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 · 2007-04-02 · PROPOSED RULES · Agriculture Agriculture Department See Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service See Federal Crop Insurance Corporation See Forest Service NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, · Unknown

Unknown. Interim rule and request for comments

27,623 words·~126 min read·/register/2007/04/02/07-1605

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

--- schema: federal-register doc_type: fedreg source_file: FR-2007-04-02.xml --- 72 62 Monday, April 2, 2007 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service See Federal Crop Insurance Corporation See Forest Service NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 15644 E7-5968 Animal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service RULES Plant-related quarantine, domestic: Emerald ash borer, 15597-15598 E7-6007 Centers Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Committees; establishment, renewal, termination, etc.:
Smoking and Health Interagency Committee, 15697 E7-6020 Tuberculosis Elimination Advisory Council, 15697 E7-6016 Meetings: Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel, 15697-15698 E7-6009 E7-6010 E7-6036 Injury Prevention and Control Advisory Committee, 15698 E7-6037 Mine Safety and Health Research Advisory Committee, 15698-15699 E7-6008 National Center for Health Statistics— Scientific Counselors Board, 15699 E7-6022 Commerce Commerce Department See Foreign-Trade Zones Board See International Trade Administration See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commodity Commodity Futures Trading Commission PROPOSED RULES Commodity Exchange Act:
Registration exemption for certain foreign persons, 15637-15641 07-1522 Corporation Corporation for National and Community Service NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 15658 07-1637 Defense Defense Department NOTICES Meetings: Defense Science Board, 07-1600 07-1601 15658-15659 07-1602 07-1603 Travel per diem rates, civilian personnel; changes, 15659-15664 07-1599 Education Education Department NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 15664 E7-6035 Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.:
Elementary and secondary education— College Assistance Migrant Program, 15665-15668 E7-6091 High School Equivalency Program, 15668-15672 E7-6092 Meetings: National Mathematics Advisory Panel, 15672 07-1588 Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Advisory Committee; teleconference, 15672-15673 07-1584 Energy Energy Department See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission RULES Climate change: Voluntary Greenhouse Gas reporting Program— Technical guidelines; correction, 15598-15600 E7-6038 EPA Environmental Protection Agency NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 15685-15690 E7-6043 E7-6044 E7-6045 E7-6055 Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.:
Brake and clutch repair workers; asbestos exposure prevention; current best practices brochure, 15690-15692 E7-6057 Executive Executive Office of the President See Presidential Documents FAA Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness directives: Superior Air Parts, Inc., 15603-15613 E7-5915 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness directives: APEX Aircraft, 15635-15637 E7-6015 Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH, 15633-15635 E7-6012 NOTICES Meetings: Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee, 15753 E7-6058 Federal Crop Federal Crop Insurance Corporation NOTICES Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.:
Non-Insurance Risk Management Program Partnerships, 15644-15650 E7-5971 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 15708-15709 E7-6073 Disaster and emergency areas: Alabama, 15709 E7-6075 Georgia, 15709 E7-6093 Iowa, 15709-15710 E7-6074 Pennsylvania, 15710 E7-6094 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Complaints filed: BP West Coast Products LLC, 15680-15681 E7-5996 Californians for Renewable Energy, Inc., 15681 E7-5991 Electric rate and corporate regulation combined filings, 15681-15682 E7-6006 Environmental statements; availability, etc.:
American Municipal Power-Ohio, Inc., et al., E7-5997 15682-15683 E7-6001 Hydroelectric applications, E7-5998 15683-15685 E7-5999 E7-6000 Natural gas companies (Natural Gas Act): Uniform system accounts, form, statements, and reporting requirements; revisions; correction, 15685 E7-5890 *Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:* Acacia Energy, Inc., 15673 E7-5992 Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC, 15673-15674 E7-5944 CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Co., 15674 E7-6004 Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., 15674 E7-5995 Destin Pipeline Co., L.L.C., 15674-15675 E7-5940 East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC, 15675 E7-6005 Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 1, LLC, et al., 15676 E7-5993 Entergy Services, Inc., 15676 E7-5990 Flat Earth Energy, LLC, 15676-15677 E7-5994 Gulf South Pipeline Co., LP, 15677-15678 E7-5938 Hudson Bay Energy Solutions, LLC, 15678 E7-5943 National Fuel Gas Supply Corp., 15678 E7-6002 NEO California Power, LLC, et al., 15678-15679 E7-5941 Northern Natural Gas Co., 15679 E7-5939 Questar Overthrust Pipeline Co., 15680 E7-6003 Red Shield Environmental, LLC, 15680 E7-5942 Federal Housing Federal Housing Finance Board RULES Federal home loan bank system:
Appointive directors; selection, 15600-15603 E7-5970 PROPOSED RULES Federal home loan bank system: Appointive directors; financial interests, 15627-15633 E7-5973 FMC Federal Maritime Commission RULES Organization, functions, and authority delegations: Agency reorganization; correction, 15613-15614 E7-6060 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 15753-15754 E7-5741 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 15692-15694 E7-6042 Banks and bank holding companies:
Formations, acquisitions, and mergers, E7-5946 15694-15695 E7-6041 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Limited-Interest National Wildlife Refuges, ND; comprehensive conservation plan, 15710-15711 E7-5884 Food Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Biological products: Patent extension; regulatory review period determinations— KEPIVANCE, 15699-15700 E7-6053 Human drugs: Patent extension; regulatory review period determinations— RANEXA, 15700-15701 E7-6061 Meetings:
FDA-Orange County Regulatory Affairs Educational Conference, 15701 E7-6052 Prescription drug products; prescribing information; electronic distribution; hearing, 15701-15703 07-1604 Foreign Foreign Assets Control Office NOTICES Sanctions, blocked persons, specially-designated nationals, terrorists, narcotics traffickers, and foreign terrorist organizations: Narcotics-related blocked persons; additional designations, 15756-15760 E7-6079 MISSING FOR: Foreign-Trade Zones Board Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES *Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:* Texas Samsung Austin Semiconductor L.L.C.; manufacturing facility; correction, 15650 E7-5926 Washington Panasonic Consumer Electronics Co. et al.; home theater systems kitting activity; withdrawn, 15650 E7-6087 Forest Forest Service PROPOSED RULES National Forest System land and resource management planning:
National Fire Plan; starting and negligently failing to maintain control of prescribed fires; prohibition, 15641-15643 E7-5872 NOTICES Meetings: Resource Advisory Committees— Custer County, 15650 07-1586 Health Health and Human Services Department See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention See Food and Drug Administration See National Institutes of Health See Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration NOTICES Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.:
Adolescent family life prevention demonstration projects, 15772-15781 07-1585 Meetings: American Health Information Community, 15695 07-1583 Soy estrogens and infant development, 15695 E7-6065 Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: National Toxicology Program, Center for Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction— Bisphenol A expert panel; meeting and report, 15695-15696 E7-6080 Homeland Homeland Security Department See Federal Emergency Management Agency Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Regulatory waiver requests; quarterly listing, 15784-15800 E7-5959 Indian Indian Affairs Bureau NOTICES Land acquisitions into trust:
Jena Band of Choctaw Indians of Louisiana, 15711-15713 E7-6049 Liquor and tobacco sale or distribution ordinance: Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians, CA, 15713-15716 E7-5962 Chickasaw Nation of Oklahoma, 15716-15720 E7-5961 Tribal-State Compacts approval; Class III (casino) gambling: Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma, 15720 E7-5955 Interior Interior Department See Fish and Wildlife Service See Indian Affairs Bureau See Land Management Bureau See National Park Service IRS Internal Revenue Service NOTICES Committees; establishment, renewal, termination, etc.:
Information Reporting Program Advisory Committee, 15760-15761 E7-5856 International International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping: Frozen fish fillets from — Vietnam, 15653-15655 E7-6063 Honey from— China, 15655-15657 E7-6069 Preserved mushrooms from— China, 15657-15658 E7-6062 Antidumping and countervailing duties: Administrative review requests, 15650-15651 E7-6070 Five year (sunset) reviews— Advance notification, 15652 E7-6067 Initiation of reviews, 15652-15653 E7-6071 International International Trade Commission NOTICES Import investigations:
Silicomanganese from— Various countries, 15726-15728 E7-6050 Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Withdrawal and reservation of lands: Colorado; correction, 15720 E7-6013 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NOTICES Meetings: Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel, 15728-15729 E7-5956 NIH National Institutes of Health NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 15703-15704 E7-6064 Inventions, Government-owned; availability for licensing, 15704-15705 E7-6066 Meetings:
National Cancer Institute, 15706 07-1612 National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 15707 07-1614 National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 15706 07-1610 National Institute of General Medical Sciences, 15707 07-1613 National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 15706-15707 07-1611 Scientific Review Center, 15707-15708 07-1615 NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fishery conservation and management: Caribbean, Gulf, and South Atlantic fisheries— Gulf of Mexico reef fish, 15617-15626 07-1605 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Environmental statements; availability, etc.:
Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks, and John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway, WY; winter use plans, 15720-15721 E7-6040 National Register of Historic Places; pending nominations, 15721-15722 E7-5954 Native American human remains, funerary objects; inventory, repatriation, etc.: Museum of Indian Arts and Culture, Laboratory of Anthropology, Museum of New Mexico, New Mexico Department of Cultural Affairs, Santa Fe, NM; correction, 15722-15723 E7-5975 Southwest Museum of the American Indian, Autry National Center, Los Angeles, CA; correction, 15723-15724 E7-5977 Thomas Burke Memorial Washington State Museum, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 15724 E7-5978 University of Colorado Museum, Boulder, CO, 15724-15725 E7-5972 University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, 15725 E7-5974 University of the Pacific, Stockton, CA, 15725-15726 E7-5976 Nuclear Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Meetings;
Sunshine Act, 15729 07-1625 Presidential Presidential Documents ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS Panama, notice of intent to enter into free trade agreement (Notice of March 30, 2007), 15801-15803 07-1647 Research Research and Innovative Technology Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 15754-15755 E7-6056 SEC Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Joint industry plan: American Stock Exchange, LLC, et al., 15729-15731 E7-5981 Self-regulatory organizations; proposed rule changes:
American Stock Exchange LLC, 15731-15734 E7-5967 E7-5982 Boston Stock Exchange, Inc., 15734-15735 E7-5963 Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 15736-15737 E7-5980 E7-5986 NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, 15737-15739 E7-5966 National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., 15739-15740 E7-5979 National Futures Association, 15740-15741 E7-5989 National Stock Exchange, Inc., 15742-15747 E7-5984 E7-5985 E7-5988 New York Stock Exchange LLC, 15747-15751 E7-5964 E7-5965 E7-5983 NYSE Arca, Inc., 15751-15752 E7-5987 SBA Small Business Administration NOTICES *Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:* Emergence Capital Partners SBIC, L.P., 15752-15753 E7-5958 Substance Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration NOTICES Organization, functions, and authority delegations:
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, 15708 E7-6014 Surface Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Railroad services abandonment: Cincinnati, New Orleans and Texas Pacific Railway Co., 15755-15756 E7-6051 Transportation Transportation Department See Federal Aviation Administration See Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration See Research and Innovative Technology Administration See Surface Transportation Board RULES Airport concessions and financial assistance programs; disadvantaged business enterprise participation, 15614-15617 E7-6054 Treasury Treasury Department See Foreign Assets Control Office See Internal Revenue Service Veterans Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, E7-6017 15761-15770 E7-6018 E7-6033 E7-6034 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Health and Human Services Department, 15772-15781 07-1585 Part III Housing and Urban Development Department, 15784-15800 E7-5959 Part IV Executive Office of the President, Presidential Documents, 15801-15803 07-1647 Reader Aids Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions. 72 62 Monday, April 2, 2007 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 7 CFR Part 301 [Docket No. APHIS-2007-0005] Emerald Ash Borer; Additions to Quarantined Areas AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Interim rule and request for comments. SUMMARY: We are amending the emerald ash borer regulations by designating the States of Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio, in their entirety, as quarantined areas. This action is necessary to prevent the artificial spread of the emerald ash borer into noninfested areas of the United States. As a result of this action, the interstate movement of regulated articles from those States is restricted. DATES: This interim rule is effective April 2, 2007.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before June 1, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to *http://www.regulations.gov,* select “Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service” from the agency drop-down menu, then click “Submit.” In the Docket ID column, select APHIS-2007-0005 to submit or view public comments and to view supporting and related materials available electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket after the close of the comment period, is available through the site's “User Tips” link. • Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery:
Please send four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to Docket No. APHIS-2007-0005, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. APHIS-2007-0005. *Reading Room:* You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC.
Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call
(202)690-2817 before coming. *Other Information:* Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the Internet at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Deborah McPartlan, National Emerald Ash Borer Program Manager, Emergency and Domestic Programs, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 137, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236;
(301)734-5356. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The emerald ash borer
(EAB)( *Agrilus planipennis* ) is a destructive woodboring insect that attacks ash trees ( *Fraxinus* spp., including green ash, white ash, black ash, and several horticultural varieties of ash). The insect, which is indigenous to Asia and known to occur in China, Korea, Japan, Mongolia, the Russian Far East, Taiwan, and Canada, eventually kills healthy ash trees after it bores beneath their bark and disrupts their vascular tissues. The EAB regulations in 7 CFR 301.53-1 through 301.53-9 (referred to below as the regulations) restrict the interstate movement of regulated articles from quarantined areas to prevent the artificial spread of EAB into noninfested areas of the United States. Portions of the States of Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio are already designated as quarantined areas. Recent surveys conducted by inspectors of State, county, and city agencies and by inspectors of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) have revealed that spot infestations of EAB are prevalent outside the quarantined areas in Indiana and Ohio, and also in the State of Illinois. Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio have quarantined the infested areas and have restricted the intrastate movement of regulated articles from the quarantined areas to prevent the spread of EAB within each State. However, Federal regulations are necessary to restrict the interstate movement of regulated articles from the quarantined areas to prevent the spread of EAB to other States and other countries. The regulations in § 301.53-3(a) provide that the Administrator of APHIS will list as a quarantined area each State, or each portion of a State, where EAB has been found by an inspector, where the Administrator has reason to believe that EAB is present, or where the Administrator considers regulation necessary because of its inseparability for quarantine enforcement purposes from localities where EAB has been found. Less than an entire State will be designated as a quarantined area only under certain conditions. Such a designation may be made if the Administrator determines that:
(1)The State has adopted and is enforcing restrictions on the intrastate movement of regulated articles that are equivalent to those imposed by the regulations on the interstate movement of regulated articles; and
(2)the designation of less than an entire State as a quarantined area will be adequate to prevent the artificial spread of the EAB. Although all three States have quarantined the infested areas within their boundaries, we believe that the prevalence of spot infestations of EAB throughout each State makes it necessary to quarantine these States in their entirety to prevent the artificial spread of EAB. In accordance with these criteria and the recent EAB findings described above, we are amending § 301.53-3(c) to add the States of Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio, in their entirety, to the list of quarantined areas. Emergency Action This rulemaking is necessary on an emergency basis to help prevent the spread of EAB to noninfested areas of the United States. Under these circumstances, the Administrator has determined that prior notice and opportunity for public comment are contrary to the public interest and that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553 for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . We will consider comments we receive during the comment period for this interim rule (see DATES above). After the comment period closes, we will publish another document in the **Federal Register** . The document will include a discussion of any comments we receive and any amendments we are making to the rule. Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. For this action, the Office of Management and Budget has waived its review under Executive Order 12866. This emergency situation makes timely compliance with section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ) impracticable. We are currently assessing the potential economic effects of this action on small entities. Based on that assessment, we will either certify that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities or publish a regulatory flexibility analysis. Executive Order 12372 This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V.) Executive Order 12988 This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule:
(1)Preempts all State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule;
(2)has no retroactive effect; and
(3)does not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule. Paperwork Reduction Act This interim rule contains no information collection or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 301 Agricultural commodities, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation. Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR part 301 as follows: PART 301—DOMESTIC QUARANTINE NOTICES 1. The authority citation for part 301 continues to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701-7772 and 7781-7786; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. Section 301.75-15 issued under sec. 204, Title II, Public Law 106-113, 113 Stat. 1501A-293; sections 301.75-15 and 301.75-16 issued under sec. 203, Title II, Public Law 106-224, 114 Stat. 400 (7 U.S.C. 1421 note). 2. In § 301.53-3, paragraph
(c)is amended by adding, in alphabetical order, an entry for Illinois, and by revising the entries for Indiana and Ohio to read as follows: § 301.53-3 Quarantined Areas.
(c)* * * Illinois The entire State. Indiana The entire State. Ohio The entire State. Done in Washington, DC, this 27th day of March 2007. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E7-6007 Filed 3-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Part 300 RIN 1901-AB23 Corrections and Updates to Technical Guidelines for Voluntary Greenhouse Gas Reporting AGENCY: Office of Policy and International Affairs, Department of Energy. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Department of Energy
(DOE)published an interim final rule on January 31, 2007, to correct, update, and make clarifying changes to Technical Guidelines used for reporting under the Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Program authorized by section 1605(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992. The Technical Guidelines were incorporated by reference in final program guidelines that were published on April 21, 2006, and placed in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). In accordance with the rules governing incorporation by reference in the CFR, DOE is required to amend its program regulations to reflect any update of the Technical Guidelines. DOE now discusses the comments received in response to the interim final rule, and adopts that rule as final without change. DATES: Effective April 2, 2007, the interim rule published on January 1, 2007 (72 FR 4211), which became effective March 2, 2007, is confirmed as final. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Eule, PI-63, Office of Policy and International Affairs, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington DC 20585, or e-mail: *1605bguidelines.comments@hq.doe.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background II. Summary and Response to Comments III. Congressional Notification IV. Approval of the Office of Secretary I. Background Section 1605(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 directed DOE to issue guidelines establishing a voluntary greenhouse gas reporting program (42 U.S.C. 13385(b)). On February 14, 2002, the President directed DOE, together with other involved Federal agencies, to recommend reforms to enhance the Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Program established by DOE in 1994. On April 21, 2006, following a lengthy public review process, DOE published revised final General Guidelines for Voluntary Greenhouse Gas Reporting (71 FR 20784). Those guidelines incorporated by reference detailed Technical Guidelines, dated March 2006, that are needed to fully implement the revised Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Program. Subsequent to the April 21, 2006 publication of the revised final General Guidelines and during preparation of new forms and instructions for reporting, DOE identified a number of errors and inconsistencies in the Technical Guidelines that warranted correction or clarification. To ensure that any revision of the March 2006 Technical Guidelines addressed as many of these problems as possible, on August 3, 2006, DOE sent a message by electronic mail to all persons who had previously expressed an interest in the guidelines and requested that they identify any needed technical corrections, clarifications, interpretations or other changes to the guidelines. Subsequently, DOE received communications that recommended additional corrections and other changes for consideration. Following a careful review of the recommended corrections and other suggested changes, DOE made those modifications to the Technical Guidelines that it believed were necessary to correct all the identified errors and inconsistencies or other ambiguities, while adhering to the essential language and intent of the March 2006 version of the Technical Guidelines. The updated version of the Technical Guidelines is dated January 2007. As required by the regulations of the Administrative Committee of the **Federal Register** , DOE sent the January 2007 update of the Technical Guidelines to the Director of the Federal Register and obtained his approval of the incorporation by reference of the January 2007 Technical Guidelines in the regulations for the section 1605(b) program that are published in the **Federal Register** and the Code of Federal Regulations. On January 31, 2007, DOE published an interim final rule with opportunity for comment that changed the date of the Technical Guidelines incorporated by 10 CFR 300.13 from March 2006 to January 2007. (72 FR 4411.) II. Summary and Response to Comments DOE received six sets of comments in response to the interim final rule. All of the comments are posted on the internet at the following website: *http://www.pi.energy.gov/enhancingGHGregistry/comments2007.html.* None of the comments identified errors or inconsistencies in the January 2007 Technical Guidelines that would impair their implementation by the Energy Information Administration (EIA). DOE has decided not to adopt changes at this time so that EIA can complete the forms, instructions, and software expeditiously to permit reporting under the new guidelines in 2007 for the 2006 reporting year. However, some of the comments did identify further corrections or updates that may be warranted some time in the future. The specific comments provided fall into four main categories; those that: • Identified inconsistencies, drafting errors or clarity problems in the Technical Guidelines that may warrant further corrections. • Proposed to add or reference new measurement methods or calculation tools. • Sought to reopen some issues that had been previously resolved during the development of the guidelines published on April 21, 2006. • Proposed changes that exceed the DOE's statutory authority. *Possible Further Corrections.* The comments submitted by the Edison Electric Institute and supported by comments from Ameren identified a number of additional, but comparatively minor inconsistencies, drafting errors or clarity problems in the January 2007 Technical Guidelines that may warrant further corrections. Comments by the American Forest and Paper Association (AF&PA) also identified a reference in the Forestry appendix that requires updating as well as an inconsistency between the terminology used in the Technical Guidelines and that used by the industry to refer to “spent pulping liquors”. DOE sees the value of making most of the changes that fall into this category, although none of these changes are necessary to enable the EIA to initiate reporting under the corrected Technical Guidelines dated January 2007. Since making these changes at this time could cause some confusion among prospective reporters and may further delay EIA's efforts to finalize its revised reporting forms and instructions, DOE has decided not to implement these changes at this time. Instead, DOE plans to address these changes when DOE proposes its first substantive amendments to the guidelines pursuant to 10 CFR 300.1(f). *Measurement Methods or Calculation Tools.* Comments submitted by Beta Analytic, Inc., proposed that the guidelines be amended to recognize a new method for measuring biogenic or carbon-neutral CO2 or methane emissions which represent part, but not all, of various emission streams. Similarly, AF&PA's comments recommended that a specific calculation tool developed by the International Council of Forests and Paper Associations be referenced in the Technical Guidelines as an acceptable model for estimating the harvested wood products pool. While the amendments proposed by Beta Analytic, Inc., and AF&PA may be worthwhile, they are outside the scope of this rulemaking, which is limited to correcting factual and drafting errors, eliminating inconsistencies, updating certain existing references, clarifying intent, and modifying or eliminating certain inappropriate calculation methods. Those organizations may formally propose that DOE adopt these methods when it undertakes to make substantive revisions to the guidelines pursuant to 10 CFR 300.1(f). Proposed calculation methods should be submitted in writing to the Assistant Secretary for Policy and International Affairs, 1000 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC, 20585, with an electronic copy sent to *1605bguidelines.comments@hq.doe.gov.* DOE will consider all such proposed methods. Any such proposal will be subject to public review and comment. If adopted, new calculation methods would be implemented as soon as practicable. *Issues Previously Resolved.* The comments submitted by AF&PA also raised two issues that were previously considered and resolved during the development of the revised General Guidelines and Technical Guidelines that were published in April 2006. One issue concerns the treatment of carbon harvested from sustainably managed forests that is ultimately included in various long lived wood products. AF&PA proposed a change that would enable such carbon to be counted toward an entity's emission reductions, although the initial March 2006 Technical Guidelines and the January 2007 revised Technical Guidelines exclude such treatment. The other issue concerns the value to be used to represent the transmission and distribution losses associated with off-site combined heat and power plants. This value was also set by the March 2006 Technical Guidelines and was not changed in the January 2007 Technical Guidelines. Section 300.1(f) of the General Guidelines indicates that DOE intends to periodically review and update the General Guidelines and Technical Guidelines, and that it anticipates that these reviews will occur approximately every three years. During these periodic reviews, DOE may reconsider any of the issues initially resolved by the April 2006 guidelines. DOE will solicit stakeholder input at the start of any such review process. *Changes that Exceed DOE's Statutory Authority.* One commenter recommended that DOE change this program from a voluntary reporting program to one that is mandatory. Such a change would clearly exceed DOE's existing statutory authority under section 1605(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992. *Conclusion.* Based on a review of the six comments received, DOE has decided not to make any changes at this time to the January 2007 Technical Guidelines, which became effective on March 2, 2007. When DOE proposes amendments to add new measurement methods or calculation tools to the January 2007 Technical Guidelines, it may incorporate some of the corrections suggested in the public comments summarized above. III. Congressional Notification As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will submit to Congress a report regarding the issuance of today's final rule. The report will state that it has been determined that the rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 801(2). IV. Approval of the Office of the Secretary The Secretary of Energy has approved the publication of this final rule. List of Subjects in 10 CFR part 300 Administrative practice and procedure, Energy, Gases, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Issued in Washington, DC on March 27, 2007. Katharine A. Fredriksen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Policy and International Affairs. Accordingly, the interim final rule amending part 300 of title 10, chapter II, subchapter B of the Code of Federal Regulations, that was published at 72 FR 4411 on January 31, 2007, is adopted as a final rule without change. [FR Doc. E7-6038 Filed 3-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE BOARD 12 CFR Part 915 [No. 2007-04] RIN 3069-AB-33 Federal Home Loan Bank Appointive Directors AGENCY: Federal Housing Finance Board. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Federal Housing Finance Board (Finance Board) is issuing a final regulation that is substantially the same as the interim final rule that established a process for the appointment of directors to the Federal Home Loan Banks (Bank or Banks), which was adopted on January 24, 2007. The final rule makes two changes to the interim rule, regarding the number of nominees to be submitted and the date by which nominations must be submitted. Both changes are being made in response to comments received on the interim final rule. DATES: *Effective Date:* The final rule is effective April 2, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Neil R. Crowley, Acting General Counsel, 202-408-2990, *crowleyn@fhfb.gov* ; or Thomas P. Jennings, Senior Attorney Advisor, Office of General Counsel, 202-408-2553, *jenningst@fhfb.gov.* You can send mail to the Federal Housing Finance Board, 1625 Eye Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background and Legal Authority Section 7(a) of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act (Bank Act) (12 U.S.C. 1427(a)) authorizes the Finance Board to appoint directors to the board of each Bank. Section 7(f)(2) of the Bank Act (12 U.S.C. 1427(f)(2)) authorizes the Finance Board to fill any vacancy in an appointive directorship for the remainder of its unexpired term. The Finance Board has determined that adopting procedures for the selection of appointive directors will enhance its ability to identify and appoint well-qualified individuals to serve as Bank directors. Accordingly, on January 24, 2007 (72 FR 3028) the Finance Board issued an interim final rule that amended 12 CFR 915.10 to adopt procedures under which the board of directors of each Bank has to submit to the Finance Board a list of individuals to be considered for appointment to the board of the Bank. The list is to include information regarding each individual's eligibility and qualifications to serve as an appointive director, and the Finance Board will use that information in making its appointments to the boards. The interim rule set an initial deadline of March 31, 2007, by which the Banks are to provide a list of nominees to the Finance Board for the directorships that are currently vacant. At the time that it published the interim final rule, the Finance Board requested comments from the public and established a 30-day comment period, which expired on February 23, 2007. II. Analysis of the Public Comments The Finance Board received 8 comment letters in response to the interim rule. Three letters were submitted by Banks, 1 by a member of a Bank, 3 from trade associations, and 1 from a community organization. All of the comments were supportive of the rule, but also suggested certain revisions to the rule. One issue commenters raised relates to section 915.10(b), which gives the Finance Board the discretion to request additional names from any Bank if the Finance Board does not fill all vacant appointive directorships from the names the Bank initially submits. Certain of the comment letters objected to the permissive nature of the provision, contending that the provision should be mandatory, i.e., that the final rule should require the Finance Board to seek additional names only from the Banks and should preclude it from considering prospective directors from other sources. For the reasons noted below, the Finance Board has determined to retain the language of the interim rule. In adopting section 7 of the Bank Act (12 U.S.C. 1427), Congress vested the power to appoint Bank directors solely in the Finance Board. To revise the rule in the manner suggested would preclude the Finance Board from ever considering other sources for prospective appointive directors. Such a limitation likely would impair the Finance Board's ability to carry out its statutory responsibility. As a practical matter, the Finance Board fully expects that the Banks will make every effort to submit well-qualified nominees for the appointive directorships, both in their initial submissions and in response to any subsequent request from the Finance Board. In the event that a Bank does not do so, however, the Finance Board believes that it must reserve the right to consider nominees from other sources in order to carry out its own responsibilities. A second issue raised by the comment letters relates to the number of nominees a Bank must submit for the number of directorships to be filled. Section 915.10(a)(3) of the interim rule requires each Bank to submit twice as many nominees as there are appointive directorships to be filled at the Bank. Three commenters suggested that the rule be changed to require the submission of only 1 nominee per directorship to be filled. These commenters believed that the Banks are more likely to find well qualified persons who are willing to serve if those persons have some reasonable expectation of being chosen if they agree to be nominated. These commenters noted that the interim rule created a process in which half of all nominees would be rejected, and contended that such a process would have a chilling effect on prospective nominees' willingness to go through the nominations process. Another commenter urged the Finance Board to require at least twice as many nominees as there are directorships to be filled, particularly with respect to the community interest directorships. That commenter reasoned that doing so would help to maintain the independence of the community interest appointive directors by lessening the degree of control that the Banks would have over their selection. Another commenter proposed that the Banks be allowed to designate the specific directorship for which each nominee is being submitted, and that the designation be binding on the Finance Board. This commenter reasoned that doing so would allow a Bank to nominate 2 persons with specific skills for each directorship, which would allow the Bank to obtain the optimum skills it believes it needs on its board of directors as a whole. The Finance Board has considered each of the suggestions made with respect to the number of nominees to be submitted by the Banks. As noted below, the Finance Board believes that there is merit to the contention that the interim rule might have a chilling effect on the willingness of some qualified persons to agree to serve on the board of a Bank. To address that concern, the Finance Board has decided to modify the rule to require the Banks to submit up to 2 nominees for each directorship to be filled. As a result, a Bank with 4 directorships to be filled would have to submit at least 4 nominees, but could submit up to 8 nominees if it so chose. Another area for which certain commenters sought changes to the interim rule relates to the March 31, 2007 deadline for the submission of nominees for the currently vacant directorships. One commenter suggested that the deadline be extended to allow the Banks a range of time beyond March 31, 2007 in which to submit nominees to the Finance Board. The commenter reasoned that some Banks may need more time to identify the appropriate number of nominees, particularly if they have to submit twice as many names as there are directorships to be filled. As discussed below, the Finance Board believes that the process of vetting prospective directors may be improved by allowing a Bank the opportunity to request additional time to complete the process and the final rule would allow a Bank to do so. An additional concern raised by the comment letters related to the confidentiality of the information prospective directors must provide on the Federal Home Loan Bank Appointive Director Application Form (Form), which was published in the **Federal Register** along with the interim final rule. These commenters expressed concern that the Finance Board would have to produce the Form, or the personal information it contains, in response to a request under the Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA)(5 U.S.C. 552). For the reasons described below, the Finance Board will not release such information in response to a FOIA request. The Privacy Act of 1974 (Privacy Act) (5 U.S.C. 552a) governs the collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination of personal information by federal agencies. The Finance Board has issued a rule implementing the Privacy Act that governs how individuals can gain access to information about themselves that the Finance Board may possess. 12 CFR part 913. The Finance Board also has published “systems of records” explaining the types of information the agency may possess and the uses of that information that are permitted under the Privacy Act. One of the Finance Board's Privacy Act systems of records covers the Form prospective appointive directors must submit to the Finance Board. Under that system of records, the Form is used only by appropriate Finance Board staff to determine whether the nominees and current appointive directors meet the applicable eligibility requirements and possess the requisite skills and background to perform the job effectively. Within this system of records, the Finance Board retains only the Forms of individuals who are appointed as a Bank director and only for the duration of their respective term of service as an appointive director. The Forms themselves not subject to production to the public under FOIA because they are covered by the Privacy Act. However, the Finance Board has made limited biographical information about the newly appointed directors publicly available, typically through a press release issued after the appointments have been made. See, e.g., Press Release FHFB 04-05 (Jan. 23, 2004) (available on the Finance Board's Web site: *http://www.fhfb.gov/GetFile.aspx?FileID=3127* ). III. Summary of the Final Rule As noted above, the final rule differs in 2 respects from the interim rule. First, section 915.10(e) is being modified to allow any Bank to request an extension of time beyond March 31, 2007 in which to submit its initial list of nominees for the directorships that currently are vacant. Second, section 915.10(a)(3) is being modified to allow any Bank to submit up to twice as many nominees as there are appointive directorships to be filled. *Extension of time.* In considering the date by which the Banks must submit the lists of nominees for the existing vacancies, the Finance Board is mindful that the interim rule created an entirely new process for the Banks and provided only 2 months and 1 week for the Banks to submit the initial list of nominees. The Finance Board also is mindful that a larger number of vacancies currently exist at each Bank than will exist for any future annual submissions, which have an October 1st deadline. The Finance Board has concluded that if any Bank believes that it will be better able to identify and submit well-qualified nominees if it is given additional time beyond the March 31st deadline, then it should be able to do so. Accordingly, the final rule allows a Bank to ask the Finance Board to extend the deadline, and authorizes the Director of the Office of Supervision to approve such requests. The Finance Board expects that any Bank making such a request will indicate how much additional time it needs to identify prospective directors, will act expeditiously, and will complete the process by the extended deadline. *Number of nominees.* In considering the comments about the number of nominees a Bank must submit, the Finance Board is mindful that the final rule should not have the effect of discouraging well-qualified persons from seeking to be appointive directors of a Bank. As discussed in section II, some commenters have asserted that the interim rule could have a chilling effect on the willingness of potential well qualified nominees to go through the process, and could place the Banks at a disadvantage when competing with other financial institutions for directors. Generally speaking, candidates for public company directorships have a significant likelihood of being elected after they have been nominated by the company, whereas persons nominated by the Banks would have no more than a 50 percent chance of being appointed by the Finance Board under the interim rule. This disparity could discourage some well-qualified candidates from seeking appointment to the board of a Bank, especially if they have opportunities for other corporate directorships. In light of these comments, the Finance Board has decided that it could reduce any potential chilling effect by revising the final rule to allow a Bank to submit up to 2 nominees for each directorship to be filled. In reaching this conclusion, the Finance Board also considered whether the revision could create any unintended consequences, such as lessening the independence of the appointive directors. One commenter suggested that persons who are nominated by the Bank are less likely to act independently of the persons who nominated them. Although there may be some such risk in a process where the board of the Bank plays a role in selecting new directors, the Finance Board believes that any such risk is mitigated by the fact that the Finance Board retains the ultimate power to appoint the directors to the boards of the Banks. The Finance Board intends to evaluate carefully all nominees and will appoint an individual only if it believes that the person will serve the best interests of the Bank. Moreover, the practice at other corporations, which typically use the board or a nominating committee to vet prospective directors, suggests that the risks are not as great as suggested by the comments. As is the case for corporate directors generally, the directors of a Bank owe fiduciary duties to the Bank and the Finance Board expects directors will act consistently with those duties when submitting nominees. The Finance Board also recognizes that allowing a Bank to submit only 1 nomination for each directorship has the potential to delay the appointment process if the Finance Board declines to appoint 1 or more of the persons nominated by the Bank. The Finance Board believes that any such delay is unlikely to cause a directorship to become vacant, principally because the Finance Board intends to act expeditiously in considering the nominations. Moreover, the October 1st deadline for the annual submission of nominations is far enough in advance of the start of a new term of office that a Bank should have sufficient time to submit additional nominees if they are needed. With respect to the submissions required for the currently vacant directorships, the Finance Board believes that allowing additional time to submit the nominations should allow a Bank to conduct a search that results in well-qualified persons being nominated and notes that the final rule allows a Bank to submit more than 1 nominee per directorship if it wishes to do so. Apart from the revisions noted above, the final rule is identical to the interim final rule. Thus, the final rule: establishes a process for the Banks to submit a list of well-qualified nominees for the Finance Board to consider in filling appointive directorships; allows the Banks discretion in deciding whether to submit 1 or 2 names for each directorship; requires each Bank to submit a signed Finance Board Form for each nominee; and authorizes the Finance Board to require a Bank to submit additional nominees if the initial nominees are not appointed. IV. Effective Date The Finance Board for good cause finds that the final rule should become effective on April 2, 2007. *See* 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). It is in the public interest to fill appointive directorships at the Banks with well qualified individuals as soon as it is practicable to do so. The final rule achieves this goal while providing additional flexibility to the Banks in fulfilling their obligation to nominate well-qualified individuals for Finance Board consideration. V. Paperwork Reduction Act The final rule will have no substantive effect on any collection of information covered by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. *See* 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Therefore, the Finance Board did not submit the proposed regulation to the Office of Management and Budget for review. VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Finance Board adopted this procedural amendment in the form of an interim final rule and not as a proposed rule. Therefore, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act do not apply to this final rule. *See* 5 U.S.C. 601(2) and 603(a). List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 915 Banks, Banking, Conflict of interests, Elections, Ethical conduct, Federal home loan banks, Financial disclosure, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Finance Board amends 12 CFR part 915 as follows: PART 915—BANK DIRECTOR ELIGIBILITY, APPOINTMENT, AND ELECTIONS 1. The authority citation for part 915 continues to read as follows: Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1422a(a)(3), 1422b(a), 1426, 1427, and 1432. 2. Revise § 915.10 to read as follows: § 915.10 Selection of appointive directors.
(a)*Bank responsibilities.*
(1)On or before October 1st of each year, the board of directors of each Bank shall submit to the Finance Board a list of eligible nominees who are well-qualified to fill the appointive directorships that will expire on December 31st of that year, along with the original Finance Board-prescribed appointive director application form executed by each individual on the list.
(2)If an appointive directorship becomes vacant prior to the expiration of its term, the board of directors of the Bank shall submit to the Finance Board a list of eligible nominees who are well-qualified to fill that directorship, along with each individual's executed appointive director application form, promptly after the vacancy arises.
(3)The number of nominees on any list submitted by a Bank's board of directors pursuant to paragraphs (a)(1) or
(2)of this section shall be at least equal to the number of appointive directorships to be filled but shall not exceed 2 times the number of such directorships.
(b)*Finance Board selection.* As provided by the Act, the Finance Board has the sole responsibility for appointing individuals to the boards of directors of the Banks. In exercising that responsibility, the Finance Board shall select from among the nominees on the list submitted by the Bank pursuant to paragraph
(a)of this section, provided, however, that if the Finance Board does not fill all of the appointive directorships from the list initially submitted by the Bank, it may require the Bank to submit a supplemental list of nominees for its consideration.
(c)*Prospective applicants.* Any individual who seeks to be appointed to the board of directors of a Bank may submit to the Bank an executed appointive director application form that demonstrates that the individual both is eligible and has business, financial, housing, community and economic development, and/or leadership experience. Any other interested party may recommend to the Bank that it consider a particular individual as a nominee for an appointive directorship, but the Bank may not do so until the individual has provided the Bank with an executed appointive director application form. The board of directors of the Bank may consider any individual for inclusion on the list it submits to the Finance Board provided it has determined that the individual is eligible and well-qualified for an appointive directorship at the Bank.
(d)*Term of office.* The term of office of each appointive directorship is 3 years, except as adjusted pursuant to section 7(d) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1427(d)) to achieve a staggered board, and shall commence on January 1st. In the case of a discretionary appointive directorship that is terminated pursuant to § 915.3(b)(5), the term of office of the directorship shall end after the close of business on December 31st of that year.
(e)*Appointive directorship vacancies existing on January 1, 2007.* For appointive directorships that are vacant on January 1, 2007, the board of directors of each Bank shall submit the information required by paragraph
(a)of this section on or before March 31, 2007, or such other date approved by the Director of the Office of Supervision upon the request of that Bank. Dated: March 27, 2007. By the Board of Directors of the Federal Housing Finance Board. Ronald A. Rosenfeld, Chairman. [FR Doc. E7-5970 Filed 3-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6725-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-25948; Directorate Identifier 2006-NE-32-AD; Amendment 39-15005; AD 2007-04-19R1] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Superior Air Parts, Inc. (SAP), Cylinder Assemblies Part Numbers Series: SA47000L, SA47000S, SA52000, SA55000, SL32000W, SL32000WH, SL32006W, SL36000TW, SL36000W, and SL36006W AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule; request for comments. SUMMARY: The FAA is revising an existing airworthiness directive
(AD)for certain SAP cylinder assemblies installed in Teledyne Continental Motors
(TCM)470, 520, and 550 series reciprocating engines, Lycoming Engines
(LE)320, 360, and 540 series reciprocating engines, Avco Lycoming
(AL)540 series reciprocating engines, and Superior Air Parts, Inc.
(SAP)360 series reciprocating engines. That AD currently requires removing from service certain SAP part numbered (P/N) cylinder assemblies installed in TCM, LE, and AL reciprocating engines. That AD also requires removing from service certain cylinder assemblies installed as original equipment in SAP reciprocating engines, or in certain overhauled or repaired SAP reciprocating engines. This AD continues to require those same actions. This AD results from comments from the Public on the existing AD. We are issuing this AD to prevent cylinder separation that can lead to engine failure, a possible engine compartment fire, and damage to the airplane. DATES: Effective May 7, 2007. We must receive any comments on this AD by June 1, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to comment on this proposed AD. • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-0001. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may examine the comments on this AD in the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jurgen Priester, Aerospace Engineer, Special Certification Office, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Southwest Regional Headquarters, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; *e-mail: Jurgen.E. Priester@faa.gov;* telephone
(817)222-5159; fax
(817)222-5785. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 13, 2007, the FAA issued AD 2007-04-19, Amendment 39-14951 (72 FR 8089, February 23, 2007). That AD requires removing from service certain installed SAP cylinder assemblies, listed in that AD by P/N and serial number (SN), no later than 150 hours total time-in-service
(TIS)to preclude cylinder head fatigue failure and separation at the head-to-barrel threaded interface. That AD was the result of nine separated SAP cylinder assemblies in TCM reciprocating engines and one in a LE reciprocating engine. That condition, if not corrected, could result in cylinder separation that can lead to engine failure, a possible engine compartment fire, and damage to the airplane. Actions Since We Issued AD 2007-04-19 Since we issued AD 2007-04-19, we received comments that cause us to better define and reduce the applicability of this AD. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comments received. Request To Provide a Range of Dates That SAP Manufactured the Suspect Cylinders A number of commenters ask us to include the date range when SAP manufactured the cylinders. The commenters state that including the range of dates will help users to determine if they need to investigate further and will eliminate unnecessary time and money spent to determine if a suspect cylinder assembly is installed on their engine. We agree. We changed the applicability to provide a date range to help narrow the applicability. Also, we clarified the SN range to narrow the applicability even further. Minor Editorial Changes We included some minor editorial changes in this AD to clarify some nomenclature. Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We have determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD The unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other TCM 470, 520, and 550; LE 320, 360, and 540; AL 540, and SAP 360 series reciprocating engines of the same type design with certain SAP cylinder assemblies that have a part number listed in this AD. For that reason, we are issuing this AD to prevent cylinder separation which can lead to engine failure, a possible engine compartment fire, and damage to the airplane. This AD requires removing from service installed SAP cylinder assemblies listed in this AD, no later than 150 hours total TIS to preclude cylinder head fatigue failure and separation at the head-to-barrel threaded interface. FAA's Determination for No Prior Public Notice Since we do not anticipate adverse public interest in this action, a situation exists that allows for immediate adoption of this AD, and we have found that notice and opportunity for further public comment before issuing this AD are unnecessary. Comments Invited This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment; however, we invite you to send us any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “AD Docket No. FAA-2007-25948; Directorate Identifier 2006-NE-32-AD” in the subject line of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might suggest a need to modify it. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this AD. Using the search function of the DMS Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Examining the AD Docket You may examine the docket that contains the AD, any comments received, and any final disposition in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone
(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Department of Transportation Nassif Building at the street address stated in ADDRESSES . Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the DMS receives them. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. *For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:* 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary at the address listed under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Amendment 39-14951 (72 FR 8089, February 23, 2007), and by adding a new airworthiness directive, Amendment 39-15005, to read as follows: **2007-04-19R1 Superior Air Parts, Inc.:** Amendment 39-15005. Docket No. FAA-2006-25948; Directorate Identifier 2006-NE-32-AD. Effective Date
(a)This airworthiness directive
(AD)becomes effective May 7, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)This AD revises AD 2007-04-19. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Superior Air Parts, Inc. (SAP), cylinder assemblies, manufactured between April 2005 and November 2005, part numbers (P/Ns): SA47000L-A1, SA47000L-A20P, SA47000S-A1, SA47000S-A20P, SA47000S-A21P, SA52000-A1, SA52000-A20P, SA52000-A21P, SA52000-A22P, SA52000-A23P, SA55000-A1, and SA55000-A20P, installed in Teledyne Continental Motors
(TCM)470, 520, and 550 series reciprocating engines. These P/N cylinder assemblies may be installed in the TCM engine models listed in the following Table 1. Table 1.—Affected Teledyne Continental Engine Models Engine model O-470 -G, -K, -L, -M, -P, -R, -S, -U. IO-470 -C, -D, -E, -F, -G, -H, -L, -M, -N, -P, -R, -S, -U, -V. IO-520 -A, B, BA, C, CB, D, E, F, J, K, L, M, BB, MB. TSIO-520 -AF, B, BB, C, CE, D, DB, E, EB, G, H, J, JB, K, KB, L, LB, M, N, NB, P, R, T, UB, VB, WB. IO-550 -A, B, C, D, E, F, L. These engine models are installed in, but not limited to, the aircraft models listed in the following Table 2: Table 2.—Teledyne Continental Motors-Related Aircraft Models Engine model Aircraft manufacturer Aircraft model designation IO-470-C Beechcraft J, K, M35. IO-470-D Cessna 310 G & H. IO-470-D Rockwell 200 A, B, & C. IO-470-E Cessna 210 & A. IO-470-F Bellanca 14-19-3. IO-470-F Cessna 185. IO-470-H Sierra Hotel Aero, Inc. (Navion) Navion F & G (Rangemaster). IO-470-L Beechcraft B55 Baron. IO-470-M Gulfstream 500 A. IO-470-N Beechcraft N & P. IO-470-N Beechcraft G33. IO-470-S Cessna 210 B & C. IO-470-S Cessna 205. IO-470-U Cessna 310 I & J. IO-470-V/VO Cessna 310K, L, N, P & Q. IO-520-A Cessna 210 D, E, F, G, & H. IO-520-A Cessna 206. IO-520-A Cessna P206. IO-520-A Rockwell 200 D. IO-520-B Beechcraft 36 Bonanza. IO-520-B Beechcraft A36. IO-520-B Sierra Hotel Aero, Inc. (Navion) Navion H. IO-520-BA Beechcraft A36. IO-520-BA Beechcraft S & V35, V35A, V35B. IO-520-BA Beechcraft C33 A. IO-520-BA Beechcraft E33 A & C. IO-520-BA Beechcraft F33 A & C. IO-520-BA Sierra Hotel Aero, Inc. Navion G (Rangemaster). IO-520-BA Sierra Hotel Aero, Inc. Navion H. IO-520-BB Beechcraft A36. IO-520-BB Beechcraft V35B. IO-520-BB Beechcraft F33 A. IO-520-C & CB Beechcraft C55-E55 Baron. IO-520-D Bellanca 17-30 Viking. IO-520-D Cessna A188-300 AG Truck. IO-520-D Cessna 185. IO-520-E (Cessna 310) Exec 600. IO-520-E (Beech Baron) Pres 600. IO-520-F Cessna 207. IO-520-F Cessna U206. IO-520-K Bellanca 17-30A. IO-520-L Cessna 210 K, L, M, N & R. IO-520-L Cessna 210N II. IO-520-L Cessna 210R. IO-520-M Cessna 310R. IO-520-MB Cessna 310R. IO-550-A Cessna 310 Conversion. IO-550-B Beechcraft A36. IO-550-B (Beech Bonanza) Foxstar. IO-550-C Beechcraft 58 Baron. IO-550-D Cessna 185/188 Conversion. IO-550-E Cessna 310 Conversion. IO-550-F Cessna 206/207 Conversion. IO-550-L Cessna 210 Conversion. O-470-M Cessna 310. O-470-G Beechcraft H35. O-470-K Bellanca 14-19-2. O-470-K Cessna 180 (230 HP). O-470-L Cessna 182. O-470-L Cessna 180D. O-470-M Cessna 310 B. O-470-P Sierra Hotel Aero, Inc. (Navion) Navion. O-470-R Cessna 188-230. O-470-R Cessna 182. O-470-R Cessna 180 E-J. O-470-S Cessna 182. O-470-U Cessna 182. O-470-U Cessna 180 K. TSIO-520-AF Cessna P210N II. TSIO-520-B Cessna 320D, E & F. TSIO-520-B Cessna T310-Q & R. TSIO-520-BB Cessna T310R. TSIO-520-BE Piper PA-46-310 Malibu. TSIO-520-C Cessna T210 F, G, & H. TSIO-520-C Cessna TU206. TSIO-520-C Cessna TP206. TSIO-520-C&CB Beechcraft 58 Baron. TSIO-520-CE Cessna T210R. TSIO-520-CF Cessna P210R. TSIO-520-D Beechcraft V35, V35A, V35B-TC. TSIO-520-E Cessna 402, A & B. TSIO-520-E Cessna 401, A & B. TSIO-520-EB Cessna 335. TSIO-520-G Cessna T207. TSIO-520-H Cessna T210 J, K & L. TSIO-520-J Cessna 210 J. TSIO-520-J Cessna 414. TSIO-520-J Riley Conversions 340 Super Riley. TSIO-520-L&LB Beechcraft 58P Baron. TSIO-520-L&LB Beechcraft 58TC Baron. TSIO-520-M Cessna T207. TSIO-520-M Cessna TU206. TSIO-520-N Cessna 414-II Chancellor. TSIO-520-N Cessna 340. TSIO-520-NB Cessna 414-II. TSIO-520-NB Cessna 340. TSIO-520-P Cessna P210N. TSIO-520-R Cessna T210 M. TSIO-520-R Cessna T210N II. TSIO-520-T Cessna T188C AG Husky. TSIO-520-UB Beechcraft A36TC Bonanza. TSIO-520-UB Beechcraft B36TC. TSIO-520-VB Cessna 402 C. TSIO-520-WB Beechcraft 58P Baron. TSIO-520-WB Beechcraft 58TC Baron. This AD also applies to SAP, cast cylinder assemblies, P/Ns SL32000W-A1, SL32000W-A20P, SL32000W-A21P, SL32000WH-A1, SL32000WH-A20P, SL32006W-A1, SL32006W-A20P, SL32006W-A21P, SL36000TW-A1, SL36000TW-A20P, SL36000TW-A21P, SL36000TW-A22P, SL36000W-A1, SL36000W-A20P, SL36000W-A21P, SL36006W-A1, SL36006W-A20P, and SL36006W-A21P, installed in Lycoming Engines
(LE)320, 360, and 540 series reciprocating engines and Avco Lycoming 540 series reciprocating engines. These P/N cylinder assemblies may be installed in the LE and AL engine models listed in the following Table 3. Table 3.—Affected Lycoming Engines and Avco Lycoming Engine Models Engine model O-320 -A, -B, -C, -D, -E, H. IO-320 -B, -D, -E. LIO-320 -B. AIO-320 -A, -B, -C. AEIO-320 -D, -E. O-360 -A, -B, -C, -D, -F, -G, -J. IO-360 -B, -L, -M. LO-360 -A. AEIO-360 -B, -H. HO-360 -C. HIO-360 -B. O-540 -A, -B, -E, -F, -G, -H, -J. IO-540 -A, -C, -D, -N, -T, -V, -W. AEIO-540 -D. These engine models are installed in, but not limited to, the aircraft models listed in the following Table 4: Table 4.—Lycoming Engines and Avco Lycoming-Related Aircraft Models Engine model Aircraft manufacturer Aircraft model designation O-320-A Mooney Aircraft Mark 20A. O-320-A1A Piper Aircraft PA-23-150 Apache. O-320-A1A Piper Aircraft PA-22-150 Tri-Pacer. O-320-A1A Piper Aircraft PA-22S-150 Tri-Pacer. O-320-A1A Piper Aircraft PA-25 Pawnee. O-320-A1A Doyne Aircraft Doyn-Cessna 170,170A,170B. O-320-A1A Dinfia Ranquel 1A-46. O-320-A1A Simmering-Graz Pauker Flamingo SGP-M-222. O-320-A1A Aviamilano Scricciolo P-19. O-320-A1A Vos Helicopter Co Spring Bok. O-320-A1A Mooney Aircraft Mark 20A. O-320-A1B Piper Aircraft PA-22-150 Tri-Pacer. O-320-A1B Piper Aircraft PA-22S-150 Tri-Pacer. O-320-A1B Piper Aircraft PA-23 Apache. O-320-A1B Doyne Aircraft Doyn-Cessna 170,170A,170B. O-320-A1B S.O.C.A.T.A Horizon (Gardan). O-320-A2A Piper Aircraft PA-22-150. O-320-A2A Piper Aircraft PA-22S-150. O-320-A2A Piper Aircraft Agriculture PA-18A-150. O-320-A2A Piper Aircraft Super Cub PA-18-150. O-320-A2A Piper Aircraft Caribbean PA-22-150. O-320-A2A Piper Aircraft PA-25 Pawnee. O-320-A2A Lake Aircraft Colonial C1. O-320-A2A Intermountain Mfg. Co Call Air Texas A-5, A-5T. O-320-A2A Rawdon Bros Rawdon T-1, T-15, T-15D. O-320-A2A Shinn Engineering Shinn 2150-A. O-320-A2A Dinfia Ranquel 1A-46. O-320-A2A Neiva 1PD-5802. O-320-A2A Sud Gardan-Horizon (GY-80). O-320-A2A La Verda Falco F8L Series II, America. O-320-A2A Malmo Vipan MF1-10. O-320-A2A Kingsford Smith Autocrat SCRM-153. O-320-A2B Aero Commander 100. O-320-A2B Piper Aircraft PA-22-150. O-320-A2B Piper Aircraft PA-22S-150. O-320-A2B Piper Aircraft Cherokee PA-28-150. O-320-A2B Piper Aircraft Super Cub PA-18-150. O-320-A2B Champion Aircraft Challenger 7GCA, 7GCB, 7KC. O-320-A2B Champion Aircraft Citabria 7GCAA, 7GCRC. O-320-A2B Champion Aircraft Agriculture 7GCBA. O-320-A2B Beagle Pup 150. O-320-A2B Arctic Interstate S1B2. O-320-A2B Robinson Helicopters R-22. O-320-A2C Robinson Helicopters R-22. O-320-A2C Varga Kachina 2150a. O-320-A2C Cicare Cicare AG. O-320-A2D Bellanca Aircraft Citabria 150 (7GCAA). O-320-A2D Bellanca Aircraft Citabria 150S (7GCBC). O-320-A2D Bellanca Citabria 150S (7G(.HU). O-320-A2F Cessna Aircraft 177A. O-320-A3A Piper Aircraft Apache PA-23. O-320-A3A Doyn Aircraft Doyn-Cessna 170, 170A, 170B. O-320-A3A Corben-Fettes Globe Special (Globe GC-1B). O-320-A3B Piper Aircraft Apache PA-23. O-320-A3B Doyn Aircraft Doyn-Cessna 170, 170A, 170B. O-320-A3B Teal II TSC 1A2. O-320-B1A Piper Aircraft Apache PA-23-160. O-320-B1A Doyn Aircraft Doyn-Cessna 170, 170A, 170B. O-320-B1A Malmo Vipan MF1-10. O-320-B1B Piper Aircraft Apache PA-23-160. O-320-B1B Doyn Aircraft Doyn-Cessna 170, 170A, 170B. O-320-B2A Piper Aircraft PA-22-160. O-320-B2A Piper Aircraft PA-22S-160. O-320-B2B Piper Aircraft PA-22-160. O-320-B2B Piper Aircraft PA-22S-160. O-320-B2B Beagle Airedale D5-160. O-320-B2B Fuji-Heavy Industries Fuji F-200. O-320-B2B Uirapuru Aerotec 122. O-320-B2C Robinson Helicopters R22-HP, Alpha, Beta. O-320-B2D Maule MX-7-160. O-320-B2E Lycon O-320-B3A Piper Aircraft Apache PA-23-160. O-320-B3A Doyn Aircraft Doyn-Cessna 170, 170A, 170B. O-320-B3B Piper Aircraft PA-23-160 Apache. O-320-B3B Doyn Aircraft Doyn-Cessna 170, 170A, 170B. O-320-B3B Sud Gardan (GY8O-160). O-320-C1A Piper Aircraft Apache PA-23-160. O-320-C1A Riley Aircraft Rayjay (Apache). O-320-C1B Piper Aircraft Apache PA-23-160. O-320-C3A Piper Aircraft Apache PA-23-160. O-320-C3B Piper Aircraft Apache PA-23-160. O-320-D1A Sud Gardan (GY80). O-320-D1A Gyroflug Speed Cancard. O-320-D1A Grob G115. O-320-D1D Gulfstream GA-7. O-320-D1F Slingsby T67 Firefly. O-320-D2A Piper Aircraft Cherokee PA-28S-160. O-320-D2A Robin Major DR400-140B. O-320-D2A Robin Chevalier DR-360, R-3140. O-320-D2A S.O.C.A.T.A Tampico TB9. O-320-D2A Slingsby T67C Firefly. O-320-D2A Daetwyler MD-3-160. O-320-D2A Nash Aircraft Ltd Petrel. O-320-D2A Aviolight P66D Delta. O-320-D2A General Avia Pinguino. O-320-D2B Beechcraft Musketeer A23. O-320-D2B Piper Aircraft Cherokee PA-28-160. O-320-D2J Cessna Skyhawk 172 P. O-320-D3G Piper Aircraft Cadet PA-28-161. O-320-D3G Piper Aircraft Warrior II. O-320-E1A Grob G115. O-320-E1C M.B.B. (Messerschmitt-Boelkow-Blohm) Monsun (BO-209-B). O-320-E1F M.B.B Monsun (BO-209-B). O-320-E2A Piper Aircraft Cherokee PA-28-140. O-320-E2A Piper Aircraft Cherokee PA-28-150. O-320-E2A Robin Major (DR-340). O-320-E2A Robin Sitar. O-320-E2A Robin Bagheera (GY-100-135). O-320-E2A S.O.C.A.T.A Super Rallye (MS-886). O-320-E2A S.O.C.A.T.A Rallye Commodore (MS-892). O-320-E2A Siai-Marchetti S-202. O-320-E2A F.F.A Bravo (AS-202/15). O-320-E2A Partenavia Oscar (P66B). O-320-E2A Partenavia Bucker (131 APM). O-320-E2A Aeromot Paulistina P-56. O-320-E2A Pezetel Koliber 150. O-320-E2C Beechcraft Musketeer (B19). O-320-E2C Beechcraft Musketeer III (M-23111). O-320-E2C M.B.B Monsun (BO-209-B). O-320-E2D Beechcraft B19 Sport. O-320-E2D Cessna 177. O-320-E2D Cessna 172 I-M. O-320-E2D Piper Aircraft PA-28-151. O-320-E2D Piper Aircraft PA-28-140. O-320-E2D Cessna Cardinal (172.1, 177). O-320-E2F M.B.B Monsun (BO-209-B). O-320-E2F M.B.B Wassmer Pacific (WA-5 1). O-320-E2G Gulfstream AA5 Traveler. O-320-E2G Gulfstream AA5A Cheetah. O-320-E3D Beechcraft B19 Sport. O-320-E3D Piper Aircraft Cherokee (140). O-320-H2AD Cessna Skyhawk 172 N. O-320-H2AD Partenavia P-66C. O-320A2C Varga Kachina 2150. IO-320-B2A Piper Aircraft Twin Comanche (PA-30). IO-320-B1C Hi IO-320-B1C Shear IO-320-B1C Wing IO-320-B1D Ted Smith Aircraft Aerostar. IO-320-D1A M.B.B Monsun (BO-209-C). IO-320-D1B M.B.B Monsun (BO-209-C). IO-320-E1A Champion KCAB. IO-320-E1A M.B.B Monsun (BO-209-C). IO-320-E1B Bellanca Aircraft. IO-320-E2A Champion 7 KCAB. IO-320-E2A Champion Aircraft Citabria. IO-320-E2B Bellanca Aircraft IO/LIO-320-B1A Piper Aircraft PA-30 Comanche (2). IO/LIO-320-B1A Piper Aircraft Twin Comanche (PA-39). AIO-320-Bl B M.B.B Monsun (BO-209-C). AEIO-320-D1B Slingsby T67M Firefly. AEIO-320-D2B Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd HT-2. AEIO-320-E1A Bellanca Aircraft AEIO-320-E1A Champion Aircraft AEIO-320-EIB Bellanca Aircraft AEIO-320-EIB Champion Aircraft Decathalon (8KCAB-CS). AEIO-320-E2B Bellanca Aircraft AEIO-320-E2B Champion Aircraft Decathalon (8KCAB). O-320-A1A Riley Aircraft Riley Twin. O-360-A1A Beechcraft Travel Air (95, B-95). O-360-A1A Piper Aircraft Comanche (PA-24). O-360-A1A Intermountain Mfg. Co Call Air (A-6). O-360-A1A Lake Aircraft Colonial (C-2, LA-4, 4A or 4P). O-360-A1A Doyn Aircraft Doyn-Cessna (170B, 172, 172A, 172B). O-360-1A Mooney Aircraft Mark “20B” (M-20B). O-360-A1A Earl Horton Pawnee (Piper PA-25). O-360-A1A Dinfia Ranquel (IA-51). O-360-A1A Neiva (IPD-5901). O-360-A1A Regente (N-591). O-360-A1A Wassmer Super 4 (WA-50A). O-360-A1A Wassmer Sancy (WA-40). O-360-A1A Wassmer Baladou (WA-40). O-360-A1A Wassmer Pariou (WA-40). O-360-A1A Sud Gardan (GY-180). O-360-A1A Bolkow (207). O-360-A1A Partenavia Oscar (P-66). O-360-A1A Siai-Marchetti (S-205). O-360-A1A Procaer Picc Hio (F-15-A). O-360-A1A S.A.A.B Safir (91-D). O-360-A1A Malmo Vipan (MF-1OB). O-360-A1A Aero Boero AB-180. O-360-A1A Beagle Airedale (A-109). O-360-A1A DeHavilland Drover (DHA-3MK3). O-360-A1A Kingsford-Smith Bushmaster (J5-6). O-360-A1A Aero Engine Service Ltd Victa (R-2). O-360-A1AD S.O.C.A.T.A Tabago TB-10. O-360-A1D Piper Aircraft Comanche (PA-24). O-360-A1D Lake Aircraft Colonial (LA-4, 4A or 4P). O-360-A1D Doyn Aircraft Doyn-Beech (Beech 95). O-360-A1D Mooney Aircraft Master 21 (M-20E). O-360-A1D Mooney Aircraft Mark 20B, 20D, (M2OB, M2OC). O-360-A1D Mooney Aircraft Mooney Statesman (M-20G). O-360-A1D Dinfia Querandi (IA-45). O-360-A1D Wassmer (WA-50). O-360-A1D Malmo Vipan (MFI-10). O-360-A1D Cessna Aircraft Skyhawk. O-360-A1D Doyn Aircraft Doyn-Piper PA-23-160. O-360-AIF6 Cessna Aircraft Cardinal. O-360-AIF6D Cessna Aircraft Cardinal 177. O-360-AIF6D Teal III TSC (1A3). O-360-A1G6 Aero Commander O-360-A1G6D Beech Aircraft Duchess 76. O-360-AIH6 Piper Aircraft Seminole (PA-44). O-360-Al LD Wassmer Europa WA-52. O-360-AIP Aviat O-360-AIP Husky O-360-A2A Center Est Aeronautique Regente (DR-253). O-360-A2A S.O.C.A.T.A RalIye Commodore (MS-893). O-360-A2A Societe Aeronautique Normande Mousquetaire (D-140). O-360-A2A Bolkow Klemm (Kl-1 07C). O-360-A2A Partenavia Oscar (P-66). O-360-A2A Beagle Husky (D5-180) (J1-U). O-360-A2D Piper Aircraft Comanche PA-24. O-360-A2D Piper Aircraft Cherokee C PA-28-180. O-360-A2D Mooney Aircraft Master 21 (M-20D). O-360-A2D Mooney Aircraft Mark 21 (M-20E). O-360-A2E Std. Helicopter O-360-A2F Aero Commander Lark(100). O-360-A2F Cessna Aircraft Cardinal. O-360-A2G Beech Aircraft Sport. O-360-A3A C.A.A.R.P.S.A.N (M-23111). O-360-A3A Societe Aeronautique Normande Jodel (D-140C). O-360-A3A Robin Regent (DR400/180). O-360-A3A Robin Remorqueur (DR400/180R). O-360-A3A Robin R-3170. O-360-A3A S.O.C.A.T.A Rallye 18OGT. O-360-A3A S.O.C.A.T.A Sportavia Sportsman (RS-180). O-360-A3A Norman Aerospace Co NAC-1 Freelance. O-360-A3A Nash Aircraft Ltd Petre. O-360-A3AD S.O.C.A.T.A TB-10. O-360-A3AD Robin Aiglon (R-l 180T). O-360-A4A Piper Aircraft Cherokee “D” PA-28-180. O-360-A4D Varga Kachina. O-360-A4G Beech Aircraft Musketeer Custom III. O-360-A4K Grumman American Tiger. O-360-A4K Beech Aircraft Sundowner 180. O-360-A4M Piper Aircraft Archer II PA-28-18. O-360-A4M Valmet PIK-23. O-360-A4N Cessna Aircraft 172 (Optional). O-360-A4P Penn Yan Super Cub Conversion. O-360-A5AD C. Itoh and Co Fuji FA-200. O-360-B2C Seabird Aviation SB7L. O-360-C1A Intermountain Mfg. Co Call Air (A-6). O-360-CIE Bellanca Aircraft Scout (8GCBC-CS). O-360-C1F Maule Star Rocket MX-7-180. O-360-C1G Christen Husky (A-1). O-360-C2B Hughes Tool Co (269A). O-360-C2D Hughes Tool Co (269A). O-360-C2E Hughes Tool Co YHO-2HU Military. O-360-C2E Bellanca Aircraft Scout 8GCBC FP. O-360-C4F Maule MX-7-180A. O-360-C4P Penn Van Super Cub Conversion. O-360-F1A6 Cessna Aircraft Cutlass RG. O-360-J2A Robinson R22. IO-360-B1A Beech Aircraft Travel-Air (B-95A). IO-360-B1A Doyn Aircraft Doyn-Piper PA-23-200. IO-360-B1B Beech Aircraft Travel-Air (B-95B). IO-360-B1B Doyn Aircraft Doyn-Piper PA-23-200. IO-360-B1B Fuji FA-200. IO-360-B1D United Consultants See-Bee. IO-360-BIE Piper Aircraft Arrow PA-28-180R. IO-360-BIF Utva 75. IO-360-B2E C.A.A.R.P C.A.P. (10). IO-360-BIF6 Great Lakes Trainer. IO-360-B1G6 American Blimp Spector 42. IO-360-B2F6 Great Lakes Trainer. LO-360-A1 G6D Beech Aircraft Duchess. LO-360-A1H6 Piper Aircraft Seminole (PA-44). IO-360-EIA T.R. Smith Aircraft AeroStar. IO-360-L2A Cessna Aircraft Skyhawk C-172. IO-360-M1A Diamond Aircraft DA-40. IO-360-M1B Vans Aircraft RV6, RV7, RV8. IO-360-M1B Lancair 360. AIO-360-B1B Moravan Zim (Z-526-L). AEIO-360-B1G6 Great Lakes AEIO-360-B2F Mundry CAP-10. AEIO-360-B4A Pitts S-1S. AEIO-360-HiA Bellanca Aircraft Super Decathalon (8KCAB-180). AEIO-360-HiB American Champion Super Decathalon. HO-360-B1A Hughes Tool Co 269A. HO-360-B1B Hughes Tool Co 269A. HO-360-C1A Schweizer 300C. HiO-360-A1A Hughes Tool Co 300. H1O-360-A1B Silvercraft HiO-360-B1A Hughes Tool Co Military 269-A-1. HlO-360-BIB Hughes Tool Co 269A. O-360-D1A Hughes Tool Co 269C, 300C. O-360-D1A Schweizer 300C. HIO-360-E1AD Enstrom Helicopter F28C. HIO-360-E1BD Enstrom Helicopter F28C. HIO-360-F1AD Enstrom Helicopter Faicon F28F. HIO-360-F1AD Enstrom Helicopter Shark 280FX. HIO-360-F1AD Enstrom Helicopter Sentine F28F-P. HIO-360-G1A Schweizer CB. LHIO-360-C1A Silvercraft SH-4 Helicopter. LHIO-360-C1B Silvercraft SH-3 Helicopter. O-540-AIA Rhein-Flugzeugbau RF-1. O-540-AIA5 Piper Aircraft Comanche PA-24-150. O-540-AIA5 Helio Military H-250. O-540-AIA5 Yoeman Aviation YA-1. O-540-A1B5 Piper Aircraft Aztec PA-23-250. O-540-A1B5 Piper Aircraft Comanche PA-24-250. O-540-AIC5 Piper Aircraft Comanche PA-24-250. O-540-A1D Found Bros FBA-2C. O-540-A1D Dornier O-28-B1. O-540-AID5 Piper Aircraft Aztec PA-23-250. O-540-AID5 Piper Aircraft Comanche PA-24-250. O-540-AID5 Piper Aircraft Military Aztec U-1 1A. O-540-AID5 Dornier DO-28. O-540-A2B Aero Commander 500. O-540-A2B Mld-States Mfg. Co Twin Courier 11-500, U-5. O-540-A3D5 Piper Aircraft Navy Aztec PA-23-250. O-540-B1A5 Piper Aircraft Apache PA-23-235. O-540-BIB5 Piper Aircraft Cherokee PA-24-250. O-540-BIB5 Doyn Aircraft Doyn-Piper PA-24-250. O-540-BID5 Wassmer WA-421. O-540-B2B5 Piper Aircraft Pawnee PA-24-235. O-540-B2B5 Piper Aircraft Cherokee PA-28-235. O-540-B2B5 Piper Aircraft Aztec PA-23-235. O-540-B2B5 Intermountain Mfg. Co Call Air A-9. O-540-B2B5 Rawdon Bros Rawdon T-l. O-540-B2B5 S.O.C.A.T.A Rallye 235CA. O-540-B2C5 Piper Aircraft Pawnee PA-24-235. O-540-B4B5 Piper Aircraft Cherokee PA-28-235. O-540-B4B5 Embraer Corioca EMB-710. O-540-B4B5 S.O.C.A.T.A Rallye 235GT. O-540-B4B5 S.O.C.A.T.A Rallye 235C. O-540-B4B5 Maule Star Racket MX-7-235. O-540-B4B5 Maule Super Rocket M-6-235. O-540-B4B5 Maule Super Std. Racket M-7-235. O-540-E4A5 Piper Aircraft Comanche PA-24-260. O-540-E4A5 Aviamilano Flamingo F-250. O-540-E4A5 Siai-Marcbetti SF-260, SF-208. O-540-E4B5 Britten-Norman BN-2. Piper Aircraft Cherokee Six PA-32-260. O-540-E4C5 Pilatus Britten-Norman Islander BN-2A-26. O-540-E4C5 Pilatus Britten-Norman Islander BN-2A-27. O-540-E4C5 Pilatus Britten-Norman Islander II BN-2B-26. O-540-E4C5 Pilatus Britten-Norman Islander BN-2A-2 1. O-540-E4C5 Pilatus Britten-Norman Trislander BN-2A-Mark 111-2. O-540-F1B5 Omega Aircraft BS-12D1. O-540-F1B5 Robinson R-44. O-540-G1A5 Piper Aircraft Pawnee PA-25-260. O-540-H1B5D Aero Boero 260. O-540-H2A5 Embraer Impanema “AG”. O-540-H2A5 Gippsland GA-200. O-540-H2B5D Aero Boero 260. O-540-J1A5D Maule Star Rocket MX-7-235. O-540-J1A5D Maule Super Rocket M-6-235. O-540-J1A5D Maule Super Std. Rocket M-7-235. O-540-J3A5 Robin R-3000/235. O-540-J3A5D Piper Aircraft Dakota PA-28-236. O-540-J3C5D Cessna Aircraft Skylane RG. IO-540-A1A5 Doyn Aircraft Doyn-Piper PA-23-250. IO-540-A1A5 Riley Aircraft Rocket-Cessna 310. IO-540-A1A5 Dornier DO-8-B 1. IO-540-A1A5 Siai-Marchetti IO-540-C1B5 Piper Aircraft Aztec B PA-23-250. IO-540-C1B5 Piper Aircraft Comanche PA-24-250. IO-540-C1C5 Riley Aircraft Turbo-Rocket. IO-540-C4B5 Piper Aircraft Aztec C PA-23-250. IO-540-C4B5 Piper Aircraft Aztec F. IO-540-C4B5 Wassmer WA4-2 1. IO-540-C4B5 Avions Pierre Robin HR 100/250. IO-540-C4B5 Bellanca Aircraft Aries T-250. IO-540-C4B5 Aerofab Renegade 250. IO-540-C4D5 S.O.C.A.T.A TB-20. IO-540-C4DSD S.O.C.A.T.A Trinidad TB-20. IO-540-D4A5 Piper Aircraft Comanche PA-24-260. IO-540-D4A5 Siai-Marchetti SF-260. IO-540-D4B5 Cerva CE-43 Guepard. IO-540-E1A5 Aero Commander 500-E. IO-540-EIB5 Aero Commander 500-U. IO-540-EIB5 Shrike 500-S. IO-540-EIB5 Poeschel P-300. IO-540-GIA5 Doyn Aircraft Doyn-Piper PA-23-250. IO-540-GIA5 Riley Aircraft Turbo-Aztec. IO-540-GIA5 DeHavilland Heron Conversion. IO-540-GIB5 T.R. Smith Aircraft Aerostar 600. IO-540-GIB5 Found Bros Centennial 100. IO-540-G1C5 Intermountain Mfg. Co Call Air 1AR821. IO-540-G1DS Intermountain Mfg. Co IAR-822, IAR-826, IAR-823. IO-540-G1F5 Bellanca Aircraft IO-540-N lA5 Piper Aircraft Comanche 260. IO-540-T4A5D General Aviation Model 114. IO-540-T4B5 Commander 1 14B. IO-540-T4B5D Rockwell 114. IO-540-T4C5D Lake Aircraft Seawolf. IO-540-WIA5 Maule MX-7-235, MT-7-235, M7235. IO-540-W1A5D Maule Star Rocket MX-7-235. IO-540-W1A5D Maule Super Rocket M-6-235. IO-540-W1A5D Maule Super Std. Rocket M-7-235. IO-540-W3A5D Schweizer Power Glider. IO-540-AB1A5 Cessna Aircraft Skylane C-182. AEIO-540-D4A5 Christen Pitts S-2S, S-2B. AEIO-540-D4A5 Siai-Marchetti SF-260. AEIO-540-D4A5 H.A.L HPT-32. AEIO-540-D4A5 Slingsby Firefly T3A. AEIO-540-D4B5 Moravan Zlin-50L. AEIO-540-D4B5 H.A.L HPT-32. AEIO-540-D4D5 Burkhart Grob Grob G, 1 15T Aero. These engine models are known to be installed in the aircraft models listed in the following Table 5: Table 5.—Superior Air Parts, Inc.—Related Aircraft Models Engine model Aircraft manufacturer Aircraft model designation O-360-A3A2 American Champion 7GCBC & 7GCAA. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from comments from the Public on the existing AD. We are issuing this AD to prevent cylinder separation that can lead to engine failure, a possible engine compartment fire, and damage to the airplane. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified unless the actions have already been done. Determining Which Cylinder Assemblies Are Installed
(f)If aircraft engine records do not list the P/N of the cylinder installed during engine overhaul or repair, visually inspect the cylinders. The affected SAP cylinder head barrel flanges are marked: SA47000L-A1, SA47000L-A20P, SA47000S-A1, SA47000S-A20P, SA47000S-A21P, SA52000-A1, SA52000-A20P, SA52000-A21P, SA52000-A22P, SA52000-A23P, SA55000-A1, or SA55000-A20P or SL32000W-A1, SL32000W-A20P, SL32000W-A21P, SL32000WH-A1, SL32000WH-A20P, SL32006W-A1, SL32006W-A20P, SL32006W-A21P, SL36000TW-A1, SL36000TW-A20P, SL36000TW-A21P, SL36000TW-A22P, SL36000W-A1, SL36000W-A20P, SL36000W-A21P, SL36006W-A1, SL36006W-A20P, or SL36006W-A21P. Cylinder Assembly Removal
(g)Remove all cylinder assemblies with a serial number of 47LE053559 through 47LF053643, or 47SE054212 through 47SF054251, or 52D0531708 through 52H0532197, or 55E05223 through 55G05289, or 32WE059006 through 32WF059067, or 32WHE05379 through 32WHE05392, or 326WF055517 through 326WF055532, or 36TWF05430 through 36TWG05453, or 36WF058058 through 36WG058124, or 366WE056944 through 366WF057061, or 366WF057150 through 366WF057232, or 366WF057259 through 366WG057534, or 366WG057556, 366WG057569, 366WG057598, 366WG057616, 366WG057621, 366WG057624, or 366WJ057770 through 366WJ057776, or 366WL058131 no later than 150 hours total time-in-service
(TIS)to preclude cylinder head fatigue failure and separation at the head-to-barrel threaded interface.
(h)For cylinder assemblies with more than 150 hours total TIS on the effective date of this AD, a 10 hour TIS extension is permitted for the purpose of flying the aircraft to a location where maintenance action can be done to meet the requirements of this AD.
(i)After the effective date of this AD, do not install any cylinder assemblies with P/Ns SA47000L-A1, SA47000L-A20P, SA47000S-A1, SA47000S-A20P, SA47000S-A21P, SA52000-A1, SA52000-A20P, SA52000-A21P, SA52000-A22P, SA52000-A23P, SA55000-A1, or SA55000-A20P,or SL32000W-A1, SL32000W-A20P, SL32000W-A21P, SL32000WH-A1, SL32000WH-A20P, SL32006W-A1, SL32006W-A20P, SL32006W-A21P, SL36000TW-A1, SL36000TW-A20P, SL36000TW-A21P, SL36000TW-A22P, SL36000W-A1, SL36000W-A20P, SL36000W-A21P, SL36006W-A1, SL36006W-A20P, or SL36006W-A21P with a serial number of 47LE053559 through 47LF053643, or 47SE054212 through 47SF054251, or 52D0531708 through 52H0532197, or 55E05223 through 55G05289, or 32WE059006 through 32WF059067, or 32WHE05379 through 32WHE05392, or 326WF055517 through 326WF055532, or 36TWF05430 through 36TWG05453, or 36WF058058 through 36WG058124, or 366WE056944 through 366WF057061, or 366WF057150 through 366WF057232, or 366WF057259 through 366WG057534, or 366WG057556, 366WG057569, 366WG057598, 366WG057616, 366WG057621, 366WG057624, or 366WJ057770 through 366WJ057776, or 366WL058131 into any engine. Alternative Methods of Compliance
(j)The Manager, Special Certification Office, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, has the authority to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Special Flight Permits
(k)For aircraft with engines that have between 140 hours and 150 hours TIS only, special flight permits may be issued in accordance with §§ 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the aircraft to a location where the requirements of this AD can be done. Special flight permits may not be issued for aircraft that have utilized the provisions of paragraph
(h)of this AD. Related Information
(l)Superior Air Parts, Inc. Mandatory Service Bulletin B06-01, Rev. E, dated January 24, 2007, contains information related to the subject of this AD.
(m)Contact Jurgen Priester, Aerospace Engineer, Special Certification Office, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Southwest Regional Headquarters, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; e-mail: *Jurgen.E.Priester@faa.gov;* telephone
(817)222-5159; fax
(817)222-5785 for more information about this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference
(n)None. Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on March 23, 2007. Peter A. White, Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-5915 Filed 3-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION 46 CFR Part 501 [Docket No. 05-01] Agency Reorganization and Delegations of Authority AGENCY: Federal Maritime Commission. ACTION: Final rule; corrections. SUMMARY: This document corrects the regulations in sections 501.27 of 46 CFR parts 501 inadvertently omitted from the Final Rule published on February 15, 2005. These revisions to the regulations are non-substantive and no public comments on the Final Rule are necessary. DATES: *Effective Date:* April 2, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy W. Larson, General Counsel, Federal Maritime Commission, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Room 1018, Washington, DC 20573-0001,
(202)523-5740. E-mail: *GeneralCounsel@fmc.gov.* Bryant L. VanBrakle, Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Room 1018, Washington, DC 20573-0001.
(202)523-5725. E-mail: *Secretary@fmc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 27, 2004, the Federal Maritime Commission (“FMC” or “Commission”) issued a final rule changing several provisions in the Commission's agreement rules and delegating authority to the Director, Bureau of Trade Analysis to request certain information. 46 CFR part 535. Docket No. 03-15, 46 CFR parts 501 and 535, *Ocean Common Carrier and Marine Terminal Operator Agreements Subject to the Shipping Act of 1984* , 69 FR 64398 (Nov. 4, 2004). On February 10, 2005, the Commission adopted a Final Rule to amend its regulations in 46 CFR part 501 to reflect the reorganization of the agency that took effect on August 23, 2004. Docket No. 05-01, 46 CFR parts 501, 502, 515, *Agency Reorganization and Delegations of Authority* , 70 FR 7659 (Feb. 15, 2005). This document revises certain sections of the regulation in part 501 of the Final Rule published on February 15, 2005. The revisions correct certain omissions and errors in the regulations, which were not detected in the course of preparing the Final Rule for publication. The revisions are non-substantive in nature and do not alter the decision adopted by the Commission in this Final Rule. Therefore, no further public comments on the Final Rule are necessary. The following sections in the regulations of part 501 of the Final Rule have been revised. List of Subjects for 46 CFR Part 501 Administrative practice and procedure, Authority delegations (Government agencies). Accordingly, the Federal Maritime Commission corrects 46 CFR part 501 as follows: Authority: 46 U.S.C. 305; 46 U.S.C. 40104; 46 U.S.C. 40302; 46 U.S.C. 40304. PART 501—THE FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION—GENERAL 1. Amend § 501.27 by revising paragraphs
(c)and (d), and adding new paragraphs
(o)and
(p)to read as follows: § 501.27 Delegation to the Director, Bureau of Trade Analysis.
(c)Authority to grant or deny applications filed under § 535.504 of this chapter for waiver of the Information Form requirements in subpart E of part 535.
(d)Authority to grant or deny applications filed under § 535.705 of this chapter for waiver of the reporting requirements in subpart G of part 535 of this chapter.
(o)Authority to require Monitoring Reports from, or prescribe alternative periodic reporting requirements for, parties to agreements under §§ 535.702(c) and
(d)of this chapter.
(p)Authority to require parties to agreements subject to the Monitoring Report requirements in § 535.702(a)(2) of this chapter to report their agreement commodity data on a sub-trade basis pursuant to § 535.703(d) of this chapter. Bryant L. VanBrakle, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-6060 Filed 3-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6730-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of the Secretary 49 CFR Parts 23 and 26 [Docket OST-97-2550] RIN 2105-AD51 Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This document adjusts the dollar limits and size limits used to define small businesses for the Department of Transportation's Airport Concessions Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (ACDBE) program. The Department of Transportation amends these size limits in order to ensure that the opportunity of small businesses to participate in the ACDBE program remains unchanged after taking inflation into account. This document, as required by statute, also adjusts the dollar limits used to define small businesses for the Department of Transportation's Disadvantaged Business Enterprise
(DBE)program, which applies to State and local highway, transit, and airport recipients of DOT financial assistance. This document also corrects a reference error in a previous final rule. Finally, this document makes minor changes to the language of a previous rule in order to accurately explain the role of administrative guidance material. DATES: This rule is effective May 2, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert C. Ashby, Deputy Assistant General Counsel for Regulation and Enforcement, Department of Transportation, 400 7th Street, SW., Room 10424, Washington, DC 20590, phone numbers
(202)366-9310 (voice),
(202)3669313 (fax),
(202)755-7687 (TTY), *bob.ashby@dot.gov* (e-mail). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On March 22, 2005, the Department published a final rule revising 49 CFR Part 23—the regulation governing the airport concessions disadvantaged business enterprise (ACDBE) program. On the same day, the Department published a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) on the business size standards for eligibility in the ACDBE program as well as on two other matters concerning implementation of the program. This final rule addresses the issues raised in the SNPRM and the comments made in response to the SNPRM. The DBE Airport Concessions and Contracting Programs The DOT-assisted contracts DBE rule and airport concessions DBE rule are based on different statutes. Each statute applies to a distinct type of business that may seek DOT financial assistance. The ACDBE program is designed to give business opportunities to certain small business concerns that operate at airports and that are owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals. The ACDBE program is mandated by 49 U.S.C. 47107(e), originally enacted in 1987 and amended in 1992. The DBE program for DOT-assisted contracts is a statutory program intended to ensure nondiscriminatory contracting opportunities for small business concerns owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals in the Department's highway, mass transit and airport financial assistance programs. The statutory provision governing the DBE program in the highway and mass transit financial assistance programs is 1101(b) of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), Public Law 109-59, August 10, 2005. The statutory provision governing the DBE program as it relates to the airport planning and airport development financial assistance programs is 49 U.S.C. 47113. ACDBE Gross Receipts Size Standards The ACDBE program is designed to help small business concerns, owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals, become self-sufficient and able to compete with non-disadvantaged firms. Under the current DOT rule, if the airport concessions firm's annual gross receipts averaged over the preceding three fiscal years exceed $30 million, then it is not considered a small business eligible to be certified as an ACDBE. The Department notes that the existing size standards have not been adjusted for inflation since June 1, 1992. This final rule adjusts the size standards for eligibility as an ACDBE. A number of comments submitted to the Department supported adjusting the gross receipts size limit for inflation. One comment suggested that the Department consider distinct size standards for each type of concession. A number of comments also suggested that an employee based size standard is inappropriate because businesses may operate using different business model configurations with different numbers of employees. These comments also point out that verifying the number of employees is more complex than verifying gross receipts, which are recorded in tax returns. This final rule adjusts the general ACDBE gross receipts cap for inflation. This rule only applies an employee based size standard if the business operates pay telephones or if the business is an automobile dealer. The Department views a general gross receipts size limit that is adjusted for inflation as the most efficient and fair way to establish size limits for the ACDBE program. The adjustment compensates for the rise in the general level of prices over time from the second quarter of 1992 to the third quarter of 2006. In order to ensure that this adjustment is made on a more timely basis in the future, the rule provides for a similar adjustment every two years, using the same methods. At two year intervals, the Department will publish a final rule to update the size standard numbers. It should be emphasized that this action does not increase the size standard for ACDBEs in real dollar terms. It simply maintains the status quo, adjusting to 2006 dollars. A number of comments opposed the idea of making Part 23 and Part 26 size standards identical because the capitalization requirements for airport concessions are much higher. The Department agrees and will not harmonize the standards. In order to make an inflation adjustment to the gross receipts figures, the Department of Transportation uses a Department of Commerce price index. The Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis prepares constant dollar estimates of state and local government purchases of goods and services by deflating current dollar estimates by suitable price indexes. These indices include purchases of durable and non-durable goods, and other services. Using these price deflators enables the Department to adjust dollar figures for past years' inflation. Given the nature of the Department's DBE Program and ACDBE Program, adjusting the gross receipts cap in the same manner in which inflation adjustments are made to the costs of state and local government purchases of goods and services is simple, accurate, and fair. The inflation rate on purchases by State and local governments for the current year is calculated by dividing the price deflator for the third quarter of 2006 (128.352) by 1992's second quarter price deflator (80.583). The result of the calculation is 1.5928, which represents an inflation rate of 59.28% from the second quarter of 1992. Multiplying the $30,000,000 figure for small business enterprises by 1.5928 equals $47,784,000, which will be rounded off to the nearest $10,000, or $47,780,000. Therefore, under the new rule, if a firm's gross receipts, averaged over the firm's previous three fiscal years, exceeds $47,780,000, then it exceeds the airport concessions small business size limit contained in Part 23. ACDBE Car Rental Company Size Standards Under the existing rule, car rental companies are not eligible to participate in the ACDBE program if their average gross receipts over the three previous fiscal years exceed $40 million. This final rule adjusts the size standard for car rental companies to reflect the effects of inflation on the real dollar value. The inflation rate on purchases by State and local governments for the current year is calculated by dividing the price deflator for the third quarter of 2006 (128.352) by 1992's second quarter price deflator (80.583). The result of the calculation is 1.5928, which represents an inflation rate of 59.28% from the second quarter of 1992. Multiplying the $40,000,000 figure for car rental companies by 1.5928 equals $63,712,000, which will be rounded off to the nearest $10,000, or $63,710,000. Therefore, under the new rule, if a car rental company's gross receipts, averaged over the company's previous three fiscal years, exceeds $63,710,000, then it exceeds the airport concessions car rental company size limit contained in Part 23. A number of comments also supported establishing car rental goals on a nationwide basis for car rental agencies with a nationwide presence. The Department recognizes that a number of issues need to be considered before such a rule can be published. The Department will continue to consider developing a future rulemaking on nationwide car rental company goals. The Department will also continue to look for input from stakeholders when drafting any future rule on this subject. ACDBE Banks and Financial Institutions Size Standards A number of comments said that financial industry regulators ( *e.g.* , the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of the Comptroller of Currency, and the Office of Thrift Supervision) and the banking industry itself consider banks with less than $1 billion in assets to be “small” institutions. These comments went on to point out that the assets needed to operate any financial institution are high, even for the smallest banks, because of compliance burdens and technology expenses. In its comments, the American Bankers Association discussed the difference in efficiency between banks with less than $1 billion in assets and banks with over $1 billion in assets. A December 5, 2006 report from the American Bankers Association stated that the largest minority bank has assets of $638 million. The report also states that 61% of all black owned banks have assets under $100 million. The existing rule imposes a $275 million asset limit for banks and financial institutions. This final rule increases the dollar amount of assets that a bank or financial institution may have while still remaining eligible to participate in the ACDBE program; the new limit is $750 million. The new size standard will more closely approach the “small” bank and financial institution standards referenced in the comments while accommodating the size of actual minority financial institutions. The new standard will also reflect the size differences between most minority banks and the banking industry generally. ACDBE Automobile Dealer Size Standards Finally, the current rule has no unique size standard for automobile dealers. Some comments suggested that the size standard for automobile dealers selling vehicles to car rental concessionaires at airports should be based on the number of employees working for a dealer. The comments recommend an employee based size standard because automobile dealers who process sales of fleets of cars to car rental companies (“fleet dealers”) generate high gross sales, with the result that few, if any, fleet dealers would qualify as small businesses, under the existing standard. A number of commenters recommended that a 500-employee size standard be created for car dealers, which, in their view, would ensure that all potential DBE car dealers would qualify as small businesses. The Department believes that commenters made a persuasive case for replacing the current gross receipts standard with an employee-based standard. However, we are concerned that using the suggested 500 employee standard would go too far in the other direction, encompassing all but a few of all car dealers in the industry (2005 statistics from the National Association of Automobile Dealers, for example, state that the average number of employees of a dealer was 53). We believe that a small business standard should not be so inclusive that the distinction between smaller and larger businesses is erased. At the same time, we realize that “fleet dealers,” who sell large numbers of cars to car rental companies and other fleet purchasers, are likely to have more employees than the typical retail dealer. Consequently, we are establishing a 200 employee standard for purposes of this rule. Fraud, Abuse, and Administrative Burdens in the ACDBE Program In the NPRM, the Department asked for comment on ways to better monitor the eligibility of ACDBEs as well as the ongoing performance of ACDBEs in the concession business. A number of comments responded to this inquiry. These comments suggested creating additional reporting requirements, detailed annual reviews, and more detailed initial review of certification applications. Some comments voiced concern with the administrative burdens from the monitoring and goal setting that is already required by the ACDBE program, pointing out that this burden is especially significant for small hub airports. The Department has reviewed the current administrative requirements of the rule and will not change the process in this final rule. The ACDBE program carefully balances the benefits of administrative requirements that are designed to eliminate fraud and abuse with the burdens associated with those requirements, and we do not believe that further regulatory provisions are needed at this time. Business Size Standards for the DBE DOT Financial Assistance Programs This rule also adjusts the gross receipts cap for the Department's financial assistance programs in 49 CFR Part 26. The existing DBE business size limits became effective on August 10, 2005 with the passage of SAFETEA-LU. Under the existing rule, if a firm's average annual gross receipts over the preceding three fiscal years exceed $19,570,000, then it cannot qualify as an eligible DBE firm. SAFETEA-LU Section 1101
(a)instructs the Secretary of Transportation to adjust this amount annually for inflation. The rule will provide for annual calculations to make this adjustment, with future adjustments made by final rule. The inflation rate on purchases by State and local governments for the current year is calculated by dividing the price deflator for the third quarter of 2006 (128.352) by 2005's third quarter price deflator (123.079). The result of the calculation is 1.0428, which represents an inflation rate of 4.28% from the third quarter of 2005. Multiplying the $19,570,000 figure for disadvantaged business enterprises in Department of Transportation financial assistance programs by 1.0428 equals $20,407,596, which will be rounded off to the nearest $10,000, or $20,410,000. Therefore, if a firm's gross receipts, averaged over the firm's previous three fiscal years, exceeds $20,410,000, then it exceeds the small business size limit for participation by disadvantaged business enterprises in Department of Transportation financial assistance programs contained in the statutes and in Part 26. Corrections This rule corrects an error in the definition section of the original ACDBE rule. In the first publication of the rule, the definition of “small business concern” incorrectly referred to § 23.23 for the applicable size standards. The definition of a “small business concern” now refers readers to § 23.33 for additional information on the size standards necessary to qualify as a “small business concern.” In addition, we are amending sec. 23.11 to add an omitted reference to sec. 26.109, concerning confidentiality of DBE information. Guidance Documents Issued by the Department of Transportation The changes to § 26.9 of 49 CFR Part 26 are intended to clarify the role of guidance documents in the Department's Disadvantaged Business Enterprise
(DBE)programs. Guidance documents do not have the same binding authority as a final “legislative” rule; however, guidance documents do express the Department's official view of the meaning and application of our rules. Consequently, we are deleting the word “binding.” The change also clarifies that this provision applies to guidance issued by individual operating administrations as well as by the Office of the Secretary of Transportation
(OST)or DOT as a whole. For example, guidance could not purport to express the official views of FHWA, FTA, or FAA if it did not comply with this provision. This provision also applies to any guidance or instructional material prepared by an outside party ( *e.g.* , a trade association) that is endorsed in any way or used in training sessions sponsored by DOT or any of its modal administrations. Section 26.9, as originally drafted, was intended to have this effect. However, because some questions have been raised about whether the language of the section effectively covers modal-specific, as distinct from Department-wide, guidance we are making the language of this section even more specific. For the same reasons, this rule makes a parallel change to § 23.13 of 49 CFR Part 23. We also note that the review mechanism specified in these sections would be the method through which the Department would comply with provisions of the recently-issued Executive Order 13422 and OMB Bulletin on Good Guidance Practices for any guidance issued by the Department that would be considered to be significant guidance. Regulatory Analyses and Notices This rule is non-significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The rule is an essentially ministerial adjustment for inflation of a statutory small business size standard that does not change the standard in real dollar terms. It will not impose burdens on any regulated parties. This rule does not have Federalism impacts sufficient to warrant consultation with state and local officials. The rule does not impose information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. The only effect of the rule on small entities is to allow some small businesses to continue to participate in the ACDBE and the DBE programs by adjusting for inflation and modifying the size standards as measured by average annual gross receipts, total asset amounts, and total number of employees. Therefore, I certify that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Since this rule pertains to a nondiscrimination requirement and affects only Federal financial assistance programs, the Unfunded Mandates Act does not apply. List of Subjects 49 CFR Part 23 Administrative practice and procedure, Airports, Civil rights, Concessions, Government contracts, Grant programs—transportation, Minority businesses, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 49 CFR Part 26 Administrative practice and procedure, Airports, Civil rights, Concessions, Government contracts, Grant programs—transportation, Highways and roads, Mass transportation, Minority business, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Transportation amends 49 CFR Parts 23 and 26 as follows: PART 23—PARTICIPATION OF DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE IN AIRPORT CONCESSIONS 1. The authority citation for part 23 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 200d *et seq.* ; 49 U.S.C. 47107 and 47123; Executive Order 12138, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 393. 2. Amend § 23.3 by revising the definition of “Small business concern” to read as follows: § 23.3 What do the terms in this part mean? * * * *Small business concern* means a for profit business that does not exceed the size standards of § 23.33 of this part. § 23.11 [Amended] 3. Amend § 23.11 by removing “26.107” and adding in its place “sec. 26.109”. 4. Amend § 23.13 by revising paragraphs
(a)and
(b)to read as follows: § 23.13 How does the Department issue guidance, interpretations, exemptions, and waivers pertaining to this part?
(a)Only guidance and interpretations (including interpretations set forth in certification appeal decisions) consistent with this part 23 and issued after April 21, 2005, express the official positions and views of the Department of Transportation or the Federal Aviation Administration.
(b)The Secretary of Transportation, Office of the Secretary of Transportation, and the FAA may issue written interpretations of or written guidance concerning this part. Written interpretations and guidance are valid, and express the official positions and views of the Department of Transportation or the FAA, only if they are issued over the signature of the Secretary of Transportation or if they contain the following statement: The General Counsel of the Department of Transportation has reviewed this document and approved it as consistent with the language and intent of 49 CFR part 23. 5. Revise § 23.33 to read as follows: § 23.33 What size standards do recipients use to determine the eligibility of ACDBEs?
(a)As a recipient, you must, except as provided in paragraph
(b)of this section, treat a firm as a small business eligible to be certified as an ACDBE if its gross receipts, averaged over the firm's previous three fiscal years, do not exceed $47.78 million.
(b)The following types of businesses have size standards that differ from the standard set forth in paragraph
(a)of this section:
(1)Banks and financial institutions: $750 million in assets;
(2)Car rental companies: $63.71 million average annual gross receipts over the firm's three previous fiscal years;
(3)Companies providing pay telephones: 1,500 employees;
(4)Automobile dealers: 200 employees.
(c)The Department adjusts the numbers in paragraphs
(a)and (b)(2) of this section using the Department of Commerce price deflators for purchases by state and local governments as the basis for this adjustment. These adjustments are made every two years from May 2, 2007. The Department publishes a final rule informing the public of each adjustment. PART 26—PARTICIPATION BY DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISES IN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS 1. The authority citation for part 26 continues to read as follows: Authority: 23 U.S.C. 324; 42 U.S.C. 2000d *et seq.* ; 49 U.S.C 1615, 47107, 47113, 47123; Sec. 1101(b), Pub. L. 105-178, 112 Stat. 107, 113. 2. Revise § 26.9 to read as follows: § 26.9 How does the Department issue guidance and interpretations under this part?
(a)Only guidance and interpretations (including interpretations set forth in certification appeal decisions) consistent with this part 26 and issued after March 4, 1999 express the official positions and views of the Department of Transportation or any of its operating administrations.
(b)The Secretary of Transportation, Office of the Secretary of Transportation, FHWA, FTA, and FAA may issue written interpretations of or written guidance concerning this part. Written interpretations and guidance are valid, and express the official positions and views of the Department of Transportation or any of its operating administrations, only if they are issued over the signature of the Secretary of Transportation or if they contain the following statement: The General Counsel of the Department of Transportation has reviewed this document and approved it as consistent with the language and intent of 49 CFR part 26. 3. Revise § 26.65 to read as follows: § 26.65 What rules govern business size determinations?
(a)To be an eligible DBE, a firm (including its affiliates) must be an existing small business, as defined by Small Business Administration
(SBA)standards. As a recipient, you must apply current SBA business size standard(s) found in 13 CFR part 121 appropriate to the type(s) of work the firm seeks to perform in DOT-assisted contracts.
(b)Even if it meets the requirements of paragraph
(a)of this section, a firm is not an eligible DBE in any Federal fiscal year if the firm (including its affiliates) has had average annual gross receipts, as defined by SBA regulations (see 13 CFR 121.402), over the firm's previous three fiscal years, in excess of $20.41 million.
(c)The Department adjusts the number in paragraph
(b)of this section using the Department of Commerce price deflators for purchases by State and local governments as the basis for this adjustment. The Department issues a final rule by August 10 of each year making this adjustment. Issued this 20 day of March 2007, at Washington DC. Mary E. Peters, Secretary of Transportation. [FR Doc. E7-6054 Filed 3-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 622 [Docket No. 061121304-7053-02; I.D. 112006B] RIN 0648-AT87 Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Gulf Red Snapper Management Measures AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Temporary rule; interim measures. SUMMARY: This final rule implements interim measures to reduce overfishing of Gulf red snapper. This final rule reduces the commercial and recreational quotas for red snapper, reduces the commercial minimum size limit for red snapper, reduces the recreational bag limit for Gulf red snapper, prohibits the retention of red snapper under the bag limit for captain and crew of a vessel operating as a charter vessel or headboat, and establishes a target level of reduction of shrimp trawl bycatch mortality of red snapper. The intended effect is to reduce overfishing of red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico. DATES: This final rule is effective May 2, 2007 through September 29, 2007, except for amendments to § 622.37, which are effective April 2, 2007 through September 29, 2007. ADDRESSES: Copies of documents supporting this final rule, including a final environmental impact statement (FEIS), a Record of Decision (ROD), and a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA), may be obtained from Peter Hood, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13 th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter Hood, telephone: 727-551-5784, fax: 727-824-5308, e-mail: *peter.hood@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The red snapper fishery of the Gulf of Mexico is managed under the Fishery Management Plan
(FMP)for the Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, and the shrimp fishery is managed under the FMP for the Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico. The FMPs were prepared by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) and are implemented under the authority of the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622. On October 13, 2006, NMFS published a notice of availability of the draft environmental impact statement
(DEIS)for this action (71 FR 60509). The notice of availability of the final environmental impact statement
(FEIS)was published on December 29, 2006 (71 FR 78427). On December 14, 2006, NMFS published the proposed rule and requested public comment. The rationale for these interim measures is provided in the FEIS and the preamble to the proposed rule and is not repeated here. Comments and Responses The following is a summary of comments received on the proposed rule and NMFS' responses. A total of 6,403 comments were received from individuals and organizations. In addition to these comments, NMFS received two comment letters, with a total of 10,280 signatures, that opposed various provisions of the proposed rule. NMFS' response to comments on the proposed rule including the issues presented in the two comment letters is provided below. *Comment 1:* Many respondents asked NMFS not to implement the interim rule, but allow the Council to develop an amendment with updated data taking into account the effect of recent hurricanes on fishing. *Response:* The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires NMFS to develop a plan to end overfishing once such a determination has been made. The Council has developed, and the Secretary has approved, a red snapper rebuilding plan ending overfishing between 2009 and 2010. The red snapper harvest and bycatch reduction measures the Council is evaluating to achieve this goal cannot be implemented in time to address overfishing during 2007. If overfishing continues in 2007, then substantially more severe harvest reductions will be required between 2008 and 2010 to end overfishing on schedule. Consequently, NMFS has determined interim measures are needed to address overfishing of red snapper during the 2007-fishing year. The interim measures implemented through this final rule are designed to minimize to the extent practicable the unavoidable adverse impacts of ending overfishing during a time when Gulf of Mexico fisheries are recovering from the adverse effects of two particularly severe hurricane seasons. Additionally, the analyses underlying these measures assume effort in the red snapper and shrimp fisheries will be slightly below average during 2007 as a result of the hurricanes. NMFS has determined this rule is based on the best scientific information available. NMFS continues to actively monitor red snapper and shrimp effort data so this information can be taken into account in developing measures to achieve the additional, longer-term reductions in red snapper harvest and bycatch needed to end overfishing of red snapper. *Comment 2:* Many respondents suggested the rule violated national standard 2 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. One respondent also suggested the rule violated national standards 4, 7, and 8. These national standards require fishery conservation and management measures be based upon the best scientific information available (national standard 2); be fair and equitable, promote conservation, and allow no one to have excessive shares in a fishery (national standard 4); minimize costs and avoid unnecessary duplication, where practicable (national standard 7); and, in achieving the conservation requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, sustain the participation of and minimize adverse economic impacts to fishing communities to the extent practicable (national standard 8). *Response:* NMFS has determined these interim measures and associated analytical documents comply with all Magnuson-Stevens Act national standards, as well as with all other applicable laws and regulations. The scientific data and information underlying the need for action was independently peer reviewed through the Southeast Data and Assessment Review (SEDAR) process, and certified by NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) and the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee as the best scientific information available. The interim measures promote conservation by addressing overfishing for the 2007 fishing season, and are fair and equitable because they apply to fishery participants in all coastal states of the Gulf of Mexico. Differences in the measures applicable to the commercial and recreational sectors of the directed red snapper fishery, and the bases for the measures applicable to the shrimp fishery, are discussed in further detail below. (See, e.g., responses to Comments 14 and 17-19.) These interim measures also minimize costs to fisheries participants to the extent practicable while meeting national standard 1 requirements to reduce overfishing, and minimize to the extent practicable the unavoidable costs and adverse economic impacts associated with reducing red snapper mortality in the Gulf of Mexico. Addressing overfishing in the 2007 season will help to avoid more severe harvest reductions to end overfishing between 2008 and 2010. *Comment 3:* Many respondents disagreed with the conclusions of the red snapper stock assessment on which the interim measures are based, stating red snapper fishing is improving and the stock appears healthy, particularly in the northeastern Gulf. Specific criticisms of the assessment stated the assessment does not take into account the full contribution of artificial reefs to stock productivity; overestimates bycatch in the recreational fishery; and does not account for post-settlement, density-dependent mortality. *Response:* The 2005 red snapper stock assessment was conducted and reviewed using the SEDAR process, which is a cooperative fishery management council process initiated in 2002 to improve the quality and reliability of fishery stock assessments in the Gulf of Mexico and other Southeast fishery management council regions. SEDAR emphasizes constituent and stakeholder participation in assessment development, transparency in the assessment process, and a rigorous and independent scientific review of completed stock assessments. Council, NMFS, and state agency representatives, as well as affected fishermen, academics, and environmental non-governmental organizations participated in the 2005 red snapper SEDAR process, and all decisions were reached by consensus. Each SEDAR involves a series of three workshops--data, assessment, and review. Each workshop is open to the public and noticed in advance through the **Federal Register** . The reports produced during the SEDAR workshops document in detail key findings regarding data usage and assessment methodology and were formally peer reviewed during the SEDAR Review Workshop in April 2005. The SEDAR Review panel identified the results of the red snapper stock assessment as the best scientific information available. Additionally, the SEDAR Review panel provided a series of recommendations including additional data needs to improve future assessments. An additional endorsement of the stock assessment came from the Gulf Council's Joint Standing and Special Reef Fish/Mackerel/Spiny Lobster Scientific and Statistical Committee who recognized the assessment as the best available science during their July 5-6, 2005, meeting. The 2005 red snapper SEDAR assessment supports the observation made by fishermen that stock biomass is increasing in the eastern Gulf. However, stock biomass remains far below the minimum threshold (i.e., overfished) and fishing mortality continues to exceed the maximum sustainable level defined in the red snapper rebuilding plan (i.e., overfishing). The assessment examined differences in the eastern and western components of the fishery, which are divided by the Mississippi River delta, and found that, although the eastern portion of the stock is in slightly better condition than is the western portion, red snapper is still significantly overfished in both regions. SEDAR participants discussed and addressed, to the extent possible, the potential impacts of artificial reefs on stock productivity and recruitment, as well as issues related to each of the other criticisms described above. The rationale for their decisions on each of these issues is provided in the SEDAR 07 working papers and reports, which can be accessed online at: *http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/Sedar_Workshops.jsp?WorkshopNum=07* . *Comment 4:* Several respondents suggested either the “linked” or “delinked” bycatch reduction scenarios be used in determining the rebuilding strategy. Others indicated estimates of bycatch from the recreational fishery were overestimated by the stock assessment. *Response:* Estimates of maximum sustainable yield
(MSY)and stock size that allows harvest at MSY, are contingent on mortality (including bycatch mortality) from the directed red snapper and shrimp trawl fisheries. The “linked” scenario requires an equal reduction in fishing mortality across all sources of mortality (i.e., directed fishery, closed season bycatch, and shrimp trawl bycatch), while the “de-linked” scenario does not require an equal reduction and allows fishery managers to establish individual mortality reduction goals for one or more sources of mortality. These decisions then define how much of a reduction of mortality is required in the remaining sectors, and enable fishery managers to hold each sector accountable for achieving its specific mortality reduction objective. NMFS is encouraging the Council to explore the pros and cons of “linking” and “de-linking” the various sources of red snapper mortality. However, such a decision is beyond the scope of this temporary rule, the objective of which is to address overfishing on a temporary basis while the Council develops a strategy to end overfishing of the stock in compliance with the red snapper rebuilding plan and the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Estimates of red snapper recreational fishery discards were reviewed through the SEDAR process and have been determined to be the best available science (see response to Comment 3). During the SEDAR data workshop, discard estimates based on the Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey (MRFSS) were reviewed and considered to underestimate total recreational discards. Additionally, there were concerns about estimating discards for headboats and from Texas waters using MRFSS discard estimates or other studies. Therefore, the red snapper stock assessment estimated recreational and commercial discards using predicted length composition of the catch, and discards were primarily attributed to the minimum size limit. *Comment 5:* Many comments suggested the interim measures should reduce the total allowable catch
(TAC)of red snapper to 6 million lb (2.72 million kg) or less to end overfishing as soon as possible. *Response:* The 6.5-million lb (2.95-million kg) TAC implemented through this final rule is intended to reduce overfishing of the red snapper stock on a temporary basis, specifically for the 2007 fishing season, while the Council develops a strategy to end overfishing of the stock in compliance with the red snapper rebuilding plan and the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The chosen TAC is designed to minimize to the extent practicable the unavoidable adverse impacts of reducing red snapper mortality during a time when Gulf fisheries are recovering from the adverse effects of two particularly severe hurricane seasons. While a lower TAC and more restrictive management measures will be required in the future to end overfishing on schedule, NMFS believes that a 6.0 million-lb (2.7 million-kg) TAC is not necessary for purposes of this final rule and that longer-term management measures should, as appropriate, be developed through the Council process, which provides additional mechanisms for consulting with affected user groups. *Comment 6:* One comment suggested red snapper TAC reductions should be phased in to the level needed to end overfishing. *Response:* The red snapper TAC implemented through this final rule will reduce, rather than end, overfishing. The TAC will need to be reduced below 6.5 million lb (2.95 million kg) in the coming years to end overfishing on schedule. *Comment 7:* Some respondents suggested closing the directed red snapper (commercial and recreational) and shrimp fisheries to allow the red snapper stock to recover. *Response:* Closing the red snapper and shrimp fisheries would be inconsistent with the national standard 1 mandate to achieve the optimum yield from each U.S. fishery and the national standard 8 mandate to minimize to the extent practicable adverse economic impacts on fishing communities because such action would exceed that required to meet the red snapper conservation objective. *Comment 8:* Some respondents questioned why TAC was being reduced in the final rule rather than creating seasonal or area closures to protect spawning aggregations. They indicated fishing for red snapper should be closed in areas and at those times when red snapper are known to spawn. *Response:* Area closures were considered but rejected by the Council as a management tool for Amendment 14/27 (a joint amendment to the Shrimp and Reef Fish FMPs). Using this management technique in this final rule would be limited to the 2007 fishing season and would therefore result in marginal gains for the stock should the Council not adopt these measures in future actions. The Council is considering reductions in length of the recreational fishing season in Amendment 14/27. The final rule does not reduce the length of the fishing season because other management measures accomplish the necessary reductions in harvest. However, the Council may choose to reconsider seasonal and area closures if public comment or other information suggests these are the preferred management strategies. *Comment 9:* Several respondents suggested fishing seasons should be modified to one of the following: 1) a short time period for commercial and recreational fishermen that avoids the red snapper breeding season, 2) alternating months or opening portions of months for the recreational fishery, 3) a shorter commercial season concurrent with the recreational season, or 4) different seasons between the eastern and western Gulf. *Response:* NMFS evaluated numerous alternatives, including various seasonal closures, to constrain the recreational red snapper fishery to the 2007 allocation implemented through this final rule. The range of alternative seasons considered was intended to preserve, if possible, a core season of May 15 to August 15. Many comments received on this rule during public testimony suggested that recreational fishermen would prefer methods other than changing the current fishing season to reduce fishing effort. The Council will examine recreational fishing regulations in Amendment 14/27. Consequently, if the core season can no longer be preserved, or if public comments request the Council to preserve different core seasons in the eastern and western Gulf, then the Council could re-examine these and other seasonal closure alternatives in developing a plan to end overfishing of red snapper in compliance with the red snapper rebuilding plan and the Magnuson-Stevens Act. NMFS did not evaluate seasonal closure alternatives for the commercial red snapper fishery because the mortality rate of that fishery is managed in season through an individual fishing quota
(IFQ)program. This program was implemented in part to eliminate the derby fishery conditions that had developed in response to short fishing seasons. IFQ programs intend to control total annual harvest by enabling fishery managers to track and limit the landings of each individual program participant. *Comment 10:* Two respondents suggested that because red snapper have been successfully raised in captivity, aquaculture should be used to augment red snapper stocks, instead of implementing further harvest restrictions. *Response:* Because stock enhancement through aquaculture is a longer-term alternative to address overfishing, it is beyond the scope of this rule to reduce overfishing of the red snapper stock on a temporary basis, for the 2007 fishing season. However, NOAA supports creation of environmentally sound and economically sustainable aquaculture opportunities. The Generic Amendment for Offshore Aquaculture, currently under development by the Council, in collaboration with NMFS, would provide a similar framework for regulating offshore aquaculture of federally managed species, including red snapper, in Federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico. Additionally, a multi-year grant awarded to the Gulf of Mexico Marine Stock Enhancement Program by NMFS in 2003 is funding research for red snapper stock enhancement possibilities. *Comment 11:* Some respondents suggested the economic and social value of both the recreational and commercial sectors should be considered in setting TAC. Some comments indicated current allocation of TAC should be changed so the recreational fishery receives a higher percentage. Several respondents were concerned TAC reductions will have an adverse economic effect on charter fishermen and businesses dependent on offshore fishing. *Response:* Changes to the current methodology for allocating red snapper TAC between the commercial and recreational sectors are outside the scope of this rule, which is intended only to reduce overfishing of the red snapper stock on a temporary basis, for the 2007 fishing season. However, the Council is developing an amendment to address the allocation of different reef fish species and may include red snapper. The Council has established a working group with the SEFSC to examine harvest allocation between fishing sectors. Best available survey and modeling results indicate relatively few trip cancellations are expected to occur as a result of this action. Most survey respondents indicated when faced with a reduced red snapper bag limit, they would either continue fishing for red snapper or fish for another species. This change in fishing behavior may generate distributional effects (i.e., the substituted trip may occur from a different port, different mode, or in a different season, resulting in one port/season losing while another gains). These distributional effects, however, cannot be predicted with current data. *Comment 12:* Many respondents suggested the current four-fish bag limit should not be reduced because high fuel prices have reduced recreational fishing effort, and, therefore, no further actions need to be taken to constrain red snapper harvest. Other respondents suggested other alternatives to the two-fish bag limit should be considered to reduce bycatch and minimize adverse economic harm to the recreational fishery. Suggested measures included a bag limit of the first four or five red snapper of any size caught per day, a recreational IFQ program, eliminating fishing tournaments other than catch and release, developing a size-based daily points system, setting a red snapper slot limit, restricting the number of trips an angler may take, and establishing more artificial reefs. *Response:* In managing the recreational fishery so harvest is constrained to the recreational quota, NMFS has employed bag limits, size limits, and seasonal closures. Assuming some reduction in recreational effort due to hurricanes and increased fuel prices, the combined effect of reducing the recreational bag limit from four to two fish and prohibiting a captain and crew bag limit for for-hire vessels should control effort sufficiently to ensure the recreational fishery remains within the 2007 quota of 3.185 million lb (1.445 million kg). When combining these two measures, the recreational fishery would be allowed to maintain its current 194-day recreational fishing season (April 21 - October 31). To maintain a four-fish bag limit, the fishing season would need to be reduced. Testimony from many fishermen suggested they would prefer a reduction to the bag limit than a reduction in season length. Alternative management strategies suggested above other than bag limits could create confusion for anglers should the Council adopt different measures in Amendment 14/27, which considers red snapper management beyond 2007. Other measures suggested above, such as retaining the first four or five fish caught, were considered but rejected because preliminary analyses indicated these regulations would increase total recreational fishing mortality Gulf-wide and across all modes, thus slowing recovery. Measures that slow recovery also have negative long-term economic consequences. However, the Council may choose to consider these alternatives in Amendment 14/27 to assist in ending overfishing and continue the recovery of the red snapper stock. *Comment 13:* Many respondents suggested that prohibiting the captain and crew of for-hire vessels from retaining the recreational bag limit contributes little to reductions in recreational fishing mortality, and the captain and crew should be able to keep a bag limit. One respondent suggested captain and crew bag limit reductions were already factored into the current fishing regulations when the season was reduced by six days to account for the cancellation of a zero-bag limit for captain and crew in 2000. *Response:* Analyses indicated that prohibiting captain and crew of for-hire vessels from retaining the recreational bag limit would reduce red snapper landings by approximately 2 percent. This action, coupled with the reduction in the recreational bag limit to two fish allows the fishing season to remain at its current length of 194 days (from April 21-October 31). Many for-hire fishermen indicated they would be willing to give up their bag limit if the current season was maintained. Additionally, this measure would also increase consistency among regulations and make them more equitable. Within the reef fish fishery, captain and crew of for-hire vessels are not allowed to keep bag limits of grouper and captain and crew of commercial vessels are not allowed to keep reef fish bag limits if commercial quantities of reef fish are onboard. While NMFS did reduce the recreational fishing season by six days in 2000 to allow the captain and crew of for-hire vessels to maintain their bag limits, these measures were put in place based on a 1999 stock assessment. The measures considered in this final rule are based on the 2005 stock assessment using new and updated data. Thus the condition of the stock has been reevaluated, and the measures in this final rule are based on this updated assessment. *Comment 14:* Many respondents indicated reducing the minimum size limit should also be applied to the recreational fishery. They suggested not doing so will adversely affect stock recovery, enhance user conflict, and would not be fair and equitable. Some suggested commercial fishermen should be restricted to fishing in deeper water to reduce conflict between fisheries. One respondent suggested data used to assess the potential commercial discard reductions was based on only one study having a limited sample size and geographic location, while others indicated more research on reduced minimum size limits is needed for the commercial and recreational fisheries to determine if in fact this type of measure decreases bycatch. Further, one respondent suggested reductions in bycatch resulting from lowering of the commercial minimum size to 13 inches (33 cm) will not work because commercial fishermen will not change their current fishing practices. *Response:* This final rule is implemented under the provision of section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act that provides for interim measures needed to reduce overfishing. Reducing the commercial minimum size limit from 15 to 13 inches (38 to 33 cm) reduces overfishing because 71-82 percent of the fish discarded by commercial fishermen do not survive. However, while reducing the recreational minimum size limit would reduce bycatch, it would not reduce overfishing, because the discard mortality rate in the recreational fishery is relatively low (15-40 percent); therefore, a greater proportion of the fish discarded by recreational fishermen survive. Thus, reductions in the recreational minimum size limit were not adopted in this rule. The Council is currently considering a reduction in the recreational size limit and other strategies to reduce bycatch in the recreational red snapper fishery while developing long-term measures to end overfishing of red snapper in compliance with the red snapper rebuilding plan and Magnuson-Stevens Act. Differences in minimum size limits may potentially result in user conflicts. Recreational fishermen have expressed concern commercial fishermen could reduce the number of fish available to anglers at known fishing areas. However, the interim measures in this rule are designed to reduce overfishing for the 2007 season. If the Council determines the difference in the commercial and recreational minimum size limit results in a conflict between the sectors, then the Council could explore alternatives, such as restrictions on depth fished, to minimize or eliminate that conflict. With respect to measures in this final rule not being fair and equitable between the recreational and commercial sectors, percent reductions in quota are equivalent. However, because the fisheries are prosecuted differently, alternative measures are needed to constrain harvest to each fishery's respective quota. For the commercial fishery, data used to assess the potential discard reductions was based on two studies. One was empirical sampling of 16 commercial vessels off Louisiana. The other used data from the 2005 stock assessment, which was Gulf-wide. The trends from both studies were similar, with the results from the empirical study showing a slightly higher discard rate than the Gulf-wide study. However, in describing discard rates of undersized fish, results from both studies provided a potential range in discard reductions relative to different minimum size limits. More research is needed to evaluate discard mortality in both the commercial and recreational fisheries. Discussion in the SEDAR data workshop recognized the limitation of information on the fate of discarded red snapper. Rather than using direct estimates from the fishery, the SEDAR assessment panel chose to estimate recreational discards internally by the assessment model. Further, discard mortality research was identified in the SEDAR process as an important component for the next assessment. With regards to reducing discard mortality in the commercial fishery by changing fishing practices, reductions in minimum size do not affect discard mortality rates once fish have been released. However, reducing the commercial minimum size limit does reduce the overall number of discards by the fishery because a greater number of fish, which would have been discarded under the current 15-inch (38-cm) size limit, will be retained under the 13-inch (33-cm) size limit and counted against the commercial quota. If the Council determines further reductions in discard mortality may be achieved through changing fishing practices, the Council may evaluate alternatives in future actions. *Comment 15:* Several comments indicated NMFS should include in the temporary rule requirements for gear that would decrease reef fish fishery bycatch and mortality such as circle hooks, larger hooks, less hooks, venting tools, and de-hookers. Two respondents suggested mandatory classes should be taught to charter vessel captains and crew on how to properly de-hook, vent, and release fish to reduce bycatch mortality. *Response:* The rule addresses bycatch of red snapper to the extent practicable given the temporary duration of this final rule. NMFS evaluated alternative gear restrictions that could achieve additional bycatch reduction in the directed red snapper fisheries, but determined it is not practicable to implement, on an interim basis, measures that would require fishermen to invest in new gear or equipment, such as circle hooks and de-hooking devices. If such measures are adopted as part of the Council's longer-term strategy for ending overfishing, then NMFS will consider alternative strategies for educating fishermen about how to comply with these requirements, including public workshops. *Comment 16:* Two comments questioned economic analyses of the charter fishery in the EIS for the temporary rule. Specifically, these responders asked why there exists a wide variance of economic conditions between west Florida and other Gulf states (in particular Alabama), and why the analyses examine excess capacity when in all likelihood the fishery will never reach overcapacity. *Response:* There are several market characteristics that separate the charter fisheries in these two states. On average, Florida vessels are smaller, have smaller horsepower, have lower maximum passenger capacity, and take fewer passengers per trip than Alabama vessels. Additionally, increased competition created by the larger number of vessels in Florida may reduce profits. Because of the size and location of Alabama, in the event of closure of Federal waters off Alabama, anglers can easily relocate their fishing to another location (e.g., Florida or Mississippi). Relocation from Florida, however, would be much more costly for the average angler, other than those fishing from the Florida Panhandle near Alabama, because of the extensive coastline and distance required to fish an alternative site. Additionally, the wider variety of species available to a Florida angler would be expected to make fishing in Florida more attractive than fishing in Alabama. The fact that bag limit reductions and seasonal restrictions are necessary to constrain the recreational sector to allowable harvest levels demonstrates that the recreational sector has the capacity to harvest more than the target threshold for this fishery. *Comment 17:* Many comments specified shrimp trawl bycatch must be minimized by 50 to 80 percent to allow red snapper stocks to recover. *Response:* This final rule will establish a target reduction goal for shrimp trawl bycatch mortality on red snapper that is 50 percent less than the benchmark years of 2001-2003. This target reflects the level of effort documented in 2005 in areas where red snapper are abundant in the western Gulf, compared to the level of effort during the benchmark years. It does not meet the 74-percent target mortality reduction level necessary to rebuild the red snapper stock to a spawning potential ratio of 26 percent. However, preliminary information for 2006 suggests shrimp trawl effort has continued to decline in offshore waters of the western Gulf. Therefore, similar to the directed red snapper fishery, shrimp trawl effort for 2006 and 2007 is likely to be less than the level of effort documented during 2005 in areas where red snapper are commonly taken. Additional bycatch mortality reduction is expected from the introduction of new bycatch reduction devices
(BRDs)under a pending revision to the certification criterion for BRDs. In combination, NMFS estimates red snapper bycatch mortality attributable to the shrimp fishery over the next few years may closely approximate the needed percent reductions in shrimp bycatch mortality from the benchmark years of 2001-2003. *Comment 18:* Several comments indicated that seasonal and area closures should be established for shrimp trawls to reduce juvenile red snapper bycatch in the shrimp fishery, particularly in the 10-30 fathom depth range. Several commenters desired the establishment of a red snapper conservation zone consisting of waters at 10-30 fathoms west of Cape San Blas, Florida, in which effort in the shrimp fishery would be capped at an appropriate level to reduce red snapper bycatch. *Response:* In addressing long-term management strategies to control shrimp trawl bycatch mortality of red snapper, the Council may choose seasonal or area closures in Amendment 14/27. However, the reduction target in the temporary rule discussed above will provide NMFS with interim means to immediately address shrimp trawl bycatch in 2007. NMFS intends to provide the Council with 2006 shrimp trawl effort information in 2007. If shrimp effort for 2006 is above the target, the Council could take further action in 2007, if necessary, to maintain the proposed reductions in shrimp effort in areas of the western Gulf where red snapper are most abundant. The EIS for this temporary rule evaluated a number of seasonal closure alternatives designed to reduce red snapper bycatch in the shrimp trawl fishery, but shrimp effort levels are such that they are unlikely to exceed the target reduction goal for 2007 set in this temporary rule. Therefore, they were not considered practicable for the temporary rule. The Council is currently evaluating the potential benefits of additional alternatives in Shrimp Amendment 15 that would establish seasonal or fixed closures in areas identified through a review of recent literature and ongoing research programs. Three of these areas are located off the coast of Texas, one is located south of Mobile, and one is located west of the Mississippi Delta. *Comment 19:* One comment suggested long-term measures to restrict shrimp bycatch should not be considered in the temporary rule, and long-term measures incorporating recommendations of the Council's Ad Hoc Shrimp Effort Advisory Panel should be followed and implemented through Joint Amendments 14/27 and 15/31. *Response:* Long-term measures to manage shrimp fishing effort in relation to the target red snapper bycatch mortality reduction goal are needed. For 2007, anticipated declines in effort from external factors are expected to meet or exceed the 50-percent reduction target level. However, should effort increase and exceed the 50-percent threshold, NMFS can implement, through future action, time or area closures or both. In developing Amendment 14/27, the Council will evaluate long-term measures to restrict shrimp bycatch. The Council will take into consideration recommendations of the Council's Ad Hoc Shrimp Effort Advisory Panel. *Comment 20:* Several comments were received that were beyond the scope of the temporary rule, and, therefore, NMFS did not provide responses. However, NMFS will consider these comments, as appropriate, in evaluating the need for future rulemaking. The purpose of this temporary rule is to reduce overfishing of the red snapper stock on a temporary basis, for the 2007 fishing season, while the Council develops a strategy to end overfishing of the stock in compliance with the red snapper rebuilding plan and the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Comments outside the scope of the rule included the following suggestions for longer-term fisheries management:
(1)create a voluntary buyout program to reduce overcapitalization in the commercial red snapper fishery;
(2)increase enforcement in the commercial and recreational red snapper fisheries;
(3)redistribute IFQ shares among commercial and recreational red snapper fishermen;
(4)change fishing practices in the IFQ program;
(5)create a buyout program for the shrimp fleet;
(6)implement a moratorium on shrimp permits; and
(7)close large areas of the Gulf to shrimp fishing. Recent Court Ruling On March 12, 2007, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, issued a ruling on legal challenges to the current red snapper rebuilding plan contained in Amendment 22 to the FMP for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico ( *Coastal Conservation Association* v. *Gutierrez et al.* , Case No. H-05-1214, consolidated with *Gulf Restoration Network et al.* , v. *Gutierrez et al.* , Case No. H-05-2998). The Court required a new rebuilding plan within the next 9 months. However, the Court also ordered that status quo, i.e., implementation of Amendment 22, be maintained during the pendancy of the remand. Amendment 22 explicitly stated that additional measures would likely be necessary to end overfishing of red snapper consistent with the then upcoming stock assessment. This rule implementing interim measures necessary to reduce overfishing as provided under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act would reduce overfishing for 2007 and increase the likelihood of achieving Amendment 22's target for ending overfishing. Future Action NMFS finds that this temporary rule is necessary to reduce overfishing of red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico. NMFS issues this temporary rule, effective for not more than 180 days, as authorized by section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This temporary rule may be extended for an additional 186 days, as authorized by section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act, provided the public has had an opportunity to comment on the rule and provided that the Council is actively preparing proposed regulations to address overfishing of Gulf red snapper on a permanent basis. Public comments requested on the proposed temporary rule (71 FR 75220) will be considered in determining whether to maintain or extend this rule to address overfishing of red snapper. The Council is preparing an amendment to address, on a permanent basis, red snapper overfishing issues that are the subject of this rule. Classification The Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS,
(RA)has determined that the interim measures this final rule will implement are necessary for the conservation and management of the Gulf red snapper fishery. The RA has also determined that this rule is consistent with the national standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws. This final rule has been determined to be significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. NMFS prepared an FEIS for this action. The FEIS was filed with the Environmental Protection Agency on December 22, 3006. A notice of availability was published on December 29, 2006 (71 FR 78427). NMFS issued a ROD on March 5, 2007. A copy of the ROD is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ). NMFS prepared a FRFA, as required by section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, for this final rule. The FRFA describes the economic impact this final rule is expected to have on small entities and incorporates the IRFA, comments received on the IRFA and the economic impact of the rule, and NMFS' responses to those comments. A succinct statement of the need for and objectives of the action are contained in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. A copy of the full analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ). A summary of the FRFA follows. This final rule will reduce total allowable catch
(TAC)and the resultant commercial and recreational quotas in the red snapper fishery, lower the recreational red snapper bag limit to 2 fish, lower the red snapper bag limit for captain and crew of a vessel operating as a charter vessel or headboat to 0 fish, reduce the red snapper minimum size limit in the commercial fishery to 13 inches (33 cm), and establish a reduction goal for red snapper bycatch mortality in the commercial shrimp fishery. The purpose of this action is to reduce overfishing of the red snapper stock on a temporary basis, for the 2007 fishing season, while the Council develops a comprehensive plan to reduce directed and incidental red snapper fishing mortality rates in the red snapper and shrimp fisheries. The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for the final temporary rule. Several comments on the economic impact of the rule were received from the public in response to the proposed rule. For the reasons described in the responses to these comments above, no changes were made in the final rule as a result of these comments. These comments raised issues regarding the economic impacts of the proposed TAC reduction on the charter fishermen and businesses dependent on offshore fishing. Best available survey and modeling results indicate that relatively few trip cancellations are expected to occur as a result of this action. Most survey respondents indicated that when faced with a reduced red snapper bag limit, they would either continue fishing for red snapper or fish for another species. Fishing for other species may generate distributional effects (i.e., the trips may occur from different ports, modes, or seasons, resulting in one port/entity/season losing business while another gains). These distributional effects, however, cannot be predicted with current data. This final rule is expected to impact red snapper commercial fishers and for-hire operators, and reef fish dealers and processors participating in the red snapper trade. This final rule also contains actions that apply to the commercial shrimp fishery. However, the shrimp fishery actions either maintain the status quo or otherwise accommodate current fishery conditions, such that no direct impacts are expected to accrue at this time. Nevertheless, a description of the entities in the shrimp fishery is included in the following discussion. The Small Business Administration
(SBA)has established size criteria for all major industry sectors in the U.S. including fish harvesters, for-hire operations, fish processors, and fish dealers. A business involved in fish harvesting is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined average annual receipts not in excess of $4.0 million (NAICS code 114111, finfish fishing) for all affiliated operations worldwide. For for-hire operations, the other qualifiers apply and the annual receipts threshold is $6.5 million (NAICS code 713990, recreational industries). For seafood processor and dealers, rather than a receipts threshold, the SBA uses an employee threshold of 500 or fewer persons on a full-time, part-time, temporary, or other basis, at all affiliated operations for a seafood processor and 100 or fewer persons for a seafood dealer. Just prior to the implementation of the red snapper individual fishing quota
(IFQ)program on January 1, 2007, 136 entities held Class 1 licenses that allowed a commercial vessel trip limit of up to 2,000 lb (907 kg) of red snapper and 628 entities held Class 2 licenses that allowed a trip limit of up to 200 lb (91 kg) of red snapper. Between 2002 and 2004, the top 50 red snapper vessels harvested a total of 2.77 million lb (1.26 million kg) of red snapper, on average, or 64 percent of the industry total. Vessels ranked 51 to 131 harvested 1.29 million lb (0.58 million kg), on average, or 30 percent of the industry total for the same period. In total, the top 131 vessels accounted for approximately 94 percent of the total red snapper commercial landings. Red snapper are mainly harvested by vertical line fishermen, who accounted for approximately 90 percent of commercial red snapper Gulf harvests, on average, between 2002 and 2004. Reported average annual gross receipts (2004 dollars) of commercial reef fish vessels in the Gulf range from $24,095 for low-volume vertical line vessels to $116,989 for high-volume longline vessels. Annual net incomes range from $4,479 for low-volume vertical line vessels to $28,466 for high-volume vertical line vessels. Some fleet activity is known to exist in the commercial red snapper fishery, but the extent of such activity is unknown. The maximum number of reef fish permits reported owned by the same person/entity is six permits. Additional permits (and the revenues associated with those permits) may be linked to an entity through affiliation rules, but such affiliation links cannot be made using existing data. A definitive determination of whether any commercial entities would be considered large entities cannot be made using average income information. However, based on the size and value of the commercial red snapper fishery (an average of 4.336 million lb (1.967 million kg) and $11.652 million ex-vessel revenue per year, 2002-2004), the number of participants in the fishery, the summary statistics provided above, and the maximum number of permits owned by a single entity, NMFS determined, for the purpose of this assessment, that all commercial reef fish harvest entities that would be affected by this final rule are small entities. Currently, 1,625 vessels are estimated to possess the required Federal permit to operate in the Gulf reef fish for-hire fishery. Fleet behavior also exists in this sector, with at least one entity reported to hold 12 permits. The bulk of the fishery, however, consists of single-permit operations. The for-hire fleet is comprised of charterboats, which charge a fee on a vessel basis, and headboats, which charge a fee on an individual angler
(head)basis. The average charterboat is estimated to generate $76,960 in annual revenues and $36,758 in annual profits, whereas the appropriate values for the average headboat are $404,172 and $338,209, respectively. The calculation of profits does not include fixed and other non-operating expenses, which tend to be higher for headboats. Based on the average revenue figures, it is determined, for the purpose of this assessment, that all for-hire operations that will be affected by this final rule are small entities. The measures in this final rule are also expected to affect fish dealers that handle red snapper. Two hundred and twenty-seven dealers currently have the required Federal permit to buy and sell commercial reef fish species. All processors would be included in this total since all processors must be dealers. From 1997-2002, an average of 154 dealers purchased red snapper from commercial vessels. Average employment information per reef fish dealer is unknown. Although dealers and processors are not synonymous entities, reported total employment for reef fish processors in the Southeast is estimated to be approximately 700 individuals, both part and full time. While all processors must be dealers, a dealer need not be a processor. Further, processing is a much more labor-intensive exercise than dealing. Therefore, given the total employment estimate for the processing sector (700 persons), the total number of dealers recently operating in the red snapper fishery (154), and the total number of permitted reef fish dealers, NMFS concludes that the average number of employees per dealer and the average number of employees per processor would be unlikely to surpass the SBA employment benchmark and, for the purpose of this analysis, NMFS determined that all red snapper dealers and processors that will be affected by this final rule are small entities. Beginning on March 26, 2007, a moratorium permit will be required to shrimp in Federal waters of the Gulf. Although it is unknown how many eligible applicants will apply for a moratorium permit, 2,666 vessels could qualify for the shrimp permit and are assumed to constitute the potential affected universe of shrimp vessels. The average annual gross revenue (from all fishing activity) per qualifying vessel in 2005 was approximately $116,000, while the comparable figure for active qualifying vessels (vessels with recorded shrimp harvests) is approximately $152,000. In the same year, the maximum annual gross revenue from shrimp by a vessel was approximately $757,000 for both all qualifying and active qualifying vessels, whereas the maximum annual gross revenue from all harvest activities was approximately $1.89 million by an inactive qualifier and $757,000 for an active qualifier. This indicates that the inactive qualifier found activity in other fisheries more lucrative than participation in the shrimp fishery, whereas the most active qualifier operated exclusively in the shrimp fishery. Fleet activity is also known to exist in the commercial shrimp fishery, but the magnitude of such activity cannot be determined with available data. Given these findings, for the purpose of this analysis, NMFS determined that all Gulf shrimp vessels are small entities. In 2005, 609 dealers were identified operating in the commercial shrimp fishery. Employment information for this sector is not available. In 2004, 61 shrimp processors were identified, employing approximately 3,700 persons, or an average of 61 employees per entity. Similar to the finfish sector, shrimp processing is more labor intensive than dealing, so average employment in the shrimp dealer sector is assumed to be less than that in the processing sector. Since the average employment per entity does not exceed the SBA threshold, NMFS determined, for this analysis, that all Gulf shrimp dealers and processors are small entities. This final rule does not change current reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements under either the Reef Fish or Shrimp FMPs. Preexisting requirements include qualification criteria for vessel permits and participation in data collection programs if selected by NMFS. All of the information elements required for these processes are standard elements essential to the successful operation of a fishing business and should, therefore, already be collected and maintained as standard operating practice by the business. The requirements do not require professional skills that fishery participants do not already possess. This final rule is expected to affect all vessels that operate in the commercial Gulf red snapper fishery, all vessels that have a Federal reef fish for-hire permit, and all reef fish dealers and processors. All such entities have been determined, for the purpose of this analysis, to be small entities. Therefore, NMFS determined that the final rule will affect a substantial number of small entities. Commercial red snapper fishing vessels, for-hire operations, and red snapper dealers are expected to bear the primary burden of the actions in the final rule that pertain to red snapper, though spill-over impacts would be expected in associated industries, such as marinas and fishery suppliers. The net result of the combined TAC reduction and commercial minimum size limit decrease for the commercial red snapper fishery is expected to be an approximate 28-percent decline in net revenues, or approximately $7.0 million. Although over 750 entities were recently permitted to operate in the commercial red snapper fishery, 131 vessels accounted for approximately 94 percent of the red snapper harvests from 2002-2005, which had an average ex-vessel value of approximately $11.18 million out of total average annual ex-vessel revenues for all fishing activity by these entities of approximately $17.34 million. Since most commercial red snapper fishing entities operate in multiple fisheries, the projected $7.0 million reduction in net revenues captures lost revenue for all species. During 2002-2005, the top 50 harvesters in the commercial red snapper fishery averaged approximately $144,000 in ex-vessel revenue per year out of total finfish revenues of approximately $211,000, indicating approximately 68 percent of the total revenues came from red snapper. The second tier vessels averaged approximately $40,000 in red snapper revenues and approximately $84,000 total revenues, or 48 percent of total revenues coming from red snapper. Combined, the top 131 vessels averaged approximately $80,000 per year from red snapper, $132,000 total revenues, and 60 percent of total revenues coming from red snapper. The remaining vessels that landed red snapper accounted for only approximately $700 per vessel per year from red snapper, out of total average revenues of $14,000, or approximately 5 percent from red snapper. Red snapper is most likely not the primary species this third-tier group is targeting for harvest. The TAC reduction is expected to primarily impact operations that target red snapper rather than those that incidentally harvest red snapper. If the entire quota reduction is assumed borne by the top 50 and 131 vessels, respectively, the reduction in net revenues would equate to approximately $140,000 and $53,000 per vessel for the two groups, respectively. Relating these figures to the averages provided in the previous paragraph is difficult because the annual averages represent gross ex-vessel values, whereas the losses represent net values, and the expected losses incorporate an expected increase of approximately $1.14 in the price per pound of red snapper expected to develop as a result of the IFQ program. This price increase equates to a 47.5-percent increase in the average price per pound over 2002-2005 ($11.18 million per year/4.66 million lb (2.11 million kg) = $2.40 per pound; $1.14/$2.40 = 47.5 percent). If the annual average red snapper revenues presented above are inflated by this 47.5-percent factor, the resultant values per vessel are $212,400 in red snapper revenues and $279,400 total revenues for the top 50 vessels, and $118,000 and $170,000 in red snapper and total revenues, respectively, for the top 131 vessels. Because the projected losses include all species harvested, the projected losses ($140,000 and $53,000) equate to approximately 50 percent of total revenues ($140,000/$279,400) for the top 50 vessels and approximately 31 percent of total revenues ($53,000/$170,000) for the top 131 vessels. An alternative perspective is to consider the number of vessels projected to operate under the IFQ program. Under the IFQ program, the commercial red snapper fleet is expected to consolidate to 39-95 vessels, the range determined by whether the fleet gravitates to exclusively larger vessels (39 65-ft (19.8-m) vessels) or small vessels (95 35-ft (10.7-m) vessels). The period of time required to achieve this consolidation is not known, but TAC reduction may accelerate the consolidation. It is noted that any IFQ-related consolidation is voluntary, vessels are compensated for their exit (through sale of their quota shares), and exiting vessels may continue to operate in other fisheries. Under this final rule (i.e., during the 2007 season), the commercial red snapper fleet is projected to consolidate to 28-68 vessels, or 11-27 fewer vessels than the status quo (IFQ final rule), with the range again determined by whether the resultant fleet is primarily large vessels (28 vessels), or small vessels (68 vessels). Average performance of the fleet under the status quo (IFQ final rule) (39-95 vessels) is estimated at approximately $274,000 ($26.0 million over 95 vessels, revenues from all fishing activity) to $667,000 ($26.0 million over 39 vessels) in net revenues. The projected loss of $7.0 million in net revenues under the TAC reduction is expected to reduce these values to approximately $200,000 and $487,000, respectively, or reductions of 27 percent. The for-hire sector is expected to lose approximately 2,000 trips in the charter vessel sector, 643 angler days in the headboat sector, and $43,000 overall for the entire for-hire sector in producer surplus as a result of the final temporary rule. These reductions are not expected to occur uniformly across all operations because some vessels are more active in the red snapper fishery than others. The extent of individual vessel activity, however, cannot be determined with available data. If averaged over the 1,625 vessels active in the for-hire fleet, these reductions amount to fewer than 2 trips and less than $30 per permitted vessel. Related businesses are also expected to lose income from the expenditures associated with the trip losses in the for-hire and private angler sectors as a result of this final rule. These trips, however, represent less than 1 percent of the total effort directed at the species encompassed in the assessment (red snapper as the focus species, and grouper, dolphin, and king mackerel as potential substitute target species). The target bycatch reduction goal for the commercial shrimp fishery is administrative in nature and is not expected to have a direct economic impact on any entities in the shrimp fishery or associated sectors. Five alternatives, including the preferred alternative and the status quo, were considered for the action to set TAC in the red snapper fishery. Three of the alternatives contained multiple options and sub-options to manage the recreational fishery under the respective TAC. The first alternative, the status quo, would not have achieved progress towards eliminating overfishing, and would increase the necessary reduction in subsequent years to allow the resource to continue on the designated recovery path, thereby increasing the subsequent year short-term adverse economic impacts relative to the final temporary rule, and would not meet NMFS objectives. The second alternative would have reduced the red snapper TAC to 7.0 million lb (3.2 million kg). Although this alternative has the potential of generating, depending upon the sub-option selected, lower first-year adverse economic impacts than the 6.5 million lb (3.0 million kg) TAC, this TAC would require greater TAC reduction in subsequent years, with greater adverse economic impacts in subsequent years than the final temporary rule. The third alternative would have reduced the red snapper TAC to 6.0 million lb (2.7 million kg). This alternative would be expected to result in greater short-term adverse economic impacts, ranging from losses in economic value (consumer and producer surplus) in the overall recreational sector of approximately $16.0 million to $27.0 million and a loss of approximately $8.5 million in net revenues in the commercial sector, than the final temporary rule, which is expected to result in a reduction of consumer and producer surplus of approximately $15.0 million in the recreational sector and a reduction in net revenues of $7.0 million in the commercial sector. The fourth alternative would have reduced the red snapper TAC to 5.0 million lb (2.3 million kg). This alternative would be expected to result in greater short-term adverse economic impacts, ranging from losses in economic value in the recreational sector of approximately $23.0 million to $25.0 million and a loss of approximately $11.5 million in net revenues in the commercial sector, than the final temporary rule. Two alternatives, the preferred alternative and the status quo, were considered for the action to set the captain and crew red snapper bag limit. The status quo would be expected to decrease the ability of meeting harvest reduction targets and would have required more restrictive measures on recreational anglers, resulting in increased adverse economic impacts relative to the final rule. Three alternatives, including the preferred alternative and the status quo, were considered for the commercial red snapper minimum size limit. The first alternative, the status quo alternative, would be expected to result in continued unnecessary bycatch mortality and would not, therefore, meet NMFS objectives. The second alternative would eliminate the commercial minimum size limit entirely. Because no commercial market is known to exist for red snapper smaller than 12 inches (30 cm), the expected economic impacts of this alternative and the final rule are very similar. However, maintaining a minimum size limit in the commercial sector, as will be accomplished by the final rule, is expected to generate unquantifiable economic benefits accruing to a perception of greater sector equity and avoidance of user conflict because the final temporary rule will decrease the incentive, relative to no minimum size limit, for commercial operations to move their fishing location to areas where smaller fish congregate. Four alternatives were considered for gear requirements in the red snapper fishery. The final rule (status quo) will not impose any new gear requirements on fishermen and will not result in any direct adverse economic impacts on these entities. Each of the three alternatives to the final temporary rule would be expected to result in greater adverse economic impacts than the final temporary rule as a result of either increased gear costs or reduced operating efficiency. Given the short-term nature of the final temporary rule, these adverse impacts would not be expected to be balanced by the economic benefits of reduced bycatch mortality and improved stock conditions. Thus, each alternative would be expected to increase costs in the fishery without demonstrable benefits and, thus, would not meet NMFS objectives. Three alternatives, including the preferred alternative and the status quo, were considered for the red snapper bycatch mortality reduction target in the commercial shrimp fishery. The status quo would not have established a bycatch reduction target, would not ensure consistent reductions in bycatch fishing mortality of juvenile red snapper in the shrimp fishery, and would not meet NMFS objectives. The second alternative would establish a higher reduction target than the final rule. Although the establishment of a bycatch reduction target is an administrative action with no expected direct adverse economic effects, the higher target exceeds the level of bycatch reduction the fishery has demonstrated to date and would, therefore, be expected to require effort reductions in the commercial shrimp fishery, resulting in greater adverse economic impacts than the final rule. Four alternatives were considered for effort reduction in the commercial shrimp fishery. The final rule (status quo) will not impose any effort controls on the fishery and will not result in any adverse economic impacts on the shrimp fishery or associated businesses. Each of the other alternatives would have imposed effort limitations in the shrimp fishery and would, therefore, be expected to result in greater adverse economic impacts than the final rule, ranging from $7.8 million to $14.8 million reductions in ex-vessel revenues, fishery-wide, and adversely impact 394-863 vessels. Although some behavioral changes would be expected by these vessels to mitigate these losses, the nature of these changes and their net impact cannot be determined. Copies of the FRFA are available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ). Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare an FRFA, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” As part of this rulemaking process, NMFS prepared a fishery bulletin, which also serves as a small entity compliance guide. The fishery bulletin will be sent to all vessel permit holders and permitted dealers in the Gulf red snapper and shrimp fisheries. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d), there is good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effective date for reducing the commercial minimum size limit from 15 inches (38 cm) to 13 inches (33 cm). Reducing the minimum size limit for commercial Gulf red snapper will result in additional legal-sized fish being available to fishers and will help minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality as required by national standard nine of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The current 15-inch (38 cm) minimum size limit results in unnecessarily high levels of red snapper bycatch mortality because most undersized fish are discarded dead. To end overfishing as soon as possible, bycatch and bycatch mortality of undersized red snapper must be curtailed. Prolonging overfishing of the red snapper resource would lead to more severe harvest reductions and associated short-term adverse socioeconomic impacts in the future. For all of these reasons, the 30-day delay of effective date for this measure is waived. List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622 Fisheries, Fishing, Puerto Rico, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Virgin Islands. Dated: March 28, 2007. Samuel D. Rauch III Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is amended as follows: PART 622—FISHERIES OF THE CARIBBEAN, GULF, AND SOUTH ATLANTIC 1. The authority citation for part 622 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* 2. In § 622.37, paragraph (d)(1)(iv) is suspended and paragraph (d)(1)(vi) is added to read as follows: § 622.37 Size limits.
(d)* * *
(1)* * *
(vi)Red snapper—16 inches (40.6 cm), TL, for a fish taken by a person subject to the bag limit specified in § 622.39(b)(1)(iii) and 13 inches (38.1 cm), TL, for a fish taken by a person not subject to the bag limit. 3. In § 622.39, paragraphs (b)(1)(iii) and (b)(1)(v) are suspended and paragraphs (b)(1)(viii) and (b)(1)(ix) are added to read as follows: § 622.39 Bag and possession limits.
(b)* * *
(1)* * *
(viii)Red snapper—2. However, no red snapper may be retained by the captain or crew of a vessel operating as a charter vessel or headboat. The bag limit for such captain and crew is zero.
(ix)Gulf reef fish, combined, excluding those specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i), (ii), (iv), (vi), (vii), and
(viii)of this section and excluding dwarf sand perch and sand perch—20, but not to exceed 10 vermilion snapper. 4. In § 622.42, paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (a)(2) are suspended and paragraphs (a)(1)(v) and (a)(3) are added to read as follows: § 622.42 Quotas.
(a)* * *
(1)* * *
(v)Red snapper—3.315 million lb (1.504 million kg), round weight.
(3)*Recreational quota for red snapper.* The following quota applies to persons who harvest red snapper other than under commercial vessel permits for Gulf reef fish and the commercial quota specified in paragraph (a)(1)(v) of this section—3.185 million lb (1.445 million kg), round weight. [FR Doc. 07-1605 Filed 3-28-07; 1:43 pm]
Connectionstraces to 29
Traces to 29 documents
U.S. Code
26 references not yet in our index
  • 7 CFR 301
  • 7 CFR 301.53-1
  • 7 CFR 3015
  • 7 USC 7701-7772
  • 7 CFR 2.22
  • Pub. L. 106-113
  • Pub. L. 106-224
  • 114 Stat. 400
  • 10 CFR 300
  • 12 CFR 915
  • 12 CFR 915.10
  • 12 CFR 913
  • 12 USC 1422a(a)(3)
  • 14 CFR 39
  • 46 CFR 501
  • 46 CFR 535
  • 46 USC 305
  • 49 CFR 23
  • Pub. L. 109-59
  • 49 CFR 26
  • 42 USC 200d
  • 49 USC 1615
  • Pub. L. 105-178
  • 112 Stat. 107
  • 13 CFR 121
  • 50 CFR 622
Citation graph
cites case law
Unknown
Interim rule and request for comments
U.S.C.§ 553
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 601
Fed. Reg.Notices
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 3501
U.S.C.§ 1421
U.S.C.§ 13385
C.F.R.§ 300.13
Cite7 CFR 301
Cite7 CFR 301.53-1
Cite7 CFR 3015
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.