the Ports of Jacksonville and Canaveral in the vicinity of escorted vessels. This rule would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because the zones are limited in size, leaving in most cases ample space for vessels to navigate around them. The zones will not significantly impact commercial and passenger vessel traffic patterns, and mariners will be notified of the zones via Local Notice to Mariners and marine broadcasts. Where such room is not available and security conditions permit, the Captain of the Port will attempt to provide flexibility for individual vessels to transit through the zones as needed. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would affect it economically. 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. 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. Although this rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule would not affect 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 would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might 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 would 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. We invite your comments on how this rule might impact tribal governments, even if that impact may not constitute a “tribal implication” under the Order. 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. It has not been designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 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, which guides 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, we believe that this rule should be categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects 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, 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Add § 165.T07-276 to read as follows: § 165.T07-276 Security Zones; Escorted Vessels in the Captain of the Port Jacksonville Zone.
(a)*Definitions.* The following definitions apply to this section: *Designated representatives* means Coast Guard Patrol Commanders including Coast Guard coxswains, petty officers and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port (COTP), Jacksonville, Florida, in the enforcement of the regulated navigation areas and security zones. *Escorted vessel* means a vessel, other than a U.S. naval vessel as defined in § 165.2015 that is accompanied by one or more Coast Guard assets or other Federal, State or local law enforcement agency assets as listed below:
(1)Coast Guard surface or air asset displaying the Coast Guard insignia.
(2)Coast Guard Auxiliary surface asset displaying the Coast Guard Auxiliary insignia.
(3)State and/or local law enforcement asset displaying the applicable agency markings and/or equipment associated with the agency. *Minimum Safe Speed* means the speed at which a vessel proceeds when it is fully off plane, completely settled in the water and not creating excessive wake. Due to the different speeds at which vessels of different sizes and configurations may travel while in compliance with this definition, no specific speed is assigned to minimum safe speed. In no instance should minimum safe speed be interpreted as a speed less than that required for a particular vessel to maintain steerageway. A vessel is not proceeding at minimum safe speed if it is:
(1)On a plane;
(2)In the process of coming up onto or coming off a plane; or
(3)Creating an excessive wake. *State and/or local law enforcement officer* means any State or local government law enforcement officer who has authority to enforce State or local laws.
(b)*Regulated area.* All navigable waters within the Captain of the Port Zone Jacksonville, FL, as described in 33 CFR 3.35-20.
(c)*Regulations.*
(1)A 100 yard Security Zone is established around, and centered on each Escorted vessel within the Regulated Area. This is a moving security zone when the Escorted vessel is in transit and becomes a fixed zone when the Escorted vessel is anchored or moored. The general regulations for Security Zones contained in § 165.33 of this part applies to this section.
(2)A vessel in the Regulated Area operating between 100 yards and 500 yards of an Escorted vessel must proceed at the minimum safe speed, unless otherwise required to maintain speed by the navigation rules, and must comply with the orders of the COTP Jacksonville or his designated representative.
(3)Persons or vessels shall contact the COTP Jacksonville to request permission to deviate from these regulations. The COTP Jacksonville may be contacted at
(904)247-7318 or on VHF channel 16.
(4)The COTP will inform the public of the existence or status of Escorted vessels in the Regulated Area by Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
(d)*Effective period.* This section is effective from December 7, 2006, through April 1, 2007. Dated: December 8, 2006. Paul F. Thomas, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Jacksonville. [FR Doc. E6-22439 Filed 12-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 38 CFR Part 3 RIN 2900-AM28 Accrued Benefits AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA)amends its adjudication regulation regarding accrued benefits. The amendments are the result of changes in statute and are intended to clarify existing regulatory provisions. This document adopts as final rule, without change, the proposed rule published in the **Federal Register** on June 29, 2006. DATES: *Effective Date:* January 29, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maya Ferrandino, Consultant, Policy and Regulations Staff, Compensation and Pension Service, Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420,
(202)273-7210. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a document published in the **Federal Register** on June 29, 2006, (71 FR 37027), VA proposed to amend its regulations regarding accrued benefits to clarify existing regulatory provisions and to ensure consistency with section 104 of the Veterans Benefits Act of 2003, Public Law 108-183, which amended 38 U.S.C. 5121, with respect to payment of certain accrued benefits upon the death of a beneficiary. The public comment period ended on August 28, 2006, and VA received no comments. Based on the rationale set forth in the proposed rule, we are adopting the provisions of the proposed rule as a final rule without change. Paperwork Reduction Act This document contains no provisions constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). Regulatory Flexibility Act The Secretary hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. This final rule would not affect any small entities. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this final rule is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604. Executive Order 12866 Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). The Executive Order classifies a “significant regulatory action,” requiring review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)unless OMB waives such review, as any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1)Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;
(2)Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3)Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4)Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. The economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this final rule have been examined and it has been determined to be a significant regulatory action under the Executive Order because it is likely to result in a rule that may raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. Unfunded Mandates The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any year. This final rule would have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers and Titles The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance program numbers and titles for this proposal are 64.102, Compensation for Service-Connected Deaths for Veterans' Dependents, 64.104, Pension for Non-Service-Connected Disability for Veterans, 64.105, Pension to Veterans Surviving Spouses, and Children, 64.109, Veterans Compensation for Service-Connected Disability, and 64.110, Veterans Dependency and Indemnity Compensation for Service-Connected Death. List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 3 Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Disability benefits, Health care, Pensions, Radioactive materials, Veterans, Vietnam. Approved: December 7, 2006. Gordon H. Mansfield, Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs. For the reasons set out in the preamble, VA amends 38 CFR part 3 (subpart A) as follows: PART 3—ADJUDICATION Subpart A—Pension, Compensation, and Dependency and Indemnity Compensation 1. The authority citation for part 3, subpart A continues to read as follows: Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a), unless otherwise noted. 2. Amend § 3.1000 as follows: a. In paragraph
(a)introductory text, remove “at his death” and add, in its place, “at his or her death”; remove “decisions, or” and add, in its place, “decisions or”; and remove “for a period not to exceed 2 years prior to the last date of entitlement as provided in § 3.500(g)”. b. Redesignate paragraph (a)(4) as paragraph (a)(5). c. Add a new paragraph (a)(4). d. In paragraph (d)(4), add “, in support of a claim for VA benefits pending on the date of death” immediately following “before the date of death”. e. Add paragraph (d)(5). f. Add paragraph (i). The additions read as follows: § 3.1000 Entitlement under 38 U.S.C. 5121 to benefits due and unpaid upon death of a beneficiary.
(a)* * *
(4)Upon the death of a child claiming benefits under chapter 18 of this title, to the surviving parents.
(d)* * *
(5)*Claim for VA benefits pending on the date of death* means a claim filed with VA that had not been finally adjudicated by VA on or before the date of death. Such a claim includes a deceased beneficiary's claim to reopen a finally disallowed claim based upon new and material evidence or a deceased beneficiary's claim of clear and unmistakable error in a prior rating or decision. Any new and material evidence must have been in VA's possession on or before the date of the beneficiary's death.
(i)*Active service pay.* Benefits awarded under this section do not include compensation or pension benefits for any period for which the veteran received active service pay. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 5304(c).) [FR Doc. E6-22339 Filed 12-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0357; FRL-8264-2] RIN 2060-AO03 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) Operations AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action on amendments to the national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for shipbuilding and ship repair (surface coating) operations (subpart II) promulgated on December 15, 1995 (60 FR 64330), under the authority of section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). These direct final rule amendments close an unintended gap in the scope of activities subject to the NESHAP by amending the definition of “ship” to include all marine or fresh-water vessels that are either
(1)20 meters or more in length regardless of the purpose for which the vessel is constructed or used, or
(2)less than 20 meters in length and designed and built specifically for military or commercial purposes. All shipbuilding and ship repair coating operations performed on “ships,” as so defined, are subject to Subpart II if they take place at an “affected source,” as defined in 40 CFR 63.782. The only exception is that this NESHAP shall not be construed to apply to coating activities that are subject to emission limitations or work practices under the NESHAP for the boat manufacturing at 40 CFR part 63 subpart VVVV. We have also added a definition of “commercial” to further clarify the types of nonmilitary vessels less than 20 meters that we consider to be ships. The amended definition of “ship” renders the term “pleasure craft” unnecessary and the amendments, therefore, eliminate the use of that term in subpart II. DATES: The direct final rule is effective on February 27, 2007 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by January 29, 2007 or if a public hearing is requested by January 8, 2007. If adverse comments are received or a public hearing is requested, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the **Federal Register** and inform the public that the rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0357 (Legacy No. A-92-11), by one of the following methods: 1. *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. *E-mail: serageldin.mohamed@epa.gov* . 3. Fax:
(202)566-1741 and
(919)541-3470. 4. Mail: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a duplicate copy, if possible. 5. Hand Delivery: Air and Radiation Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B-108, Washington, DC 20460. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. We request that a separate copy also be sent to the contact person listed below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). *Instructions.* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. OAR-2004-0357. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://www.epa.gov/edocket* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through EDOCKET, www.regulations.gov, or e-mail. The EPA EDOCKET and the Federal Web sites are “anonymous access” systems, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through EDOCKET or www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit EDOCKET on-line or see the **Federal Register** of May 31, 2002 (67 FR 38102). *Docket.* All documents in the docket are listed in the EDOCKET index at *http://www.epa.gov/edocket.* Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, *i.e.* , CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in EDOCKET or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The 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 Public Reading Room is
(202)566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is
(202)566-1742. Note: The EPA Docket Center suffered damage due to flooding during the last week of June 2006. The Docket Center is continuing to operate. However, during the cleanup, there will be temporary changes to Docket Center telephone numbers, addresses, and hours of operation for people who wish to make hand deliveries or visit the Public Reading Room to view documents. Consult EPA's **Federal Register** notice at 71 FR 38147 (July 5, 2006), or the EPA Web site at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm* for current information on docket operations, locations and telephone numbers. The Docket Center's mailing address for U.S. mail and the procedure for submitting comments to www.regulations.gov are not affected by the flooding and will remain the same. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mohamed Serageldin, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-03), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number
(919)541-2379, electronic mail address *serageldin.mohamed@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Regulated Entities.* The regulated category and entities affected by this action include: Category Examples of regulated entities Industry Facilities that are engaged in shipbuilding and ship repair operations. The term ship means all marine or fresh-water vessels that are either
(1)20 meters or more in length regardless of the purpose for which the vessel is constructed or used, or
(2)that are less than 20 meters in length and are designed and built specifically for military or commercial purposes. This includes, but is not limited to, all military and Coast Guard vessels, commercial cargo and passenger (cruise) ships, ferries, tankers, container ships, patrol and pilot boats, yachts, and dredges. Note: An offshore oil and gas drilling platform is not considered a ship for purposes of this regulation. Federal Govt Federal Agencies which undertake shipbuilding or repair operations (see above) such as the Navy and Coast Guard. This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this rule. To determine whether your facility, company, business, organization, etc., is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine all of the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.781 of the rule, as well as in this direct final rule. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this rule to a particular activity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. *World Wide Web (WWW).* In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of the direct final rule will also be available on the WWW through EPA's Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature by the EPA Administrator, a copy of the direct final rule will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at *http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/.* The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. If more information regarding the TTN is needed, call the TTN HELP line at
(919)541-5384. *Comments.* We are publishing the direct final rule without prior proposal because we do not believe that the changes are controversial. As explained below, the changes are being made to fill a gap in coverage which was inadvertently created in an effort to address an issue raised by commenters in response to the proposed rule (59 FR 62681, December 6, 1994). These amendments are wholly consistent with the intent of the 1995 rule. Moreover, we are issuing these amendments as a direct final rule to ensure that the activities made subject to subpart II by the amended definition of “ship” are covered under subpart II, as opposed to the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products (Surface Coating) NESHAP (subpart MMMM). Subpart MMMM is a catch-all category intended to cover all metal surface coating activities not specifically covered by another NESHAP. In the absence of these direct final rule amendments, any shipbuilding and ship repair operations performed on vessels that do not meet the definition of ship would not be covered by subpart II and would be subject to subpart MMMM on the initial compliance date of January 2, 2007. In the Proposed Rules Section of this **Federal Register** , we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to amend the NESHAP for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) Operations (40 CFR part 63, subpart II) in the event that this direct final rule is withdrawn. If we receive any adverse comment or a request for a public hearing, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the **Federal Register** and inform the public that the rule will not take effect. We will address all public comments received on the proposed rule in a subsequent final rule, we will not institute a second comment period on the proposed rule. Any parties interested in commenting on the proposed rule must do so at this time. *Judicial Review.* Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial review of the direct final rule is available only by filing a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by February 27, 2007. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an objection to the direct final rule that was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment can be raised during judicial review. Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements established by the direct final rule may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce these requirements. *Outline.* The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows: I. Why are we amending the rule? II. What amendments are we making to the rule? III. What are the compliance dates? IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act C. Regulatory Flexibility Act D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act J. Congressional Review Act I. Why are we amending the rule? On December 15, 1995, EPA issued a NESHAP section 112 of the CAA for shipbuilding and ship repair (surface coating) operations (60 FR 64330). The shipbuilding and ship repair rule requires existing and new major sources to control emissions of hazardous air pollutants to the level achievable using maximum achievable
(MACT)control technology. The rule applies to shipbuilding and ship repair operations at any facilities that are major sources, that apply marine coatings to “ships” and that meet the definition of “affected source” in 40 CFR 63.782 (Section 63.782 defines “affected source” as “any shipbuilding or ship repair facility having surface coating operations with a minimum 1,000 liters
(L)(264 gallons annual marine coatings usage that is subject to this subpart.”) “Ship building and ship repair operations,” as defined in subpart II (40 CFR 63.782), means “any building, repair, repainting, converting, or alteration of ships.” In the December 6, 1994, proposed rule (59 FR 62681) the term “ship” was defined as “any marine or fresh-water vessel used for military or commercial operations.” The term “commercial,” in turn, was defined broadly as “any vessel not owned and operated by the U.S. military or the U.S. Coast Guard.” During the public comment period on the proposed rule, EPA received public comments which expressed concern that the definition of “ship” in the proposed rule was too broad and could be read to cover facilities engaged in building or repairing vessels that are small in size and are intended for, or used for, only recreational use. In response to these comments, EPA added a definition for “pleasure craft” in the final rule and excluded “pleasure craft” as so defined from the definition of “ship.” Specifically, EPA defined “ship” and “pleasure craft” in the final rule as follows: • Ship means any marine or fresh-water vessel used for military or commercial operations, including self-propelled vessels, those propelled by other craft (barges), and navigational aids (buoys). This definition includes, but is not limited to, all military and Coast Guard vessels, commercial cargo and passenger (cruise) ships, ferries, barges, tankers, container ships, patrol and pilot boats, and dredges. For purposes of this subpart, pleasure crafts and off-shore oil and gas drilling platforms are not considered ships. • Pleasure craft, which is excluded from the definition of ship, is defined as any marine or fresh-water vessel used by individuals for noncommercial, nonmilitary, and recreational purposes that is less than 20 meters in length. A vessel rented exclusively to or chartered by individuals for such purposes shall be considered pleasure craft. Although EPA had proposed a broad definition for the term “commercial” in the proposed rule, it did not adopt that definition in the final rule issued in 1995. It did, however, use the undefined term “commercial” in defining what constitutes a “ship.” In creating the definition of “pleasure craft” in the final NESHAP and excluding pleasure craft from the definition of “ship,” we intended that only those vessels less than 20 meters in length used by individuals for nonmilitary and noncommercial purposes (i.e., recreational purposes) would be exempt from subpart II. Our use of the terms “noncommercial, nonmilitary and recreational” in the definition of “pleasure craft” and our failure to adopt the proposed broad definition of “commercial” coupled with the “commercial and military” restriction in the definition of “ship” have led to questions as to whether the final NESHAP applies to shipbuilding and ship repair operations conducted on vessels that measure 20 meters or more in length, that are neither military nor commercial vessels. In reviewing this applicability question, we have determined that vessels measuring 20 meters or more in length that are neither military nor commercial do not meet the current definition of “ship” in 40 CFR 63.782, and are therefore not subject to the requirements of subpart II. Thus, the gap in coverage in the existing regulations relates to the following operations conducted at shipbuilding and ship repair facilities that meet the definition of affected source in 40 CFR 63.782: Shipbuilding and ship repair operations that are conducted on vessels 20 meters or greater in length that are designed and built for nonmilitary and noncommercial operations. Because we had intended to cover such operations in the 1995 final NESHAP, we are issuing these amendments to fill this unintended gap in the existing regulations. Specifically, these amendments fill the gap by, amending the regulatory definition of “ship” to cover, among other things, all marine or fresh-water vessels measuring 20 meters or more in length; including a definition of “commercial” to clarify which vessels less than 20 meters are subject to subpart II; and eliminating the term “pleasure craft” in subpart II, because that definition has created unnecessary confusion. In reviewing the definition of pleasure craft, we realized that the definition was too limiting because it defined pleasure craft by reference to a vessel's actual use. Although defining pleasure craft in such a manner may be appropriate for purposes of ship repair activities, it is not an appropriate criterion for ship building activities because it is unrealistic to expect a shipbuilder to know definitively at the time of construction of the vessel whether the vessel will be used for recreational or commercial purposes. In summary, these amendments fill an unintended gap in the coverage of subpart II by establishing that shipbuilding and ship repair operations performed on all marine or fresh-water vessels measuring 20 meters or more in length are subject to the requirements of subpart II regardless of the purpose for which the vessel is designed, built, or used. These amendments also clarify that subpart II shall not be construed to apply to coating activities that are subject to emission limitations or work practices under the NESHAP for boat manufacturing at 40 CFR part 63 subpart VVVV. II. What amendments are we making to the rule? Specifically, we are:
(1)Revising the definition of ship to include all vessels measuring 20 meters or more in length regardless of the purpose for which the vessel is constructed or used and any vessels that are less than 20 meters in length, designed and built specifically for military or commercial purposes;
(2)including a definition of commercial to further identify those nonmilitary vessels that are less than 20 meters in length that we consider to meet the definition of ship in subpart II as those that are specifically designed and built for the purposes of generating compensation for products or services;
(3)eliminating the term “pleasure craft”; and
(4)excluding from subpart II those coating activities that are subject to emission limitations or work practices under the NESHAP for boat manufacturing at 40 CFR part 63 subpart VVVV. As a result of this action, shipbuilding and ship repair operations on all marine or fresh-water vessels measuring 20 meters or more in length, regardless of the purpose for which the vessel is constructed or used, will now be subject to subpart II, not subpart MMMM which contains the default requirements for any metal surface coating not specifically covered by another NESHAP. The compliance period for the shipbuilding and ship repair operations that are subject to subpart II for the first time as the result of these amendments is described below in section III. The revised definitions are as follows: • Commercial means any enterprise or activity that receives compensation for products and/or services rendered. • Ship means all marine or fresh-water vessels that are either
(1)20 meters or more in length regardless of the purpose for which the vessel is constructed or used, or
(2)that are less than 20 meters in length and are designed and built specifically for military or commercial purposes. This definition includes, but is not limited to, all military and Coast Guard vessels, commercial cargo and passenger (cruise) ships, ferries, tankers, container ships, patrol and pilot boats, yachts, and dredges. For purposes of this subpart, offshore oil and gas drilling platforms are not ships. III. What are the compliance dates? We address the compliance date for those affected sources that conduct the type of operations that are, as the result of these amendments, newly subject to subpart II. Specifically, those existing affected sources that are engaged in the type of shipbuilding and ship repair operations that became subject to the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair NESHAP as the result of these amendments must comply with the requirements applicable to those operations by December 31, 2007. The 1-year compliance deadline allows these affected sources a reasonable period of time in which to deplete existing inventories of coatings and to plan and implement appropriate compliance procedures. Additionally, the 1-year period provides sources an opportunity to obtain compliant coatings and/or identify alternative methods of limiting emissions. The EPA does not expect that any new affected source engaged solely in the operations that are the subject of these amendments will be built; however, in the event that such a new facility is built, it must comply according to the schedule in 40 CFR 63.6(b). (For purposes of this discussion, a new affected source is an “affected source,” as defined by 40 CFR 63.782, at which shipbuilding and ship repair operations are conducted exclusively on vessels 20 meters or greater in length that are designed and constructed for nonmilitary and noncommercial operations, for which construction or reconstruction is commenced after the date of this companion proposed rule.) IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)review and the requirements of the Executive Order. It has been determined that this direct final rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and are, therefore, not subject to OMB review. B. Paperwork Reduction Act This action may impose additional information collection burden for sources currently subject to and complying with subpart II. Sources currently complying with subpart II that choose to build or repair marine or fresh-water vessels that are 20 meters or more in length and are not either military or commercial vessels will need to expand their current subpart II recordkeeping and reporting to include these additional shipbuilding and ship repair activities. However, we believe that the additional information collection burden is minimal as the proportion of these activities at most shipyards is minimal; therefore, the information collection requests have not been revised. OMB has previously approved the information collection requirements contained in the existing regulations under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.,* and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0330 (EPA ICR No.1712.05). Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA)generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the Agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of the direct final rule on small entities, a small entity is defined as:
(1)A small business mostly in the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) code 336611 that has less than 1000 or fewer employees;
(2)a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and
(3)a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. After considering the economic impacts of this rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will not impose any requirements on small entities. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least-costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows the EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least-costly, most cost effective, or least-burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. EPA has determined that the direct final 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. Therefore, the direct final rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, EPA has determined that the direct final rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments because the burden is small and the regulation does not apply to small governments. Therefore, the direct final rule is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA. E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) requires the 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.” The direct final rule does not have federalism implications. They will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to the direct final rule. F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” The direct final rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. 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 the direct final rule. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that:
(1)is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and
(2)concerns an environmental health or safety risk that the EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the EPA. EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. The direct final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because the rule (subpart II) is based on technology performance, not health or safety risks. Furthermore, the direct final rule has been determined not to be economically significant as defined under Executive Order 12866. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use The direct final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. No new standard requirements are specified in the direct final rule. Therefore, the EPA is not proposing or adopting any voluntary consensus standards in the direct final rule. J. 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 the direct final rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the direct final rule in the **Federal Register** . The direct final rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: December 22, 2006. Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator. For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63, of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 63—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, *et seq.* Subpart II—[Amended] 2. Section 63.781 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (b),
(c)and
(d)as (c),
(d)and
(e)respectively and adding a new paragraph (b). § 63.781 Applicability.
(b)The provisions of this subpart do not apply to coating activities subject to emission limitations or work practices under 40 CFR part 63 subpart VVVV. 3. Section 63.782 is amended by adding a definition for “Commercial”, removing the definition of “Pleasure craft”, and revising the definition of “Ship”: § 63.782 Definitions. *Commercial* means any enterprise or activity that receives compensation for products and/or services rendered. *Ship* means all marine or fresh-water vessels that are either 20 meters or more in length regardless of the purpose for which the vessel is constructed or used, or that are less than 20 meters in length and are designed and built specifically for military or commercial purposes. This definition includes, but is not limited to, all military and Coast Guard vessels, commercial cargo and passenger (cruise) ships, ferries, tankers, container ships, patrol and pilot boats, yachts, and dredges. For purposes of this subpart, offshore oil and gas drilling platforms are not ships. 4. Section 63.784(a) is revised to read as follows: § 63.784 Compliance dates.
(a)Each owner or operator of an existing affected source shall comply within two years after the effective date of this subpart, except that the owner or operator of an existing affected source that conducts shipbuilding and ship repair operations that first became subject to this NESHAP on [date of publication of this direct final rule and FR cite], shall comply with the requirements of this subpart, as they apply to those operations, by December 31, 2007. [FR Doc. E6-22426 Filed 12-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0769; FRL-8093-6] Zeta-Cypermethrin; Pesticide Tolerance AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a tolerance for residues of the insecticide zeta-cypermethrin, in or on almond, hulls; animal feed, nongrass, group 18, forage; animal feed, nongrass, group 18, hay; berry, group 13; cilantro, leaves; food/feed items (other than those covered by a higher tolerance as a result of use on growing crops) in food/feed handling establishments; fruit, pome, group 11; fruit, stone, group 12; grape; grass, forage, group 17; grass, hay, group 17; nut, tree, group 14; peanut; rapeseed; sunflower; sunflower, refined oil; turnip, greens; vegetable, cucurbit, group 9; and vegetable, root and tuber, group 1, except sugar beet. FMC Corporation and Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested this tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA). DATES: This regulation is effective December 29, 2006. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before February 27, 2007, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION) . ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification
(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0769. 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 Room S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 South Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202-3553. The Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone number is
(703)305-5805. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Linda DeLuise, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703)305-5428; e-mail address: *deluise.linda@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 111), e.g., agricultural workers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; farmers. • Animal production (NAICS 112), e.g., cattle ranchers and farmers, dairy cattle farmers, livestock farmers. • Food manufacturing (NAICS 311), e.g., agricultural workers; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; ranchers; pesticide applicators. • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 32532), e.g., agricultural workers; commercial applicators; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; residential users. This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document? In addition to accessing an electronic copy of this **Federal Register** document through the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , you may access this **Federal Register** document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ **Federal Register** ” listings at *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr* . You may also access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's pilot e-CFR site at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.* C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request? Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, as amended by the FQPA, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural regulations which govern the submission of objections and requests for hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0769 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 February 27, 2007. In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public docket that is described in ADDRESSES . Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit your copies, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0769, 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 Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. • *Delivery* : OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, Room S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 South Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202-3553. Deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Docket telephone number is
(703)305-5805. II. Background and Statutory Findings In the **Federal Register** of November 8, 2000 (65 FR 67003) (FRL-6750-2); August 2, 2002 (67 FR 50430) (FRL-7185-9); July 16, 2003 (68 FR 42030) (FRL-7314-7); March 16, 2005 (70 FR 12874) (FRL-7705-2); May 10, 2006 (71 FR 27243) (FRL-8067-8); and August 25, 2006 (71 FR 50414) (FRL-8088-9), EPA issued notices pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of pesticide petitions (PP 1F3994; PP 2F6444; PP 3E6677; PP 3F6577; PP 4F6893; and PP 5F6896) by FMC Corporation, 1735 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-7597 and Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), 681 U.S. Highway #1 South, North Brunswick, NJ 08902-3390. These petitions requested that 40 CFR 180.418 be amended by establishing a tolerance for residues of the insecticide zeta-cypermethrin, (S)-cyano(3-phenoxyphenyl)methyl (±)-cis-trans-3-(2,2-dichloroethenyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate), in or on barley, grain at 0.5 parts per million
(ppm)(5F6896); barley, hay at 2 ppm (5F6896); barley, straw at 4 ppm (5F6896); berries group at 0.5 ppm (5F6896); canola, meal at 0.05 ppm (5F6896); canola, oil at 0.6 ppm (5F6896); canola, seed at 0.05 ppm (5F6896); cilantro at 10 ppm (3E6677); cucurbit vegetables at 0.1 ppm (2F6444); food/feed items (other than those covered by a higher tolerance as a result of use on growing crops) in food/feed handling establishments at 0.05 ppm (4F6893); fruit, pome, group 11 at 0.6 ppm (3F6577); fruit, stone, group 12 at 0.9 ppm (3F6577); grapes at 1 ppm (5F6896); grass, forage at 7 ppm (5F6896); grass, hay at 22 ppm (5F6896); grass, straw at 8 ppm (5F6896); grass, screenings at 12 ppm (5F6896); juice, grape at 0.05 ppm (5F6896); nongrass animal feed, forage at 10 ppm (5F6896); nongrass animal feed, hay at 33 ppm (5F6896); peanuts at 0.05 ppm (2F6444); raisins at 0.2 ppm (5F6896); root and tuber vegetables, roots at 0.1 ppm (2F6444); sunflower at 0.2 ppm (1F3994); sunflower oil at 0.2 ppm (1F3994); tree nut group, nutmeat at 0.05 ppm (5F6896); tree nut group, hulls at 3 ppm (5F6896); and turnip greens at 14 ppm (3E6677). These notices included a summary of the petition prepared by FMC Corporation, the registrant, and IR-4. There were no comments received in response to these notices of filing. The proposed tolerances were later amended as follows: almond, hulls at 6 ppm (5F6896); animal feed, nongrass, group 18, forage at 8 ppm (5F6896); animal feed, nongrass, group 18, hay at 40 ppm (5F6896); berry, group 13 at 0.8 ppm (5F6896); cilantro, leaves at 10 ppm (3E6677); food/feed items (other than those covered by a higher tolerance as a result of use on growing crops) in food/feed handling establishments at 0.05 ppm (4F6893); fruit, pome, group 11 at 2 ppm (3F6577); fruit, stone, group 12 at 1 ppm (3F6577); grape at 2 ppm (5F6896); grass, forage, group 17 at 10 ppm (5F6896); grass, hay, group 17 at 35 ppm (5F6896); nut, tree, group 14 at 0.05 ppm (5F6896); peanut at 0.05 ppm (2F6444); rapeseed at 0.2 ppm (5F6896); sunflower at 0.2 ppm (1F3994); sunflower, refined oil at 0.5 ppm (1F3994); turnip, greens at 14 ppm (3E6677); vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 at 0.2 ppm (2F6444); and vegetable, root and tuber, group 1, except sugar beet at 0.1 ppm (2F6444). For various reasons, EPA has decided not to establish several of the proposed tolerances. The proposed tolerances for canola meal, canola oil, grape juice and raisins oil are not being established because grape and canola processing studies indicate that residues in these processed commodities do not concentrate above the tolerance level in raw commodity. The proposed tolerances in barley grain, hay and straw are not being established because there was an inadequate number of residue field trials submitted in support of these tolerances. The proposed tolerances for grass screenings and grass straw are not being established because these commodities are not significant livestock feed items. Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .” EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. For further discussion of the regulatory requirements of section 408 of the FFDCA and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see * http:// www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/1997/November/Day-26/p30948.htm * . III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure, consistent with section 408(b)(2) of FFDCA, for a tolerance for residues of zeta-cypermethrin, in or on almond, hulls at 6 ppm; animal feed, nongrass, group 18, forage at 8 ppm; animal feed, nongrass, group 18, hay at 40 ppm; berry, group 13 at 0.8 ppm; cilantro, leaves at 10 ppm; food/feed items (other than those covered by a higher tolerance as a result of use on growing crops) in food/feed handling establishments at 0.05 ppm; fruit, pome, group 11 at 2 ppm; fruit, stone, group 12 at 1 ppm; grape at 2 ppm; grass, forage, group 17 at 10 ppm; grass, hay, group 17 at 35 ppm; nut, tree, group 14 at 0.05 ppm; peanut at 0.05 ppm; rapeseed at 0.2 ppm; sunflower at 0.2 ppm; sunflower, refined oil at 0.5 ppm; turnip, greens at 14 ppm; vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 at 0.2 ppm; and vegetable, root and tuber, group 1, except sugar beet at 0.1 ppm. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with establishing the tolerance follows. A. Toxicological Profile EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. The toxicology database for zeta-cypermethrin/cypermethrin is complete, and there are no data gaps. The specific quality is relatively high and the toxicity profile of zeta-cypermethrin can be characterized for all effects, including potential developmental, reproductive, neurotoxic, carcinogenic and mutagenic effects. More detailed information on the studies received and the nature of the toxic effects caused by zeta-cypermethrin as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found in the document entitled, zeta-cypermethrin: Revised Human Health Risk Assessment for Proposed Uses on Numerous Raw Agricultural Commodities. Petitions: 3F6577, 3E6677, 2F6444, 4F6893 and 5F6896 for the Establishment of Tolerances on Various Raw Agricultural, Processed Commodities and Food Items in Food Handling Establishments. PC Code: 109702, D334263. Regulatory Action: Section 3. Risk Assessment Type: Zeta-Cypermethrin/Cypermethrin Aggregate,” dated November 29, 2006, by going to *http://www.regulations.gov* , and searching for docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0769. Locate and click on the hyperlink for EPA document ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0769-0031. Double-click on the document to view the referenced information on pages 16-20. B. Toxicological Endpoints For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) from the toxicology study identified as appropriate for use in risk assessment is used to estimate the toxicological level of concern (LOC). However, the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL) is sometimes used for risk assessment if no NOAEL was achieved in the toxicology study selected. An uncertainty factor
(UF)is applied to reflect uncertainties inherent in the extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and in the variations in sensitivity among members of the human population as well as other unknowns. The linear default risk methodology (Q*) is the primary method currently used by the Agency to quantify non-threshold hazards such as cancer. The Q* approach assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of cancer risk and estimates risk in terms of the probability of occurrence of additional cancer cases. More information can be found on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization at *http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/health/human.htm.* A summary of the toxicological endpoints for zeta-cypermethrin used for human risk assessment is shown below in Table 1 of this unit: **Table 1.—Summary of Toxicological Dose and Endpoints for Use in Human Risk Assessment** Exposure/Scenario Dose Used in Risk Assessment, UF* FQPA SF and Level of Concern for Risk Assessment Study and Toxicological Effects Acute Dietary (U.S. general population including infants and children) NOAEL = 10 mg/kg/day UF = 100x Acute RfD = 0.1 mg/kg/day FQPA SF = 1x aPAD = acute RfD ÷ FQPA SF = 0.1 mg/kg/day Acute neurotoxicity study - rat (zeta-cypermethrin); LOAEL = 50 mg/kg/day based on clinical signs of neurotoxicity and changes in the FOB. Chronic Dietary (All populations) NOAEL = 6 mg/kg/day UF = 100x Chronic RfD = 0.06 mg/kg/day FQPA SF = 1x cPAD = chronic RfD ÷ FQPA SF = 0.06 mg/kg/day Chronic feeding study - dog; LOAEL = 20.4/18.1 mg/kg/day based on clinical signs of neurotoxicity and mortality in males, and decreased body weight and body weight gain in females. Short- and Intermediate-Term Incidental Oral (1 day to 6 months) NOAEL = 7.4 mg/kg/day Residential LOC for MOE = 100 Occupational LOC for MOE = N/A Developmental neurotoxicity study - rat (zeta-cypermethrin); LOAEL = 17 mg/kg/day based on decreased body weight in the offspring. Short- and Intermediate-Term Dermal (Infants and Children Only; 1 day to 6 months) NOAEL = 7.4 mg/kg/day (dermal absorption rate = 2.5%) Residential LOC for MOE = 100 Developmental neurotoxicity study - rat (zeta-cypermethrin); LOAEL = 17 mg/kg/day based on decreased body weight in the offspring. Short- and Intermediate-Term Dermal (Adults, Workers; 1 day to 6 months) None. Occupational LOC for MOE = N/A No systemic effects were observed in a 21-day dermal study (zeta-cypermethrin) up to 1,000 mg/kg/day and there is no developmental concern. No hazard identified to support quantification of risk. Long-Term Dermal (>6 months) NOAEL = 6 mg/kg/day (dermal absorption rate = 2.5%) Residential LOC for MOE = 100 Occupational LOC for MOE = 100 Chronic feeding study - dog; LOAEL = 20.4/18.1 mg/kg/day based on clinical signs of neurotoxicity and mortality in males, and decreased body weight and body weight gain in females. Short- and Intermediate-Term Inhalation (1 to 6 months) NOAEL = 2.7 mg/kg/day (inhalation absorption rate = 100% oral equivalent) Residential LOC for MOE = 100 Occupational LOC for MOE = 100 21-day inhalation study - rat; LOAEL = 0.05 mg/kg/day based on decreases in body weight and salivation. Long-Term Inhalation (>6 months) NOAEL = 2.7 mg/kg/day (inhalation absorption rate = 100% oral equivalent) Residential LOC for MOE = 300 Occupational LOC for MOE = 300 (For the lack of an alternative study. Route-to-route estimation would result in a less protective endpoint.) 21-day inhalation study - rat; LOAEL = 0.05 mg/kg/day based on decreases in body weight and salivation. Cancer (oral, dermal, inhalation) Zeta-Cypermethrin has been classified as a Category C (possible human carcinogen); therefore, no quantification is required. The chronic RfD/PAD will adequately account for all chronic toxicity effects, including carcinogenicity, likely to result from exposure to this pesticide. * UF = uncertainty factor; FQPA SF = any additional safety factor retained to account for data deficiencies or residual concerns unique to the FQPA; NOAEL = no observed adverse effect level; LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effect level; PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic); RfD = reference dose; MOE = margin of exposure; LOC = level of concern; and N/A = not applicable. C. Exposure Assessment 1. *Dietary exposure from food and feed uses* . Tolerances have been established (40 CFR 180.418) for the residues of zeta-cypermethrin, (S)-cyano(3-phenoxyphenyl)methyl (±)-cis-trans-3-(2,2-dichloroethenyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate), in or on a variety of raw agricultural commodities. Risk assessments were conducted by EPA to assess dietary exposures from zeta-cypermethrin in food. Modeled drinking water estimates were included in both the acute and chronic dietary exposure analyses as follows: i. *Acute exposure* . Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a one-day or single exposure. The Agency conducted an unrefined acute dietary exposure assessment using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with the Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID TM , Version 2.03). This analysis evaluated the individual food consumption as reported by respondents in the USDA 1994-1996 and 1998 nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII) and accumulated exposure to the chemical for each commodity. The acute analysis is based on Tier 1 assumptions of tolerance-level residues for existing uses and Agency-recommended tolerance levels for the numerous proposed new uses and 100% crop treated
(CT)for all commodities. ii. *Chronic exposure* . In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment, the DEEM-FCID TM analysis evaluated the individual food consumption data as reported by respondents in the USDA 1994-1996 and 1998 nationwide CSFII and accumulated exposure to the chemical for each commodity.Anticipated residues (averages for crop field trials) were calculated for the numerous proposed new uses from field trial data. 100% CT was assumed for all proposed new uses except for non-grass animal feed; and grass fodder, forage and hay. For existing uses, anticipated residues are based on USDA PDP monitoring data, crop field trial data and empirical processing factors and may be considered refined. iii. *Cancer* . Zeta-cypermethrin was classified as a group “C” (possible human carcinogen), based on an increased incidence of lung adenonas and adenomas plus carcinomas combined in female mice. The evidence was not considered strong enough to warrant a quantitative estimation of human cancer risk. Risk assessments based on endpoint selected for the chronic population adjusted dose
(cPAD)will be protective of any potential carcinogenic risk from exposure to zeta-cypermethrin for the U.S. general population and all population subgroups, including infants and children. Additionally, EPA relied on the chronic exposure assessment in assessing cancer risk. iv. *Anticipated residue and percent crop treated
(PCT)information* . Section 408(b)(2)(E) of the FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and information on the anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in food and the actual levels of pesticide chemicals that have been measured in food. If EPA relies on such information, EPA must, pursuant to section 408(f)(1), require that data be provided 5 years after the tolerance is established, modified or left in effect, demonstrating that the levels in food are not above the levels anticipated. Following the initial data submission, EPA is authorized to require similar data on a time frame it deems appropriate. For the present action, EPA will issue such data call-ins for information relating to anticipated residues as are required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Such data call-ins will be required to be submitted no later than 5 years from the date of issuance of this tolerance. Section 408(b)(2)(F) of the FFDCA states that the Agency may use data on the actual percent of food treated for assessing chronic dietary risk only if the Agency can make the following findings: Condition 1, that the data used are reliable and provide a valid basis to show what percentage of the food derived from such crop is likely to contain such pesticide residue; Condition 2, that the exposure estimate does not underestimate exposure for any significant subpopulation group; and Condition 3, if data are available on pesticide use and food consumption in a particular area, the exposure estimate does not understate exposure for the population in such area. In addition, the Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any estimates used. To provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate of PCT as required by section 408(b)(2)(F) of the FFDCA, EPA may require registrants to submit data on PCT. The Agency used PCT information as follows: For cypermethrin: broccoli, 6%; bulb crops, 16%; cabbage, 3%; cauliflower, 13%; celery, 1%; cole crops, 3%; collards, 9%; cotton, 5%; garlic, 13%; greens, mustard, 8%; greens, turnips, 4%; kale, 13%; lettuce, 26%; onions, 15%; pecans, 5%; and spinach, 2%. For zeta-cypermethrin: bulb crops, 4%; cabbage, 1%; carrots, 1%; cole crops, 1%; corn, field, <1%; cotton, 4%; lettuce, 17%; onions, 13%; peanuts, <1%; pecans, 9%; sorghum, <1%; soybeans, <1%; sweet corn, <1%; and wheat, winter, <1%. The Agency believes that the three conditions, listed in Unit III.C.1.iv., have been met with regard to the PCT estimates. With respect to Condition 1, PCT estimates for existing uses are derived from Federal and private market survey data, which are reliable and have a valid basis. The Agency is reasonably certain that the percentage of the food treated is not likely to be an underestimation. EPA estimates projected percent crop treated
(PPCT)for a new pesticide use by assuming that the PCT during the pesticide's initial 5 years of use on a specific use site will not exceed the average PCT of the market leader (i.e., the one with the greatest PCT) on that site over the three most recent surveys. Comparisons are only made among pesticides of the same pesticide types (i.e., the dominant insecticide on the use site is selected for comparison with the new insecticide). The PCTs included in the average may be each for the same pesticide or for different pesticides since the same or different pesticides may dominate for each year selected. Typically, EPA uses data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture/National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA/NASS) as the source for the PCT data because they are publicly available. When a specific use site is not surveyed by USDA/NASS, EPA uses proprietary data and calculates the estimated PCT. The estimated PPCT, based on the average PCT of the market leader, is appropriate for use in the chronic dietary risk assessment. This method of estimating a PPCT for a new use of a registered pesticide or a new pesticide produces a high-end estimate that is unlikely, in most cases, to be exceeded during the initial 5 years of actual use. Predominant factors that bear on whether the estimated PPCT could be exceeded include pest pressure concerns, relative efficacies, pest prevalence and other factors. Although PPCT data (estimates) for crop group 18: nongrass animal feeds (forage and hay) and crop group 17: grass forage, fodder and hay are limited, estimates are provided
(PPCT)for alfalfa hay, other hay and pasture/rangeland. The estimate for pasture/rangeland may understate the PPCT for grasses since the rangeland component probably receives less treatment than the pasture component (the latter which contains more grass than does rangeland). It is unlikely that actual PCT for zeta-cypermethrin will exceed the estimated PPCT for this chemical on each of these 3 crops during the next 5 years. As to Conditions 2 and 3, regional consumption information and consumption information for significant subpopulations is taken into account through EPA's computer-based model for evaluating the exposure of significant subpopulations including several regional groups. Use of this consumption information in EPA's risk assessment process ensures that EPA's exposure estimate does not understate exposure for any significant subpopulation group and allows the Agency to be reasonably certain that no regional population is exposed to residue levels higher than those estimated by the Agency. Other than the data available through national food consumption surveys, EPA does not have available information on the regional consumption of food to which zeta-cypermethrin may be applied in a particular area. 2. *Dietary exposure from drinking water* . The Agency lacks sufficient monitoring exposure data to complete a comprehensive dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for zeta-cypermethrin in drinking water. Because the Agency does not have comprehensive monitoring data, drinking water concentration estimates are made by reliance on simulation or modeling taking into account data on the physical characteristics of zeta-cypermethrin. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at *http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.* Based on the PRZM/EXAMS (surface water) and SCI-GROW (ground water) models, the estimated environmental concentrations
(EECs)of zeta-cypermethrin for acute exposures are estimated to be 1.04 parts per billion
(ppb)for surface water and 0.0036 ppb for ground water. The EECs for chronic exposures are estimated to be 0.013 ppb for surface water and 0.0036 ppb for ground water. The estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) for zeta-cypermethrin were calculated based on 6 aerial applications of cypermethrin at a maximum application rate of 0.10 lbs. a.i./acre/season to Brassica leafy vegetables with a 7-day re-treatment interval (RTI). Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model (DEEM-FCID TM , Version 2.03). For acute dietary risk assessment, the peak water concentration value of 1.04 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the annual average concentration of 0.013 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. The ground water screening concentration is 0.0036 ppb. These values generally represent upper-bound estimates of the concentrations that might be found in surface water and ground water due to the use of cypermethrin on Brassica leafy vegetables, which has the highest application rate among both cypermethrin and zeta-cypermethrin on all crops over which the chemicals are applied. 3. *From non-dietary exposure* . The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides and/or flea and tick control on pets). For zeta-cypermethrin/cypermethrin, there is a potential for exposure in residential settings during application by homeowners who use products containing zeta-cypermethrin/cypermethrin. There is a potential for exposure in residential settings from entering areas treated with zeta-cypermethrin/cypermethrin, such as residential lawns, indoor surfaces and spaces, outdoor surfaces, and animal premises that could lead to non-occupational exposure to adults and children. As a result, risk assessments have been completed for residential handler scenarios and for post-application scenarios. Short- and intermediate-term dermal exposure risk assessments were not conducted for adults, due to the lack of an appropriate toxicity endpoint of concern for this population subgroup. Short- and intermediate-term dermal exposure risk assessments were not conducted for infants and children because no potential exposure to infants and children is anticipated under the residential handler scenarios. A long-term dermal exposure assessment was not conducted, since there is no potential for long-term exposures via the proposed uses of zeta-cypermethrin. There is potential for short- and intermediate-term inhalation exposure in residential handler settings during the application process for adult homeowners who use products containing zeta-cypermethrin. Short- and intermediate-term inhalation exposure assessments were not conducted for infants and children because no potential exposure to infants and children is anticipated under the residential handler scenarios. A long-term inhalation exposure assessment was not conducted, since there are no potential long-term exposures via the proposed uses of zeta-cypermethrin. These residential risk assessments assumed the maximum application rates allowed by product labels and that residents would wear shorts and short-sleeved shirts with no gloves when applying zeta-cypermethrin. It was also assumed that the size of a lawn or garden treated by a homeowner is 0.5 acres.There is also a potential for exposure in residential settings from entering areas treated with zeta-cypermethrin, such as residential lawns, indoor surfaces and spaces and outdoor surfaces that could lead to non-occupational exposures to adults and children. The post-application risk assessment included high-end assumptions for factors such as exposure duration and skin surface area. The 0.15 lb. a.i./acre application rate for turf was used in the model to estimate post-application residential exposure of toddlers. Since this rate is equal to or higher than many of the agricultural application rates, this scenario is protective of any exposure of farm children via spray drift from agricultural zeta-cypermethrin/cypermethrin applications. Such use of the Agency's Standard Operating Procedures for Residential Assessment results in reasonable worst case estimates of risks. 4. *Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of toxicity* . Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of the FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.” Cypermethrin is a member of the pyrethroid class of pesticides. Although all pyrethroids alter nerve function by modifying the normal biochemistry and physiology of nerve membrane sodium channels, EPA is not currently following a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity for the pyrethroids. Although all pyrethroids interact with sodium channels, there are multiple types of sodium channels and it is currently unknown whether the pyrethroids have similar effects on all channels. EPA does not have a clear understanding at this time of effects on key downstream neuronal function (e.g., nerve excitability). Further, EPA has not determined how these key events interact to produce their compound-specific patterns of neurotoxicity. There is ongoing research by the Agency's Office of Research and Development and pyrethroid registrants to evaluate the differential biochemical and physiological actions of pyrethroids in mammals. This research is expected to be completed by 2007. When available, the Agency will consider this research and make a determination of common mechanism as a basis for assessing cumulative risk. Information regarding EPA's procedures for cumulating effects from substances found to have a common mechanism can be found on EPA's website at *http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative/.* D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children 1. *In general* . Section 408 of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional ten-fold margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for pre- and/or post-natal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. Margins of safety are incorporated into EPA risk assessments either directly through use of a MOE analysis or through using uncertainty (safety) factors in calculating a dose level that poses no appreciable risk to humans. In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10x when reliable data do not support the choice of a different factor, or, if reliable data are available, EPA uses a different additional safety factor value based on the use of traditional uncertainty factors and/or special FQPA safety factors, as appropriate. 2. *Pre-natal and post-natal sensitivity* . In the last tolerance rulemaking for zeta-cypermethrin, February 12, 2002 (67 FR 6422), EPA removed the FQPA 10x safety factor based on its conclusion that the data showed no concern for increased sensitivity due to pre- and/or post-natal exposure and that the lack of a required developmental neurotoxicity
(DNT)study in the rat did not raise residual concerns regarding the safety of children, because the DNT study had not been required based on special concern for the developing fetuses or young. After release of its revised policy statement on the FQPA children's safety factor, EPA revisited its FQPA safety factor decision and determined that, given the lack of certainty regarding the results of the then absent DNT study, it was necessary to retain the full 10x FQPA safety factor as a database uncertainty factor. In 2005, that additional safety factor was incorporated into the preliminary risk assessment for cypermethrin and zeta-cypermethrin in connection with the reregistration and tolerance reassessment decision for these pesticides.With the subsequent receipt and evaluation of the DNT study for zeta-cypermethrin (2005, MRID 46670402), the toxicology database for FQPA assessment is now complete. In the acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies, clinical signs of neurotoxicity typical of pyrethroids were observed (i.e., gait abnormalities, decreased motor activity, notable changes in the functional observational battery
(FOB)and tremors); however, no neuropathology was observed. In the other guideline studies, tremors and gait abnormalities were observed in both dogs and rats following oral exposure, and similar clinical signs were seen in the rat inhalation study. There is no evidence of increased susceptibility of fetuses following *in utero* exposure in the developmental toxicity studies in rats or rabbits or in the offspring following pre- and/or post-natal exposure in the 2-generation rat reproduction study. In the DNT study, there was limited evidence of increased susceptibility of the offspring. No toxicity was observed in the maternal animals at the highest dose tested, while decreased body weight, decreased subsession motor activity and changes in brain morphometry were seen in the offspring at this same dose. An in-depth analysis of the effects seen in the pups revealed that these effects were of low concern because: Body weight decreases were seen only during late lactation (post-natal days 13-21) when the pups are potentially exposed to higher levels of the chemical via both milk and feed; the decreases in motor activity are not considered biologically significant since they were seen only in the subsession data (not in total or ambulatory counts), only in one sex (females), only on post-natal day 21 (not in measurements taken at three other time periods) and the differences did not reach statistical significance; and the sole brain morphometric change (statistically significant increase in the mean vertical thickness of the cortex) was determined to occur in isolation, only in female pups on day 21, and was not considered biologically significant because when the values of individual treated animals were compared with individual control animals, the incidence and magnitude of the change suggested a low concern.No statistically or biologically significant changes were seen in any other brain areas in male or female pups at any time period. Thus, the only biologically significant effect observed in the DNT study was the change in offspring body weights. Based on these factors, the limited susceptibility seen in the DNT was determined to be of low concern. Therefore, there are no residual uncertainties for pre- and/or postnatal toxicity. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The chronic and cancer dietary food exposure assessments utilize anticipated residues calculated from field trial data and PCT data for all commodities. Although refined, the assessments are based on reliable data and will not underestimate exposure/risk. The drinking water exposure is based on conservative modeling estimates. The residential exposure assessment utilizes residential SOPs for the adult handler and post-application scenarios and to assess post-application exposure to children, as well as incidental oral ingestion by toddlers. The residential SOPs are based on reasonable worst-case assumptions and will not likely underestimate exposure/risk. These assessments are unlikely to underestimate the potential exposure to infants and children resulting from the use of zeta-cypermethrin/cypermethrin. 3. *Conclusion* . Based on the data discussed above, the FQPA safety factor can be removed (i.e., reduced to 1x) due to the completeness of the toxicology database, the lack of residual concerns regarding pre- and/or post-natal toxicity and the reliance on exposure data unlikely to underestimate exposure to the pesticide. Thus, a FQPA safety factor of 1x is appropriate for zeta-cypermethrin. E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety The Agency currently has two ways to estimate total aggregate exposure to a pesticide from food, drinking water and residential uses. First, a screening assessment can be used, in which the Agency calculates drinking water levels of comparison (DWLOCs) which are used as a point of comparison against EDWCs. The DWLOC values are not regulatory standards for drinking water, but are theoretical upper limits on a pesticide's concentration in drinking water in light of total aggregate exposure to a pesticide in food and residential uses. More information on the use of DWLOCs in dietary risk assessments can be found at *http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/trac/science/screeningsop.pdf.* More recently, the Agency has used another approach to estimate aggregate exposure through food, drinking water and residential pathways. In this approach, modeled surface and ground water EDWCs are directly incorporated into the dietary exposure analysis, along with food. This provides a more realistic estimate of exposure because actually body weights and water consumption from the CSFII are used. The combined food and water exposures are then added to estimated exposure from residential uses to calculate aggregate risks. The resulting exposure and risk estimates are still considered to be high end, due to the assumptions used in developing drinking water modeling inputs. 1. *Acute risk* . Using the exposure assumptions discussed in Unit III.C.1.i., the acute dietary exposure from food and drinking water to zeta-cypermethrin will occupy 30% of the aPAD for the U.S. general population and 54% of the aPAD for children (1-2 years old), the most highly exposed population subgroup. 2. *Chronic risk* . Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that exposure to zeta-cypermethrin from food and drinking water will utilize 1% of the cPAD for the U.S. general population and 3% of the cPAD for children (1-2 years old), the most highly exposed population subgroup. 3. *Short-term risk* . Short-term aggregate exposure takes into account residential exposure plus average (chronic) exposure levels to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level).Zeta-cypermethrin is currently registered for use that could result in short-term residential exposure and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic food and water and short-term exposures for zeta-cypermethrin. Short-term risks were estimated for toddlers' incidental oral exposures outdoors on turf and indoors on treated surfaces. The latter were based on uses of cypermethrin, due to its higher application rate compared to zeta-cypermethrin. Short-term risks for adult dermal exposure were not evaluated because no short-term dermal endpoint applicable to the adult population was identified. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures, EPA has concluded that food, water and residential exposures aggregated result in aggregate MOEs of 8,600 for the U.S. general population; 8,500 for all infants (<1 year old); and 780 for children (1-2 years old), the population subgroup at greatest exposure. These aggregated MOEs do not exceed the Agency's LOC for aggregate exposure to food, water and residential uses. 4. *Intermediate-term risk* . Intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Intermediate-term exposure is not expected from residential uses of zeta-cypermethrin. 5. *Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population* . The Agency considers the chronic aggregate risk assessment, making use of the cPAD, to be protective of any aggregate cancer risk. See Unit III.E.2. for more detail. 6. *Determination of safety* . Based on these risk assessments, estimates of acute aggregate, chronic aggregate and short-term aggregate (food, water and residential uses) risk do not exceed EPA's level of concern. As a result, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the U.S. general population and all population subgroups, including infants and children from aggregate exposure to zeta-cypermethrin residues. IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology Adequate enforcement analytical methodology for cypermethrin and; therefore, zeta-cypermethrin residues is available in PAM Volume II. PAM Volume II lists Methods I and II for the determination of residues of cypermethrin *per se* in/on plant and livestock commodities, respectively. Both are gas chromatography
(GC)methods with electron capture detection and have undergone successful Agency method tryout. Method I has a detection limit of 0.01 ppm and Method II has detection limits of 0.005 ppm for milk and 0.01 ppm for livestock tissues.These methods are not stereo specific; thus no distinction is made between residues of cypermethrin (all 8 stereoisomers) and zeta-cypermethrin (an enriched isomer form of cypermethrin). Agency reviews of recent zeta-cypermethrin petitions (PP 8F4970, PP 4F3012, PP 9F6040, PP 9F6037 and PP 0F6207) required the petitioner to submit a revised section F to add the phrase “and its inactive R-isomers” after the chemical name zeta-cypermethrin in the tolerance expression, since the PAM Volume II method is not stereospecific. B. International Residue Limits No specific CODEX, Canadian or Mexican maximum residue limits
(MRLs)or tolerances have been established for zeta-cypermethrin. There are CODEX MRLs for cypermethrin residues in/on various plant and livestock commodities and the CODEX and U.S. tolerances are in harmony with respect to MRL/tolerance expression in that both regulate the parent compound, cypermethrin, since enforcement methods do not distinguish between cypermethrin and zeta-cypermethrin. During review of residue data associated with the current pesticide petitions (zeta-cypermethrin), attempts were made to harmonize residue levels whenever possible. V. Conclusion Therefore, the tolerance is established for residues of zeta-cypermethrin, (S)-cyano(3-phenoxyphenyl)methyl (±)-cis-trans-3-(2,2-dichloroethenyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate), in or on almond, hulls at 6 ppm; animal feed, nongrass, group 18, forage at 8 ppm; animal feed, nongrass, group 18, hay at 40 ppm; berry, group 13 at 0.8 ppm; cilantro, leaves at 10 ppm; food/feed items (other than those covered by a higher tolerance as a result of use on growing crops) in food/feed handling establishments at 0.05 ppm; fruit, pome, group 11 at 2 ppm; fruit, stone, group 12 at 1 ppm; grape at 2 ppm; grass, forage, group 17 at 10 ppm; grass, hay, group 17 at 35 ppm; nut, tree, group 14 at 0.05 ppm; peanut at 0.05 ppm; rapeseed at 0.2 ppm; sunflower at 0.2 ppm; sunflower, refined oil at 0.5 ppm; turnip, greens at 14 ppm; vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 at 0.2 ppm; and vegetable, root and tuber, group 1, except sugar beet at 0.1 ppm. VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews This final rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled *Regulatory Planning and Review* (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866 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 under 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 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 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA)(5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ) do not apply. 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. VII. 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: December 21, 2006. Donald R. Stubbs, Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows: PART 180—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. 2. Section 180.418 is amended by alphabetically adding commodities to the table in paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows: § 180.418 Cypermethrin and an isomer zeta-cypermethrin; tolerances for residues. (a)* * *
(2)* * * Commodity Parts per million * * * * * Almond, hulls 6 Animal feed, nongrass, group 18, forage 8 Animal feed, nongrass, group 18, hay 40 * * * * * Berry, group 13 0.8 * * * * * Cilantro, leaves 10 * * * * * Food/feed items (other than those covered by a higher tolerance as a result of use on growing crops) in food/feed handling establishments 0.05 Fruit, pome, group 11 2 Fruit, stone, group 12 1 * * * * * Grape 2 Grass, forage, group 17 10 Grass, hay, group 17 35 * * * * * Nut, tree, group 14 0.05 * * * * * Peanut 0.05 * * * * * Rapeseed 0.2 * * * * * Sunflower 0.2 Sunflower, refined oil 0.5 * * * * * Turnip, greens 14 * * * * * Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 0.2 * * * * * Vegetable, root and tuber, group 1, except sugar beet 0.1 * * * * * [FR Doc. E6-22288 Filed 12-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No. 010319075-1217-02; I.D. 121806C] Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Tilefish Fishery; Quota Harvested for Part-time Category AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Temporary rule; tilefish Part-time permit category closure. SUMMARY: NMFS announces that the percentage of the tilefish annual total allowable landings
(TAL)available to the Part-time permit category for the 2007 fishing year has been harvested. Commercial vessels fishing under the Part-time tilefish category may not harvest tilefish from within the Golden Tilefish Management Unit for the remainder of the 2007 fishing year (through October 31, 2007). Regulations governing the tilefish fishery require publication of this notification to advise the public of this closure. DATES: Effective 0001 hrs local time, December 29, 2006, through 2400 hrs local time, October 31, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian R. Hooker, Fishery Policy Analyst, at
(978)281-9220. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulations governing the tilefish fishery are found at 50 CFR part 648. The regulations require annual specification of a TAL for federally permitted tilefish vessels harvesting tilefish from within the Golden Tilefish Management Unit. The Golden Tilefish Management Unit is defined as an area of the Atlantic Ocean from the latitude of the VA and NC border (36°33.36′ N. lat.), extending eastward from the shore to the outer boundary of the exclusive economic zone, and northward to the U.S.-Canada border. After 5 percent of the TAL is deducted to reflect landings by vessels issued an open-access Incidental permit category, and after up to 3 percent of the TAL is set aside for research purposes, should research TAL be set aside, the remaining TAL is distributed among three tilefish limited access permit categories: Full-time tier 1 category (66 percent), Full-time tier 2 category (15 percent), and the Part-time category (19 percent). The TAL for tilefish for the 2007 fishing year was set at 1.995 million lb (905,172 kg) and then adjusted downward by 5 percent to 1,895,250 lb (859,671 kg) to account for incidental catch. There was no research set-aside for the 2007 fishing year. Thus, the Part-time permit category quota for the 2007 fishing year, which is equal to 19 percent of the TAL, was specified at 360,098 lb (163,338 kg). However, due to an over-harvest in the 2006 fishing year, the quota for the Part-time permit category was adjusted downward by 92,935 lb (42,155 kg) to 267,163 lb (121,183 kg). Notification of the 2007 Part-time permit category quota for the 2007 fishing year was published in the **Federal Register** on October 31, 2006 (71 FR 63703). The Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator) monitors the commercial tilefish quota for each fishing year using dealer reports, vessel catch reports, and other available information to determine when the quota for each limited access permit category is projected to have been harvested. NMFS is required to publish notification in the **Federal Register** notifying commercial vessels and dealer permit holders that, effective upon a specific date, the tilefish TAL for the specific limited access category has been harvested and no commercial quota is available for harvesting tilefish by that category for the remainder of the fishing year, from within the Golden Tilefish Management Unit. The Regional Administrator has determined, based upon dealer reports and other available information, that the 2007 tilefish TAL for the Part-time category has been harvested. Therefore, effective 0001 hr local time, December 29, 2006, further landings of tilefish harvested from within the Golden Tilefish Management Unit by tilefish vessels holding Part-time category Federal fisheries permits are prohibited through October 31, 2007. The 2008 fishing year for commercial tilefish harvest will open on November 1, 2007. Federally permitted dealers are also advised that, effective December 29, 2006, they may not purchase tilefish from Part-time category federally permitted tilefish vessels who land tilefish harvested from within the Golden Tilefish Management Unit for the remainder of the 2007 fishing year (through October 31, 2007). Classification This action is required by 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under E.O. 12866. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: December 22, 2006. Alan D. Risenhoover, Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 06-9918 Filed 12-26-06; 8:51 am]
Connectionstraces to 30
Traces to 30 documents
19 references not yet in our index
  • 33 CFR 165
  • 5 USC 601-612
  • Pub. L. 104-121
  • 44 USC 3501-3520
  • 2 USC 1531-1538
  • 42 USC 4321-4370f
  • Pub. L. 107-295
  • 38 CFR 3
  • Pub. L. 108-183
  • 44 USC 3501-3521
  • 40 CFR 63
  • 40 CFR 9
  • Pub. L. 104-4
  • Pub. L. 104-113
  • 40 CFR 180
  • 40 CFR 178
  • 40 CFR 2
  • 40 CFR 180.418
  • 50 CFR 648
Citation graph
cites case law
Rules and Regulations
Temporary final rule
U.S.C.§ 553
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 605
Fed. Reg.Proposed Rules
Fed. Reg.Notices
Fed. Reg.Notices
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 272
U.S.C.§ 1226
Cite33 CFR 165
Cite5 USC 601-612
Pub. L.Pub. L. 104-121
Cites 49 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

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

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