The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Farm Bill) (7 U.S.C. 7901) and the 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act (Appropriations Act) (Pub. L. 107-206) amended the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621 et seq.) by adding 7 U.S.C. 1638-1638d to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to promulgate regulations by September 30, 2004, requiring retailers to notify their customers of the country of origin of covered commodities. On October 30, 2003, AMS published a proposed rule for mandatory COOL for all covered commodities—beef, lamb, pork, fish, perishable agricultural commodities, and peanuts (68 FR 61944). Subsequently, the FY 2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 108-199) delayed the applicability of mandatory COOL for all covered commodities except wild and farm-raised fish and shellfish until September 30, 2006. The Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-97) further delayed the applicability of mandatory COOL for all covered commodities except wild and farm-raised fish and shellfish until September 30, 2008. On October 5, 2004, AMS published an interim final rule (69 FR 59708) for the mandatory COOL program for fish and shellfish. The interim final rule can be found at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/cool/index.htm. The interim final rule became effective on April 4, 2005.

AMS reopened the interim final rule's comment period for 90 days on November 27, 2006 (71 FR 68431). The reopened comment period was limited to comments concerning the economic impacts of the interim final rule, including implementation costs, maintenance costs, the burden of the information collection and recordkeeping requirements, benefits and net economic impacts. Comments and information received as a result of the reopened interim final rule's comment period, to the extent relevant, would be reviewed in connection with any final regulatory action for fish and shellfish and any of the other covered commodities.

In preparation for promulating a final rule for mandatory COOL for fish and shellfish, AMS now seeks comments on general aspects of the interim final rule's provisions. Given that the interim final rule has been in effect for more than 2 years, affected retailers and their suppliers now have considerable experience in complying with the requirements, and have perspective relating to the information that is provided under the program and the program's costs and benefits. AMS invites interested parties to submit comments, data, or other relevant information on the mandatory COOL program set forth in teh interim final rule.

This document provides correcting amendments to Marketing Order 989 found at 7 CFR part 989 so that handlers of organically-produced Other Seedless varietal type raisins continue to report inventory, acquisitions, and disposition of such raisins to the Raisin Administrative Committee.

Examining the Docket

You may examine the airworthiness directive (AD) docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Operations office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is located on the ground floor of the West Building at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to certain McDonnell Douglas Model 717-200 airplanes. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on February 14, 2007 (72 FR 6973). That NPRM proposed to require installing a certain junction(s) and changing the wiring of the first officer's pitot static heater system.

We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comments received.

AirTran Airways and the National Transportation Safety Board support the proposed actions as described in the NPRM.

Boeing requests that we revise the “Relevant Service Information” section of the NPRM to include the following wording: “The service bulletin describes procedures for changing the first officer's pitot heater wiring to separate the first officer's pitot sensor heater ground from the captain's and auxiliary pitot sensor heater grounds. In addition, to meet system independence, the captain, first officer, and auxiliary pitot sensor's heaters are also activated using the air/ground sensing system.” Boeing explains that there are more electrical parts than just the “junction” to re-wire this system. The revision clarifies the subsequent actions in the service bulletin.

We agree that the suggested wording adds clarification. However, since that section of the preamble does not reappear in the final rule, no change to the final rule is necessary.

Boeing also requests that we revise paragraph (f) of the NPRM to delete the reference to only one electrical component. Boeing explains that there are several electrical items (delete wire, add new wire, sockets, junction, etc.) to implement the wiring changes to this system, and that it is only necessary to refer to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 717-30A0003, Revision 2, dated November 28, 2006, for this information. (We referred to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 717-30A0003, Revision 2, in the NPRM as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the required actions.)

We agree with Boeing that there are several electrical items required to implement the wiring changes specified in paragraph (f) of the NPRM. The paragraph, as stated in the NPRM, did not include all of those items. We also agree that referring only to the service bulletin in that paragraph will ensure that all items are included. Therefore, we have revised paragraph (f) of this AD to state: “Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, change the wiring for the air data sensor heating system, by accomplishing all the actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 717-30A0003, Revision 2, dated November 28, 2006.”

We have revised this action to clarify the appropriate procedure for notifying the principal inspector before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies.

We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We have determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.

There are about 155 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This AD affects about 123 airplanes of U.S. registry. The actions take between 4 and 16 work hours per airplane depending on the airplane configuration, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. The manufacturer states that it will supply required parts to the operators at no cost. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the AD for U.S. operators is between $39,360 and $157,440, or between $320 and $1,280 per airplane, depending on the airplane configuration.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

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

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

(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

The FAA is implementing a new process for streamlining the issuance of ADs related to MCAI. This streamlined process will allow us to adopt MCAI safety requirements in a more efficient manner and will reduce safety risks to the public. This process continues to follow all FAA AD issuance processes to meet legal, economic, Administrative Procedure Act, and Federal Register requirements. We also continue to meet our technical decision-making responsibilities to identify and correct unsafe conditions on U.S.-certificated products.

This AD references the MCAI and related service information that we considered in forming the engineering basis to correct the unsafe condition. The AD contains text copied from the MCAI and for this reason might not follow our plain language principles.

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on March 28, 2007 (72 FR 14500). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information.

We might also have required different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the AD.

We estimate that this AD will affect 10 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 3 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $6,893 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $71,330, or $7,133 per product.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

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

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

3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone (800) 647-5227) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

Examining the Docket

You may examine the airworthiness directive (AD) docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone (800) 647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to all Boeing Model 777 airplanes. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on October 3, 2006 (71 FR 58323). That NPRM proposed to require repetitive measurements of the freeplay of the right and left elevators, rudder, and rudder tab, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. That NPRM also proposed to require repetitive lubrication of the elevator, rudder, and rudder tab components.

We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comments received.

Boeing and United Airlines support the contents of the NPRM.

United Airlines requests that we revise the compliance times for the repetitive freeplay measurements and lubrication to specify doing those actions at the later of the proposed compliance times (i.e., whichever occurs later). Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-27-0062, dated July 18, 2006, recommends repeating the freeplay measurement at intervals of 12,000 flight hours or 36 months, whichever occurs first, and repeating the lubrication at intervals of 5,000 flight hours or 16 months, whichever occurs first. As justification, United Airlines states that the change would allow operators to accomplish the actions within the thresholds specified in the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Document (MPD).

We disagree with allowing operators to perform the repetitive actions at the later of the compliance times. Accomplishing the repetitive freeplay measurements and lubrication at the compliance times specified in the MPD has not prevented the unsafe condition from occurring in service on other Boeing airplane models that incorporate the same design features. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this action, we considered the urgency associated with the subject unsafe condition, the practical aspect of accomplishing the required actions within an interval of time that corresponds to the normal scheduled maintenance for most affected operators, and the recommendation of the manufacturer. However, according to the provisions of paragraph (j) of this AD, we may approve requests to adjust the compliance time if the request includes data that substantiate that the new compliance time would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

British Airways and United Airlines request that we revise the compliance times for the repetitive freeplay measurements and lubrication to match the times in the Boeing 777 MPD. Both commenters state that the MPD requires the freeplay measurement at intervals of 18,000 flight hours and requires the lubrication at intervals of 6,000 flight hours or 560 days. As justification, British Airways states the following: (1) It has been performing these tasks in accordance with the Boeing 777 MPD with no adverse findings for its fleet, (2) it uses BMS 3-33 grease for the lubrication, which improves service life over MIL-PRF-23827C, and (3) Boeing has not reported any freeplay issues on Model 777 airplanes or provided justification for recommending different intervals in the service bulletin. British Airways also states that it considers the MPD intervals adequate and that mandating the intervals in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-27-0062, dated July 18, 2006, would not significantly improve safety.

We disagree with revising the compliance times. Accomplishing the required freeplay measurements and lubrication at the compliance times specified in the MPD has not prevented the unsafe condition from occurring in service on other Boeing airplane models that incorporate the same design features. Further, Boeing has advised us that it intends to pursue revising the MPD task to reflect the compliance times specified in this AD at the next revision cycle of the document. We have determined that the compliance times specified in the service bulletin will ensure an acceptable level of safety. However, according to the provisions of paragraph (j) of this AD, we may approve requests to adjust the compliance time if the request includes data that prove that the new compliance time would provide an acceptable level of safety. No change to this AD is necessary in this regard.

Air China asks if accomplishment of Tasks 12-002-01, 12-004-00, 27-240-00, and 27-430-00 of the Boeing 777 MPD is acceptable for compliance with the initial freeplay check and lubrication. United Airlines also requests that airplanes maintained in accordance with these tasks be considered in compliance.

We do not agree to allow the MPD tasks as an acceptable source of service information for accomplishing the freeplay measurement. We find that neither appropriate procedures nor applicable limits are, at this time, specified in the MPD tasks that describe accomplishing the inspections and lubrication. Thus, the MPD tasks are not adequate to ensure that an acceptable level of safety is maintained. However, according to the provisions of paragraph (j) of this AD, we may approve a request of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) if data are presented to substantiate that the actions provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

The Modification and Replacement Parts Association (MARPA) states that, typically, ADs are based on service information originating with the type certificate holder or its suppliers. MARPA adds that manufacturer service documents are privately authored instruments generally having copyright protection against duplication and distribution. MARPA notes that when a service document is incorporated by reference into a public document, such as an AD, it loses its private, protected status and becomes a public document. MARPA adds that if a service document is used as a mandatory element of compliance, it should not simply be referenced, but should be incorporated into the regulatory document; by definition, public laws must be public, which means they cannot rely upon private writings. MARPA adds that incorporated by reference service documents should be made available to the public by publication in the Department of Transportation's Docket Management System (DMS), keyed to the action that incorporates them. MARPA notes that the stated purpose of the incorporation by reference method is brevity, to keep from expanding the Federal Register needlessly by publishing documents already in the hands of the affected individuals; traditionally, “affected individuals” means aircraft owners and operators, who are generally provided service information by the manufacturer. MARPA adds that a new class of affected individuals has emerged, since the majority of aircraft maintenance is now performed by specialty shops instead of aircraft owners and operators. MARPA notes that this new class includes maintenance and repair organizations, component servicing and repair shops, parts purveyors and distributors, and organizations manufacturing or servicing alternatively certified parts under section 21.303 (“Replacement and modification parts”) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.303). MARPA adds that the concept of brevity is now nearly archaic as documents exist more frequently in electronic format than on paper. Therefore, MARPA asks that the service document deemed essential to the accomplishment of the NPRM be incorporated by reference into the regulatory instrument and published in DMS.

We acknowledge MARPA's comment concerning incorporation by reference. The Office of the Federal Register (OFR) requires that documents that are necessary to accomplish the requirements of the AD be incorporated by reference during the final rule phase of rulemaking. This AD incorporates by reference the document necessary for the accomplishment of the requirements mandated by this AD. Further, we point out that while documents that are incorporated by reference do become public information, they do not lose their copyright protection. For that reason, we advise the public to contact the manufacturer to obtain copies of the referenced service information.

In regard to the commenter's request to post the service bulletin on DMS, we are currently in the process of reviewing issues surrounding the posting of service bulletins on DMS as part of an AD docket. Once we have thoroughly examined all aspects of this issue and have made a final determination, we will consider whether our current practice needs to be revised. No change to this AD is necessary in response to this comment.

We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

There are about 695 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour, for U.S. operators to comply with this AD.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

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

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

(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

Examining the Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Operations office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is located on the ground floor of the West Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that supersedes AD 2002-24-52, amendment 39-12993 (68 FR 14, January 2, 2003). The existing AD applies to certain Boeing Model 747-400, 747-400D, and 747-400F series airplanes. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on February 8, 2006 (71 FR 6404). That NPRM proposed to continue to require revising the airplane flight manual (AFM) to require the flightcrew to maintain certain minimum fuel levels in the center fuel tanks, and to prohibit the use of the horizontal stabilizer fuel tank. That NPRM also proposed to require installing new integrated display software (IDS) in the integrated display units and electronic flight instrument system/engine indication and crew alerting system (EICAS) interface units (EIUs) of the flight deck. In addition, that NPRM proposed to require revising the AFM to include procedures to prevent dry operation of the center wing and horizontal stabilizer fuel tanks; for maintaining minimum fuel levels; and for de-fueling fuel tanks. For certain airplanes, that NPRM also proposed to require removing G13 pin ground wires of a certain wire integration unit of the EIUs at certain connector locations.

We have considered the following comments on the NPRM.

Japan Airlines requests that paragraph (b) of the NPRM be revised to supersede AD 2002-24-51, amendment 39-12992 (68 FR 10, January 2, 2003), in addition to AD 2002-24-52. Japan Airlines believes that Boeing Model 747-400 series airplanes are still subject to the requirements of AD 2002-24-51.

We do not agree. This AD supersedes AD 2002-24-52 and affects Boeing Model 747-400, -400D, and -400F airplanes identified in paragraph (c) of this AD. AD 2002-24-52 superseded (cancelled) the requirements of only paragraph (d) of AD 2002-24-51, as indicated in paragraph (a) of AD 2002-24-52 (paragraph (f) of this AD). Operators of affected airplanes identified in AD 2002-24-51 must comply with the remaining applicable requirements of that AD. This new AD retains all requirements of AD 2002-24-52. As a result, certain paragraph identifiers of AD 2002-24-51 have been changed in this AD. We have made no change to the AD in this regard.

The Air Transport Association (ATA), on behalf of one of its members, Northwest Airlines (NWA), and Japan Airlines request that we explain why installation of IDS-504 software is mandatory whereas installation of IDS-503 software has not been mandated by any AD. Japan Airlines and NWA believe that IDS-503 software is the same as IDS-504 software for EICAS messaging logic for operating fuel pumps.

We agree with the commenters' requests to explain why installation of IDS-504 software is mandatory. IDS-503 software provides redundant indication of impending dry operation of a fuel pump for the center wing tank (CWT), but provides indication of fuel pump low pressure for only the horizontal stabilizer tank (HST). IDS-504 software provides redundant indication to the flightcrew of impending dry operation of a fuel pump for both the CWT and HST. As discussed in the NPRM, the preamble to AD 2002-24-52 explains that we consider the requirements in that AD “interim action,” and that we were considering further rulemaking. We now have determined that further rulemaking is necessary to require installation of IDS-504 software (final action) to address the identified unsafe condition, and this AD follows from that determination.

Boeing, Japan Airlines, NWA, and United Airlines request that certain IDS software versions (and related service information) other than IDS-504 software be acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph (h) of the NPRM. The commenters provide the following justifications for their requests.

1. United Airlines, and ATA, on behalf of NWA, state that the FAA has previously approved alternative method of compliance (AMOC) 140S-03-173 to AD 2002-24-52 (reference Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-31A2341, Revision 1, dated November 20, 2003), which installed IDS-503 software. United and NWA believe the requirements in the NPRM are met by incorporating that AMOC. United Airlines and NWA note that Boeing Alert Service Bulletins 747-31A2341, Revision 1, and 747-31A2352, Revision 1, dated March 17, 2005, state, “The baseline installation of this IDS-504 software (no program pin changes) will provide messaging associated with fuel pump operation that is identical to the IDS-503 messaging.” Boeing states that the results of a software logic review indicate that the alert messaging of the IDS-503 software for the HST and CWT is identical to that of the IDS-504 software. Boeing notes that it has issued service information for installing IDS-503 software.

We partially agree. We do not agree with the commenters that IDS-503 software messages are identical to those of IDS-504 software. We have confirmed with Boeing that IDS-504 software contains different EICAS messages related to fuel pump operation depending on which hardware program pin is connected to an electrical ground. Only one of those available configurations provides fuel pump messages identical to those of IDS-503 software. In AMOC 140S-03-173, we approved that particular configuration as an AMOC to AD 2002-24-52 for active monitoring of the fuel quantity for both the CWT and HST, because it provided an improvement to the shutoff procedure required by that AD. However, we did not consider that AMOC to be acceptable as a final configuration. As explained in the “Requests To Explain Why Earlier Software Version Is Not Acceptable for Compliance” section of this AD, we consider the requirements of AD 2002-24-52 to be interim action. Installation of IDS-504 software will provide a higher level of safety than the interim requirements of AD 2002-24-52, because the flightcrew will no longer be required to actively monitor fuel tank quantity to determine the appropriate time to shut off the fuel pumps.

We do agree with the commenters that IDS-503 software should be considered acceptable for compliance with the requirements in paragraph (h), but only for affected airplanes not equipped with an HST. Therefore, we have added new paragraph (j) to this AD (and redesignated subsequent paragraphs) to include that provision. In addition, we have revised “new IDS software” to “new IDS-504 software” in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD to clarify which software version those paragraphs are referring to and to distinguish that software version from the other software version specified in new paragraph (j).

2. Boeing and United Airlines state that the alert messaging of IDS-505 (delivered in production only) and IDS-506 software for the HST and CWT is identical to that of IDS-504 software. Boeing notes that no service information is available for installation of IDS-505 software, and that the service bulletins for installing IDS-506 software have not yet been released. Japan Airlines notes that IDS-505 and -506 software have been already released, and that it would need to request an AMOC to the requirements of the NPRM.

We agree with the commenters that IDS-505 software installed during production of the airplane and IDS-506 software installed either during production of the airplane or in service are acceptable substitutes for IDS-504 software. As noted by Boeing, there is no service information for installation of IDS-505 software (IDS-505 software is being installed only during production). Since Boeing submitted its NPRM comments, it has issued and we have approved the service bulletins in the following table for installing IDS-506 software as an acceptable method of compliance with the requirements of paragraph (h) of this AD:

Each of these service bulletins refers to Rockwell Collins Service Bulletins IDS-7000-31-52, IDS-7000-31-53, and IDS-7000-31-54, as applicable; all dated August 30, 2006; as applicable; as an additional source of service information for installing the IDS-506 software. Therefore, we have added new paragraph (k) to this AD (and redesignated subsequent paragraphs) that allows either installing IDS-505 in production or IDS-506 software in production or in service as an acceptable method of compliance with the requirements of paragraph (h). We also have included new Note 3, which provides information about the Rockwell Collins service bulletins identified previously. In addition, we have revised paragraph (i) of this AD to allow installing IDS-504 software “during production of the airplane” as an acceptable method of compliance with the requirements of paragraph (h).

Boeing requests that the compliance time in paragraph (h) of the NPRM for installing new IDS software be revised from 6 months to 12 months. Boeing cites several reasons for their request (develop internal engineering, acquire necessary parts, accomplish the change without creating flight schedule interruptions, etc.).

We do not agree. In developing an appropriate compliance time for installing new IDS software, we considered the safety implications and the practical aspect of accomplishing the installation within a period of time that corresponds to the normal scheduled maintenance for most affected operators. In addition, we considered the facts that the installation takes three work hours, parts (software diskettes) are readily available and easily transportable, and many of the approximately 520 affected airplanes worldwide have already been modified. Furthermore, during development of the NPRM, we had several meetings with Boeing to determine the appropriate compliance time. In consideration of these items, we have determined that a 6-month compliance time will ensure an acceptable level of safety and allow the installation to be done during scheduled maintenance intervals for most affected operators. We have made no change to the AD in this regard.

Boeing requests that the fourth paragraph of the “FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD” section of the NPRM be revised for clarification purposes. Boeing suggests removing the wording that parallels the procedures specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-28-2258, Revision 1, dated August 11, 2005, for identification and location of the ground wire, and in Boeing Standard Wiring Practices Manual (SWPM) 20-72-18 for removal of the ground wires. (Boeing Service Bulletin 747-28-2258 describes procedures for installing FR-HiTemp fuel pumps.)

We partially agree. We do not agree with Boeing's suggestion to refer to Boeing Service Bulletin 747-28-2258, Revision 1, and Boeing SWPM 20-72-18, as appropriate sources of service information for accomplishing the wire removal specified in paragraph (l) of this AD (paragraph (j) of the NPRM). We acknowledge that Boeing Service Bulletin 747-28-2258 contains procedures for identification and location of the ground wire to be removed; however, it does not contain procedures for removing the ground wires. SWPMs are not FAA-approved, and the procedures specified in the SWPMs vary from operator to operator. There is no assurance that each operator's SWPM contains the identical actions specified in paragraph (l).

In addition, it is essential that we have feedback as to the type of removals being made. Given that possible new relevant issues might be revealed during this process, it is imperative that we have such feedback. Only by reviewing removal approvals can we be assured of this feedback and of the adequacy of the removal methods. Since the Manager of the Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO) is accountable for the primary oversight of the actions regarding this AD, it is appropriate that he be this single point of approval. His involvement, therefore, is warranted in the development and approval of removing pin ground wires.

We do agree with Boeing that the actions related to removing pin ground wires in the preamble and in paragraph (l) need to be clarified. We have revised paragraph (l) accordingly. The “FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD” section of the NPRM does not reappear in the AD.

As a result of this change to paragraph (l), we also have revised paragraph (m) of this AD and added a new paragraph (n) to the AD. These changes clarify that, for airplanes equipped with FR-HiTemp fuel pumps, the concurrent AFM revision requirements of paragraph (m) must be done only after removing the pin ground wires in accordance with paragraph (l).

In addition, we have determined that the compliance time of “before further flight after installing the new IDS software required by paragraph (h) of this AD” specified in paragraph (j) of the NPRM (paragraph (l) of the final rule) can be extended somewhat. We intended to require the removal of pin ground wires at a time that would coincide with regularly scheduled maintenance visits for the majority of the affected fleet, when the airplanes would be located at a base where special equipment and trained personnel would be readily available, if necessary. We now recognize that a compliance time of “after installing the new IDS-504 software required by paragraph (h) of this AD and within 6 months after the effective date of this AD” corresponds more closely to the interval representative of most of the affected operators' normal maintenance schedules. We have revised paragraph (l) accordingly. We do not consider that this extension will adversely affect safety.

Japan Airlines requests that the NPRM be revised to refer to Revision 2 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-31A2351 when Boeing issues it. Japan Airlines notes that the NPRM refers to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-31A2351, Revision 1, dated March 17, 2005, as an appropriate source of service information for installing new IDS-504 software. Japan Airlines states that Revision 1 of the service bulletin contains a typographical error, and that Boeing is planning to revise it.

We acknowledge that there is a typographical error in Revision 1 of the service bulletin. However, the error does not compromise the actions described in the service bulletin. In addition, Boeing has informed us that the release date of Revision 2 of the service bulletin is unknown. We do not consider that delaying this action until after the release of the manufacturer's planned service bulletin is warranted. Therefore, we have made no change to the AD in this regard.

British Airways (BA) requests that AMOCs 140S-03-319 (which allows installation of FR-HiTEMP fuel pumps) and 140S-04-31 (which allows installation of FR-HiTEMP fuel pumps in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 747-28-2258), previously approved in accordance with certain ADs, continue to be approved as AMOCs for the proposed requirements of the NPRM. BA states that the NPRM just consolidates the various existing ADs into one AD and does not address any new unsafe condition. Therefore, BA contends that the existing AMOCs still fully mitigate the NPRM.

BA states that the only new safety feature of the NPRM is the integrated display flight deck messages, which are triggered by low fuel pressure signals from existing pressure switches. BA also states that the pressure switch indication can flicker for minutes before a stable condition occurs, which could cause a flight deck indication delay before a latched message is set for the flightcrew to act on. BA adds that a fuel pump will have numerous re-prime (wet/vapor) cycles before it is shut down during low-pressure instability, possibly causing a fuel pump to run dry. BA states that there are other single failures, such as software errors, fuel pressure switches not operating properly, and flightcrew delays responding to flight deck messages, that add to the possibility of the fuel pump running dry for unknown periods of time. Finally, BA asserts that the continued safe operation of an airplane equipped with FR-HiTEMP fuel pumps does not depend on the knowledge of low-pressure messages or the accuracy of those messages.

We do not agree with BA's conclusion that the installation of FR-HiTEMP fuel pumps satisfies the requirements of this AD. We have determined that installing FR-HiTEMP fuel pumps alone does not make the pumping system compliant with the requirements of 14 CFR part 25 and does not adequately address the unsafe conditions identified from the SFAR 88 review. More work is necessary for airplanes equipped with FR-HiTEMP fuel pumps. As specified in paragraph (l) of the AD, for airplanes on which FR-HiTEMP fuel pumps have been incorporated in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 747-28-2258, dated December 19, 2003, or Revision 1, dated August 11, 2005, G13 pin ground wires must be removed after installing the new IDS-504 software in accordance with paragraph (h) of this AD. This will correctly configure the EIU for wet shutoff messaging.

We find that BA might misunderstand the operation of the fuel pump indications specified in this AD, and that clarification is necessary. The primary indication to the flightcrew that the fuel pumps should be shut off is the low-fuel advisory message, which is driven by the fuel quantity indication system (FQIS). The flightcrew is trained to shut off the pump when that message appears. If the flightcrew fails to shut off the pump at that time, approximately 30 seconds to 2 minutes later (depending on the pump position, fuel flow, and the airplane attitude), a caution level pump low pressure message and aural warning are triggered. This second message is driven by a pump outlet low pressure switch. We have determined that this redundant message scheme and the associated flightcrew procedures provide an acceptable level of safety by ensuring that dry operation of fuel pumps for a period long enough to create a fuel tank ignition risk will not occur.

In addition, we recognize that fuel pressure switch failures are possible. We have determined there is adequate redundancy in the FQIS and adequate procedures and flightcrew training to ensure that dry operation of fuel pumps for a period long enough to create a fuel tank ignition risk will not occur. We also recognize that there is always some potential for error in the software development process, but we have determined that the industry standard for software development and certification process, which is used by Boeing and its suppliers, provides an appropriate level of software design assurance for these display functions.

Japan Airlines requests that we revise the first sentence in paragraph (j) of the NPRM (redesignated as paragraph (l) in the AD) to include airplanes on which FR-HiTEMP fuel pumps were incorporated in production. Japan Airlines states that some of their airplanes had FR-HiTEMP fuel pumps installed in production, and that Boeing Service Bulletin 747-28-2258, dated December 19, 2003; or Revision 1, dated August 11, 2005; does not apply to those airplanes. The commenter contends that the G13 pin ground wires can be removed in accordance with Part 10 through Part 28 of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-28-2258, Revision 1, when EICAS messaging logic for fuel pump operation is desired due to low pressure indication (i.e., when the operator decides to do the removal).

We partially agree. We agree with Japan Airlines that the removal specified in paragraph (l) of this AD must be done on airplanes on which FR-HiTEMP fuel pumps were incorporated in production. However, we do not agree with Japan Airlines that the removal specified in paragraph (l) can be done at a time convenient to operators. We have determined that installing FR-HiTEMP fuel pumps alone does not make the pumping system compliant with the requirements of 14 CFR part 25 and does not adequately address the unsafe conditions identified from the SFAR 88 review. Further, as discussed previously, we acknowledge that Boeing Service Bulletin 747-28-2258, Revision 1, contains procedures for identification and location of the ground wire to be removed; however, it does not contain procedures for removing the ground wires. Therefore, we have revised paragraph (l) to include airplanes on which FR-HiTEMP fuel pumps have been incorporated in production.

Boeing requests that the following Certification Limitations of paragraph (k) of the NPRM (redesignated as paragraph (m) in the AD) be deleted:

1. “The CWT must contain a minimum of 17,000 pounds (7,700 kilograms) prior to engine start, if the CWT override/jettison pumps are to be selected ON during takeoff.” Boeing states that installing the new IDS software in accordance with the NPRM provides the appropriate messaging for this operation. Boeing also states that this operation (i.e., managing the fuel quantity of each tank to ensure that the fuel pumps are not running dry) is now part of the basic flightcrew training. In addition, Boeing states that the IDS logic provides for a higher wet shut-off level (7,000 pounds) if that fuel quantity is reached and climb attitude is detected (greater than 5 degrees).

We agree. We have determined that incorporating the new IDS software provides messaging to the flightcrew indicating that the fuel pumps must be OFF at takeoff if the fuel quantity is less than 17,000 pounds and if the fuel pumps are selected ON. Therefore, the limitation “The CWT must contain a minimum of 17,000 pounds (7,700 kilograms) prior to engine start, if the CWT override/jettison pumps are to be selected ON during takeoff” specified in paragraph (k) of the NPRM is no longer necessary. We have revised paragraph (m) of this AD accordingly.

2. “Center Wing Tank (CWT): The CWT fuel quantity indication system must be operative to dispatch with CWT mission fuel,” and “The HST fuel quantity indication system must be operative to dispatch with HST mission fuel.” Boeing states that the Master Minimum Equipment List (MMEL) addresses operations with inoperative equipment, and that it was revised in 2003 to address this issue.

We do not agree. The results of the system safety analysis performed during the SFAR 88 review to show compliance with 14 CFR part 25 requirements concluded that the indications driven by the FQIS signals are required for safe operation. Operation with the FQIS inoperative would revert the fuel pump indications to a configuration similar to the existing configuration, which has been found non-compliant with 14 CFR part 25 requirements. The existing MMEL will be revised to delete the FQIS relief for the CWT and HST. Until that revision occurs, the requirements of this AD would apply and prevail over the MMEL. We have made no change to the AD in this regard.

Japan Airlines requests that the Certification Limitations of paragraph (k) of the NPRM (redesignated as paragraph (m) in the AD) be revised as follows:

1. Either add a statement that there is no minimum requirement for the fuel quantity in the CWT, if the CWT override/jettison fuel pumps are OFF at takeoff, or clarify paragraph (k) in this regard. Japan Airlines notes that the Certification Limitations, in part, states, “The [CWT] must contain a minimum of 17,000 pounds prior to engine start, if the CWT override/jettison pumps are to be selected ON during takeoff.”

We partially agree. We agree with Japan Airlines's understanding of the intent of the Certification Limitations of paragraph (m) of this AD. As discussed previously, we have determined that the limitation “The CWT must contain a minimum of 17,000 pounds (7,700 kilograms) prior to engine start, if the CWT override/jettison pumps are to be selected ON during takeoff” specified in paragraph (k) of the NPRM is no longer necessary and have revised paragraph (m) of this AD accordingly.

2. Add the following:

• “Note: In a low fuel situation, both CWT override/jettison pumps may be selected ON and all CWT fuel may be used”; and

• “Note: In a low fuel situation, both HST transfer pumps may be selected ON and all HST fuel may be used.”

Japan Airlines notes that according to AMOC 140S-03-173, these notes have been established.

We agree and have revised paragraph (m) of this AD accordingly.

3. Revise a typographical error from “FUEL LOW STAB L OR R” to “FUEL LO STAB L OR R.”

We agree and have revised paragraph (m) of this AD accordingly.

4. Add the following: “Warning: Do not cycle CWT and HST pump switches from ON to OFF to ON with any continuous low pressure indication present.” Japan Airlines states that according to AMOC 140S-03-173, this warning has been established.

We agree and have revised paragraph (m) of this AD accordingly.

5. Revise the phrase “defueling any fuels tanks” to “defueling any fuel tanks or transferring between tanks.” Japan Airlines states that according to AMOC 140S-03-173, the defueling requirements in AD 2002-24-52 apply for defueling or transferring between tanks.

We partially agree. We agree with Japan Airlines that paragraph (m) needs to be revised to address any fuel pump that might run dry during fuel transfer. However, we have revised paragraph (m) in a different manner than suggested by Japan Airlines. We added a sentence at the end of the Certification Limitations in paragraph (m) that reads, “The above requirements apply for defueling or transferring between tanks.”

NWA believes that we may be mandating a prerequisite modification for the anticipated modification of the fuel system auto shutoff. NWA requests that this be done by requiring the service bulletins identified in Table 2 of the NPRM as prior or concurrent requirements to an AD that also mandates the auto shutoff modification.

We do not agree. We have no plans at this time to mandate a modification of the auto shutoff for either the CWT or HST. We have made no change to this AD in this regard.

NWA states that the table in the “Change to Existing AD” section of the NPRM contains incorrect paragraph references. NWA states that the requirement of AD 2002-24-52 paragraph (a) corresponds to paragraph (f) in the NPRM, not paragraph (g). NWA also states that the requirement in AD 2002-24-52 paragraph (b) corresponds to paragraph (g) in the NPRM, not paragraph (h).

We infer that NWA is requesting that the “Change to Existing AD” section be corrected. We partially agree. We agree that there is an error in that section. However, that section does not reappear in this AD. Therefore, we have made no change to this AD in this regard.

After the NPRM was issued, we reviewed the figures we have used over the past several years to calculate AD costs to operators. To account for various inflationary costs in the airline industry, we find it necessary to increase the labor rate used in these calculations from $65 per work hour to $80 per work hour. The cost impact information, below, reflects this increase in the specified hourly labor rate.

We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comments that have been received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We have determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.

There are about 520 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this AD.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

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

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

(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

We have received a report of 18 instances of failed forward water drain/supply valves on Gulfstream Model GIV-X, GV, and GV-SP series airplanes. Investigation by the airplane manufacturer revealed that the water drain/supply valves can be damaged by attempted operation when they are frozen. We also received a report of seven instances of ice striking the wing-to-body fairings and engine nose cowls of several airplanes. Leakage from failed water drain/supply valves can allow the build-up of ice on the airplane, which could separate and strike the airplane structure aft of the failed valves; become ingested by a propulsion engine; or become a hazard to persons or property on the ground.

We have reviewed the Gulfstream airplane flight manual (AFM) supplements and alert customer bulletins, including the Joint Aviation Authority (JAA) Gulfstream AFM revisions. We have identified these documents in the following tables.

The Gulfstream AFM supplements describe procedures for revising the Normal Procedures section of the AFMs of the affected airplanes to specify a functional check of forward water drain/supply valves, and corrective actions if necessary. Corrective actions include purging, deactivating, and securing the galley and lavatory sinks, or the entire water system, as applicable, and placarding those systems “Inoperative” or “Do Not Use.” The AFM supplements are identified as follows:

The alert customer bulletins identified in the following table describe procedures for doing repetitive functional checks of the forward water drain/supply valves for leakage; inspecting to determine whether the water supply valve has part number (P/N) 4E4151-1 or the water drain valve has P/N 4E4151-3; and replacing any water supply valve having P/N 4E4151-1 with a new, improved valve having P/N 4E4491-1, or any water drain valve having P/N 4E4151-3 with a new, improved valve having P/N 4E4493-1. The alert customer bulletins also specify reporting compliance to the manufacturer.

The information contained in the JAA AFM revisions identified in the following table is considered acceptable by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) for airplanes operated under and in accordance with the JAA and EASA regulations, supervision, and oversight:

The unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design. For this reason, we are issuing this AD to prevent leakage from failed water drain/supply valves allowing the build-up of ice on the airplane, which could separate and strike the airplane structure aft of the failed valves; become ingested by a propulsion engine; or become a hazard to persons or property on the ground. This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between the AD and Service Information.”

The alert customer bulletins do not describe procedures to be followed if the part number of a water drain/supply valve is missing or cannot be determined. However, this AD requires replacing any such valve with a new, improved valve having P/N 4E4491-1 or P/N 4E4493-1, as applicable.

Although the Accomplishment Instructions of the referenced alert customer bulletins describe procedures for submitting reports of compliance with the service bulletin, this AD does not require those actions.

We consider this AD interim action. We are currently considering requiring the optional terminating action (replacing the water drain/supply valves) provided in this AD, which will terminate the required repetitive functional checks. However, the planned compliance time for the terminating action would allow enough time to provide notice and opportunity for prior public comment on the merits of the valve replacement.

This AD provides procedures for repetitive functional checks for proper operation of the forward water drain/supply valves, and corrective actions if necessary. We have determined that these functional checks and corrective actions may be properly performed by the cockpit flightcrew because the checks and actions do not require tools, precision measuring equipment, training, or pilot logbook endorsements, or the use of or reference to technical data.

Since an unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD, we have found that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable, and that good cause exists to make this AD effective in less than 30 days.

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements that affect flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment; however, we invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2007-28373; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-110-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the AD that might suggest a need to modify it.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov, or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone (800) 647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the regulation:

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

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

3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

Examining the Docket

You may examine the airworthiness directive (AD) docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone (800) 647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to all McDonnell Douglas Model DC-8-62, DC-8-62F, DC-8-63, DC-8-63F, DC-8-72, DC-8-72F, and DC-8-73F airplanes. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on April 4, 2007 (72 FR 16287). That NPRM proposed to require deactivating certain components (the sump heater, scavenge valve, and scavenge pump) of the center wing fuel tank.

We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

We have revised this action to clarify the appropriate procedure for notifying the principal inspector before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies.

We have carefully reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the change described previously. We have determined that this change will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.

There are about 119 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this AD.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

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

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

(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

Examining the Docket

You may examine the airworthiness directive (AD) docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Operations office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is located on the ground floor of the West Building at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that supersedes AD 2005-17-18, amendment 39-14239 (70 FR 50166, August 26, 2005). The existing AD applies to certain Airbus Model A330-200, A330-300, A340-200, and A340-300 series airplanes; and Model A340-541 and -642 airplanes. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on March 15, 2007 (72 FR 12127). That NPRM proposed to continue to require repetitively resetting the display units for the electronic instrument system, either by switching them off and back on again or by performing a complete electrical shutdown of the airplane. That NPRM also proposed to require installing new software, which would end the actions required by the existing AD. That NPRM also proposed to add additional airplanes that may be placed on the U.S. Register in the future.

We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. No comments have been received on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Since we issued the NPRM, we have received Revision 03 of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-31-3056, dated November 25, 2004. Airbus issued this service bulletin to add non-U.S.-registered airplanes to the effectivity. The service bulletin describes procedures for installing Thales display system standard L4 or L5 in the electronic instrument system 2. No additional work is required for airplanes on which the required actions have been done in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A330-31-3056, Revision 02, dated March 24, 2003, which was referred to as the appropriate source of service information for the actions specified in the NPRM. We have changed the reference to this service bulletin in paragraph (i)(1)(ii) of the AD, added a new paragraph (j) of this AD to give credit for actions done before the effective date of this AD according to Revision 02 of the service bulletin, and redesignated subsequent paragraphs of the AD accordingly.

We have revised this action to clarify the appropriate procedure for notifying the principal inspector before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies.

We have revised paragraph (h) of this AD to include certain paragraph identifiers in Table 2 that were unintentionally omitted from the NPRM.

We unintentionally included only the A340-200 of the Model A340 airplanes in the subject line on the first page of the NPRM. It should have read “Airbus Model A330 and A340 Airplanes.” The correct models appeared in all other sections of the NPRM. We have corrected the subject line in the heading of this final rule.

We have carefully reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We have determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.

The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this AD. The average labor rate per work hour is $80.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

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

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

(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

Streamlined Issuance of AD

The FAA is implementing a new process for streamlining the issuance of ADs related to MCAI. This streamlined process will allow us to adopt MCAI safety requirements in a more efficient manner and will reduce safety risks to the public. This process continues to follow all FAA AD issuance processes to meet legal, economic, Administrative Procedure Act, and Federal Register requirements. We also continue to meet our technical decision-making responsibilities to identify and correct unsafe conditions on U.S.-certificated products.

This AD references the MCAI and related service information that we considered in forming the engineering basis to correct the unsafe condition. The AD contains text copied from the MCAI and for this reason might not follow our plain language principles.

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on April 24, 2007 (72 FR 20291). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

The unsafe condition is potential ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. The MCAI requires installation of a bonding jumper between the pilot valve line tube and the pressure refueling system tube. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information.

We might also have required different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the AD.

Based on the service information, we estimate that this AD affects about 69 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it takes about 11 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts cost about $56 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S. operators to be $64,584, or $936 per product.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

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

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

3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov ; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone (800) 647-5227) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

The FAA is implementing a new process for streamlining the issuance of ADs related to MCAI. This streamlined process will allow us to adopt MCAI safety requirements in a more efficient manner and will reduce safety risks to the public. This process continues to allow all FAA AD issuance processes to meet legal, economic, Administrative Procedure Act, and Federal Register requirements. We also continue to meet our technical decision-making responsibilities to identify and correct unsafe conditions on U.S.-certificated products.

This AD references the MCAI and related service information that we considered in forming the engineering basis to correct the unsafe condition. The AD contains text copied from the MCAI and for this reason might not follow our plain language principles.

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on October 13, 2006 (71 FR 60444). That NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections of the auxiliary power unit (APU) starter motor, APU inlet plenum, and APU air intake, as well as repetitive cleaning of the APU air intake; and applicable corrective actions. The MCAI states that an operator reported black smoke at the rear of the fuselage during taxi after landing. The smoke was caused by a fire in the APU air intake. Analysis has demonstrated that following numerous unsuccessful APU start attempts in flight, there is a risk of reverse flow, leading to flame propagation to the APU air inlet and air intake duct. If this zone is contaminated, a fire may be initiated. The flightcrew operating manual limits the number of APU start attempts as follows: After three starter motor duty cycles, wait 60 minutes before attempting three more cycles.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comments received.

Airbus states that it has two final fixes available. No change to the NPRM is requested.

We infer that Airbus wants us to change the AD applicability and add optional terminating action to the AD. Since the issuance of the NPRM, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2006-0153 R1, dated November 27, 2006, and corrected on November 29, 2006. The EASA AD applicability excludes airplanes that are equipped with Hamilton Sundstrand APIC APS 3200 APUs and that have incorporated Airbus Modification 35803 in production, or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-49-1070 in service. The EASA AD applicability also excludes airplanes that are equipped with Honeywell 131-9A APUs, and that have incorporated Airbus Modification 35936 in production or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-49-1075 in service. The EASA AD also adds an optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections and cleaning tasks for airplanes on which Airbus Service Bulletin A320-49-1070, dated July 28, 2006 (for airplanes equipped with APIC APS 3200 APUs); or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-49-1075, dated September 22, 2006, or Revision 01, dated December 1, 2006 (for airplanes equipped with Honeywell 131-9A APUs), has been embodied in service.

In light of the revised EASA AD, we agree with the commenter, and have revised the applicability and added a new paragraph (e)(5) to this AD to include the optional terminating action.

Air Transport Association (ATA), on behalf of one of its members, requests that airplanes equipped with Honeywell APUs be removed from the applicability of the NPRM. ATA states that the subject incident occurred on a Hamilton Sundstrand APU. The ATA member states that Honeywell provided data showing that in more than 14 million APU hours, not one event similar to the Hamilton Sundstrand APU incident occurred on a Honeywell APU.

We disagree with the commenters. Through analysis of both Hamilton Sundstrand and Honeywell APUs, the EASA has determined that, following numerous unsuccessful APU start attempts during flight, there is a risk of reverse flow leading to flame propagation in the APU air inlet and air intake duct. We have made no change to the AD in this regard, except for the previously noted exclusion of the Honeywell APUs in the EASA AD.

ATA, on behalf of one of its members, states that if airplanes equipped with Honeywell APUs are not removed from the applicability, the AD should allow incorporation of Diehl Service Bulletin 3888394-49-7899 as a terminating action for airplanes having Honeywell APUs. ATA states that the service bulletin releases new software for the electronic control box that addresses the identified unsafe condition.

We agree with the commenters. The Diehl service bulletin is referenced in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-49-1075, dated September 22, 2006; and Revision 01, dated December 1, 2006, as an additional source of service information for accomplishing the modification. We have referenced the Airbus service bulletin in a new paragraph (e)(5) of this AD, as described above.

ATA, on behalf of one of its members, asks that the 2,400- and 600-flight-hour compliance times for the repetitive tasks be changed. ATA states that these compliance times do not take into account operator experience. ATA notes that the ATA member performs starter motor inspections during a 1,200-hour (2A) check, and has not experienced a failure. The ATA member would like to see data indicating how the compliance times were established.

We do not agree with the commenter's request to change the compliance times. The commenter provides no alternative compliance times for the repetitive tasks, or technical justification for changing the compliance times. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this action, we considered the urgency associated with the subject unsafe condition, and the practical aspect of accomplishing the repetitive inspections and cleaning tasks within a period of time that corresponds to the normal scheduled maintenance for most affected operators. We point out that the compliance times correspond with those in the MCAI. However, according to the provisions of paragraph (g)(1) of the AD, we may approve a request to adjust the compliance time if the request includes data that prove that the new compliance time would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have made no change to the AD in this regard.

The Modification and Replacement Parts Association (MARPA) states that, frequently, airworthiness directives are based on service information originating with the type certificate holder or its suppliers. MARPA adds that manufacturer service documents are privately authored instruments generally having copyright protection against duplication and distribution. MARPA notes that when a service document is incorporated by reference into a public document, such as an airworthiness directive, it loses its private, protected status and becomes a public document. MARPA adds that if a service document is used as a mandatory element of compliance, it should not simply be referenced, but should be incorporated into the regulatory document. MARPA states that, by definition, public laws must be public, which means they cannot rely upon private writings; especially when the private writings originate in a foreign country. MARPA notes that since the interpretation of a document is a question of law, and not fact, a service document not incorporated by reference will not be considered in a legal finding of the meaning of an airworthiness directive. MARPA is concerned that the failure to incorporate essential service information could result in a court decision invalidating the airworthiness directive.

MARPA notes that it has been advised that service documents are not usually incorporated by reference into proposed actions (NPRMs). MARPA adds that there is no indication in the proposed action that the FAA intends to incorporate by reference the necessary service information, and it is unclear whether that has been overlooked. MARPA asks that future proposed actions indicate the FAA intent by including the following statement: “We intend to incorporate by reference the following publication(s):”.

MARPA adds that incorporated by reference service documents should be made available to the public by publication in the Docket Management System (DMS), keyed to the action that incorporates them. MARPA believes that this publication should occur when the NPRM is published, to permit the public to review and comment on the entire proposed action. MARPA notes that the stated purpose of the incorporation by reference method is brevity, to keep from expanding the Federal Register needlessly by publishing documents already in the hands of the affected individuals; traditionally, “affected individuals” means aircraft owners and operators, who are generally provided service information by the manufacturer. MARPA adds that a new class of affected individuals has emerged, since the majority of aircraft maintenance is now performed by specialty shops instead of aircraft owners and operators. MARPA notes that this new class includes maintenance and repair organizations, component servicing and repair shops, parts purveyors and distributors, and organizations manufacturing or servicing alternatively certified parts under section 21.303 (“Replacement and modification parts”) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.303). MARPA adds that the distribution to owners may, when the owner is a financing or leasing institution, not actually reach the persons responsible for accomplishing the airworthiness directive. Therefore, MARPA asks that the service documents deemed essential to the accomplishment of the NPRM be incorporated by reference into the regulatory instrument, and published in the DMS.

We do not agree with the commenter's request to indicate our intent in an NPRM to incorporate by reference particular publications. When we reference certain service information in a proposed AD, the public can assume we intend to IBR that service information, as required by the Office of the Federal Register. No change to this AD is necessary in regard to the commenter's request.

In regard to the commenter's request to post service bulletins on the Department of Transportation's DMS, we are currently in the process of reviewing issues surrounding the posting of service bulletins on the DMS as part of an AD docket. Once we have thoroughly examined all aspects of this issue and have made a final determination, we will consider whether our current practice needs to be revised. No change to the AD is necessary in response to this comment.

MARPA questions the use of the adjective “certified” for the subject airplane models. MARPA asks what a “certified” model is and if the use of that word implies that “uncertified” models exist that are exempt from the NPRM. MARPA adds that perhaps the word “certificated” was intended instead, but was changed to avoid the use of the same word twice in the same sentence, which would make more sense. MARPA suggests that the word “certified” be dropped, as it appears to be both superfluous and confusing.

We do not agree with the commenter's request. We identified “all certified models” in the applicability of the NPRM to follow the MCAI; that phrase refers to all dash numbers of a particular airplane model. “All certified models” is different from “certificated in any category,” which refers to the category of type certification for the airplane (normal, utility, transport, etc.). We made no change to the AD in this regard.

We reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD.

We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable in a U.S. court of law. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information.

We might also have required different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences are described in a separate paragraph of the AD. These requirements, if any, take precedence over the actions copied from the MCAI.

Based on the service information, we estimate that this AD affects about 675 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 4 work-hours per product to comply with this AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S. operators to be $216,000, or $320 per product.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

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

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

(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket.

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov ; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone (800) 647-5227) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

The Commission adopted amendments to the language of the third-party and issuer tender offer best-price rules on November 1, 2006. In this release, the instruction for the authority citation in FR Doc. E7-5947 in the April 5, 2007 issue of the Federal Register is being corrected.

The Tacony-Palmyra Bridge, a lift drawbridge, has a vertical clearance in the closed position to vessels of 50 feet, above mean high water.

Carr & Duff, Inc., on behalf of the bridge owner the Burlington County Bridge Commission, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulations set out in 33 CFR 117.5 and 117.716 to close the drawbridge to navigation to facilitate the replacement of submarine cable termination boxes on the drawbridge.

To facilitate the submarine cable replacement, the Tacony-Palmyra Bridge will be maintained in the closed-to-navigation position from 6 a.m. on Monday, July 9 until and including 10 p.m. on Wednesday, July 11, 2007, and from 6 a.m. on Monday, July 16 until and including 10 p.m. on Wednesday, July 18, 2007.

This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

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 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. The Coast Guard has not received any complaints or negative comments previously with regard to this event.

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 Lake Michigan 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.

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 Gardens of the Magnificent Mile fireworks display. The fireworks display will occur between 8:45 p.m. and 9:45 p.m. on June 23, 2007.

The safety zone for the fireworks will encompass all waters of the Chicago River Main Branch, from the east side of the Michigan Avenue Bridge to the west side of the Columbus Avenue Bridge. The size of this zone was determined using the National Fire Prevention Association guidelines and local knowledge of wind and currents.

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 Lake Michigan or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.

We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. This determination is based on the minimal time that vessels will be restricted from the zone and the zone is an area where the Coast Guard expects insignificant adverse impact to mariners from the zones' activation.

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 Chicago River at Chicago, IL, between 8:45 p.m. and 9:45 p.m. on June 23, 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 Lake Michigan 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.

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).

This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 these special local regulations 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 .

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.

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.

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 .

Regulatory History

On April 16, 2007, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled “Safety Zone; Town of Weymouth Fourth of July Celebration Fireworks, Weymouth, Ma” in the Federal Register (72 FR 18935). We did not receive any letters commenting on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.

As the fireworks display is scheduled to occur on June 30, 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 Weymouth Fore River during the fireworks display thus ensuring that the maritime public is protected from any potential harm associated with such an event. Accordingly, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register .

This rule establishes a safety zone on the navigable waters of Weymouth Fore River within a 500 yard radius around the fireworks barge located at approximate position 42°15.2′ N, 070°56.7′ W. The safety zone is in effect from 8:30 p.m. EDT until 11:15 p.m. EDT on June 30, 2007.

The safety zone temporarily restricts movement within this portion of Weymouth Fore River 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 effective period. The Captain of the Port does not anticipate any negative impact on vessel traffic due to the event. Public notifications will be made prior to the effective period via marine information broadcasts and Local Notice to Mariners.

The Coast Guard did not receive any comments from the public in response to the NPRM and as a result, no changes have been made to this temporary final rule.

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 Weymouth Fore River during the effective period, the effects of this regulation will not be significant for several reasons: Vessels will be excluded from the proscribed area for two hours and forty-five minutes, vessels will be able to operate in the majority of Weymouth Fore River during the effective period, and advance notifications will be made to the local maritime community by marine information broadcasts and Local Notice to Mariners.

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 Weymouth Fore River from 8:30 p.m. EDT until 11:15 p.m. EDT on June 30, 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 forty-five minutes, vessel traffic can safely pass around the zone, and advance notifications will be made to the local maritime community by marine information broadcasts and Local Notice to Mariners.

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.

This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 that will be in effect for only two hours and forty-five minutes.

We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. As the fireworks display is scheduled to occur on June 30, 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 water off of Salisbury Beach during the fireworks display thus ensuring that the maritime public is protected from any potential harm associated with such an 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 .

This rule establishes a safety zone on the navigable waters off of Salisbury Beach within a 500 yard radius around the fireworks display located at approximate position 42°50.312′ N, 070°45.64′ W. The safety zone is in effect from 9:30 p.m. EDT until 11:15 p.m. EDT on June 30, 2007.

The safety zone temporarily restricts movement within this portion of water off of Salisbury Beach 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 effective period. The Captain of the Port does not anticipate any negative impact on vessel traffic due to the event. Public notifications will be made prior to the effective period via marine information broadcasts and Local Notice to Mariners.

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.

The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under of the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary.

Although this rule prevents vessel traffic from transiting a portion of the area off of Salisbury Beach during the effective period, the effects of this regulation will not be significant for several reasons: Vessels will be excluded from the proscribed area for one hour and forty-five minutes, vessels will be able to operate in the majority of the area off of Salisbury Beach during the effective period, and advance notifications will be made to the local maritime community by marine information broadcasts and Local Notice to Mariners.

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 off of Salisbury Beach from 9:30 p.m. EDT until 11:15 p.m. EDT on June 30, 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 and forty-five minutes, vessel traffic can safely pass around the zone, and advance notifications will be made to the local maritime community by marine information broadcasts and Local Notice to Mariners.

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.

This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 that will be in effect for only one hour and forty-five minutes.

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. Logistical details surrounding the event were not finalized and presented to the Coast Guard in time to draft and publish an NPRM. As such, the event would occur before the rulemaking process was complete. Because of the dangers posed by the pyrotechnics used in this fireworks display, this safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of event participants, spectator craft, and other vessels transiting the event area. For the safety concerns noted, it is in the public interest to have these regulations in effect during the event.

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 in the effective date of this rule would expose mariners to the dangers posed by the pyrotechnics used in this fireworks display.

The City of Antioch will sponsor a fireworks display on July 4, 2007 in the waters of the San Joaquin River. The fireworks display is meant for entertainment purposes. This temporary, moving safety zone is issued to establish a temporary restricted area in the San Joaquin River around the fireworks launch barge during loading of the pyrotechnics, during the transit of the barge to the display location, and during the fireworks display. This restricted area around the launch barge is necessary to protect spectators, vessels, and other property from the hazards associated with the pyrotechnics on the fireworks barge.

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary, moving safety zone in the navigable waters of the San Joaquin River near Antioch's shoreline. During the loading of the fireworks barge, while the barge is being towed to the display location, and until the start of the fireworks display, the temporary, moving safety zone applies to the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge within a radius of 100 feet. Fifteen minutes prior to and during the twenty minute fireworks display, the area to which the temporary safety zone applies will increase in size to encompass the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge within a radius of 1,000 feet. Loading of the pyrotechnics onto the fireworks barge is scheduled to commence at 8 a.m. on July 4, 2007, and will take place at Fulton Shipyard, 307 Fulton Shipyard Road, Antioch, California. Towing of the barge from Fulton Shipyard to the display location is scheduled to take place between 7 p.m. and 9 p.m. on July 4, 2007. During the fireworks display, scheduled to commence at approximately 9 p.m., the fireworks barge will be located approximately 600 feet off of Antioch's shoreline in approximate position 38°01′21″ N, 121°49′06″ W and travel east in a straight line to 38°01′11″ N, 121°48′15″ W.

The effect of the temporary, moving safety zone will be to restrict navigation in the vicinity of the fireworks barge while the fireworks are loaded at Fulton Shipyard, during the transit of the fireworks barge, and until the conclusion of the scheduled display. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the restricted area. These regulations are needed to keep spectators and vessels a safe distance away from the fireworks barge to ensure the safety of participants, spectators, and transiting vessels.

Unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from entering or remaining in a safety zone. Vessels or persons violating this section will be subject to both criminal and civil penalties.

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 regulation prevents traffic from transiting a portion of the San Joaquin River during the event, the effect of this regulation will not be significant due to the small size and limited duration of the regulated area. The entities most likely to be affected are pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing. We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary.

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 is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of entities, some of which may be small entities. This rule may affect owners and operators of pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing. This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for several reasons: (i) Vessel traffic can pass safely around the area, (ii) vessels engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing have ample space outside of the effected portion of the San Joaquin River to engage in these activities, (iii) this rule will encompass only a small portion of the waterway for a limited period of time, and (iv) the maritime public will be advised in advance of this safety zone via public notice to mariners.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. If the rule will affect your small business, organization, or government jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions, options for compliance, or assistance in understanding this rule, please contact Ensign Sheral Richardson, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Francisco, at (415) 556-2950 extension 136.

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).

This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

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.

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 expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” will be available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES .

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 until April 27, 2007, thereby making an NPRM impracticable. 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 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 Mystic River off Mystic Seaport, Mystic, CT and to protect the maritime public from the hazards associated with this fireworks event.

The safety zone should have minimal negative impact on the public and navigation, because it will be enforced for a one-hour period only. Also, the area closed by the safety zone is minimal thus allowing vessels to continue to transit the Mystic River by going around the safety zone.

The Summer Solstice/U.S. Chamber of Commerce Fireworks display will be taking place from a barge in Mystic River, off Mystic Seaport, Mystic, CT from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. on June 25, 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 Mystic River for a total of one hour from beginning to completion of the event.

This regulation establishes a temporary safety zone on the navigable waters of Mystic River off Mystic Seaport, Mystic, CT within a 400-foot radius of the fireworks barge located at approximate position 41°22.068′ N, 071°57.925′ 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 Mystic River off Mystic Seaport, Mystic, CT to provide for the protection of life and property of the maritime public. The safety zone will be enforced from 9 p.m. until 10 p.m. on June 25, 2007. Marine traffic may transit safely outside of the safety zone during the event thereby allowing navigation of the rest of Mystic River except for the portion delineated by this rule.

The Captain of the Port anticipates minimal negative impact on vessel traffic from this event due to the limited area and duration covered by this safety zone. Public notifications will be made prior to the effective period via local notice to mariners and marine information broadcasts.

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 one hour and vessels will be able to operate in other areas of Mystic River off Mystic Seaport, Mystic, CT during the enforcement period.

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 recreational vessels intending to transit or anchor in those portions of Mystic River covered by the closure. For the reasons outlined in the Regulatory Evaluation section above, this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

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 Lieutenant D. Miller, Chief, Waterways Management Division, Sector Long Island Sound, at (203) 468-4596.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). 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.

This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

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.

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 expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

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.

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.

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 safety that may disproportionately affect children.

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.

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.

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.

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 .

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 in sufficient time to conduct a notice and comment period, thereby making an NPRM impracticable. A delay or cancellation of the fireworks display in order to accommodate a full notice and comment period would be contrary to the pubic interest.

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 impracticable and contrary to public interest since immediate action is needed to prevent vessel traffic from transiting a navigable portion of the Atlantic Ocean, near Long Beach, 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 two hour period on a single day and the area closed by the safety zone is minimal, thus allowing vessels to transit around the safety zone on the Atlantic Ocean, near Long Beach, NY.

The City of Long Beach Fireworks display will be taking place in the Atlantic Ocean off Riverside Blvd., Long Beach, NY from 8:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 6, 2007. If the fireworks display is cancelled due to inclement weather on July 6, 2007, it will take place from 8:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 7, 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 the navigable portion of the Atlantic Ocean one hour prior to, during, and one hour after the stated event.

This regulation establishes a temporary safety zone on the navigable waters of the Atlantic Ocean, near Long Beach, NY within a 1200-foot radius of the fireworks barge located at approximate position 40°34′38.77″ N, 073°39′41.32″ 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 navigable portion of the Atlantic Ocean, near Long Beach, NY to provide for the protection of life and property of the maritime public. The safety zone will be enforced from 8:30 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on July 6, 2007 or if the event is postponed due to inclement weather, from 8:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 7, 2007. Marine traffic may transit safely outside of the safety zone during the event thereby allowing navigation of the rest of the Atlantic Ocean except for the portion delineated by this rule.

The Captain of the Port anticipates minimal negative impact on vessel traffic because of this safety zone due to the limited area and duration covered by this regulation. Public notifications will be made prior to the effective period via local notice to mariners and marine information broadcasts.

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 two hours and vessels will be able to operate in other areas of the Atlantic Ocean, near Long Beach, NY during the enforcement period.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in those portions of the Atlantic Ocean covered by the safety zone. For the reasons outlined in the Regulatory Evaluation section above, this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

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 can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If this rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call Lieutenant D. Miller, Chief, Waterways Management Division, Sector Long Island Sound, at (203) 468-4596.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). 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.

This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 as 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 .

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 in sufficient time, thereby making an NPRM impracticable and contrary to the pubic interest.

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 impracticable and contrary to public interest since immediate action is needed to prevent traffic from transiting a portion of the Connecticut River, Hartford, CT and to protect the maritime public from the hazards associated with this fireworks event.

The safety zones should have minimal negative impact on the public and navigation because they will be enforced for a two hour period on a single day and the area closed by the safety zones is minimal, allowing vessels to transit around the zones on the Connecticut River, Hartford, CT.

The Riverfest 2007 Fireworks display will take place on the Connecticut River, Hartford, CT from 8:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 7, 2007. If the fireworks display is cancelled due to inclement weather, the event will take place from 8:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 8, 2007. These safety zones are necessary to protect the life and property of the maritime public from the hazards posed by the fireworks display. They will protect the maritime public by prohibiting entry into or movement within this portion of the Connecticut River one hour prior to, during and one hour after the stated event.

This regulation establishes temporary safety zones on the waters of the Connecticut River, Hartford, CT within a 500-foot radius of each of the two fireworks barges located at approximate positions 41°45′39.93″ N, 072°39′49.14″ W and 41°45′36.06″ N, 072°39′46.03″ W. The temporary safety zones will be outlined by temporary marker buoys installed by the event organizers.

This action is intended to prohibit vessel traffic in a portion of the Connecticut River, Hartford, CT to provide for the protection of life and property of the maritime public. The safety zones will be enforced from 8:30 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on July 7, 2007, or if the event is postponed due to weather, from 8:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 8, 2007. Marine traffic may transit safely outside of the safety zones during the event thereby allowing navigation of the rest of the Connecticut River except for the portion delineated by this rule.

The Captain of the Port anticipates minimal negative impact on vessel traffic due to this event due to the limited area and duration covered by these safety zones. Public notifications will be made prior to the effective period via local notice to mariners and marine information broadcasts.

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 zones for two hours; and vessels will be able to operate in other areas of the Connecticut River, Hartford, CT during the enforcement period.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in those portions of the Connecticut River covered by the safety zone. For the reasons outlined in the Regulatory Evaluation section above, this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

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 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 please call Lieutenant D. Miller, Chief, Waterways Management Division, Sector Long Island Sound, at (203) 468-4596. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). 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.

This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. It has not been designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

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.

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 because this 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 .

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 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. The Coast Guard has not received any complaints or negative comments previously with regard to this event.

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 Lake Michigan 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.

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 Chicago Fourth of July fireworks display. The fireworks display will occur between 8:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on July 4, 2007 and from 8:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on July 5, 2007.

The safety zone for the fireworks will encompass all waters of Chicago Harbor and Lake Michigan within a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located on a barge in position 41°52′41″ N, 087°36′37″ W (NAD 83). The size of this zone was determined using the National Fire Prevention Association guidelines and local knowledge of wind and currents.

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 Lake Michigan or his on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.

We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary.

This determination is based on the minimal time that vessels will be restricted from the zone and the zone is an area where the Coast Guard expects insignificant adverse impact to mariners from the zones' activation.

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 Chicago Harbor from 8:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on July 4, 2007 and from 8:30 p.m. to 9:30 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 one hour for two events. 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 Lake Michigan 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.

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).

This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 these special local regulations 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 .

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.

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.

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 .

We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM and for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Publishing an NPRM would be contrary to public interest since immediate action is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and spectators gathering in the vicinity of the various fireworks launching barges and displays. If normal notice and comment procedures were followed, this rule would not become effective until after the dates of the events. For this reason, following normal rulemaking procedures in this case would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

The Coast Guard is establishing temporary safety zones to allow for safe fireworks displays. All events occur within the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound, WA, Area of Responsibility (AOR). These events may result in a number of vessels congregating near fireworks launching barges and sites. The safety zones are needed to protect watercraft and their occupants from safety hazards associated with fireworks displays. These safety zones will be enforced by representatives of the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound, Washington. The Captain of the Port may be assisted by other federal and local agencies.

Temporary safety zones are necessary to ensure the safety of spectators and vessels during several fireworks displays occurring between June 30 and August 25, 2007. Entry into these zones is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound or his designated representative. The Captain of the Port, Puget Sound, Washington, will enforce these safety zones. The Captain of the Port may be assisted by other federal and local agencies.

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 this rule under that Order.

This rule is not significant because the safety zones will encompass small portions of Puget Sound, Lake Washington, and Lake Union in the Puget Sound Captain of the Port's AOR on different dates, and all will be effective in the evening when vessel traffic volume is low.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.

This 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 a portion of the Puget Sound, Lake Washington, or Lake Union during the times in section 2(a) of this rule. These safety zones will not have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. Each safety zone will be in effect for no more than 2.5 hours when vessel traffic volume is low. Traffic will be allowed to pass through each zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port or his designated representatives.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding the 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 this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. It has not been designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

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.

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 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. Paragraph 34(g) is applicable because this rule establishes safety zones. A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES .

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 .

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 .

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-2006-0178 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 20, 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-2006-0178, 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.

In the Federal Register of April 12, 2006 (71 FR 18744) (FRL-7773-3), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 5E6930) by IR-4, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.432 be amended by establishing a tolerance for residues of the herbicide, lactofen, (1-(carboethoxy) ethyl 5-2-chloro-4-(trifluoromethyl) phenoxy-2-nitrobenzoate), in or on vegetable, fruiting, and okra at 0.01 parts per million (ppm). That notice referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Valent U.S.A. Corporation, 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.

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) of the FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for the petitioned for tolerance for residues of lactofen in/on vegetables, fruiting, group 08, at 0.02 ppm and okra at 0.02 ppm . EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with establishing the tolerance follows.

EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their 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 lactofen 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 support documents to this action under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0178.

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 NOAEL in the toxicology study identified as appropriate for use in risk assessment. However, if a NOAEL cannot be determined, the LOAEL dose of concern are identified 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 lactofen used for human risk assessment can be found at www.regulations.gov in document “Lactofen: Human Health Risk Assessment for Proposed Uses of Fruiting Vegetables and Okra” at page number 13 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0178. To locate this information on the Regulation.gov website follow these steps:

• Select “Advanced Search”, then “Docket Search.”

• In the “Docket ID number” field type the docket number in the following format - ”OPP-year-docket number” e.g., OPP-2005-9999).

• Click the “Submit” button.

• Click on the docket to open.

1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses . In evaluating dietary exposure to lactofen, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing lactofen tolerances in (40 CFR 180. 432). Exposure assessment also considered exposures as a result of acifluorfen, an environmental degrade of lactofen.

EPA assessed dietary exposures from lactofen 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.

The Agency did not identify an endpoint for an acute dietary exposure assessment for the general population due to the lack of toxicological effects of concern attributable to a single exposure (dose) in studies available in the data base including oral developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits. An acute dietary exposure assessment was conducted for the population subgroup, female ages 13-49, only. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with the Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID TM , Version 2.03), which incorporates consumption data from United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Continuing Surveys of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII), 1994-1996 and 1998. As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed all foods for which there are proposed or existing tolerances were treated and contain tolerance-level residues.

ii. Chronic exposure . In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the DEEM/FCID TM , Version 2.03, which incorporates food consumption data from USDA's 1994-1996 and 1998 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII). The chronic dietary analysis assumed all crops for which there are proposed or existing tolerances were treated and contain tolerance-level residues.

iii. Cancer . Lactofen has been classified as “not likely” to be carcinogenic in humans because of available data on lactofen support activation of the peroxisome proliferator activated receptor alpha (PPARα) as the mode of action which induced liver tumors in rodents. While the proposed mode of action for liver tumors in rodent is qualitatively possible in humans, it is quantitatively implausible and unlikely to take place in humans based on quantitative species toxicodynamic differences in PPARα activation. The quantification of risk is not required.

iv. Exposure assessment for acifluorfen . Lactofen degrades in the environment to acifluorfen. Sodium acifluorfen is a registered agricultural pesticide. Accordingly, an aggregate assessment for acifluorfen exposure resulting from both use of lactofen and sodium acifluorfen was also conducted. As to residue levels of acifluorfen in food from use of sodium acifluorfen, EPA assumed all foods for which there are tolerances were treated and contain tolerance level residues.

2. Dietary exposure from drinking water . The Agency lacks sufficient monitoring data to complete a comprehensive dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for lactofen 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 lactofen. 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 .

The drinking water assessment of lactofen is complicated by the fact that lactofen has a major degradate in common with another registered herbicide, sodium acifluorfen. Lactofen and sodium acifluorfen also have common use sites. The Agency considered the contribution of acifluorfen as an environmental degradate of lactofen and from sodium acifluorfen in the aggregate assessment. The drinking water residues used in the dietary risk assessment were incorporated directly into this dietary exposure from drinking water assessment. Therefore, EPA estimated drinking water concentrations for both lactofen and acifluorfen from lactofen applications. Water residues were incorporated into DEEM-FCID as the food categories “water, direct, all sources” and “water, indirect, all sources.”

The Tier 2 surface water estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) and estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) for lactofen and acifluorfen were generated with standard Florida pepper and Florida tomato cropping scenarios using EPA's pesticide root zone model (PRZM3) and EXAMS. PRZM simulates pesticide fate and transport as a result of leaching, direct spray drift, runoff and erosion from an agricultural field and EXAMS estimates environmental fate and transport of pesticides in surface water body for a 30-year period (1961-1990). The EDWCs and EECs assessment for surface water uses single or multiple sites which typically represent a high-end exposure scenario from pesticide use on a particular cropped or non-cropped site. Ground-water concentrations were estimated using the Tier 1 screening model screening concentration in ground water (SCI-GROW). The models and its description are available at EPA internet site: http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/ .

Based on the PRZM3/EXAMS model, the EDWCs in surface water (lactofen and the acifluorfen derived from lactofen) for acute exposures are estimated to be 1.48 parts per billion (ppb) and 22.5 ppb for lactofen and acifluorfen, respectively, and for chronic exposures 0.044 ppb and 3.9 ppb for lactofen and acifluorfen, respectively. By comparison, the EDWC for chronic exposure for acifluorfen derived from sodium acifluorfen use on soybeans is 3.3 ppb.

For ground water, the SCI-GROW estimates of lactofen and acifluorfen EDWCs from application of lactofen for both acute and chronic exposures are 0.006 ppb lactofen and 2.0 ppb acifluorfen. By comparison, the SCI-GROW estimate of acifluofren EDWCs in ground water from applications of sodium acifluorfen is 3.67 ppb.

Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For the lactofen acute dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 1.48 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. For the lactofen chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 0.044 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. For the acifluorfen acute dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 22.5 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. For the acifluorfen chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 3.9 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. Acifluorfen from lactofen and sodium acifluorfen were not combined because they are not expected to be used in the same area.

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).

There are no products containing lactofen as an active ingredient that are registered for use in a residential or other non-occupational setting. No residential exposure assessment is required.

Residential exposures to the environmental degradate acifluorfen may occur as a result of the use of sodium acifluorfen, which has registered residential spot treatment uses. The only scenario for residential exposure is a short-term spot treatment. Due to the frequency, duration and location of residential spot treatment applications, the Agency considered exposure to adults applying sodium acifluorfen and does not anticipate post-application dermal exposures.

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.”

Lactofen is a member of the diphenyl ether chemical family. The common toxicity that these compounds share is induction of liver effects (liver hypertrophy, increase in liver weight, tumors). Members of this class have been shown to induce rodent liver effects /tumors through the activation of the PPARα. It should be noted that liver hypertrophy and increases in liver weight are part of the range of morphological changes that result from chemically-mediated effects on the PPARα receptor and hepatocarcinogenesis. Although PPARα agonists can induce liver rodent tumors, the potential for PPARα agonists to induce liver tumors in other species, including humans, appears to be unlikely. This is because evidence shows that these other species are quantitatively less sensitive to the effects of PPARα agonism due to toxicodynamic differences between the human and rodent nuclear PPARα receptor. Thus, while this mode of action for liver tumors in rodent is qualitatively possible in humans, it is quantitatively implausible and unlikely to take place in humans. Accordingly, although members of the diphenyl ether family as well as other classes of compounds may share a common hepatocarcinogenic mode of action, cumulative exposure to PPARα agonists is unlikely to induce liver carcinogenesis in humans.

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 the policy statements released by EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs concerning common mechanism determinations and procedures for cumulating effects from substances found to have a common mechanism on EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative .

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 data base 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 . Although there is qualitative evidence of increased susceptibility in the prenatal developmental studies in rats and rabbits, the Agency did not identify any residual uncertainties after establishing toxicity endpoints and traditional uncertainty factors to be used in the risk assessment of lactofen. The degree of concern for prenatal and postnatal toxicity is low.

3. Conclusion . Several factors weighed in favor of the conclusion that no additional safety factor is needed to protect the safety of infants and children.

• There are no outstanding data gaps for developmental toxicity or reproductive toxicity studies;

• There are no residual uncertainties regarding prenatal and postnatal toxicity; and

• There are no residual uncertainties regarding the exposure of infants and children to lactofen.

Nonetheless, EPA determined that an additional safety factor was needed to address the lack of a NOAEL in the rabbit developmental study. Although sufficient reliable information has been submitted on developmental effects of lactofen in rabbits, no NOAEL was identified in one of the two rabbit developmental studies submitted. The endpoints of concern identified in available studies are: Decreased live young/litter, increased embryonic death/litter, and increased incidence of post-implantation loss. These effects were noted at all dose levels (5, 15, 50 mg/kg/day) thus a NOAEL was not established. Consequently, a LOAEL to NOAEL factor is appropriate and the risk assessment applies a 3X uncertainty factor. A FQPA uncertainty factor of infants and children and will be used for the LOAEL to NOAEL extrapolation. The 3X factor is considered to be protective because the incidence of the effects at the lowest dose tested was only marginally higher than the historical controls.

For sodium acifluorfen, the available toxicology database provides sufficient information for selecting various toxicity endpoints and doses for assessing the risks. The Agency evaluated the hazard and exposure data for sodium acifluorfen and recommended retaining the safety factor at 10X due to the data gap for the developmental neurotoxicity study in rats. In accordance with the current EPA policy, the 10x factor will be applied to all exposure durations.

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 margin of exposure (MOE) called for by the product of all applicable uncertainty/safety factors is not exceeded.

1. Acute risk . Acute (1-day) exposures to lactofen may result from consuming treated food and drinking water. No endpoints were identified for the general population so the only assessment was conducted for females ages 13-49. The results of the acute aggregate assessment for lactofen for food and drinking water show that all exposures are below the level of concern, with the lactofen assessments at less than 1% of the aPAD.

The acute aggregate assessment for acifluorfen includes food exposure from tolerance level residues (from sodium acifluorfen applications) and water exposures of acifluorfen as an environmental degradate of lactofen. No acute endpoints were identified for the general population so the only assessment was conducted for females ages 13-49. All exposures are below the level of concern, with the acifluorfen assessments at 6% of the aPAD.

Both the lactofen and acifluorfen assessments are likely to be overestimates of risk because they assume all of the crops (for which there are registered uses) consumed in the U.S. are treated and bear tolerance-level residues.

2. Chronic risk . Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that exposure to lactofen from food and water will utilize < 1% of the cPAD for all the population subgroups. There are no residential uses for lactofen that result in chronic residential exposure to lactofen.

The results of the long-term aggregate assessment for acifluorfen show that for food and drinking water, all exposures are below the level of concern. The most highly exposed subgroup in the acifluorfen assessment at 37% of the cPAD was infants, less than 1-year old.

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).

Lactofen 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.

An aggregate assessment was conducted for exposure to acifluorfen. Registered residential uses of sodium acifluorfen include spot treatments only. The short term endpoint selected applies to females ages 13-49, but is protective of all populations. The acifluorfen aggregate assessment for this exposure duration includes the average food exposure assuming tolerance level residues, average water exposure (acifluorfen as an environmental degradate of lactofen), and residential handler exposures. The MOE for the aggregate assessment is 16,000, which exceeds the target MOE of 1,000. Therefore, the acifluorfen short term aggregate risks are not of concern.

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).

An intermediate-term assessment is not required for lactofen as there are no residential uses of lactofen.

Intermediate-term exposure is not expected for acifluorfen because residential uses of sodium acifluorfen are limited to spot treatments that do not include broadcast application to lawns.

5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population . For the reasons discussed in Unit III.C.1.iii. the chronic aggregate assessments are protective of the carcinogenic effects for both lactofen and acifluorfen.

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 lactofen residues.

Acceptable gas chromatography with electron capture detection (GC/ECD) methods are available in the Pesticide Analytical Manual (PAM) Vol. II for the enforcement of tolerances of lactofen and metabolites in plant commodities. A modified version of Method B is listed in the EPA Index of Pesticide Analytical Methods under lactofen. Samples from the pepper and tomato field trials were analyzed using established GC/ECD enforcement methods or modified versions of established enforcement methods. The validated limits of quantitation (LOQs) were 0.01 ppm for peppers and 0.02 ppm from all other trials. The methods are adequate for data collection based on acceptable method validation and concurrent recovery data.

There are no established or proposed Codex, Canadian, or Mexican maximum residue limits (MRLs) for lactofen in any crops. Therefore, there are no international compatibility issues with respect to U.S. tolerances.

Therefore, the regional tolerance is established for residues of [the herbicide lactofen, 1-(carboethoxy)ethyl 5-[2-chloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-2- nitrobenzoate, in or on the following raw agricultural commodities: Vegetables, fruiting, group 8 at 0.02 ppm, and okra at 0.02 ppm.

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).

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).

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 .

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 .

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-2006-0968 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 20, 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-2006-0968, 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.

In the Federal Register of December 20, 2006 (71 FR 76321) (FRL-8104-4), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of pesticide petitions (PP 6E7108 and PP 6E7116) by Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR-4), 681 U.S. Highway No. 1 South, North Brunswick, NJ 08902-3390. The petitions requested that 40 CFR 180.472 be amended by establishing tolerances for combined residues of the insecticide imidacloprid, 1-[(6-chloro-3-pyridinyl)methyl]- N -nitro-2-imidazolidinimine, and its metabolites containing the 6-chloropyridinyl moiety, all expressed as imidacloprid, in or on peanut at 0.45 parts per million (ppm); peanut, hay at 70 ppm; peanut, meal at 0.9 ppm; kava, roots at 0.4 ppm; kava, leaves at 4.0 ppm; millet, pearl, grain at 0.05 ppm; millet, proso, grain at 0.05 ppm; and oat, grain at 0.05 (all requested in PP 6E7116); and on caneberry subgroup 13A and raspberry, wild at 2.5 ppm (requested in PP 6E7108). That notice included summaries of the petitions prepared by IR-4, which are available to the public in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov . There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

In the Federal Register of July 14, 2006 (71 FR 40099) (FRL-8060-4), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 6F7049) by Bayer CropScience LLC, 2 T. W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.472 be amended by establishing tolerances for combined residues of the insecticide imidacloprid, 1-[(6-chloro-3-pyridinyl)methyl]- N -nitro-2-imidazolidinimine, and its metabolites containing the 6-chloropyridinyl moiety, all expressed as imidacloprid, in or on soybean, aspirated grain fractions at 240.0 parts per million (ppm); soybean, forage at 8.0 ppm; soybean, hay at 30.0 ppm; and soybean, seed at 1.6 ppm. That notice referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Bayer CropScience LLC, 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 data supporting the petitions, EPA has modified the proposed tolerances. The modifications and reasons for these changes are explained in Unit V.

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 FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), 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 combined residues of imidacloprid, 1-[(6-chloro-3-pyridinyl)methyl]- N -nitro-2- imidazolidinimine, and its metabolites containing the 6-chloropyridinyl moiety, all expressed as the parent, in or on peanut at 0.45 ppm; peanut, hay at 35 ppm; peanut, meal at 0.75 ppm; millet, proso, grain at 0.05 ppm; millet, proso, forage at 2.0 ppm; millet, proso, hay at 6.0 ppm; millet, proso, straw at 3.0 ppm; millet, pearl, grain at 0.05 ppm; millet, pearl, forage at 2.0 ppm; millet, pearl, hay at 6.0 ppm; millet, pearl, straw at 3.0 ppm; kava, roots at 0.40 ppm; kava, leaves at 4.0 ppm; caneberry, subgroup 13-A at 2.5 ppm; raspberry, wild at 2.5 ppm; soybean, seed at 3.5 ppm; soybean, forage at 8.0 ppm; soybean hay at 35 ppm and aspirated grain fractions at 240 ppm. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with establishing the tolerance follows.

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 imidacloprid 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 June 13, 2003 (68 FR 35303), (FRL-7310-8); available at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/2003/June/Day-13/p14880.htm .

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 the NOAEL in the toxicology study identified as appropriate for use in risk assessment. However, if a NOAEL cannot be determined, the LOAEL of concern are identified 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 imidacloprid used for human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.B. of the final rule published in the Federal Register of June 13, 2003 (68 FR 35303), (FRL-7310-8); available at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/2003/June/Day-13/p14880.htm .

1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses . In evaluating dietary exposure to imidacloprid, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing imidacloprid tolerances in 40 CFR 180.472. EPA assessed dietary exposures from imidacloprid 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. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption information from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1994-1996, and 1998 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII). As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed all foods for which there are tolerances were treated and contain tolerance-level residues.

ii. Chronic exposure . In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 1994-1996, and 1998 Nationwide CSFII. As to residues in food, EPA assumed tolerance-level residues for all registered and proposed commodities. EPA relied on percent crop treated (PCT) information for some registered commodities but assumed 100 PCT for all proposed new uses.

iii. Cancer . An exposure assessment related to cancer risk is unnecessary. The Agency has classified imidacloprid as a “Group E” chemical, no evidence of carcinogenicity for humans, by all routes of exposure, based upon lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in rats and mice.

iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information . Section 408(b)(2)(F) of 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 FFDCA, EPA may require registrants to submit data on PCT.

The Agency used PCT information as follows:

For the acute dietary assessment, 100 PCT was assumed for all registered and proposed commodities. For the chronic assessment, average weighted PCT information was used for the following commodities: Apples (30%), artichokes (5%), garden beets (15%), blueberry (10%), broccoli (35%), brussels sprouts (55%), cabbage (20%), cantaloupe (30%), carrots (<1%), cauliflower (40%), celery (5%), cherries (5%), collards (10%), corn, field and sweet (<1%), cotton (5%), cucumbers (5%), eggplant (45%), grapefruit (5%), grapes (30%), honeydew (10%), hops (90%), kale (30%), lemons (<1%), lettuce (60%), oranges (5%), peaches (5%), pears (10%), peppers (25%), potatoes (35%), pumpkin (5%), spinach (20%), squash (10%), sugar beets (<1%), tangerines (10%), tomatoes (15%), and watermelon (10%). A default value of 1% was used for all commodities which were reported as having < 1 PCT.

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 United States Department of Agriculture/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.

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 imidacloprid 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 imidacloprid 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 imidacloprid. 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 First Index Screening Tool Reservoir (FIRST) and Screening Concentration in groundwater (SCI-GROW) models, the estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) of imidacloprid for acute exposures are estimated to be 36.0 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 2.09 ppb for ground water. The EECs for chronic exposures are estimated to be 17.2 ppb for surface water and 2.09 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 36.0 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 17.2 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).

Imidacloprid is currently registered for the following residential non-dietary sites: Granular products for application to lawns and ornamental plants; ready-to-use spray for application to flowers, shrubs and house plants; plant spikes for application to indoor and outdoor residential potted plants; ready-to-use (RTU) potting medium for indoor and outdoor plant containers; liquid concentrate for application to lawns, trees, shrubs and flowers; and ready-to-use liquid for directed spot application to cats and dogs. In addition, there are numerous registered products intended for use by commercial applicators to residential sites. These include gel baits for cockroach control; products intended for commercial ornamental, lawn and turf pest control; products for ant control; and products used as preservatives for wood products, building materials, textiles and plastics. As these products are intended for use by commercial applicators only, they are not to be addressed in terms of residential pesticide handler.

The risk assessment was conducted using the following residential exposure assumptions:

EPA has determined that residential handlers are likely to be exposed to imidacloprid residues via dermal and inhalation routes during handling, mixing, loading, and applying activities. Based on the current use patterns, EPA expects duration of exposure to be short-term (1-30 days). EPA does not expect imidacloprid use to result in intermediate-term or long-term exposure. The scenarios likely to result in adult dermal and/or inhalation residential handler exposures are as follows:

Dermal and inhalation exposure from using a granular push-type spreader.

Dermal exposure from using potted plant spikes.

Dermal exposure from using a plant potting medium.

Dermal and inhalation exposure from using a garden hose-end sprayer (Dermal and inhalation exposure from using a RTU trigger pump spray is expected to be negligible compared to exposures using a garden hose-end sprayer and is, therefore, not assessed separately).

Dermal and inhalation exposure from using a water can/bucket for soil drench applications.

Dermal exposure from using pet spot-on.

EPA has also determined that there is potential for short-term (1 to 30 days), post-application exposure of adults and children/toddlers from the many residential uses of imidacloprid. Due to residential application practices and the half-lives observed in the turf transferable residue study, intermediate-term and long-term post-application exposures are not expected. The scenarios likely to result in dermal (adult and child/toddler) and incidental oral non-dietary (child/toddler) short-term post-application exposures are as follows:

• Toddler oral hand-to-mouth exposure from contacting treated turf.

• Toddler incidental oral ingestion of granules.

• Toddler incidental oral ingestion of pesticide-treated pet.

• Toddler incidental oral exposure from contacting treated pet.

• Toddler dermal exposure from hugging treated pet/contacting treated pet.

• Toddler dermal exposure from contacting treated turf.

• Adult dermal exposure from contacting treated turf.

• Adult golfer dermal exposure from contacting treated turf.

• Adolescent golfer dermal exposure from contacting treated turf.

• Adult dermal exposure from contacting treated pet.

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 imidacloprid and any other substances and imidacloprid 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 imidacloprid 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 .

1. In general . Section 408 of 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 data base 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 and rabbit fetuses to in utero exposure 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 increased qualitative susceptibility in the rat developmental neurotoxicity study, but the concern is low since:

i. The effects in pups are well-characterized with a clear NOAEL;

ii. The pup effects occur in the presence of maternal toxicity with the same NOAEL for effects in pups and dams; and,

iii. The doses and endpoints selected for regulatory purposes are protective of the pup effects noted at higher doses in the developmental neurotoxicity study. Therefore, there are no residual uncertainties for pre-natal/post-natal toxicity in this study

3. Conclusion . EPA has determined that reliable data show that it would be safe for infants and children to reduce the FQPA safety factor to 1X. That decision is based on the following findings:

i. The toxicity database for imidacloprid is complete.

ii. Although there is evidence of qualitative susceptibility in the developmental neurotoxicity study in the rat, the concern is low and there are no residual uncertainties for pre-natal/post-natal toxicity, as discussed in Unit III.

iii. There is no evidence that imidacloprid results in increased susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal developmental studies or in young rats in the two-generation reproduction study.

iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The acute dietary food exposure assessment utilizes existing and proposed tolerance level residues and 100 PCT information for all commodities. By using these screening-level assumptions, actual exposures/ risks will not be underestimated. The chronic dietary food exposure assessment utilizes existing and proposed tolerance level residues and PCT data verified by the Agency for several existing uses. For all proposed uses, 100 PCT is assumed. The chronic assessment is somewhat refined and based on reliable data and will not underestimate exposure/risk. Conservative ground and surface water modeling estimates were used to estimate both acute and chronic exposures to residues of imidacloprid in drinking water. The residential handler assessment is based upon the residential standard operating procedures (SOPs) in conjunction with chemical-specific study data in some cases and the Pesticide Handlers Exposure Database (PHED) unit exposures in other cases. The majority of the residential post-application assessment is based upon chemical-specific turf transferable residue data or other chemical-specific post-application exposure study data. The chemical-specific study data and surrogate study data used are reliable and are not expected to underestimate risk to adults or to children. In a few cases where chemical-specific data were not available, the SOPs were used alone. The residential SOPs are based upon reasonable worst-case assumptions and are not expected to underestimate risk. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by imidacloprid.

Safety is assessed for acute and chronic risks by comparing aggregate exposure to the pesticide to the aPAD and 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 imidacloprid will occupy 70% of the aPAD for the population group (children, 1 to 2 years old) receiving the greatest exposure. Therefore, EPA does not expect the aggregate exposure to exceed 100% of the aPAD.

2. Chronic risk . Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that exposure to imidacloprid from food and water will utilize 38% of the cPAD for the population group (children, 1 to 2 years old) receiving the greatest exposure. Based on the residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of imidacloprid is not expected. Therefore, EPA does not expect the aggregate exposure to exceed 100% of the cPAD.

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).

Imidacloprid is currently registered for use that could result in short-term residential exposure and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic food and water and short-term exposures for imidacloprid.

Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures, EPA has concluded that food, water, and residential exposures aggregated result in aggregate MOEs of 310 for the general U.S. population and 170 for children, 1 to 2 years old, the population with the highest estimated aggregate short-term exposure to imidacloprid. These aggregate MOEs are based on the pet-treatment scenario, the use scenario resulting in the highest estimated residential exposures for adults and children. Post-application exposures from pet treatment and turf treatment were not combined in the short-term aggregate assessment, because of the low probability of these exposures co-occurring.

4. Intermediate-term risk . Intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level).

Intermediate-term and long-term aggregate risk assessments were not performed because, based on the current use patterns for imidacloprid, the Agency does not expect exposures of intermediate- or long-term durations to occur.

5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population . The Agency has classified imidacloprid as a “Group E” chemical, no evidence of carcinogenicity for humans, by all routes of exposure, based upon lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in rats and mice. Imidacloprid is not expected to pose a cancer risk.

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 imidacloprid residues.

Adequate enforcement methods are available for determination of imidacloprid residues of concern in plant (Bayer Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) Method 00200) and livestock commodities (Bayer GC/MS Method 00191). These methods have undergone successful EPA petition method validations (PMVs) and 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 .

There are no established Canadian or Mexican Maxium Residue Levels (MRLs) for the proposed uses. There is an established Codex MRL for the sum of imidacloprid and its metabolites containing the 6-chloropyridinyl moiety, expressed as imidacloprid, in/on cereal grain at 0.05 ppm, which is consistent with U.S. tolerances on cereal grains.

Based upon review of the data supporting the petitions, EPA has modified the proposed tolerances as follows: 1. Added tolerances for millet, proso, forage at 2.0 ppm; millet, proso, hay at 6.0 ppm; millet, proso, straw at 3.0 ppm; millet, pearl, forage at 2.0 ppm; millet, pearl, hay at 6.0 ppm; and millet, pearl, straw at 3.0 ppm (all in PP 6E7116); 2. Revised tolerances for peanut, hay at 35 ppm and peanut, meal at 0.75 ppm (PP 6E7116); soybean, hay at 35 ppm and soybean, seed at 3.5 ppm (PP 6F7049); and 3. Changed the commodity term “soybean, aspirated grain fractions” (PP 6F7049) to “aspirated grain fractions”, the recommended commodity term in the Office of Pesticide Program's Food and Feed Commodity Vocabulary. The proposed tolerance on oat grain (PP 6E7116) is not needed, since a tolerance of 0.05 ppm for oat, grain already exists. EPA determined that tolerances for millet forage, hay and straw are needed based on residue data for similar grain crops showing residues in these commodities. EPA determined that the proposed tolerances for peanut hay/meal and soybean hay/seed 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).

Therefore, tolerances are established for combined residues of imidacloprid, 1-[(6-chloro-3-pyridinyl)methyl]- N -nitro-2-imidazolidinimine, and its metabolites containing the 6-chloropyridinyl moiety, all expressed as imidacloprid, in or on peanut at 0.45 ppm; peanut, hay at 35 ppm; peanut, meal at 0.75 ppm; millet, proso, grain at 0.05 ppm; millet, proso, forage at 2.0 ppm; millet, proso, hay at 6.0 ppm; millet, proso, straw at 3.0 ppm; millet, pearl, grain at 0.05 ppm; millet, pearl, forage at 2.0 ppm; millet, pearl, hay at 6.0 ppm; millet, pearl, straw at 3.0 ppm; kava, roots at 0.40 ppm; kava, leaves at 4.0 ppm; caneberry, subgroup 13-A at 2.5 ppm; raspberry, wild at 2.5 ppm; soybean, seed at 3.5 ppm; soybean, forage at 8.0 ppm; soybean hay at 35 ppm and aspirated grain fractions at 240 ppm.

In the Federal Register of August 11, 2006 (71 FR 46110) (FRL-8081-8), EPA established a tolerance for residues of imidacloprid and its metabolites containing the 6-chloropyridinyl moiety, all expressed as the parent, in or on the commodity “Herbs subgroup 19B, fresh herbs”. The correct commodity term is “Herbs subgroup 19-A, fresh herbs”. Therefore, the tolerance for this commodity is revised to read “Herbs subgroup 19-A, fresh herbs” at 8.0 ppm.

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).

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).

This is a summary of the Commission's Order, FCC 07-94, adopted on May 17, 2007, and released on June 1, 2007. The complete text of this Order is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Courtyard Level, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554 and also may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., at 1-800-378-3160, CY-B402, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.

On June 15, 2006, President George W. Bush signed into law The Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005 (“Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act”). ( See Pub. L. 109-235, 120 Stat. 491 (2006)). The legislation amends section 503(b)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (“Communications Act”), 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(2), to increase the maximum forfeiture penalties for obscene, indecent, and profane broadcasts. This Order amends section 1.80(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules (“Rules”), 47 CFR 1.80(b)(1), to reflect the new penalties.

Section 1.80(b)(1) of the Rules specifies the maximum possible forfeiture penalties for a range of violations, including, but not limited to: Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of any Commission license, permit, certificate or instrument of authorization; failure to comply with any provision of the Communications Act or any Commission rule, regulation or order; and violation of section 1304 (broadcast of lottery information), 1343 (fraud by wire, radio or television) and 1464 (broadcast of obscene, indecent, or profane material) of Title 18 of the United States Code. Under the rule, the Commission may propose forfeitures against broadcast licensees of up to $32,500 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, except that the amount assessed for any continuing violation shall not exceed $325,000 for any single act or failure to act. The Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act increases those amounts for obscene, indecent, or profane broadcasts. Specifically, the new law raises the maximum forfeiture for the broadcast of obscenity, indecency, or profanity to $325,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, except that the amount assessed for any continuing violation shall not exceed $3,000,000 for any single act or failure to act. Accordingly, section 1.80(b)(1) will be modified to reflect the new maximum penalties specified in the legislation.

This Order is limited to revising section 1.80(b)(1) pursuant to the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act, which concerns only penalties for obscenity, indecency, and profanity broadcast violations. The existing penalty limits described in section 1.80(b)(1) would remain as the applicable maxima for all other broadcast violations subject to that rule.

The rule change adopted in this Order merely implements a specific statutory command and does not involve discretionary action on the part of the Commission. Accordingly, we find that, for good cause, compliance with the notice and comment provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act is unnecessary. ( See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)).

Since a notice of proposed rulemaking is not required, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq., does not apply. ( See 5 U.S.C. 603-604).

The actions taken herein have been analyzed with respect to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and found to impose no new or modified reporting and record keeping requirements or burdens on the public. In addition, therefore, our actions do not impose any new or modified information collection burden “for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

The Commission will send a copy of this Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

This document summarizes the Memorandum Opinion and Order in WT Docket No. 02-55, adopted on May 17, 2007, and released on May 18, 2007. The full text of this document is available for public inspection on the Commission's Internet site at http:// www.fcc.gov. It is also available for inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The full text of this document also may be purchased from the Commission's duplication contractor, Best Copy and Printing Inc., Portals II, 445 12th St., SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554; telephone (202) 488-5300; fax (202) 488-5563; e-mail FCC@BCPIWEB.COM .

1. In the 800 MHz Report and Order, 69 FR 67823 (November 22, 2004), the Commission ordered the rebanding of the 800 MHz band to resolve interference between commercial and public safety systems in the band. In that order, the Commission required Sprint Nextel Corporation (Sprint) to pay for relocation of all affected 800 MHz licensee systems to their new channel assignments, including the expense of retuning or replacing the licensee's equipment as required. Sprint must provide each relocating licensee with “comparable facilities” on the new channel(s), and must provide for a seamless transition to enable licensee operations to continue without interruption during the relocation process. In exchange for Sprint's undertaking these obligations and agreeing to relinquish a portion of its 800 MHz spectrum, the Commission modified Sprint's licenses to authorize operations on 10 megahertz of spectrum in the 1.9 GHz band. At the end of the rebanding process, Sprint will receive credit for the expenses it has incurred and the spectrum it has relinquished. If the value of these expenses and spectrum is less than the value the Commission assigned to the 1.9 GHz spectrum, Sprint must make a “windfall payment” for the difference to the U.S. Treasury.

2. In an April 20, 2007 ex parte filing, Sprint requested, inter alia, that the Commission clarify the standard in this proceeding for determining what rebanding costs are acceptable and therefore entitled to be credited by Sprint against its windfall payment obligation. Specifically, Sprint contends that its ability to negotiate cost provisions in its Planning Funding Agreements (PFAs) and Frequency Relocation Agreements (FRAs) with 800 MHz licensees is constrained by an overly narrow interpretation of language in the 800 MHz Report and Order that requires licensees to certify that the funds they request from Sprint “are the minimum necessary to provide facilities comparable to those presently in use.” Sprint asserts that “this ‘minimum necessary' cost standard has been interpreted for 21 months of this process to essentially mean the ‘absolute lowest cost.' ” As a result, “Sprint Nextel is in the position of having to challenge virtually every dollar spent on band reconfiguration to assure compliance with ‘minimum cost.' ” If it does not do so, Sprint contends that it risks violating its windfall payment obligation and could face criminal liability for agreeing to compensation of licensees that is later found to exceed the minimum cost standard.

3. To address this concern, Sprint states that it requires “unambiguous Commission guidance and permission to spend more dollars than it may think is absolutely necessary in order to move retuning forward and achieve the overall goals of 800 MHz reconfiguration.” Sprint requests that the Commission afford it “greater flexibility in its review and acceptance of cost proposals that may not be the lowest cost, but that are ‘reasonable and prudent' and that are consistent with the Commission's objectives in the overall band reconfiguration initiative.” However, Sprint stresses that “[t]his does not mean that all public safety proposed costs should be ‘rubber stamped' by Sprint Nextel or the TA.” Sprint asserts that under its proposed clarification of the “minimum necessary” cost standard, “public safety should still have the burden of demonstrating that requested funds are reasonable, prudent and necessary.”

4. On May 9, 2007, representatives of several public safety organizations submitted an ex parte letter supporting Commission clarification of this issue. The letter states that Sprint's “narrow interpretation” of the “minimum necessary” cost language has led to many protracted negotiations between Sprint and public safety licensees regarding rebanding costs, and has required public safety licensees to justify costs in “excruciating detail.” Public safety's letter urges the Commission “to take appropriate steps to permit rapid resolution of rebanding disputes, without parties having to battle over every dollar of estimated cost.”

5. We agree with Sprint that the term “minimum necessary” cost does not mean the absolute lowest cost in all circumstances. Rather, the term refers to the minimum cost necessary to accomplish rebanding in a reasonable, prudent, and timely manner. We do not expect Sprint to insist on reducing rebanding costs to their lowest possible level if the cost savings it seeks to achieve come at the expense of a reasonable, prudent, and timely approach toward accomplishing the rebanding task in question.

6. As Sprint notes, the Commission in the 800 MHz Report and Order provided that licensees seeking compensation from Sprint for rebanding costs must certify that “the funds requested are the minimum necessary to provide facilities comparable to those presently in use.” However, the Commission never intended this articulation of the standard for assessing costs to be viewed in isolation. In the 800 MHz Supplemental Order, 70 FR 6758 (February 8, 2005), the Commission further elaborated on the issue of acceptable costs, stating that “the Transition Administrator may authorize the disbursement of funds for any reasonable and prudent expense directly related to the retuning of a specific 800 MHz system.” Thus, the standard for determining acceptable costs takes into consideration both the cost amount and the degree to which the expenditure reasonably furthers the Commission's objectives in this proceeding. We therefore provide the following clarification of the standard to provide guidance to rebanding stakeholders and to reduce the likelihood of disputes over costs that could impede the rebanding process.

7. We clarify that the assessment in any individual PFA or FRA negotiation of whether a cost is “reasonable and prudent” may— and indeed should—take into account the overall goals of this proceeding, not just the issue of minimum cost. As the Commission has stated previously, one of the most critical of these goals is timely and efficient completion of the rebanding process, to ensure that the interference problem that threatens 800 MHz public safety systems is resolved as quickly and as comprehensively as possible. Another key goal is to minimize the burden rebanding imposes on public safety licensees, and to provide a seamless transition that preserves public safety's ability to operate during the transition.

8. In some instances, achieving these goals may justify greater expenditure than the minimum cost required to accomplish a task if these goals were not considered. For example, if identifying the most inexpensive equipment component required to provide “comparable facilities” would take months, thereby impeding timely completion of the task, Sprint would be justified in purchasing a slightly more expensive component that could be identified and procured within a few days. Similarly, in some systems, additional rebanding may proceed more efficiently and with less burden on first responders if rebanding tasks are initiated early in the process and carried on in stages throughout the process, even though this may be more costly than performing all of the rebanding work at once at a later date. In such cases, the Commission's orders allow the additional expense because performing all of the rebanding work at a later stage of the process could increase the transition burden on public safety and jeopardize timely completion of rebanding.

9. Another situation in which greater expenditure may be justified is when the possibility of identifying cost reductions is outweighed by the cost and time required to pursue the negotiation and mediation process. The Commission established the negotiation and mediation mechanism to facilitate resolution of disputed issues between Sprint and individual licensees. The Commission further determined that Sprint should pay the cost of both sides' participation in negotiations and mediation and receive credit for the expense. However, we are concerned that Sprint's assumption that it must adhere to a narrow interpretation of the “minimum necessary” cost standard has caused it to routinely challenge cost claims in virtually every negotiation and mediation. In many cases, the resulting cost of prolonged negotiation and mediation appears to be higher than the savings that resolution of the disputed issues would generate. In addition, prolonged negotiation and mediation of cost issues in multiple cases has impeded timely completion of the rebanding process. Therefore, we clarify that it is appropriate for Sprint to agree to (and the TA to approve) payment of disputed costs where such payment will avoid greater expense to negotiate and/or mediate the dispute and will further the goal of timely and efficient rebanding.

10. In providing the flexibility discussed above, we agree with Sprint that this standard does not allow “goldplating” by licensees or “rubber stamping” of proposed costs by Sprint and the TA. Licensees remain responsible for demonstrating that their funding requests do not exceed the minimum cost necessary to accomplish rebanding in a reasonable, prudent, and timely manner. Furthermore, Sprint should not propose to pay and the TA should not approve payment of higher costs when a lower-cost alternative is clearly available that would provide the licensee with comparable facilities as defined by the Commission's orders in this proceeding and would effectuate a smooth and timely transition.

11. We further clarify that in determining whether particular costs are acceptable, Sprint and other 800 MHz licensees may take into account costs that have been negotiated in other PFAs and FRAs for rebanding of similar systems, and that have been approved by the TA. Similarly, Sprint and other licensee may consider cost metrics that have been derived by the TA from aggregated PFA and FRA data. At this point in the rebanding process, Sprint has entered into numerous PFAs and FRAs with 800 MHz licensees. These agreements have been reached through vigorous arms-length negotiations and (in many cases) mediation, and have been approved by the TA as meeting the Commission's cost standards. As a result, the cost data from these agreements provides an important set of benchmarks for assessing the reasonability of costs in ongoing and future negotiations. In cases where Sprint and a licensee reach a PFA or FRA with costs that the TA can verify are consistent with these benchmarks, we will presume that the costs comply with the Commission's cost standard as articulated in this and prior orders in this proceeding.

12. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 303(f), 332, 337 and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303(f), 332, 337 and 405, this Memorandum Opinion and Order is hereby adopted.

13. It is further ordered that the request of Sprint Nextel Corporation is RESOLVED to the extent indicated herein.

14. This document does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified “information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

15. The Commission will send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).