Rules and Regulations. Final rule

16,128 words·~73 min read·/register/2007/02/07/07-460

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

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2006-26314; Airspace Docket No. 06-AAL-37] Revision of Class E Airspace; Mekoryuk, AK AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This action revises Class E airspace at Mekoryuk, AK. Three new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) are being developed for the Mekoryuk Airport. One Departure Procedure

(DP)and two SIAPs are being amended. This rule results in the revision of Class E airspace upward from 700 feet (ft.) above the surface at the Mekoryuk Airport, Mekoryuk, AK. EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, May 10, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Rolf, AAL-538G, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587; telephone number

(907)271-5898; fax:

(1)The Area Navigation (Global Positioning System) (RNAV (GPS)) Runway

(RWY)05, Original,

(2)the RNAV

(GPS)RWY 23, Original and

(3)the Non-directional Beacon

(NDB)B, Original. The two amended SIAPs are

(1)the NDB/Distance Measuring Equipment

(DME)A, Amendment

(Amdt)4 and

(2)the Direction Finding

(DF)RWY 23, Amdt 1. The DF approach is not published and is used by Flight Service Station staff to aid pilots in emergencies. DP's are unnamed and are published in the front of the U.S. Terminal Procedures for Alaska. Class E controlled airspace extending upward from 700 ft. above the surface in the Mekoryuk Airport area is revised by this action. Interested parties were invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments have been received, thus the rule is adopted as proposed. The area will be depicted on aeronautical charts for pilot reference. The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North American Datum 83. The Class E airspace areas designated as 700/1,200 ft. transition areas are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9P, *Airspace Designations and Reporting Points* , dated September 1, 2006, and effective September 15, 2006, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order. The Rule This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 revises Class E airspace at the Mekoryuk Airport, Alaska. This Class E airspace is revised to accommodate aircraft executing three new SIAPs, two amended SIAPs, and one amended DP, and will be depicted on aeronautical charts for pilot reference. The intended effect of this rule is to provide adequate controlled airspace for Instrument Flight Rule

(IFR)operations at the Mekoryuk Airport, Mekoryuk, Alaska. The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

(2)is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and

(DP)are being amended. This rule results in the revision of Class E airspace upward from 700 feet (ft.) and 1,200 ft. above the surface at the Northway Airport, Northway, AK. EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, May 10, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Rolf, AAL-538G, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587; telephone number

(907)271-5898; fax:

(1)The Area Navigation (Global Positioning System) (RNAV (GPS)) Runway

(RWY)05, Original and

(2)the RNAV

(GPS)RWY 23, Original. The amended SIAP is the Very High Frequency Omni-directional Range (VOR)/Distance Measuring Equipment

(DME)A, Amendment 1. DP's are unnamed and are published in the front of the U.S. Terminal Procedures for Alaska. Class E controlled airspace extending upward from 700 ft. and 1,200 ft. above the surface in the Northway Airport area is revised by this action. Interested parties were invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments have been received, thus the rule is adopted as proposed. The area will be depicted on aeronautical charts for pilot reference. The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North American Datum 83. The Class E airspace areas designated as 700/1,200 ft. transition areas are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9P, *Airspace Designations and Reporting Points* , dated September 1, 2006, and effective September 15, 2006, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order. The Rule This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 revises Class E airspace at the Northway Airport, Alaska. This Class E airspace is revised to accommodate aircraft executing two new SIAPs, one amended SIAP, and one amended DP, and will be depicted on aeronautical charts for pilot reference. The intended effect of this rule is to provide adequate controlled airspace for Instrument Flight Rule

(IFR)operations at the Northway Airport, Northway, Alaska. The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

(2)is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and

(DP)are being amended. This rule results in the revision of Class E airspace upward from 700 feet (ft.) and 1,200 ft. above the surface at the Gulkana Airport, Gulkana, AK. EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, May 10, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Rolf, AAL-538G, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587; telephone number

(907)271-5898; fax:

(1)the Very High Frequency Omni-directional Range (VOR)/Distance Measuring Equipment

(DME)Runway

(RWY)15, Original and

(2)the VOR/DME RWY 33, Original. The two amended SIAPs are

(1)the Area Navigation (Global Positioning System) (RNAV (GPS)) RWY 15, Amendment (Amdt.) 1 and

(2)the RNAV

(GPS)RWY 33, Amdt. 1. DP's are unnamed and are published in the front of the U.S. Terminal Procedures for Alaska. Class E controlled airspace extending upward from 700 ft. and 1,200 ft. above the surface in the Gulkana Airport area is revised by this action. Interested parties were invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments have been received, thus the rule is adopted as proposed. The area will be depicted on aeronautical charts for pilot reference. The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North American Datum 83. The Class E airspace areas designated as 700/1,200 ft. transition areas are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9P, *Airspace Designations and Reporting Points* , dated September 1, 2006, and effective September 15, 2006, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order. The Rule This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 revises Class E airspace at the Gulkana Airport, Alaska. This Class E airspace is revised to accommodate aircraft executing two new SIAPs, two amended SIAPs, and one amended DP, and will be depicted on aeronautical charts for pilot reference. The intended effect of this rule is to provide adequate controlled airspace for Instrument Flight Rule

(IFR)operations at the Gulkana Airport, Gulkana, Alaska. The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

(2)is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and

(3)does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart 1, Section 40103, Sovereignty and use of airspace. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to ensure the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it creates Class E airspace sufficient in size to contain aircraft executing instrument procedures for the Gulkana Airport and represents the FAA's continuing effort to safely and efficiently use the navigable airspace. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air). Adoption of the Amendment In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows: PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389. § 71.1 [Amended] 2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.9P, *Airspace Designations and Reporting Points* , dated September 1, 2006, and effective September 15, 2006, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. AAL AK E5 Gulkana, AK [Revised] Gulkana, AK (Lat. 62°09′17″ N., long. 145°27′24″ W.) Gulkana VOR/DME, AK (Lat. 62°09′08″ N., long. 145°27′01″ W.) That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 8.5-mile radius of the Gulkana Airport, AK, and within 8 miles east and 4 miles west of the 178° radial of the Gulkana VOR/DME, AK, to 19.8 miles south of the Gulkana Airport, AK, and within 4 miles either side of the 351° radial of the Gulkana VOR/DME, AK, extending to 10.9 miles north of the Gulkana Airport, AK; and that airspace extending upward from 1,200 ft. above the surface within a 67-mile radius of the Gulkana Airport, AK. Issued in Anchorage, AK, on January 30, 2007. Anthony M. Wylie, Manager, Alaska Flight Services Information Area Group. [FR Doc. E7-1888 Filed 2-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2006-26164; Airspace Docket No. 06-AAL-34] Revocation of Class E Airspace; Adak, Atka, Cold Bay, King Cove, Nelson Lagoon, Saint George Island, Sand Point, Shemya, St. Paul Island, and Unalaska, AK AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This action revokes the Class E2 and E5 controlled airspace descriptions for Adak, Atka, Cold Bay, King Cove, Nelson Lagoon, Saint George Island, Sand Point, Shemya, St. Paul Island, and Unalaska, AK. These airports lie within the boundaries of the Offshore Airspace Area Control 1234L. Since these airports lay within Control 1234L, the controlled airspace associated with these airports should be listed in the Control 1234L area description. A concurrent airspace action (docket #06-AAL-29) will incorporate this controlled airspace. There is one exception. The Class E2 surface area at Shemya, AK is no longer necessary and the docket #06-AAL-29 will not be carrying it forward. There will be no change to controlled airspace along the Aleutian Chain, except for the revocation of the Shemya Class E surface area. The controlled airspace descriptions will be listed in paragraph 6007 of FAA Order 7400.9P, *Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,* Control 1234L. This rule results in the revocation of Class E airspace descriptions for these airfields located in FAA Order 7400.0P. EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, May 10, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Rolf, AAL-538G, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587; telephone number

(907)271-5898; fax:

(907)271-2850; e-mail: *gary.ctr.rolf@faa.gov.* Internet address: *http://www.alaska.faa.gov/at.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: History On Tuesday, November 28, 2006, the FAA proposed to amend part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to revoke Class E airspace located west of Longitude 160° W, along the Aleutian Chain, AK (71 FR 68772). The action was proposed in order to correctly locate these controlled airspace descriptions listed in FAA Order 7400.9P and to remove unnecessary controlled airspace no longer needed. Any airspace along the Aleutian Island Chain to the west of 160° West Longitude must be defined in the Offshore Airspace Area named Control 1234L, even if the airspace is within 12 miles of the shoreline. The airspace around King Cove, AK was inadvertently left out of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). There is no reason to continue the public comment period because the NPRM clearly described the intent to relocate any controlled airspace west of 160° West Longitude. The controlled airspace description associated with King Cove, AK will be revoked and located the Control 1234L Offshore Airspace description. The Offshore Airspace action associated with this rule is taking place concurrently in a separate airspace rule (06-AAL-29). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No public comments have been received; thus the rule is adopted as proposed. The area will be depicted on aeronautical charts for pilot reference. The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North American Datum 83. The Class E airspace areas designated as surface areas are published in paragraph 6002 and 6004 of FAA Order 7400.9P, *Airspace Designations and Reporting Points* , dated September 1, 2006, and effective September 15, 2006, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace areas designated as 700/1,200 ft. transition areas are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9P, *Airspace Designations and Reporting Points* , dated September 1, 2006, and effective September 15, 2006, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order. The Rule This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 revokes Class E2 and E5 airspace along the Aleutian Chain, Alaska to the west of 160° West Longitude. This Class E controlled airspace is revoked to allow it to be correctly listed in the Offshore Airspace description located in FAA Order 7400.9P. The intended effect of this rule is to allow the controlled airspace descriptions to be correctly located in FAA Order 7400.9P. The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

(2)is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and

(3)does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart 1, Section 40103, Sovereignty and use of airspace. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to ensure the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it allows this controlled airspace to be located in the appropriate section of FAA 7400.9P and represents the FAA's continuing effort to safely and efficiently use the navigable airspace. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air). Adoption of the Amendment In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows: PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389. § 71.1 [Amended] 2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.9P, *Airspace Designations and Reporting Points* , dated September 1, 2006, and effective September 15, 2006, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Designated as Surface Areas. AAL AK E2 Shemya, AK [Revoked] AAL AK E2 Cold Bay, AK [Revoked] Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward from 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. AAL AK E5 Adak, AK [Revoked] AAL AK E5 Atka, AK [Revoked] AAL AK E5 Cold Bay, AK [Revoked] AAL AK E5 King Cove, AK [Revoked] AAL AK E5 Nelson Lagoon, AK [Revoked] AAL AK E5 Saint George Island, AK [Revoked] AAL AK E5 Sand Point, AK [Revoked] AAL AK E5 Shemya, AK [Revoked] AAL AK E5 St. Paul Island, AK [Revoked] AAL AK E5 Unalaska, AK [Revoked] Issued in Anchorage, AK, on January 30, 2007. Anthony M. Wylie, Manager, Alaska Flight Services Information Area Group. [FR Doc. E7-1884 Filed 2-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA 2006-24233; Airspace Docket No. 06-ANM-1] Revision of Class E Airspace; Saratoga, WY AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This action will revise the Class E airspace at Saratoga, WY. Additional Class E airspace is necessary to accommodate aircraft using a new Area Navigation

(RNAV)Global Positioning System

(GPS)Standard Instrument Approach Procedure

(SIAP)at Saratoga/Shively Field. This will improve the safety of Instrument Flight Rules

(IFR)aircraft executing the new RNAV GPS SIAP at Saratoga/Shively Field, Saratoga, WY. EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, May 10, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ed Haeseker, Federal Aviation Administration, Western Service Area, System Support, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98055-4056; telephone

(425)227-2527. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: History On August 11, 2006, the FAA published in the **Federal Register** a notice of proposed rulemaking to revise Class E airspace at Saratoga, WY (71 FR 46131). This action would improve the safety of Instrument Flight Rules

(IFR)aircraft executing this new RNAV GPS approach procedure at Saratoga/Shively Field, Saratoga, WY. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9P dated September 1, 2006, and effective September 15, 2006, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in that Order. The Rule This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by revising Class E airspace at Saratoga, WY. Additional controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate IFR aircraft executing a new RNAV

(GPS)approach procedure at Saratoga/Shively Field, Saratoga, WY. The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation:

(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

(2)is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and

(3)does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air). Adoption of the Amendment In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows: PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E. O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389. § 71.1 [Amended] 2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1 of the Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.9P, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated September 1, 2006, and effective September 15, 2006, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ANM WY E5 Saratoga, WY [Revised] Saratoga/Shively Field, WY (Lat. 41°26′41″ N., long. 106°49′25″ W.) Saratoga NDB (Lat. 41°26′42″ N., long. 106°49′56″ W.) Cherokee VOR/DME (Lat. 41°45′21″ N., long. 107°34′55″ W.) That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within 6.9-mile radius of the Saratoga/Shively Field Airport and within 3.1 miles each side of the 342° bearing from the Saratoga NDB extending from the 6.9-mile radius to 10 miles northwest of the NDB; that airspace extending upward from 1200 feet above the surface bounded by a line beginning at lat. 41°54′45″ N., long. 106°47′15″ W.; to lat. 41°17′00″ N., long. 106°32′30″ W.; to lat. 41°00′00″ N., long. 107°44′00″ W.; to the Cherokee VOR/DME; to the point of beginning. Issued in Seattle, Washington, on December 12, 2006. Clark Desing, Manager, System Support, Western Service Area. [FR Doc. E7-1898 Filed 2-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 18 CFR Parts 50 and 380 [Docket No. AD07-9-000] Filing Applications for Permits to Site Interstate Electric Transmission Facilities; Notice of Workshops on Electric Transmission Siting Rule January 26, 2007. AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy. ACTION: Final rule: Notice of workshops. SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) will hold a series of workshops on Commission Order No. 689, the final rule for regulations for filing applications for permits to site interstate electric transmission facilities. The Commission is convening these workshops to assist stakeholders in understanding the implementation of the final rule. DATES: Conference dates: February 13, 2007, March 6, 2007, March 7, 2007, March 13, 2007 and March 14, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Wright, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.

(202)502-8617. John Snagel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.

(202)502-8756. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This series of workshops address issues raised in a final rulemaking issued in Docket No. RM06-12-000 (70 FR 75592, December 20, 2005). The Office of Energy Projects

(OEP)will host a series of workshops on Order No. 689, the final rule for Regulations for Filing Applications for Permits to Site Interstate Electric Transmission Facilities which was issued on November 16, 2006, effective February 2, 2007. 1 Order No. 689 stated, in paragraph 1, that the Commission would convene conferences to assist stakeholders in understanding the implementation of this rule. 1 Regulations for Filing Applications for Permits to Site Interstate Electric Transmission Facilities, Order No. 689, 71 FR 69440 (December 1, 2006), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,234 (2006). The Commission staff will be conducting the workshops and the date, time and locations are described below. The workshops are free of charge and are open to all interested stakeholders. We are inviting federal agencies, state and local agencies, tribes, non-governmental organizations, and other interested stakeholders. Date Location Tuesday, February 13, 2007, 2 p.m.-5 p.m.

(CST)Chicago, Illinois, Sheraton Gateway Suites Chicago O'Hare, 6501 North Mannheim Road, Rosemont, IL 60018. 847-699-3505. *http://www.starwoodhotels.com/sheratonl.* Tuesday, March 6, 2007, 2 p.m.-5 p.m.

(EST)Boston, Massachusetts, Hilton Boston Logan Airport, 85 Terminal Road, Boston, MA 02128. 617-568-6700. *http://www1.hilton.com.* Wednesday, March 7, 2007, 2 p.m.-5 p.m.

(EST)Atlanta, Georgia, Holiday Inn Select, 450 Capitol Avenue, Atlanta, GA 30312-2802. 404-591-2000. *http://www.hiatlanta.com.* Tuesday, March 20, 2007, 2 p.m.-5 p.m.

(PST)Portland, Oregon, Holiday Inn, 8439 NE Columbia Blvd, Portland, Oregon 97220. 503-256-5000. *http://www.mainstreetmediagroup.com/87708A/cd.html.* Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 2 p.m.-5 p.m.

(MST)Phoenix, Arizona, Phoenix Airport Marriott, 1101 North 44th Street, Phoenix, Arizona. 602-273-7373. *http://www.marriott.com/phxap.* The workshop will consist of the Commission staff making a presentation of approximately one hour that would review the origin, the issues raised and the process approved in the final rule. Following the Commission staff presentation, there will be a question and answer period for interested stakeholders. If you plan to attend, please respond by e-mail at *electricoutreach@ferc.gov* or by facsimile to “Electric Transmission Rule Outreach” at 202-219-0205. Please include in the response the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of all attendees from your organization. If you have any questions, you may contact Jeff Wright at 202-502-8617 or John Schnagl at 202-502-8756. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-1905 Filed 2-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 18 CFR Part 157 [Docket No. RM81-19-000] Natural Gas Pipelines; Project Cost and Annual Limits February 1, 2007. AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: Pursuant to the authority delegated by 18 CFR 375.308(x)(1), the Director of the Office of Energy Projects

(OEP)computes and publishes the project cost and annual limits for natural gas pipelines blanket construction certificates for each calendar year. EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Michael J. McGehee, Chief, Certificates Branch 1, Division of Pipeline Certificates,

(202)502-8962. Publication of Project Cost Limits Under Blanket Certificates; Order of the Director, OEP Section 157.208(d) of the Commission's Regulations provides for project cost limits applicable to construction, acquisition, operation and miscellaneous rearrangement of facilities (Table I) authorized under the blanket certificate procedure (Order No. 234, 19 FERC ¶ 61,216). Section 157.215(a) specifies the calendar year dollar limit which may be expended on underground storage testing and development (Table II) authorized under the blanket certificate. Section 157.208(d) requires that the “limits specified in Tables I and II shall be adjusted each calendar year to reflect the ‘GDP implicit price deflator' published by the Department of Commerce for the previous calendar year.” Pursuant to § 375.308(x)(1) of the Commission's Regulations, the authority for the publication of such cost limits, as adjusted for inflation, is delegated to the Director of the Office of Energy Projects. The cost limits for calendar year 2007, as published in Table I of § 157.208(d) and Table II of § 157.215(a), are hereby issued. It is noted that Order No. 686, 117 FERC ¶ 61,074, increased the Table I dollar limits for calendar year 2006. The 2007 cost limits are calculated based on these increased limits. List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 157 Administrative practice and procedure, Natural Gas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. J. Mark Robinson, Director, Office of Energy Projects. Accordingly, 18 CFR part 157 is amended as follows: PART 157—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 157 continues to read as follows: Authority: 15 U.S.C. 717-717w, 3301-3432; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352. 2. Table I in § 157.208(d) is revised to read as follows: § 157.208 Construction, acquisition, operation, replacement, and miscellaneous rearrangement of facilities.

(d)* * * Table I Year Limit Auto. proj. cost limit (Col.1) Prior notice proj. cost limit (Col.2) 1982 $4,200,000 $12,000,000 1983 4,500,000 12,800,000 1984 4,700,000 13,300,000 1985 4,900,000 13,800,000 1986 5,100,000 14,300,000 1987 5,200,000 14,700,000 1988 5,400,000 15,100,000 1989 5,600,000 15,600,000 1990 5,800,000 16,000,000 1991 6,000,000 16,700,000 1992 6,200,000 17,300,000 1993 6,400,000 17,700,000 1994 6,600,000 18,100,000 1995 6,700,000 18,400,000 1996 6,900,000 18,800,000 1997 7,000,000 19,200,000 1998 7,100,000 19,600,000 1999 7,200,000 19,800,000 2000 7,300,000 20,200,000 2001 7,400,000 20,600,000 2002 7,500,000 21,000,000 2003 7,600,000 21,200,000 2004 7,800,000 21,600,000 2005 8,000,000 22,000,000 2006 9,600,000 27,400,000 2007 9,900,000 28,200,000 3. Table II in § 157.215(a) is revised to read as follows: § 157.215 Underground storage testing and development.

(a)* * *

(5)* * * Table II Year Limit 1982 $2,700,000 1983 2,900,000 1984 3,000,000 1985 3,100,000 1986 3,200,000 1987 3,300,000 1988 3,400,000 1989 3,500,000 1990 3,600,000 1991 3,800,000 1992 3,900,000 1993 4,000,000 1994 4,100,000 1995 4,200,000 1996 4,300,000 1997 4,400,000 1998 4,500,000 1999 4,550,000 2000 4,650,000 2001 4,750,000 2002 4,850,000 2003 4,900,000 2004 5,000,000 2005 5,100,000 2006 5,250,000 2007 5,400,000 [FR Doc. E7-1994 Filed 2-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE 22 CFR Part 126 [Public Notice: 5685] Amendment of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations: Policy With Respect to Libya and Venezuela AGENCY: Department of State. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the United States is amending the International Traffic in Arms Regulations regarding Libya at 22 CFR 126.1(a) and

(d)to make it United States policy to deny licenses, other approvals, exports or imports of defense articles and defense services destined for or originating in Libya except, on a case-by-case basis for non-lethal defense articles and defense services, and non-lethal safety-of-use defense articles (e.g., cartridge actuated devices, propellant actuated devices and technical manuals for military aircraft for purposes of enhancing the safety of the aircrew) as spare parts for lethal end-items. Further, the Department of State is adding Venezuela to 22 CFR 126.1(a) as a result of its designation as a country not cooperating fully with anti-terrorism efforts, and in conjunction with the August 17, 2006 [71 FR 47554] announcement of a policy of denial of the export or transfer of defense articles to and revocation of existing authorizations for Venezuela. EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective February 7, 2007. ADDRESSES: Interested parties may submit comments at any time by any of the following methods: • *E-mail: DDTCResponseTeam@state.gov* with an appropriate subject line. • *Mail:* Department of State, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, Office of Defense Trade Controls Policy, ATTN: Regulatory Change, 12th Floor, SA-1, Washington, DC 20522-0112. • *Fax:* 202-261-8199. • *Hand Delivery or Courier (regular work hours only):* Department of State, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, Office of Defense Trade Controls Policy, ATTENTION: Regulatory Change, SA-1, 12th Floor, 2401 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037. Persons with access to the Internet may also view this notice by going to the regulations.gov Web site at: *http://www.regulations.gov/index.cfm.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ann K. Ganzer, Office of Defense Trade Controls Policy, Department of State, 12th Floor, SA-1, Washington, DC 20522-0112; Telephone 202-663-2792 or FAX 202-261-8199; e-mail: *DDTCResponseTeam@state.gov.* ATTN: Regulatory Change. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 30, the Secretary of State rescinded Libya's designation as a state sponsor of terrorism. This Notice establishes that it is the policy of the United States to deny licenses, other approvals, exports or imports of defense articles and defense services destined for or originating in Libya except, on a case-by-case basis, for non-lethal defense articles and defense services and non-lethal safety-of-use defense articles (e.g., cartridge actuated devices, propellant actuated devices and technical manuals for military aircraft for purposes of enhancing the safety of the aircrew) as spare parts for lethal end-items. For non-lethal defense end-items, no distinction will be made between Libya's existing and new inventory. On May 8, 2006, the Secretary of State determined that five countries, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Syria and Venezuela, are not cooperating fully with anti-terrorism efforts [71 FR 28897]. Section 40A of the AECA prohibits the sale or licensing of defense articles and services to those on the list for a term of the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2006. In addition, on August 17, 2006 [71 FR 47554] the State Department announced a policy of denial of the export or transfer of defense articles to and revocation of existing authorizations for Venezuela. Regulatory Analysis and Notices Administrative Procedure Act This amendment involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and, therefore, is not subject to the procedures required by 5 U.S.C. 553 and 554. Regulatory Flexibility Act This rule does not require analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995 This rule does not require analysis under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 This amendment has been found not to be a major rule within the meaning of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Executive Orders 12372 and 13132 It is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant application of the consultation provisions of Executive Orders 12372 and 13132. Executive Order 12866 This amendment is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866, but has been reviewed internally by the Department of State to ensure consistency with the purposes thereof. Paperwork Reduction Act This rule does not impose any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35. List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 126 Arms and munitions, Exports. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, Title 22, CFR part 126 is amended to read as follows: PART 126—GENERAL POLICIES AND PROVISIONS 1. The authority citation for part 126 continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 2, 38, 40, 42, and 71, Pub. L. 90-629, 90 Stat. 744 (22 U.S.C. 2752, 2778, 2780, 2791, and 2797); E.O. 11958, 42 FR 4311; 3 CFR, 1977 Comp., p. 79; 22 U.S.C. 2651a; 22 U.S.C. 287c; E.O. 12918, 59 FR 28205, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 899; Sec. 1225, Pub. L. 108-375. 2. Section 126.1 is amended by revising paragraphs

(a)and

(d)to read as follows and adding paragraph (k): § 126.1 Prohibited exports and sales to certain countries.

(a)*General.* It is the policy of the United States to deny licenses and other approvals for exports and imports of defense articles and defense services, destined for or originating in certain countries. This policy applies to Belarus, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela and Vietnam. This policy also applies to countries with respect to which the United States maintains an arms embargo (e.g., Burma, China, Liberia, Somalia, and Sudan) or whenever an export would not otherwise be in furtherance of world peace and the security and foreign policy of the United States. Information regarding certain other embargoes appears elsewhere in this section. Comprehensive arms embargoes are normally the subject of a State Department notice published in the **Federal Register** . The exemptions provided in the regulations in this subchapter, except § 123.17 of this subchapter, do not apply with respect to articles originating in or for export to any proscribed countries, areas, or persons in this § 126.1.

(d)*Terrorism.* Exports to countries which the Secretary of State has determined to have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism are contrary to the foreign policy of the United States and are thus subject to the policy specified in paragraph

(a)of this section and the requirements of section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2780) and the Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Anti-Terrorism Act of 1986 (22 U.S.C. 4801, note). The countries in this category are: Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan and Syria.

(k)*Libya.* It is the policy of the United Sates to deny licenses, other approvals, exports or imports of defense articles and defense services destined for or originating in Libya except, on a case-by-case basis, for:

(1)Non-lethal defense articles and defense services,

(2)Non-lethal safety-of-use defense articles (e.g., cartridge actuated devices, propellant actuated devices and technical manuals for military aircraft for purposes of enhancing the safety of the aircrew) as spare parts for lethal end-items. For non-lethal defense end-items, no distinction will be made between Libya's existing and new inventory. Dated: January 12, 2007. Robert G. Joseph, Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, Department of State. [FR Doc. E7-2034 Filed 2-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-25-P EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 29 CFR Part 1603 RIN 3046-AA83 Procedures for Previously Exempt State and Local Government Employee Complaints of Employment Discrimination Under Section 304 of the Government Employee Rights Act of 1991; Revision AGENCY: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This document contains revisions to the final regulations which were published in the **Federal Register** of Thursday, April 10, 1997 (62 FR 17543). The regulations pertain to the procedures by which state and local government employees previously exempt from maintaining claims of employment discrimination can pursue such claims. DATES: Effective on February 7, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas J. Schlageter, Assistant Legal Counsel, or Gary John Hozempa, Senior General Attorney, at

(202)663-4669 (voice) or

(202)663-7026 (TTY). This document also is available in the following alternative formats: large print, braille, audiotape and electronic file on computer disk. Requests for the final rule in an alternative format should be made to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's

(EEOC)Publication Center at 1-800-669-3362 (voice), 1-800-800-3302 (TTY), or 703-821-2098 (FAX—this is not a toll free number). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Prior to the passage of the Government Employees Rights Act of 1991 (GERA), certain state and local government employees and applicants did not enjoy Federal protection against employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or disability. In affording these individuals new equal employment opportunity protections, GERA introduced an administrative enforcement mechanism different from EEOC's pre-existing charge resolution procedures. Consequently, EEOC created procedures for handling complaints brought by individuals covered by GERA. These procedures are found in 29 CFR Part 1603. When 29 CFR Part 1603 was published initially, the legal citation for GERA was 2 U.S.C. 1201 *et seq.* and that part of GERA applicable to previously exempt state and local employees was 2 U.S.C. 1220. Due to a re-codification and transfer, the citations for GERA have been changed to 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16a *et seq.* and 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16c, respectively. Similarly, in accordance with an amendment to GERA, section 321 was renumbered as section 304. Need for Revision As published, the final regulations contain obsolete legal citations which need to be updated. List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1603 Administrative practice and procedure, Equal employment opportunity, Intergovernmental relations, Investigations, State and local governments. For the Commission. Dated: January 24, 2007. Naomi C. Earp, Chair. Accordingly, 29 CFR part 1603 is amended to read as follows: PART 1603—PROCEDURES FOR PREVIOUSLY EXEMPT STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE COMPLAINTS OF EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION UNDER SECTION 304 OF THE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE RIGHTS ACT OF 1991 1. The authority citation for part 1603 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16c. 2. The heading to part 1603 is revised to read as set forth above. § 1603.100 [Amended] 3. Amend § 1603.100 to read as follows: a. Remove “321” and add in its place “304.” b. Remove “2 U.S.C. 1220” and add in its place “42 U.S.C. 2000e-16c.” § 1603.101 [Amended] 4. Amend § 1603.101, introductory text, by removing “321” and adding in its place “304.” [FR Doc. E7-1932 Filed 2-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6570-01-P EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 29 CFR Part 1610 Updating Addresses of Commission's Offices in Las Vegas, Nevada and Mobile, AL AGENCY: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This final rule revises existing EEOC regulations to update two office addresses. EFFECTIVE DATE: February 7, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas J. Schlageter, Assistant Legal Counsel,

(202)663-4668, or James G. Allison, Senior Attorney,

(202)663-4661, Office of Legal Counsel, 1801 L St., NW., Washington, DC 20507. Copies of this final rule are available in the following alternate formats: large print, braille, electronic computer disk, and audio-tape. Requests for this notice in an alternative Format should be made to the Publications Center at 1-800-699-3362 (voice), 1-800-800-3302 (TTY), or 703-821-2098 (FAX—this is not a toll free number). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission investigates and litigates charges of employment discrimination through its various offices located throughout the country. On July 8, 2005, the Commission voted to open two new local offices, one in Las Vegas, Nevada and one in Mobile, Alabama. These two new office have now been opened. This Final Rule incorporates the addresses of these newly opened offices in the Commission's regulations by modifying 29 CFR 1610.4(c) to reflect the new offices' addresses. Regulatory Procedures Executive Order 12866 This action pertains to agency organization, management or personnel matters and, therefore, is not a rule within the meaning of section 3(d)(3) of Executive Order 12866. Paperwork Reduction Act This regulation contains no new information collection requirements subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). Regulatory Flexibility Act The Commission 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 because it does not affect any small business entities. The regulation affects only the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. For this reason, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 This final rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. Congressional Review Act This action pertains to the Commission's management, personnel and organization and does not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties and, accordingly, is not a “rule” as that term is used by the Congressional Review Act (Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA)). Therefore, the reporting requirement of 5 U.S.C. 801 does not apply. List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1610 Administrative practice and procedure, Equal Employment Opportunity. Dated: January 24, 2007. For the Commission. Naomi C. Earp, Chair. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 1610 is amended as follows: PART 1610—AVAILABILITY OF RECORDS 1. The authority citation for part 1610 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2000e-12(a), 5 U.S.C. 552 as amended by Pub. L. 93-502, Pub. L. 99-570, and Pub. L. 105-231; for § 1610.15, non-search or copy portions are issued under 31 U.S.C. 9701. § 1610.4 [Amended] 2. Amend § 1610.4(c) as follows: a. After the words “Las Vegas Local Office (Los Angeles District),” remove the words “not yet open” and add, in their place, the words “333 Las Vegas Blvd. South, Suite 8112, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101.” b. After the words “Mobile Local Office (Birmingham District),” remove the words “not yet open” and add, in their place, the words “63 South Royal Street, Suite 504, Mobile, Alabama 36602.” [FR Doc. E7-1933 Filed 2-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6570-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [CGD05-06-089] RIN 1625-AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Lewes and Rehoboth Canal, Lewes, DE and Rehoboth, DE; Mispillion River, Milford, DE AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is changing the drawbridge operation regulations of three Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) bridges: the Savannah Road/SR 18 Bridge, at mile 1.7, in Lewes, the SR 14A Bridge, at mile 6.7, in Rehoboth, and the S14 Bridge, at mile 11.0, across Mispillion River at Milford, DE. This final rule will allow the Savannah Road/SR 18 Bridge to open on signal if 4 hours advance notice is given and allow the SR 14A and S14 Bridges to open on signal if 24 hours advance notice is given. This change will provide longer advance notification for vessel openings from 4 hours to 24 hours while still providing for the reasonable needs of navigation. DATES: This rule is effective March 9, 2007. ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket CGD05-06-089 and are available for inspection or copying at Commander (dpb), Fifth Coast Guard District, Federal Building, 1st Floor, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, VA 23704-5004 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Fifth Coast Guard District maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Waverly W. Gregory, Jr., Bridge Administrator, Fifth Coast Guard District, at

(757)398-6222. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory History On October 5, 2006, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)entitled “Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Lewes and Rehoboth Canal, Mispillion River, DE” in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 58776). We received one comment on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held. Background and Purpose DelDOT, who owns and operates the Savannah Road/SR 18 Bridge, at mile 1.7, in Lewes, the SR 14A Bridge, at mile 6.7, in Rehoboth, and the S14 Bridge, at mile 11.0, across Mispillion River at Milford, requested longer advance notification for vessel openings from 2 hours to 24 hours for the following reasons: Lewes and Rehoboth Canal In the closed-to-navigation position, the Savannah Road/SR 18 Bridge, at mile 1.7, in Lewes and the SR 14A Bridge, at mile 6.7, in Rehoboth, have vertical clearances of 15 feet and 16 feet, above mean high water, respectively. The existing operating regulation for these drawbridges is set out in 33 CFR 117.239, which requires the bridges to open on signal from May 1 through October 31 from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. and from 8 p.m. to 7 a.m. if at least two hours notice is given. From November 1 through April 30, the draws shall open if at least 24 hours notice is given. DelDOT provided information to the Coast Guard about the conditions and reduced operational capabilities of the draw spans. Due to the infrequency of requests for vessel openings of the drawbridge for the past 10 years, DelDOT requested that we amend the current operating regulation by requiring the draw spans to open on signal if at least 24 hours notice is given year-round. Mispillion River The S14 Bridge, at mile 11.0 in at Milford, has a vertical clearance of five feet, above mean high water, in the closed-to-navigation position. The existing regulation is listed at 33 CFR 117.241, which requires the bridge to open on signal if at least two hours notice is given. Due to the infrequency of requests for vessel openings of the drawbridge for the past 10 years, DelDOT requested that we amend the current operating regulation by requiring the draw spans to open on signal if at least 24 hours notice is given year-round. Discussion of Comments and Changes The Coast Guard received one comment on the NPRM from the City of Lewes (the City). The City requested that, with respect to the Savannah Road/SR 18 Bridge, the Coast Guard provide for opening the bridge on four-hour notice between May 1 and October 30 of each year, instead of the 24-hour notice proposed in the NRPM. DelDOT indicated that to ensure reliability and safe performance by bridge operators, a four to six-hour advance notice is actually needed to respond to requests by boaters. Therefore, the Coast Guard considered the change to require at least four hours advance notice by boaters to be safer and more reliable for navigation than the 24-hour proposal and the final rule was changed to reflect this modification. Discussion of Rule Lewes and Rehoboth Canal The Coast Guard will revise 33 CFR 117.239, which governs the Delaware highway bridges, at miles 1.7 and 6.7, both at Rehoboth. The bridge names, the statute mile points and the localities in the paragraph will be changed from the “Delaware highway bridges miles 2.0 and 7.0 both at Rehoboth” to the “Savannah Road/SR18 Bridge, at mile 1.7, in Lewes” and the “SR 14A Bridge, at mile 6.7, in Rehoboth”. These changes will accurately reflect the proper information for these drawbridges. The current paragraph will be divided into paragraphs

(a)and (b). Paragraph

(a)will contain the final rule for the Savannah Road/SR 18 Bridge, at mile 1.7 in Lewes and will state that the draw shall open on signal if at least four hours notice is given. Paragraph

(b)will contain the final rule for the SR 14A Bridge, at mile 6.7, in Rehoboth. The final rule will require the drawbridge to open on signal if at least 24 hours notice is given. Mispillion River The Coast Guard will amend 33 CFR 117.241, which governs the S14 Bridge, at mile 11.0, at Milford by revising the paragraph to read that the draw shall open on signal if at least 24 hours notice is given. 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). This conclusion is based on the fact that these changes have only a minimal impact on maritime traffic transiting the bridge. Mariners can plan their trips in accordance with the scheduled bridge openings, to minimize delays. 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 conclusion is based on the fact the rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the rule only adds minimal restrictions to the movement of navigation, and mariners who plan their transits in accordance with the scheduled bridge openings can minimize delay. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 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 process. No assistance was requested from any small entity. 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 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, eliminates 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. 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 (32)(e) of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation because it has been determined that the promulgation of operating regulations for drawbridges are categorically excluded. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 Bridges. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows: PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); section 117.255 also issued under the authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 106 Stat. 5039. 2. Revise § 117.239 to read as follows: § 117.239 Lewes and Rehoboth Canal.

(a)The draw of the Savannah Road/SR 18 Bridge, at mile 1.7, in Lewes shall open on signal if at least four hours notice is given.

(b)The draw of the SR 14A Bridge, at mile 6.7, in Rehoboth shall open on signal if at least 24 hours notice is given. 3. Revise § 117.241 to read as follows: § 117.241 Mispillion River. The draw of the S14 Bridge, at mile 11.0, at Milford shall open on signal if at least 24 hours notice is given. Dated: January 25, 2007. L.L. Hereth, Rear Admiral, United States Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E7-1976 Filed 2-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [CGD01-06-132] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Wantagh Parkway 3 Bridge Over the Sloop Channel, Town of Hempstead, NY AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in the waters surrounding the Wantagh Parkway Number 3 Bridge across the Sloop Channel in Town of Hempstead, New York. This zone is necessary to protect vessels transiting in the area from hazards associated with construction barges and equipment being utilized to construct a new bascule bridge over the Sloop Channel. Entry into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Long Island Sound. DATES: This rule is effective from 11:59 p.m. on January 22, 2007 until 11:59 p.m. December 31, 2007. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket CGD01-06-132 and will be available for inspection or copying at Sector Long Island Sound, New Haven, CT, between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant D. Miller, Assistant Chief, Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard Sector Long Island Sound at

(203)468-4596. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory History 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. Any delay in this regulation's effective date would be impracticable and contrary to public interest since immediate action to restrict and control maritime traffic transiting in the vicinity of the Sloop Channel under the Wantagh Parkway Number 3 Bridge in the Town of Hempstead, Nassau County, Long Island, New York is needed to ensure the safety of vessels transiting the area. In 2003, the Coast Guard approved bridge construction and issued a permit for bridge construction for the Wantagh Parkway Number 3 Bridge over the Sloop Channel. Contractors began work constructing the two bascule piers for the new bridge in early June 2004. A safety zone was not deemed necessary at the inception of the construction, as this channel is primarily used by smaller recreational vessels, which could maneuver outside of the channel. However, bridge construction equipment that remains under the Wantagh Parkway Number 3 Bridge poses a potential hazard greater than originally anticipated. A safety zone was deemed necessary and was established on October 9, 2004 through December 31, 2004, the date when construction impacting the navigable channel was estimated to be complete. A second safety zone was implemented on January 1, 2005 and extended until December 31, 2005 due to delays in construction, requiring equipment to be in the channel in a manner that would leave the waterway unsafe for marine traffic. Due to continued significant delays in bridge construction, the safety zone was again extended until December 31, 2006. The contractor for this project continues to experience significant delays in bridge construction. In order to continue construction in a more rapid and safe manner, barges will need to continuously block the channel under the bridge. Accordingly, the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) has requested that a safety zone be put in place through December 31, 2007. As these barges are presently obstructing the navigable channel, immediate action is needed to prevent accidents by limiting vessel movement in the area with the construction equipment. Traffic exists in this area year-round and increases significantly in the summer months with the return of recreational traffic. For the same reasons, the Coast Guard also finds under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . Background and Purpose Currently, there is a fixed bridge over the Wantagh Parkway Number 3 Bridge over the Sloop Channel in the Town of Hempstead, New York. The NYSDOT determined that a moveable bridge would benefit the boating community. In 2003, the Coast Guard approved bridge construction and issued a permit for bridge construction for the Wantagh Parkway Number 3 Bridge over the Sloop Channel. Contractors began work constructing the two-bascule piers for the new bridge in early June 2004. The equipment necessary for the construction of the bridge occupies the entire navigable channel. While there are side channels, which can be navigated, the equipment in the channel is extensive and poses a hazard to recreational vessels attempting to transit the waterway via the side channels under the bridge. Construction, requiring equipment in the navigable channel, was originally scheduled to end on December 31, 2004. Numerous delays in the construction have required construction equipment to continue to occupy the navigable channel and have required subsequent extensions of the established safety zone through December 31, 2005 and then through December 31, 2006 when the contractor continued to experience significant delays. Due to continued construction delays, the NYSDOT has requested that a safety zone be established through December 31, 2007. To ensure the continued safety of the boating community, the Coast Guard is reestablishing the safety zone in all waters of the Sloop Channel within 300-yards of the Wantagh Parkway Number 3 Bridge. This safety zone is necessary to protect the safety of the boating community who wish to utilize the Sloop Channel. Vessels may utilize the Goose Neck Channel as an alternative route to using the Sloop Channel, adding minimal additional transit time. Marine traffic may also transit safely outside of the safety zone during the effective dates of the safety zone, allowing navigation in the Sloop Channel, except the portion delineated by this rule. Discussion of Rule This regulation establishes a temporary safety zone on the waters of the Sloop Channel within 300-yards of the Wantagh Parkway Bridge. This action is intended to prohibit vessel traffic in a portion of the Sloop Channel in the Town of Hempstead, New York to provide for the safety of the boating community due to the hazards posed by significant construction equipment and barges located in the waterway for the construction of a new bascule bridge. The safety zone is being established from 11:59 p.m. on January 22, 2007, to 11:59 p.m. on December 31, 2007. Marine traffic may continue to transit safely outside of the safety zone during the effective dates of the safety zone, allowing navigation in the Sloop Channel, except the portion delineated by this rule. Entry into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Long Island Sound. 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. We expect the economic impact of this rule will be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. This regulation may have some impact on the public, but the potential impact will be minimized for the following reasons: Vessels may transit in all areas of the Sloop Channel other than the area of the safety zone, and may utilize other routes with minimal increased transit time. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule will 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 may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in those portions of the Sloop Channel in the Town of Hempstead, New York covered by the safety zone. For the reasons outlined in the Regulatory Evaluation section above, this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule 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 economically affect it. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 [Pub. L. 104-121], we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. If this rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call Lieutenant Junior Grade D. Miller Assistant Chief, Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard Sector Safety Office Long Island Sound at

(203)468-4596. 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 will 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. To help the Coast Guard establish regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration with Indian and Alaskan Native tribes, we published a notice in the **Federal Register** (66 FR 36361, July 11, 2001) requesting comments on how to best carry out the Order. 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. 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 The Coast Guard analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D 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) from further environmental documentation. A final “Environmental Analysis Checklist” and a “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 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.T01-132 to read as follows: § 165.T01-132 Safety Zone: Wantagh Parkway Number 3 Bridge over the Sloop Channel, Town of Hempstead, NY.

(a)*Location:* The following area is a safety zone: All waters of the Sloop Channel in Hempstead, NY, from surface to bottom, within 300 yards of the Wantagh Parkway Number 3 Bridge over the Sloop Channel.

(b)*Effective date:* This rule is effective from 11:59 p.m. on January 22, 2007 until 11:59 p.m. December 31, 2007.

(c)*Regulations.*

(1)In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry into or movement within this zone by any person or vessel is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP), Long Island Sound.

(2)All persons and vessels must comply with the Coast Guard COTP or designated on-scene patrol personnel. On-scene Coast Guard patrol personnel include commissioned, warrant, and petty officers of the Coast Guard on board Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, and local, State, and Federal law enforcement vessels. Upon being hailed by siren, radio, flashing light or other means from a U.S. Coast Guard vessel or other vessel with on-scene patrol personnel aboard, the operator of the vessel shall proceed as directed. Dated: January 22, 2007. J.J. Plunkett, Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port, Long Island Sound. [FR Doc. E7-1978 Filed 2-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0970; FRL-8112-2] Tris (2-ethylhexyl) Phosphate; Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of tris (2-ethylhexyl) phosphate (TEHP, CAS Reg. No. 78-42-2) when used as an inert ingredient in pesticide formulations with the active ingredients pinoxaden, clodinafop-propargyl, and tralkoxydium, with no more than two applications per season when applied to wheat and barley up to the pre-boot stage (prior to formation of edible grain). Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA), requesting an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of TEHP. DATES: This regulation is effective February 7, 2007. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before April 9, 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-2006-0970. 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 either in the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. 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: R. Tracy Ward, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:

(703)308-9361; e-mail address: *ward.tracyh@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to: • Crop production (NAICS code 111). • Animal production (NAICS code 112). • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311). • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532). This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. To determine whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability provisions in [insert appropriate cite to either another unit in the preamble or a section in a rule]. 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-2006-0970 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 April 9, 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-2006-0970, by one of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail* : Office of Pesticide Programs

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

(703)305-5805. II. Background and Statutory Findings In the **Federal Register** of August 9, 2006 (71 FR 45559) (FRL-8082-9), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408 of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a, as amended by the FQPA (Public Law 104-170), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 6E7078) by Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27410. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.910 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of tris (2-ethylhexyl) phosphate (TEHP, CAS Reg. No. 78-42-2). That notice referenced a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner. Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC requested the use of TEHP as an adjuvant in pesticide formulations with the active ingredients pinoxaden, clodinafop-propargyl, and tralkoxydium applied to the growing crops wheat and barley. There were no substantive comments received in response to the notice of filing. Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of the FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .” III. Risk Characterization and Conclusion Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of the FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability and the relationship of this information 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 nature of the toxic effects caused by TEHP are discussed in this unit. The following provides a brief summary of the risk assessment and conclusions for the Agency's review of TEHP. The full decision document for this action is available on EPA's Electronic Docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* under docket number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0970. A. Human Health The Agency reviewed the available information submitted by the petitioner as well as additional information available to the Agency and has determined that TEHP is of low acute and subchronic oral and inhalation toxicity, but is a moderate skin irritant. TEHP is not a cancer concern, is not mutagenic and is not a neurotoxin. Although no developmental toxicity study is available on TEHP, the Agency has determined that tributyl phosphate is an acceptable analog and can be used to characterize the developmental toxicity of TEHP. Based on developmental and reproductive toxicity studies on the analog tributyl phosphate, TEHP is expected to produce developmental toxicity only at maternally toxic doses. One developmental study conducted on tributyl phosphate showed one incident of a rare fetal malformation. The observed effect is not likely to have resulted from exposure to tributyl phosphate. The petitioner has agreed to conduct an acceptable rat developmental study on TEHP and submit it to EPA within 18 months in order to confirm that this malformation is not an effect of TEHP. The Agency concludes that dietary and drinking water exposures of concern are not anticipated from the inert ingredient use of TEHP considering its physical and chemical properties, including low volatility and rapid biodegradation, and the limitations imposed by its proposed use as an adjuvant in pesticide formulations only with the active ingredients pinoxaden, clodinafop-propargyl, and tralkoxydium, limited to no more than two applications per season on two crops, wheat and barley, up to the pre-boot stage (prior to formation of edible grain). Residential exposures (inhalation and dermal) to TEHP are not expected due to its low volatility, limited use pattern in agricultural pesticides, and rapid biodegradation in the environment. Taking into consideration all available information on TEHP, it has been determined that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm to any population subgroup will result from aggregate exposure to TEHP when used as an inert ingredient in pesticide formulations when considering dietary exposure and all other non-occupational sources of pesticide exposure for which there is reliable information. Therefore, the exemption from the requirement of a tolerance requested by the petitioner, Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, for residues of TEHP, can be considered assessed as safe under section 408(q) of the FFDCA. B. Analytical Methods An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitations. C. International Tolerances The Agency is not aware of any country requiring a tolerance for tris (2-ethylhexyl) phosphate nor have any CODEX Maximum Residue Levels

(MRLs)been established for any food crops at this time. IV. Conclusions Based on the information in this preamble and in the decision document, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm to the general population, including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of tris (2-ethylhexyl) phosphate (TEHP). Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting TEHP from the requirement of a tolerance will be safe. EPA is establishing a tolerance exemption for TEHP on wheat and barley when it is used as an inert ingredient in pesticide formulations with the active ingredients pinoxaden, clodinafop-propargyl, and tralkoxydium. TEHP is limited to no more than two applications per season and these applications must occur no later than the pre-boot stage (prior to formation of edible grain). V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews This final rule establishes an exemption from the tolerance requirement under section 408(d) of the 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 the FFDCA, such as the exemption 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 the 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. VI. 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: January 25, 2007. Lois Rossi, 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 180.1274 is added to subpart D to read as follows: § 180.1274 Tris (2-ethylhexyl) phosphate; exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. Tris (2-ethylhexyl) phosphate (TEHP, CAS Reg. No. 78-42-2) is exempt from the requirement of a tolerance for residues in wheat and barley when used under the following conditions:

(a)The use is in accordance with good agricultural practices;

(b)Tris (2-ethylhexyl) phosphate is used as an inert ingredient in pesticide formulations with the active ingredients pinoxaden, clodinafop-propargyl, and tralkoxydium;

(c)Tris (2-ethylhexyl) phosphate is applied no more than twice per season; and

(d)The applications occur no later than the pre-boot stage (prior to formation of edible grain). [FR Doc. 07-460 Filed 1-30-07; 12:41 pm]

Connectionstraces to 38

Traces to 38 documents

CFR