24196 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 84 / Wednesday, May 2, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

is not conditioned on M’s payment of 

support or meeting of any other obligation, 

and the agreement otherwise conforms to the 

substance of Form 8332. For 2009, only L 

may claim Child as a qualifying child 

because in 2008 L revokes the release of the 

claim in accordance with paragraph (d)(3) of 

this section, and the revocation takes effect 

in 2009, the taxable year that begins in the 

first calendar year after L provides written 

notice of the revocation to M. 

Example 6. The facts are the same as 

Example 5, except that the agreement 

expressly states that L agrees not to claim 

Child as a dependent only if M is current in 

the payment of support for Child at the end 

of the calendar year. The separation 

agreement does not qualify as a written 

declaration under paragraph (d)(1) of this 

section because L’s agreement not to claim 

Child as a dependent is conditioned on M’s 

payment of support. Therefore, M may not 

claim Child as a qualifying child in 2007 or 

2009. 

Example 7. (i) N and P are the divorced 

parents of Child. Child resides with N for ten 

months and with P for two months in each 

year 2007 through 2009. In 2007, N provides 

a written statement to P that provides that N 

will not claim Child as a dependent but does 

not specify a year or years. P attaches the 

statement to P’s returns for 2007 through 

2009. 

(ii) Because the written statement provided 

by N does not specify the year or years for 

which P may claim Child as a qualifying 

child, under paragraph (d)(1) of this section, 

the written statement is not a written 

declaration that conforms to the substance of 

Form 8332. Therefore, P may not claim Child 

as a qualifying child in 2007 through 2009. 

Example 8. (i) R and S are the divorced 

parents of Child. Child resides solely with R. 

The divorce decree requires S to pay child 

support to R and requires R to execute a 

Form 8332 to release the right to claim Child 

as a qualifying child to S. R fails to sign a 

Form 8332 for 2007, and S attaches an 

unsigned Form 8332 to S’s return for 2007. 

(ii) Child is the qualifying child of R for 

2007. The order in the divorce decree 

requiring R to execute a Form 8332 is 

ineffective to allocate the right to claim Child 

as a qualifying child to S. Furthermore, under 

paragraph (d)(1) of this section, the unsigned 

Form 8332 does not conform to the substance 

of Form 8332. Therefore, S may not claim 

Child as a qualifying child in 2007. 

(iii) If, however, R executes a Form 8332 

for 2007 and S attaches the Form 8332 to S’s 

return, then S may claim Child as a 

qualifying child for 2007 under paragraph 

(d)(1) of this section. 

(g) Effective date. This section applies 

to taxable years beginning after the date 

these regulations are published as final 

regulations in the Federal Register. 

Kevin M. Brown, 

Deputy Commissioner for Services and 

Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. E7–8378 Filed 5–1–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[CGD09–07–014] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone; Baileys Harbor Fireworks, 

Baileys Harbor, WI 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

establish a temporary safety zone on 

Baileys Harbor. This zone is intended to 

restrict vessels from a portion of Baileys 

Harbor during the Baileys Harbor July 5, 

2007 fireworks display. This temporary 

safety zone is necessary to protect 

spectators and vessels from the hazards 

associated with fireworks displays. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must reach the Coast Guard on or before 

May 17, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments 

and related material to Commander, 

Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan 

(spw), 2420 South Lincoln Memorial 

Drive, Milwaukee, WI 53207. The Sector 

Lake Michigan Prevention Department 

maintains the public docket for this 

rulemaking. Comments and material 

received from the public, as well as 

documents indicated in this preamble as 

being available in the docket, will 

become part of this docket and will be 

available for inspection or copying at 

the Sector Lake Michigan Prevention 

Department between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

CWO Brad Hinken, Prevention 

Department, Coast Guard Sector Lake 

Michigan, Milwaukee, WI at (414) 747– 

7154. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Request for Comments 

We encourage you to participate in 

this rulemaking by submitting 

comments and related material. If you 

do so, please include your name and 

address, identify the docket number for 

this rulemaking [CGD09–07–014], 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and give the reason for each 

comment. Please submit all comments 

and related material in an unbound 

format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, 

suitable for copying. If you would like 

to know they reached us, please enclose 

a stamped, self-addressed postcard or 

envelope. We will consider all 

comments and material received during 

the comment period. We may change 

this proposed rule in view of them. 

Public Meeting 

We do not now plan to hold a public 

meeting. But you may submit a request 

for a meeting by writing to the Sector 

Lake Michigan Prevention Department 

at the address under ADDRESSES

explaining why one would be 

beneficial. If we determine that one 

would aid this rulemaking, we will hold 

one at a time and place announced by 

a later notice in the Federal Register. 

Background and Purpose 

This temporary safety zone is 

necessary to ensure the safety of vessels 

and spectators from hazards associated 

with a fireworks display. Based on 

accidents that have occurred in other 

Captain of the Port zones, and the 

explosive hazards of fireworks, the 

Captain of the Port Lake Michigan has 

determined fireworks launches in close 

proximity to watercraft pose significant 

risk to public safety and property. The 

likely combination of large numbers of 

recreation vessels, congested waterways, 

darkness punctuated by bright flashes of 

light, alcohol use, and debris falling into 

the water could easily result in serious 

injuries or fatalities. Establishing a 

safety zone to control vessel movement 

around the location of the launch 

platform will help ensure the safety of 

persons and property at these events 

and help minimize the associated risks. 

The comment period for this rule has 

been abbreviated to 15 days in order to 

provide a full 30 day notice period after 

publication before the rule becomes 

effective. 

Discussion of Proposed Rule 

A temporary safety zone is necessary 

to ensure the safety of spectators and 

vessels during the setup, loading and 

launching of a fireworks display in 

conjunction with the Baileys Harbor 

fireworks display. The fireworks display 

will occur between 9 p.m. (local) and 11 

p.m. (local) on July 5, 2007. 

The safety zone for the fireworks will 

encompass all waters of Lake Michigan, 

Baileys Harbor, within the arc of a circle 

with a 600-foot radius from the 

fireworks launch site located in position 

45[deg]04’03’’ N, 087[deg]06’08’’ W 

(NAD 83). 

All persons and vessels shall comply 

with the instructions of the Coast Guard 

Captain of the Port or the designated onscene 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 onscene representative. The Captain of the 

mmaher on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with $$_JOB

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 84 / Wednesday, May 2, 2007 / Proposed Rules 24197 

Port or his designated on-scene 

representative may be contacted via 

VHF Channel 16. 

Regulatory Evaluation 

This proposed 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. 

The Coast Guard will only use this 

safety zone for two hours on the date 

specified. This safety zone has been 

designed to allow vessels to transit 

unrestricted to portions of the harbor 

not affected by the zone. The Coast 

Guard expects insignificant adverse 

impact to mariners from the activation 

of this zone. 

Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered 

whether this proposed 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 proposed rule 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

This proposed rule would 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 Baileys Harbor 

on Lake Michigan off Baileys Harbor, 

WI, between 9 p.m. (local) and 11 p.m. 

(local) on July 5, 2007. The safety zone 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities for the following reasons. This 

rule would be in effect for only 2 hours. 

Vessel traffic can safely pass around the 

safety zone. 

If you think that your business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity 

and that this rule would have a 

significant economic impact on it, 

please submit a comment (see 

ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it 

qualifies and how and to what degree 

this rule would economically affect it. 

Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104– 

121), we want to assist small entities in 

understanding this proposed rule so that 

they can better evaluate its effects on 

them and participate in the rulemaking. 

If the rule would affect your small 

business, organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction and you have questions 

concerning its provisions or options for 

compliance, please contact CWO Brad 

Hinken, Prevention Department, Coast 

Guard Sector Lake Michigan, 

Milwaukee, WI at (414) 747–7154. The 

Coast Guard will not retaliate against 

small entities that question or complain 

about this rule or any policy or action 

of the Coast Guard. 

Collection of Information 

This proposed rule would call for no 

new collection of information under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3520). 

Federalism 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 

effect on State or local governments and 

would either preempt State law or 

impose a substantial direct cost of 

compliance on them. We have analyzed 

this proposed rule under that Order and 

have determined that it does not have 

implications for federalism. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 or more in any one year. 

Though this proposed rule would not 

result in such an expenditure, we do 

discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere 

in this preamble. 

Taking of Private Property 

This proposed rule would not effect 

the taking of private property or 

otherwise have taking implications 

under Executive Order 12630, 

Governmental Actions and Interference 

with Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights. 

Civil Justice Reform 

This proposed rule meets applicable 

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform, to minimize litigation, 

eliminate ambiguity, and reduce 

burden. 

Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13045, 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks. This rule is not an economically 

significant rule and would not create an 

environmental risk to health or risk to 

safety that might disproportionately 

affect children. 

Indian Tribal Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications under Executive 

Order 13175, Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments, because it would not have 

a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes. 

Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This proposed rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

mmaher on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with $$_JOB

24198 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 84 / Wednesday, May 2, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed 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 made a preliminary determination 

that there are no factors in this case that 

would limit the use of a categorical 

exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the 

Instruction. Therefore, we believe that 

this rule should be categorically 

excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph 

(34)(g) of the Instruction, from further 

environmental documentation. This 

proposed rule establishes a regulated 

navigation area and as such is covered 

by this paragraph. 

A preliminary ‘‘Environmental 

Analysis Check List’’ and ‘‘Categorical 

Exclusion Determination’’ are available 

in the docket where indicated under 

ADDRESSES. Comments on this section 

will be considered before we make the 

final decision on whether this rule 

should be categorically excluded from 

further environmental review. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and record keeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

1. The authority citation for Part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 

1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 

107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

2. Add § 165.T09–014 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T09–014 Safety zone; Baileys 

Harbor Fireworks, Baileys Harbor, WI. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

temporary safety zone: all waters of 

Lake Michigan, Baileys Harbor, within 

the arc of a circle with a 600-foot radius 

from the fireworks launch site located in 

position 45[deg]04’03’’ N, 

087[deg]06’08’’ W (NAD 83). 

(b) Effective period. This regulation is 

effective from 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. on July 

5, 2007. 

(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with 

the general regulations in section 165.23 

of this part, entry into, transiting, or 

anchoring within this safety zone is 

prohibited unless authorized by the 

Captain of the Port Lake Michigan, or 

his designated on-scene representative. (2) This safety zone is closed to all 

vessel traffic, except as may be 

permitted by the Captain of the Port 

Lake Michigan or his designated onscene representative. (3) The ‘‘on-scene representative’’ of 

the Captain of the Port is any Coast 

Guard commissioned, warrant or petty 

officer who has been designated by the 

Captain of the Port to act on his behalf. 

The on-scene representative of the 

Captain of the Port will be aboard either 

a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary 

vessel. The Captain of the Port or his 

designated on-scene representative may 

be contacted via VHF Channel 16. 

(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter 

or operate within the safety zone shall 

contact the Captain of the Port Lake 

Michigan or his on-scene representative 

to obtain permission to do so. Vessel 

operators given permission to enter or 

operate in the safety zone must comply 

with all directions given to them by the 

Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or his 

on-scene representative. 

Dated: April 17, 2007. 

Bruce C. Jones, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Lake Michigan. 

[FR Doc. E7–8445 Filed 5–1–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2007–0036; FRL–8120–3] 

Chloroneb, Cypermethrin, 

Methidathion, Nitrapyrin, Oxyfluorfen, 

Pirimiphos-methyl, Sulfosate, 

Tebuthiuron, Thiabendazole, 

Thidiazuron, and Tribuphos; Proposed 

Tolerance Actions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to revoke 

certain tolerances for the fungicides 

chloroneb and thiabendazole; the 

herbicide sulfosate; the defoliant 

thidiazuron; the insecticides 

cypermethrin, methidathion, and 

pirimiphos-methyl; and the soil 

microbiocide nitrapyrin. Also, EPA is 

proposing to modify certain tolerances 

for the fungicides chloroneb and 

thiabendazole; the herbicides 

oxyfluorfen and tebuthiuron; the 

defoliants thidiazuron and tribuphos; 

the insecticides cypermethrin, 

methidathion, and pirimiphos-methyl; 

and the soil microbiocide nitrapyrin. In 

addition, EPA is proposing to establish 

new tolerances for the fungicides 

chloroneb and thiabendazole; the 

herbicide oxyfluorfen; the defoliants 

thidiazuron and tribuphos; the 

insecticides cypermethrin, 

methidathion, and pirimiphos-methyl; 

and the soil microbiocide nitrapyrin. 

The regulatory actions proposed in this 

document are in follow-up to the 

Agency’s reregistration program under 

the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and tolerance 

reassessment program under the Federal 

Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) 

section 408(q). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 2, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2007–0036, by 

one of the following methods: 

<bullet≤ Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

<bullet≤ Mail: Office of Pesticide 

Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public 

Docket (7502P), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460– 

0001. 

<bullet≤ 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 telephone number is (703) 305– 

5805. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2007– 

0036. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the docket 

without change and may be made 

available on-line at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through regulations.gov or email. The Federal regulations.gov 

website is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ 

system, which means EPA will not 

know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send an 

e-mail comment directly to EPA without 

going through regulations.gov, your emmaher on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with $$_JOB