Notices. Notice of temporary deviation from regulations

30,630 words·~139 min read·/register/2007/06/27/07-3167

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

BILLING CODE 9111-14-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [CGD01-07-071] Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Long Island, New York Inland Waterway From Rockaway Inlet to Shinnecock Canal, Atlantic Beach, NY AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations. SUMMARY: The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the Atlantic Beach Bridge, mile 0.4, across Reynolds Channel at Atlantic Beach, New York.

Under this temporary deviation a one-hour advance notice will be required for bridge openings between 7 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, from July 23, 2007 through August 3, 2007. This deviation is necessary to facilitate bridge steel deck grating replacement. DATES: This deviation is effective from 7 a.m. on July 23, 2007 through 3:30 p.m. August 3, 2007. ADDRESSES: Materials referred to in this document are available for inspection or copying at the First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch Office, 408 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02110, between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

The telephone number is

(617)223-8364. The First Coast Guard District Bridge Branch Office maintains the public docket for this temporary deviation. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judy Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, at

(212)668-7195. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Atlantic Beach Bridge, across Reynolds Channel, mile 0.4, at Atlantic Beach, New York, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 25 feet at mean high water and 30 feet at mean low water. The existing drawbridge operation regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.799(e). The owner of the bridge, Nassau County Bridge Authority, requested a temporary deviation to facilitate the replacement of steel deck grating at the bridge. Under this temporary deviation, from July 23, 2007 through August 3, 2007, a one-hour advance notice for bridge openings shall be required between 7 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the Atlantic Beach Bridge, mile 0.4, across Reynolds Channel, at Atlantic Beach, New York. Notice may be given by calling the bridge tender on VHF channel 13, or by telephone at

(516)239-1821. In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the bridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. Dated: June 18, 2007. Gary Kassof, Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E7-12372 Filed 6-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [CGD09-07-040] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Ferrier Picnic, Lake Erie, Fairview, PA AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on Lake Erie, Fairview, PA. This zone is intended to restrict vessels from a portion of Lake Erie during the Fairview Picnic fireworks display on July 1, 2007. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with fireworks displays. DATES: This rule is effective from 9:30 p.m. to 9:45 p.m. on July 1, 2007. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket CGD09-07-040 and are available for inspection or copying at U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo, 1 Fuhrmann Boulevard, Buffalo, NY 14203 between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m. Monday through Friday except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LT Tracy Wirth, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo;

(716)843-9573. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. The permit application was not received in time to publish an NPRM followed by a final rule before the effective date. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . Delaying this rule would be contrary to the public interest of ensuring the safety of spectators and vessels during this event and immediate action is necessary to prevent possible loss of life or property. Background and Purpose This temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and spectators from hazards associated with a fireworks display. Based on accidents that have occurred in other Captain of the Port Zones, and the explosive hazards of fireworks, the Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that fireworks launches proximate to watercraft pose significant risk to public safety and property. The likely combination of large numbers of recreation vessels, congested waterways, darkness punctuated by bright flashes of light, alcohol use, and debris falling into the water could easily result in serious injuries or fatalities. Establishing a safety zone to control vessel movement around the location of the launch platform will help ensure the safety of persons and property at these events and help minimize the associated risks. Discussion of Rule A temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of spectators and vessels during the setup, loading and launching of a fireworks display in conjunction with the Ferrier Picnic fireworks display. The fireworks display will occur between 9:30 p.m. and 9:45 p.m. on July 1, 2007. The safety zone for the fireworks will encompass all waters of Lake Erie, Fairview, PA within a three hundred foot radius of position 42°04′19″ N, 080°14′40″ W. [DATUM: NAD 83]. All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the designated on-scene representative. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. 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. This determination is based on the minimal time that vessels will be restricted from the safety zone and the safety zone is an area where the Coast Guard expects insignificant adverse impact to mariners from the safety zone's activation. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners and operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of Lake Erie, Fairview, PA between 9:30 p.m. and 9:45 p.m. on July 1, 2007. This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This rule will be in effect for fifteen minutes for one event. Vessel traffic can safely pass outside the safety zone during the event. In the event that this temporary safety zone affects shipping, commercial vessels may request permission from the Captain of the Port Buffalo to transit through the safety zone. The Coast Guard will give notice to the public via a Broadcast to Mariners that the regulation is in effect. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. 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 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 would not result in such 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 concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments The Coast Guard recognizes the treaty rights of Native American Tribes. Moreover, the Coast Guard is committed to working with Tribal Governments to implement local policies and to mitigate tribal concerns. We have determined that this safety zone and fishing rights protection need not be incompatible. We have also determined that this Rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Nevertheless, Indian Tribes that have questions concerning the provisions of this Rule or options for compliance are encouraged to contact the point of contact listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . 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 procedure; and related management system practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. This event establishes a safety zone therefore paragraph (34)(g) of the Instruction applies. A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 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. A new temporary § 165.T09-040 is added as follows: § 165.T09-040 Safety zone; Ferrier Picnic, Lake Erie, Fairview, PA.

(a)*Location.* The following area is a temporary safety zone: All waters and the shoreline of Lake Erie, Fairview, PA within a three hundred foot radius of position 42°04′19″ N, 080°14′40″ W. [DATUM: NAD 83].

(b)*Enforcement period.* This regulation will be enforced from 9:30 p.m. to 9:45 p.m. on July 1, 2007.

(c)*Regulations.*

(1)In accordance with the general regulations in section 165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo, or his designated on-scene representative.

(2)This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.

(3)The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port Buffalo is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port to act on his behalf. The on-scene representative of the Captain of the Port Buffalo will be aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel.

(4)Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

(5)Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative. Dated: June 11, 2007. S.J. Ferguson, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo. [FR Doc. E7-12401 Filed 6-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [CGD01-07-080] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Port Jefferson Fireworks, Long Island Sound, Port Jefferson, NY AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for the Port Jefferson Fireworks on East Beach in Port Jefferson, NY. The safety zone is necessary to protect the life and property of the maritime community from the hazards posed by the fireworks display. Entry into or movement within this safety zone during the enforcement period is prohibited without approval of the Captain of the Port, Long Island Sound. DATES: This rule is effective from 8 p.m. on July 4, 2007 until 11 p.m. on July 5, 2007. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket CGD01-07-080 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, Chief, Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard Sector Long Island Sound at

(203)468-4596. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. The Coast Guard did not receive an Application for Approval of Marine Event for this event with sufficient time to implement an NPRM. A delay or cancellation of the fireworks display in order to accommodate a full notice and comment period would be contrary to the public interest. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard also finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . Any delay encountered in this regulation's effective date would be impracticable and contrary to public interest since immediate action is needed to prevent traffic from transiting a portion of Long Island Sound off East Beach, Port Jefferson, NY and to protect the maritime public from the hazards associated with this fireworks event. The temporary zone should have minimal negative impact on the public and navigation because it will be enforced for a three hour period on only one of two specified days. In addition, the area closed by the safety zone is minimal, allowing vessels to transit around the zone in Long Island Sound off Port Jefferson, NY. Background and Purpose The Port Jefferson Fireworks display will take place on East Beach, Port Jefferson, NY from 8 p.m. to 11 p.m. on July 4, 2007. If the fireworks display is cancelled due to inclement weather on July 4, 2007, it will take place during the same hours on July 5, 2007. This safety zone is necessary to protect the life and property of the maritime public from the hazards posed by the fireworks display. It will protect the maritime public by prohibiting entry into or movement within this portion of Long Island Sound one hour prior to, during and one hour after the stated event. Discussion of Rule This regulation establishes a temporary safety zone on the navigable waters of Long Island Sound off East Beach, Port Jefferson, NY within a five hundred foot radius of the fireworks launch site located at approximate position 40°57′53.189″ N, 073°03′9.72″ W. The temporary safety zone will be outlined by temporary marker buoys installed by the event organizers. This action is intended to prohibit vessel traffic in a portion of Long Island Sound off East Beach, Port Jefferson, NY to provide for the protection of life and property of the maritime public. The safety zone will be enforced from 8 p.m. until 11 p.m. on July 4, 2007. Alternatively, if the fireworks display is cancelled due to inclement weather on July 4, 2007, the zone will be enforced during the same hours on July 5, 2007. Marine traffic may transit safely outside of the safety zone during the event thereby allowing navigation of the rest of Long Island Sound except for the portion delineated by this rule. The Captain of the Port anticipates minimal negative impact on vessel traffic due to this event because of the safety zone's small size and duration. Public notifications will be made prior to the effective period via local notice to mariners and marine information broadcasts. 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. This regulation may have some impact on the public, but the potential impact will be minimized for the following reasons: Vessels will only be excluded from the area of the safety zone for 3 hours; and vessels will be able to operate in other areas of Long Island Sound off Port Jefferson, NY during the enforcement period. 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 Long Island Sound off Port Jefferson, NY 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. Assistance for Small Entities Under subsection 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 [Pub. L. 104-121], the Coast Guard wants to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about the rule or any policy of the Coast Guard. 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 will not concern 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. 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 M16475.1D 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 the categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. This rule falls under the provisions of paragraph (34)(g) because the rule establishes a safety zone. A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” will be available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, 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 and 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 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.T01-080 to read as follows: § 165.T01-080 Safety Zone; Port Jefferson Fireworks, Port Jefferson, NY.

(a)*Location.* The following area is a safety zone: All navigable waters of Long Island Sound off of East Beach, Port Jefferson, NY, from surface to bottom, within a 500 foot radius of the fireworks launch site located in approximate position 40°57′53.189″ N, 073°03′9.72″ W.

(b)*Definitions.* The following definitions apply to this section: *Designated on-scene patrol personnel,* means any commissioned, warrant and petty officers of the U.S. Coast Guard operating Coast Guard vessels in the enforcement of this safety zone.

(c)*Regulations.*

(1)In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry into or movement within this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Long, Island Sound or his designated on-scene patrol personnel.

(3)All persons and vessels shall comply with the orders of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or designated on-scene patrol personnel.

(4)Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing light or other means, the operator of the vessel shall proceed as directed.

(5)Persons and vessels may request permission to enter the zone on VHF-16 or via phone at

(203)468-4401.

(d)*Enforcement period.* This section will be enforced from 8 p.m. to 11 p.m. on Wednesday, July 4, 2007 and if the fireworks display is postponed, it will be enforced from 8 p.m. to 11 p.m. on Thursday, July 5, 2007. Dated: June 15, 2007. D.A. Ronan, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Long Island Sound. [FR Doc. E7-12379 Filed 6-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [CGD09-07-038] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; City of Syracuse Fireworks, Syracuse Inner Harbor, Syracuse, NY AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in the Syracuse Inner Harbor, Syracuse, NY. This zone is intended to restrict vessels from a portion of the Syracuse Inner Harbor during the City of Syracuse Fireworks Celebration on June 29, 2007 Fireworks display. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with fireworks displays. DATES: This rule is effective from 9:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on June 29, 2007. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket CGD09-07-038 and are available for inspection or copying at U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo, 1 Fuhrmann Boulevard, Buffalo, NY 14203 between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LT Tracy Wirth, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo;

(716)843-9573. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. The permit application was not received in time to publish an NPRM followed by a final rule before the effective date. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . Delaying this rule would be contrary to the public interest of ensuring the safety of spectators and vessels during this event and immediate action is necessary to prevent possible loss of life or property. Background and Purpose This temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and spectators from hazards associated with a fireworks display. Based on accidents that have occurred in other Captain of the Port zones, and the explosive hazards of fireworks, the Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that fireworks launches in close proximity to watercraft pose significant risk to public safety and property. The likely combination of large numbers of recreation vessels, congested waterways, darkness punctuated by bright flashes of light, alcohol use, and debris falling into the water could easily result in serious injuries or fatalities. Establishing a safety zone to control vessel movement around the location of the launch platform will help ensure the safety of persons and property at these events and help minimize the associated risks. Discussion of Rule A temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of spectators and vessels during the setup, loading and launching of a fireworks display in conjunction with the City of Syracuse fireworks display. The fireworks display will occur between 9:30 p.m. and 10:30 p.m. on June 29, 2007. The safety zone for the fireworks will encompass all waters of the Syracuse Inner Harbor and Onondaga Lake within a three hundred fifty foot radius of position 43°03′37″ N, 076°09′59″ W. [DATUM: NAD 83]. All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the designated on-scene representative. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. 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. This determination is based on the minimal time that vessels will be restricted from the safety zone and the safety zone is an area where the Coast Guard expects insignificant adverse impact to mariners from the safety zone's activation. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners and operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of the Syracuse Harbor, Syracuse, NY between 9:30 p.m. and 10:30 p.m. on June 29, 2007. This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: this rule will be in effect for only one hour. Vessel traffic can safely pass outside the safety zone during the event. In the event that this temporary safety zone affects shipping, commercial vessels may request permission from the Captain of the Port Buffalo to transit through the safety zone. The Coast Guard will give notice to the public via a Broadcast to Mariners that the regulation is in effect. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about the rule or any policy of the Coast Guard. 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 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 would not result in such 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 concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments The Coast Guard recognizes the treaty rights of Native American Tribes. Moreover, the Coast Guard is committed to working with Tribal Governments to implement local policies and to mitigate tribal concerns. We have determined that this safety zone and fishing rights protection need not be incompatible. We have also determined that this Rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Nevertheless, Indian Tribes that have questions concerning the provisions of this Rule or options for compliance are encouraged to contact the point of contact listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . 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 procedure; and related management system practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. This event establishes a safety zone therefore paragraph (34)(g) of the Instruction applies. A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 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. A new temporary § 165.T09-038 is added as follows: § 165.T09-038 Safety zone; City of Syracuse Fireworks Celebration, Syracuse Inner Harbor, Syracuse, NY.

(a)*Location.* The following area is a temporary safety zone: All waters of the Syracuse Inner Harbor and Onondaga Lake in a three hundred fifty foot radius of position 43°03′ 37″ N, 076°09′ 59″ W. [DATUM: NAD 83].

(b)*Effective period.* This regulation is effective from 9:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on June 29, 2007.

(c)*Regulations.*

(2)This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.

(3)The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port Buffalo is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act on his behalf. The on-scene representative of the Captain of the Port Buffalo will be aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel.

(5)Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative. Dated: June 11, 2007. S.J. Ferguson, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo. [FR Doc. E7-12369 Filed 6-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [CGD01-07-074] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Cancer Center for Kids, Bayville, NY AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for the Cancer Center for Kids Fireworks in Bayville, NY. The safety zone is necessary to protect the life and property of the maritime community from the hazards posed by the fireworks display. Entry into or movement within this safety zone during the enforcement period is prohibited without approval of the Captain of the Port, Long Island Sound. DATES: This rule is effective from 8 p.m. to 11 p.m. on June 30, 2007. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket CGD01-07-074 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, Chief, Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard Sector Long Island Sound at

(203)468-4596. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking

(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). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. 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, 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 will not concern 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. 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 M16475.1D 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 the categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. This rule falls under the provisions of paragraph (34)(g) because the rule establishes a safety zone. A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” will be available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1225 and 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 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.T01-074 to read as follows: § 165.T01-074—Safety Zone: Cancer Center for Kids, Bayville NY.

(a)*Location.* The following area is a safety zone: All navigable waters of Long Island Sound off of Bayville Avenue in Bayville, NY within a 600-foot radius of the fireworks barge located in approximate position 40°55′19.8587″ N, 073°34′41.9700″ W.

(b)*Regulations.*

(1)The general regulations contained in 33 CFR 165.23 apply.

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

(3)All persons and vessels shall comply with the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or designated on-scene patrol personnel. These personnel comprise commissioned, warrant and petty officers of the U.S. Coast Guard. Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing light or other means, the operator of the vessel shall proceed as directed.

(c)*Enforcement period.* This section will be enforced from 8 p.m. to 11 p.m. on Saturday, June 30, 2007. Dated: June 15, 2007. D.A. Ronan, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Long Island Sound. [FR Doc. E7-12366 Filed 6-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [CGD01-07-036] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone: Hingham 4th of July Fireworks Display, Hingham, MA AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for the Town of Hingham Fourth of July Fireworks on July 1, 2007. The safety zone is necessary to protect the life and property of the maritime public from the potential hazards posed by a fireworks display. The safety zone temporarily prohibits entry into or movement within this portion of Hingham Inner Harbor during its closure period. DATES: This rule is effective from 8:45 p.m. on July 1, 2007 until 11 p.m. on July 2, 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 CGD01-07-036 and are available for inspection or copying at Sector Boston, 427 Commercial Street, Boston, MA between the hours of 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Petty Officer Joseph Yonker, Sector Boston, Waterways Management Division, at

(617)223-5007. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory History We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)for this regulation. As the fireworks display is scheduled to occur on July 1, 2007, any delay encountered in the regulation's effective date would be contrary to the public interest since the safety zone is needed to prevent traffic from transiting a portion of Hingham Inner Harbor during the fireworks display thus ensuring that the maritime public is protected from any potential harm associated with such an event. Additionally, the zone should have negligible impact on vessel transits due to the fact that vessels will be limited from the area for only two hours and fifteen minutes and vessels can still transit in the majority of Hingham Inner Harbor during the event. Accordingly, under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. For the same reasons, the Coast Guard 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 This rule establishes a safety zone on the navigable waters of Hingham Inner Harbor within a 500-yard radius of the fireworks barge located at approximate position 42°015.30′ N, 070 °53.02′ W. The safety zone is in effect from 8:45 p.m. until 11 p.m. on July 1, 2007. The rain date for the fireworks event is from 8:45 p.m. until 11 p.m. on July 2, 2007. The safety zone temporarily restricts movement within this portion of Hingham Inner Harbor and is needed to protect the maritime public from the dangers posed by a fireworks display. Marine traffic may transit safely outside of the zone during the enforcement period. The Captain of the Port does not anticipate any negative impact on vessel traffic due to the event. Public notification will be made prior to the enforcement period via marine information broadcasts and Local Notice to Mariners. 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. Although this rule prevents vessel traffic from transiting a portion of Hingham Inner Harbor during the enforcement period, the effects of this regulation will not be significant for several reasons: vessels will be excluded from the proscribed area for only two hours and fifteen minutes, vessels will be able to operate in the majority of Hingham Inner Harbor during the effective period, and advance notifications will be made to the local maritime community by marine information broadcasts and Local Notice to Mariners. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of Hingham Inner Harbor from 8:45 p.m. until 11 p.m. on July 1, 2007. The rain date for the fireworks event is from 8:45 p.m. until 11 p.m. on July 2, 2007. This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: this rule will be in effect for only two hours and fifteen minutes, vessel traffic can safely pass around the zone, and advance notification will be made to the local maritime community by marine information broadcasts and Local Notice to Mariners. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. 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 State, local or tribal governments, 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 pose an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D 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 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g) of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. This rule fits the category selected from paragraph (34)(g), as it would establish a safety zone. A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” will be available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, 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, 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.T01-036 to read as follows: § 165.T07-036 Safety Zone; Town of Hingham 4th of July Fireworks Display, Hingham Inner Harbor, Massachusetts.

(a)*Location.* The following area is a safety zone: All navigable waters of Hingham Inner Harbor within a 500-yard radius of the fireworks barge located at approximate position 42°015.30′ N, 070°53.02′ W.

(b)*Enforcement Period.* This section will be enforced from 8:45 p.m. until 11 p.m. on July 1, 2007. The rain date for the fireworks event is from 8:45 p.m. until 11 p.m. on July 2, 2007.

(c)*Definitions.*

(1)As used in this section, *designated representative* means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel authorized to act on behalf of the Captain of the Port, Boston (COTP), and a Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the COTP.

(2)[Reserved]

(d)*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 COTP or the COTP's designated representative.

(2)The safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.

(3)Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the COTP or the COTP's designated representative on VHF Channel 16 (156.8 MHz) to seek permission to do so. If permission is granted, vessel operators must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative. Dated: May 25, 2007. James L. McDonald, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Boston, Massachusetts. [FR Doc. E7-12368 Filed 6-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [CGD01-07-073] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone: Salem Harbor Celebrates The 4th of July Fireworks—Boston, MA AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for the “Salem Harbor Celebrates the 4th of July Fireworks” display on July 4, 2007, in Salem, Massachusetts. The safety zone is necessary to protect the life and property of the maritime public from the potential hazards posed by a fireworks display. The safety zone temporarily prohibits entry into or movement within this portion of the Pickering Wharf Channel during its closure period. DATES: This rule is effective from 8:45 p.m. until 10:15 p.m. on July 4, 2007. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket CGD01-07-073 and are available for inspection or copying at Sector Boston, 427 Commercial Street, Boston, MA, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Petty Officer Joseph Yonker, Sector Boston, Waterways Safety and Response Division, at

(617)223-5007. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. An NPRM was not published for this regulation because the logistics with respect to the fireworks presentation were not determined with sufficient time to draft and publish an NPRM. Any delay encountered in this regulation's effective date would be contrary to the public interest since the safety zone is needed to prevent traffic from transiting a portion of the Pickering Wharf Channel during the fireworks display and to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . Any delay encountered in this regulation's effective date would be contrary to the public interest since the safety zone is needed to prevent traffic from transiting a portion of the Pickering Wharf Channel during the fireworks event thus ensuring that the maritime public is protected from any potential harm associated with such an event. The safety zone should have a minimal negative impact on vessel transits in the Pickering Wharf Channel because vessels will be excluded from the area for only one and a half hours, and vessels can still operate in other areas of the channel during the event. Background and Purpose “City of Salem”, the organization responsible for Salem Celebrates the 4th of July, is holding a fireworks display in honor of Independence Day. This rule establishes a temporary safety zone on the navigable waters of the Pickering Wharf Channel within a four hundred

(400)yard radius of the fireworks launch site located at approximate position 42°31.05′ N, 070°52.05′ W. This safety zone is necessary to protect the maritime public from the dangers posed by this event. It will protect the public by prohibiting entry into or movement within the proscribed portion of the Pickering Wharf Channel during the fireworks display. Marine traffic may transit safely outside of the safety zone during the enforcement period. The Captain of the Port does not anticipate any negative impact on vessel traffic due to this event. Public notification will be made prior to and during the effective period via marine information broadcasts and Local Notice to Mariners. Discussion of Rule This rule is effective from 8:45 p.m. until 10:15 p.m. on July 4, 2007. Marine traffic may transit safely outside of the safety zone in the majority of the Pickering Wharf Channel during the event. Given the limited time-frame of the enforcement period of the safety zone, the size of the channel and the size of the safety zone itself, the Captain of the Port anticipates minimal negative impact on vessel traffic due to this event. Public notifications will be made prior to and during the enforcement period via Local Notice to Mariners and marine information broadcasts. 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. Although this rule will prevent traffic from transiting a portion of the Pickering Wharf Channel during this event, the effect of this rule will not be significant for several reasons: vessels will be excluded from the area of the safety zone for only one and one-half hours, although vessels will not be able to transit the channel in the vicinity of the safety zone, they will be able to operate in other areas of the channel during the enforcement period; and advance notification will be made to the local maritime community by marine information broadcasts and Local Notice to Mariners. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of the Pickering Wharf Channel from 8:45 p.m. until 10:15 p.m. on July 4, 2007. This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the reasons described under the Regulatory Evaluation section. Assistance for Small Entities Under subsection 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 [Pub. L. 104-121], the Coast Guard wants 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 Petty Officer Joseph Yonker, Sector Boston, Waterways Management Division, at

(617)223-5007. 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). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about the rule or any policy of the Coast Guard. 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 a 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, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g) of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. This rule fits the category selected from paragraph (34)(g), as it would establish a safety zone. A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” will be available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, 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, 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.T01-073 to read as follows: § 165.T01-073 Safety Zone: Salem Celebrates the 4th of July Fireworks—Salem, Massachusetts.

(a)*Location.* The following area is a safety zone: All navigable waters of the Pickering Wharf Channel within a four hundred

(400)yard radius of the fireworks launch site located at approximate position 42°31.05′ N, 070°52.05′ W.

(b)*Enforcement Period.* This rule is effective from 8:45 p.m. until 10:15 p.m. on July 4, 2007.

(c)*Definitions.* As used in this section, *designated representative* means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel authorized to act on behalf of the Captain of the Port, Boston (COTP), and a Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the COTP.

(d)*Regulations.*

(1)In accordance with the general regulations in section 165.23 of this part, entry into or movement within this safety zone will be prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Boston.

(2)All vessel operators shall comply with the instructions of the COTP or the designated representative.

(3)The safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.

(4)Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the COTP or the COTP's designated representative on VHF Channel 16 (156.8 MHz) to seek permission to do so. If permission is granted, vessel operators must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative. Dated: June 12, 2007. James L. McDonald, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Boston, Massachusetts. [FR Doc. E7-12364 Filed 6-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [CGD09-07-035] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Seneca River Days, Baldwinsville, NY AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the Seneca River, Baldwinsville, NY. This safety zone is intended to restrict vessels from a portion of the Seneca River during the Seneca River Days fireworks display on July 6, 2007. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with fireworks displays. DATES: This rule is effective from 9:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 6, 2007. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket CGD09-07-035 and are available for inspection or copying at U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo, 1 Fuhrmann Boulevard, Buffalo, NY 14203 between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LT Tracy Wirth, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo;

(716)843-9573. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. The permit application was not received in time to publish an NPRM followed by a final rule before the effective date. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective fewer than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . Delaying this rule would be contrary to the public interest of ensuring the safety of spectators and vessels during this event and immediate action is necessary to prevent possible loss of life or property. Background and Purpose This temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and spectators from hazards associated with a fireworks display. Based on accidents that have occurred in other Captain of the Port zones, and the explosive hazards of fireworks, the Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined fireworks launches proximate to watercraft pose significant risk to public safety and property. The likely combination of large numbers of recreation vessels, congested waterways, darkness punctuated by bright flashes of light, alcohol use, and debris falling into the water could easily result in serious injuries or fatalities. Establishing a safety zone to control vessel movement around the location of the launch platform will help ensure the safety of persons and property at these events and help minimize the associated risks. Discussion of Rule A temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of spectators and vessels during the setup, loading and launching of a fireworks display in conjunction with the Seneca River Days fireworks display. The fireworks display will occur between 9:30 p.m. and 10:30 p.m. on July 6, 2007. The safety zone for the fireworks will encompass all waters of the Seneca River, Baldwinsville, NY within a six hundred foot radius of position 43°09′25″ N, 076°20′20″ W. [DATUM: NAD 83]. All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Buffalo or the designated on-scene representative. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. 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. This determination is based on the minimal time that vessels will be restricted from the safety zone and the safety zone is an area where the Coast Guard expects insignificant adverse impact to mariners from the safety zone's activation. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners and operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of the Seneca River Baldwinsville, NY between 9:30 p.m. and 10:30 p.m. on July 6, 2007. This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This rule will be in effect for only one hour for one event. Vessel traffic can safely pass outside the safety zone during the event. In the event that this temporary safety zone affects shipping, commercial vessels may request permission from the Captain of the Port Buffalo to transit through the safety zone. The Coast Guard will give notice to the public via a Broadcast to Mariners that the regulation is in effect. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about the rule or any policy of the Coast Guard. 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 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 would not result in such 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 concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments The Coast Guard recognizes the treaty rights of Native American Tribes. Moreover, the Coast Guard is committed to working with Tribal Governments to implement local policies and to mitigate tribal concerns. We have determined that this safety zone and fishing rights protection need not be incompatible. We have also determined that this Rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Nevertheless, Indian Tribes that have questions concerning the provisions of this Proposed Rule or options for compliance are encouraged to contact the point of contact listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . 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 procedure; and related management system practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. This event establishes a safety zone therefore paragraph (34)(g) of the Instruction applies. A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 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. A new temporary § 165.T09-035 is added as follows: § 165.T09-035 Safety zone; Seneca River Days, Baldwinsville, NY.

(a)*Location.* The following area is a temporary safety zone: All waters of the Seneca River, Baldwinsville, NY within a six hundred foot radius of position 43°09′25″ N, 076°20′20″ W. [DATUM: NAD 83].

(b)*Enforcement period.* This regulation will be enforced from 9:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 6, 2007.

(c)*Regulations.*

(2)This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.

(4)Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

(5)Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative. Dated: June 11, 2007. S.J. Ferguson, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo. [FR Doc. E7-12360 Filed 6-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [CGD01-07-037] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone: Independence Day Celebration Fireworks Display, Ipswich, MA AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for the Trustees of Reservations July Fireworks on July 4, 2007. The safety zone is necessary to protect the life and property of the maritime public from the potential hazards posed by a fireworks display. The safety zone temporarily prohibits entry into or movement within this portion of Ipswich Bay during its closure period. DATES: This rule is effective from 8:30 p.m. on July 4, 2007 until 10:30 p.m. on July 5, 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 CGD01-07-037 and are available for inspection or copying at Sector Boston, 427 Commercial Street, Boston, MA between the hours of 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Petty Officer Joseph Yonker, Sector Boston, Waterways Management Division, at

(617)223-5007. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory History We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)for this regulation. As the fireworks display is scheduled to occur on July 4, 2007, any delay encountered in the regulation's effective date would be contrary to the public interest since the safety zone is needed to prevent traffic from transiting a portion of Ipswich Bay during the fireworks display thus ensuring that the maritime public is protected from any potential harm associated with such an event. Additionally, the zone should have negligible impact on vessel transits due to the fact that vessels will be limited from the area for only two hours and vessels can still transit in the majority of Ipswich Bay during the event. Accordingly, under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. For the same reasons, the Coast Guard 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 This rule establishes a safety zone on the navigable waters of Ipswich Bay within a 500-yard radius of the fireworks display located at approximate position 42°960.63′ N, 070°77.59′ W. The safety zone is in effect from 8:30 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2007. The rain date for the fireworks event is from 8:30 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on July 5, 2007. The safety zone temporarily restricts movement within this portion of Ipswich Bay and is needed to protect the maritime public from the dangers posed by a fireworks display. Marine traffic may transit safely outside of the safety zone during the enforcement period. The Captain of the Port does not anticipate any negative impact on vessel traffic due to the event. Public notification will be made prior to the enforcement period via marine information broadcasts and Local Notice to Mariners. 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. Although this rule prevents vessel traffic from transiting a portion of Ipswich Bay during the enforcement period, the effects of this regulation will not be significant for several reasons: Vessels will be excluded from the proscribed area for only two hours, vessels will be able to operate in the majority of Ipswich Bay during the effective period, and advance notification will be made to the local maritime community by marine information broadcasts and Local Notice to Mariners. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of Ipswich Bay from 8:30 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2007. The rain date for the fireworks event is from 8:30 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on July 5, 2007. This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This rule will be in effect for only two hours, vessel traffic can safely pass around the zone, and advance notification will be made to the local maritime community by marine information broadcasts and Local Notice to Mariners. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. 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 State, local or tribal governments, 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 pose an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D 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 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g) of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. This rule fits the category selected from paragraph (34)(g), as it would establish a safety zone. A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” will be available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, 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, 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.T01-037 to read as follows: § 165.T01-037 Safety Zone; Independence Day Celebration Fireworks Display, Ipswich, Massachusetts.

(a)*Location.* The following area is a safety zone: All navigable waters of Ipswich Bay within a 500-yard radius of the fireworks barge located at approximate position 42°960.63′ N, 070°77.59′ W.

(b)*Enforcement Period.* This section will be enforced from 8:30 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2007. The rain date for the fireworks event is from 8:30 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on July 5, 2007.

(c)*Definitions.*

(2)[Reserved]

(d)*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 COTP or the COTP's designated representative.

(2)The safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.

(eVS)for Parcel Select Mailings AGENCY: United States Postal Service. ACTION: Final rule; suspension of effective date. SUMMARY: This final rule delays the date set for the required use of electronic data and automated processes of the Electronic Verification System

(eVS)for permit imprint Parcel Select® manifest mailings, which currently are paper-driven and rely on manual processes for handling verification and postage reconciliations. The delay in required use also extends to Standard Mail® machinable parcels and parcels from other Package Services subclasses (Bound Printed Matter, Library Mail, or Media Mail®) that are authorized to be commingled with permit imprint Parcel Select parcels. Parcel mailers and shippers may continue to use eVS as an option if they meet the required business standards and technical specifications in the Domestic Mail Manual. DATES: The effective date for the final rule amending 39 CFR part 111 published in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 38966) on July 10, 2006, is delayed indefinitely. The Postal Service TM will publish a document in the **Federal Register** announcing the new effective date. The applicability date for the *Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM®) change set forth below is May 14, 2007.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Neil Berger, Program Manager, Business Mailer Support, via e-mail at *neil.h.berger@usps.gov* or by telephone at

(202)268-7267. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 7, 2005, the Postal Service published a proposed rule in the **Federal Register** (70 FR 67399-67405), soliciting comments from mailers and parcel shippers on requiring the use of the Electronic Verification System

(eVS)for all permit imprint Parcel Select mailings, including those containing authorized commingled Standard Mail machinable parcels and parcels from the other subclasses of Package Services (Bound Printed Matter, Media Mail, and Library Mail). On July 10, 2006, the Postal Service published a final rule in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 38966-38978) responding to comments from the mailing industry and providing implementing language and mailing standards to take effect on August 1, 2007, that would require all permit imprint Parcel Select mail and all permit imprint mail authorized to be commingled with Parcel Select to be prepared using eVS. The Postal Service is delaying the required use of eVS because of the large number of format and coding changes required by the R2006-1 omnibus rate case, implemented on May 14, 2007, and because of the addition of several new subclasses of mail that will become available under eVS after May 14, 2007. As a result, the Postal Service is re-evaluating a suitable date for new mailer implementation of eVS. Once the Postal Service, working closely with the parcel shipping industry, determines an appropriate date, it will publish the new date in the **Federal Register** and the *Postal Bulletin.* We adopt the following amendments to Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM), incorporated by reference in the Code of Federal Regulations. See 39 CFR 111.1. List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 111 Postal Service. Accordingly, 39 CFR part 111 is amended as follows: PART 111—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for 39 CFR part 111 continues to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 39 U.S.C. 101, 401, 403, 404, 414, 3001-3011, 3201-3219, 3403-3406, 3621, 3626, 5001. 2. Revise the following sections of *Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM®)* as provided below: *Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service,* Domestic Mail Manual 705 Advanced Preparation and Special Postage Payment Systems 2.9 Electronic Verification System

(eVS)*[Revise the heading “Optional and Required Use” to read as follows:]* 2.9.4 Use *[Revise 2.9.4 by removing the last sentence “Effective August 1, 2007, mailers must use eVS for all permit imprint Parcel Select parcels and for permit imprint parcels authorized under 705.6.0 and 705.7.0 to be commingled with Parcel Select” to read as follows:]* Mailers depositing permit imprint parcels for those classes of mail and rate categories specified in 2.9.2 may document and pay postage using eVS. Mailers authorized to commingle Standard Mail parcels or Package Services presorted parcels under 705.6.0 and 705.7.0 also may use eVS to document and pay postage for all parcels in the mailing for those mail classes and subclasses available under 2.9.2. Neva R. Watson, Attorney, Legislative. [FR Doc. E7-10391 Filed 6-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0313; FRL-8134-5] Tobacco Mild Green Mosaic Tobamovirus (TMGMV); Temporary Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the tobacco mild green mosaic tobamovirus (TMGMV) on grass and grass hay when applied/used as a bioherbicide against the weed tropical soda apple. Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR4), on behalf of BioProdex, Inc. 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 the temporary tolerance exemption. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of TMGMV. The temporary tolerance exemption expires on June 30, 2009. DATES: This regulation is effective June 27, 2007. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before August 27, 2007, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ). ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification

(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0313. To access the electronic docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* , select “Advanced Search,” then “Docket Search.” Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the “Submit” button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov web site to view the docket index or access available documents. All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available in regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information

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

(703)305-5805. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Edelstein, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:

(703)605-0513; e-mail address: *edelstein.rebecca@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to: • Crop production (NAICS code 111). • Animal production (NAICS code 112). • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311). • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532). This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document? In addition to accessing an electronic copy of this **Federal Register** document through the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , you may access this “ **Federal Register** ” document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ **Federal Register** ” listings at *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr* . You may also access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's pilot e-CFR site at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr* . To access the OPPTS Harmonized Guidelines referenced in this document, go directly to the guidelines at *http://www.epa.gov/opptsfrs/home/guidelin.htm* . 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-2006-0313 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 August 27, 2007. In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public docket that is described in ADDRESSES . Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit your copies, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0313, by one of the following methods. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal* : *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail* : Office of Pesticide Programs

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

(703)305-5805. II. Background and Statutory Findings In the **Federal Register** of July 7, 2006 (71 FR 38643) (FRL-8069-7), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide tolerance petition (PP 6E7029) by BioProdex, Inc., Gainesville Technology Enterprise Center (GTEC), Box 5, Suite 205, 2153 SE Hawthorne Road, Gainesville, FL 32641. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing a temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of TMGMV. The docket for this action includes a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner IR-4 on behalf of BioProdex, Inc. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing. Section 408(c)(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 exemption is “safe.” Section 408(c)(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. Pursuant to section 408(c)(2)(B), in establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in section 408(b)(2)(C), which require 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. . . .” Additionally, section 408(b)(2)(D) of the FFDCA requires that the Agency consider “available information concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues” and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.” EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. First, EPA determines the toxicity of pesticides. Second, EPA examines exposure to the pesticide through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. III. Toxicological Profile 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. TMGMV is a tobamovirus, a type of plant virus, and tobamoviruses have no known toxicity or pathogenicity to any organisms other than plants. They are unable to infect animals because they lack cell surface binding site receptors common to animal viruses. Tobamoviruses enter plant cells only through open wounds (e.g., those produced by feeding insects or by mechanical methods) or by cell-to-cell transfer (Fraenkel-Conrat, *et. al* ., 1988). Almost all living things are routinely exposed to plant viruses, including tobamoviruses, through plants and plant products (e.g., foods). TMGMV is known to infect about 20 plants, including peppers (Plant Viruses Online, 2005; Wetter, C., 2005); therefore, humans are likely already exposed to TMGMV through food. Throughout the available literature, there are no reports of adverse effects in animals resulting from ingestion or exposure to TMGMV. TMGMV has not been reported to multiply in insects nor in any other known animal. One reference provided by the registrant may show replication of TMV (another tobamovirus) in cultured, immune-suppressed, monkey kidney cell lines (Atherton, J.G., 1968). However, this was an artificial system and does not indicate that plant viruses can normally replicate in animal cells. The specific mode of action of TMGMV is such that only some species within the plant family *Solanaceae* are susceptible to this virus. Laboratory animals such as rabbits, mice, chickens, and guinea pigs are routinely used for producing antibodies against tobamoviruses without causing adverse effects to the animals. In addition, there are no reports of humans that handle and administer the viruses or of these laboratory animals developing any nasal, eye, skin, or pulmonary allergies, or any other adverse reactions to the viruses. In support of this tolerance exemption, mammalian toxicology requirements were satisfied by publicly available information submitted by BioProdex, summarized in the paragraph above. Specifically, the information provided supports the lack of toxicity to mammals and humans of tobamoviruses, the fact that only certain plants (and no animals) are susceptible to TMGMV, and that TMGMV poses little to no risk to humans. 1. *Acute oral toxicity/pathogenicity (OPPTS 885.3050)* . To satisfy this requirement, the registrant submitted supporting public literature rather than a study, which shows that plant viruses, including TMGMV, are found in food ingested daily by humans and animals, and according to the published literature, no known adverse effects or deaths have occurred in any species as a result of such dietary exposures. 2. *Acute dermal toxicity/pathology (OPPTS 885.3100)* . The registrant submitted supporting public literature rather than a study to fulfill this requirement, showing that plant viruses, including TMGMV, are ubiquitous in plants, and they are not known to cause acute dermal toxicity or pathogenicity to mammals. 3. *Acute eye irritation (OPPTS 870.2400)* . The registrant submitted supporting public literature rather than a study to fulfill this requirement, showing that plant viruses, including TMGMV, are ubiquitous in plants, and they are not known to cause acute eye irritation or pathogenicity to mammals. 4. *Acute pulmonary toxicity/pathogenicity (OPPTS 885.3150)* . To fulfill this requirement, the registrant submitted supporting public literature rather than a study, which shows that plant viruses, including TMGMV, are ubiquitous in plants, and they are not known to cause acute pulmonary toxicity or pathogenicity to mammals. 5. *Acute injection toxicity/pathogenicity (OPPTS 885.3200)* . To fulfill this requirement, the registrant submitted supporting public literature rather than a study, showing the following: i. TMGMV, like all tobamoviruses, can evoke immune responses and produce antibodies if properly injected into laboratory animals such as rabbits, mice, chickens, and guinea pigs without causing adverse effects to the animals; and ii. There are no reports of humans that handle and administer tobamoviruses or laboratory animals developing adverse reactions to the virus. 6. *Hypersensitivity incidents (OPPTS 885.3400)* . Workers handling TMGMV on a daily basis since 1999 have not had a single incidence of hypersensitivity. In addition, some workers have been handling tobamoviruses for nearly 40 years without encountering hypersensitivity to any of these viruses. There are no reports of hypersensitivity in humans or other animals to tobamoviruses in the literature. 7. *Cell culture (OPPTS 885.3500)* . To satisfy this requirement, the registrant submitted the following information, supported by public literature. Tobamoviruses are unable to infect animal cells since the cell surface plays an important role in infection of animal cells; during infection, animal viruses interact specifically with receptors on the animal cell surface. Tobamoviruses, on the other hand, lack recognition for these receptors and only enter plant cells through open wounds or via cell-to-cell transfer through intercellular connections (Fraenkel-Conrat, *et. al* ., 1988). There is one report in the literature of growing *Tobacco mosaic tobamovirus* (TMV; a different tobamovirus from the one that is the subject of this tolerance exemption) in cultured, immune-suppressed, monkey kidney cell lines (Atherton, J.G., 1968). However, this was an artificial system and does not indicate that tobamoviruses can normally replicate in or infect animal cells. Based on the published literature, in accordance with Tier I toxicology data requirements set forth in 40 CFR 158.740(c), the Tier II and Tier III toxicology data requirements were not triggered in connection with this action. IV. Aggregate Exposures In examining aggregate exposure, section 408 of the FFDCA directs EPA to consider available information concerning exposures from the pesticide residue in food and all other non-occupational exposures, including drinking water from ground water or surface water and exposure through pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or buildings (residential and other indoor uses). A. Dietary Exposure 1. *Food* . Virus-infected food plants have always been a part of the human and domestic animal food supply (Dewan and Pearson, 1995; McKinney, 1929; Provvidenti and Gonsalves, 1984; Palukaitis, 1991; Jones et al., 1934; Beemster and de Bokx, 1987). Most plants may be infected by at least one virus, and components of plant viruses are often found in the produce of crop plants. Even plants that show no disease symptoms are often found to be infected with viruses (Jones *et al* ., 1934; Fulton, 1986). In addition, a common agricultural practice used since the 1920s for protection against viral disease involves intentionally inoculating healthy plants with a mild form of a virus in order to prevent infection by a more virulent form (Fulton, 1986). A great deal of information supports the ubiquitous appearance of plant viruses in foods, and to date there have been no reports of adverse human or animal health effects associated with consumption of plant viruses in food. Furthermore, the proposed experimental use permit

(EUP)is not expected to result in increased exposures of TMGMV to the general population: The intended use of TMGMV is in rangelands, grass pastures, sod-production fields, Conservation Reserve areas, and other natural areas in Florida, and the only residues anticipated on food with this EUP are on grass and grass hay. In addition, these residues on grass or grass hay would only be incidental to application to the target organism since grass is not a host for TMGMV; therefore, TMGMV cannot infect grass or replicate in grass. Accordingly, the Agency concludes that when TMGMV is used as intended, there is reasonable certainty that no harm will result to humans from all anticipated exposures through food to any residues resulting from such use. 2. *Drinking water exposure* . TMGMV is not intended for use in drinking water. However, in the event that TMGMV would reach water consumed by humans, for the reasons enumerated above, the Agency concludes that when TMGMV is used as intended, there is reasonable certainty that no harm will result to humans from all anticipated exposures through water to any residues resulting from such use. B. Other Non-Occupational Exposure EPA concludes that dermal or inhalation exposure to the general population as a result of this EUP is not likely to occur, based on the proposed uses and limited acreage. Moreover, the general population, including infants and children, are exposed to plant viruses daily in food with no known adverse effects ever being reported. Therefore, the Agency concludes that in the unlikely event that there is non-occupational, non-dietary exposure to TMGMV, such exposure would pose no risks to the general population, including infants and children. V. Cumulative Effects Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of the FFDCA requires that EPA consider available information on the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity when establishing, modifying, or revoking a tolerance. These considerations include the possible cumulative effects on infants and children of such residues and other substances with a common mode of toxicity. Because there is no indication of mammalian toxicity or pathogenicity from TMGMV, we conclude that there are no cumulative effects for this virus and any other substance. VI. Determination of Safety for U.S. Population, Infants and Children 1. *U.S. population* . For all of the reasons discussed above, there is reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of TMGMV. This includes all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information. 2. *Infants and children* . Section 408(b)(2)(C) of the FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold margin of exposure

(MOE)for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the data base on toxicity and exposure, unless EPA determines that a different MOE will be safe for infants and children. MOEs, which are often referred to as uncertainty (safety) factors, are incorporated into EPA risk assessments either directly, or through the use of a MOE analysis or by using uncertainty factors in calculating a dose level that poses no appreciable risk. As previously mentioned in the toxicological profile, humans, including infants and children, have been exposed to plant viruses through food, where they are commonly found, with no known or reported adverse effects. As discussed above, the Agency has concluded that TMGMV is non-toxic to mammals, including infants and children. Because there are no threshold levels of concern to infants, children, and adults when TMGMV is used as labeled, the Agency concludes that the additional MOE is not necessary to protect infants and children. VII. Other Considerations A. Endocrine Disruptors At this time, the Agency is not requiring information on the endocrine effects of this active ingredient, TMGMV. The Agency has considered, among other relevant factors, available information concerning whether the virus may have an effect in humans similar to an effect produced by a naturally occurring estrogen or other endocrine effects. Plant viruses cannot infect mammals, and there is no known metabolite that acts as an “endocrine disruptor” produced by this virus. Therefore, there is no impact via endocrine-related effects on the Agency's safety findings in this final rule. B. Analytical Method Through this action, the Agency is proposing to establish a temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of TMGMV on grass and grass hay for the purposes of an EUP. The Agency reached this decision based on the reasons discussed above, including lack of toxicity to mammals, and therefore concludes that an analytical method for detecting TMGMV is not required for enforcement purposes. C. Codex Maximum Residue Level No Codex maximum residue levels exist for the virus TMGMV. D. References 1. Atherton, J.G. 1968. Formation of tobacco mosaic virus in an animal cell culture. Archiv fur die gesamte Virusforschung 24:406-418. 2. Beemster ABR, de Bokx JA. Survey of properties and symptoms. In: de Bokx JA, van der Want JPH. Viruses of Potatoes and Seed Potato Production. Wageningen: Pudoc, 1987:84-93. 3. Dewan C, Pearson MN. Natural field infection of garlic by garlic yellow streak virus in the Pukekohe area of New Zealand and associated problems with the introduction of new garlic cultivars. *New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science* 1995; 23:97-102. 4. Fraenkel-Conrat, H., Kimball, P.C., and Levy, J.A. 1988. Virology, 2nd edition. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ (Virus cellular receptors and cell membrane changes, p. 299-300). 5. Fulton R. Practices and precautions in the use of cross protection for plant virus disease control. *Annual Review of Phytopathology* 1986; 24:67-81. 6. Jones L, Anderson E, Burnett G. The latent virus of potatoes. *Journal of Phytopathology* 1934; 7:93-115. 7. McKinney HH. Mosaic diseases in the Canary Islands, West Africa, and Gibraltar. *Journal of Agricultural Research* 1929; 39:557-78. 8. Palukaitis P. Virus-mediated genetic transfer in plants. In: Levin M, Strauss H. Risk Assessment in Genetic Engineering. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1991:140-62. 9. Provvidenti R, Gonsalves D. Occurrence of zucchini yellow mosaic virus in cucurbits from Connecticut, New York, Florida, and California. *Plant Disease* 1984; 68:443-6. 10. Palukaitis P. Virus-mediated genetic transfer in plants. In: Levin M, Strauss H. Risk Assessment in Genetic Engineering. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1991:140-62. 11. Plant Viruses Online, 2005. *http://image.fs.uidaho.edu/vide/descr801.htm* . 12. Wetter, C., 2005. Tobacco mild green mosaic virus. In: AAB Description of Plant Viruses No. 35. *http://www.dpvweb.net/dpv/showdpv.php?dpvno=351* . VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews This final rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled *Regulatory Planning and Review* (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, *Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use* (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled *Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks* (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq* ., nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled *Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations* (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(RFA)(5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq* .) do not apply. This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled *Federalism* (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled *Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments* (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000) do not apply to this rule. In addition, This rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(UMRA)(Public Law 104-4). This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). IX. Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq* ., generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 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: June 15, 2007. Debra Edwards, Director, Office of Pesticide Programs. Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows: PART 180—AMENDED 1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. 2. Section 180.1276 is added to subpart D to read as follows: § 180.1276 Tobacco mild green mosaic tobamovirus (TMGMV); temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. A temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for residues of tobacco mild green mosaic tobamovirus in or on all grass and grass hay. [FR Doc. E7-12338 Filed 6-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0821; FRL-8133-1] Buprofezin; Pesticide Tolerance AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of buprofezin in or on fruit, stone, group 12, except apricot and peach; and apricot. EPA is also revising existing tolerances for residues of buprofezin in or on canistel; grape; mango; papaya; sapodilla; sapote, black; sapote, mamey; and star apple; and deleting the existing tolerance for “grape, raisin” that is no longer needed as a result of this action. Interregional Research Project No. 4 requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). DATES: This regulation is effective June 27, 2007. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before August 27, 2007, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ) . ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification

(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0821. To access the electronic docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* , select “Advanced Search,” then “Docket Search.” Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the “Submit” button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov web site to view the docket index or access available documents. All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available in regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information

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

(703)305-5805. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Madden, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:

(703)305-6463; e-mail address: *madden.barbara@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 those engaged in the following activities: • Crop production (NAICS code 111), e.g., agricultural workers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; farmers. • Animal production (NAICS code 112), e.g., cattle ranchers and farmers, dairy cattle farmers, livestock farmers. • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311), e.g., agricultural workers; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; ranchers; pesticide applicators. • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532), e.g., agricultural workers; commercial applicators; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; residential users. This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document? In addition to accessing an electronic copy of this **Federal Register** document through the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , you may access this **Federal Register** document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ **Federal Register** ” listings at *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr* . You may also access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 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, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. 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-2006-0821 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 as required by 40 CFR part 178 on or before August 27, 2007. In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public docket that is described in ADDRESSES . Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit this copy, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0821, 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

(703)305-5805. II. Petition for Tolerance In the **Federal Register** of October 11, 2006 (71 FR 59781) (FRL-8098-1), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of pesticide petitions (PP 5E6979, 5E6980 and 5E6981) by Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), 681 U.S. Highway #1 South, North Brunswick, NJ 08902-3390. The petitions requested that 40 CFR 180.511 be amended by establishing a tolerance for residues of the insecticide buprofezin, 2-[(1,1-dimethylethyl)imino]tetrahydro-3(1- methylethyl)-5-phenyl-4H-1,3,5-thiadiazin-4-one, in or on fruit, stone, group 12 (except peaches and nectarines) at 2 parts per million

(ppm)(5E6979); black sapote, canistel, mamey sapote, mango, papaya, sapadilla and star apple at 0.8 ppm (5E6980); and amending the tolerances in or on grape at 0.8 ppm and grape, raisin at 1.2 ppm (5E6981). That notice referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Ninchino America, Inc., the registrant, which is available to the public in the docket, *http://www.regulations.gov* . There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing. Based upon review of the residue field trial data supporting the petitions, EPA has modified the proposed tolerances as follows: Fruit, stone, group 12, except apricot and peach at 1.9 ppm; apricot at 9.0 ppm (PP5E6979); black sapote, canistel, mamey sapote, mango, papaya, sapadilla and star apple at 0.90 ppm (PP5E6980); and grape at 2.5 ppm with deletion of the existing tolerance on grape, raisin, since a separate raisin tolerance is no longer needed (PP5E6981). The reason for these changes is explained in Unit V. III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of the FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue....” These provisions were added to the FFDCA by the Food Quality Protection Act

(FQPA)of 1996. Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of the FFDCA, and the factors specified in section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for the petitioned-for tolerances for residues of buprofezin on fruit, stone, group 12, except apricot and peach at 1.9 ppm; apricot at 9.0 ppm; black sapote, canistel, mamey sapote, mango, papaya, sapodilla and star apple at 0.90 ppm; and grape at 2.5 ppm. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with establishing the tolerances follows. A. Toxicological Profile EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by buprofezin as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are discussed in the final rule published in the **Federal Register** of September 5, 2001 (66 FR 46381), (FRL-6796-6). B. Toxicological Endpoints For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological level of concern

(LOC)is derived from the highest dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) in the toxicology study identified as appropriate for use in risk assessment. However, if a NOAEL cannot be determined, the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL) is sometimes used for risk assessment. Uncertainty/safety factors

(UF)are used in conjunction with the LOC to take into account uncertainties inherent in the extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and in the variations in sensitivity among members of the human population as well as other unknowns. Safety is assessed for acute and chronic risks by comparing aggregate exposure to the pesticide to the acute population adjusted dose (“aPAD”) and chronic population adjusted dose (“cPAD”). The aPAD and cPAD are calculated by dividing the LOC by all applicable uncertainty/safety factors. Short-term, intermediate-term, and long-term risks are evaluated by comparing aggregate exposure to the LOC to ensure that the margin of exposure (“MOE”) called for by the product of all applicable uncertainty/safety factors is not exceeded. For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk and estimates risk in terms of the probability of occurrence of additional adverse cases. Generally, cancer risks are considered non-threshold. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/1997/November/Day-26/p30948.htm* . A summary of the toxicological endpoints for buprofezin used for human risk assessment can be found at *www.regulations.gov* in document “Buprofezin - Human-Health Risk Assessment for the Requested Stone Fruit Registration and the Proposed Amendment for the Grape and Papaya and Related Tropical Fruit Registrations” at pages 9-10 in Docket ID EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0821. C. Exposure Assessment 1. *Dietary exposure from food and feed uses* . In evaluating dietary exposure to buprofezin, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing buprofezin tolerances in 40 CFR 180.511. EPA assessed dietary exposures from buprofezin in food as follows: i. *Acute exposure* . Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. Such effects were identified in the toxicological studies for buprofezin for the population subgroup, females 13-50 years old; no such effects were identified for the general population or other population subgroups. In estimating acute dietary exposure of females 13-50 years old, EPA used food consumption information from the United States Department of Agriculture

(USDA)1994-1996 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII). As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed that residues are present at tolerance levels for all commodities except meat and milk. Anticipated residues were calculated for meat and milk commodities as follows: Tolerances for meat and milk are established at the analytical method limit of quantitation (LOQ). Since residues were only detected in the livestock feeding study when feed contained 6.8-9.3x the maximum theoretical dietary burden (MTDB), residues in these commodities were normalized to 1x the MTDB in the acute dietary exposure assessment. For fruits and crops with an extended interval from initial application to harvest (>50 day), additional metabolites of toxicological concern (BF4 and its conjugates, and BF12) that are not included in the tolerance expression were included in the dietary exposure assessment, as appropriate, based on the ratio of metabolite to parent found in plant metabolism studies. No adjustment was made to account for the percent of crops treated with buprofezin in the acute dietary exposure assessment. One hundred

(100)percent crop treated

(PCT)was assumed for all commodities. ii. *Chronic exposure* . In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 1994-1996 and 1998 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII). As to residue levels in food, EPA relied upon anticipated residues and percent crop treated information for some commodities. The chronic analysis employed the same anticipated residue estimates for meat and milk as those employed for the acute analysis. For apple, orange, and orange juice, average residues from the 2004 and/or 2005 USDA Pesticide Data Program

(PDP)monitoring data were used for estimation of total buprofezin and metabolite residues. For all other plant commodities, tolerance-level or average field trial residues were used. For fruits and crops with an extended interval from initial application to harvest (>50 day), additional metabolites of toxicological concern (BF4 and its conjugates, and BF12) that are not included in the tolerance expression were included in the dietary exposure assessment, as appropriate, based on the ratio of metabolite to parent found in plant metabolism studies. The chronic analysis incorporated screening-level percent crop treated estimates for several registered crops and projected percent crop treated estimates for peach, grape, apricot, nectarine, cherry, and plum. 100 PCT was assumed for commodities for which PDP monitoring data were used to estimate exposures (apple, orange, and orange juice). iii. *Cancer* . Taking into account its Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, EPA classified buprofezin as having suggestive evidence of carcinogenicity, based on the occurrence of liver tumors in female mice only. EPA determined, however, that no quantification of cancer risk was appropriate, because the evidence was limited to one sex of one species. Therefore, a quantitative cancer exposure and risk assessment was not conducted. iv. *Anticipated residue and PCT information* . Section 408(b)(2)(E) of the FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and information on the anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in food and the actual levels of pesticide residues that have been measured in food. If EPA relies on such information, EPA must pursuant to section 408(f)(1) require that data be provided 5 years after the tolerance is established, modified, or left in effect, demonstrating that the levels in food are not above the levels anticipated. For the present action, EPA will issue such data call-ins as are required by section 408(b)(2)(E) of the FFDCA and authorized under section 408(f)(1) of the FFDCA. Data will be required to be submitted no later than 5 years from the date of issuance of this tolerance. Section 408(b)(2)(F) of the FFDCA states that the Agency may use data on the actual percent of food treated for assessing chronic dietary risk only if: a. The data used are reliable and provide a valid basis to show what percentage of the food derived from such crop is likely to contain such pesticide residue; b. The exposure estimate does not underestimate exposure for any significant subpopulation group; and c. Data are available on pesticide use and food consumption in a particular area, the exposure estimate does not understate exposure for the population in such area. In addition, the Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any estimates used. To provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate of PCT as required by section 408(b)(2)(F) of the FFDCA, EPA may require registrants to submit data on PCT. The Agency used PCT information as follows: PCT for existing uses: Almond 1%; cantaloupe 5%; citrus (citron, hybrids and oil) 1%; cottonseed 1%; grapefruit 1%; honeydew 1%; lemon 1%; lime 1%; orange peel 1%; pear 1%; pumpkin 1%; tomato 1%; and watermelon 1%. Projected PCT for New Uses: Apricot 40%; cherry 76%; grape 21%; nectarine 60%; peach 13%; and plum 35%. EPA uses an average PCT for chronic dietary risk analysis. The average PCT figure for each existing use is derived by combining available federal, state, and private market survey data for that use, averaging by year, averaging across all years, and rounding up to the nearest multiple of five percent except for those situations in which the average PCT is less than one. In those cases <1% is used as the average and <2.5% is used as the maximum. EPA uses a maximum PCT for acute dietary risk analysis. The maximum PCT figure is the single maximum value reported overall from available federal, state, and private market survey data on the existing use, across all years, and rounded up to the nearest multiple of five percent. In most cases, EPA uses available data from USDA/National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA/NASS), Proprietary Market Surveys, and the National Center for Food and Agriculture Policy (NCFAP) for the most recent six years. EPA estimates projected percent crop treated

(PPCT)for a new pesticide use by assuming that the PCT during the pesticide's initial five years of use on a specific use site will not exceed the average PCT of the market leader (i.e., the one pesticide with the greatest PCT) on that site. Typically, EPA uses USDA/NASS as the primary source for PCT data. When a specific use site is not surveyed by USDA/NASS, EPA uses other sources including proprietary data and calculates the PCT. Comparisons are only made among pesticides of the same pesticide types (i.e., the leading insecticide on the use site is selected for comparison with the new insecticide). The chronic PPCT values for buprofezin are averages derived from the most recent NASS surveys, either for the same pesticide, or for different pesticides, since the same, or different, pesticides may dominate for each year selected. This PPCT, based on the average PCT of the market leader, is appropriate for use in chronic dietary risk assessment. The method of estimating a PPCT for a new use of a registered pesticide or a new pesticide produces a high-end estimate that is unlikely, in most cases, to be exceeded during the initial five years of actual use. The predominant factors that bear on whether the estimated PPCT could be exceeded are whether a new pesticide use or new pesticide is more efficacious or controls a broader spectrum of pests than the dominant pesticide; and/or whether increasing pest pressure may intensify the use of pesticides as indicated in emergency exemption requests or other readily available information. All information currently available for the predominant factors mentioned above or relevant to the case in question have been considered for this chemical, and it is the opinion of EPA that it is unlikely that actual PCT for buprofezin will exceed the PCT projections during the next five years. A discussion of the factors considered in making this determination can be found at *www.regulations.gov* in the document “Projected Percent Crop Treated for the Insecticide Buprofezin on Six Crops: Grapes, Apricots, Nectarines, Sweet Cherries, Tart Cherries, and Plums”, which is attached to the document “Buprofezin - Acute and Chronic Dietary Exposure and Risk Assessments” at pages 13-17 in Docket ID EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0821. The Agency believes that the three conditions listed above have been met. With respect to Condition 1, PCT estimates are derived from Federal and private market survey data, which are reliable and have a valid basis. The Agency is reasonably certain that the percentage of the food treated is not likely to be an underestimation. As to Conditions 2 and 3, regional consumption information and consumption information for significant subpopulations is taken into account through EPA's computer-based model for evaluating the exposure of significant subpopulations including several regional groups. Use of this consumption information in EPA's risk assessment process ensures that EPA's exposure estimate does not understate exposure for any significant subpopulation group and allows the Agency to be reasonably certain that no regional population is exposed to residue levels higher than those estimated by the Agency. Other than the data available through national food consumption surveys, EPA does not have available information on the regional consumption of food to which buprofezin may be applied in a particular area. 2. *Dietary exposure from drinking water* . The Agency lacks sufficient monitoring data to complete a comprehensive dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for buprofezin in drinking water. Because the Agency does not have comprehensive monitoring data, drinking water concentration estimates are made by reliance on simulation or modeling taking into account data on the environmental fate characteristics of buprofezin. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at *http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm* . Based on the EPA's Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) models, the estimated environmental concentrations

(EECs)of buprofezin for acute exposures are estimated to be 23.2 parts per billion

(ppb)for surface water and 0.1 ppb for ground water. The EECs for chronic exposures are estimated to be 7.8 ppb for surface water and 0.1 ppb for ground water. Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 23.2 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 7.8 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. 3. *From non-dietary exposure* . The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Buprofezin is not registered for use on any sites that would result in residential exposure. 4. *Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of toxicity* . Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of the FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.” Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to buprofezin and any other substances and buprofezin does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that buprofezin has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at *http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative* . D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children 1. *In general* . Section 408 of the FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional (“10X”) tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA safety factor. In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X when reliable data do not support the choice of a different factor, or, if reliable data are available, EPA uses a different additional FQPA safety factor value based on the use of traditional uncertainty/safety factors and/or special FQPA safety factors, as appropriate. 2. *Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity* . There is no quantitative or qualitative evidence of increased susceptibility of rat or rabbit fetuses to in utero exposure to buprofezin in developmental studies. There is no quantitative or qualitative evidence of increased susceptibility of rat offspring in the 2-generation reproduction study. There is evidence of thyroid toxicity following subchronic and chronic exposures of rats and dogs to buprofezin; however, data to determine whether young animals are more susceptible to these effects are not available. 3. *Conclusion* . EPA has determined that, due to uncertainties in the toxicity database for buprofezin, the FQPA safety factor of 10X must be retained and applied to all subchronic and chronic exposures whose endpoint is based on thyroid effects. EPA has also determined that the traditional 10X uncertainty factor to account for interspecies variation may be reduced to 3X for these exposures. For acute exposures, EPA has determined that the FQPA safety factor may be reduced to 1X and that the tradiditonal 10X safety factor to account for interspecies variation must be retained. These decisions are based on the following findings: i. The toxicity database for buprofezin is not complete as to chronic risk. Based on the evidence of thyroid toxicity following subchronic and chronic exposures of rats (histopathological lesions) and dogs (decreases in serum thyroxine levels and increased thyroid weights), EPA requested a buprofezin comparative thyroid assay study in rats (28-day; young versus adults) to determine if the thyroid effects occur at a lower dose in young versus adult animals. Since this study has not been submitted, EPA concludes that the 10X FQPA safety factor to account for database uncertainty should be retained and applied to all subchronic and chronic exposures whose endpoint is based on thyroid effects. EPA has also determined that the traditional 10X uncertainty factor to account for interspecies variation may be reduced to 3X for these exposures, since it has been established that rats are more susceptible to thyroid effects than humans. The FQPA safety factor of 10X is not applicable to the acute endpoint, since a single dose of buprofezin would not be expected to perturb thyroid homeostasis in the adult or the young due to the buffering of thyroid hormone concentrations by homeostatic mechanisms for compounds with short half lives, like buprofezin. ii. There is no indication that buprofezin is a neurotoxic chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional uncertainty factors to account for neurotoxicity. iii. There is no evidence that buprofezin results in increased susceptibility in *in utero* rats or rabbits in the prenatal developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction study. iv. There are no residual uncertainties in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were refined for some commodities using reliable PCT/PPCT information and anticipated residue values calculated from the available monitoring data and field trial results. Dietary drinking water exposure is based on conservative modeling estimates. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by buprofezin. Therefore, the total uncertainty factor for chronic dietary assessments is 300X (10X FQPA safety factor, 3X uncertainty factor for interspecies variation, and 10X uncertainty factor for intraspecies variation); and the total uncertainty factor for acute dietary assessments is 100X (10X uncertainty factor for interspecies variation and 10X uncertainty factor for intraspecies variation). E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety Safety is assessed for acute and chronic risks by comparing aggregate exposure to the pesticide to the acute population adjusted dose (“aPAD”) and chronic population adjusted dose (“cPAD”). The aPAD and cPAD are calculated by dividing the LOC by all applicable uncertainty/safety factors. For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the probability of additional cancer cases given aggregate exposure. Short-term, intermediate-term, and long-term risks are evaluated by comparing aggregate exposure to the LOC to ensure that the MOE called for by the product of all applicable uncertainty/safety factors is not exceeded. 1. *Acute risk* . Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water to buprofezin will occupy 6% of the aPAD for the population group females 13-49 years old. No acute endpoint of concern was identified for the remaining population groups. 2. *Chronic risk* . Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that exposure to buprofezin from food and water will utilize 92% of the cPAD for the population group (children 1 to 2 years old) with the greatest exposure. There are no residential uses for buprofezin that result in chronic residential exposure to buprofezin. 3. *Short-term risk* . Short-term aggregate exposure takes into account residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Buprofezin is not registered for use on any sites that would result in residential exposure. Therefore, the aggregate risk is the sum of the risk from food and water. 4. *Intermediate-term risk* . Intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Buprofezin is not registered for use on any sites that would result in residential exposure. Therefore, the aggregate risk is the sum of the risk from food and water, which does not exceed the Agency's LOC. 5. *Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population* . Buprofezin is classified as having suggestive evidence of carcinogenicity; however, EPA determined it poses a negligible cancer risk to humans because the evidence of carcinogenicity was limited to one sex of one animal test species only. 6. *Determination of safety* . Based on these risk assessments, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to buprofezin residues. IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology The gas chromatography/nitrogen phosphorus detector methods used in the field trial studies were adequately validated and similar to the method validated by EPA's Analytical Chemistry Branch

(ACB)and forwarded to the Food and Drug Administration for publication in the Pesticide Analytical Manual I. Since adequate method validation and concurrent recoveries were attained in the field trial studies, EPA concludes that the method validated by ACB is appropriate for enforcement of the tolerances associated with these petitions. The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number:

(410)305-2905; e-mail address: *residuemethods@epa.gov* . B. International Residue Limits There are no Canadian, Mexican, or Codex maximum residue limits

(MRLs)established for buprofezin in/on any of the commodities associated with the current petitions. V. Conclusion Based upon review of the data supporting the petitions, EPA has modified the proposed tolerances as follows: Fruit, stone, group 12, except apricot and peach at 1.9 ppm; apricot at 9.0 ppm (PP5E6979); black sapote, canistel, mamey sapote, mango, papaya, sapadilla and star apple at 0.90 ppm (PP5E6980); and grape at 2.5 ppm with deletion of the existing tolerance on grape, raisin (PP5E6981). EPA determined that the proposed tolerances for these commodities were inappropriate and should be revised based on analyses of the residue field trial data using the Agency's Tolerance Spreadsheet in accordance with the Agency's Guidance for Setting Pesticide Tolerances Based on Field Trial Data Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). Tolerances currently exist for residues of buprofezin in or on grape at 0.4 ppm and grape, raisin at 0.6 ppm. Based upon review of field trial data supporting the current petition and previously submitted processing data for buprofezin on grapes, EPA has determined that residues in raisins will not exceed the tolerance being established for residues of buprofezin in or on grape at 2.5 ppm. Since a separate tolerance for raisins is not needed and the existing raisin tolerance is too low to cover residues of buprofezin from the new use on grapes, EPA is deleting the existing tolerance for grape, raisin. Residues in or on raisins will be covered by the tolerance of 2.5 ppm for grape. Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of buprofezin, 2-[(1,1-dimethylethyl)imino] tetrahydro-3(1-methylethyl)-5-phenyl-4H-1,3,5-thiadiazin-4-one, in or on fruit, stone, group 12, except apricot and peach at 1.9 ppm; apricot at 9.0 ppm; black sapote, canistel, mamey sapote, mango, papaya, sapadilla and star apple at 0.90 ppm; and grape at 2.5 ppm. The existing tolerance for residues of buprofezin in or on grape, raisin is deleted. VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews This final rule establishes a tolerance 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, this rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, *Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use* (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled *Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks* (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq* ., nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled *Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations* (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under section 408(d) of the FFDCA, such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(RFA)(5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq* .) do not apply. This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of section 408(n)(4) of the FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled *Federalism* (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled *Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments* (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000) do not apply to this rule. In addition, This rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(a)in the table as follows: i. By removing the entry for “Grape, raisin”; ii. By alphabetically adding “Apricot” and “Fruit, stone, group 12, except apricot and peach”; and iii. By revising the entries for “Canistel,” “Grape,” “Mango,” “Papaya,” “Sapodilla,” “Sapote, black,” “Sapote, mamey,” and “Star apple.” The amendments read as follows: § 180.511 Buprofezin; tolerances for residues.

(a)* * * Commodity Parts per million * * * * * Apricot 9.0 * * * * * Canistel 0.90 * * * * * Fruit, stone, group 12, except apricot and peach 1.9 * * * * * Grape 2.5 * * * * * Mango 0.90 * * * * * Papaya 0.90 * * * * * Sapodilla 0.90 Sapote, black 0.90 Sapote, mamey 0.90 * * * * * Star apple 0.90 * * * * * [FR Doc. E7-12161 Filed 6-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 41 CFR Part 302-4 [FTR Amendment 2007-03; FTR Case 2007-301; Docket 2007-0002, Sequence 3] RIN 3090-AI34 Federal Travel Regulation; Relocation Allowances—Standard Mileage Rate for Moving Purposes AGENCY: Office of Governmentwide Policy, General Services Administration (GSA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The General Services Administration (GSA), Office of Governmentwide Policy (OGP), plans to establish the Internal Revenue Service

(IRS)Standard Mileage Rate for moving purposes as the rate at which agencies will reimburse an employee for using a privately owned vehicle

(POV)for relocation. The FTR and any corresponding documents may be accessed at GSA's website at *http://www.gsa.gov/ftr* . DATES: *Effective Date* : September 25, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Regulatory Secretariat (VIR), Room 4035, GS Building, Washington, DC, 20405,

(202)501-4755, for information pertaining to status or publication schedules. For clarification of content, contact Mr. Ed Davis, Office of Governmentwide Policy (M), Office of Travel, Transportation and Asset Management (MT), General Services Administration at

(202)208-7638 or e-mail at *ed.davis@gsa.gov* . Please cite FTR Amendment 2007-03; FTR case 2007-301. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Background Relocation is an area that continuously evolves because of changes in the housing market, transportation industry, technology, etc. The General Services Administration (GSA), Office of Governmentwide Policy (OGP), routinely reviews the relocation regulations to address current Government relocation needs, to incorporate appropriate private industry policies, and to implement any best practices that fit well into the Federal setting. To help accomplish these goals, GSA created the Relocation Best Practices Committee

(RBPC)in 2002. Many of this Committee's recommendations were reflected in a proposed rule published in the **Federal Register** at 69 FR 68111, November 23, 2004. The proposed rule included 30 changes; however, this final rule focuses on only one of those proposed changes, namely adopting the mileage rate established by the IRS for computing relocation, or moving, costs for income tax purposes for reimbursing Federal employees for using their POVs for relocation travel to a new duty station for PCS. GSA will address the remaining Federal Travel Regulation

(FTR)changes from the proposed rule in one or more future final rule(s). Section 302-4.300 of the FTR (41 CFR 302-4.300) currently provides tiered reimbursements for POV use in en route travel to the new duty station based on the number of occupants. This final rule will eliminate the tiered rates. Instead, the agency will reimburse the employee who relocates by POV at the established IRS rate for use of a car for moving purposes. GSA will publish this rate in an FTR Bulletin to coincide with updates issued by the IRS. The IRS generally issues such updates annually, but for special cases, such as Hurricane Katrina, the IRS may issue updates during the year and GSA will follow suit. The IRS allows two methods for computing the standard mileage rates for use of a car in moving: a single mileage rate or actual expense. GSA has decided to allow only reimbursement at the single mileage rate, since this approach is easier to administer and does not involve collecting and auditing small value receipts. Many transferees compare the reimbursement rate for using a POV for temporary duty travel

(TDY)to the rate for using a POV for relocation travel and do not understand why those rates differ. The more generous rate for using a POV for TDY travel is intended to cover the fixed costs of operating an automobile, such as depreciation (or lease payments), insurance, and license and registration fees, as well as the operating cost. None of these fixed costs are tax deductible as a moving expense, so none of these fixed costs are included in the moving rate mileage calculation. The IRS intends the rate for using a POV in moving to cover only actual operating expenses ( *e.g.* , fuel, oil, tolls, etc.). The IRS then uses the operating costs for a combination of standard vehicles to calculate the moving rate. GSA consulted the members of the Executive Relocation Steering Committee about this change. All members agreed that this adoption of the single IRS rate is appropriate. B. Summary of Comments Received and the Issues Involved GSA received comments from 12 entities on the proposed mileage rate change that was included in the proposed rule published in the **Federal Register** at 69 FR 68111, November 23, 2004. The main thrust of the comments was that payments to employees driving their automobiles should not be lowered. This argument was valid in 2004, at the time the proposed rule was issued. The IRS rate for using an automobile for relocation at that time was 14 cents per mile, which was lower than any rate on the FTR chart. The IRS rate for 2007 will be 20 cents per mile, which means that all drivers regardless of the number of passengers, will be receiving the equivalent of the highest possible rate in the current regulation. Another objection to the proposed rule was that small agencies or isolated posts might not receive the GSA updates on the mileage rate. This has not been the case for the TDY mileage rate. Agencies adopt the TDY mileage rate quickly and accurately when it changes. GSA expects this to be the same for the relocation mileage rate. C. Changes to Current FTR This final rule: • Revises section 302-4.300 to reflect the Internal Revenue Service single mileage rate for relocation by POV. • Adds section 302-4.303 to disallow the use of the IRS actual expense rate for relocation in CONUS. D. Executive Order 12866 This regulation is excepted from the definition of “regulation” or “rule” under Section 3(d)(3) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993 and, therefore, was not subject to review under Section 6(b) of that executive order. E. Regulatory Flexibility Act This final rule is not required to be published in the **Federal Register** for notice and comment; therefore, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, *et seq.* , does not apply. F. Paperwork Reduction Act The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the changes to the FTR do not impose recordkeeping or information collection requirements, or the collection of information from offerors, contractors, or members of the public that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, *et seq.* E. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act This final rule is also exempt from congressional review prescribed under 5 U.S.C. 801 since it relates solely to agency management and personnel. List of Subjects in 41 CFR Part 302-4 Government employees, Relocation, Travel and transportation Expenses. Dated: March 19, 2007. Lurita Doan, Administrator of General Services. For the reasons set out in this preamble, 41 CFR part 302-4 is amended as set forth below: PART 302-4—ALLOWANCES FOR SUBSISTENCE AND TRANSPORTATION 1. The authority citation for 41 CFR part 302-4 continues to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5738; 20 U.S.C. 905(a); E.O. 11609, 36 FR 13747, 3 CFR, 1971-1973 Comp., p. 586. 2. Revise § 302-4.300 to read as follows: § 302-4.300 What is the POV mileage rate for PCS travel within the continental United States (CONUS)? For approved/authorized PCS travel by POV in CONUS, the mileage reimbursement rate is the same as the moving expense standard mileage rate established by the Internal Revenue Service

(IRS)for moving expense deductions. See IRS guidance available on the Internet at *www.irs.gov* . GSA will publish the rate for mileage reimbursement in an FTR Bulletin on an intermittent basis to coincide with the rate changes published by the IRS. You may find the FTR Bulletins at *www.gsa.gov/relo* . 3. Add § 302-4.303 to read as follows: § 302-4.303 For relocation within the continental United States (CONUS), may I use the actual expense method of reimbursement instead of the POV mileage rate specified in § 302-4.300? No, for a PCS relocation within CONUS involving POV usage, your agency will reimburse you at the standard mileage rate specified in § 302-4.300. [FR Doc. E7-12433 Filed 6-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-14-S FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Parts 1 and 76 [FCC 07-115] Interim Electronic Filing Procedures for Certain Commission Filings AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Temporary rule; rescission. SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission rescinds the procedures it adopted in 2001 on an emergency, interim basis to require the filing or re-filing of certain documents electronically ( *i.e.* , by facsimile or e-mail), by overnight delivery, or by hand delivery to the Commission's Capitol Heights, Maryland location. Filings will no longer be accepted by e-mail or facsimile, unless specifically authorized by the Commission's rules. DATES: Effective September 25, 2007. ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th St., SW., Washington, DC 20554. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denise D. Walter, Mobility Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau at

(202)418-0620. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's *Order* ; FCC 07-115, adopted June 18, 2007, and released June 20, 2007. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. The full text may also be downloaded at: *http://www.fcc.gov.* Alternative formats are available to persons with disabilities by sending an e-mail to *fcc504@fcc.gov* or by calling the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty). Synopsis of the Order By an *Order* published at 66 FR 62991, December 4, 2001, the Commission amended its procedural rules “on an emergency, interim basis” to permit certain pleadings (specifically,

(i)Petitions to deny filed pursuant to section 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), 47 U.S.C. 309;

(ii)petitions for reconsideration filed pursuant to section 405 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 405;

(iii)applications for review filed pursuant to section 5(c)(4) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 155(c)(4);

(iv)informal requests for Commission action involving pending applications filed pursuant to § 1.41 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.41;

(v)petitions to amend the TV and FM Broadcast Table of Allotments and responsive pleadings; and

(vi)comments or oppositions to open video system certification made pursuant to § 76.1502(e)(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 76.1502(e)(1)) to be filed electronically ( *i.e.* , by facsimile or e-mail) “[u]ntil further notice.” It adopted these procedures in response to “recent emergency events in Washington, DC, resulting in the unforeseeable and understandable disruption of regular mail delivery and of the processing of other deliveries due to the threat of contamination,” *i.e.* , the discovery of anthrax contamination on Capitol Hill and at certain U.S. Postal Service mail processing facilities, and the consequent delay in mail processing due to quarantine and cleansing procedures associated with the anthrax contamination. The Commission stated, “[T]hese emergency procedures are adopted on a temporary basis only, and will be discontinued when normal U.S. Mail delivery resumes.” We note that mail delivery in the Washington, DC area has improved, and that the United States Postal Service has greatly reduced the delay in processing mail. We also note that the Commission has expanded it electronic filing capabilities, and implemented its own processes to combat the threat of contamination of incoming mail. Given these circumstances, we conclude that the interim electronic filing procedures adopted by the Commission in 2001 are no longer necessary. Accordingly, we rescind those procedures, effective ninety days after publication of this *Order* in the **Federal Register** . (This includes elimination of interim facsimile number 202-418-0187 and the following Office of the Secretary Bureau and Office e-mail addresses: *MMBSecretary@fcc.gov; WTBSecretary@fcc.gov; CCBSecretary@fcc.gov; CSBSecretary@fcc.gov; IBSecretary@fcc.gov; EBSecretary@fcc.gov; OtherSecretary@fcc.gov.* ) Thereafter, filings will no longer be accepted by facsimile or e-mail, unless specifically authorized by the Commission's rules. Pursuant to the authority of section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), the interim electronic filing procedures adopted in *Order* FCC 01-345, at 66 FR 62991, December 4, 2001, *are rescinded.* Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-12539 Filed 6-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 73 [DA 07-2390] Radio Broadcasting Services; Hemet, CA AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Final rule; grant of petition for reconsideration. SUMMARY: This document grants a Petition for Reconsideration filed by Southern California Public Radio in response to the staff letter dated March 18, 2004, returning its Petition for Rule Making, which requested the reservation of FM Channel 273A at Hemet, California for noncommercial educational use. This document also denies a Petition for Reconsideration filed by Maranatha Ministries of Hemet directed to the staff letter dated March 18, 2004, returning its Petition for Rule Making, requesting the reservation of vacant FM Channel 273A at Hemet, California for noncommercial educational use. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rolanda F. Smith, Media Bureau

(202)418-2180. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's *Memorandum Opinion and Order,* adopted June 6, 2007, and released June 8, 2007. The full text of this decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center at Portals II, CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-800-378-3160 or *http://www.BCPIWEB.com.* This document is not subject to the Congressional Review Act. (The Commission will not send a copy of this *Memorandum Opinion and Order* pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, *see* 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), because there were no rule changes made herein.) List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 Radio, Radio broadcasting. Federal Communications Commission. John A. Karousos, *Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau.* [FR Doc. 07-3167 Filed 6-26-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 31

Traces to 31 documents

CFR

U.S. Code