Unknown. Final rule
45,183 words·~205 min read·
/register/2006/11/02/06-9025A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
--- schema: federal-register doc_type: fedreg source_file: FR-2006-11-02.xml --- 71 212 Thursday, November 2, 2006 Contents Agency Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality NOTICES Meetings: Healthcare Research and Quality National Advisory Council, 64526-64527 06-9039 Agricultural Agricultural Marketing Service RULES Watermelon research and promotion plan; redistricting, 64439-64441 E6-18517 PROPOSED RULES Grade standards: Winter pears, 64478 E6-18504 NOTICES Grade standards:
Mixed commodities, 64509 E6-18514 Agriculture Agriculture Department See Agricultural Marketing Service See Forest Service See Natural Resources Conservation Service Centers Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services NOTICES Privacy Act; systems of records, 64527-64535 E6-18452 E6-18454 Coast Guard Coast Guard NOTICES Passenger vessels: Domestic vessel passenger weight; voluntary interim measures, 64546-64547 E6-18334 Commerce Commerce Department See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commodity Commodity Futures Trading Commission RULES Foreign futures and options transactions:
Foreign boards of trade located outside U.S.; requirement to become designated contract market or derivatives transaction execution facility, 64443-64451 E6-18513 Defense Defense Department See Navy Department NOTICES Base closures and reaignments; list; correction, 64513 06-9018 Employee Employee Benefits Security Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 64564 E6-18459 Energy Energy Department See Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office Energy Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office NOTICES Meetings:
Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technical Advisory Committee, 64513-64514 E6-18555 EPA Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air quality implementation plans; approval and promulgation; various States: Colorado, 64465-64468 E6-18416 West Virginia, 64468-64473 E6-18276 E6-18277 Wyoming, 64460-64465 E6-18423 NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 64514-64523 E6-18488 E6-18495 E6-18497 Confidential business information and data transfer, 64523-64524 E6-18490 Water supply:
Sole source aquifer designations— Northern Tug Hill Glacial Aquifer, Various counties, NY, 64524-64525 E6-18487 Executive Executive Office of the President See Presidential Documents FAA Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness directives: Pratt & Whitney, 64441-64443 E6-18368 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness directives: Bell Helicopter Textron, 64484-64488 E6-18462 Bombardier, 64482-64484 E6-18461 Airworthiness standards: Special conditions— Boeing Model 777 series airplane, 64478-64482 06-9025 NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 64606 06-9024 FMC Federal Maritime Commission NOTICES Complaints filed:
Transport Express, Inc., et al., 64525-64526 E6-18455 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Comprehensive conservation plans; availability, etc.: San Diego Bay National Wildlife Refuge, CA, 64552-64553 E6-18373 Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge, Various states; comprehensive conservation plan, 64553-64555 E6-18470 Environmental statements; notice of intent: Lincoln County, NV; Coyote Springs Investments Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan; public scoping meetings, 64555-64556 E6-18463 Food Food and Drug Administration RULES Animal drugs, feeds, and related products:
Glycopyrrolate, 64451 E6-18444 NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 64535-64541 E6-18432 E6-18445 Meetings: Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee, 64541 E6-18472 Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee, 64541-64542 E6-18442 Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act of 2004; questions and answers regarding food allergens (Edition 4), 64542-64543 E6-18443 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Environmental statements; notice of intent:
Clearwater National Forest, ID, 64509-64511 06-9016 Health Health and Human Services Department See Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality See Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services See Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Meetings: Vital and Health Statistics National Committee, 64526 06-9019 Homeland Homeland Security Department See Coast Guard See Transportation Security Administration NOTICES Privacy Act; systems of records, 64543-64546 06-9026 Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 64548-64552 E6-18433 E6-18434 E6-18438 Interior Interior Department See Fish and Wildlife Service See Land Management Bureau See National Park Service NOTICES Meeting:
Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Commission, 64552 06-9015 IRS Internal Revenue Service RULES Income taxes: Confidential transactions, 64458-64460 E6-18317 PROPOSED RULES Income taxes: Reportable transactions disclosure requirements; American Jobs Creation Act modifications; cross-reference, 64488-64496 E6-18319 Procedure and administration: Reportable transactions; disclosure by material advisors; American Jobs Creation Act modifications, 64496-64500 E6-18321 Reportable transactions; material advisors obligation to prepare and maintain lists, 64501-64504 E6-18323 Justice Justice Department See Prisons Bureau NOTICES Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.:
Federal antidiscrimination, whistleblower protection, and retaliation laws; No FEAR Act notice, 64562-64563 06-9022 Labor Labor Department See Employee Benefits Security Administration Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Closure of public lands: Nevada, 64556-64557 E6-18500 Oregon, 64557 E6-18499 Survey plat filings: Wisconsin, 64557 E6-18464 Maritime Maritime Administration NOTICES Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Neptune LNG L.L.C., Liquefied Natural Gas Deepwater Port, MA; license application and public hearings, 64606-64608 E6-18496 National Archives National Archives and Records Administration NOTICES Meetings:
Electronic Records Archives Advisory Committee, 64565 E6-18473 National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration RULES Motor vehicle safety standards: Glazing materials— Low-speed vehicles, etc.; correction, 64473-64474 E6-18390 NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fishery conservation and management: Western Pacific fisheries— Bottomfish and seamount groundfish, 64474-64477 E6-18506 NOTICES Committees; establishment, renewal, termination, etc.:
Climate Change Science Program Product Development Committee for Synthesis and Assessment Product 1.3, 64511-64512 06-9017 Endangered and threatened species: Recovery plans— White abalone, 64512 E6-18505 Marine mammal permit applications, determinations, etc., 64512-64513 E6-18503 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Native American human remains, funerary objects; inventory, repatriation, etc.: Southwest Museum of the American Indian, Autry National Center, Los Angeles, CA, E6-18476 64558-64561 E6-18483 E6-18509 Thomas Burke Memorial Washington State Museum, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 64561-64562 E6-18479 E6-18482 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978; permit applications, etc., E6-18421 64565-64566 E6-18460 NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NOTICES Meetings:
Agricultural Air Quality Task Force, 64511 E6-18491 Navy Navy Department NOTICES Privacy Act; systems of records, 64513 06-8999 Nuclear Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Environmental statements; notice of intent: PPL Susquehanna LLC, 64566-64568 E6-18466 Meetings: Nuclear Waste Advisory Committee, 64568-64570 E6-18468 E6-18469 Reactor Safeguards Advisory Committee, 64570 E6-18467 Presidential Presidential Documents PROCLAMATIONS *Special observances:* National Adoption Month (Proc. 8074), 64611-64614 06-9052 National Alzheimer's Disease Awareness Month (Proc. 8075), 64615-64616 06-9060 National American Indian Heritage Month (Proc. 8076), 64617-64618 06-9061 National Diabetes Month (Proc. 8077), 64619-64620 06-9062 National Family Caregivers Month (Proc. 8078), 64621-64622 06-9063 National Hospice Month (Proc. 8079), 64623-64628 06-9064 06-9069 Veterans Day (Proc. 8080), 64625-64628 06-9069 ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS Sudan; continuation of national emergency (Notice of November 1, 2006), 64629 06-9070 Prisons Prisons Bureau PROPOSED RULES Inmate control, custody, care, etc.:
Drug Abuse Treatment Program; D.C. Code offenders; early release eligibility, 64507-64508 E6-18439 Inmate Work and Performance Pay Program; drug- and alcohol-related disciplinary offenses; pay reduction, 64505-64507 E6-18447 Intensive Confinement Center Program; elimination, 64504-64505 E6-18437 NOTICES Inmate control, custody, care, etc.: Incarceration, Federal inmates; average cost annual determination, 64563-64564 E6-18446 Railroad Railroad Retirement Board NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 64570-64571 E6-18448 SEC Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Investment Company Act of 1940:
Pebblebrook Fund, Inc., et al., 64571-64573 E6-18474 Self-regulatory organizations; proposed rule changes: American Stock Exchange LLC, 64573-64590 E6-18478 Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., 64590-64594 E6-18481 New York Stock Exchange LLC, 64594-64596 E6-18450 NYSE Arca, Inc., 64596 E6-18449 Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc., 64597-64604 E6-18451 E6-18484 State State Department RULES Legal and related services: Intercountry adoption; Hague Convention certificates and declarations issuance in Convention adoption cases, 64451-64458 E6-18507 Surface Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Railroad services abandonment:
Timber Rock Railroad, Inc., 64608-64609 E6-18411 TVA Tennessee Valley Authority NOTICES Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: Federal antidiscrimination, whistleblower protection, and retaliation laws; No FEAR Act notice, 64604-64605 E6-18457 Transportation Transportation Department See Federal Aviation Administration See Maritime Administration See National Highway Traffic Safety Administration See Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 64605-64606 E6-18475 Transportation Transportation Security Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 64547-64548 E6-18485 Treasury Treasury Department See Internal Revenue Service Veterans Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board; membership, 64609 E6-18419 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Executive Office of the President, Presidential Documents, 64611-64624 06-9052 06-9063 06-9064 Part III Executive Office of the President, Presidential Documents, 64625-64629 06-9069 06-9070 Reader Aids Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions. 71 212 Thursday, November 2, 2006 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 1210 [FV-05-704-FR] Watermelon Research and Promotion Plan; Redistricting AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Department of Agriculture
(USDA)is adopting as a final rule, without change, an interim final rule that reapportioned the producer and handler membership on the National Watermelon Promotion Board (Board). The final rule continues in effect the realignment of all seven districts under the Watermelon Research and Promotion Plan
(Plan)based on three-year United States production records for watermelons and the assessments paid in each district. The change was proposed by the Board, which administers the nationally coordinated program, in accordance to the provisions of the Plan which require a review of the districts' alignment at least every five years. DATES: Effective December 4, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeanette Palmer, Marketing Specialist, Research and Promotion Branch, FVP, AMS, USDA, Room 0635-S, Stop 0244, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0244; telephone
(202)720-9915 or
(888)720-9917 (toll free); fax:
(202)205-2800; or e-mail *jeanette.palmer@usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule is issued under the Watermelon Research and Promotion Plan [7 CFR part 1210]. The Plan is authorized under the Watermelon Research and Promotion Act
(Act)7 U.S.C. 4901-4916]. Executive Orders 12886 The Office of Management and Budget has waived the review process required by Executive Order 12866 for this action. Executive Order 12988 In addition, this rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. The rule is not intended to have retroactive effect and will not affect or preempt any other State or Federal law authorizing promotion or research relating to an agricultural commodity. The Act allows producers, handlers, and importers to file a written petition with the Department of Agriculture (Department) if they believe that the Plan, any provision of the Plan, or any obligation imposed in connection with the Plan, is not established in accordance with the law. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Paperwork Reduction Act In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA)[5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ], the Agricultural Marketing Service has considered the economic impact of this action on the small businesses and has certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory action to scale on businesses subject to such action so that small businesses will not be disproportionately burdened. The Small Business Administration defines, in 13 CFR part 121, small agricultural producers as those having annual receipts of no more than $750,000 and small agricultural service firms (handlers and importers) as those having annual receipts of no more than $6.5 million. Under these definitions, the majority of the producers, handlers, and importers that would be affected by this rule would be considered small entities. Producers of less than 10 acres of watermelons are exempt from this program. Importers of less than 150,000 pounds of watermelons per year are also exempt. According to the Board, there are approximately 1,301 producers, 442 handlers, and 346 importers who are eligible to serve on the Board. The Plan requires producers to be nominated by producers, handlers to be nominated by handlers, and importers to be nominated by importers. This will not change. Because some current members are in states or counties which will be moved to other districts under this rule, one handler vacancy in the new District 4, one producer member vacancy in the new District 5, and one handler member vacancy in the new District 2 is created with this rule change. Nomination meetings will be held in the new districts to fill these vacancies. The overall impact is favorable because the new district boundaries provide more equitable representation for the producers and handlers who pay assessments in the various districts. The current importer membership will not change. The Board considered several alignments of the districts in an effort to provide balanced representation for each district. The Board selected the alignment described in this rule as it provides proportional representation on the Board of producers, handlers, and importers. This rule does not impose additional recordkeeping requirements on first handlers, producers, or importers of watermelons because the number of nominees would remain unchanged. There are no Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule. In accordance with the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)regulation [5 CFR part 1320] which implements the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 [44 U.S.C. Chapter 35], the information collection and recordkeeping requirements that are imposed by the Plan have been approved previously under OMB control number 0581-0093. This rule does not result in a change to the information collection and recordkeeping requirements previously approved. Background Under the Plan, the Board administers a nationally coordinated program of research, development, advertising, and promotion designed to strengthen the position of watermelons in the market place and to establish, maintain, and expand markets for watermelons. This program is financed by assessments on producers growing 10 acres or more of watermelons, handlers of watermelons, and importers of 150,000 pounds of watermelons or more per year. The Plan specifies that handlers are responsible for collecting and submitting both the producer and handler assessments to the Board, reporting their handling of watermelons, and maintaining records necessary to verify their reporting(s). Importers are responsible for payment of assessments to the Board on watermelons imported into the United States through the U.S. Customs Service and Border Protection. This action will not have any impact on the assessment rates paid by producers, handlers, and importers. Membership on the Board consists of two producers and two handlers for each of the seven districts established by the Plan, at least one importer, and one public member. The Board currently has 35 members: 14 producers, 14 handlers, 6 importers, and 1 public member. The seven current districts were established in 2001. They are: *District 1* —The Florida counties of Brevard, Broward, Collier, Dade, Glades, Hardee, Hendry, Highlands, Indian River, Lee, Martin, Monroe, Okeechobee, Osceola, Palm Beach, Polk, and St. Lucie. *District 2* —The Florida counties of Alachula, Baker, Bay, Bradford, Calhoun, Charlotte, Citrus, Clay, Columbia, Desoto, Dixie, Duval, Escambia, Flagler, Franklin, Gadsden, Gilchrist, Gulf, Hamilton, Hernando, Hillsborough, Holmes, Jackson, Jefferson, Lafayette, Lake, Leon, Levy, Liberty, Madison, Manatee, Marion, Nassau, Okaloosa, Orange, Pasco, Pinnellas, Putnam, Santa Rosa, Sarasota, Seminole, St. Johns, Sumter, Suwannee, Taylor, Union, Volusia, Wakulla, Walton, and Washington. *District 3* —Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Tennessee. *District 4* —Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, D.C., West Virginia, and Wisconsin. *District 5* —Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, Wyoming and the California counties of Alameda, Alpine, Amador, Butte, Calaveras, Colusa, Contra Costa, Del Norte, El Dorado, Fresno, Glenn, Humboldt, Inyo, Kern, Kings, Lake, Lassen, Madera, Marin, Mariposa, Mendocino, Merced, Modoc, Mono, Monterey, Napa, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Sacramento, San Benito, San Francisco, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, Solano, Sonoma, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama, Trinity, Tulare, Toulumne, Venture, Yolo, and Yuba. *District 6* —Texas. *District 7* —Arizona, New Mexico, and the California counties of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego. The six importer membership positions on the Board are proportionate to the percentage of assessments paid by the importers. Pursuant to section 1210.320(c) of the Plan, the Board shall review the seven districts to determine whether realignment of the districts is necessary, every five years. When making a review, the Plan specifies that the Board should consider factors such as the most recent three years of USDA production reports or Board assessment reports if USDA production reports are unavailable, shifts and trends in quantities of watermelons produced, and any other relevant factors. Any realignment should be recommended by the Board at least six months prior to the date of the call for nominations and should become effective at least 30 days prior to this date. Pursuant to section 1210.320 (e), the Secretary shall review importer representation every five years. According to the Plan, the Secretary shall review a three-year average of watermelon import assessments and adjust, to the extent practicable, the number of importers on the Board. The Board appointed a subcommittee to begin reviewing the U.S. districts and to determine whether realignment was necessary based on production and assessment collections in the current districts. During the review, as prescribed by the Plan, the subcommittee reviewed USDA's Annual Crop Summary reports for 2002 through 2004, which provide figures for the top 17 watermelon producing states, and the Board's assessment collection records for 2002 through 2004. Both sets of data showed similar trends in production among the various states. However, the Board used the assessment reports because USDA's Annual Crop Summary reports were available for only 17 of the 34 states in which watermelons are produced. The subcommittee recommended to the Board that the boundaries of all seven districts be changed in order for there to be an equal amount of assessments paid by producers and handlers in the districts. The subcommittee also provided information that the average annual percentage of assessments paid by importers continued to represent 20 percent of the Board's assessment income during 2002 through 2004. Because there was no change in the assessments on imports, it is not necessary to change the number of importer representatives on the Board. Therefore, the number of importer Board members remains at six. Subsequently, the realignment was approved by the Board at its February 22, 2005, meeting. Under the realignment, each district will represent, on average, 14 percent of total U.S. production. The composition of the Board will remain at a total of 35 members: 14 producers, 14 handlers, 6 importers, and 1 public member. Therefore, this rule realigns the districts as follows: *District 1* —The Florida counties of Brevard, Broward, Charlotte, Citrus, Collier, Dade, DeSoto, Flagler, Glades, Hardee, Hendry, Hernando, Highlands, Hillsborough, Indian River, Lake, Lee, Manatee, Martin, Marion, Monroe, Okeechobee, Orange, Osceola, Palm Beach, Pasco, Pinellas, Polk, Putnam, Sarasota, Seminole, St. Johns, St. Lucie, Sumter, and Volusia. *District 2* —The Florida counties of Alachua, Baker, Bay, Bradford, Calhoun, Clay, Columbia, Dixie, Duval, Escambia, Franklin, Gadsden, Gilchrist, Gulf, Hamilton, Holmes, Jackson, Jefferson, Lafayette, Leon, Levy, Liberty, Madison, Nassau, Okaloosa, Santa Rosa, Suwannee, Taylor, Union, Wakulla, Walton, Washington, and the Georgia counties Early, Baker, Miller, Mitchell, Colquitt, Thomas, Grady, Decatur, Seminole, and the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Virginia. *District 3* —The Georgia counties not included in District two and the state of South Carolina. *District 4* —The States of North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Missouri, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, West Virginia, Maryland, New Hampshire, Maine, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Delaware, Vermont, Wisconsin, Connecticut, and Washington, DC. *District 5* —The States of Alaska, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington and all of the counties in the state of California except for those California counties included in District Seven. *District 6* —The counties in the state of Texas, except for those counties in Texas included in District Seven. *District 7* —The counties in the state of Texas; Dallam, Sherman, Hanaford, Ochiltree, Lipscomb, Hartely, Moore, Hutchinson, Roberts, Hemphill, Oldham, Potter, Carson, Gray, Wheeler, Deaf Smith, Randall, Armstrong, Donley, Collingsworth, Parmer, Castro, Swisher, Briscoe, Hall, Childness, Bailey, Lamb, Hale, Floyd, Motley, Cottle, Cochran, Hockely, Lubbock, Crosby, Dickens, King, Yoakum, Terry, Lynn, Garza, Kent, Stonewall, the states of New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, and the following counties in California; San Bernardino, Riverside, San Diego, and Imperial. Under this realignment:
(1)Eighteen Florida counties are moved from District 2 to District 1;
(2)Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee are moved from District 3 to District 2;
(3)North Carolina, Virginia and Oklahoma are moved from District 4 to District 2;
(4)Georgia counties Early, Baker, Miller, Colquitt, Thomas, Grady, Decatur, and Seminole are moved from District 3 to District 2;
(5)Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah and Colorado are moved from District 5 to District 7;
(6)Texas counties Dallam, Sherman, Hanaford, Ochiltree, Lipscomb, Hartely, Moore, Hutchinson, Roberts, Hemphill, Oldham, Potter, Carlson, Gray, Wheeler, Deaf Smith, Randall, Armstrong, Donley, Collingsworth, Parmer, Castro, Swisher, Briscoe, Hall, Childness, Bailey, Lamb, Hale, Floyd, Motley, Cottle, Cochran, Hockely, Lubbock, Crosby, Dickens, King, Yoakum, Terry, Lynn, Garza, Kent, and Stonewall, are moved from District 6 to District 7; and
(7)California counties Los Angeles and Orange are moved from District 7 to District 5. Due to the re-alignment of the districts the following vacancies are created: one handler vacancy in District 4, one handler vacancy in District 2, and one producer vacancy in District 5. Current Board members would be affected because their states or counties would be moved to other districts. Nomination meetings will be held as soon as possible in the new districts to fill the vacancies. An interim final rule that re-aligned the districts under the Plan was published in the **Federal Register** on June 14, 2006. Copies of the rule were made available through the Internet by USDA and the Office of the Federal Register. That rule provided a 30-day comment period which ended July 15, 2006. Two comments were received by the deadline. Two unfavorable comments were received. The commenters' state that USDA should not be marketing the agribusiness products at the expense of the taxpayers; however, the Board is industry-funded and, as such, taxpayers' dollars are not expended on this program. After consideration of all relevant material presented including comments, the Board's recommendation, and other information, it is found that finalizing the interim final rule, without change, as published in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 34232) on June 14, 2006, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act. List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1210 Administrative practice and procedure, Advertising, Consumer information, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Watermelon promotion. 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 1210 continues to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 4901-4916. PART 1210—WATERMELON RESEARCH AND PROMOTION PLAN The interim final rule amending of 7 CFR part 1210, which was published in the June 14, 2006, **Federal Register** at 71 FR 34232 is adopted without change. Dated: October 27, 2006. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E6-18517 Filed 11-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-24487; Directorate Identifier 2006-NE-13-AD; Amendment 39-14810; AD 2006-22-13] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney PW4074, PW4074D, PW4077, PW4077D, PW4084D, PW4090, PW4090-3, and PW4098 Turbofan Engines AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for Pratt & Whitney PW4074, PW4074D, PW4077, PW4077D, PW4084D, PW4090, PW4090-3, and PW4098 turbofan engines, with certain front turbine hub part numbers installed. This AD requires a onetime visual inspection of the anti-rotation slots in the front turbine hub, for a machining nonconformance, and its replacement if the inspection failed. This AD results from a report of a crack found in an anti-rotation slot of a front turbine hub, during overhaul shop inspection. The anti-rotation slot geometry was not machined in conformance with the design drawing during manufacture. We are issuing this AD to prevent uncontained engine failure, damage to the airplane, and injury to passengers. DATES: This AD becomes effective December 7, 2006. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations as of December 7, 2006. ADDRESSES: You can get the service information identified in this AD from Pratt & Whitney, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT 06108; telephone
(860)565-8770; fax
(860)565-4503. You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Antonio Cancelliere, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; telephone
(781)238-7751; fax
(781)238-7199. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with a proposed AD. The proposed AD applies to Pratt & Whitney PW4074, PW4074D, PW4077, PW4077D, PW4084D, PW4090, PW4090-3, and PW4098 turbofan engines, with certain front turbine hub part numbers installed. We published the proposed AD in the **Federal Register** on June 9, 2006 (71 FR 33412). That action proposed to require a onetime visual inspection of the anti-rotation slots in the front turbine hub, for a machining nonconformance, and its replacement if the inspection failed. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the docket that contains the AD, any comments received, and any final disposition in person at the Docket Management Facility Docket Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone
(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Department of Transportation Nassif Building at the street address stated in ADDRESSES . Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the DMS receives them. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comments received. Request To Allow Use of Electro-Chemical Etch United Airlines requests that we allow using the electro-chemical etch method for marking parts in this AD, as an alternate marking method. The commenter states that the electro-chemical etch method is better because it leaves no raised metal to wear on other mating parts. We agree, provided that the electro-chemical etch instructions from Pratt & Whitney are followed. Those instructions can be found in Pratt & Whitney's Cleaning, Inspection, and Repair Manual, part number 51A750, and in their Standard Practices Manual, part number 585005. Because the marking instructions are part of the service bulletin paragraphs that we incorporated by reference, we did not change the AD. Request To Eliminate Reporting Requirement United Airlines requests that we eliminate the reporting requirement of inspection findings, from the AD. The commenter states that the reporting will not enhance airworthiness. We agree. However, our proposed AD incorporates by reference paragraphs 1.A. through 1.C.(2) of the Accomplishment Instructions of Pratt & Whitney Service Bulletin No. PW4G-112-72-282, Revision 1, dated March 3, 2006, which do not require reporting. We did not change the AD. Request To Change Compliance Paragraph
(e)Pratt & Whitney requests that we change compliance paragraph (e), which states that you are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed at the next exposure of the rear side of the front turbine hub after the effective date of this AD, unless the actions have already been done. They state that this could be interpreted to mean that the engine must be disassembled and inspected because the front turbine hub is not at piece-part level. We agree. We changed paragraph
(e)in the AD to read “you are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed at the next disassembly at piece-part level of the front turbine hub after the effective date of this AD, unless the actions have already been done.” Conclusion We 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. We determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this AD will affect 117 Pratt & Whitney PW4074, PW4074D, PW4077, PW4077D, PW4084D, PW4090, PW4090-3, and PW4098 turbofan engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take one work-hour per engine to perform the actions, and that the average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. A replacement front turbine hub will cost about $253,000 for a PW4074, PW4074D, PW4077, PW4077D, or PW4084D engine, and about $283,000 for a PW4090, PW4090-3, or PW4098 engine. To date, the failure rate of inspected front turbine hubs is ten per cent. Therefore, we expect the cost of the AD to U.S. operators to be $3,144,960. Authority for This Rulemaking 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. Regulatory Findings 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 summary of the costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary at the address listed under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive: **2006-22-13 Pratt & Whitney:** Amendment 39-14810. Docket No. FAA-2006-24487; Directorate Identifier 2006-NE-13-AD. Effective Date
(a)This airworthiness directive
(AD)becomes effective December 7, 2006. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Pratt & Whitney PW4074, PW4074D, PW4077, PW4077D, PW4084D, PW4090, PW4090-3, and PW4098 turbofan engines, with front turbine hub part numbers 50L761, 52L701, 55L221, 52L901, 53L121, 55L521, and 53L021, installed. These engines are installed on, but not limited to, Boeing 777 airplanes. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from a report of a crack found in an anti-rotation slot of a front turbine hub, during overhaul shop inspection. The anti-rotation slot geometry was not machined in conformance with the design drawing during manufacture. We are issuing this AD to prevent uncontained engine failure, damage to the airplane, and injury to passengers. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed at the next disassembly at piece-part level of the front turbine hub after the effective date of this AD, unless the actions have already been done. Onetime Visual Inspection
(f)For front turbine hubs listed by part number and serial number in Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3 of Pratt & Whitney Service Bulletin
(SB)No. PW4G-112-72-282, Revision 1, dated March 3, 2006, do the following:
(1)Perform a onetime visual inspection for extra fillet radii in the anti-rotation slots.
(2)Use paragraphs 1.A. through 1.C.(2) of the Accomplishment Instructions of Pratt & Whitney SB No. PW4G-112-72-282, Revision 1, dated March 3, 2006, to do the inspection.
(3)Remove from service any front turbine hub that has extra fillet radii in the anti-rotation slots and install a serviceable front turbine hub. Prohibition of Front Turbine Hubs That Have Extra Fillet Radii in the Anti-Rotation Slots
(g)After the effective date of this AD, do not install any front turbine hub that has extra fillet radii in the anti-rotation slots, onto any engine. Previous Credit
(h)Previous credit is allowed for front turbine hubs inspected using Pratt & Whitney SB No. PW4G-112-72-282, dated February 27, 2006, or Revision 1, dated March 3, 2006, before the effective date of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance
(i)The Manager, Engine Certification Office, has the authority to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Material Incorporated by Reference
(j)You must use Pratt & Whitney Service Bulletin No. PW4G-112-72-282, Revision 1, dated March 3, 2006, to perform the actions required by this AD. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service bulletin in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Pratt & Whitney, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT 06108; telephone
(860)565-8770; fax
(860)565-4503, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the FAA, New England Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.* Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on October 24, 2006. Peter A. White, Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-18368 Filed 11-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 17 CFR Part 140 Boards of Trade Located Outside of the United States and No-Action Relief From the Requirement To Become a Designated Contract Market or Derivatives Transaction Execution Facility AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading Commission. ACTION: Policy statement. SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures Trading Commission is issuing a Statement of Policy that affirms the use of the no-action process to permit foreign boards of trade to provide direct access to their electronic trading systems to U.S. members or authorized participants, and provides additional guidance and procedural enhancements. 1 1 Commission Rule 140.12, 17 CFR § 140.12 Disposition of business by seriatim Commission consideration. DATES: *Effective Date:* November 2, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Rosenfeld, Deputy Director, Office of International Affairs, 202-418-5423, *rrosenfeld@cftc.gov* ; Julian Hammar, Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, 202-418-5118, *jhammar@cftc.gov* ; or Duane Andresen, Special Counsel, Division of Market Oversight, 202-418-5492, *dandresen@cftc.gov* , Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Since 1996, staff of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC or Commission) has issued no-action letters 2 to foreign boards of trade stating, subject to compliance with certain conditions, that it will not recommend that the Commission take enforcement action if the foreign board of trade provides its members or participants in the United States access to its electronic trading system without seeking designation under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA or Act) as a contract market
(DCM)or registration as a derivatives transaction execution facility (DTEF). 3 In 1998 the Commission imposed a moratorium on the issuance of such no-action letters pending the development of rules governing access to automated foreign boards of trade. 4 During this period, the Commission received extensive comment on the proposed rulemaking, as well as advice from the Commission's Global Markets Advisory Committee and a Public Round Table. Because of the general lack of consensus on many of the fundamental issues surrounding access to foreign boards of trade, the Commission withdrew the proposed rules in an order that also directed the staff: 2 *See* Commission Rule 140.99, 17 CFR 140.99 (2006), which defines the term “no-action letter” as a written statement issued by the staff of a Division of the Commission or of the Office of the General Counsel that it will not recommend enforcement action to the Commission for failure to comply with a specific provision of the Act or of a Commission rule, regulation or order if a proposed transaction is completed or a proposed activity is conducted by the beneficiary. 3 These letters, hereinafter referred to generally as “no-action letters” are published on the Commission's Web site at: *http://www.cftc.gov/dea/deaforeignterminaltable.htm* . Reference to DTEFs in the no-action letters was added following the establishment of that category by the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. Although the letters refer to the placement of “terminals,” the continued use of that term does not accurately reflect advances in technology, such as open network systems accessible through the Internet. 4 63 FR 39779 (July 24, 1998) (Concept Release); 64 FR 14159 (March 24, 1999) (Proposed Rules). Under the terms of a letter dated June 3, 1998 to Eurex Deutschland, the Division of Trading and Markets modified the terms of the original 1996 no-action letter to the effect that Eurex members who were not already operating U.S.-based Eurex Terminals generally were prevented from placing Eurex terminals in the U.S. absent written authorization from the Division, pending adoption of Commission rules regarding electronic access to foreign exchanges. To begin immediately processing no-action requests from foreign boards of trade seeking to place trading terminals in the United States, and to issue responses where appropriate, pursuant to the general guidelines included in the Eurex
(DTB)no-action process, or other guidelines established by the Commission, to be reviewed and applied as appropriate on a case-by-case basis. 5 5 Commission Order dated June 2, 1999, 64 FR 32829, 32830 (June 18, 1999). The Eurex-DTB no-action process referred to by the Commission in its 1999 Order lifting the moratorium was set forth in a letter dated February 29, 1996 from Andrea Corcoran, Director, Division of Trading and Markets to Lawrence Hunt, Jr., pp. 12-13 (the DTB no-action letter). CFTC Letter 96-28, indexed at *http://www.cftc.gov/opa/summaries/opanal96.htm* ; [1994-1995 Transfer Binder] Comm. Fut. L. Rep.
(CCH)¶ 26,669 at 43,795-43,802 (February 29, 1996). On June 18, 1998, the DTB changed its name to Eurex Deutschland, a step toward a planned merger with the Swiss Options and Financial Futures Exchange. *See* 63 FR 39779, 39781 (July 24, 1998) at fn. 12. Following the lifting of the moratorium in 1999, the relevant Commission operating division has issued seventeen additional no-action letters. 6 The Commission generally has not observed regulatory problems or financial harm to participants who are accessing the foreign boards of trade pursuant to the staff no-action relief letters. Moreover, the no-action process has been resilient throughout a period of increasing global competition, technological advances, changing ownership structures and evolving business models. 6 The Commission's Division of Market Oversight (successor to the market supervisory responsibilities previously performed by the Division of Trading and Markets) is responsible for issuance of the direct access no-action letters. In 2006, ICE Futures, a U.K. registered investment exchange that provides direct access to its U.S. members pursuant to a CFTC staff foreign terminal no-action letter, notified the Commission that it would list a contract on West Texas Intermediate light sweet crude oil whose settlement price would be linked to contracts traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX). ICE's notification prompted the Commission's Division of Market Oversight
(DMO)to advise ICE Futures that the “Commission will be evaluating the use of the no-action process in light of significant issues raised by the factual circumstances underlying the subject notice.” 7 Among other things, the trading of such contracts made ripe the re-examination of certain dormant issues respecting the Commission's statutory obligations to maintain the integrity of U.S. markets and to protect U.S. customers, particularly the Commission's market surveillance obligations. Accordingly, on May 3, 2006, the Commission directed its staff to initiate a formal process to define what constitutes a “board of trade, exchange, or market located outside the United States, its territories or possessions” as that phrase is used in section 4(a) of the CEA and in furtherance of that process scheduled a public hearing. 8 The Commission also issued a related Request for Public Comment. 9 7 *See* letter dated January 31, 2006 from Richard A. Shilts, Director, Division of Market Oversight to Mark Woodward, Regulation and Compliance Policy Manager, ICE Futures. *http://www.cftc.gov/files/dea/cftclettertoicefutures.pdf.* 8 *See* Sunshine Act Meeting Notice, 71 FR 30665 (May 30, 2006); corrected at 71 FR 32059 (June 2, 2006). The hearing was conducted on June 27, 2006, at the Commission's headquarters in Washington, DC. 9 *See* 71 FR 34070 (June 13, 2006). The Commission requested comment on the issues related to developing an objective standard establishing a threshold that, if crossed by a foreign board of trade that permits direct access, would indicate that the board of trade is no longer outside the United States and, accordingly, may be required to become registered under the CEA. Hearing and Request for Comment Participants at the Commission's Hearing and comments submitted in response to the Request for Comment (all collectively the “commenters”), 10 were generally supportive of the no-action process, praising the process in general for its flexibility. 11 Many commenters suggested that the Commission should retain in large measure the essential contours of the no-action process. 12 10 A transcript of the Commission's *Hearing on what constitutes a board of trade located outside the United States under the Commodity Exchange Act section 4(a) (June 27, 2006)* , (“Hearing Tr.”) as well as all comment letters (“CL”), are located in comment file 06-002 to 17 FR 34070 (June 13, 2006). *http://www.cftc.gov/foia/comment06/foi06-002_1.htm.* 11 For comments supporting the no-action letter process generally, *see, e.g.* , Comments of Nicholas Weinreb, Euronext, Hearing Tr. at 45 (“The no-action letter regime has been an extraordinarily successful one.”); comments of Benn Steil, Director of International Economics, Council of Foreign Relations, in his personal capacity, Hearing Tr. at 49 (“I think it is exceptionally important to acknowledge just how successful the Commission's no-action regime has been * * *”); For favorable hearing participant comments on the flexibility of the no-action letter process, *see, e.g.* , Comments of John Foyle, Euronext Liffe, Hearing Tr. at 46; Comments of Richard Berliand, JP Morgan Securities, Hearing Tr. at 61; Comments of Nicholas Weinreb, Euronext, Hearing Tr. at 174. 12 *See, e.g.* , CL 2 (New York Board of Trade) at 3; CL 3 (Council of Foreign Relations) at 2; CL 6 (ICE Futures Exchange) at 9-10; CL 7 (Minneapolis Grain Exchange) at 2; CL 8 (Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleitungsaufsicht) at 3; CL 16 (World Federation of Exchanges) at 1; CL 19 (Tokyo Stock Exchange) at 2; CL 22 (Federation of European Securities Exchanges) at 4; CL 23 (Eurex Deutschland) at 11; CL 24 (Euronext Liffe) at 5; CL 25 (Chicago Board of Trade) at 1; CL 28 (Futures Industry Association) at 9; and CL 45 (Committee of European Securities Regulators) at 1. Commenters warned against any mechanistic approaches to determining whether an otherwise foreign organized exchange that permits direct electronic access by its U.S. members or participants is not located “outside” the United States for purposes of section 4(a) of the CEA, particularly questioned the use of volume as a proxy for U.S. presence (noting that its fluctuations could result in regulatory uncertainty), and stressed the need to avoid rigid or “bright line” tests. 13 Some commenters favored a totality of circumstances approach to location, 14 while others urged the Commission to look to indicators of physical location, such as the main location of an exchange's infrastructure, its employees and headquarters. 15 13 *See, e.g.* , CL 2 (New York Board of Trade) at 2-3; CL 6 (ICE Futures Exchange) at 6-7; CL 9 (Chicago Mercantile Exchange) at 6; CL 23 (Eurex Deutschland) at 7; CL 25 (Chicago Board of Trade) at 9-10. 14 *See, e.g.* , CL 22 (Federation of European Securities Exchanges) at 3. 15 *See, e.g.* , CL 6 (ICE Futures) at 2; CL 9 (Chicago Mercantile Exchange) at 6. Market users stressed the need to maintain high levels of customer and market protections, particularly where a product might impact pricing in U.S. markets. 16 Many U.S. exchanges requested that the Commission give greater attention to competitive issues, particularly when there is direct competition between a U.S. exchange and a foreign exchange's products. U.S. exchanges in particular stressed the need for “regulatory parity.” 17 Some commenters warned against taking actions that inadvertently could result in policies that may inhibit the ability of U.S. exchanges and firms to operate globally. 18 Others stressed the need to provide regulatory certainty generally with respect to the applicability of the no-action process and to clarify the treatment of intermediated electronic access. 19 16 *See, e.g.* , CL 5 (New England Fuel Institute) at 2; CL 27 (Industrial Energy Consumers of America) at 1. 17 *See, e.g.* , CL 7 (Minneapolis Grain Exchange) at 1; CL 25 (Chicago Board of Trade) at 5-6; and CL 43 (New York Mercantile Exchange) at 10. 18 *See, e.g.* , CL 2 (New York Board of Trade) at 3. 19 *See, e.g.* , CL 28 (Futures Industry Association) at 8. Need for the Policy Statement As made clear at the Hearing and by the written comments, the intensity of concerns with respect to the no-action process has been exacerbated by the global competitive environment. In particular, these concerns have called into question:
(1)The Commission's authority for the no-action process in light of Section 4(a)'s exclusion from the contract market designation requirement for foreign boards of trade,
(2)the continued appropriateness of the no-action process generally,
(3)whether objective threshold standards should be developed that would indicate that a board of trade is no longer located outside the United States for purposes of section 4(a) of the CEA,
(4)whether enhancements to the no-action process may be necessary, particularly where trading may implicate domestic futures and cash markets, and
(5)how the no-action process relates to perceived competitive issues. Continued ambiguity with respect to these fundamental issues could result in an unacceptable degree of uncertainty that may hinder access by U.S. users to global products and markets, inhibit continued innovation in technology and products, and undermine the ability of U.S. markets and intermediaries to structure their business to compete globally. Accordingly, the Commission is issuing this Statement of Policy in order to provide greater regulatory certainty and transparency to issues surrounding access to foreign boards of trade. Statement of Policy Regarding the Processing of No-Action Requests by Foreign Boards of Trade to Provide Direct Electronic Access to Their U.S. Members or Authorized Participants Since 1996, foreign boards of trade planning to permit members or other participants located in the United States to enter trades directly into that foreign board of trade's trade matching system (“direct access”) 20 have sought staff no-action letters. 20 For purposes of this Statement of Policy, the term “direct access” refers to the explicit grant of authority by a foreign board of trade to an identified member or other participant of that board of trade to enter trades directly into the board of trade's trade matching system. In contrast, the staff no-action letters generally have defined the term “automated order routing systems”
(AORS)as meaning any system of computers, software or other devices that allows entry of orders through another party (an intermediary) who has been granted direct access for transmission to the trading system where, without substantial human intervention, trade matching or execution takes place. The Commission does not view the transmission of intermediated orders via AORSs for execution on a foreign board of trade to be “direct access” to that board of trade for purposes of the no-action process. In this regard, the Commission endorses the view that mere intermediated electronic access by AORS does not create a presence in the U.S., such that a firm exempted from registration as a futures commission merchant
(FCM)pursuant to Commission Regulation 30.10, which is prohibited from establishing a U.S. presence, would be required to register as an FCM. *See, e.g.* , CFTC Staff Letter No. 05-16 [Current Transfer Binder] Comm. Fut. L. Rep.
(CCH)¶ 30,127 (Aug. 26, 2005) (“For example, Rule 30.10 Firms continue to be prohibited from maintaining a presence in the United States. Thus, Rule 30.10 Firms cannot provide direct access to LIFFE CONNECT® in the United States (although they would be permitted to accept orders overseas from customers located in the United States that submit such orders by telephone or *through an AORS* located in the United States”).) ( *Emphasis added* .) This position is consistent with the Commission's historical policy of addressing customer protection concerns with regard to the offer or sale of foreign futures to U.S. customers primarily through regulation of the intermediary. In this regard, nothing in the Statement of Policy is intended to alter current Commission rules that require that any person engaging in the offer or sale of a foreign futures contract or foreign futures option transaction for or on behalf of a U.S. customer must be a registered futures commission merchant or operating pursuant to a Rule 30.10 Order. This Statement of Policy provides guidance for processing requests for no-action relief. The Commission intends that this Statement of Policy will ensure the consistent treatment of requests and the application of an appropriate degree of review, while maintaining the ability to respond to the individual factual circumstances raised by particular requests. The Commission's Statement of Policy takes into account the Commission's desire to facilitate access to markets and products, foster innovation and competition and eliminate unnecessary regulatory burdens, while maintaining customer and market protections mandated by the CEA. The adoption by the Commission of such a flexible and adaptable policy is consistent with Congressional findings that accompanied the enactment of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (CFMA). 21 21 Section 126(a) of the CFMA, Appendix E of Pub. L. No. 106-554, 114 Stat. 2763 (2000), provides: “SEC. 126. INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION.
(a)FINDINGS.—The Congress finds that—
(1)derivatives markets serving United States industry are increasingly global in scope;
(2)developments in data processing and communications technologies enable users of risk management services to analyze and compare those services on a worldwide basis;
(3)financial services regulatory policy must be flexible to account for rapidly changing derivatives industry business practices;
(4)regulatory impediments to the operation of global business interests can compromise the competitiveness of United States businesses;
(5)events that disrupt financial markets and economies are often global in scope, require rapid regulatory response, and coordinated regulatory effort across international jurisdictions;
(6)through its membership in the International Organization of Securities Commissions, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has promoted beneficial communication among market regulators and international regulatory cooperation; and
(7)the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and other United States financial regulators and self-regulatory organizations should continue to foster productive and cooperative working relationships with their counterparts in foreign jurisdictions.” I. The Commission's Authority for the No-Action Process A. Relevant Statutory Considerations: The Commodity Exchange Act Circumscribes the Commission's Authority Over Foreign Boards of Trade Section 4(a) of the CEA provides that a futures contract may be traded lawfully in the U.S. only if, among other things, it is traded on or subject to the rules of a board of trade that has been designated as a contract market or registered as a DTEF. 22 Section 4(a) excludes from the designation requirement contracts made on or subject to the rules of a board of trade, exchange, or market located outside the United States, its territories or possessions.” 23 22 Section 4(a) of the CEA provides in part: “Unless exempted by the Commission pursuant to subsection
(c)of this section, it shall be unlawful for any person to offer to enter into, to enter into, to execute, to confirm the execution of, or to conduct any office or business anywhere in the United States, its territories or possessions, for the purpose of soliciting or accepting any order for, or otherwise dealing in, any transaction in, or in connection with, a contract for the purchase or sale of a commodity for future delivery *(other than a contract which is made on or subject to the rules of a board of trade, exchange, or market located outside the United States, its territories or possessions) (emphasis added)* ” unless— “(1) such transaction is conducted on or subject to the rules of a board of trade which has been designated or registered by the Commission as a contract market or derivatives transaction execution facility * * *.” 7 U.S.C. 6(b) (2000). 23 In the absence of no-action relief, a board of trade, exchange or market that permits direct access by U.S. persons might be subject to Commission action for violation of, among other provisions, section 4(a) of the CEA, if it were not found to qualify for the exclusion from the DCM designation or DTEF registration requirement. Section 4(b) of the CEA, which authorizes the Commission to adopt rules governing the offer and sale of foreign futures and options contracts, explicitly prohibits the Commission from adopting rules pursuant to that section that:
(1)Require Commission approval of any contract, rule, regulation, or action of any foreign board of trade, exchange, or market, or clearinghouse for such board of trade, exchange, or market, or
(2)govern in any way any rule or contract term or action of any foreign board of trade, exchange, or market, or clearinghouse for such board of trade, exchange, or market. 24 24 Section 4(b) of the CEA provides: “The Commission may adopt rules and regulations proscribing fraud and requiring minimum financial standards, the disclosure of risk, the filing of reports, the keeping of books and records, the safeguarding of customers' funds, and registration with the Commission by any person located in the United States, its territories or possessions, who engages in the offer or sale of any contract of sale of a commodity for future delivery that is made or to be made on or subject to the rules of a board of trade, exchange, or market located outside the United States, its territories or possessions. Such rules and regulations may impose different requirements for such persons depending upon the particular foreign board of trade, exchange, or market involved. No rule or regulation may be adopted by the Commission under this subsection that
(1)requires Commission approval of any contract, rule, regulation, or action of any foreign board of trade, exchange, or market, or clearinghouse for such board of trade, exchange, or market, or
(2)governs in any way any rule or contract term or action of any foreign board of trade, exchange, or market, or clearinghouse for such board of trade, exchange, or market.” 7 U.S.C. 6(b) (2000). B. Section 4(a)'s Exclusion From Contract Market Designation Applies Only With Respect to “Bona Fide” Boards of Trade The Commission interprets the section 4(a) parenthetical exclusion from contract market designation for foreign boards of trade to apply only with respect to “bona fide” boards of trade. The term “bona fide” in this context refers to boards of trade that, among other things, possess the attributes of established, organized exchanges, adhere to appropriate rules prohibiting abusive trading practices, have been authorized by a regulatory process that examines customer and market protections and are subject to continued oversight by a regulator that has power to intervene in the market and share information with the Commission. In reaching this conclusion, the Commission relies on legislative history found in the *Report of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry,* 25 which discusses the addition of section 4(b) to the CEA. Specifically, the Report notes that: 25 S. Rep. 97-384, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 46 (1982). In addition, the rules and regulations developed under this provision [section 4(b)] are not intended to place the solicitation or acceptance of orders in the United States for bona fide foreign futures contracts at a comparative disadvantage with similar solicitation or acceptance of orders for domestic futures contracts. For example, rules which require the segregation of all or part of customers' funds in the United States would not be consistent with the intent of this provision when there is adequate evidence that such funds have been transferred to a *bona fide market, clearinghouse, or market principal* and are adequately safeguarded for the protection of U.S. residents. [ *emphasis* added] The Commission's conclusion in this regard is harmonious with previous Commission interpretations of “bona fide” exchange. 26 26 *See* 63 FR 39779, 39788 (July 24, 1998). *See also* Compl. Count I, *CFTC* v. *Topworth Int'l, Ltd.* , (No. 94-1256) (C.D. Cal.) (Feb. 2, 1994). A commenter had questioned the appropriateness of applying a “bona fide” limitation on the application of section 4(a). 27 However, in light of the legislative history quoted above, which the Commission previously has interpreted as limiting the exclusion from Section 4(a) to *bona fide* foreign boards of trade, we believe that the interpretation we adopt today is an appropriate and reasonable exercise of the Commission's powers to interpret and apply its governing statute, particularly when it implicates domestic conduct and possible effects on domestic persons and markets that the Commission is charged with protecting. 27 CL 9 (Chicago Mercantile Exchange) at 5. II. The Appropriateness of the No-Action Process A. The Commission Endorses the No-Action Process The Commission endorses the continued use of the no-action process as an appropriate and flexible mechanism that should be used prospectively to facilitate direct access to the electronic trading system of a foreign board of trade by its U.S. members or authorized participants. 28 28 We believe the no-action process to be an appropriate exercise of discretion committed to Commission staff, subject to appropriate Commission oversight. *See Board of Trade of the City of Chicago* v. *SEC* , 883 F.2d 525, 530 (7th Cir. 1989); 17 CFR 140.99. In this connection, the Commission is directing staff to continue to circulate through the Secretariat for the Commission's review on an “absent objection” basis, prior to issuance, all staff foreign board of trade no-action letters. The no-action process is appropriate because it gives staff the flexibility to address the factual circumstances presented in the future, and to apply a consistent approach to reviewing applications for no-action relief in light of innovations in electronic trading and technology, evolving regulatory standards, and specific customer protection and market integrity concerns. This approach is consistent with the CFMA's goal of adopting a flexible regulatory policy that can account for rapidly changing derivatives industry business practices, a theme that also was voiced at the Commission's hearing and in the written comments. Among other things, Congress found in the CFMA that “financial services regulatory policy must be flexible to account for rapidly changing derivatives industry business practices.” CFMA Section 126(a)(3). Moreover, Section 126(b) of the CFMA expresses the sense of Congress that the Commission coordinate with foreign regulatory authorities to encourage “the facilitation of cross-border transactions through the removal or lessening of any unnecessary legal or practical obstacles.” B. The Commission Endorses the Scope of Review of the No-Action Process The scope of review that was established by Commission staff in the DTB no-action letter and refined in subsequent no-action letters 29 focuses on establishing the “bona fide” status of the foreign board of trade and finding that no public interest would be adversely affected by persons in the U.S. directly accessing the foreign board of trade. 30 29 Letter dated February 29, 1996 from Andrea Corcoran, Director, Division of Trading and Markets, to Lawrence Hunt, Jr., pp. 12-13 (the DTB no-action letter). CFTC Letter 96-28, indexed at *http://www.cftc.gov/opa/summaries/opanal96.htm* ; [1994-1995 Transfer Binder] Comm. Fut. L. Rep.
(CCH)¶ 26,669 at 43,795-43,802 (February 29, 1996). 30 In the 1996 DTB no-action letter staff concluded that the “ *the mere presence of terminals in the United States would not cause the Commission to deem any bona fide foreign exchange for which products are listed through that system to be a domestic exchange, that is, a board of trade designated as a contract market by the Commission pursuant to section 5 of the Act.* ” ( *emphasis added* ) In order to conclude that the DTB was a “bona fide” foreign board of trade, and therefore appropriately subject to the parenthetical exclusion for foreign boards of trade in section 4(a) of the CEA, staff generally examined the DTB's rules and the overall regulatory environment. The text of the DTB letter makes clear that staff recognized the prohibitions set out in section 4(b) of the CEA, but noted that “the relationship or interface between DTB's computer terminals and persons located in the United States may raise regulatory concerns that are unrelated to the internal operations of the DTB or its computer terminals in the United States.” Accordingly, the review set forth in the DTB letter also focused narrowly on the domestic implications for U.S. persons using the DTB direct access terminals ( *i.e.* , the system integrity and clearing review). In general, staff reviews information and representations provided by the applicant that relate to, among other things, the rules and structure of the applicant exchange (with an emphasis on the exchange's financial integrity, market surveillance, trade practice and rule enforcement regime), various system integrity protections that govern the foreign board of trade's electronic trading system (using as a template the *1990 Principles for the Oversight of Screen-Based Trading Systems* ), 31 the system's related clearing and customer default protections, and information concerning the regulatory structure in the applicant's jurisdiction, with a specific emphasis on market regulation. 32 The staff also reviews the adequacy of information sharing with the Commission by the market and its regulator. Based upon its review of the documents and representations submitted by the applicant, and subject to compliance with various conditions ( *e.g.* , representations governing access to books and records and the appointment of a U.S. agent for service of process), staff might conclude that granting no-action relief would not be contrary to the public interest. 31 *The 1990 IOSCO Principles for the Oversight of Screen-Based Trading Systems* ( *Screen-Based Principles* ) were developed by IOSCO Working Party 7 on futures, which was chaired by the CFTC. The IOSCO Screen-Based Principles set out in broad terms the international consensus as to the regulatory considerations to be addressed in reviewing mechanisms for screen-based trading. The Commission adopted the *IOSCO Screen-Based Principles* as a statement of Commission policy. *See* 55 FR 48670 (November 21, 1990). In adopting the *IOSCO Screen-Based Principles* , the Commission made clear that they establish general policy goals that will guide the Commission in resolving issues arising from screen-based trading systems, but would not mandate a particular substantive response. 32 The Commission previously summarized the scope of the staff's foreign board of trade
(FBOT)inquiry as follows: “Currently, Commission staff generally examines the following when reviewing an FBOT's request for terminal placement no-action relief: General information about the FBOT, as well as detailed information about:
(i)membership criteria (including financial requirements);
(ii)various aspects of the automated trading system (including the order-matching system, the audit trail, response time, reliability, security, and, of particular importance, adherence to the IOSCO principles for screen-based trading);
(iii)settlement and clearing (including financial requirements and default procedures);
(iv)the regulatory regime governing the FBOT in its home jurisdiction;
(v)the FBOT's status in its home jurisdiction and its rules and enforcement thereof (including market surveillance and trade practice surveillance); and
(vi)extant information-sharing agreements among the Commission, the FBOT, and the FBOT's regulatory authority. When issued, the terminal placement no-action letters conclude with a standard set of terms and conditions for the granting of the relief which include, among other things, a quarterly volume reporting requirement.” *See* 71 FR 34070, 34071 (June 13, 2006). Essentially, as it has evolved, the staff review seeks to determine that the applicant foreign board of trade is subject to governmental authorization, appropriate rules prohibiting abusive trading practices, and continuing oversight by a regulator that has powers to intervene in the market and share information with the Commission. This review generally reflects the internationally accepted approaches used by many developed market jurisdictions to govern access to foreign electronic exchanges. These approaches generally are based upon a review of, and ongoing reliance upon, the foreign market's “home” regulatory regime, and are designed to maintain regulatory protections while avoiding the imposition of duplicative regulation. 33 33 *See, e.g.* , United Kingdom Financial Services Authority, Financial Services Handbook, Recognised Overseas Investment Exchanges
(ROIE)and Recognised Overseas Clearing Houses (ROCH), Section 6. (In comparison with full authorisation as a domestic exchange, ROIE status “reduces the involvement which UK authorities need to have in the day-to-day affairs of an overseas recognised body because they are able to rely substantially on the supervisory and regulatory arrangements in the country where the applicant's head office is situated.” *See* FSA Handbook, REC 6.1.2 *http://fsahandbook.info/FSA/html/handbook/REC/6/1.* ); Australian Securities and Investments Commission
(ASIC)Policy Statement 177.8 describing alternative licensing for overseas markets (“the alternative licensing route in s795B(2) for overseas markets is intended to facilitate competition and avoid regulatory duplication while maintaining investor protection and market integrity.”); Ontario Securities Commission Staff Notice 21-702: Regulatory Approach for Foreign-Based Stock Exchanges (exemption from recognition under section 147 of the Securities Act (Ontario); Autorite des marches financiers (Quebec): Policy Statement Respecting the Authorization of Foreign-Based Exchanges; the German Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht (BAFIN) authorizes the placement of terminals in Germany under Sections 37i et seq. of the German Securities Trading Act. The Commission finds that the staff review appropriately addresses the Commission's concern that relief will only be granted with respect to *bona fide* foreign boards of trade. 34 The Commission also finds that the staff's review of foreign board of trade representations and the related information submitted with respect to system integrity, clearing procedures and default protections is appropriately focused and respects the prohibitions of section 4(b). Finally, the various terms and conditions that have been imposed in the no-action letters have been reasonably and appropriately tailored to the factual circumstances raised by the applications for no-action relief. 34 *See* Section I *supra* . Accordingly, the Commission endorses the general scope of review that was established in the DTB no-action letter, and as it has evolved in subsequent staff letters. The Commission also reconfirms its prior endorsement of the use of the *IOSCO Screen-Based Trading Principles* as a general template to guide its inquiry into the foreign board of trade's electronic trading system. The Commission notes that in 2000 IOSCO reaffirmed the continuing appropriateness of the *Screen-Based Trading Principles* , concluding that they retained their relevancy despite the evolution and increasing sophistication of electronic systems ten years after their adoption, and that they constitute an internationally accepted framework for the oversight of screen-based derivatives trading systems. 35 35 *Principles for the Oversight of Screen-Based Trading Systems for Derivative Products—Review and Addition* , IOSCO Technical Committee
(2000)at p. 5, section III, Part 1. *http://www.iosco.org/library/index.cfm?section=pubdocs&year=2000* . In this “Review and Addition,” IOSCO adopted four additional principles that encouraged regulatory authorities to develop cooperative arrangements to address risks that arise from cross-border derivatives markets, to share relevant information in an efficient and timely manner, to maintain a transparent framework for regulatory cooperation, and to take into account a jurisdiction's application of the *IOSCO Objectives and Principles of Securities Regulation* . In this connection, staff's discretionary, selective reference to broad regulatory objectives, such as those contained in the CEA's *Core Principles* and in internationally-accepted standards, 36 deemed by staff in its discretion to be reflective of a *bona fide* regulatory regime, 37 is an appropriate, non-prescriptive means to structure its review for the purposes of determining the *bona fide* status of a foreign board of trade. This observation is not intended to suggest that the review should require substituted compliance with CEA market designation or registration requirements, apply any prescriptive approach, 38 or otherwise be expanded into a quasi-designation process. 39 36 *See, e.g., Objectives and Principles of Securities Regulation, International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO);* and the *Tokyo Communiqué on Supervision of Commodity Futures Markets* (1997), *Annex B: Guidance on Components of Market Surveillance and Information Sharing.* Annex B of the *Tokyo Communiqué* establishes a non-prescriptive framework for undertaking market surveillance, the types of information to which market authorities should have access and collect, the appropriate analysis of information, the type of powers and capacity to investigate market abuse, the appropriate powers to intervene in the market to address abusive practices or disorderly conditions, the need for powers to impose disciplinary sanctions against members of the market as well as non-members, and the components of effective information sharing. 37 *See, e.g.* , CEA Core Principle 4, section 5(b) of the CEA, for designated contract markets, which requires the monitoring of trading to prevent manipulation, price distortion, and disruption of the delivery or cash settlement process. Principle 28 of the *IOSCO Objectives and Principles of Securities Regulation* states that “regulation should be designed to detect and deter manipulation and other unfair trading practices.” 38 In adopting the *1990 IOSCO Screen-Based Principles* , the Commission made clear that “they establish general policy goals that will guide the Commission in resolving issues arising from screen-based trading systems, but do not mandate a particular substantive response.” 55 FR 48671, 48672 (November 21, 1990). 39 *See generally* , footnote 30. C. The Commission Intends To Preserve the Flexibility and Adaptability of the No-Action Process The Commission's endorsement of the no-action process's overall approach and scope of review is not intended to limit the staff's ability to adapt or modify its review as it deems necessary to determine the *bona fide* status of a foreign board of trade, or to address any particular U.S. customer protection or market integrity concerns, as identified in Section 3(b) of the CEA, that might be raised by a request for no-action relief. The Commission understands that staff potentially may need to adapt its analysis, as well as the scope and depth of its inquiry, to address changing factual circumstances and any specific regulatory concerns. 40 40 *See, e.g.* , CL 25 ( Chicago Board of Trade) at 1: “We do believe that the analysis preceding the issuance of no-action letters must constantly be re-evaluated and updated to reflect changes and developments in today's dynamic marketplace.” Similarly, there should be broad discretion under the no-action process to determine, based on the totality of factors, that the foreign exchange and the applicable regulatory regime meet relevant regulatory objectives, notwithstanding that a particular aspect of the foreign jurisdiction's approach is not identical to that of the Commission's regulatory program. 41 In this regard, the Commission recognizes that in an international context, common regulatory objectives can be attained through different regulatory means. 42 The mere fact that a foreign jurisdiction has determined to achieve a regulatory objective in a manner that is different than the Commission's approach often is the result of varied business histories, experiences and legislative choices. The determinative factor in the review should be an affirmative conclusion that the regulatory structure in question addresses the particular regulatory objective deemed to be most relevant. 43 41 *Compare* Appendix A, Part 30 Interpretative Statement with Respect to the Commission's Exemptive Authority under § 30.10 of Its Rules, 17 CFR Part 30, Appendix A: “In this connection, the Commission would have broad discretion to determine that the policies of any program element generally are met, notwithstanding the fact that the offshore program does not contain an element identical to that of the Commission's regulatory program and conversely may assess how particular elements are in fact applied by offshore authorities.” 42 *See IOSCO Principles and Objectives of Securities Regulation* at 3: “There is often no single correct approach to a regulatory issue. Legislation and regulatory structures vary between jurisdictions and reflect local market conditions and historical development.” 43 This can be confirmed through the applicant's submission of representations and relevant statutes, rules and statements of policy, regulatory and self-regulatory oversight reports, confirmations of good standing by the oversight regulator, and informal staff discussions with relevant officials of the exchange and its oversight regulator. The Commission understands the term “regulatory structure” broadly to include the regulations and policies of the exchange, its regulator or another self-regulatory organization, as well as relevant laws and regulations. III. Whether Objective Threshold Standards Should Be Developed That Would Indicate That a Board of Trade Is No Longer Located Outside the United States for Purposes of Section 4(A) of the CEA Such That the Commission Should Require DCM Designation or DTEF Registration In its release issued in advance of the June 2006 public hearing, the Commission requested comment on, among other things, what level of presence by a foreign board of trade would be a reasonable threshold for determining whether to require DCM/DTEF registration and in particular whether volume should be a determinative factor. 44 The Commission also requested comment on whether it would be appropriate for the Commission to exercise jurisdiction over foreign boards of trade that permit direct access when they list contracts with underlying products that are integral to the U.S. economy. 45 44 71 FR 34073 (June 13, 2006). 45 *Id.* A. The Commission Is Not Developing Objective Standards Establishing a Threshold Test of U.S. Location As noted above in the summary of comments and hearing discussions, most commenters rejected any wholesale, mechanistic adoption of threshold indicators of U.S. location. A theme voiced by many commenters was that the Commission should not attempt to formalize any objective “bright line” test of U.S. location, particularly during a period of rapid changes in the technology of direct access and market communication, as well as in global business structures and relationships. 46 Among the reasons noted by U.S. industry commenters in particular for not adopting objective standards establishing a threshold test of U.S. location at this time were: the difficulty of developing threshold criteria that would not be viewed as arbitrary, 47 the difficulty of determining primary location in a period of rapid structural change in the futures industry, 48 the possible inhibition of structural and technological innovation, 49 and the danger that an overly-inclusive criterion could result in duplicative regulation 50 as well as a protectionist response in other jurisdictions that might inhibit the ability of the U.S. futures industry to compete effectively on a global basis. 51 46 *See, e.g.* , CL 3 (comments of Ben Steil, Director of International Economics, Council on Foreign Relations) at 2. 47 *See* CL 2 (New York Board of Trade) at 2; and CL 28 (Futures Industry Association) at 11. 48 *See* CL 25 (Chicago Board of Trade) at 9: “* * * with cross-border joint ventures and mergers between boards of trade both existing and proposed, it is likely to become more and more difficult to determine the primary location of an exchange.” 49 *See* CL 2 (New York Board of Trade) at 2: “Similarly, we do not believe that defining “location” on the basis of management, ownership arrangements or the location of offices and technology of an exchange is instructive, as they are likely to change over time and certain functions, such as clearing and technology services, lend themselves to outsourcing.” *See also* CL 9 (Chicago Mercantile Exchange) at 7: “For example, a U.S. exchange serving EU customers is likely to maintain an EU sales office and sales representatives, an EU technical office or outsourced technical services to install and service networks, routers and terminals, banking connections, delivery facilities and data centers and/or communication hubs. In the near future, if distributed computing makes trade matching more effective, some part of the matching operations may occur in the EU. It is not difficult to imagine the adverse consequences if each of the jurisdictions in which these operations take place were to assert its right to regulate.” 50 *See* CL 9 (Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Inc.) at 7. 51 *See* CL 2 (New York Board of Trade) at 2: “such an approach runs the risk of creating barriers to U.S. exchanges as they attempt to expand business abroad;” CL 7 (Minneapolis Grain Exchange) at 2; CL 25 (Chicago Board of Trade) at 7; CL 9 (Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Inc.) at 6; CL 28 (Futures Industry Association) at 11; CL 43 (New York Mercantile Exchange) at 8; and NC 4 (Chicago Mercantile Exchange Holdings Inc) at 2. For the reasons noted above, the Commission has decided not to adopt any objective standards establishing a threshold test of U.S. location. Commission staff will continue to assess the legitimacy of any particular applicant to seek relief as a “foreign” board of trade by considering the totality of factors presented by an applicant. This flexible, case-by-case approach will permit staff, during a period of evolving market structure, to consider the unique combination of factual indicators of U.S. presence that may be presented by an applicant for relief. 52 52 *See* CL 43 (New York Mercantile Exchange) at 6. “Accordingly, while the Commission may want to reserve for the future the possibility to revisit this area, we believe by far the best approach at this point in time would be to provide guidance to Commission staff in the continuation of the ongoing staff no-action letter process.” B. Volume Is Not a Determinative Indicator of U.S. Location The relevancy of U.S-originating volume as a means to determine whether a foreign-organized electronic exchange is “located” in the United States for purposes of CEA section 4(a) has been a long-standing, unresolved issue since the issuance of the DTB no-action letter. 53 53 The Commission had noted in its 1998 Concept Release that “ by conditioning its letter on the DTB providing the Division [staff] with quarterly updates of DTB's U.S.-originating trading volume, the Division intended to leave open the possibility that at some point DTB's activities in the U.S. might rise to a level that would necessitate greater Commission regulation.” *See* 63 FR 39779, 39781 (July 24, 1998). Notwithstanding the intuitive appeal of using volume as a proxy for U.S. presence, neither the Commission nor the futures industry in its extended consideration of this issue during the Commission's 1998-1999 rulemaking on access to automated boards of trade could reach consensus on the specific manner in which volume could be usefully applied to determine when a foreign board of trade's U.S. presence required contract market designation. 54 54 *See* 64 FR at 14170. Comments submitted in response to the Commission's recent Request for Comment, as well as statements made at the related public hearing, reiterated the various problems associated with the use of volume, such as the regulatory uncertainty that would result from using a constantly fluctuating variable such as volume, the arbitrary nature of any fixed percentage, the difficulties in accurately measuring U.S.-based volume, and the possible inhibiting effect on exchanges' global activities. 55 Significantly, all of the U.S. futures exchanges agreed, as did foreign exchanges, that volume was not a stable indicator of U.S. presence for the purpose of requiring DCM designation or DTEF registration. 56 55 As noted at the Commission's Hearing, it is inevitable that as exchanges consolidate, they will list contracts that are of great economic interest in other jurisdictions and attract enormous participation from other jurisdictions. *See* Hearing Tr. at 100 (Ben Steil). If significant volume denoted grounds for exchange licensing, then such an exchange potentially would be subject to duplicative and burdensome regulation. 56 *See* CL 2 (New York Board of Trade) at 2; CL 7 (Minneapolis Grain Exchange) at 1; CL 9 (Chicago Mercantile Exchange) at 6; CL 25 (Chicago Board of Trade) at 9-10; CL 43 (New York Mercantile Exchange) at 7. *See also* CL 21 (Tokyo Financial exchange) at 1; CL 22 (Federation of European Securities Exchanges) at 3; and CL 23 (Eurex Deutschland) at 7-8 for representative foreign exchange comment. Letter available at: *http://www.cftc.gov/dea/deaforeignterminaltable.htm* . Accordingly, the Commission agrees that volume is not determinative of U.S. location. This conclusion does not mean, however, that volume statistics should no longer be required from boards of trade operating under a staff no-action letter, as the submission of volume data may serve other regulatory interests. The Commission expects that any data collection requirement would be tailored carefully to provide meaningful information. C. Nature of the Underlying Contract Is Not Determinative of Designation Some commenters have suggested that the Commission should require foreign boards of trade that list contracts based on a U.S.-produced or economically important commodity to obtain contract market designation rather than be permitted to operate under a staff no-action letter. 57 In effect, such proposals would make the application of the parenthetical exclusion from designation in CEA section 4(a) for boards of trade located outside the U.S. dependent upon the nature of the commodity underlying a particular futures contract. 57 *See* CL 25 (Chicago Board of Trade) at 10-11: The statement of Policy should exclude U.S. Government Securities. *See also* letter dated January 27, 2006 from the NYMEX to Reuben Jeffery III: “The core regulatory policy question is, of course, whether the WTI crude oil futures contract is a foreign contract or whether it is a U.S. futures contract requiring ICE Futures to become a U.S. designated contract market. * * * NYMEX believes that the new WTI futures contract is a U.S. product * * * drilled and produced in the US.” However, the nature of the underlying commodity is not probative of the “location” of a board of trade for purposes of CEA section 4(a). Such an approach would lead to the anomalous result of a board of trade being characterized as “foreign” for some contracts, but considered a “U.S.-based” exchange for a single contract and therefore required to seek contract market designation. In addition, several U.S. contract markets list futures contracts on commodities that are produced or delivered in foreign jurisdictions. Were the Commission to endorse using such criteria to require designation, such a policy could be cited by foreign jurisdictions as a rationale to subject U.S. markets to regulation. 58 58 *See generally* CL 2 (New York Board of Trade). IV. Enhancements to the No-Action Process Notwithstanding its endorsement of the no-action process, the Commission has identified additional enhancements that are intended to ensure the availability of necessary information, and to ensure that staff will carefully consider proposals for trading contracts that potentially could have an adverse effect on the ability of the Commission to carry out its regulatory responsibilities. A. The Trading of Contracts That May Adversely Affect the Commission's Regulatory Responsibilities Should Be Addressed Should staff become aware that the trading of products listed on a foreign board of trade that has been granted no-action relief: • Affects adversely the pricing of contracts traded on any registered entity as defined in Section 1a(29) of the CEA, or of contracts traded on any cash market for commodities subject to the CEA; • Creates unacceptable systemic risks or disruptions in those markets or the U.S. financial system, including capital markets; or • Facilitates abusive trading practices on U.S. markets or otherwise interferes with the ability of the Commission to carry out its regulatory responsibilities, in particular market surveillance, staff may exercise its discretion and consider a full range of responses, such as imposing conditions and requiring enhanced information sharing arrangements and surveillance procedures (see below), or other appropriate action. In this regard, the Commission retains plenary authority to address manipulative or abusive trading practices that affect U.S. futures and cash markets and market users, 59 and will use that authority when necessary and appropriate. 59 *See, e.g.* , CEA Section 9(a)(2), 7 U.S.C. 13(a)(2) and CEA section 8a(5), 7 U.S.C. 12a(5). B. Enhanced Information Sharing Procedures Should Be Adopted In a global market environment, where conduct that takes place on markets located outside the United States may have an impact on U.S. futures and cash markets, as well as the members and users of those markets, the Commission needs to cooperate closely with foreign market authorities in order to ensure that the Commission can carry out its regulatory responsibilities. The Commission therefore endorses the existing practice of requiring information sharing assurances as a condition to issuance of a no-action letter and continued activities pursuant to the granted relief. However, in light of the Commission's experiences in this area, as well as the development of internationally accepted information sharing arrangements and standards, the following enhancements are appropriate. 1. Exchange and Its Regulator Should Have Power, Authority and Willingness To Share Needed Information In negotiating information sharing arrangements, staff should confirm that the market and its regulator have the power to obtain the specific types of information that may be needed by the Commission, as well as the authority to share that information with the Commission on an “as needed” basis. Moreover, staff should obtain evidence of the market's and regulator's willingness to share information ( *e.g.* , through explicit undertakings). In this regard, staff should note whether the applicant's regulator has signed the IOSCO Multilateral Memorandum of Understanding (MMOU), which requires as a condition to executing the MMOU a demonstration of power, authority and willingness to share information. If the applicant's regulator is not a signatory of the IOSCO MMOU, staff should ascertain whether any prohibitions to information sharing exist. 2. Applicants for No-Action Relief Should Sign the Exchange International MOU When exchange member firms and market participants trade on multiple global exchanges, no one regulator or market authority will have all of the information necessary to evaluate the risks to its markets. The Exchange *International Information Sharing Memorandum of Understanding and Agreement (Exchange International MOU)* 60 and the *Declaration on Cooperation and Supervision of International Futures Exchanges and Clearing Organizations (Declaration)* , 61 a companion arrangement for regulators, were developed in 1996 as an international response to address such gaps in information. These arrangements facilitate the identification of large exposures by firms that could have a potentially adverse effect on multiple markets. 60 The development of the *Exchange International MOU* was one of the achievements that resulted from the FIA sponsored Global Task Force on Financial Integrity, which was convened to address the cross-border issues that were identified in connection with the failure of Barings Plc. To date, fifty-six global derivatives exchanges have signed the MOU. 61 The *Declaration* was developed through discussions at the CFTC's international regulators conference, and was motivated by work recommendations issued from the Windsor Conference and Tokyo Conference, which were convened by the CFTC, the U.K. FSA and Japanese regulators (Ministry of International Trade and Industry
(MITI)and the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF)) to respond to the cross-border issues raised by the failure of Barings Plc. The *Declaration* was developed to address instances in which an exchange would not be able to share information directly with another exchange under the *Exchange International MOU* . Twenty-eight regulators have signed the *Declaration.* Copy available at: *http://www.cftc.gov/oia/oiabocadec0398.htm* . Applicants for staff no-action relief should execute, or commit to execute, the *Exchange International MOU* because it demonstrates a commitment to share information between exchanges that is needed to ensure the integrity of markets and to address systemic risks. In circumstances where a foreign board of trade is unable to share information directly with another exchange, its regulator should sign the *Declaration* (or commit to share such information pursuant to an existing MOU or other arrangement with the Commission). 3. Arrangements To Obtain and Share Information Required To Carry Out the Commission's Domestic Market Surveillance Responsibilities Should Be a Condition to No-Action Relief When an applicant for, or recipient of, no-action relief trades or will trade contracts that staff in its discretion determines may affect the Commission's ability to carry out its surveillance responsibilities ( *e.g.* , an economically linked contract), the foreign board of trade should be required to provide directly to the Commission and in a timely manner, appropriate trade and position data as deemed necessary by Commission staff. Alternative arrangements may be acceptable where local law or regulatory policies require the interposition of the market regulator, provided that such arrangements supply the Commission on a timely basis with the market information that the Commission's staff determines is necessary to carry out the Commission's market surveillance responsibilities. C. The Continuing Good Standing of the Foreign Board of Trade Should Be Verified Although the no-action letters require that the foreign board of trade submit to staff and keep updated on a quarterly basis certain material information, staff should develop a non-burdensome and efficient means to confirm the board of trade's continued “good standing” in its authorizing jurisdiction. This could take the form of an annual or biannual confirmation by the relevant oversight regulator of the foreign board of trade's authorized status and the continuing validity of any relevant representations that had been made by the foreign board of trade in its initial application. V. The No-Action Process Is Not the Appropriate Means To Address Competitive Issues In their comments, U.S. futures exchanges essentially encouraged the Commission to review its regulations to consider the competitive impact of differences between its regulations and those of other jurisdictions. 62 Some exchanges suggested that the Commission should address perceived regulatory disparities in connection with the no-action process, 63 particularly where the exchanges trade similar products. 64 62 *See, e.g.* , (Chicago Mercantile Holdings, Inc.) Request to Appear at the Public Hearing at 2; CL 7 (Minneapolis Grain Exchange) at 1; CL 43 (New York Mercantile Exchange) at 2, 10-12. 63 *See* CL 25 (Chicago Board of Trade) at 1. 64 *See* Hearing Tr. (NYMEX Chairman James Newsome) at 72, 82. The Commission does not believe that it should address competitive concerns within the context of any individual request for a staff no-action letter. Claims of competitive advantage or disadvantage are exceedingly difficult to prove. An exchange's competitive status reflects an array of contributing factors, such as its overall rule structure, its governance and business policy determinations, its fee structure, type of contracts offered, the method of trading, the efficiency of its technology and clearing systems, as well as external factors such as statutory restrictions, tax structure and the overall legal system. 65 Rather, the appropriate focus of the no-action review should be on addressing the *bona fide* status of, and domestic regulatory concerns raised by, an applicant for a no-action letter. 65 In a 1999 report, the Commission's Division of Economic Analysis attributed changes in market activity since the 1980s to the continued market maturation process, nonregulatory cost considerations and technological change rather than international regulatory differences. “In sum, neither trends in the locus of trading activity nor regulatory developments over the last five years suggest an erosion of U.S. futures markets' global competitive position. However, to the extent that the movements toward electronic trading systems and exchange consolidation that were observed over the period of this study continue into the future, the competitive structure of global futures markets is likely to change significantly. The Commission is committed to continued regulatory flexibility in the face of these trends. However, it is likely that the potential cost savings generated by these trends, and not the nature of the differences among the regulatory systems of various nations, will be most important in shaping the composition and trading interest of the global futures industry in the twenty first century.” *The Global Competitiveness of U.S. Futures Markets Revisited* , the Commission's Division of Economic Analysis (November 1999), *http://www.cftc.gov/dea/compete/deaglobal_competitiveness.htm.* The CFMA has materially improved the competitive status of the U.S. futures industry. 66 Nonetheless, the Commission takes seriously the CFMA findings, among others, that “financial services regulatory policy must be flexible to account for rapidly changing derivatives industry business practices,” and “regulatory impediments to the operation of global business interests can compromise the competitiveness of United States businesses.” 67 The Commission will continue to address these policy goals through ongoing review of its regulatory program. 66 *See, e.g.* CL 9 (Chicago Mercantile Exchange): “CFMA greatly improved the competitive environment in the U.S. and eliminated many of the legitimate concerns of U.S. based futures exchanges.” 67 CFMA Sections 126(a)(3), 126(a)(4). Conclusion The U.S. futures industry is undergoing a period of dynamic change, marked by technological innovation, consolidation, evolving business relationships, and increasing global competition. The Commission does not presume to be able to predict the course of ongoing industry evolution in these areas. The Commission's appropriate role during such a period of rapid change is to construct policies that will foster achievement of the Act's section 3 objectives of ensuring market and financial integrity, addressing systemic risks, and protecting market participants, but to do so in a flexible manner that avoids inadvertently inhibiting technological innovation or the ability of the U.S. futures industry to compete effectively in a global environment. This Statement of Policy has been developed as a means for the Commission to respond flexibly to the challenges posed by the ongoing evolution in electronic access to global markets. The Commission will continue to monitor carefully, and review the Policy Statement as necessary in light of, the ongoing evolution of cross-border electronic direct access and intermediation in order to ensure that it does not adversely affect U.S. cash and futures markets, market participants and customers, as well as the consumers affected by those foreign market transactions. Issued in Washington, DC, on October 27, 2006 by the Commission. Eileen A. Donovan, Acting Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. E6-18513 Filed 11-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6351-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 522 Implantation or Injectable Dosage Form New Animal Drugs; Glycopyrrolate AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration
(FDA)is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect approval of an abbreviated new animal drug application (ANADA) filed by IVX Animal Health, Inc. The ANADA provides for veterinary prescription use of glycopyrrolate solution as an injectable preanesthetic agent in dogs and cats. DATES: This rule is effective November 2, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John K. Harshman, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV 104), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 301-827-0169, e-mail: *john.harshman@fda.hhs.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: IVX Animal Health, Inc., 3915 South 48th Street Ter., St. Joseph, MO 64503, filed ANADA 200-365 that provides for veterinary prescription use of Glycopyrrolate Injectable as a preanesthetic agent in dogs and cats. IVX Animal Health, Inc.'s Glycopyrrolate Injectable is approved as a generic copy of Fort Dodge Animal Health's, Division of Wyeth's ROBINUL-V (glycopyrrolate), approved under NADA 101-777. The ANADA is approved as of October 2, 2006, and the regulations are amended in 21 CFR 522.1066 to reflect the approval and a current format. The basis of approval is discussed in the freedom of information summary. In accordance with the freedom of information provisions of 21 CFR part 20 and 21 CFR 514.11(e)(2)(ii), a summary of safety and effectiveness data and information submitted to support approval of this application may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. FDA has determined under 21 CFR 25.33(a)(1) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808. List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 522 Animal drugs. Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR part 522 is amended as follows: PART 522—IMPLANTATION OR INJECTABLE DOSAGE FORM NEW ANIMAL DRUGS 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 522 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b. 2. Revise § 522.1066 to read as follows: § 522.1066 Glycopyrrolate.
(a)*Specifications* . Each milliliter of solution contains 0.2 milligram glycopyrrolate.
(b)*Sponsors* . See Nos. 000856 and 059130 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
(c)*Conditions of use in dogs and cats* —(1) ** *Amount* . 5 micrograms per pound of body weight (0.25 milliliter per 10 pounds of body weight) by intravenous, intramuscular, or subcutaneous injection in dogs or by intramuscular injection in cats.
(2)*Indications for use* . As a preanesthetic agent.
(3)*Limitations* . Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian. Dated: October 23, 2006. Stephen F. Sundlof, Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine. [FR Doc. E6-18444 Filed 11-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF STATE 22 CFR Part 97 [Public Notice 5602] RIN 1400-AC19 Intercountry Adoption—Department Issuance of Certifications in Hague Convention Adoption Cases AGENCY: Department of State. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Department of State (the Department) is issuing a final rule to implement the certification and declaration provisions of the 1993 Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (the Convention) and the Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000 (the IAA) with respect to adoption and custody proceedings taking place in the United States, after review of public comments received in response to the Department's June 16, 2006 issuance of a proposed rule. This final rule governs the application process for Hague Adoption Certificates and Hague Custody Declarations in cases involving emigration of a child from the United States. It also establishes a process for seeking certification, for purposes of Article 23 of the Convention, that an adoption done in the United States following a grant of custody in a Convention country of origin was done in accordance with the Convention. DATES: This rule is effective December 4, 2006. Information about the date the Convention will enter into force is provided in 22 CFR 96.17. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, contact Anna Mary Coburn at 202-736-9081. Hearing- or speech-impaired persons may use the Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf
(TDD)by contacting the Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background The Convention is a multilateral treaty that provides a framework for the adoption of children habitually resident in one country party to the Convention by persons habitually resident in another country party to the Convention. It was developed under the auspices of the intergovernmental organization known as the Hague Conference on Private International Law (the Hague Conference). The United States signed the Convention on March 31, 1994, and the President subsequently transmitted the Convention to the Senate for its advice and consent. On September 20, 2000, the Senate gave its advice and consent to the ratification of the Convention and, at about the same time, Congress enacted the implementing legislation for the Convention—the Intercountry Adoption Act (the IAA), Public Law 106-279, 42 U.S.C. 14901-14952. Consistent with U.S policy on ratification of treaties and the Senate's advice and consent to ratification, the United States will not ratify the Convention until the United States is able to carry out its obligations under the Convention. (See Senate Declaration for Convention Article 22(2) (146 Cong. Rec. S8866 (daily ed. Sept. 20, 2000). Although this final rule is effective in 30 days, parties are not required to comply with the provisions of 22 CFR part 97 until the Convention enters into force for the United States (three months after the United States ratifies it). This final rule establishes procedures for issuing certifications in Convention adoptions involving the emigration of a child from the United States (outgoing cases) and for seeking certifications regarding adoptions in incoming cases. In response to its issuance of the proposed rule, the Department received insightful public comments that are posted on the Department's Web site at *http://www.travel.state.gov.* The Department is issuing the rule as final with minor changes, taking into account the comments received. Section 303(c) of the IAA gives the Department responsibility for issuing an official certification that a child resident in the United States has been adopted, or a declaration that custody for the purpose of adoption has been granted, in accordance with the Convention and the IAA. The IAA assigns to State courts with jurisdiction over matters of adoption, or custody for purposes of adoption, the responsibility for receiving and verifying documents required under the Convention, making certain determinations required of the country of origin by the Convention, and determining that the placement is in the best interests of the child. With certain limited exceptions, the Convention requires all Convention parties to recognize adoptions, if the adoption is certified by the country of adoption as having been made in accordance with the Convention. This final rule also establishes a separate, discretionary, procedure pursuant to which the Department may certify that an incoming case finalized in the United States ( *i.e.* , a case in which custody was granted abroad but the adoption was done by a U.S. court) was done in accordance with the Convention. The Department may issue this certification if an issue arises concerning recognition of the adoption pursuant to Article 23 of the Convention. Further background on the Convention and the IAA is provided in the Preamble to the Proposed Rule on Issuance of Hague Convention Certificates and Declarations in Convention Adoption Cases, Section I, 71 FR 34857-34858 (June 16, 2006); the Preamble to the Final Rule on the Accreditation and Approval of Agencies and Persons under the IAA, Section I and II, 71 FR 8064-8066 (February 15, 2006); and the Preamble to the Proposed Rule on the Accreditation of Agencies and Approval of Persons under the Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000, Sections III and IV, 68 FR 54065-54073 (September 15, 2003). II. Section-by-Section Discussion of Comments This section provides a detailed discussion of comments received on the proposed rule and describes changes made to the proposed rule. Three general points should be kept in mind in reading this discussion. First, we refer generally to actions of the “Department” pursuant to the rule. The rule itself refers to actions of the “Secretary,” as the official named in the IAA, but the day-to-day exercise of the Secretary's functions has been delegated (Delegation of Authority 261, 68 FR 56372, September 30, 2003) to the Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs. Second, this rule directly imposes Federal requirements on State courts to the extent consistent with the IAA. Specifically, the IAA assigns to State courts with jurisdiction over matters of adoption, or custody for purpose of adoption, the responsibility for receiving and verifying documents required under the Convention, making certain determinations required of the country of origin by the Convention, and determining that the placement is in the best interests of the child. In keeping with current U. S. domestic law and philosophy of treaty application in the context of a federalist system, we have imposed the Convention requirements on outgoing cases, which are governed mainly by State law, when the IAA has expressly imposed such Convention requirements. Finally, the Department has changed the title of the proposed rule to clarify that the rule covers both incoming and outgoing case certifications. The title change is not indicative of any substantive changes to the final rule. Section 97.1 Definitions No comments on the definitions were received, and no changes to 97.1 have been made. One commenter did recommend that throughout the rule the term “adoptable” child be removed because, according to the commenter, the term has historically implied that children are a marketable commodity. Although the Convention itself uses the term “adoptable” despite similar objections at the time of drafting, we have changed the word “adoptable” to “eligible for adoption” whenever possible. Section 97.2 Application for a Hague Adoption Certificate
(HAC)or a Hague Custody Declaration
(HCD)(Outgoing Case) 1. *Comment:* Some commenters are concerned about how long the process to obtain a HAC or a HCD will take and that any delays could negatively affect a child waiting for an adoptive placement. One commenter recommends that specific timeframes be added to the rule, such as requiring the Department to issue a HAC or HCD in three business days, to ensure that families who had traveled to adopt a child living the United States did not have to wait too long for a HAC or HCD once the relevant State court issued the final adoption decree or custody decree. *Response:* We agree that the HAC or HCD should be swiftly issued. The Department, however, is not including a specific timeframe in the rule. Our goal nonetheless is to issue a HAC or HCD as soon as possible, provided the supporting documentation required under § 96.3 has been submitted. 2. *Comment:* One commenter urges the Department to accept all materials, including applications and supporting documents by fax or e-mail, and to encourage other Central Authorities
(CAs)to do the same. The commenter also asks that the Department encourage the CAs of receiving countries to provide any necessary approvals within 24 hours of request, noting that the Netherlands issues approvals within 24 hours. *Response:* The Department intends to accept applications and supporting materials via fax and e-mail to the extent practicable. We will encourage other CAs to accept communications by fax and e-mail as well. We also plan to urge other CAs to act expeditiously to send any necessary approvals to relevant State courts for a Hague outgoing case. 3. *Comment:* One commenter requests that fee payments be permitted by credit card submission via Internet, phone, or fax. *Response:* If a fee is charged for issuance of a HAC or HCD, we will make the methods of payment easy and consistent with other federal agency requirements covering payment of fees. 4. *Comment:* One commenter asks which part of the Department will be responsible for issuing HACs and HCDs and where its office will be located. *Response:* The Office of Children's Issues in the Bureau of Consular Affairs will issue HACs and HCDs out of its central office in Washington, DC. 5. *Comment:* One commenter asks what type of training will be provided to the staff responsible for adjudicating applications for HACs or HCDs and requests information on how this function will be staffed. *Response:* The Department plans to train the Office of Children's Issues case officers thoroughly by using Foreign Affairs Manual
(FAM)materials and formal classroom training. With respect to staffing, we do not yet know the number of outgoing cases and thus cannot determine how many officers will be assigned this critical CA function. 6. *Comment:* One commenter requests clarification of the parties that may apply for a HAC or HCD and asks specifically whether birthparent(s) may apply for a HAC or HCD. The commenter also asks whether the citizenship of the adoptive parent(s) or prospective adoptive parent(s) will affect their ability to obtain a HAC or a HCD. *Response:* The adoptive parent(s) or prospective adoptive parent(s), who will be habitual residents of the receiving country and typically will not be U.S. citizens, will most likely be the parties to apply for a HAC or a HCD. Despite being non-U.S. citizen adoptive parent(s) or prospective adoptive parent(s), they will be able to apply for and obtain a HAC or HCD. The rule states that “any party” to an adoption or custody proceeding may apply for a HAC or HCD; thus, if a birthparent was a party to the adoption or custody proceeding, he or she may apply for a HAC or HCD. Likewise, the adopted child may apply for a HAC or HCD. If various parties to the adoption or custody proceeding apply for HACs or HCDs, more than one copy of the HAC or HCD may be issued. The Department's goal is to provide a HAC or HCD to any party to the adoption or custody proceeding who may need it to obtain recognition and acceptance of the adoption decree or custody for purpose of adoption decree from other Convention countries or from U.S. authorities. 7. *Comment:* Some commenters request clarification of the application process for HACs and HCDs. In particular, commenters want to know if a HAC or HCD is automatically issued even if no party applies. Similarly, other commenters believe that the Department should always issue a HAC or HCD after a State court grants an adoption or custody for purpose of adoption decree. Others are concerned that many parties will be unaware that for outgoing cases involving Convention adoptions, the receiving country is obligated not to permit the child's entry unless the Department (as CA of the country of origin) has issued a HAC or HCD for the child. *Response:* Unless there is an application from a party or other interested person, in accordance with § 97.2(a), the Department will not *sua sponte* issue a HAC or HCD. The Department must be notified, via the application process, for the HAC or HCD to be issued. We expect that the adoption service provider working with the family would inform the prospective adoptive parent(s) of any necessary requirements, including the need for a HAC or HCD. In any case, a party or interested person may apply for a HAC or HCD at any time. Once a party applies for a HAC or HCD, the Department, in its role as CA, must adjudicate the request to determine if the child has been adopted or custody of the child for purposes of adoption has been granted in accordance with the Convention and (except as provided in § 97.4(b)) the IAA. Specifically, section 303(c) of the IAA provides that the Department shall issue a HAC or HCD *on receipt and verification* of the required material and information. The Department may thus not issue a HAC or HCD for all cases. The rule mirrors the IAA statutory requirements and is not changed in response to the comment. The parties must first apply to a State court to make the needed findings, all derived from the Convention or the IAA, so that the proceeding is Hague-compliant. The Department then reviews the State court findings to adjudicate the application before issuing a HAC or HCD. The Department may not assume that every adoption or custody for purpose of adoption case will automatically conform with the Convention and the IAA, as implemented through § 97.3, and issue a HAC or HCD without adjudicating the application. We understand that some parties to intercountry adoptions may be unaware of the Convention and the IAA and consequently may not submit to the State court the information the court needs to make the findings required under § 97.3. The Department plans to continue its extensive outreach efforts to inform interested persons about the Convention, the IAA, and the applicable regulations. To date, we have conducted numerous outreach events with State court judges, public domestic authorities, and adoption service providers. 8. *Comment:* One commenter suggests that the Department is withholding recognition of the State court adoption or custody decree if it declines to issue the HAC or HCD. *Response.* By verifying compliance with § 97.3 before issuing a HAC or HCD, the Department is acting in accordance with Article 23 of the Convention. The Department's verification that all steps in the adoption and/or custody process complied with the Convention, the IAA, and the regulations implementing the IAA ensures that U.S. children leaving the United States are protected in accordance with the Convention. 9. *Comment:* One commenter requests that the rule include language on the legal effect of a HAC or HCD similar to the language in Section 302(b) of the IAA with respect to incoming cases ( *i.e.* , cases in which a child is immigrating to the United States). *Response:* Article 23 of the Convention requires other Convention countries to recognize an adoption that has been certified by the competent authority of the State of the adoption. Therefore, Convention countries must recognize any adoption for which the Department has issued a HAC. Including a requirement in U.S. regulations is therefore unnecessary. In addition, the United States has no authority to regulate the receiving countries. As for the HCD, Article 19 of the Convention provides that the transfer of the child to the receiving country may be carried out only if the requirements of Article 17 have been satisfied. The HCD demonstrates to the receiving country that the United States, as the country of origin, has agreed that the child may be entrusted to the prospective adoptive parent(s) and that the adoption may proceed in the receiving country. The Department expects that the receiving countries will recognize the HCD as evidence that the Article 17 requirements have been met. In any event, as noted, the United States may not regulate another Convention country. Section 97.3 Requirements Subject to Verification in an Outgoing Convention Case 1. *Comment:* Several commenters request that the reasonable efforts requirement to locate a placement for the child in the United States in § 97.3(c) not apply when birthparent(s) directly identify prospective parent(s) outside the United States. One commenter suggests that such contacts be permitted as long as an accredited, temporarily accredited, or approved adoption service provider is involved in the case. *Response:* This provision cross-references 22 CFR 96.54(a), which specifically excludes from the reasonable efforts requirement cases in which the birthparent(s) have identified specific prospective adoptive parent(s) or in other special circumstances accepted by the State court. 2. *Comment:* One commenter recommends that the rule specify more clearly the steps that must be completed for a reasonable efforts finding to be made by the State court. *Response:* As noted above, this provision cross-references 22 CFR 96.54(a), which sets forth the placement standards in outgoing cases, including the reasonable efforts requirement. Specifically, reasonable efforts to find a timely placement for the child in the United States include:
(1)Disseminating information on the child and his or her availability for adoption through print, media, and internet resources designed to communicate with potential prospective adoptive parent(s) in the United States;
(2)Listing information about the child on a national or State adoption exchange or registry for at least sixty calendar days after the birth of the child;
(3)Responding to inquiries about adoption of the child; and
(4)Providing a copy of the child background study to potential U.S. prospective adoptive parent(s). 3. *Comment:* One commenter objects to the sixty-day period for listing information about the child on a national or State adoption exchange or registry because research shows that delays in placement negatively impact a child's emotional well-being. *Response:* This comment goes to 22 CFR part 96 and was addressed in the context of that rule. Part 96 is now a final rule and no longer open for comment. 4. *Comment:* One commenter asks if the provision in 97.3(f), which limits contacts between the prospective adoptive parent(s) and the child's birthparent(s) or any other person who has care of the child before the adoption, prevents birthparent(s) from identifying prospective adoptive parent(s) via such methods as reviewing parent profiles provided by an attorney for the prospective adoptive parent(s), or provided by an attorney for the birthparent(s), or provided by an agency, or made available online. The commenter also asks if birthparent(s) may identify prospective adoptive parent(s) via referrals from non-relatives or by responding to advertisements placed in newspapers. *Response:* Section 97.3(j) implements the requirements in Article 29 of the Convention. Article 29's prohibition on prior contact applies unless the adoption takes place within a family or *the contact is in compliance with the conditions established in the country of origin* , in this case the United States. For this reason, § 97.3(j) permits contacts when a “relevant State or public domestic authority has established conditions under which such contact may occur and any such contact occurred in accordance with such conditions.” The answers to the commenter's questions thus depend on local law and regulations. A State or a public domestic authority may establish conditions on direct contacts between birthparent(s) and prospective adoptive parent(s). If such conditions are set, then contacts that comply with those conditions may occur. If a State has no laws or conditions on direct contacts, then such contacts may not occur because the Convention intends that such contacts be either barred or subject to regulation. If these principles are applied to the commenter's questions, then the answer to what direct contacts are permitted will necessarily depend on the State where the birthparent(s) are residing. If the State where the birthparent(s) reside permits them to review prospective adoptive parent(s) profiles before the referral or adoption or consider non-relative referrals, then the practice is not *per se* prohibited, but must comply with any specific State requirements, such as those on who may present the information (attorney for prospective adoptive parent(s) or birthparent(s) or adoption service provider). If State requirements are completely silent, then direct contact practices are not allowed. Likewise, if the State permits birthparent(s) to locate prospective adoptive parent(s) through media such as newspapers or Web sites, then such contacts may occur in States which expressly permit such contacts and prescribe the conditions under which such contacts may occur. 5. *Comment:* Another commenter asks if States that allow “open adoptions” in which the birthparent(s) and prospective adoptive parents(s) meet and establish a trusting relationship before the adoption must change their laws. The commenter notes that oftentimes the open contacts continue throughout the child's life and that current psychological research supports the conclusion that such bonds are beneficial to the adoptee in the long-run. *Response:* These regulations do not require States to change their laws with respect to contacts. As discussed above, pre-birth contacts are permitted in Convention cases if they are allowed by the relevant State law or public domestic authority and the contacts occurred in accordance with required conditions. 6. *Comment:* One commenter asks if the no direct contacts provision of the rule applied to the U.S. government-sponsored *http://www.AdoptUSKids.org* photo listing service. The commenter explains that public domestic authorities put a photo and information about a child eligible for adoption (usually a child or sibling group that has been waiting a long time for a permanent family placement) on the web-based service and families from all over the world may express an interest in the child to the public domestic authority, submit a home study, and then social workers for the public domestic authority determine if a referral and subsequent match are in the best interests of the child. If so, then the public domestic authority undertakes the subsequent steps to complete an adoption, including in some cases, supervising meetings with the birthparent(s), the child, and the prospective adoptive parent(s). *Response:* Public domestic authorities must comply with 22 CFR part 97. As discussed above, contacts are generally prohibited, unless the relevant State or public domestic authority has established conditions under which such contact may occur and any such contact occurred in accordance with such conditions. Presumably, because the public domestic authority is coordinating the adoption, it has established procedures on the contacts. If the conditions for the contacts have been enumerated, then the contacts may continue even for Hague cases as long as the contacts comply with the procedures that the public domestic authority established. Thus, if a State or its public domestic authorities permit birthparent(s) and the child to meet with the prospective adoptive parent(s) then this contact would be permitted. As for the question about the photo-listing service, unless State law prohibits photo-listings of children eligible for adoption, States may continue to post information about such children on the federally-funded national Web site. Section 97.5 Certification of Hague Convention Compliance in an Incoming Convention Case Where Adoption Occurs in the United States 1. *Comment:* Two commenters are concerned that the certification procedure in § 97.5 means that adoptions of children immigrating to the United States (incoming cases) that are completed in the United States (as receiving country) after the country of origin granted custody for purposes of adoption are not entitled to recognition under Convention Article 23. *Response:* Article 23 of the Convention requires other Convention countries to recognize an adoption that has been certified as having been made in accordance with the Convention by the competent authority of the State of the adoption. If custody for purpose of adoption is granted in a Convention country of origin and the prospective adoptive parent(s) subsequently obtain a final adoption decree in a State court, the adoption is entitled to recognition under the Convention, provided that the State court decree is based on a certificate issued by a consular officer pursuant to 22 CFR 42.24(j) certifying that the grant of custody of the child occurred in compliance with the Convention or on the court's determination that the requirements of Article 17 of the Convention have been met. This is true regardless of whether the parent(s) or child apply for the additional certification under § 97.5 because, as pointed out by the commenters, the recognition of the adoption takes place by operation of law with or without subsequent certification by the Department. The U.S. adoption would necessarily be recognized in all U.S. territory, but if the parent(s) or other persons need documentation to show that the Convention adoption finalized in the United States was done in accordance with the Convention, they may seek the certification as outlined in § 97.5. In addition, they may rely on the State court adoption order. We have added a paragraph to § 97.5 to make clear that the final State court order shall constitute the certification under Article 23 of the Convention. 2. *Comment:* One commenter requests that the rule be changed to require prospective adoptive parent(s) who have been granted custody for purpose of adoption by the country of origin (in incoming cases) to complete adoptions in the United States. *Response:* The Department is not modifying the rule as requested. Although the prospective adoptive parent(s) failure to finalize the adoption is problematic, the IAA does not require prospective adoptive parent(s) to obtain a final adoption decree in a U.S. State court when only custody for purpose of adoption was granted in the country of origin. Moreover, this rule relates to certifications of adoptions pursuant to the Convention. We nevertheless share the commenter's concern about adoptions that are not finalized. The Department currently has experience with a few such cases in which the prospective adoptive parent(s) are granted custody for purpose of adoption in the country of origin, bring the child to the United States, and never finalize the adoption. The family is typically intact and the child is benefiting from an ongoing permanent placement so there is no basis for the State to remove the child. Yet, there is no final adoption, the child does not acquire U.S. citizenship under The Child Citizenship Act, and remains a legal permanent resident, subject to deportation under certain limited circumstances. Similarly, the child does not have all the additional benefits of a full legal parent-child relationship. Despite these issues, there is no current authority or new authority in the IAA granting the Department or the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS)the authority to compel finalization of the adoption. We plan to continue our outreach and communication efforts to stress to families and adoption service provider(s) the critical importance of finalizing the adoption in both Convention and non-Convention cases. 3. *Comment:* Some commenters request that the rule be changed to mandate that the Department always issue a certification under § 97.5 after the parent(s) complete the final adoption in the United States. One commenter was concerned that a person requesting the certification must show a need for it, including a showing that the child would be traveling overseas. *Response.* The Department is not modifying the rule in response to this request. The Department cannot issue a certification under 97.5 absent a request because it has no means to know when a State court issues an adoption decree. However, the intent of § 97.5 was not to limit the issuance of these certifications solely to instances where there is a showing of exceptional need or if the child would be traveling. We have deleted § 97.5(3) that required parties to submit a signed statement explaining the need for such a certification. 4. *Comment:* One commenter is concerned that countries of origin expect copies of the Article 23 certification to be sent in every case where the adoption is completed by a final adoption order in the United States and cite Articles 7, 20, and 23, and of the Convention for support. *Response:* The Department believes that its rule on Convention Article 23 certifications is consistent with the Convention provisions cited and implements the Convention. Specifically, as noted above, the IAA does not require that families finalize the adoptions or notify the Department when the adoptions are final. We will use all other available means to obtain information on the final adoption of the child for the child's country of origin, including relying on 22 CFR 96.50(h)(2), which requires accredited agencies, temporarily accredited agencies, and approved persons, to notify the Department of the finalization of the adoption within thirty days of the entry of the final adoption order. We believe that through 22 CFR 96.50(h)(2) combined with the final rule in § 97.5(e), making clear that the State court final adoption decree may serve as the Convention Article 23 certification, the United States will fulfill its Convention obligations. Regulatory Review A. Administrative Procedures Act This rule, through which the Department provides for implementation of the Convention, which focuses on issuance of documents to facilitate cross-border recognition of adoptions done under the Convention, involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and therefore pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1) is not subject to the procedures required by 5 U.S.C. 553 and 554. Nonetheless, the Department published the proposed rule and received public comment on it. B. Regulatory Flexibility Act/Executive Order 13272: Small Business In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, and Executive Order 13272, Section 3(b), the Department of State has evaluated the effects of this rule on small entities and has determined and hereby certifies that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 This rule is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804 for purposes of congressional review of agency rulemaking under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-121. The rule would not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, a major increase in costs or prices, or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, or innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets. D. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UFMA), Pub. L. 104-4; 109 Stat. 48; 2 U.S.C. 1532, generally requires agencies to prepare a statement, including cost-benefit and other analyses, before proposing any rule that may result in an annual expenditure of $100 million or more by State, local, or tribal governments, or by the private sector. Section 4 of UFMA, 2 U.S.C. 1503, excludes regulations necessary for implementation of treaty obligations. This rule falls within this exclusion because it would implement the Convention. In any event, this rule would not result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any year. Moreover, because this rule would not significantly or uniquely affect small governments, section 203 of the UFMA, 2 U.S.C. 1533, does not require preparation of a small government agency plan in connection with it. E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism A rule has federalism implications under Executive Order 13132 if it has substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. This rule will not have such effects, and therefore does not have sufficient federalism implications to require consultations or to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement under section 6 of Executive Order 13132. The Convention and the IAA do, however, address issues that previously had been regulated primarily at the State level, as discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule on accreditation and approval of agencies and persons, appearing at 68 FR 54064, 54069-54070. In recognition of this fact, section 503(a) of the IAA contains a specific provision limiting preemption of State law to those State law provisions inconsistent with the Convention or the IAA, and only to the extent of the inconsistency. This rule does not create new federalism implications beyond those created by the IAA and the Convention, and the Department has been careful in this rule to defer to State authorities whenever possible consistent with Convention and IAA mandates. We also envision significant outreach and consultation with appropriate State authorities in the implementation of any regulation on this topic. F. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Review This rule, through which the Department provides for implementation of the Convention, which focuses on issuance of documents to facilitate cross-border recognition of adoptions done under the Convention, pertains to a foreign affairs function of the United States; therefore, pursuant to section 3(d)(2) of the Executive Order 12866, this rule is not subject to the review procedures set forth in Executive Order 12866. In addition, the Department is exempt from Executive Order 12866 except to the extent it is promulgating regulations in conjunction with a domestic agency that are significant regulatory actions. The Department of State, however, provided the proposed rule to OMB for comment and incorporated its comments. The Department is not submitting the final rule to OMB, but has reviewed it to ensure consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in Executive Order 12866. G. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform The Department has reviewed this rule in light of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden. The Department has made every reasonable effort to ensure compliance with the requirements in Executive Order 12988. H. The Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)of 1995 Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 42 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* , agencies are generally required to submit to OMB for review and approval information collection requirements imposed on “persons” as defined in the PRA. Section 503(c) of the IAA, however, exempts from the PRA any information collection “for purposes of sections 104, 202(b)(4), and 303(d)” of the IAA “or for use as a Convention record as defined” in the IAA. Convention record is defined in section 3(11) of the IAA to mean “any item, collection, or grouping of information contained in an electronic or physical document, an electronic collection of data, a photograph, an audio or video tape, or any other information storage medium of any type whatever that contains information about a specific past, current, or prospective Convention adoption (regardless of whether the adoption was made final) that has been preserved in accordance with section 401(a) by the Secretary of State or the Attorney General.” Information collections imposed on persons pursuant to this rule would relate directly to specific Convention adoptions (whether final or not), insofar as collections would be used by the Department in its determination of whether a Convention adoption, or a grant of custody for purposes of a Convention adoption, has been conducted in accordance with the Convention and the IAA. Upon receipt, these information collections would be subject to the preservation requirements set forth in 22 CFR part 98 to implement section 401(a) of the IAA. Accordingly, the Department has concluded that the PRA would not apply to information collected from the public under this rule, for the purpose of determining entitlement to a Hague Adoption Certificate or Hague Custody Declaration, or a certification of Convention compliance pursuant to § 97.5, because such documents would be collected for use as Convention records. The Department intends, nonetheless, to consider carefully how to minimize the burden on the public of information collections contained in this rule as such collections, in particular the required application form, continue to be developed. List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 97 Adoption and foster care; International agreements; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, the Department adds new part 97 to title 22 of the CFR, chapter I, subchapter J, to read as follows: PART 97—ISSUANCE OF ADOPTION CERTIFICATES AND CUSTODY DECLARATIONS IN HAGUE CONVENTION ADOPTION CASES Sec. 97.1 Definitions. 97.2 Application for a Hague Adoption Certificate or a Hague Custody Declaration (Outgoing Convention Case). 97.3 Requirements Subject to Verification in an Outgoing Convention Case. 97.4 Issuance of a Hague Adoption Certificate or a Hague Custody Declaration (Outgoing Convention Case). 97.5 Certification of Hague Convention Compliance in an Incoming Convention Case Where Final Adoption Occurs in the United States. 97.6-97.7 [Reserved]. Authority: Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (done at The Hague, May 29, 1993), S. Treaty Doc. 105-51 (1998); 1870 U.N.T.S. 167 (Reg. No. 31922 (1993)); Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. 14901-14954. § 97.1 Definitions. As used in this part:
(a)*Adoption Court* means the State court with jurisdiction over the adoption or the grant of custody for purpose of adoption.
(b)*U.S. Authorized Entity* means a public domestic authority or an agency or person that is accredited or temporarily accredited or approved by an accrediting entity pursuant to 22 CFR part 96, or a supervised provider acting under the supervision and responsibility of an accredited agency or temporarily accredited agency or approved person.
(c)*Foreign Authorized Entity* means a foreign Central Authority or an accredited body or entity other than the Central Authority authorized by the relevant foreign country to perform Central Authority functions in a Convention adoption case.
(d)*Hague Adoption Certificate* means a certificate issued by the Secretary in an outgoing case (where the child is emigrating from the United States to another Convention country) certifying that a child has been adopted in the United States in accordance with the Convention and, except as provided in § 97.4(b), the IAA.
(e)*Hague Custody Declaration* means a declaration issued by the Secretary in an outgoing case (where the child is emigrating from the United States to another Convention country) declaring that custody of a child for purposes of adoption has been granted in the United States in accordance with the Convention and, except as provided in § 97.4(b), the IAA.
(f)Terms defined in 22 CFR 96.2 have the meaning given to them therein. § 97.2 Application for a Hague Adoption Certificate or a Hague Custody Declaration (Outgoing Convention Case).
(a)Once the Convention has entered into force for the United States, any party to an outgoing Convention adoption or custody proceeding may apply to the Secretary for a Hague Adoption Certificate or a Hague Custody Declaration. Any other interested person may also make such application, but such application will not be processed unless such applicant demonstrates that a Hague Adoption Certificate or Hague Custody Declaration is needed to obtain a legal benefit or for purposes of a legal proceeding, as determined by the Secretary in the Secretary's discretion.
(b)Applicants for a Hague Adoption Certificate or Hague Custody Declaration shall submit to the Secretary:
(1)A completed application form in such form as the Secretary may prescribe, with any required fee;
(2)An official copy of the order of the adoption court finding that the child is eligible for adoption and that the adoption or proposed adoption is in the child's best interests and granting the adoption or custody for purposes of adoption;
(3)An official copy of the adoption court's findings (either in the order granting the adoption or custody for purposes of adoption or separately) verifying, in substance, that each of the requirements of § 97.3 has been complied with or, if the adoption court has not verified compliance with a particular requirement in § 97.3, authenticated documentation showing that such requirement nevertheless has been met and a written explanation of why the adoption court's verification of compliance with the requirement cannot be submitted; and
(4)Such additional documentation and information as the Secretary may request at the Secretary's discretion.
(c)If the applicant fails to submit all of the documentation and information required pursuant to paragraph (b)(4) of this section within 120 days of the Secretary's request, the Secretary may consider the application abandoned. § 97.3 Requirements Subject to Verification in an Outgoing Convention Case.
(a)*Preparation of Child Background Study.* An accredited agency, temporarily accredited agency, or public domestic authority must complete or approve a child background study that includes information about the child's identity, adoptability, background, social environment, family history, medical history (including that of the child's family), and any special needs of the child.
(b)*Transmission of Child Data.* A U.S. authorized entity must conclude that the child is eligible for adoption and, without revealing the identity of the birth mother or the birth father if these identities may not be disclosed under applicable State law, transmit to a foreign authorized entity the background study, proof that the necessary consents have been obtained, and the reason for its determination that the proposed placement is in the child's best interests, based on the home study and child background study and giving due consideration to the child's upbringing and his or her ethnic, religious, and cultural background.
(c)*Reasonable Efforts to find Domestic Placement.* Reasonable efforts pursuant to 22 CFR 96.54 must be made to actively recruit and make a diligent search for prospective adoptive parent(s) to adopt the child in the United States and a timely adoptive placement in the United States not found.
(d)*Preparation and Transmission of Home Study.* A U.S. authorized entity must receive from a foreign authorized entity a home study on the prospective adoptive parent(s) prepared in accordance with the laws of the receiving country, under the responsibility of a foreign Central Authority, foreign accredited body, or public foreign authority, that includes:
(1)Information on the prospective adoptive parent(s)' identity, eligibility, and suitability to adopt, background, family and medical history, social environment, reasons for adoption, ability to undertake an intercountry adoption, and the characteristics of the children for whom they would be qualified to care;
(2)Confirmation that a competent authority has determined that the prospective adoptive parent(s) are eligible and suited to adopt and has ensured that the prospective adoptive parent(s) have been counseled as necessary; and
(3)The results of a criminal background check.
(e)*Authorization to Enter.* The Central Authority or other competent authority of the receiving country must declare that the child will be authorized to enter and reside in the receiving country permanently or on the same basis as the adopting parent(s).
(f)*Consent by Foreign Authorized Entity.* A foreign authorized entity or competent authority must declare that it consents to the adoption, if its consent is necessary under the law of the relevant foreign country for the adoption to become final.
(g)*Guardian Counseling and Consent.* Each person, institution, and authority (other than the child) whose consent is necessary for the adoption must be counseled as necessary and duly informed of the effects of the consent (including whether or not an adoption will terminate the legal relationship between the child and his or her family of origin); must freely give consent expressed or evidenced in writing in the required legal form without any inducement by compensation of any kind; and consent must not have been subsequently withdrawn. If the consent of the mother is required, it may be given only after the birth of the child.
(h)*Child Counseling and Consent.* As appropriate in light of the child's age and maturity, the child must be counseled and informed of the effects of the adoption and the child's views must be considered. If the child's consent is required, the child must also be counseled and informed of the effects of granting consent, and must freely give consent expressed or evidenced in writing in the required legal form without any inducement by compensation of any kind.
(i)*Authorized Entity Duties.* A U.S. authorized entity must:
(1)Ensure that the prospective adoptive parent(s) agree to the adoption;
(2)Agree, together with a foreign authorized entity, that the adoption may proceed;
(3)Take all appropriate measures to ensure that the transfer of the child takes place in secure and appropriate circumstances and, if possible, in the company of the adoptive parent(s) or the prospective adoptive parent(s), and arrange to obtain permission for the child to leave the United States; and
(4)Arrange to keep a foreign authorized entity informed about the adoption process and the measures taken to complete it, as well as about the progress of the placement if a probationary period is required; to return the home study and the child background study to the authorities that forwarded them if the transfer of the child does not take place; and to be consulted in the event a new placement or alternative long-term care for the child is required.
(j)*Contacts.* Unless the child is being adopted by a relative, there may be no contact between the prospective adoptive parent(s) and the child's birthparent(s) or any other person who has care of the child prior to the competent authority's determination that the prospective adoptive parent(s) are eligible and suited to adopt and the adoption court's determinations that the child is eligible for adoption, that the requirements in paragraphs
(c)and
(g)of this section have been met, and that an intercountry adoption is in the child's best interests, *provided that* this prohibition on contacts shall not apply if the relevant State or public domestic authority has established conditions under which such contact may occur and any such contact occurred in accordance with such conditions.
(k)*Improper financial gain.* No one may derive improper financial or other gain from an activity related to the adoption, and only costs and expenses (including reasonable professional fees of persons involved in the adoption) may be charged or paid. § 97.4 Issuance of a Hague Adoption Certificate or a Hague Custody Declaration (Outgoing Convention Case).
(a)Once the Convention has entered into force for the United States, the Secretary shall issue a Hague Adoption Certificate or a Hague Custody Declaration if the Secretary, in the Secretary's discretion, is satisfied that the adoption or grant of custody was made in compliance with the Convention and the IAA.
(b)If compliance with the Convention can be certified but it is not possible to certify compliance with the IAA, the Secretary personally may authorize issuance of an appropriately modified Hague Adoption Certificate or Hague Custody Declaration, in the interests of justice or to prevent grave physical harm to the child. § 97.5 Certification of Hague Convention Compliance in an Incoming Convention Case Where Final Adoption Occurs in the United States.
(a)Once the Convention has entered into force for the United States, any person may request the Secretary to certify that a Convention adoption in an incoming case finalized in the United States was done in accordance with the Convention.
(b)Persons seeking such a certification must submit the following documentation:
(1)A copy of the certificate issued by a consular officer pursuant to 22 CFR 42.24(j) certifying that the granting of custody of the child has occurred in compliance with the Convention;
(2)An official copy of the adoption court's order granting the final adoption; and
(3)Such additional documentation and information as the Secretary may request at the Secretary's discretion.
(c)If a person seeking the certification described in paragraph
(a)of this section fails to submit all the documentation and information required pursuant to paragraph
(b)of this section within 120 days of the Secretary's request, the Department may consider the request abandoned.
(d)The Secretary may issue the certification if the Secretary, in the Secretary's discretion, is satisfied that the adoption was made in compliance with the Convention. The Secretary may decline to issue a certification, including to a party to the adoption, in the Secretary's discretion. A certification will not be issued to a non-party requestor unless the requestor demonstrates that the certification is needed to obtain a legal benefit or for purposes of a legal proceeding, as determined by the Secretary in the Secretary's discretion.
(e)A State court's final adoption decree, when based upon the certificate issued by a consular officer pursuant to 22 CFR 42.24(j), certifying that the grant of custody of the child has occurred in compliance with the Convention, or upon its determination that the requirements of Article 17 of the Convention have been met constitutes the certification of the adoption under Article 23 of the Convention. § 97.6-97.7 [Reserved] Dated: October 12, 2006. Maura Harty, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. E6-18507 Filed 11-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-06-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Parts 1 and 301 [TD 9295] RIN 1545-BF98 AJCA Modifications to the Section 6011, 6111, and 6112 Regulations AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Final and temporary regulations. SUMMARY: This document contains temporary and final regulations under sections 6011, 6111, and 6112 of the Internal Revenue Code that modify the rules relating to the disclosure of reportable transactions and the list maintenance requirements. These regulations affect taxpayers participating in reportable transactions under section 6011, material advisors responsible for disclosing reportable transactions under section 6111, and material advisors responsible for keeping lists under section 6112. These temporary and final regulations are being issued concurrently with proposed regulations under sections 6011, 6111, and 6112 published elsewhere in the **Federal Register** . DATES: *Effective Date:* These regulations are effective November 1, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tara P. Volungis or Charles Wien, 202-622-3070 (not a toll-free number). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background This document amends 26 CFR parts 1 and 301 by modifying the rules relating to the disclosure of reportable transactions under sections 6011 and 6111 and the list maintenance rules under section 6112. On February 28, 2003, the IRS issued final regulations under sections 6011, 6111, and 6112 (TD 9046) (the February 2003 regulations). The February 2003 regulations were published in the **Federal Register** (68 FR 10161) on March 4, 2003. On December 29, 2003, the IRS issued final regulations under section 6011 and 6112 (TD 9108) (the December 2003 regulations). The December 2003 regulations were published in the **Federal Register** (68 FR 75128) on December 30, 2003. Explanation of Provisions These regulations relate to the provisions for obtaining a private letter ruling and the tolling of the time for providing disclosure under § 1.6011-4 and section 6111 and for maintaining a list under section 6112 during the time the request for a ruling is pending. Because the IRS and Treasury Department believe that the removal of the tolling provision will promote effective tax administration, these regulations eliminate the tolling of the time for providing disclosure and for maintaining the list when a taxpayer or a potential material advisor requests a private letter ruling. Proposed regulations removing the tolling provision are being issued concurrently with these temporary regulations. Taxpayers and potential material advisors may still request a ruling on a transaction under the regular procedures for requesting a ruling, provided the ruling request is not factual or hypothetical, but the time for providing disclosure or for maintaining a list will not be tolled. The removal of the tolling provision is effective for all ruling requests received on or after November 1, 2006. Special Analyses It has been determined that these regulations are not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations. For applicability of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, please refer to the cross-reference notice of proposed rulemaking published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** . Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, this regulation will be submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business. Drafting Information The principal authors of these regulations are Tara P. Volungis and Charles Wien, Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Passthroughs and Special Industries). However, other personnel from the IRS and Treasury Department participated in their development. List of Subjects 26 CFR Part 1 Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 26 CFR Part 301 Employment taxes, Estate taxes, Excise taxes, Gift taxes, Income taxes, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Amendments to the Regulations Accordingly, 26 CFR parts 1 and 301 are amended as follows: PART 1—INCOME TAXES **Paragraph 1.** The authority citation for part 1 is amended by adding an entry in numerical order to read, in part, as follows: Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * Section 1.6011-4T also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6011 * * * **Par. 2.** Section 1.6011-4 is amended by: 1. Revising paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(3). 2. Redesignating the text of paragraph
(h)as (h)(1) and adding a heading. 3. Adding paragraph (h)(2). The revisions and additions read as follows: § 1.6011-4 Requirement of statement disclosing participation in certain transactions by taxpayers.
(f)* * *
(1)[Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.6011-4T(f)(1).
(2)* * *
(3)[Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.6011-4T(f)(1).
(h)*Effective date* —(1) *In general.* * * *
(2)[Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.6011-4T(h)(2). **Par. 3.** Section 1.6011-4T is added to read as follows: § 1.6011-4T Requirement of statement disclosing participation in certain transactions by taxpayers (temporary).
(a)through
(e)[Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.6011-4(a) through (e).
(f)*Rulings and protective disclosures* —(1) *Rulings.* If a taxpayer requests a ruling on the merits of a specific transaction on or before the date that disclosure would otherwise be required under this section, and receives a favorable ruling as to the transaction, the disclosure rules under this section will be deemed to have been satisfied by that taxpayer with regard to that transaction, so long as the request fully discloses all relevant facts relating to the transaction which would otherwise be required to be disclosed under this section. If a taxpayer requests a ruling as to whether a specific transaction is a reportable transaction on or before the date that disclosure would otherwise be required under this section, the Commissioner in his discretion may determine that the submission satisfies the disclosure rules under this section for the taxpayer requesting the ruling for that transaction if the request fully discloses all relevant facts relating to the transaction which would otherwise be required to be disclosed under this section. The potential obligation of the taxpayer to disclose the transaction under this section will not be suspended during the period that the ruling request is pending. (f)(2) through
(g)[Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.6011-4(f)(2) through (g).
(h)*Effective date* —(1) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.6011-4(h)(1).
(2)*Tolling provision.* Paragraph (f)(1) of this section applies to ruling requests received on or after November 1, 2006. The applicability of this section expires on or before November 2, 2009. PART 301—PROCEDURE AND ADMINISTRATION **Par. 4.** The authority citation for part 301 is amended by adding an entry in numerical order to read, in part, as follows: Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * Section 301.6111-3T also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6111 * * * **Par. 5.** Section 301.6111-3T is added to read as follows: § 301.6111-3T Disclosure of reportable transactions (temporary).
(a)through
(g)[Reserved].
(h)*Rulings.* If a potential material advisor requests a ruling as to whether a specific transaction is a reportable transaction on or before the date that disclosure would otherwise be required under this section, the Commissioner in his discretion may determine that the submission satisfies the disclosure rules under this section for that transaction if the request fully discloses all relevant facts relating to the transaction which would otherwise be required to be disclosed under this section. The potential obligation of the person to disclose the transaction under this section (or to maintain or furnish the list under § 301.6112-1) will not be suspended during the period that the ruling request is pending.
(i)*Effective date* —(1) [Reserved].
(2)*Tolling provision.* Paragraph
(h)of this section applies to ruling requests received on or after November 1, 2006. The applicability of this section expires on or before November 2, 2009. **Par. 6.** Section 301.6112-1 is amended by revising paragraph
(i)to read as follows: § 301.6112-1 Requirement to prepare, maintain, and furnish lists with respect to potentially abusive tax shelters.
(i)[Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 301.6111-3T(h). Mark E. Matthews, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement. Approved: October 25, 2006. Eric Solomon, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (Tax Policy). [FR Doc. E6-18317 Filed 11-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [R08-WY-2006-0001; FRL-8236-2] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Revised Format for Materials Being Incorporated by Reference for Wyoming AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule; notice of administrative change. SUMMARY: EPA is revising the format of 40 CFR part 52 for materials submitted by the State of Wyoming that are incorporated by reference
(IBR)into its State Implementation Plan (SIP). The regulations affected by this format change have all been previously submitted by Wyoming and approved by EPA. DATES: *Effective Date:* This action is effective November 2, 2006. ADDRESSES: SIP materials which are incorporated by reference into 40 CFR part 52 are available for inspection at the following locations: Air and Radiation Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466; the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, EPA Headquarters Library, Infoterra Room (Room Number 3334), EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, and the National Archives and Records Administration. If you wish to view Wyoming's SIP material being incorporated by reference in:
(1)The EPA Region 8 Office, please contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section; or
(2)in the EPA Headquarters Library, please call the Office of Air and Radiation
(OAR)Docket/Telephone number,
(202)566-1742. For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurie Ostrand, EPA, Region 8,
(303)312-6437, *ostrand.laurie@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever “we” or “our” is used it means the EPA. Table of Contents I. Change of IBR Format A. Description of a SIP B. How EPA Enforces the SIP C. How the State and EPA Update the SIP D. How EPA Compiles the SIP E. How EPA Organizes the SIP Compilation F. Where You Can Find a Copy of the SIP Compilation G. The Format of the New Identification of Plan Section H. When a SIP Revision Becomes Federally Enforceable I. The Historical Record of SIP Revision Approvals II. What EPA Is Doing in This Action III. Good Cause Exemption IV. Statutory and Executive Order Review I. Change of IBR Format This format revision will affect the “Identification of plan” section of 40 CFR part 52, as well as the format of the SIP materials that will be available for public inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA); the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center located at EPA Headquarters in Washington, DC; and the EPA Region 8 Office. A. Description of a SIP Each state has a SIP containing the control measures and strategies used to attain and maintain the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and achieve certain other Clean Air Act
(Act)requirements (e.g., visibility requirements, prevention of significant deterioration). The SIP is extensive, containing such elements as air pollution control regulations, emission inventories, monitoring network descriptions, attainment demonstrations, and enforcement mechanisms. B. How EPA Enforces the SIP Each SIP revision submitted by Wyoming must be adopted at the state level after undergoing reasonable notice and public hearing. SIPs submitted to EPA to attain or maintain the NAAQS must include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, schedules and timetables for compliance. EPA evaluates submitted SIPs to determine if they meet the Act's requirements. If a SIP meets the Act's requirements, EPA will approve the SIP. EPA's notice of approval is published in the **Federal Register** and the approval is then codified in the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)at 40 CFR part 52. Once EPA approves a SIP, it is enforceable by EPA and citizens in Federal district court. EPA does not reproduce in 40 CFR part 52 the full text of the Wyoming regulations that we have approved; instead, we incorporate them by reference (“IBR”). EPA approves a given state regulation with a specific effective date and then refer the public to the location(s) of the full text version of the state regulation(s) should they want to know which measures are contained in a given SIP (see “I.F. Where You Can Find a Copy of the SIP Compilation”). C. How the State and EPA Update the SIP The SIP is a living document which the state can revise as necessary to address the unique air pollution problems in the state. Therefore, EPA from time to time must take action on SIP revisions containing new and/or revised regulations. On May 22, 1997 (62 FR 27968), we announced revised procedures for incorporating by reference Federally approved SIPs. The procedures announced included:
(1)A new process for incorporating by reference material submitted by states into compilations and a process for updating those compilations on roughly an annual basis;
(2)a revised mechanism for announcing EPA approval of revisions to an applicable SIP and updating both the compilations and the CFR; and
(3)a revised format for the “Identification of plan” sections for each applicable subpart to reflect these revised IBR procedures. D. How EPA Compiles the SIP EPA organized into a compilation the federally-approved regulations, source-specific requirements and nonregulatory provisions we have approved into the SIP. We maintain hard copies of the compilation in binders and we primarily update these binders on an annual basis. E. How EPA Organizes the SIP Compilation Each compilation contains three parts. Part one contains the state regulations, part two contains the source-specific requirements that have been approved as part of the SIP (if any), and part three contains nonregulatory provisions that we have approved. Each compilation contains a table of identifying information for each regulation, each source-specific requirement, and each nonregulatory provision. The state effective dates in the tables indicate the date of the most recent revision to a particular regulation. The table of identifying information in the compilation corresponds to the table of contents published in 40 CFR part 52 for the state. The EPA Regional Offices have the primary responsibility for ensuring accuracy and updating the compilations. F. Where You Can Find a Copy of the SIP Compilation EPA Region 8 developed and will maintain the compilation for Wyoming. A hard copy of the regulatory and source-specific portions of the compilation will also be maintained at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, EPA Headquarters Library, Infoterra Room (Room Number 3334), EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, and the National Archives and Records Administration. If you wish to view the SIP compilation in the EPA Region 8 Offices, please contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. If you wish to view the regulatory and source specific portions of the SIP compilation in the EPA Headquarters Library, please call the Office of Air and Radiation
(OAR)Docket/Telephone number:
(202)566-1742. For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.* Copies of the Wyoming regulations we have approved are also available on the following Web page: *http://www.epa.gov/region8/air/sip.html.* G. The Format of the New Identification of Plan Section In order to better serve the public, EPA has revised the organization of the “Identification of plan” section in 40 CFR part 52 and included additional information to clarify the elements of the SIP. The revised Identification of plan section for Wyoming contains five subsections: 1. Purpose and scope (see 40 CFR 52.2620(a)); 2. Incorporation by reference (see 40 CFR 52.2620(b)); 3. EPA-approved regulations (see 40 CFR 52.2620(c)); 4. EPA-approved source-specific requirements (see 40 CFR 52.2620(d)); and 5. EPA-approved nonregulatory provisions such as transportation control measures, statutory provisions, control strategies, monitoring networks, etc. (see 40 CFR 52.2620(e)). H. When a SIP Revision Becomes Federally Enforceable All revisions to the applicable SIP are Federally enforceable as of the effective date of EPA's approval of the respective revisions. In general, SIP revisions become effective 30 to 60 days after publication of EPA's SIP approval action in the **Federal Register** . In specific cases, a SIP revision action may become effective less than 30 days or greater than 60 days after the **Federal Register** publication date. In order to determine the effective date of EPA's approval for a specific Wyoming SIP provision that is listed in paragraph 40 CFR 52.2620 (c), (d), or (e), consult the volume and page of the **Federal Register** cited in the “EPA approval date” column of 40 CFR 52.2620 for that particular provision. I. The Historical Record of SIP Revision Approvals To facilitate enforcement of previously approved SIP provisions and to provide a smooth transition to the new SIP processing system, we are retaining the original Identification of plan section (see 40 CFR 52.2635). This section previously appeared at 40 CFR 52.2620. After an initial two-year period, EPA will review our experience with the new table format and will decide whether or not to retain the original Identification of plan section (40 CFR 52.2635) for some further period. II. What EPA Is Doing in This Action Today's action constitutes a “housekeeping” exercise to reformat the codification of the EPA-approved Wyoming SIP. III. Good Cause Exemption EPA has determined that today's action falls under the “good cause” exemption in section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA)which, upon a finding of “good cause,” authorizes agencies to dispense with public participation, and section 553(d)(3), which allows an agency to make a rule effective immediately (thereby avoiding the 30-day delayed effective date otherwise provided for in the APA). Today's action simply reformats the codification of provisions which are already in effect as a matter of law. Under section 553 of the APA, an agency may find good cause where procedures are “impractical, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Public comment is “unnecessary” and “contrary to the public interest” since the codification only reflects existing law. Likewise, there is no purpose served by delaying the effective date of this action. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Review A. General Requirements Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and is therefore not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. 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) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Because the agency has made a “good cause” finding that this action is not subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute as indicated in the Supplementary Information section above, it is not subject to the regulatory flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C 601 *et seq.* ), or to sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA)(Pub. L. 104-4). In addition, this action does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments or impose a significant intergovernmental mandate, as described in sections 203 and 204 of UMRA. This rule also 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, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. This rule does not involve technical standards; thus the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. The rule also does not involve special consideration of environmental justice related issues as required by Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct, as required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996). EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1998) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). EPA's compliance with these statutes and Executive Orders for the underlying rules are discussed in previous actions taken on the State's rules. B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General The Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* ), as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. Section 808 allows the issuing agency to make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA if the agency makes a good cause finding that notice and public procedure is impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest. Today's action simply reformats the codification of provisions which are already in effect as a matter of law. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). As stated previously, EPA has made such a good cause finding, including the reasons therefore, and established an effective date of November 2, 2006. 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 the rule in the **Federal Register** . These corrections to the Identification of plan for Wyoming are not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). C. Petitions for Judicial Review EPA has also determined that the provisions of section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act pertaining to petitions for judicial review are not applicable to this action. Prior EPA rulemaking actions for each individual component of the Wyoming SIP compilation had previously afforded interested parties the opportunity to file a petition for judicial review in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit within 60 days of such rulemaking action. Thus, EPA sees no need to reopen the 60-day period for filing such petitions for judicial review for this reorganization of the Wyoming “Identification of plan” section of 40 CFR 52.2620. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: October 20, 2006. Kerrigan G. Clough, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. Part 52 of chapter I, title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, is amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority for citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart ZZ—Wyoming 2. Section 52.2620 is redesignated as § 52.2635. The section heading and paragraph
(a)are revised to read as follows: § 52.2635 Original identification of plan section.
(a)This section identifies the original “Air Implementation Plan for the State of Wyoming” and all revisions submitted by Wyoming that were federally approved prior to August 31, 2006. 3. A new § 52.2620 is added to read as follows: § 52.2620 Identification of plan.
(a)*Purpose and scope.* This section sets forth the applicable State Implementation Plan for Wyoming under section 110 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7410 and 40 CFR part 51 to meet national ambient air quality standards or other requirements under the Clean Air Act.
(b)*Incorporation by reference.*
(1)Material listed in paragraphs
(c)and
(d)of this section with an EPA approval date prior to August 31, 2006 was approved for incorporation by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Material is incorporated as submitted by the state to EPA, and notice of any change in the material will be published in the **Federal Register** . Entries for paragraphs
(c)and
(d)of this section with EPA approval dates after August 31, 2006, will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation.
(2)EPA Region 8 certifies that the rules/regulations provided by EPA in the SIP compilation at the addresses in paragraph (b)(3) of this section are an exact duplicate of the officially promulgated state rules/regulations which have been approved as part of the State Implementation Plan as of August 31, 2006.
(3)Copies of the materials incorporated by reference may be inspected at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado, 80202-2466; the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, and the National Archives and Records Administration. For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.*
(c)*EPA approved regulations.*
(1)State of Wyoming Regulations State citation Title/subject State adopted and effective date EPA approval date and citation 1 Explanations Chapter 1 Section 2 Authority 9/13/99, 10/29/99 7/28/04, 69 FR 44965. Section 3 Definitions 9/13/99, 10/29/99 7/28/04, 69 FR 44965. Section 4 Diluting and concealing emissions 9/13/99, 10/29/99 7/28/04, 69 FR 44965. Section 5 Abnormal conditions and equipment 9/13/99, 10/29/99 7/28/04, 69 FR 44965. Chapter 2 Section 2 Ambient standards for particulate matter 9/13/99, 10/29/99 7/28/04, 69 FR 44965. Section 3 Ambient standards for nitrogen oxides 9/13/99, 10/29/99 7/28/04, 69 FR 44965. Section 4 Ambient standards for sulfur oxides 9/13/99, 10/29/99 7/28/04, 69 FR 44965. Section 5 Ambient standards for carbon monoxide 9/13/99, 10/29/00 7/28/04, 69 FR 44965. Section 6 Ambient standards for ozone 9/13/99, 10/29/99 7/28/04, 69 FR 44965. Section 8 Ambient standards for suspended sulfates 9/13/99, 10/29/99 7/28/04, 69 FR 44965. Section 10 Ambient standards for lead 9/13/99, 10/29/99 7/28/04, 69 FR 44965. Chapter 3 Section 2 Emission standards for particulate matter 9/13/99, 10/29/99 7/28/04, 69 FR 44965. Section 3 Emission standards for nitrogen oxides 9/13/99, 10/29/99 7/28/04, 69 FR 44965. Section 4 Emission standards for sulfur oxides 9/13/99, 10/29/99 7/28/04, 69 FR 44965. Section 5 Emission standards for carbon monoxide 9/13/99, 10/29/99 7/28/04, 69 FR 44965. Section 6 Emission standards for volatile organic compounds 9/13/99, 10/29/99 7/28/04, 69 FR 44965. Chapter 4 Section 2 Existing sulfuric acid production units 9/13/99, 10/29/99 7/28/04, 69 FR 44965. Section 3 Existing nitric acid manufacturing plants 9/13/99, 10/29/99 7/28/04, 69 FR 44965. Chapter 6 Section 2 Permit requirements for construction, modification, and operation 9/13/99, 10/29/99 7/28/04, 69 FR 44965. Section 4 Prevention of significant deterioration 9/13/99, 10/29/99 7/28/04, 69 FR 44965. Chapter 7 Section 2 Continuous monitoring requirements for existing sources 9/13/99, 10/29/99 7/28/04, 69 FR 44965. Chapter 8 Section 2 Sweetwater County particulate matter regulations 9/13/99, 10/29/99 7/28/04, 69 FR 44965. Section 3 Conformity of general federal actions to state implementation plans 9/13/99, 10/29/99 7/28/04, 69 FR 44965. Chapter 9 Section 2 Visibility 9/13/99, 10/29/99 7/28/04, 69 FR 44965. Chapter 10 Section 2 Open burning restrictions 9/13/99, 10/29/99 7/28/04, 69 FR 44965. Section 3 Wood waste burners 9/13/99, 10/29/99 7/28/04, 69 FR 44965. Chapter 12 Section 2 Air pollution emergency episodes 9/13/99, 10/29/99 7/28/04, 69 FR 44965. Chapter 13 Section 2 Motor vehicle pollution control 9/13/99, 10/29/99 7/28/04, 69 FR 44965. 1 In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision that is listed in this table, consult the **Federal Register** cited in this column for that particular provision. *(d) EPA-approved source-specific requirements.* Name of source Nature of requirement State submittal and effective date EPA approval date and citation 2 Explanations FMC Corporation Order containing schedule for compliance, interim requirements, and monitoring and reporting requirements 1/25/79, 4/25/79 7/2/79, 44 FR 38473 Black Hills Power and Light Order containing schedule for compliance, interim requirements, and monitoring and reporting requirements 1/25/79, 4/25/79 7/2/79, 44 FR 38473 2 In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision that is listed in this table, consult the Federal Register cited in this column for that particular provision. *(e) EPA-approved nonregulatory provisions.* Name of nonregulatory SIP provision Applicable geographic or non-attainment area State submittal date/adopted date EPA approval date and citation 3 Explanations I. Implementation Plan for the State of Wyoming I. Introduction II. Legal Authority III. Control Strategy IV. Compliance Schedule V. Emergency Plan VI. Air Quality Surveillance VII. Review of New Sources and Modifications VIII. Source Surveillance IX. Resources X. Intergovernmental Cooperation IX. Reports and Revisions Appendices Statewide Submitted: 1/28/72, Adopted: 1/22/72, Additional letters submitted on 3/28/72 and 5/3/72 5/31/72, 37 FR 10842 Excluding:
(1)the Wyoming Air Quality Act of 1967 and Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations contained in Appendix E (more recent versions of these documents have been approved in the SIP);
(2)Section III, paragraph following table I and Section IV, paragraph G (revisions to these paragraphs have subsequently been approved). (See II below.) II. Revisions to Sections III (paragraph following Table I and IV (paragraph G) of the SIP Statewide Submitted: 5/29/73 7/3/74, 39 FR 24504 III. Inclusion of the Wyoming Environmental Quality Act, 1973, with amendments incorporated by the 1975 Wyoming State Legislature Statewide Submitted: 2/19/76 8/31/76, 41 FR 36652 IV. Revisions to Implementation Plan for Air Quality Control Plan State of Wyoming: addition of sections for Implementation Plan Reviews: Added to Air Quality Surveillance Chapter—Public Notification of Air Quality; and added to Intergovernmental Cooperation Chapter—Consultation Statewide Submitted: 1/25/79 7/2/79, 44 FR 38473 V. SIP for Total Suspended Particulate
(TSP)Trona Area of Sweetwater County nonattainment area Trona area of Sweetwater County Submitted: 1/25/79 7/2/79, 44 FR 38473 SIP also contained source specific regulations that are now in Chapter 8, Section 2. VI. Revision to Implementation Plan for Air Quality Control Plan State of Wyoming: Addition of section to Control Strategy Chapter for Implementation Plan Reviews Statewide 4/30/91 4/19/83, 48 FR 16682 VII. SIP to meet Air Quality Monitoring 40 CFR part 58 Statewide Submitted: 8/26/81 2/9/82, 47 FR 5892 VIII. Emergency Episode Contingency Plan Statewide Submitted: 8/26/81 2/9/82, 47 FR 5892 IX. Implementation Plan for Lead Statewide Submitted: 8/30/84 10/11/84, 49 FR 39843 X. Implementation Plan for Class I Visibility Protection Statewide Submitted: 9/6/88 2/15/89, 54 FR 6912 XI. Commitment to conduct stack height evaluations in accordance with the “Guideline for Determination of Good Engineering Practice Stack Height (Technical Support Document for the Stack Height Regulations),” EPA 450/4-80-023R, June, 1985 Statewide Submitted: 12/9/88 3/17/89, 54 FR 11186 XII. Stack Height Demonstration Analyses Statewide Submitted: 8/5/86 6/7/89, 54 FR 24334 XIII. Implementation Plan on Air Quality Surveillance for Inhalable Particulate Matter
(PM10)Statewide Submitted: 3/14/89, Adopted: 12/13/88 7/10/89 55 FR 28197 XIV. NO <sup>X</sup> Increment Implementation Statewide Submitted: 11/20/90 5/24/91, 56 FR 23811 XV. Small Business Program Statewide Submitted: 11/1/93 6/20/94, 59 FR 31548 XVI. Implementation Plan for PM-10 Control Strategies Sheridan, Wyoming (includes City of Sheridan—Air Quality Maintenance Plan) Sheridan Submitted: 8/28/89, Adopted: 7/17/89 6/23/94, 59 FR 32360 Approval does not include sections 2 and 3, Voluntary Curtailment of Solid Fuel Combustion and Industrial Sources. XVII. Memorandum of Agreement on Procedures for Protecting PM10 NAAQS in the Powder River Basin Powder River Basin Signed: 12/22/93 9/12/95, 60 FR 47290 3 In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision that is listed in this table, consult the Federal Register cited in this column for that particular provision. [FR Doc. E6-18423 Filed 11-1-06, 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R08-OAR-2005-CO-0002; FRL-8232-2] Clean Air Act Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plan Revision for Colorado; Long-Term Strategy of State Implementation Plan for Class I Visibility Protection AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: On January 24, 2006, EPA published a proposed approval of a revision updating the Long-Term Strategy of the State Implementation Plan
(SIP)for Class I Visibility Protection, which was submitted by the Governor of Colorado with a letter dated March 24, 2005. In a February 13, 2006, letter EPA received adverse comments on our proposed approval from Rocky Mountain Clean Air Action. In this final rulemaking, we address the adverse comments received and finalize our approval. DATES: *Effective Date:* This rule is effective on December 4, 2006. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. R08-OAR-2005-CO-0002. All documents in the docket are listed on the *www.regulations.gov* Web site. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 999 18th Street, Suite 200, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Platt, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8,
(303)312-6449, *platt.amy@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Background II. March 24, 2005 Submittal III. Response to Comments IV. Section 110(l) V. Final Action VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Definitions For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain words or initials as follows:
(i)The word *Act* or initials *CAA* mean the Clean Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
(ii)The word *we* or initials *EPA* mean the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
(iii)The initials *SIP* mean State Implementation Plan.
(iv)The word *State* or initials *CO* mean the State of Colorado, unless the context indicates otherwise.
(v)The initials *FLM* mean Federal Land Manager. I. Background Section 169A of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 1 42 U.S.C. 7491, establishes as a National goal the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, anthropogenic visibility impairment in mandatory Class I Federal areas 2 (referred to herein as the “National goal” or “National visibility goal”). Section 169A called for EPA to, among other things, issue regulations to assure reasonable progress toward meeting the National visibility goal, including requiring each State with a mandatory Class I Federal area to revise its SIP to contain such emission limits, schedules of compliance and other measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress toward meeting the National goal ( *see* CAA section 169A(b)(2)). Section 110(a)(2)(J) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(J), similarly requires SIPs to meet the visibility protection requirements of the CAA. 1 The Clean Air Act is codified, as amended, in the U.S. Code at 42 U.S.C. 7401, *et seq.* 2 Mandatory class I Federal areas include international parks, national wilderness areas, and national memorial parks greater than five thousand acres in size, and national parks greater than six thousand acres in size, as described in section 162(a) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 7472(a)). Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the responsibility of a “Federal land manager” (FLM), the Secretary of the department with authority over such lands. See section 302(i) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). We promulgated regulations that required affected States to, among other things,
(1)coordinate development of SIPs with appropriate FLMs;
(2)develop a program to assess and remedy visibility impairment from new and existing sources; and
(3)develop a long-term (10-15 years) strategy to assure reasonable progress toward the National visibility goal. See 45 FR 80084, December 2, 1980 (codified at 40 CFR 51.300-51.307). The regulations provide for the remedying of visibility impairment that is reasonably attributable to a single existing stationary facility or small group of existing stationary facilities. These regulations require that the SIPs provide for periodic review, and revision as appropriate, of the Long-Term Strategy not less frequently than every three years, that the review process include consultation with the appropriate FLMs, and that the State provide a report to the public and EPA that includes an assessment of the State's progress toward the National visibility goal. See 40 CFR 51.306(c). On July 12, 1985 (50 FR 28544) and November 24, 1987 (52 FR 45132), we disapproved the SIPs of states, including Colorado, that failed to comply with the requirements of the provisions of 40 CFR 51.302 (visibility general plan requirements), 51.305 (visibility monitoring), and 51.306 (visibility long-term strategy). We also incorporated corresponding Federal plans and regulations into the SIPs of these states pursuant to section 110(c)(1) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7410(c)(1). The Governor of Colorado submitted a SIP revision for visibility protection on December 21, 1987, which met the criteria of 40 CFR 51.302, 51.305, and 51.306 for general plan requirements, monitoring strategy, and long-term strategies. We approved this SIP revision in the August 12, 1988 **Federal Register** (53 FR 30428), and this revision replaced the Federal plans and regulations in the Colorado Visibility SIP. The Governor of Colorado submitted a subsequent SIP revision for visibility protection with a letter dated November 18, 1992, which we approved on October 11, 1994 (59 FR 51376). After Colorado's 1992 Long-Term Strategy review, the U.S. Forest Service
(USFS)certified visibility impairment at Mt. Zirkel Wilderness Area
(MZWA)and named the Hayden and Craig generating stations in the Yampa Valley of Northwest Colorado as suspected sources. The USFS is the FLM for MZWA. This certification was issued on July 14, 1993. Emissions from the Hayden Station were addressed in the State's August 23, 1996 Long-Term Strategy review and revision ( *see* 62 FR 2305, January 16, 1997). Emissions from the Craig Generating Station were addressed in the State's April 19, 2001 Long-Term Strategy review and revision ( *see* 66 FR 35374, July 5, 2001). The State conducted its next complete periodic review and revision of the long-term strategy in 2002. With an April 12, 2004, letter, the Governor of Colorado submitted that revision to the Long-Term Strategy of Colorado's SIP for Class I Visibility Protection, which we approved on August 1, 2005 (70 FR 44052). II. March 24, 2005 Submittal With a March 24, 2005 letter, the Governor of Colorado submitted a revision to the Long-Term Strategy of Colorado's SIP for Class I Visibility Protection, contained in Part II of the November 18, 2004 document entitled “Long-Term Strategy Review and Revision of Colorado's State Implementation Plan for Class I Visibility Protection.” This revision was made to fulfill the requirements to periodically review and, as appropriate, revise the Long-Term Strategy. The SIP revision is contained in Part II of the November 18, 2004 document entitled “Long-Term Strategy Review and Revision of Colorado's State Implementation Plan for Class I Visibility Protection.” Part II, “Revision of the Long-Term Strategy,” incorporates by reference requirements for the Hayden and Craig Generating Stations, including emissions limits and schedules of compliance, as previously approved by EPA on January 16, 1997 ( *see* 62 FR 2305) and July 5, 2001 ( *see* 66 FR 35374). Part II also contains explanatory provisions and analyses that are required by section 169A of the CAA, Federal visibility regulations (40 CFR 51.300 to 51.307), and/or the Colorado Visibility SIP. These requirements address existing impairment, ongoing air pollution programs, smoke management practices, prevention of future impairment, and FLM consultation and communication. We reviewed the SIP revision and determined it adequately demonstrates that the State is making reasonable progress toward the National visibility goal as required by 40 CFR 51.306. Therefore, on January 24, 2006 (71 FR 3796), EPA proposed approval of this SIP revision. In addition, Appendix B of Part II of the November 18, 2004 document entitled “Long-Term Strategy Review and Revision of Colorado's State Implementation Plan for Class I Visibility Protection,” contains an update of Section XIV, Visibility, of Part D of the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission Regulation No. 3 (Stationary Source Permitting and Air Pollutant Emission Notice Requirements). Although this section has not changed substantively since it was last incorporated into the Visibility SIP ( *see* 53 FR 30431, August 12, 1988, and 59 FR 51379, October 11, 1994), it has been recodified. Therefore, on January 24, 2006 (71 FR 3796) for clarification purposes, we also proposed approval of this recodified version of the State's visibility regulations in order to update the version incorporated into the Visibility SIP. III. Response to Comments *Comment:* In a letter dated February 13, 2006, Rocky Mountain Clean Air Action (RMCAA) submitted adverse comments on our proposed approval. Specifically, RMCAA commented that the SIP revision cannot be approved because of an existing provision in the Colorado SIP related to upsets at stationary sources. In RMCAA's view, the “broad exception to air quality standards and limitations” contained in Colorado's upset provision interferes with applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress towards attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and other applicable requirements of the Act, including the visibility goals under Section 169A. Although the comments address an existing SIP provision that the State did not submit as part of its Visibility SIP revision, the commenter does not believe that EPA can approve the State's Visibility SIP revision until the existing provision is eliminated or revised. *EPA's Response:* Colorado's upset rule is located in the Colorado Common Provisions Regulation, Section II.E., Upset Conditions and Breakdowns. EPA approved the upset rule on May 31, 1972 ( *see* 37 FR 10842). As noted above, the State did not submit any revisions to its upset rule with the Visibility SIP revision we are approving today. Therefore, we are not acting on the upset rule in this action, and our approval of the Visibility SIP revision will not change Colorado's upset rule or its effect on the implementation and enforcement of the Colorado SIP. Also, our approval of the Visibility SIP revision will not interfere with attainment, reasonable further progress, or any other requirement of the Clean Air Act. Colorado's Visibility SIP revision meets the requirements of our visibility regulations. Thus, our approval is appropriate. IV. Section 110(l) Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act states that a SIP revision cannot be approved if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress towards attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) or any other applicable requirements of the Act. The Colorado SIP revisions that are the subject of this document are consistent with Federal requirements and rules. These revisions were made to demonstrate reasonable further progress toward the National visibility goal, as required by the Act. They do not interfere with the attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS or other applicable requirements of the Act V. Final Action We have reviewed the adequacy of the State's revision to the Long-Term Strategy of Colorado's SIP for Class I Visibility Protection, contained in Part II of the November 18, 2004 document entitled “Long-Term Strategy Review and Revision of Colorado's State Implementation Plan for Class I Visibility Protection,” as submitted by the Governor with a letter dated March 24, 2005. We are approving the revision as demonstrating reasonable further progress toward the National visibility goal as required by 40 CFR 51.306. This rule will be effective December 4, 2006 without further notice. VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This rule also does not have tribal implications 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, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 4, 2006. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides. Dated: October 3, 2006. Kerrigan G. Clough, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. 40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart G—Colorado 2. Section 52.320 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(108) to read as follows: § 52.320 Identification of plan.
(c)* * *
(108)Revisions to the Long-Term Strategy of Colorado's State Implementation Plan for Class I Visibility Protection (Visibility SIP), as submitted by the Governor on March 24, 2005. The revisions update strategies, activities, and monitoring plans that constitute reasonable progress toward the National visibility goal.
(i)*Incorporation by reference.*
(A)“Revision of the Long-Term Strategy,” Part II of the November 18, 2004 document entitled “Long-Term Strategy Review and Revision of Colorado's State Implementation Plan for Class I Visibility Protection,” effective November 18, 2004.
(B)Colorado Air Quality Control Commission Regulation No. 3, “Stationary Source Permitting and Air Pollutant Emission Notice Requirements,” 5 CCR 1001-5, Part D, Section XIV, Visibility, Subsections A through F, effective April 16, 2004. [FR Doc. E6-18416 Filed 11-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0528; FRL-8236-6] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; West Virginia; Amendments to Nonattainment New Source Review
(NSR)Air Quality Permit Program AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan
(SIP)revision submitted by the State of West Virginia. This revision consists of amendments to West Virginia's existing Nonattainment New Source Review
(NSR)preconstruction air quality permit program regulation. The intended effect of this action is to approve a State Implementation Plan
(SIP)revision submitted by West Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. DATES: *Effective Date:* This final rule is effective on December 4, 2006. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0528. All documents in the docket are listed in the *www.regulations.gov* Web site. Although listed in the electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential business information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Air Quality, 601 57th Street, SE., Charleston, WV 25304. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rosemarie Nino,
(215)814-3377, or by e-mail at *nino.rose@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background On August 9, 2006 (71 FR 45482), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPR)for the State of West Virginia. The NPR proposed approval of amendments to West Virginia's nonattainment new source review
(NSR)air quality permit program. The formal SIP revision was submitted by West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) on December 1, 2005. On December 22, 2005, WVDEP provided supplemental materials consisting of a letter and an attached one page table requesting that EPA exclude from its December 1, 2005 request for SIP approval the provisions of 45 CSR 19, as set forth in the attached table, that pertain to “Clean Unit” and “Pollution Control Project” in order to ensure that their federally-approved regulations are consistent with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit's June 24, 2005 ruling in *New York* v. *EPA* , 413 F.3d 3 (D.C. Cir . 2005). In a separate action, EPA will act on changes made by West Virginia to its prevention of significant deterioration
(PSD)construction permit program, also submitted on December 1, 2005. The Clean Air Act requires that all states including the District of Columbia to submit revisions to their State Implementation Plans that requires State and local permitting agencies to adopt and submit revisions to their part 51 permitting programs, implementing the minimum program elements of the December 31, 2002 “NSR Reform” rulemaking no later than January 2, 2006 (67 FR 80240). West Virginia amended its regulation to satisfy this requirement. II. Summary of SIP Revision West Virginia amended its regulation (45 CSR 19) to meet the minimum requirements of 40 CFR 51.165 and the Clean Air Act. This approval action will effectively replace the previously approved version of 45 CSR 19 as approved in WV SIP on July 2, 1985 (50 FR 27247). Other specific requirements of West Virginia's existing Nonattainment New Source Review
(NSR)preconstruction air quality permit program as 45 CSR 19 and the rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here. No public comments were received on the NPR. III. Final Action EPA is approving West Virginia's Nonattainment New Source Review
(NSR)preconstruction air quality permit program regulation (45 CSR 19) as a revision to the West Virginia SIP. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This rule also does not have tribal implications 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, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal requirement, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . This rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). C. Petitions for Judicial Review Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 2, 2007. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) This final rule approves West Virginia's Nonattainment New Source Review
(NSR)Permit Program. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: October 16, 2006. William T. Wisniewski, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for 40 CFR part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart XX—West Virginia 2. In § 52.2520, the table in paragraph
(c)is amended by removing the entry for (Ch. 16-20) Series XIX and replacing it with an entry for 45 CSR 19 to read as follows: § 52.2520 Identification of plan.
(c)* * * EPA-Approved Regulations in the West Virginia SIP State citation [Chapter 16-20 or 45 CSR] Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Additional explanation/citation at 40 CFR 52.2565 * * * * * * * 45 CSR 19 Permits for Construction and Major Modification of Major Stationary Sources of Air Pollution Which Cause or Contribute to Nonattainment Section 45-19-1 General 6/2/05 11/2/06 [ *Insert page number where the document begins* ] Section 45-19-2 Definitions 6/2/05 11/2/06 [ *Insert page number where the document begins* ] Section 45-19-3 Applicability 6/2/05 11/2/06 [ *Insert page number where the document begins* ] Section 45-19-4 Conditions for a Permit Approval for Proposed Major Sources that Would Contribute to a Violation of NAAQS 6/2/05 11/2/06 [ *Insert page number where the document begins* ] Section 45-19-5 Conditions for Permit Approval for Sources Locating In Attainment or Unclassifiable Areas that Would Cause a New Violation of a NAAQS 6/2/05 11/2/06 [ *Insert page number where the document begins* ] Section 45-19-7 Baseline for Determining Credit for Emission Offsets 6/2/05 11/2/06 [ *Insert page number where the document begins* ] Section 45-19-8 Location of Emissions Offsets 6/2/05 11/2/06 [ *Insert page number where the document begins* ] Section 45-19-9 Administrative Procedures for Emission Offset Proposals 6/2/05 11/2/06 [ *Insert page number where the document begins* ] Section 45-19-12 Reasonable Further Progress 6/2/05 11/2/06 [ *Insert page number where the document begins* ] Section 45-19-13 Source Impact Analysis 6/2/05 11/2/06 [ *Insert page number where the document begins* ] Section 45-19-14 Permit Requirements for Major Stationary Sources and Major Modifications 6/2/05 11/2/06 [ *Insert page number where the document begins* ] Section 45-19-15 Public Review Procedures 6/2/05 11/2/06 [ *Insert page number where the document begins* ] Section 45-19-16 Public Meetings 6/2/05 11/2/06 [ *Insert page number where the document begins* ] Section 45-19-17 Permit Transfer, Cancellation and Responsibility 6/2/05 11/2/06 [ *Insert page number where the document begins* ] Section 45-19-18 Disposition of Permits 6/2/05 11/2/06 [ *Insert page number where the document begins* ] Section 45-19-19 Requirements for Air Quality Models 6/2/05 11/2/06 [ *Insert page number where the document begins* ] Section 45-19-23 Actual PAL 6/2/05 11/2/06 [ *Insert page number where the document begins* ] Section 45-19-24 Conflict with Other Permitting Rules 6/2/05 11/2/06 [ *Insert page number where the document begins* ] Section 45-19-25 Inconsistency Between Rules 6/2/05 11/2/06 [ *Insert page number where the document begins* ] * * * * * * * [FR Doc. E6-18277 Filed 11-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0527; FRL-8236-5] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; West Virginia; Amendments to Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD)Air Quality Permit Program AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan
(SIP)revision submitted by the State of West Virginia. This revision establishes amendments to the State's prevention of significant deterioration
(PSD)preconstruction air quality permit program regulation. The intended effect of this action is the approval of a State Implementation Plan
(SIP)revisions submitted by West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection. DATES: *Effective Date:* This final rule is effective on December 4, 2006. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0527. All documents in the docket are listed in the *www.regulations.gov* Web site. Although listed in the electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, *i.e.* , confidential business information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, and 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal is available at the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Air Quality, 601 57th Street SE., Charleston, WV 25304. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rosemarie Nino,
(215)814-3377, or by e-mail at *nino.rose@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background On August 9, 2006 (71 FR 45485), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPR)for the State of West Virginia. The NPR proposed approval of amendments to West Virginia's prevention of significant deterioration
(PSD)preconstruction air quality permit program. The formal SIP revision was submitted by West Virginia on December 1, 2005. On December 22, 2005, WVDEP provided supplemental materials consisting of a letter and an attached one page table requesting that EPA exclude from its December 1, 2005 request for SIP approval the provisions of 45 CSR 14, as set forth in the attached table, that pertain to “Clean Unit” and “Pollution Control Project” in order to ensure that their federally-approved regulations are consistent with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit's June 24, 2005 ruling in New York v. EPA, 413 F.3d 3 (D.C. Cir 2005). In a separate action, EPA will act on changes made by West Virginia to its nonattainment new source review
(NSR)permit program, also submitted on December 1, 2005. The Clean Air Act requires that all states including the District of Columbia to submit revisions to their State Implementation Plans that requires State and local permitting agencies to adopt and submit revision to their part 51 permitting programs, implementing the minimum program elements of the December 31, 2002 “NSR Reform” rulemaking no later then January 2, 2006 (67 FR 80240). West Virginia amended its regulation to satisfy this requirement. II. Summary of SIP Revision West Virginia amended its regulation (45 CSR 14) to meet the minimum requirements of 40 CFR 51.166 and the Clean Air Act. This approval action will effectively replace the previous-approved version of 45 CSR 14 as approved in the West Virginia SIP on October 22, 1996 (61 FR 54735). Other specific requirements of West Virginia's existing prevention of significant deterioration
(PSD)construction permit program as 45 CSR 14 and the rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here. No public comments were received on the NPR. III. Final Action EPA is approving amendments to the State's prevention of significant deterioration
(PSD)preconstruction air quality permit program regulations as a revision to the West Virginia SIP. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This rule also does not have tribal implications 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, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal requirement, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . This rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). C. Petitions for Judicial Review Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 2, 2007. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) This final rule approves West Virginia's prevention of significant deterioration
(PSD)preconstruction air quality permit program. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: October 16, 2006. William T. Wisniewski, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 40 CFR Part 52 is amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for 40 CFR part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart XX—West Virginia 2. In § 52.2520, the table in paragraph
(c)is amended by revising the entries for 45 CSR 14 to read as follows: § 52.2520 Identification of plan.
(c)* * * EPA-Approved Regulations in the West Virginia SIP State citation [Chapter 16-20 or 45 CSR] Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Additional explanation/ citation at 40 CFR 52.2565 * * * * * * * 45 CSR 14 Permits for Construction and Major Modification of Major Stationary Sources of Air Pollution for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Section 45-14-1 General 6/2/05 11/2/06 [ *Insert page number where the document begins* ] Section 45-14-2 Definitions 6/2/05 11/2/06 [ *Insert page number where the document begins* ] Section 45-14-3 Applicability 6/2/05 11/2/06 [ *Insert page number where the document begins* ] New Section. Section 45-14-4 Ambient Air Quality Increments and Ceilings 6/2/05 11/2/06 [ *Insert page number where the document begins* ] Formerly Section 45-14-3. Section 45-14-5 Area Classification 6/2/05 11/2/06 [ *Insert page number where the document begins* ] Formerly Section 45-14-4. Section 45-14-6 Prohibition of Dispersion Enhancement Techniques 6/2/05 11/2/06 [ *Insert page number where the document begins]* Formerly Section 45-14-5. Section 45-14-7 Registration, Report and Permit Requirements for Major Stationary Sources and Major Modification 6/2/05 11/2/06 [ *Insert page number where the document begins* ] Formerly Section 45-14-6. Section 45-14-8 Control Technology Requirements 6/2/05 11/2/06 [ *Insert page number where the document begins* ] Formerly Section 45-14-7. Section 45-14-9 Requirements Relating to the Source's Impact on Air Quality 6/2/05 11/2/06 [ *Insert page number where the document begins* ] Formerly Section 45-14-8. Section 45-14-10 Modeling Requirements 6/2/05 11/2/06 [ *Insert page number where the document begins* ] Formerly Section 45-14-9. Section 45-14-11 Air Quality Monitoring Requirements 6/2/05 11/2/06 [ *Insert page number where the document begins* ] Formerly Section 45-14-10. Section 45-14-12 Additional Impacts Analysis Requirements 6/2/05 11/2/06 [ *Insert page number where the document begins* ] Formerly Section 45-14-11. Section 45-14-13 Additional Requirements and Variances for Sources Impacting Federal Class I Areas 6/2/05 11/2/06 [ *Insert page number where the document begins* ] Formerly Section 45-14-12. Section 45-14-14 Procedures for Sources Employing Innovative Control Technology 6/2/05 11/2/06 [ *Insert page number where the document begins* ] Formerly Section 45-14-13. Section 45-14-15 Exclusions From Increment Consumption 6/2/05 11/2/06 [ *Insert page number where the document begins* ] Formerly Section 45-14-14. Section 45-14-16 Specific Exemptions 6/2/05 11/2/06 [ *Insert page number where the document begins* ] Formerly Section 45-14-15. Section 45-14-17 Public Review Procedures 6/2/05 11/2/06 [ *Insert page number where the document begins* ] Formerly Section 45-14-16. Section 45-14-18 Public Meetings 6/2/05 11/2/06 [ *Insert page number where the document begins* ] Formerly Section 45-14-17. Section 45-14-19 Permit Transfer, Cancellation, and Responsibility 6/2/05 11/2/06 [ *Insert page number where the document begins* ] Formerly Section 45-14-18. Section 45-14-20 Disposition of Permits 6/2/05 11/2/06 [ *Insert page number where the document begins* ] Formerly Section 45-14-19. Section 45-14-21 Conflict with Other Permitting Rules 6/2/05 11/2/06 [ *Insert page number where the document begins* ] Formerly Section 45-14-20. Section 45-14-25 Actual PALs 6/2/05 11/2/06 [ *Insert page number where the document begins* ] New Section. Section 45-14-26 Inconsistency Between Rules 6/2/05 11/2/06 [ *Insert page number where the document begins* ] New Section. * * * * * * * [FR Doc. E6-18276 Filed 11-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 571 [Docket No. NHTSA-2006-15712] Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Glazing Materials; Correction AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Correcting amendment. SUMMARY: In July 2003, the agency published a final rule updating our Federal motor vehicle safety standard on glazing materials. As part of that rulemaking, boundaries were established for shade bands on vehicle windshields in order to limit their potential encroachment on the driver's field of view. As part of the new shade band requirements, the Society of Automotive Engineers
(SAE)Recommended Practice J100 (rev. June 1995), “Class ‘A’ Vehicle Glazing Shade Bands,” was incorporated by reference into the standard. However, in a July 2005 final rule responding to petitions for reconsideration of that earlier rulemaking, the standard's provisions related to shade bands requirements were amended, and as a result, a later but substantively identical version of SAE J100 ( *i.e.* , the November 1999 revision) was inadvertently included in the standard. The July 2005 final rule should have referenced SAE J100 (rev. June 1995), the document properly incorporated by reference into the safety standard. This document corrects this inconsistency resulting from administrative error. DATES: *Effective date:* This correcting amendment is effective December 4, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Eric Stas, Attorney-Advisor, Office of the Chief Counsel, NCC-112, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:
(202)366-2992. Fax:
(202)366-3820. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 25, 2003, the agency published a final rule updating Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, *Glazing Materials* (68 FR 43964). As part of that rulemaking, boundaries were established for shade bands on vehicle windshields in order to limit their potential encroachment on the driver's field of view. Prior to that rulemaking, the size of the shade band was not explicitly defined under the standard. As part of the new shade band requirements ( *see* S3.2(c)), the final rule incorporated by reference SAE Recommended Practice J100 (rev. June 1995), “Class ‘A’ Vehicle Glazing Shade Bands” into the standard ( *see* 68 FR 43964, 43972 (July 25, 2003)). However, in a July 12, 2005 final rule responding to petitions for reconsideration of that earlier rulemaking, the standard's provisions related to shade bands requirements were amended, and as a result, a later version of SAE J100 ( *i.e.* , the November 1999 revision) was inadvertently included in the standard under paragraph S5.3.1 ( *see* 70 FR 39959, 39965). The latest version of SAE J100 (the November 1999 revision) is not substantively different from the prior June 1995 version of that standard; it merely reaffirmed that Recommended Practice as part of SAE's cyclical review process. Furthermore, the final rule responding to petitions for reconsideration does not reflect any affirmative intention on the part of the agency to adopt the later version of SAE J100. Thus, the July 2005 final rule's amendments to Standard No. 205 should have referenced SAE J100 (rev. June 1995), the document properly incorporated by reference into the safety standard. This document corrects this inconsistency resulting from administrative error. This correction will not impose or relax any substantive requirements or burdens on manufacturers. Therefore, NHTSA finds for good cause that any notice and opportunity for comment on these correcting amendments are not necessary. List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571 Imports, Incorporation by reference, Motor vehicle safety; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Tires. Accordingly, 49 CFR part 571 is corrected by making the following correcting amendment: PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS 1. The authority citation for part 571 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50. 2. Paragraph S5.3.1 of 571.205 is revised to read as follows: § 571.205 Glazing materials. S5.3 *Shade Bands.* * * * S5.3.1 Shade bands for windshields shall comply with SAE J100 JUNE 1995. Issued: October 26, 2006. Stephen R. Kratzke, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. [FR Doc. E6-18390 Filed 11-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 665 [Docket No. 060724200-6275-02; I.D. 071106G] RIN 0648-AT94 Fisheries in the Western Pacific; Western Pacific Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Fisheries; Guam Bottomfish Management Measures AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to implement Amendment 9 to the Fishery Management Plan for Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region
(FMP)that prohibits large vessels, i.e., those 50 ft (15.2 m) or longer, from fishing for bottomfish in Federal waters within 50 nm (92.6 km) around Guam, and establishes Federal permitting and reporting requirements for these large bottomfish fishing vessels. This final rule is intended to maintain viable participation and bottomfish catch rates by small vessels in the fishery, to maintain traditional patterns of the bottomfish supply to local Guam markets, to provide for the collection of adequate fishery information for effective management, and to reduce the risk of local depletion of deepwater bottomfish stocks near Guam. DATES: This final rule is effective December 4, 2006, except for the revisions to § 665.14 and § 665.61, which require approval by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). When OMB approval is received, the effective date will be announced in the **Federal Register** . ADDRESSES: Copies of the FMP amendment, including an Environmental Assessment (EA), regulatory impact review
(RIR)and final regulatory flexibility analysis
(FRFA)may be obtained from William L. Robinson, Administrator, NMFS Pacific Islands Region (PIR), 1601 Kapiolani Boulevard, Suite 1110, Honolulu, HI 96814-4700. Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this final rule may be submitted to William L. Robinson (see ADDRESSES ), or to David Rostker, OMB, by e-mail to *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* , or by fax to 202-395-7285. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Harman, NMFS PIR, 808-944-2271. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic Access This **Federal Register** document is also accessible via the Internet at the web site of the Office of the Federal Register: *www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html* . Background The bottomfish fishery that operates in Federal waters around Guam is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region (FMP). Aside from restrictions on the use of certain destructive fishing methods, such as bottom trawling, bottom set nets, poisons, and explosives, that apply to the bottomfish fisheries throughout the western Pacific, the fishery is mostly unregulated at this time. Potential developments in the fishery, however, led the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council to recommend the management measures in this final rule. The Guam-based bottomfish fishery is a mix of subsistence, recreational, and limited commercial fishing from primarily small boats on nearshore slopes. There is a potential component of the fishery, however, in which fishermen in relatively large vessels (i.e., greater than 50 ft or 15.2 m in length) target deep-slope fish species, particularly onaga (longtail red snapper, or flame snapper, *Etelis coruscans* ). This fishery is currently inactive, but several vessels have operated in the past. The fish were caught on offshore banks in Federal waters, landed at Guam′s commercial port and, rather than entering the local market, were exported by air to foreign markets. The activity occurred on some or all of Guam′s southern banks, including Galvez, 11-Mile, Santa Rosa, White Tuna, and Baby Banks. Most of the vessels fishing on these southern banks targeted the shallow-water bottomfish complex, but some targeted the deep-water complex. The banks to the north of Guam, including Rota Bank, and far to the west of Guam, including Bank A, appear not to have been fished. The potential for renewed large-vessel bottomfish fishing activity prompted concerns about fishery information being inadequate for effective management, about the potential for small-vessel catch rates declining to non-viable levels, about threats to sustained participation by smaller vessels in the fishery, about disruptions to traditional patterns of supply of bottomfish products to the local market, and about localized depletion of bottomfish stocks. Based on the current FMP reporting and management requirements, existing data collection programs can provide adequate information about Guam′s inshore bottomfish fisheries that are conducted by smaller vessels. Thus, this final rule does not establish additional data collection requirements on smaller vessels. There is no evidence, to date, that the bottomfish stocks around Guam are currently subject to overfishing or are being overfished. Deepwater bottomfish species, however, have life history characteristics (slow growth, relatively low productivity and limited migration ranges) that make local fish stocks sensitive to fishing pressure, and severe local depletion can result in reduced productivity of the stock as a whole. Closing areas to potential large vessel bottomfish fishing reduces the risk of local depletion of deepwater bottomfish stocks in those areas. This final rule redirects possible large-vessel bottomfish fishing to areas greater than 50 nm (92.6 km) from Guam, displacing some potential fishing pressure on the nearshore slope and banks to areas that have higher bottomfish abundance and experience lower fishing pressure from smaller boats. This final rule intends to ensure that adequate information is routinely collected from the large-vessel, export-oriented bottomfish fishery that might take place in Federal waters around Guam, to maintain adequate opportunities for small-scale commercial, recreational, and subsistence bottomfish fishermen in Federal waters around Guam, to provide for sustained community participation by smaller vessels in the Guam bottomfish fishery, to encourage consistent availability of fresh, locally-caught deepwater bottomfish products to Guam consumers, and to reduce the potential risk of local depletion of deepwater bottomfish stocks near Guam. Additional background information on this final rule may be found in the preamble to the proposed rule published on August 14, 2006 (71 FR 46441), and is not repeated here. Comments and Responses On July 24, 2006, NMFS published in the **Federal Register** an announcement on the availability of the subject FMP amendment (71 FR 41770), and on August 14, 2006, NMFS published a notice of the proposed rule (71 FR 46441). The public comment period for both notices ended on September 22, 2006. NMFS received one comment from the public, and responds to this comment, as follows: *Comment 1:* The commentor expressed support for the proposed rule out of a concern for the impact of large vessels fishing in the area, and for marine resources. *Response.* Comment noted; NMFS is also concerned about the potential for large bottomfish vessels to locally deplete bottomfish stocks. The final rule establishes an area closed to large bottomfish vessels. This measure is intended to prevent overfishing of bottomfish around Guam. Changes to the Proposed Rule In this final rule, several minor editorial changes were made to the proposed rule. In the time since the proposed rule for this action was published on August 14, 2006, another final rule, referred to as the “omnibus” rule, was published. The omnibus rule, published on September 12, 2006 (71 FR 53605), made changes under three western Pacific FMPs to the regulatory text in several sections of 50 CFR Part 665. Those changes necessitated minor adjustments in the regulatory text contained in this final rule. Specifically, the instructions for § 665.14(a) were modified in this final rule to include omnibus rule requirements for fishing record forms for the Pacific Remote Island Areas (PRIA). The instructions for § 665.61(a)(1) were modified in this final rule to include omnibus rule requirements for PRIA permits. Finally, the instructions for § 665.62 were modified in this final rule to renumber the new paragraphs to account for omnibus rule prohibitions. In the proposed rule, the coordinates for the closed area boundary contained several errors. Proposed Point GU-1-A (14°23′43″ N., 144°27′36′ E.) was incorrectly positioned within EEZ waters around the CNMI, and was moved to coincide with the boundary separating the EEZ waters around Guam from those waters around the CNMI. The new point GU-1-A is located at 14°16′ N., 144°17′ E. Moving point GU-1-A to coincide with the boundary put it very close to proposed point GU-1-B (14°10′ N., 144°11′ E.), removing the need for point GU-1-B in defining the closed area. Thus, point GU-1-B was eliminated. Proposed point H (12° 35′ N., 144°15′ E.) introduced an unintended and unnecessary jog in the boundary, and was removed to straighten the boundary. The final coordinates were renumbered, and they accurately define the area that is approximately 50 nm from Guam's shoreline, and take into account the boundary between Guam and the CNMI. Other instructions are unchanged from the proposed rule. Classification The NOAA Assistant Administrator for Fisheries
(AA)determined that this FMP amendment is necessary for the conservation and management of the affected fisheries, and that the amendment is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and other applicable laws. NMFS prepared an EA for this FMP amendment, and the AA concluded that there will be no significant impact on the human environment as a result of this rule. NMFS determined that the preferred management alternative has the greatest likelihood of achieving the purpose and need for this Federal action. In addition, all beneficial and adverse impacts of the proposed action have been addressed to reach the conclusion of no significant impacts. A copy of the EA is available from William L. Robinson (see ADDRESSES ). This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. Consistent with section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, NMFS prepared a FRFA for Amendment 9, as described below. This FRFA incorporates the initial regulatory flexibility analysis
(IRFA)prepared for Amendment 9. The preamble to the proposed rule included a detailed summary of the analyses contained in the IRFA, and that discussion is not repeated in its entirety here. A statement of the need for, and objectives of, the rule is provided in the preambles to the proposed rule and to this final rule, and is not repeated here. There were no comments received on the IRFA. The Small Business Administration defines a commercial fishing business as a small entity if annual gross receipts are less than $4.0 million. All bottomfish vessels impacted by this rulemaking are considered to be small entities under this definition. Therefore, there are no economic impacts resulting from disproportionality between large and small vessels. Number of Affected Small Entities This final rule is expected to adversely impact as many as 1 3 bottomfish vessels of length greater than 50 ft (15.2 m) (large vessels) that have previously operated, but are not currently operating, in Federal waters within 50 nm (92.6 km) of Guam. Alternative 3, which would implement a trip limit on onaga, and alternative 4, which would implement limited access, would impact 100 300 bottom fish vessels operating in Federal waters around Guam, regardless of their size. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements This final rule would implement permitting, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for large vessels engaged in the fishery. The costs associated with obtaining permits and keeping and reporting information in logbooks would be minimal. The annual personnel cost for potential respondents is estimated at $62 per year. This was derived by multiplying the number of hours of burden per year (2.5 hr) times an hourly cost rate of $25, the estimated range of hourly wage rates for fishermen harvesting bottomfish in the western Pacific. There is no “start up” capital cost for complying with the reporting requirement. The estimated cost to potential respondents, other than personnel cost, is about $20 per respondent per year. This cost includes telephone charges and other incidental costs associated with sending the logbook forms to NMFS after each trip. Minimizing Economic Impacts on Small Entities NMFS rejected alternatives imposing trip limits for onaga or a limited access system, in addition to the permitting, recordkeeping and reporting requirements for large vessels, because these alternatives would have had economic impacts on all participants in the fishery and were not necessary to meet the objectives of FMP Amendment 9. NMFS instead chose the alternative that would best achieve the objectives of FMP Amendment 9, including the continued economic viability of the small boat fishery, an alternative which focused on large vessel participants. Because data on costs and revenues for large vessels are not available, the economic impacts to the profitability of the 1 3 vessels that could potentially be impacted by this rulemaking cannot be directly estimated. Implementation of the rule would require the affected vessels to search elsewhere for new bottomfish grounds, or to change gear and enter another fishery. Regardless of their choice, it is likely that these vessels would experience adverse economic impacts in the form of reductions in potential profitability under this final rule. The extent of the impacts would depend on the opportunity costs of each individual vessel relative to the profits previously earned in the bottomfish fishery off of Guam. Small Entity Compliance Guide Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. As part of this rulemaking process, a small entity compliance guide was prepared. The guide will be sent to all large vessels that have historic landings in this fishery. In addition, copies of this final rule and guide will be made available by William L. Robinson (see ADDRESSES ), and at the following web site: *http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/pir/index.htm* . This final rule contains revisions to collection-of- information requirements subject to the PRA under OMB control numbers 0648-0214 and 0648-0490. The revisions to these collection-of-information requirements have not yet been approved, but OMB approval is expected in the near future. NMFS will publish a notice when these requirements are cleared by OMB and are, therefore, effective (see DATES ). The public reporting burden for these requirements is estimated to be 30 min for a new permit application, and 5 min for completing a fishing logbook each day. It is estimated that up to three vessels may be subject to the reporting requirement at any given time, and that each vessel will fish, on average, no more than 50 days/yr, resulting in a total paperwork burden of approximately 14 hr/yr. These estimates include time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding these burden estimates or any other aspect of this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to William L. Robinson, NMFS PIR (see *ADDRESSES* ), or by e-mail to *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* , or fax to 202-395-7285. Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number. List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 665 Administrative practice and procedure, American Samoa, Fisheries, Fishing, Guam, Hawaii, Hawaiian natives, Northern Mariana Islands, Pacific Remote Island Areas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: October 27, 2006. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 665 is amended as follows: PART 665—FISHERIES IN THE WESTERN PACIFIC 1. The authority citation for part 665 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* 2. In § 665.12, add the definition of “Guam bottomfish permit” and revise the definition of “Large vessel” as follows: § 665.12 Definitions. *Guam bottomfish permit* means the permit required by § 665.61(a)(4) to use a large vessel to fish for, land, or transship bottomfish management unit species shoreward of the outer boundary of the Guam subarea of the bottomfish fishery management area. *Large vesse* l means, as used in §§ 665.22, 665.37, 665.38, 665.61, 665.62, and 665.70, any vessel equal to or greater than 50 ft (15.2 m) in length overall. 3. In § 665.13, revise paragraph (f)(1) to read as follows: § 665.13 Permits and fees.
(f)*Fees.*
(1)PIRO will not charge a fee for a permit issued under subpart D or F of this part, for a Ho′omalu Zone limited access permit, or for a Guam bottomfish permit issued under § 665.61. 4. In § 665.14, revise paragraph
(a)to read as follows: § 665.14 Reporting and recordkeeping.
(a)*Fishing record forms.* The operator of any fishing vessel subject to the requirements of §§ 665.21, 665.41, 665.61(a)(4), 665.81, or 665.602 must maintain on board the vessel an accurate and complete record of catch, effort, and other data on report forms provided by the Regional Administrator. All information specified on the forms must be recorded on the forms within 24 hr after the completion of each fishing day. Each form must be signed and dated by the fishing vessel operator. For the fisheries managed under § § 665.21, 665.41, 665.61(a)(4), and 665.81, the original logbook form for each day of the fishing trip must be submitted to the Regional Administrator within 72 hr of each landing of MUS, unless the fishing was authorized under a PRIA troll and handline permit, a PRIA crustaceans fishing permit, or a PRIA precious corals fishing permit, in which case the original logbook form for each day of fishing within the PRIA EEZ waters must be submitted to the Regional Administrator within 30 days of each landing of MUS. For fisheries managed under § 665.602, the original logbook form for each day of the fishing trip must be submitted to the Regional Administrator within 30 days of each landing of MUS. 5. In § 665.61, revise paragraph (a)(1) and add paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows: § 665.61 Permits.
(a)*Applicability.*
(1)The owner of any vessel used to fish for bottomfish management unit species in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Subarea, Pacific Remote Island Areas Subarea, or Guam Subarea must have a permit issued under this section and the permit must be registered for use with that vessel.
(4)A fishing vessel of the United States must be registered for use under a Guam bottomfish permit if that vessel is a large vessel and is used to fish for, land, or transship bottomfish management unit species shoreward of the outer boundary of the Guam subarea of the bottomfish fishery management area. 6. In § 665.62, add paragraphs (g), (h), and
(i)to read as follows: § 665.62 Prohibitions.
(g)Use a large vessel that does not have a valid Guam bottomfish permit registered for use with that vessel to fish for, land, or transship bottomfish management unit species shoreward of the outer boundary of the Guam subarea of the bottomfish fishery management area in violation of § 665.61(a).
(h)Use a large vessel to fish for bottomfish management unit species within the Guam large vessel bottomfish prohibited area, as defined in § 665.70(b).
(i)Land or transship, shoreward of the outer boundary of the Guam subarea of the bottomfish fishery management area, bottomfish management unit species that were harvested in violation of § 665.62(h). 7. Under subpart E, add a new § 665.70 to read as follows: § 665.70 Bottomfish fishery area management.
(a)*Large vessel bottomfish prohibited area.* A large vessel of the United States may not be used to fish for bottomfish management unit species in any large vessel bottomfish prohibited area as defined in paragraph
(b)of this section.
(b)*Guam large vessel bottomfish prohibited area (Area GU-1).* The large vessel bottomfish prohibited area around Guam means the waters of the US EEZ surrounding Guam that are enclosed by straight lines connecting the following coordinates in the order listed: Point N. lat. E. long. GU-1-A 14°16′ 144°17′ GU-1-B 13° 50′ 143° 52′ GU-1-C 13° 17′ 143° 46′ GU-1-D 12° 50′ 143° 54′ GU-1-E 12° 30′ 144° 14′ GU-1-F 12° 25′ 144° 51′ GU-1-G 12° 57′ 145° 33′ GU-1-H 13° 12′ 145° 43′ GU-1-I 13° 29′ 44″ 145° 48′ 27″ GU-1-A 14° 16′ 144° 17′ [FR Doc. E6-18506 Filed 11-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 71 212 Thursday, November 2, 2006 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 51 [Docket Number FV-06-313] United States Standards for Grades of Winter Pears AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Agricultural Marketing Service
(AMS)prior to undertaking research and other work associated with revising official grade standards, is soliciting comments on the possible revisions of the United States Standards for Grades of Winter Pears. AMS has been reviewing the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable grade standards for usefulness in serving the industry. As a result AMS is considering revisions to the winter pear standard to include removing the section 51.1309, Condition after storage or transit. This section has caused confusion within the industry in the past due to different procedures incurred when reporting inspection findings in comparison to other grade standards. Additionally, AMS is seeking comments regarding any other revisions to the standards that may be necessary to better serve the industry. DATES: Comments must be received by January 2, 2007. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments to the Standardization Section, Fresh Products Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Room 1661 South Building, Stop 0240, Washington, DC 20250-0240; Fax
(202)720-8871, E-mail *FPB.DocketClerk@usda.gov.* Comments should make reference to the dates and page number of this issue of the **Federal Register** and will be made available for public inspection in the above office during regular business hours. The United States Standards for Grades of Winter Pears are available either at the above address or by accessing the AMS, Fresh Products Branch Web site at: *http://www.ams.usda.gov/standards/stanfrfv.htm.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cheri L. Emery, at the above address or call
(202)720-2185; E-mail *Cheri.Emery@usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 203(c) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627), as amended, directs and authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture “To develop and improve standards of quality, condition, quantity, grade and packaging and recommend and demonstrate such standards in order to encourage uniformity and consistency in commercial practices.” AMS is committed to carrying out this authority in a manner that facilitates the marketing of agricultural commodities. AMS makes copies of official standards available upon request. AMS is considering revisions to the United States Standards for Grades of Winter Pears. These standards were last published on September 10, 1955. Executive Order 12866 The Office of Management and Budget has waived the review process required by Executive Order 12866 for this action. Background AMS has been reviewing the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable grade standards for usefulness in serving the industry. AMS is considering a revision to the United States Standards for Grades of Winter Pears. The revision would eliminate the section 51.1309, Condition after storage or transit, which states that “decay, scald or other deterioration which may have developed on pears after they have been in storage or transit shall be considered as affecting condition and not the grade.” Due to this requirement, pears may fail to meet the requirements of the grade the pears would be reported as “meets grade.” For example: a lot of pears that fail to meet the requirements of the U.S. No. 1 grade due to exceeding the decay tolerance would be reported as “U.S. No. 1 with decay being a factor of condition.” This has caused confusion within the industry as generally when a product exceeds a tolerance for grade it is reported as “fails to grade.” Removing this section will eliminate any confusion in the future and bring the winter pear standard in line with other standards. However, prior to undertaking detailed work to develop the proposed revision to the standards, AMS is soliciting comments on these changes as well as any other revisions to the United States Standards for Grades of Winter Pears to better serve the industry. This notice provides for a 60-day comment period for interested parties to comment on whether any changes are necessary to the standards. Should AMS conclude that there is a need for any revisions of the standards, the proposed revisions will be published in the **Federal Register** with a request for comments. Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621-1627. Dated: October 27, 2006. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E6-18504 Filed 11-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. NM354; Notice No. 25-06-09A-SC] Special Conditions: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, Boeing Model 777 Series Airplane; Overhead Cross Aisle Stowage Compartments AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed special conditions (amended). SUMMARY: The FAA amends and supersedes proposed special conditions for the Boeing Model 777 series airplanes. The previous notice (Notice No. 25-06-09-SC) published on October 18, 2006 (71 FR 61432), did not reflect the final FAA position on the novel design feature, and was thus in error. This airplane, modified by Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, will have novel or unusual design features associated with overhead cross aisle stowage compartments. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for these design features. These amended proposed special conditions contain the additional safety standards the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards. DATES: We must receive your comments on or before November 13, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may mail or deliver comments on these amended proposed special conditions in duplicate to: Federal Aviation Administration, Transport Airplane Directorate, Attn: Rules Docket (ANM-113), Docket No. NM354, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356. You must mark your comments: Docket No. NM354. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jayson Claar, FAA, Airframe/Cabin Branch, ANM-115, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-2194; facsimile
(425)227-1232. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the amended proposed special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. We ask that you send us two copies of written comments. We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning these amended proposed special conditions. You may inspect the docket before and after the comment closing date. If you wish to review the docket in person, go to the address in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change these amended proposed special conditions based on the comments we receive. If you want the FAA to acknowledge receipt of your comments on these amended proposed special conditions, include with your comments a pre-addressed, stamped postcard on which the docket number appears. We will stamp the date on the postcard and mail it back to you. Background On April 20, 2005, Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, Seattle, Washington, applied for a supplemental type certificate to permit installation of overhead cross aisle stowage compartments in Boeing 777 series airplanes. The Boeing Model 777 series airplanes are large twin engine airplanes with four or five pairs of Type A exits. The Boeing 777 airplanes can be configured with various passenger capacities and range. The regulations do not address the novel and unusual design features associated with the installation of overhead cross aisle stowage compartments installed on the Boeing Model 777, making these amended proposed special conditions necessary. Generally, the requirements for overhead stowage compartments are similar to stowage compartments in remote crew rest compartments (i.e., located on lower lobe, main deck or overhead) already in use on Boeing Model 777 and 747 series airplanes. Remote crew rest compartments have been previously installed and certified in the main passenger cabin area, above the main passenger area, and below the passenger cabin area adjacent to the cargo compartment of the Boeing Model 777-200, and -300 series airplanes. On October 18, 2006, a Notice of Proposed Special Conditions was published to address the novel design feature. However, the notice inadvertently did not reflect the FAA's final position on the proposed requirements. This amended notice corrects that error. Type Certification Basis Under the provisions of § 21.101, Boeing Commercial Airplane Group must show that the Boeing Model 777, as changed, continues to meet the applicable provisions of the regulations incorporated by reference in Type Certificate No. T00001SE or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change. The regulations incorporated by reference in the type certificate are commonly referred to as the “original type certification basis.” The regulations incorporated by reference in Type Certificate No. T00001SE for the Boeing Model 777 series airplanes include Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 25, as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-100, with exceptions, for various models. Refer to Type Certificate No. T00001SE, as applicable, for a complete description of the certification basis for this model, including certain special conditions that are not relevant to these amended proposed special conditions. If the Administrator finds the applicable airworthiness regulations (part 25 as amended) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Boeing Model 777 because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16. In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Boeing Model 777 must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36. The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in § 11.19, under § 11.38 and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.101. Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the applicant apply for a change to modify any other model included on the same type certificate to incorporate the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101. Novel or Unusual Design Features The Boeing Model 777 will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features: The installation of powered lift-enabled stowage compartments that rise into the overhead area and lower into the cabin. The overhead cross aisle stowage compartments are configured to allow stowage of galley type standard containers as well as coats, bags, and other items typically stowed in closets or bins. These stowage compartments will be located above the emergency exit cross aisles of Boeing Model 777 series airplanes. Because the compartment is lowered into the main cabin, it could affect egress if it cannot be raised again. The overhead compartment may lower into a cross aisle as defined in § 25.813, but it may also lower into other potential egress paths. For the purposes of these amended proposed special conditions, the same criteria apply, whether or not the egress path is required by § 25.813. Therefore, as used in these amended proposed special conditions, the term “overhead cross aisle stowage compartment” addresses all such compartments. Each stowage compartment is accessed from the main deck by a powered lift that lowers and raises the stowage compartment between the overhead and the main deck. In addition, the lift can be hand cranked up and down in the event of a power or lift motor failure. A smoke detection system will be provided in the overhead cross aisle stowage compartments. Discussion of the Amended Proposed Special Conditions In general, the requirements listed in these amended proposed special conditions for overhead cross aisle stowage compartments are similar to those previously approved for overhead crew rest compartments in earlier certification programs, such as for the Boeing Model 777 and Model 747 series airplanes. These amended proposed special conditions establish compartment access, power lift, electrical power, smoke/fire detection, fire extinguisher, fire containment, smoke penetration, and compartment design criteria for the overhead cross aisle stowage compartments. The overhead stowage compartments are not a direct analogy to stowage compartments in remote crew rest compartments installed and certified for Boeing Model 777 series airplanes, but the safety issues raised are similar. Features similar to those considered in the development of previous special conditions for fire protection will be included here also. The proposed requirements would provide an equivalent level of safety to that provided by other Boeing Model 777 series airplanes with similar overhead compartments. Operational Evaluations and Approval The FAA's Aircraft Certification Service will administer these amended proposed special conditions, which specify requirements for design approvals (that is, type design changes and supplemental type certificates) of overhead cross aisle stowage compartments. The Aircraft Evaluation Group of the FAA's Flight Standards Service must evaluate and approve the operational use of overhead cross aisle stowage compartments prior to use. The Aircraft Evaluation Group must receive all instructions for continued airworthiness, including service bulletins, prior to the FAA accepting and issuing approval of the modification. Proposed Special Condition No. 1, Compartment Access and Placards Appropriate placards, or other means, are required to address door access and locking to prohibit or prevent passenger access and operation of the overhead storage compartment. There must also be a means to preclude anyone from being trapped inside the stowage compartment, if it is large enough for a person to enter. If there is more than one door providing access, each door must be equipped with these means. Proposed Special Condition No. 2, Power Lift The power lift must be designed so the overhead stowage compartment will not jam in the down position, even if lowered on top of a hard structure. The lift must operate at a speed that allows anyone underneath the compartment to move clear without injury. The lift controls must be placed clear of the compartment door and must be pressed continuously for lift operation. Training on operation procedures must be added to appropriate manuals. Proposed Special Condition No. 3, Manual Operation There must be a means to manually operate the lift that is independent of the electrical drive system. The lift must be operable by a range of occupants, including a fifth percentile female. The manual means must be capable of lowering the overhead stowage compartment quickly to the main deck to fight a fire. The manual system must be capable of raising the compartment quickly so the cross aisle or other egress path (if applicable) is not blocked in an emergency. If electrical or manual power is removed, there must be a means, such as a brake, to prevent the compartment from unrestricted movement, i.e., falling. Training on manual operation must be added to appropriate manuals. Proposed Special Condition No. 4, Handheld Fire Extinguisher For compartments larger than 25 cubic feet, a handheld fire extinguisher appropriate to fight the kinds of fire likely to occur in the overhead stowage compartment must be provided. This handheld fire extinguisher must be adjacent to the overhead compartment. This extinguisher must be in addition to those required for the passenger cabin. Proposed Special Condition No. 5, Fire Containment This special condition requires either the installation of a manually activated fire extinguishing system that is accessible from outside the overhead stowage compartment, or a demonstration that the crew could satisfactorily perform the function of extinguishing a fire under the prescribed conditions. A manually activated built-in fire extinguishing system would be required only if a crewmember could not successfully locate and get access to the fire during a demonstration where the crewmember is responding to the alarm. For the duration of the flight, the system must have adequate capacity to suppress any fire occurring in the stowage compartment considering the fire threat, volume of the compartment and the ventilation rate. Proposed Special Condition No. 6, Smoke Penetration The design of the compartment must provide means to exclude hazardous quantities of smoke or extinguishing agent originating in the compartment from entering other occupied areas. The means must take into account the time period during which the compartment may be accessed to manually fight a fire, if applicable. During the one-minute smoke detection time (see Special Condition No. 7), penetration of a small quantity of smoke (one that would dissipate within 3 minutes under normal ventilation conditions) from this overhead stowage compartment design into an occupied area on this airplane configuration would be acceptable based on the limitations placed in this and other associated special conditions. These special conditions place sufficient restrictions in the quantity and type of material allowed in the overhead stowage compartment that threat from a fire in this remote area would be equivalent to that experienced on the main cabin. If a built-in fire extinguishing system is used in lieu of manual fire fighting, then the fire extinguishing system must be designed so that no hazardous quantities of extinguishing agent will enter other compartments occupied by passengers or crew. Proposed Special Condition No. 7, Compartment Design Criteria The material used to construct the overhead stowage compartment must meet the flammability requirements for compartment interiors in § 25.853 and be fire resistant. Depending on the size of the compartment, certain fire protection features of Class B cargo compartments are also required. Enclosed stowage compartments equal to or exceeding 25 ft 3 in interior volume must be provided with a smoke or fire detection system to ensure that a fire can be detected within a one-minute detection time. This is the same requirement as has been applied to remote crew rest compartments. Enclosed stowage compartments equal to or greater than 57 ft 3 in interior volume but less than or equal to 200 ft 3 , must have a liner that meets the requirements of § 25.855 for a Class B cargo compartment. The overhead stowage compartment may not be greater than 200 ft 3 in interior volume. The in-flight accessibility of very large enclosed stowage compartments and the subsequent impact on the crewmember's ability to effectively reach any part of the compartment with the contents of a handheld fire extinguisher would require additional fire protection considerations similar to those required for inaccessible compartments such as Class C cargo compartments. The overhead stowage compartment smoke or fire detection and fire suppression systems (including airflow management features which prevent hazardous quantities of smoke or fire extinguishing agent from entering any other compartment occupied by crewmembers or passengers) is considered complex in terms of paragraph 6d of Advisory Circular
(AC)25.1309-1A, “System Design and Analysis.” The FAA considers failure of the overhead stowage compartment fire protection system (that is, smoke or fire detection and fire suppression systems) in conjunction with an overhead stowage fire to be a catastrophic event. Based on the “Depth of Analysis Flowchart” shown in Figure 2 of AC 25.1309-1A, the depth of analysis should include both qualitative and quantitative assessments (reference paragraphs 8d, 9, and 10 of AC 25.1309-1A). The requirements to enable crewmember(s) quick access to the overhead stowage compartment and to locate a fire source inherently places limits on the amount of baggage stowed and the size of the overhead stowage compartment. The overhead stowage compartment is limited to stowage of galley type standard containers as well as coats, bags, and other items typically stowed in closets or bins. It is not intended to be used for the stowage of other items. The design of such a system to include other items may require additional special conditions to ensure safe operation. Applicability These amended proposed special conditions are applicable to the Boeing Model 777 series airplanes with overhead cross aisle stowage compartments. Should Boeing Commercial Airplane Group apply later for a change to the type certificate to include another model included on Type Certificate No. T00001SE, incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well under the provisions of § 21.101. The Boeing Model 777 series airplane is scheduled for imminent delivery. Special conditions for other types of stowage compartments in remote areas of airplanes have been subject to the notice and public comment procedure in several prior instances. Therefore, because a delay would significantly affect the applicant's installation of the overhead cross aisle stowage compartment and certification of the airplane, we are shortening the public comment period to 10 days. Conclusion This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on the Boeing Model 777 series airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability and affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplane. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25 Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704. The Amended Proposed Special Conditions Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)proposes the following special conditions as part of the type certification basis for Boeing Model 777 series airplanes. Each overhead cross aisle stowage compartment and the adjacent area, including the structural frame, mechanical system and drive motor, must meet the following requirements: 1. *Compartment Access and Placards.* There must be a means to prohibit or prevent passengers from entering or operating the overhead cross aisle stowage compartment. Placards prohibiting access are acceptable. If a compartment is large enough for a person to enter, there must be a means to preclude anyone from being trapped inside the stowage compartment. If a latching/locking mechanism is installed, the door must be capable of being opened from the outside without the aid of special tools. The mechanism must not prevent opening from the inside of the stowage at any time. 2. *Power Lift.* There must be a means such as a load or force limiter to protect the overhead cross aisle stowage compartment electrical lift drive system from failure or jamming in the down position in the event it is lowered on top of hard structure such as a galley cart.
(a)The electrical lift controls must be placed so the operator is clear of the lift and designed such that the controls must be pressed continuously for lift operation.
(b)The electrical lift must raise and lower the stowage compartment at a slow enough rate, and stop above the floor at such a height, that anyone underneath can easily move clear without injury.
(c)Stowage compartment operation training procedures must be added to the appropriate flight attendant manuals. 3. *Manual Lift.* There must be a means in the event of failure of the aircraft's main power system, or of the electrically powered overhead cross aisle stowage compartment lift system, for manually activating the lift system.
(a)This manual means must be independent of the electrical drive system.
(b)The manual means must be accessible and operable by a range of occupants, including a fifth percentile female.
(c)The manual means must be capable of lowering the stowage compartment to the main deck quickly enough to fight a fire in the stowage compartment before overhead cross aisle stowage compartment fire containment is compromised.
(d)The manual means must be capable of quickly raising the stowage compartment such that the cross aisle, or other egress path is not blocked in the event of an emergency.
(e)Stowage compartment firefighting training procedures must be added to the appropriate flight attendant manuals.
(f)The lift system must include a means, such as a brake, to retain the overhead cross aisle stowage compartment in any position of travel when the manual or electric drive force is removed. 4. *Fire Extinguisher.* The means to manually fight a fire in the overhead cross aisle stowage compartment must consider the additional stowage volume and time required to manually lower the compartment after indication. For compartments larger than 25 ft 3 the following equipment must be provided directly adjacent to each overhead cross aisle stowage compartment: at least one approved handheld fire extinguisher, in addition to the fire extinguisher requirements of § 25.851 and § 121.309, appropriate for the kinds of fires likely to occur within the overhead stowage compartment. 5. *Fire Containment.* Fires originating within the overhead cross aisle stowage compartment must be controlled for the duration of the flight without a crewmember having to access the compartment. Alternatively, the design of the access provisions must allow crewmembers equipped for firefighting to have unrestricted access to the compartment. If the latter approach is elected it must be demonstrated that a crewmember has sufficient access to enable them to extinguish a fire. The time for a crewmember on the main deck to react to the fire alarm, (and, if applicable, to don the firefighting equipment and to open the compartment) must not exceed the flammability and fire containment capabilities of the stowage compartment. 6. *Smoke Penetration.* There must be a means provided to exclude hazardous quantities of smoke or extinguishing agent originating in the overhead cross aisle stowage compartment from entering any other compartment occupied by crewmembers or passengers. If access is required to comply with Special Condition 5, this means must include the time period when accessing the stowage compartment to manually fight a fire. Smoke entering any other compartment occupied by crewmembers or passengers, when access to the stowage compartment is opened to manually fight a fire, must dissipate within five minutes after the access to the stowage compartment is closed. Prior to the one minute smoke detection time (reference note 2 in paragraph (7)) penetration of a small quantity of smoke from the stowage compartment into an occupied area is acceptable. Flight tests must be conducted to show compliance with this requirement. 7. *Compartment Design Criteria.* The overhead cross aisle stowage compartment must be designed to minimize the hazards to the airplane in the event of a fire originating in the stowage compartment.
(a)*Fire Extinguishing System.* If a built-in fire extinguishing system is used in lieu of manual firefighting, then the fire extinguishing system must be designed so no hazardous quantities of extinguishing agent will enter other compartments occupied by passengers or crew. The system must have adequate capacity to suppress any fire occurring in the stowage compartment, considering the fire threat, volume of the compartment, and the ventilation rate.
(b)*Compartment Size.* All overhead cross aisle stowage compartments must meet the design criteria given in the table below. As indicated by the table below, enclosed stowage compartments greater than 200 ft 3 in interior volume are not addressed by this special condition. Stowage compartment interior volumes Fire protection features Less than 25 ft 3 25 ft 3 to 57 ft 3 57 ft 3 to 200 ft 3 Materials of Construction 1 Yes Yes Yes. Detectors 2 No Yes Yes. Liner 3 No Yes Yes. 1 *Material:* The material used to construct each enclosed stowage compartment must be at least fire resistant and must meet the flammability standards established for interior components (that is, 14 CFR Part 25 Appendix F, Parts I, IV, and V) per the requirements of § 25.853. For compartments less than 25 ft 3 in total interior volume, the design must ensure the ability to contain a fire likely to occur within the compartment under normal use. 2 *Detectors:* Enclosed stowage compartments equal to or exceeding 25 ft 3 in total interior volume must be provided with a smoke or fire detection system to ensure that a fire can be detected within one minute. Flight tests must be conducted to show compliance with this requirement. Each system (or systems) must provide:
(a)A visual indication in the flight deck within one minute after the start of a fire;
(b)A warning in the main passenger cabin. This warning must be readily detectable by a flight attendant, taking into consideration the positioning of flight attendants throughout the main passenger compartment during various phases of flight. 3 *Liner:* If it can be shown the material used to construct the stowage compartment meets the flammability requirements of a liner for a Class B cargo compartment (that is, § 25.855 at Amendment 25-93 and Appendix F, part I, paragraph (a)(2)(ii)), in addition to the above 1 *Material requirement* , then no liner would be required for enclosed stowage compartments equal to or greater than 25 ft 3 in total interior volume but less than 57 ft 3 in total interior volume. For all enclosed stowage compartments equal to or greater than 57 ft 3 in total interior volume but less than or equal to 200 ft 3 , a liner must be provided that meets the requirements of § 25.855 for a Class B cargo compartment. Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 26, 2006. Kalene C. Yanamura, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. 06-9025 Filed 10-30-06; 1:07 pm]
Connectionstraces to 52
Traces to 52 documents
register
U.S. Code
- Definitions§ 601
- Federal Aviation Administration§ 106
- Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings§ 552
- Regulation of futures trading and foreign transactions§ 6
- Violations generally; punishment; costs of prosecution§ 13
- Registration of commodity dealers and associated persons; regulation of registered entities§ 12a
- EXPEDITED PROCESSING OF REQUESTS FOR JAPANESE IMPERIAL GOVERNMENT RECORDS.§ 804
- New animal drugs§ 360b
- Rule making§ 553
- Statements to accompany significant regulatory actions§ 1532
- Exclusions§ 1503
- Small government agency plan§ 1533
- Establishment of Department; effective date§ 3501
- Rules and regulations§ 7805
- General requirement of return, statement, or list§ 6011
- Disclosure of reportable transactions§ 6111
- Establishment, functions, and activities§ 272
- Purposes§ 3501
- SHORT TITLE.§ 801
- Effective date of certain rules§ 808
- Congressional findings and declaration of purpose§ 7401
- State implementation plans for national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards§ 7410
- Visibility protection for Federal class I areas§ 7491
- Initial classifications§ 7472
- Definitions§ 7602
- General powers§ 322
- Findings, purposes and policy§ 1801
CFR
- May I address the unsafe condition in a way other than that set out in the airworthiness directive?§ 39.19
- Disposition of business by seriatim Commission consideration.§ 140.12
- Requests for exemptive, no-action and interpretative letters.§ 140.99
- Glycopyrrolate.§ 522.1066
- Confidentiality of data and information in a new animal drug application file.§ 514.11
- Animal drugs.§ 25.33
- Effective date of accreditation and approval requirements.§ 96.17
- Placement standards in outgoing Convention cases.§ 96.54
- Adoption under the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption and the Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000.§ 42.24
- Placement and post-placement monitoring until final adoption in incoming cases.§ 96.50
- Definitions.§ 96.2
- Identification of plan.§ 52.2620
- Original identification of plan section.§ 52.2635
- Reasonably attributable visibility impairment.§ 51.302
- Purpose and applicability.§ 51.300
- Permit requirements.§ 51.165
- Original identification of plan section.§ 52.2565
- Prevention of significant deterioration of air quality.§ 51.166
44 references not yet in our index
- 7 CFR 1210
- 7 USC 4901-4916
- 13 CFR 121
- 5 CFR 1320
- 14 CFR 39
- 1 CFR 51
- 17 CFR 140
- Pub. L. 106-554
- 114 Stat. 2763
- 883 F.2d 525
- 17 CFR 30
- 21 CFR 522
- 21 CFR 20
- 5 USC 801-808
- 22 CFR 97
- Pub. L. 106-279
- 42 USC 14901-14952
- 22 CFR 96
- 5 USC 601-612
- Pub. L. 104-121
- Pub. L. 104-4
- 109 Stat. 48
- 22 CFR 98
- 42 USC 14901-14954
- T.D. 9295
- T.D. 9046
- T.D. 9108
- 26 CFR 1
- 26 CFR 301
- 40 CFR 52
- 40 CFR 51
- 40 CFR 58
- 40 CFR 51.300-51
- 40 CFR 51.306(c)
- 40 CFR 51.306
- 413 F.3d 3
- 49 CFR 571
- 49 CFR 1.50
- 50 CFR 665
- 7 CFR 51
+ 4 more
Citation graph
cites case law
Unknown
Final rule
F. App'x883 F.2d 525
F. App'x413 F.3d 3
Cite7 CFR 1210
Cites 96 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources