Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2007-02-26 · Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce · Proposed Rules

Proposed Rules. Advance notice of proposed rulemaking

18,326 words·~83 min read·/register/2007/02/26/07-846

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

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security 15 CFR Part 740 [Docket No. 0612242560-7024-01] RIN 0694-AD93 Country Group C: Destinations of Diversion Concern AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce. ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security
(BIS)is considering amendments to the Export Administration Regulations
(EAR)to further the national security interests of the United States by designating Country Group C for countries that are “Destinations of Diversion Concern.” This amendment would establish license requirements for exports and reexports to countries that represent a concern for the diversion of items subject to the EAR. BIS by this notice requests comments on Country Group C. DATES: Comments are due no later than close of business March 12, 2007. ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to *publiccomments@bis.doc.gov* , fax
(202)482-3355, or to Regulatory Policy Division, Bureau of Industry and Security, Room H2705, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230. Please refer to regulatory identification number
(RIN)0694-AD93 in all comments, and in the subject line of e-mail comments. Comments on the collection of information should be sent to David Rostker, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), by e-mail to *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* , or by fax to
(202)395-7285. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharron Cook, Office of Exporter Services, Bureau of Industry and Security, Telephone
(202)482-2440. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Department of Commerce seeks to address the threat to national security caused by the illicit transshipment, reexport, and diversion in international trade of items subject to the EAR. Through government-to-government and government-to-industry outreach, the Department of Commerce encourages transshipment countries to strengthen their international export control practices. This effort includes both government-to-government cooperation and U.S. Government cooperation and information-sharing with the private sector. To strengthen government-to-government cooperation, the Department of Commerce has worked with its counterpart agencies to:
(1)Develop or strengthen export control regimes,
(2)promote information and data exchanges, and
(3)strengthen cooperation and facilitate enforcement. Specific initiatives to develop export control capabilities have included technical assistance in the areas of legal framework and licensing procedures and practices, enforcement training, and industry outreach. To strengthen cooperation and facilitate enforcement, the Department of Commerce has posted export control attachés to serve as liaisons in many of these areas, and has sought agreements and other government-to-government cooperation in certain destinations. The Department of Commerce has also concentrated on outreach to key companies involved in forwarding, processing, and transporting goods through transshipment points, *i.e.* , freight forwarders, integrators, air cargo carriers, and shipping lines. The Department of Commerce has sought to enhance cooperation with these private sector entities via informal meetings, the establishment of communication channels to facilitate information sharing, the establishment and sharing of “best practices,” and by working with the foreign trade zone board to address transshipment issues. The diversion of items subject to the EAR could augment the capabilities of terrorists and state sponsors of terrorism, and significantly undermine international counterproliferation efforts. The illegal diversion of such items could also compromise the effectiveness of U.S. export control laws. In recent years, diversions have contributed to a number of major cases involving the violation of U.S. export control laws for dual-use goods. Request for Comment Consideration of designating Country Group C to identify “Destinations of Diversion Concern” is part of the Department of Commerce's effort to strengthen the trade compliance and export control systems of countries that are transshipment hubs. By working to strengthen those systems, the Department of Commerce seeks to enhance international security and confidence in international trade flows. Country Group C would identify those countries of diversion concern, based on certain criteria including, but not limited to: • Transit and transshipment volume; • Inadequate export/reexport controls; • Demonstrated inability to control diversion activities in this destination; • Government not directly involved in diversion activities; and • Government unwilling or unable to cooperate with the U.S. in interdiction efforts. As a result of being placed into Country Group C, the licensing policy would likely change for items going to any country designated as a “Destination of Diversion Concern.” Such changes could include changes in License Exception eligibility (Part 740 of the EAR), License Requirements and Licensing Policy (Part 742 of the EAR), and End-User and End-Use Based Controls (Part 744 of the EAR). The result of these changes could mean that more license applications might be required; more stringent license review policies might be implemented, which could result in less approvals or more conditions on licenses; authorizations may be delayed because of increased end-user checks; or authorizations may decrease because of diversion risks for such countries. Rulemaking Requirements This advance notice of proposed rulemaking rule has been determined to be significant for purposes of E.O. 12866. Christopher A. Padilla, Assistant Secretary for Export Administration. [FR Doc. E7-3252 Filed 2-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-33-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 18 CFR Chapter I [Docket No. RM07-9-000] Assessment of Information Requirements for FERC Financial Forms Issued February 15, 2007. AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE. ACTION: Notice of inquiry. SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is issuing a notice of inquiry into the need for changes or revisions to the Commission's reporting requirements for FERC Forms Nos. 1, 1-F, 2, 2-A, 3-Q, 6 and 6-Q (Financial Forms). This notice of inquiry follows informal meetings held by Office of Enforcement
(OE)staff with both filers and users of FERC Forms Nos. 1 and 2 to reexamine the information in the forms and determine whether these forms should be modified to improve their usefulness. The notice of inquiry invites all interested persons to participate in the inquiry and to submit answers to several specific questions. DATES: Comments on this Notice of Inquiry are due on March 28, 2007. Reply comments are due April 27, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Docket No. RM07-9-000 by one of the following methods: • *Agency Web Site: http://ferc.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments via the eFiling link found in the Comment Procedures Section of the preamble. • *Mail:* Commenters unable to file comments electronically must mail or hand deliver an original and 14 copies of their comments to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Please refer to the Comment Procedures Section of the preamble for additional information on how to file paper comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane Stelck, Office of Enforcement, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 200426, *jane.stelck@ferc.gov,*
(202)502-6648. Michelle Veloso, Office of Enforcement, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, *michelle.veloso@ferc.gov,*
(202)502-8363. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction 1. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is initiating an inquiry into the need for changes or additions to the financial information reported in quarterly and annual report forms, FERC Form Nos. 1, 1-F, 2, 2-A, 3-Q, 6 and 6-Q (Financial Forms). Specifically, the Commission seeks comments on whether the Commission's annual and quarterly financial forms provide sufficient information to the public to permit an evaluation of the filers' jurisdictional rates, and whether these forms should otherwise be modified to improve their usefulness. II. Background 2. The Federal Power Act (FPA), the Natural Gas Act
(NGA)and the Interstate Commerce Act
(ICA)authorize the Commission to prescribe annual or other periodic reports to assist the Commission in the administration of its jurisdictional responsibilities. 1 FERC Form No. 1, “Annual Report of Major Electric Utilities, Licensees and Others” (Form 1), and FERC Form No. 1-F, “Annual Report for Nonmajor Public Utilities and Licensees” (Form 1-F), collect annual financial information as prescribed in §§ 141.1 and 141.2 of the Commission's regulations. 2 FERC Form No. 2, “Annual Report for Major Natural Gas Companies” (Form 2), and FERC Form No. 2-A, “Annual Report for Nonmajor Natural Gas Companies” (Form 2-A), collect annual financial information from natural gas companies subject to the Commission's jurisdiction, as prescribed in §§ 260.1 and 260.2 of the regulations. 3 FERC Form No. 6, “Annual Report of Oil Pipeline Companies” (Form 6), collects annual financial information from oil pipeline companies subject to the Commission's jurisdiction, as prescribed in §§ 357.2 and 357.4 of the regulations. 4 In 2004, the Commission's regulations were revised to require the filing entities to submit quarterly financial reports to supplement the annual filings: FERC Form No. 3-Q by electric utilities, licensees and natural gas companies; and FERC Form No. 6-Q by oil pipeline companies. 5 1 *See* sections 4, 304 and 309 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 797, 825c and 825h (2000); and sections 10(a), 16 of the Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C. 717i(a) and 717o (2000); and 49 App. U.S.C. 1-85 (2000). 2 18 CFR 141.1, 141.2. 3 18 CFR. 260.1, 260.2. 4 18 CFR 357.2, 357.4. 5 *Quarterly Financial Reporting and Revisions to the Annual Reports,* Order No. 646, 69 FR 9030 (Feb. 26, 2004), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,158 (2004), as amended by Order No. 646-A, 69 FR 32440 (June 10, 2004), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,163 (2004). See 18 CFR 141.400, 260.300, and 357.4. 3. The Financial Forms provide information that is essential to the Commission's oversight authority, namely, financial data covering a company's past performance. The financial statements are prepared in accordance with the Commission's Uniform Systems of Accounts and related regulations and provide data that enables the Commission to develop and monitor cost-based rates, analyze costs of different services and classes of assets, and compare costs across lines of business. In addition, the Financial Forms are relied upon by electric utility, interstate natural gas pipeline and oil pipeline customers, state commissions, and trade associations to develop and monitor rates. When the Commission revised its rules to require quarterly financial reporting, it concluded, based on comments received, that “the financial information filed with the Commission represents, in most cases, the only source of financial data presented in a format and detail suitable for the Commission to exercise its duties and responsibilities under the Federal Power, Natural Gas, and Interstate Commerce Acts.” 6 6 Order No. 646 at P 16. 4. In the spring of 2006, the Office of Enforcement
(OE)assumed responsibility for all financial forms filed with the Commission, which routinely reviews and updates the forms' requirements. Accordingly, in September and October of 2006, OE staff met informally with both filers and users of Forms 1 and 2 to reexamine the breadth of data collected by the forms and to determine the need for clarifications, corrections, deletions or additional information. 7 In particular with respect to Form 2, the meetings were also prompted because pleadings filed recently by certain market participants had questioned the adequacy of the type and amount of data reported in the forms for purposes of challenging rates on file for natural gas companies. 8 7 References to Forms 1 and 2, to the extent applicable, also refer to Forms 1-F, 2-A, 3-Q, 6 and 6-Q. 8 *See, e.g., Public Service Commission of New York, Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission and Pennsylvania Office of Consumer Advocate* v. *National Fuel Gas Supply Corp.,* 115 FERC ¶ 61,299
(2006)( *National Fuel* ) (setting for hearing a complaint filed by state commissions against National Fuel Gas Supply Corp. alleging that the company's rates are unjust and unreasonable, based on an analysis of Form 2 data). *See also Panhandle Complainants* v. *Southwest Gas Storage Company,* 117 FERC ¶ 61,318
(2006)( *Panhandle* ) (setting for hearing a complaint filed by customers of Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Company (PEPL), in which complainants relied on Form 2-A data for support). 5. During this two-month outreach period, OE staff met with representatives of natural gas and electric utility companies, state commissions, trade associations, financial entities, energy data publishers, federal agencies, and other Commission staff. In addition to attending the informal meetings, participants were invited to submit written comments and recommendations. At each session, staff sought the participants' views on several issues, including: how Forms 1 and 2 are used; which information is most helpful; whether and what additional information might be sought; and how burdensome to filers might be changes made or requirements added to either Form 1 or 2. 9 9 The staff outreach did not extend to Form 6 or 6-Q. The Commission believes, however, that extension of this inquiry to the oil pipeline financial forms makes sense as many of the concerns raised with respect to the other forms could apply to the oil pipeline forms as well. III. Comments on Form 1 6. Representatives of public utilities who file Form 1 advocated streamlining the form, *i.e.* , limiting the information collected to only what is necessary for the Commission to perform its regulatory function and avoiding the collection of unnecessary additional information. Many Form 1 filers expressed concern that these extensive reporting requirements put them at a competitive disadvantage because they apply only to major public utilities and hydropower licensees, and not to state and municipal public utilities, rural cooperatives, independent power producers, exempt wholesale generators and power marketers. 7. Users of Form 1 data emphasized its importance in monitoring cost-based rates to ensure that rates are just and reasonable, and in determining the potential need for a section 206 complaint. More generally, users complained that the Form 1 filings are often incomplete or inconsistent and there is a need for greater quality control and follow-up by Commission staff. Several users focused on the need for greater clarity in the Form 1 instructions and a need for upgrades to the software to provide for, among other things, more standardization of data queries. 8. Specific suggestions for additional information items to be collected in Form 1 submitted by the American Public Power Association include the following:
(1)additional cost data needed to complete formula rate calculations, *e.g.* , a summary schedule of information provided on transmission line statistics for lines 132 kV or greater;
(2)the standard rate divisor as specified in Order No. 888; 10
(3)expansion of existing reporting of individual line and substation facilities to identify which facilities have been placed under operation or control of another entity; and,
(4)reporting revenue distributions from regional transmission organizations
(RTOs)or independent system operators
(ISOs)with a breakdown of costs and revenues. 10 *Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open Access Non-Discriminatory Transmission Services by Public Utilities; Recovery of Stranded Costs by Public Utilities and Transmitting Utilities,* Order No. 888, 61 FR 21540 (May 10, 1996), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,036 (1996), *order on reh'g,* Order No. 888-A, 62 FR 12274 (Mar. 14, 1997), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,048 (1997), *order on reh'g,* Order No. 888-B, 81 FERC ¶ 61,248 (1997), *order on reh'g,* Order No. 888-C, 82 FERC ¶ 61,046 (1998), *aff'd in relevant part sub nom. Transmission Access Policy Study Group* v. *FERC* , 225 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2000) ( *TAPS* v. *FERC* ), *aff'd sub nom. New York* v. *FERC,* 535 U.S. 1 (2002). IV. Comments on Form 2 9. Representatives of the interstate natural gas pipeline companies, filers of Form 2, complained that the filing requirements, including the filing of quarterly information, are burdensome and collect unnecessary data. These filers also expressed their opinion that Form 2 is an accounting document that does not include projections and, therefore, should not be used as a substitute for a cost and revenue study or be used to gauge earnings. 10. The users of Form 2 called for more, not less data, and identified specific areas and accounts they found lacking in detail. According to these Form 2 users, the lack of detail affects the reliability of an accurate assessment of pipeline rates. Users of the data emphasized the significance of the information collected in Form 2 as the primary source for evaluating cost-based rates. They added that since interstate natural gas pipeline companies are no longer required to file a periodic restatement of rates, the importance of the information in Form 2 is particularly significant and constitutes the only resource available to shippers seeking pipeline rate changes by filing a complaint. 11 11 *See supra* note 8. 11. Specific changes or additional details sought by the users of Form 2 include:
(1)A breakdown of operating revenues;
(2)unbundling of certain accounts;
(3)additional detail on cost of service items, billing determinants, and maximum rate contracts;
(4)detail on pensions and Post Retirement Benefits Other Than Pension (OPEBs);
(5)more detail on employee expenses, employee benefits and executive compensation; and
(6)more affiliate transaction schedules. Other data and changes requested include:
(1)Separation of cost-of-service components from non-cost-of-service components;
(2)requiring a filer to identify items that it considers rate-base components for ratemaking purposes;
(3)information on construction costs and capitalized costs; and
(4)additional information on deferred taxes and capital structure. 12. The Industry Coalition 12 (Coalition) submitted written comments suggesting specific changes to Form 2, information they identified as necessary to perform an evaluation of pipeline rates. The Coalition's specific suggestions include the following:
(1)Identify which components of deferred taxes are included in rate base for cost-of-service purposes;
(2)provide additional information on the entity whose capital structure is reported on page 218a of the form;
(3)provide detail on gas purchases and sales;
(4)provide detail on miscellaneous gas revenues;
(5)provide a calculation of the pipeline's effective overall state income tax rate;
(6)provide detail for miscellaneous assets;
(7)provide detail concerning the total parent company overhead costs and the amount assigned or allocated to the pipeline;
(8)provide aggregate information on volumes and revenues associated with discounted services and negotiated rate services;
(9)identify costs and revenues associated with at-risk facilities; and
(10)provide a calculation of the pipeline's earned annual return on equity. 12 The Industry Coalition comprised the following entities: Natural Gas Supply Association, American Public Gas Association, Independent Petroleum Association of America, and The Process Gas Consumers Group. 13. In addition, many participants commented on the need to limit delays in filing, and the incompleteness of some information that is filed. The Commission shares the concern regarding timely filings. The Commission expects that all Financial Forms will be filed in a timely manner and will provide all of the requested information. 13 13 Concurrently with the issuance of this Notice of Inquiry, the Commission is issuing a show cause order to financial forms filers who have been delinquent in making their filings. 14. The comments and information received as a result of the outreach meetings reinforce the significance of this data to the Commission, and to the public who depend almost solely on the data reported when they elect to file a complaint under section 5 of the NGA or section 206 of the FPA. The forms represent more than simply accounting documents; the information provided is essential to the public's right to examine, monitor, and assess utility and pipeline rates to ensure that they do not pay excessive or unduly discriminatory rates. 15. In light of the comments received, both orally and written, during OE's review of Forms 1 and 2, and in light of the complaints set for hearing in *National Fuel* and *Panhandle* and the importance of the questions they raise, the Commission believes it is appropriate to solicit comments on these matters. Although the informal meetings held as a result of OE's outreach efforts focused on Forms 1 and 2, this Notice of Inquiry
(NOI)solicits comments on the need for changes to any and all of the Financial Forms filed with the Commission, *i.e.* , Form 6 and quarterly submissions, Forms 3-Q and 6-Q. The Commission is aware that not all participants in the informal review had an opportunity to submit written comments or to respond to comments submitted by other parties. This NOI gives those entities, and all other interested persons, the opportunity to comment formally with the Commission on any of the issues raised herein. The list is not exhaustive. Those responding to this NOI should feel free to raise any other questions or to make any comments which will aid the Commission in assessing its Financial Forms. After receipt of comments in response to this NOI, the Commission will determine whether it is appropriate to propose changes to the financial forms in the context of a formal rulemaking. V. Questions 16. The Commission asks that interested persons respond to the following general questions.
(1)Do the annual and quarterly Financial Forms provide sufficient data for the public to permit an evaluation of the filers' jurisdictional rates?
(2)If not, what additional data is needed to conduct such an evaluation? Please specify the form (or forms) to which your suggestions pertain.
(3)Do the financial reports provide sufficient data to the public to determine revenues attributable to the sale of excess fuel retention? If not, what additional data is needed to conduct such an evaluation?
(4)Is the information included in the financial reports sufficient to audit formulaic rates?
(5)Should the Commission require reporting of information on demand response initiatives (interruptible, load control, etc.), including demand and peak demand impacts, associated costs and savings, and the number of advanced meters installed?
(6)Please explain how this additional data will be useful to users of the Financial Forms.
(7)How burdensome would any requirement for additional information be to filers of Financial Forms?
(8)Are there specific reporting requirements that are no longer necessary or unduly burdensome that should be deleted?
(9)What technical revisions, if any, need to be made to the Financial Forms? For example, identify any suggested changes in instructions, desirable software upgrades, and whether there are errors embedded in the forms which need to be corrected.
(10)Should the Commission require electric utilities, licensees and interstate natural gas and oil pipeline companies to provide notification when their total sales or transactions fall below the minimum thresholds established in the Commission's regulations such that they are no longer subject to these filing requirements?
(11)Should the Commission require a showing of good cause before granting an extension of time in which to file the required forms?
(12)Are these concerns of sufficient importance to warrant a rulemaking and, if so, what rules should the Commission promulgate? Commenters are encouraged to be as specific as possible. VI. Comment Procedures 16. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on these matters and any related matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish to discuss. Comments are due March 28, 2007 and reply comments are due April 27, 2007. Comments and reply comments must refer to Docket No. RM07-9-000 and must include the commenter's name, the organization he or she represents, if applicable, and his or her address. 17. Comments may be filed electronically via the eFiling link on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* . The Commission accepts most standard word processing formats and commenters may attach additional files with supporting information in certain other file formats. Commenters filing electronically do not need to make a paper filing. 18. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically must send an original and 14 copies of their comments to: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. 19. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the Document Availability section below. Commenters on this NOPR are not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters. VII. Document Availability 20. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the **Federal Register** , the Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the Internet through FERC's Home Page ( *http://www.ferc.gov* .) and in FERC's Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426. 21. From the Commission's Home Page on the Internet, this information is available in its eLibrary. The full text of this document is available in the eLibrary both in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number of this document, excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field. 22. User assistance is available for eLibrary and FERC's Web site during normal business hours from our Help line at
(202)502-8222 or the Public Reference Room at *public.reference@ferc.gov* . By direction of the Commission. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-3233 Filed 2-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 18 CFR Part 38 [Docket No. RM05-5-003] Standards for Business Practices and Communication Protocols for Public Utilities Issued February 20, 2007. AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) proposes to incorporate by reference in its regulations revisions to the Coordinate Interchange business practice standards (WEQ-004) adopted by the Wholesale Electric Quadrant
(WEQ)of the North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB). These standards identify the processes and communications necessary to coordinate energy transfers that cross boundaries between entities responsible for balancing load and generation. Through this rulemaking, the Commission seeks to ensure that the Coordinate Interchange business practices standards that the Commission incorporates by reference in its regulations function compatibly with the North American Electric Reliability Council's proposed Version 1 and 2 INT reliability standards, currently under review in Docket No. RM06-16-000, in the event that the Commission approves such standards. DATES: Comments on the proposed rule are due March 28, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Docket No. RM05-5-003, by one of the following methods: • *Agency Web Site: http://ferc.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments via the eFiling link found in the Comment Procedures Section of the preamble. • *Mail:* Commenters unable to file comments electronically must mail or hand deliver an original and 14 copies of their comments to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Please refer to the Comment Procedures Section of the preamble for additional information on how to file paper comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia Schaub (technical issues), Office of Energy Markets and Reliability, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,
(202)502-6816. Gary D. Cohen (legal issues), Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,
(202)502-8321. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 1. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) proposes to amend its regulations under the Federal Power Act 1 to incorporate by reference a revised version of the Coordinate Interchange Standards (designated as WEQ-004) adopted by the Wholesale Electric Quadrant
(WEQ)of the North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB) on June 22, 2006, and filed with the Commission on November 16, 2006. These revised standards would replace the Coordinate Interchange business practice standards that the Commission previously incorporated by reference into its regulations in a prior rulemaking. 2 The WEQ's Coordinate Interchange standards identify the processes and communications necessary to coordinate energy transfers crossing boundaries between entities responsible for balancing load and generation (Interchange). 1 16 U.S.C. 791a, *et seq.* 2 *Standards for Business Practices and Communication Protocols for Public Utilities* , Order No. 676, 71 FR 26199 (May 4, 2006), FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations Preambles ¶ 31,216 (Apr. 25, 2006), *reh'g denied* , Order No. 676-A, 116 FERC ¶ 61,255 (2006). 2. The revised Coordinate Interchange business practice standards that the Commission proposes to incorporate by reference in this notice of proposed rulemaking
(NOPR)are intended to complement revisions to the Interchange Scheduling and Coordination group of INT reliability standards, dealing with the interchange of energy (INT reliability standards), that the North American Electric Reliability Council
(NERC)has proposed and that are currently under consideration in the rulemaking proceeding in Docket No. RM06-16-000. 3 In this NOPR, the Commission proposes to amend part 38 of its regulations to incorporate by reference the WEQ's revisions to the Coordinate Interchange business practice standards to ensure that they remain consistent with the applicable NERC INT reliability standards. Thus, the Commission proposes that the effective date of the revised WEQ Coordinate Interchange standards be no earlier than the effective date of the corresponding NERC INT reliability standards. 3 *See Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System* , 71 FR 64770 (Nov. 3, 2006), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,608 at P 427-496 (Oct. 20, 2006) (Reliability NOPR). Background 3. NAESB is a non-profit standards development organization established in January 2002 that serves as an industry forum for the development and promotion of business practice standards that promote a seamless marketplace for wholesale and retail natural gas and electricity. Since 1995, NAESB and its predecessor, the Gas Industry Standards Board, have been accredited members of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), complying with ANSI's requirements that its standards reflect a consensus of the affected industries. 4. NAESB's standards include business practices that streamline the transactional processes of the natural gas and electric industries, as well as communication protocols and related standards designed to improve the efficiency of communication within each industry. NAESB supports all four quadrants of the gas and electric industries—wholesale gas, wholesale electric, retail gas, and retail electric. All participants in the gas and electric industries are eligible to join NAESB and participate in standards development. 5. NAESB's procedures are designed to ensure that all industry members can have input into the development of a standard, whether or not they are members of NAESB, and each standard NAESB adopts is supported by a consensus of the relevant industry segments. 6. In Order No. 676, the Commission not only adopted business practice standards and communication protocols for the wholesale electric industry, it also established a formal ongoing process for reviewing and upgrading the Commission's Open Access Same-Time Information Systems (OASIS) standards and other wholesale electric industry business practice standards. In addition, the Commission incorporated by reference NAESB standards designed to coordinate business practices with reliability standards approved by the Commission under section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA). 7. On April 4, 2006, as modified on August 28, 2006, NERC filed 107 proposed reliability standards with the Commission for approval under section 215 of the FPA, including Version 1 INT reliability standards. On October 20, 2006, in Docket No. RM06-16-000, the Commission issued a notice of proposed rulemaking ( *i.e.* , the Reliability NOPR) proposing to approve 83 of NERC's 107 proposed reliability standards, including its INT reliability standards. 4 The Reliability NOPR also explained that NERC would be submitting revised versions of some of these standards in November of 2006. On November 15, 2006, NERC filed revised proposed reliability standards including revised INT reliability standards INT-001-2 (Interchange Information) and INT-003-2 (Interchange Transaction Information). Final action on the Reliability NOPR is currently pending. In addition, as the Commission noted in the Reliability NOPR, NERC removed certain standards from its proposed reliability standards because they actually were business practice standards that would be addressed by NAESB. 5 4 *See* Reliability NOPR at P 427-496. 5 Reliability NOPR at P 439 and P 452. 8. The WEQ revised its Coordinate Interchange standards to support NERC's Version 1 INT reliability standards. On June 22, 2006, the WEQ membership ratified the revisions to the Coordinate Interchange standards. On November 16, 2006, NAESB filed the revised Coordinate Interchange standards with the Commission for appropriate action. On February 5, 2007, NAESB filed a report in this docket that describes how their proposed Coordinate Interchange business practice standards map to NERC's INT reliability standards. 9. The revised Coordinate Interchange business practice standards (WEQ-004) facilitate the transfer of electric energy between entities responsible for balancing load and generation (Balancing Authorities). The term “Interchange” in this context refers to energy transfers across boundaries between Balancing Authorities. The Coordinate Interchange business practice standards identify the processes needed to facilitate interchange transactions, and specify the arrangements and data to be communicated to the entity responsible for authorizing implementation of interchange transactions (Interchange Authority). 10. The WEQ adopted revisions to its Coordinate Interchange business practice standards for three main reasons:
(1)To incorporate business practice standards that had previously been included by NERC in its proposed reliability standards;
(2)to modify the definitions and standards to better integrate with NERC's corresponding reliability standards; and
(3)to eliminate an appendix and update standards to reflect current operating conditions in the Eastern and Western Interconnections, and within the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT). Standards Previously Included by NERC in Its Reliability Standards 11. The Reliability NOPR noted that NERC deleted certain requirements previously included in its proposed reliability standards with the expectation that NAESB would include them in its business practice standards. The deleted NERC standards include Requirements R1.1, R3, R4, and R5 of INT-001-0, which relate to the timing and content of e-tags, and Requirement R1.1.3 of INT-003-0, which addresses ramp starting time and duration. 12. The revised Coordinate Interchange business practice standards the WEQ adopted to replace the deleted NERC standards include: • WEQ Standards 004-1, and 004-3.1 replace NERC INT-001-0 Requirement R1.1. The revised WEQ standards address how requests for Interchange should be made and who is responsible for submitting such requests. • WEQ Standards 004-3, 004-5, 004-8.1, and 004-8.2 replace NERC's INT-001-0 Requirement R3. These standards establish the timing requirements for submitting requests for Interchange. The WEQ's timing table (Appendix D referenced in WEQ Standard 004-8.1) has been revised to better match up with the timing table in NERC's INT-005-1. • WEQ Standard 004-5 replaces NERC's INT-001-0 Requirement R4. This standard addresses the data that should be included in a request for Interchange and who is responsible for ensuring that these data are included in the request for Interchange. • WEQ Standard 004-12 replaces NERC's INT-001-0 Requirement R5. This standard requires that parties involved in an Interchange must have personnel and facilities on site and immediately available to receive notification of changes to the Interchange. • WEQ Standards 004-17, 004-17.1, and 004-17.2 replace NERC's INT-003-0 Requirement R1.1.3. These standards establish the default ramp rates that apply to an Interchange unless otherwise agreed to by the parties involved. Changes To Better Conform With NERC's Proposed INT Reliability Standards 13. The WEQ also modified the Coordinate Interchange definitions and business practice standards to better coordinate with NERC's INT reliability standards. This follows the Commission's directive in Order No. 676 that, “[i]n future versions of the standards, NAESB should use the NERC definitions relating to reliability.” 6 The modifications include: 6 Order No. 676 at P 40. • New and revised definitions, such as changing Reliability Authority to Reliability Coordinator. • Changes to definitions resulting from WEQ's efforts to match the language used in NERC's “Glossary of Terms Used in Reliability Standards” (Glossary) where appropriate. For example, the WEQ added a definition for “Arranged Interchange” using the same language as NERC. • Changes to definitions, such as the “Request for Interchange” definition, where the words are not identical, but are compatible with NERC's, facilitating coordination with the NERC INT reliability standards but reflecting the different responsibilities of the two organizations. • Changes to definitions, where NERC does not have a corresponding definition in its Glossary, but the WEQ modified its definitions, such as the “Approval Entity” definition, to reflect the definition changes previously discussed. • Changes to delete definitions no longer needed in the Coordinate Interchange business practice standards or that had been replaced by other definitions. Deleted definitions include: Checkout Process; Interchange Transaction; Interchange Transaction Tag; Interconnection; Market Operator; Scheduling Agent; and Transmission Service Provider. • Changes to the Coordinate Interchange business practice standards made to better coordinate with NERC's INT reliability standards. The standards were modified to:
(1)Incorporate the revised definitions;
(2)provide greater detail, as in WEQ Standard 004-3;
(3)add new standards to clarify and better coordinate with NERC, such as in WEQ Standard 004-2.2; and
(4)delete standards that are no longer appropriate, such as WEQ Standard 004-1.2. Changes To Reflect Current Business Practices of the Eastern and Western Interconnections and ERCOT 14. The Coordinate Interchange business practices standards were also modified to reflect the current business practices of the Eastern and Western Interconnections and ERCOT. Language previously included in Appendix A was moved to Coordinate Interchange business practice standards 004-3, 004-3.1, and 004-8.2. Discussion 15. In this NOPR, we propose to incorporate by reference the WEQ's revised Coordinate Interchange standards in part 38 of the Commission's regulations to coordinate with the consideration already under way in Docket No. RM06-16-000 of the complementary NERC INT reliability standards. 7 Adoption of revised business practice standards is intended to be coordinated with the adoption of the complementary reliability standards to ensure that public utilities comply with a consistent set of standards. To ensure that the NAESB and NERC standards remain consistent, we propose that the effective date of these standards be no earlier than the effective date of the NERC standards if, and when, they are approved by the Commission. 7 The revised WEQ business practice standards we are proposing to incorporate by reference in this NOPR are the standards for Coordinate Interchange (WEQ-004, June 22, 2006) including Purpose, Applicability, and Standards 004-0 through 004-17.2 and 004-A through 004-D. 16. We are pleased that NAESB and NERC have been able to work together to separate out business and reliability decisions and to generally coordinate their adoption of standards. In the Reliability NOPR, the Commission urged NERC and NAESB to coordinate their filing of standards. We stated: In the future, to ensure that there is not a gap in Reliability Standards or business practices, the Commission expects filings from NERC and NAESB to be coordinated to allow for the seamless transfer of Requirements from Reliability Standards to Business Practices. 8 8 Reliability NOPR at P 439. In this instance, although the adoption of the standards was coordinated, the filing of notification to the Commission was not as coordinated as we would like it to be. In the future, we expect that NAESB and NERC will coordinate their submittals of any subsequent revisions to their respective interrelated standards and that each filing will reference its counterparts, to help assure coordinated implementation of future standards. We appreciate the supplemental information NAESB filed on February 5, 2007, and request that NERC and NAESB include in their filings the details showing how their respective standards relate to each other. 17. NAESB's standards correspond to NERC's Version 1 INT reliability standards. On November 15, 2006, NERC filed updated INT reliability standards (NERC's Version 2 INT reliability standards) with the Commission in Docket No. RM06-16-000. Review of the changes made to the Version 2 standards does not indicate that the WEQ would need to make any additional modifications to its Coordinate Interchange standards. We invite comments on whether NERC's Version 2 INT reliability standards necessitate any additional standards beyond those included in the WEQ's Coordinate Interchange business practice standards. 18. The Commission is not proposing in this rulemaking that public utilities make tariff filings to include the revised Coordinate Interchange standards in their tariffs. Instead, we propose that, when the WEQ next updates its wholesale electric standards, if the Commission decides to incorporate this next standard version into its regulations, public utilities will then be required to include these standards in their tariffs. Notice of Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards 19. The NAESB WEQ approved the revised Coordinate Interchange standards under NAESB's consensus procedures. 9 As the Commission found in Order No. 676, adoption of consensus standards is appropriate because the consensus process helps ensure the reasonableness of the standards by requiring that the standards draw support from a broad spectrum of all segments of the industry. Moreover, since the industry itself has to conduct business under these standards, the Commission's regulations should reflect those standards that have the widest possible support. In section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, Congress affirmatively requires federal agencies to use technical standards developed by voluntary consensus standards organizations, like NAESB, as means to carry out policy objectives or activities. 10 9 Under this process, to be approved a standard must receive a super-majority vote of 67 percent of the members of the WEQ's Executive Committee with support from at least 40 percent from each of the five industry segments—transmission, generation, marketer/brokers, distribution/load serving entities, and end users. For final approval, 67 percent of the WEQ's general membership must ratify the standards. 10 Pub L. 104-113, § 12(d), 110 Stat. 775 (1996), 15 U.S.C. 272 note (1997). 20. Office of Management and Budget Circular A-119 (section 11) (February 10, 1998) provides that Federal Agencies should publish a request for comment in a NOPR when the agency is seeking to issue or revise a regulation proposing to adopt a voluntary consensus standard or a government-unique standard. In this NOPR, the Commission is proposing to incorporate by reference a voluntary consensus standard developed by the WEQ. Information Collection Statement 21. The following collection of information contained in this proposed rule has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(d). The Commission solicits comments on the Commission's need for this information, whether the information will have practical utility, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondents' burden, including the use of automated information techniques. The following burden estimate is based on the projected costs for the industry to implement revisions to the WEQ's Coordinate Interchange standards (WEQ-004). Data collection Number of respondents Number of responses per respondent Hours per response Total number of hours FERC-717 220 1 8 1760 Totals 1760 Total Annual Hours for Collection (Reporting and Recordkeeping, (if appropriate)) = 1760. *Information Collection Costs:* The Commission seeks comments on the costs to comply with these requirements. It has projected the average annualized cost for all respondents to be the following: 11 11 The total annualized costs for the information collection is $264,000. This number is reached by multiplying the total hours to prepare responses (1760 hours) by an hourly wage estimate of $150 (a composite estimate that includes legal, technical and support staff rates, $90 + $35 + $25). $264,000 = $150 × 1760. FERC-717 Annualized Capital/Startup Costs $264,000 Annualized Costs (Operations & Maintenance) N/A Total Annualized Costs 264,000 22. OMB regulations 12 require OMB to approve certain information collection requirements imposed by agency rule. The Commission is submitting notification of this proposed rule to OMB. These information collections are mandatory requirements. 12 5 CFR 1320.11. *Title:* Standards for Business Practices and Communication Protocols for Public Utilities (FERC-717) (formerly Open Access Same Time Information System). *Action:* Proposed collection. *OMB Control No.:* 1902-0173. *Respondents:* Business or other for profit, (Public Utilities—Not applicable to small businesses). *Frequency of Responses:* One-time implementation (business procedures, capital/start-up). *Necessity of the Information:* This proposed rule, if implemented would upgrade the Commission's business practice and communication protocols (methods by which computers coordinate their communications) governing Coordinate Interchange transactions to complement revisions to the NERC INT reliability standards under consideration in the rulemaking proceeding in Docket No. RM06-16-000. The implementation of these standards and regulations is necessary to increase the efficiency of the wholesale electric power grid. The standards being adopted define procedures for market participants to request the implementation of Interchange Transactions or agreements to transfer energy from a seller to a buyer that crosses one or more Balancing Authority boundaries. 23. The information collection requirements of this proposed rule are based on the transition from transactions being made under the Commission's existing business practice standard governing Coordinate Interchange transactions to conducting such transactions under the proposed revision to the Coordinate Interchange standards (WEQ-004). Our preliminary view, subject to our review of any comments that are filed on this NOPR proposal, is that the Commission's incorporation by reference of these revised standards will keep these WEQ business practice standards consistent with the NERC INT reliability standards. 24. *Internal Review:* The Commission has reviewed the revised business practice standards and has made a preliminary determination that the proposed revisions are necessary to maintain consistency between the business practice standards and reliability standards on this subject. The Commission has assured itself, by means of its internal review, that there is specific, objective support for the burden estimate associated with the information requirements. 25. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting requirements by contacting the following: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Attn: Michael Miller, Office of the Executive Director, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, Tel:
(202)502-8415 / Fax:
(202)273-0873, E-mail: *michael.miller@ferc.gov.* 26. Comments concerning the collection of information(s) and the associated burden estimate(s), should be sent to the contact listed above and to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503 [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, phone:
(202)395-7856, fax:
(202)395-7285]. Environmental Analysis 27. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment. 13 The Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from these requirements as not having a significant effect on the human environment. 14 The actions proposed here fall within categorical exclusions in the Commission's regulations for rules that are clarifying, corrective, or procedural, for information gathering, analysis, and dissemination, and for sales, exchange, and transportation of electric power that requires no construction of facilities. 15 Therefore, an environmental assessment is unnecessary and has not been prepared in this NOPR. 13 Order No. 486, *Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act* , 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations Preambles 1986-1990 ¶ 30,783 (1987). 14 18 CFR 380.4. 15 *See* 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii), 380.4(a)(5), 380.4(a)(27). Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification 28. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
(RFA)16 generally requires a description and analysis of final rules that will have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The regulations proposed here impose requirements only on public utilities, which are not small businesses, and, these requirements are, in fact, designed to benefit all customers, including small businesses. 16 5 U.S.C. 601-612. 29. The Commission has followed the provisions of both the RFA and the Paperwork Reduction Act on potential impact on small business and other small entities. Specifically, the RFA directs agencies to consider four regulatory alternatives to be considered in a rulemaking to lessen the impact on small entities: tiering or establishment of different compliance or reporting requirements for small entities, classification, consolidation, clarification or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements, performance rather than design standards, and exemptions. As the Commission originally stated in Order No. 889, the OASIS regulations now known as Standards for Business Practices and Communication Protocols for Public Utilities, apply only to public utilities that own, operate, or control transmission facilities subject to the Commission's jurisdiction and should a small entity be subject to the Commission's jurisdiction, it may file for waiver of the requirements. This is consistent with the exemption provisions of the RFA. Accordingly, pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA, 17 the Commission hereby certifies that the regulations proposed herein will not have a significant adverse impact on a substantial number of small entities. 17 5 U.S.C. 605(b). Comment Procedures 30. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on the matters and issues proposed in this notice to be adopted, including any related matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish to discuss. Comments are due March 28, 2007. Comments must refer to Docket No. RM05-5-003, and must include the commenter's name, the organization they represent, if applicable, and their address. Comments may be filed either in electronic or paper format. 31. Comments may be filed electronically via the eFiling link on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* . The Commission accepts most standard word processing formats and commenters may attach additional files with supporting information in certain other file formats. Commenters filing electronically do not need to make a paper filing. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically must send an original and 14 copies of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. 32. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters. Document Availability 33. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the **Federal Register** , the Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the Internet through FERC's Home Page ( *http://www.ferc.gov* ) and in FERC's Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426. 34. From FERC's Home Page on the Internet, this information is available in the eLibrary. The full text of this document is available in the eLibrary both in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field. 18 18 NAESB's November 16, 2006 submittal is also available for viewing in eLibrary. The link to this file is as follows: *http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/nvcommon/NVViewer.asp?Doc=11182760:0.* 35. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC's Web site during our normal business hours. For assistance contact FERC Online Support at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll-free at
(866)208-3676, or for TTY, contact
(202)502-8659. List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 38 Conflict of interests, Electric power plants, Electric utilities, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. By direction of the Commission. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission proposes to amend Chapter I, Title 18, part 38 of the *Code of Federal Regulations* , as follows: PART 38—BUSINESS PRACTICE STANDARDS AND COMMUNICATION PROTOCOLS FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES 1. The authority citation for part 38 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 791-825r, 2601-2645; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352. 2. In § 38.2, paragraph (a)(4) is revised to read as follows: § 38.2 Incorporation by reference of North American Energy Standards Board Wholesale Electric Quadrant standards.
(a)* * *
(4)Coordinate Interchange (WEQ-004, June 22, 2006); [FR Doc. E7-3232 Filed 2-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [CGD05-07-009] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Martin Lagoon, Middle River, MD AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish temporary special local regulations for the “Baltimore County Community Waterfront Festival”, an event to be held May 12, 2007 at Martin Lagoon, Middle River, Maryland. These special local regulations are necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during the event. This action is intended to temporarily restrict vessel traffic in a portion of the Middle River waterfront to accommodate watercraft static displays, fire-rescue demonstrations and a fireworks display. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before March 28, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander (dpi), Fifth Coast Guard District, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, Virginia 23704-5004, hand-deliver them to Room 415 at the same address between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, fax them to
(757)391-8149, or e-mail them to *Dennis.M.Sens@uscg.mil.* The Inspections and Investigations Branch, Fifth Coast Guard District, maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at the above address between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: D. M. Sens, Project Manager, Inspections and Investigations Branch, at
(757)398-6204. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Request for Comments We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (CGD05-07-009), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them. Public Meeting We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to the address listed under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the **Federal Register** . Background and Purpose On May 12, 2007, Baltimore County plans to sponsor the “Baltimore County Community Waterfront Festival”. Various watercraft static displays and fire-rescue demonstrations would be staged within Martin Lagoon. The fireworks display would be launched from Wilson Point Park but the hazardous fallout area will extend over Martin Lagoon. A fleet of spectator vessels is expected to gather near the event site to view the fireworks display. Due to the need for vessel control during the proposed event, vessel traffic will be temporarily restricted to provide for the safety of participants, spectators and transiting vessels. Discussion of Proposed Rule The Coast Guard proposes to establish temporary special local regulations on specified waters of Martin Lagoon at Middle River, Maryland. The regulated area includes all waters of Martin Lagoon that are north of a line drawn from latitude 39°19′34″ N, 076°25′41″ W, thence to a position located at 39°19′33″ N, 076°25′33″ W. The temporary special local regulations will be in effect from 9 a.m. to 11 p.m. on May 13, 2006. If the marine event is postponed due to weather, then the temporary special local regulations will be enforced during the same time period on May 13, 2007. The effect will be to restrict general navigation in the regulated area during the marine event and fireworks display. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area during the enforcement period. The Patrol Commander will notify the public of specific enforcement times by Marine Radio Safety Broadcast. These proposed regulations are needed to control vessel traffic during the event to enhance the safety of spectators and transiting vessels. Regulatory Evaluation This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. Although this regulation restricts vessel traffic from transiting Martin Lagoon during the event, the effect of this regulation will not be significant due to the limited duration that the regulated area will be in effect and the extensive advance notifications that will be made to the maritime community via marine information broadcasts and area newspapers so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. *This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities:* The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit Martin Lagoon during the event. This proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This rule will be in effect for only a short period, from 9 a.m. to 11 p.m. on May 13, 2006. Before the enforcement period, we will issue maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding the proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the address listed under ADDRESSES . The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This proposed rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This proposed rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. Special local regulations issued in conjunction with a regatta or marine event permit are specifically excluded from further analysis and documentation under those sections. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the Instruction, an “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are not required for this rule. Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final decision on whether to categorically exclude this rule from further environmental review. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100 Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows: PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS 1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233, Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Add temporary § 100.35-T05-009 to read as follows: § 100.35-T05-009 Martin Lagoon, Middle River, Maryland.
(a)Regulated area. The regulated area includes all waters of Martin Lagoon that are north of a line drawn from latitude 39°19′34″ N, 076°25′41″ W, thence to a position located at 39°19′33″ N, 076°25′33″ W. All coordinates reference Datum NAD 1983.
(b)*Definitions:* As used in this section
(1)*Coast Guard Patrol Commander* means a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the Coast Guard who has been designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector Baltimore.
(2)*Official Patrol* means any vessel assigned or approved by Commander, Coast Guard Sector Baltimore with a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer on board and displaying a Coast Guard ensign.
(c)*Special local regulations:*
(1)Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area.
(2)The operator of any vessel in the regulated area shall:
(i)Stop the vessel immediately when directed to do so by any Official Patrol.
(ii)Proceed as directed by any official patrol.
(d)Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 9 a.m. to 11 p.m. on May 12, 2007. If the marine event is postponed due to weather, then the temporary special local regulations will be enforced during the same time period on May 13, 2007. Dated: February 14, 2007. Larry L. Hereth, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E7-3211 Filed 2-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army; Corps of Engineers 33 CFR Part 334 Department of the Navy, Chesapeake Bay, in Vicinity of Bloodsworth Island, MD AGENCY: Department of the Army, United States Army Corps of Engineers, DOD. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and request for comments. SUMMARY: The Corps of Engineers is proposing to amend the regulations in 33 CFR 334.190 which establishes a danger zone, in waters of the United States in the vicinity of Bloodsworth Island, Maryland. The proposed amendment will reflect the current operational and safety procedures at the Bloodsworth Island Range and highlight a change in the enforcement authority from the Commander, Naval Base Norfolk, Virginia to the Commander, Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland. The regulations are necessary to safeguard United States Navy vessels and United States Government facilities/installations from sabotage and other subversive acts, accidents, or incidents of a similar nature. These regulations are also necessary to protect the public from potentially hazardous conditions which may exist as a result from use of the areas by the United States Navy. DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before March 28, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number COE-2006-0040, by any of the following methods: *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. *E-mail: david.b.olson@usace.army.mil.* Include the docket number, COE-2006-0040, in the subject line of the message. *Fax:* 202-761-0140. *Mail:* U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Attn: CECW-OR/MVD (David B. Olson), 441 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20314-1000. *Hand Delivery/Courier:* Due to security requirements, we cannot receive comments by hand delivery or courier. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to docket number COE-2006-0040. All comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available on-line fnl;at *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided, unless the commenter indicates that the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI, or otherwise protected, through regulations.gov or e-mail. The regulations.gov web site is an anonymous access system, which means we will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail directly to the Corps without going through regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, we recommend that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If we cannot read your comment because of technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, we may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic comments should avoid the use of any special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket:* For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to www.regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, such as 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. Consideration will be given to all comments received within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David Olson, Headquarters, Operations and Regulatory Community of Practice, Washington, DC at 202-761-4922, or Mr. Steve Elinsky, Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District, Regulatory Branch, at 410-962-4503. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to its authorities in Section 7 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1917 (40 Stat. 266; 33 U.S.C. 1) and Chapter XIX of the Army Appropriations Act of 1919 (40 Stat. 892; 33 U.S.C. 3), the Corps proposes to amend the danger zone regulations at 33 CFR 334.190 to reflect current operational and safety procedures at the Bloodsworth Island Range and highlight a change in the enforcement authority from the Commander, Naval Base Norfolk, Virginia to the Commander, Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland. The proposed amendment will also provide more detailed times, dates, and extents of restrictions. Procedural Requirements a. Review Under Executive Order 12866 This proposed rule is issued with respect to a military function of the Defense Department and the provisions of Executive Order 12866 do not apply. b. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act These proposed rules have been reviewed under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Public Law 96-354) which requires the preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis for any regulation that will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities ( *i.e.* , small businesses and small governments). Unless information is obtained to the contrary during the public notice comment period, the Corps expects that the economic impact of the amendment of this danger zone would have practically no impact on the public, no anticipated navigational hazard or interference with existing waterway traffic. This proposed rule if adopted, will have no significant economic impact on small entities. c. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act Due to the administrative nature of this action and because there is no intended change in the use of the area, the Corps expects that this regulation, if adopted, will not have a significant impact to the quality of the human environment and, therefore, preparation of an environmental impact statement will not be required. An environmental assessment will be prepared after the public notice period is closed and all comments have been received and considered. It may be reviewed at the District office listed at the end of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , above. d. Unfunded Mandates Act This proposed rule does not impose an enforceable duty among the private sector and, therefore, it is not a Federal private sector mandate and it is not subject to the requirements of either Section 202 or Section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act. We have also found under Section 203 of the Act, that small governments will not be significantly and uniquely affected by this rulemaking. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 334 Danger zones, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Restricted areas, Waterways. For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Corps proposes to amend 33 CFR part 334, as follows: PART 334—DANGER ZONE AND RESTRICTED AREA REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for 33 CFR 334 continues to read as follows: Authority: 40 Stat. 266 (33 U.S.C. 1) and 40 Stat. 892 (33 U.S.C. 3). 2. Section 334.190 would be revised to read as follows: § 334.190, Chesapeake Bay, in vicinity of Bloodsworth Island, MD; shore bombardment, air bombing, air strafing, and rocket firing area, U.S. Navy.
(a)*The areas* —(1) *Prohibited area.* All waters within a circle 0.5 miles in radius with its center at latitude 38°10′00″, longitude 76°06′00″; Bloodsworth Island, Pone Island, Northeast Island, and Adams Island.
(2)*The danger zone.* All waters of Chesapeake Bay and Tangier Sound within an area bounded as follows: Beginning at latitude 38°08′15″, longitude 76°10′00″ thence to latitude 38°12′00″, longitude 76°10′00″; thence to latitude 38°12′00″, longitude 76°07′00″; thence to latitude 38°13′00″, longitude 76°06′00″; thence to latitude 38°13′00″, longitude 76°04′00″; thence to latitude 38°12′00″, longitude 76°02′00″; thence to latitude 38°12′00″, longitude 76°00′00″; thence to latitude 38°08′15″, longitude 76°00′00″; thence to the point of beginning, excluding the prohibited area described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
(b)*The regulations.*
(1)No person, vessel or other craft shall approach closer than 75 yards to the beaches, shoreline, or piers of Bloodsworth, Pone Island, Northeast Island, Adams Island, or any Patuxent River Naval Air Station property at any time unless authorized to do so by the enforcing agency. No person, vessel or other craft shall approach rafts, barges, or platforms closer than 100 yards.
(2)No person, vessel, or other craft shall enter or remain in the danger zone when notified by the enforcing authority to keep clear. Any watercraft under way or at anchor, upon being so warned, shall immediately vacate the area and shall remain outside the area until conclusion of potentially hazardous test or training events.
(3)The area will be in use intermittently throughout the year.
(4)Prior to the commencement of any potentially hazardous test or training event that requires clearing of non participant boats from the danger zone, surface or air search of the entire area will be made for the purpose of locating and warning all craft and persons not connected with the test or training event, and a patrol will be maintained throughout the duration of the event.
(5)All persons, vessels, or other craft shall clear the area when warned by patrol vessels.
(6)Patrol vessels will provide warning that a potentially hazardous test or training event is in progress or is about to commence; when so warned, fishing or oystering vessels or other craft not directly connected with the event shall not navigate within the danger zone. Deep-draft vessels proceeding in established navigation channels normally will be permitted to traverse the area upon coordination with range patrol vessels. The patrol vessels will ensure safe separation between all non-participant vessels and potentially hazardous operations.
(7)When potentially hazardous testing or training is not in progress or is not about to commence, oystering and fishing boats and other craft may operate within the danger zone.
(8)All potentially hazardous test or training events will be performed in such a way as to contain the hazard footprint to the established danger zone described in paragraph
(a)of this section. Naval authorities will not be responsible for damage to nets, traps, buoys, pots, fish pounds, stakes, or other equipment that may be located within the danger zone.
(9)Nothing in this regulation shall be intended to prevent the lawful use of approved waterfowl hunting blinds along the shorelines of Bloodsworth Island range complex, provided that all necessary licenses and permits have been obtained from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources and the completed copy of the permit has been submitted to the Conservation Division Director at NAS Patuxent River. Waterfowl hunters must observe all warnings and range clearances, as note herein.
(10)The regulations in this section shall be enforced by the Commander, Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland, and such agencies as he/she may designate. Dated: February 14, 2007. Lawrence A. Lang, Acting Chief, Operations, Directorate of Civil Works. [FR Doc. E7-2875 Filed 2-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3710-92-P NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION 36 CFR Part 1258 [FDMS Docket # NARA-07-0001] RIN 3095-AB49 NARA Reproduction Fees AGENCY: National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: NARA is revising its fees for reproduction of records and other materials in the custody of the Archivist of the United States. This proposed rule covers reproduction of Federal records created by other agencies that are in the National Archives of the United States, donated historical materials, Presidential records, Nixon Presidential historical materials, and records filed with the Office of the Federal Register. The fees are being changed to reflect current costs of providing the reproductions. This proposed rule will affect the public and Federal agencies. DATES: Comments are due by April 27, 2007. ADDRESSES: NARA invites interested persons to submit comments on this proposed rule. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. *Fax:* Submit comments by facsimile transmission to 301-837-0319. *Mail:* Send comments to Regulations Comments Desk (NPOL), Room 4100, Policy and Planning Staff, National Archives and Records Administration, 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD 20740-6001. *Hand Delivery or Courier:* Deliver comments to 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Davis Heaps at 301-837-1850 or fax at 301-837-0319. Requests for copies of the proposed information collection and supporting statement should be directed to Tamee Fechhelm at 301-837-1694 or fax at 301-837-3213. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: General Background NARA does not receive appropriated funds to provide copies of our records to the public. The fees for reproduction of records in 36 CFR part 1258 are set under the Archivist's authority in 44 U.S.C. 2116(c). That statute requires that, to the extent possible, NARA recover the actual cost of making copies of records and other materials transferred to the custody of the Archivist of the United States. NARA conducts periodic reviews of the fees to ensure that the costs of providing this service to the public are properly recovered. NARA's current fees were established in October 2000 based on a 1999 cost study. As a result of a cost study conducted in 2006, fees for copying records must increase to recover NARA's costs. This is the first proposed fee increase in almost seven years. The cost components included in the NARA-made reproduction fees are staff salaries, equipment and materials (e.g., toner, paper) for making reproductions, shipping costs, and oversight and administration of the fee collection. Fixed-fee reproduction cost components include contractor costs for making and delivering the reproductions, staff salaries for supervision of the copying operation, equipment and materials, and oversight and administration of the fee collection. The cost components included in the self-service copies made by customers at NARA facilities are staff salaries for supervision of the copying operation, equipment and materials, and oversight and administration of the fee collection. The costs for providing reproductions of the unique historical materials in NARA's custody reflect the special handling required to help preserve records for future research. Original archival materials cannot be copied using automatic document feeder equipment. Each page must be hand-placed on a copier, one at a time. Preservation requirements add time and cost to the price of copying NARA's irreplaceable documents. What Changes Is NARA Making in This Proposed Rule? NARA is updating fixed-fee order fees in § 1258.4, the minimum mail order fee in § 1258.10, and fees for self-service and common NARA-made reproductions in § 1258.12. Because the fee schedule applies to our nation-wide facilities, we have removed certain fees for services that are not available in the majority of our facilities. In the Rules section of today's **Federal Register** , NARA has published an interim final rule removing from NARA's fee schedule reproductions of other Federal agencies' records stored in NARA's Federal records centers. *Fixed fee orders.* Fixed fee reproductions consist of records from high-demand bodies of genealogical records that NARA reproduces for a fixed fee, rather than a fee per page copied to expedite handling. The fees for all of these orders must increase to reflect the higher costs of providing the copies. In Fiscal Year 2006, NARA's costs for the fixed-fee services were more than double the revenue received for them. The most notable change in the fixed-fee services is the increase for full military pension files more than 75 years old (NATF Form 85). Our recent study showed that many of the full pension files for the Civil War period (1860-1869 for purposes of this proposed rule) have page counts up to 200 pages or more. When the current fee of $37.00 went into effect in 2000, NARA estimated a smaller average page count for each file (about 40 to 50 pages) and believed that the fee would cover the majority of the costs. However, we found that we underestimated the number of documents in the Civil War pension files being copied, which resulted in incorrect projections of actual production costs Moreover, the Civil War pension files are the majority of the full pension file requests NARA receives. In FY 2006, NARA completed 7,700 orders for full Civil War pension files and 1,500 non-Civil War pension files. To account for the average page-count differences between Civil War pension files and pension files of other wars, we propose to create a separate fee for full Civil War pension files. We also propose to retain the service for the pension documents packet (also on NATF Form 85), which many customers have found to meet their information needs. The pension documents packet consists of selected records containing military service and genealogical information most likely of interest to genealogical researchers. In FY 2006, NARA received 2,677 requests for the pension documents packet; almost all of those requests were for Civil War pension files. *Self-service and NARA-made reproductions.* Proposed fees for self-service and NARA-made copies of most other records are in the following table: Service Proposed fee Paper-to-paper copy made by the customer on a NARA self-service copier in the Washington, DC, area $0.25 Paper-to-paper copy made by the customer on a NARA self-service copier outside the Washington, DC, area (regional archives and Presidential libraries) 0.20 Paper-to-paper copy made by NARA 0.75 Microfilm-to-paper copy made by the customer on a NARA self-service copier 0.50 We also propose to increase the fee for certifications and the minimum mail order fee. NARA certifies copies of materials in our holdings on request by affixing a certificate with a ribbon and seal attesting that the copy is a true copy of a document in our custody. Our current fee for certifications is $6.00 and we propose to increase that fee to $15.00 per certification. The fee has not been based on a price per page, but on a per record basis. Because the certification fee is based on tasks performed for a record regardless of the number of pages, we have maintained a fixed fee for that service per record. We propose to raise our minimum fee for mail-order reproductions from $10.00 to $15.00 because the current fee is inadequate to cover NARA's costs. As with certifications, NARA performs the same functions to copy a few pages of records as to copy dozens of pages for a reproduction order. We maintain the minimum mail order fee to recover the costs of administering small copying requests. The dollar amount is based upon the cost to NARA to provide minimum mail orders divided by the anticipated number of orders that will fall below the dollar threshold. The costs include making the copies, supplies, shipping, and administration. For the recent fee study, this calculation resulted in a price of $15.00 per minimum mail order. NARA will continue to evaluate this fee in future studies. *Reproduction services no longer listed in § 1258.12.* We have removed fees for selected reproduction services. However, these services will continue to be available as unlisted processes in accordance with the existing § 1258.12(f). Some of the fees we formerly listed in our regulations have been for reproduction services not available at all our locations, which confused customers. These include self-service video copying and self-service Polaroid prints. In addition, we have decided not to publish a fee for NARA-made paper-to-microfilm copies because demand for them is diminishing and NARA is unable to offer this service on a routine basis. We will compute the fee for this service in accordance with § 1258.12(f) when a customer requests the service or when, because of the condition of the records, NARA must recommend it as a copying option instead of electrostatic (paper) copying. Paperwork Reduction Act NATF Forms 81 through 86 in this proposed rule have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act and bear approval number 3095-0027 on the face of the forms. NATF Form 85, under this proposal, requires modification to separate Civil War pension file requests from those of other wars. Other forms are being modified only to update the stated fee. Submission of requests on a form is necessary to handle in a timely fashion the volume of requests received for these records (approximately 18,000 per year for the NATF 85) and the need to obtain specific information from the researcher to search for the records sought. Researchers may use Order Online! ( *http://www.archives.gov/research/order/orderonline.html* ) to complete the forms and order the copies. For those who do not have Internet access, we also make the forms available on carbonless paper as a multi-part form. The paper form allows the researcher to retain a copy of his request and NARA to respond to the researcher on the results of the search or to bill for copies if the researcher wishes to order the copies. As a convenience, the form allows researchers to provide credit card information to authorize billing and expedited mailing of the copies. This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, I certify that this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because it affects individual researchers. This regulation does not have any federalism implications. List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 1258 Archives and records. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, NARA proposes to amend part 1258 of title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: PART 1258—FEES 1. The authority citation for part 1258 continues to read as follows: Authority: 44 U.S.C. 2116(c) and 2307. 2. Amend § 1258.4 by revising paragraph
(d)to read as follows: § 1258.4 What reproductions are not covered by the NARA fee schedule?
(d)Reproduction of the following types of records using the specified order form: Type of record Order form Fee
(1)Passenger arrival lists NATF Form 81 $25.00
(2)Federal Census requests NATF Form 82 25.00
(3)Eastern Cherokee applications to the Court of Claims NATF Form 83 25.00
(4)Land entry records NATF Form 84 40.00
(5)Full pension file more than 75 years old (Civil War period) NATF Form 85 125.00
(6)Full pension file more than 75 years old (non-Civil War) NATF Form 85 60.00
(7)Pension documents packet (selected records) NATF Form 85 25.00
(8)Bounty land warrant application files NATF Form 85 25.00
(9)Military service files more than 75 years old NATF Form 86 25.00 3. Amend § 1258.10 by revising paragraph
(a)to read as follows: § 1258.10 What is NARA's mail order policy?
(a)There is a minimum fee of $15.00 per order for reproductions that are sent by mail to the customer. 4. Revise § 1258.12 to read as follows: § 1258.12 NARA reproduction fee schedule.
(a)Certification: $15.00.
(b)Electrostatic copying (in order to preserve certain records that are in poor physical condition, NARA may restrict customers to photographic or other kinds of copies instead of electrostatic copies): Service Fee Paper-to-paper copy made by the customer on a NARA self-service copier in the Washington, DC, area $0.25 Paper-to-paper copy made by the customer on a NARA self-service copier outside the Washington, DC, area (regional archives and Presidential libraries) 0.20 Paper-to-paper copy made by NARA 0.75 Microfilm-to-paper copy made by the customer on a NARA self-service copier 0.50
(c)Unlisted processes: For reproductions not covered by this fee schedule, see also § 1258.4. Fees for other reproduction processes are computed upon request. 5. Revise § 1258.16 to read as follows: § 1258.16 Effective date. The fees in this part are effective on [effective date of the final rule.] If your order was received by NARA before this effective date, we will charge the fees in effect at the time the order was received. Dated: February 20, 2007. Allen Weinstein, Archivist of the United States. [FR Doc. E7-3160 Filed 2-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7515-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R07-OAR-2007-0015; FRL-8281-5] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Iowa AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan
(SIP)submission by the State of Iowa which revises the air quality rules to include portions of the Federal New Source Review
(NSR)regulations promulgated by EPA in December 2002. These revisions do not include the portion of the rules for nonattainment areas as there are currently no nonattainment areas in the State of Iowa; therefore, those portions of the State rules remain in effect. The definitions and applicability portions of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD)program were written into the State rules while the remaining portions of the PSD program were adopted by reference. All references to clean units and pollution control projects are not adopted by reference. Iowa has also not adopted portions of the Federal rule relating to exceptions from recordkeeping requirements. DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by March 28, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2007-0015 by one of the following methods: 1. *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. *E-mail: hamilton.heather@epa.gov.* 3. *Mail:* Heather Hamilton, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. 4. *Hand Delivery or Courier.* Deliver your comments to Heather Hamilton, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2007-0015. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *http://www.regulations.gov* , your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket:* All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, *e.g.* , CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas. EPA requests that you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the office at least 24 hours in advance. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heather Hamilton at
(913)551-7039, or by e-mail at *hamilton.heather@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following questions: What is a SIP? What is the Federal approval process for a SIP? What does Federal approval of a State regulation mean to me? What is the background for this action? What is being addressed in this document? Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met? What action is EPA proposing? What is a SIP? Section 110 of the Clean Air Act
(CAA)requires States to develop air pollution regulations and control strategies to ensure that State air quality meets the national ambient air quality standards established by EPA. These ambient standards are established under section 109 of the CAA, and they currently address six criteria pollutants. These pollutants are: carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, lead, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. Each State must submit these regulations and control strategies to us for approval and incorporation into the Federally-enforceable SIP. Each Federally-approved SIP protects air quality primarily by addressing air pollution at its point of origin. These SIPs can be extensive, containing State regulations or other enforceable documents and supporting information such as emission inventories, monitoring networks, and modeling demonstrations. What is the Federal approval process for a SIP? In order for State regulations to be incorporated into the Federally-enforceable SIP, States must formally adopt the regulations and control strategies consistent with State and Federal requirements. This process generally includes a public notice, public hearing, public comment period, and a formal adoption by a State-authorized rulemaking body. Once a State rule, regulation, or control strategy is adopted, the State submits it to us for inclusion into the SIP. We must provide public notice and seek additional public comment regarding the proposed Federal action on the State submission. If adverse comments are received, they must be addressed prior to any final Federal action by us. All State regulations and supporting information approved by EPA under section 110 of the CAA are incorporated into the Federally-approved SIP. Records of such SIP actions are maintained in the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)at title 40, part 52, entitled “Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans.” The actual State regulations which are approved are not reproduced in their entirety in the CFR outright but are “incorporated by reference,” which means that we have approved a given State regulation with a specific effective date. What does Federal approval of a State regulation mean to me? Enforcement of the State regulation before and after it is incorporated into the Federally-approved SIP is primarily a State responsibility. However, after the regulation is Federally approved, we are authorized to take enforcement action against violators. Citizens are also offered legal recourse to address violations as described in section 304 of the CAA. What is the background for this action? The 2002 NSR Reform rules are part of EPA's implementation of parts C and D of title I of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7470-7515. Part C of title I of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7470-7492, is the Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD)program, which applies in areas that meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), also known as “attainment areas” and in areas for which there is insufficient information to determine whether the area meets the NAAQS, also known as “unclassifiable” areas. Part D of Title I of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7501-7515, is the nonattainment New Source Review
(NNSR)program, which applies in areas that are not in attainment of the NAAQS, also known as “nonattainment areas.” Collectively, the PSD and NNSR programs are referred to as the “New Source Review” or NSR programs. EPA regulations implementing these programs are contained in 40 CFR 51.165, 51.166, 52.21, 52.24 and part 51, appendix S. The SIP submittal from the State of Iowa does not include the portion of the rules relating to NSR reform provisions for nonattainment areas as the State of Iowa currently has no areas designated nonattainment. The 2002 NSR Reform rules made changes to five areas of the NSR programs. In summary, the 2002 rules:
(1)Provide a new method for determining baseline actual emissions;
(2)adopt an actual-to-projected-actual methodology for determining whether a major modification has occurred;
(3)allow major stationary sources to comply with plantwide applicability limits
(PALs)to avoid having a significant emission increase that triggers the requirements of the major NSR program;
(4)provide a new applicability provision for emissions units that are designated clean units; and
(5)exclude pollution control projects (PCPs). After the 2002 NSR Reform rules were finalized and effective, various petitioners challenged numerous aspects of the 2002 NSR Reform rules, along with portions of EPA's 1980 NSR rules (45 FR 5276, August 7, 1980). On June 24, 2005, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals issued a decision on the challenges to the 2002 NSR Reform Rules. *New York* v. *United States,* 413 F.3d (DC Cir. 2005). In summary, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated portions of the rules pertaining to clean units and pollution control projects, remanded a portion of the rules regarding exemption from recordkeeping, *e.g.* , 40 CFR 52.21(r)(6) and 40 CFR 51.166(r)(6), and let stand the other provisions included as part of the 2002 NSR Reform rules. EPA has not yet responded to the Court's remand regarding recordkeeping provisions. What is being addressed in this document? EPA is proposing to approve the Iowa Department of Natural Resources'
(IDNR)request to revise the Iowa SIP to include the PSD portion of the NSR regulations. In general, the Iowa revisions consist of incorporation by reference of substantial portions of the Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD)rule and inclusion of other portions of the Federal rule almost verbatim. Iowa has not adopted provisions of the 2002 reform rule which were either vacated or remanded by the Court, as previously described. IDNR has identified portions of its rule which are at variance with the Federal rule and has provided conclusions with respect to equivalency of the State rule with the Federal requirements. Revisions to the Iowa Administrative Code (567-20.1 and 567-22.4) add language to reference the new Chapter 33 entitled “Special Regulations and Construction Permit Requirements for Major Stationary Sources—Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD)of Air Quality.” These revisions are informational in nature and do not include substantive requirements. Chapter 33 of the Iowa rules contains the substantive PSD rule revisions which include EPA's NSR reform rules as previously described. The Federal provisions are adopted as follows:
(1)The definitions, applicability provisions, public participation procedures, and source obligation provisions (the requirements in 40 CFR 52.21(r) of the Federal rule with the exception of the provision in 40 CFR 52.21(r)(6) which exempts certain emissions changes from the record keeping requirements) are set forth in language which tracks the relevant language of the corresponding federal rules; and,
(2)the remainder of the Federal PSD rules upheld by the Court are adopted by reference. The State's definition section (567-33.3(1)) contains several definitions with wording which differs from the wording in the Federal rule, but the differences are either not substantive or do not affect the stringency of the rule. These differences are described in the technical support document, and EPA believes that the differences do not affect the approvability of the rule. Another example of a difference is that the State does not incorporate by reference the Federal definitions relating to the clean unit exemption and pollution control project exclusion, which provisions were vacated by the court. The applicability section (567-33.3(2)) discusses the application of PSD program requirements as they apply to the construction of any new major stationary source, or any project at an existing major stationary source in an area designated as attainment or unclassifiable. This section extracts the language from 40 CFR 51.166(a)(7), including the actual-to-projected-actual test for determining whether a modification is subject to the rule and other provisions of the Federal rule. The public participation procedures in the State rule (567-33.3(17)) are substantially the same as the rules in the existing SIP. EPA believes that these procedures meet the corresponding requirements in 40 CFR 51.166. The following sections were adopted by reference as specified in 40 CFR 52.21: Ambient air increments; Ambient air ceilings; Restrictions on area classifications; Redesignation; Stack heights; Exemptions; Control technology review; Source impact analysis; Air quality models; Air quality analysis; Source information, and Additional impact analyses. The provisions of the State rule relating to exclusions from increment consumption, sources impacting Federal Class I areas—additional requirements, and innovative control technology adopt by reference the relevant portions of 40 CFR 51.166 except for the phrases that contain “the plan may provide that,” “the plan provides that,” “it shall also provide that,” and “mechanism whereby.” These phrases are excluded to convert the language of 40 CFR 51.166 to substantive rules rather than minimum program requirements. The EPA provisions for plantwide applicability limitations are adopted by reference except that the term “Administrator” used in the Federal rule means “the department of natural resources” in the State rule. These provisions were reviewed by EPA for consistency with the Federal requirements and are acceptable. The reference to Clean Units and Pollution Control Projects as set forth in 40 CFR 52.21 and 51.166 are not adopted by reference. In addition, the provision of the Federal rule (40 CFR 52.21(r)(6)), which exempts certain projects from recordkeeping, is not adopted, so that recordkeeping requirements apply to all modifications which use the actual-to-projected-actual test to show nonapplicability. Iowa intended these deviations from the Federal rule to address the Court ruling on EPA's reform rules, and EPA believes they are approvable. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met? The State submittal has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submittal also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In addition, as explained above and in more detail in the technical support document that is part of this document, EPA believes that the revisions meet the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations. What action is EPA proposing? We are proposing to approve revisions to Iowa's rule at Chapter 20, “Scope of Title-Definitions-Forms-Rules of Practice,” and Chapter 22, “Controlling Pollution,” as the revisions relate to the NSR regulations. We are also proposing to approve new Chapter 33, “Special Regulations and Construction Permit Requirements for Major Stationary Sources—Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD)of Air Quality.” It should be noted that IDNR has no nonattainment areas so those portions of the NSR reform rules are not being addressed with this rulemaking. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed 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 proposed action merely proposes to approve State law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that the proposed approvals in this proposed 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 proposes to approve 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 proposed 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 proposes to approve a State rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This proposed 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 approves a State rule implementing a Federal Standard. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. 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 CAA. 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 proposed 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.* ). 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: February 14, 2007. John B. Askew, Regional Administrator, Region 7. [FR Doc. E7-3204 Filed 2-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 70 [EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0625; FRL-8280-9] State Operating Permit Programs; West Virginia; Amendments to the Definition of “a Major Source” and “Volatile Organic Compound” AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve an amendment to the State of West Virginia's operating permit program to correct the definition of “a major source” and “volatile organic compound.” West Virginia's revision was submitted in response to the Clean Air Act
(CAA)Amendments of 1990 that required States to submit to EPA program revisions in accordance with the Federal Title V regulations. The EPA granted final approval of West Virginia's operating permit program on November 23, 2001. West Virginia amended its operating permit program to address the Federal EPA amendment to the Federal Title V regulations, which went into effect on November 27, 2001. In the Final Rules section of this **Federal Register** , EPA is approving the State's amendment to its operating permit program as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. DATES: Comments must be received in writing by March 28, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0625 by one of the following methods: A. *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. B. *E-mail: campbell.dave@epa.gov* . C. *Mail:* EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0625, David Campbell, Chief, Permits and Technical Assessment Branch, Mailcode 3AP11, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. D. *Hand Delivery:* At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0625. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, and may be made available on-line at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *www.regulations.gov,* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket:* All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the *www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., 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 in *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy 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 (WVDEP), Division of Air Quality, 601 57th Street SE, Charleston, West Virginia 25304. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rosemarie Nino,
(215)814-3377, or by e-mail at *nino.rose@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For further information, please see the information provided in the direct final action, with the same title, that is located in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this **Federal Register** publication. Dated: February 16, 2007. Donald S. Welsh, Regional Administrator, Region III. [FR Doc. 07-846 Filed 2-23-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 28
Traces to 28 documents
27 references not yet in our index
  • 15 CFR 740
  • 225 F.3d 667
  • 535 U.S. 1
  • 18 CFR 38
  • Pub. L. 104-113
  • 5 CFR 1320.11
  • 5 USC 601-612
  • 16 USC 791-825r
  • 42 USC 7101-7352
  • 33 CFR 100
  • Pub. L. 104-121
  • 44 USC 3501-3520
  • 2 USC 1531-1538
  • 42 USC 4321-4370f
  • 33 USC 1233
  • 33 CFR 334
  • 40 Stat. 266
  • 40 Stat. 892
  • Pub. L. 96-354
  • 36 CFR 1258
  • 40 CFR 52
  • 42 USC 7470-7515
  • 42 USC 7470-7492
  • 42 USC 7501-7515
  • 40 CFR 51
  • Pub. L. 104-4
  • 40 CFR 70
Citation graph
cites case law
Proposed Rules
Advance notice of proposed rulemaking
U.S.C.§ 797
U.S.C.§ 717i
C.F.R.§ 141.1
C.F.R.§ 260.1
C.F.R.§ 357.2
C.F.R.§ 141.400
U.S.C.§ 791a
Stat.Public Law 104–112
U.S.C.§ 272
F. App'x225 F.3d 667
SCOTUS535 U.S. 1
Cite15 CFR 740
Cites 55 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.