Notices. Petition for rulemaking; notice of receipt
19,322 words·~88 min read·
/register/2007/04/09/07-1621·A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P 72 67 Monday, April 9, 2007 Proposed Rules NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 73 [Docket No. PRM-73-13] Union of Concerned Scientists; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; notice of receipt. SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)is publishing for public comment a notice of receipt of a petition for rulemaking, dated February 21, 2007, which was filed with the Commission by David Lochbaum, Director, Nuclear Safety Project, on behalf of the Union of Concerned Scientists. The petition was docketed by the NRC on February 23, 2007, and has been assigned Docket No. PRM-73-13. The petitioner requests that the NRC amend its regulations to close a loophole in current regulations that would enable persons who do not meet trustworthiness and reliability standards for unescorted access to protected areas of nuclear power plants the permission to enter protected areas with an unarmed escort. The petitioner believes that current regulations create a security vulnerability that could potentially compromise public health and safety. DATES: Submit comments by June 25, 2007. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before this date. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any one of the following methods. Please include PRM-73-13 in the subject line of your comments. Comments on petitions submitted in writing or in electronic form will be made available for public inspection. Because your comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information, the NRC cautions you against including any information in your submission that you do not want to be publicly disclosed. Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. E-mail comments to: *SECY@nrc.gov.* If you do not receive a reply e-mail confirming that we have received your comments, contact us directly at
(301)415-1966. You may also submit comments via the NRC's rulemaking Web site at *http://ruleforum.llnl.gov.* Address questions about our rulemaking Web site to Carol Gallagher
(301)415-5905; e-mail *cag@nrc.gov.* Comments can also be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal *http://www.regulations.gov.* Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. (Telephone
(301)415-1966). Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at
(301)415-1101. Publicly available documents related to this petition may be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), Room O1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Selected documents, including comments, may be viewed and downloaded electronically via the NRC rulemaking Web site at *http://ruleforum.llnl.gov.* Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC after November 1, 1999, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* From this site, the public can gain entry into the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael T. Lesar, Chief, Rulemaking, Directives and Editing Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Telephone: 301-415-7163 or Toll Free: 800-368-5642. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Petitioner The petitioner is the Union of Concerned Scientists. The petitioner states that it is a nonprofit partnership of scientists and citizens that combines scientific analysis, policy development, and citizen advocacy to achieve practical environmental solutions. In 2002, the Union of Concerned Scientists had 61,300 members. The petitioner states that the Union of Concerned Scientists has been an active participant in the past in public meetings conducted by NRC regarding security regulations, and that the petitioner continues to articulate potential problems and recommended solutions in various public arenas. Background Current regulations at 10 CFR part 73 contain requirements for the physical protection of nuclear power plants and materials. Specifically, §§ 73.55(d), 73.56(b), and 73.57(b) outline procedures for granting access to protected areas of nuclear power plants. Section 73.55 (d)(6) states that a person who has not been granted unescorted access to protected areas may be granted access with an escort. Section 73.56(b) requires that licensees establish and maintain an access authorization program granting individuals unescorted access to protected and vital areas with the objective of providing high assurance that individuals granted unescorted access are trustworthy and reliable. Section 73.57 requires the fingerprinting of persons who have been granted unescorted access. The petitioner states that while current regulations require access control to protected areas, including fingerprinting and background clearances, § 73.55(d)(6) would allow access to protected areas by persons who do not meet trustworthiness and reliability standards for unescorted access to the protected area. The petitioner further states that current regulations enable persons who do not meet trustworthiness and reliability standards for unescorted access to the protected area to be escorted through protected areas by unarmed persons that may not be members of the security force. The petitioner believes that this is a loophole that creates a security vulnerability that could potentially compromise public health and safety. The Proposed Amendments The petitioner requests that 10 CFR part 73 be amended to require that licensees implement procedures to ensure that:
(1)When information becomes known to a licensee about an individual that would prevent that individual from gaining unescorted access to the protected area of a nuclear power plant, the licensee will implement measures to ensure the individual does not enter the protected area, whether escorted or not; and
(2)when sufficient information is not available to a licensee about an individual to determine whether the criteria for unescorted access are satisfied, the licensee will implement measures to allow that individual to enter the protected area only when escorted at all times by an armed member of the security force who remains in periodic communication with security supervision. In the case of the first proposal, the petitioner believes that when it is known that a person's trustworthiness and reliability do not meet the prescribed standards identified in § 73.56(b), access to protected areas, either escorted or unescorted, should be denied. In the case of the second proposal, the petitioner recognizes that it is impractical and burdensome to conduct background investigations of every person requiring access to a protected area, noting persons may need one-time access. With that in mind, the petitioner proposes granting these persons access to protected areas, but only when escorted by an armed member of the security force and only when this armed member is in periodic communication with security supervision. Conclusion The petitioner believes that current regulations create a security vulnerability that could potentially compromise public health and safety. The petitioner believes that its proposed amendments to 10 CFR part 73 will address this vulnerability in current regulations that enables persons who do not meet trustworthiness and reliability standards for unescorted access to protected areas of nuclear power plants permission to enter protected areas with an unarmed escort. Accordingly, the petitioner requests that the NRC amend its regulations related to the physical protection of nuclear power plants and materials as described previously in the section titled, “The Proposed Amendments.” Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of April 2007. Kenneth R. Hart, Acting Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. E7-6644 Filed 4-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. NM366 Special Conditions No. 25-07-03-SC] Special Conditions: Boeing Model 787-8 Airplane; Composite Wing and Fuel Tank Structure—Fire Protection Requirements AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed special conditions. SUMMARY: This notice proposes special conditions for the Boeing Model 787-8 airplane. This airplane will have novel or unusual design features when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes. These novel or unusual design features are associated with composite materials chosen for the construction of the fuel tank skin and structure. For these design features, the applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for wing and fuel tank structure with respect to post-crash fire safety. These proposed special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards. Additional special conditions will be issued for other novel or unusual design features of the Boeing Model 787-8 airplanes. DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 24, 2007. ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposal may be mailed in duplicate to: Federal Aviation Administration, Transport Airplane Directorate, Attention: Rules Docket (ANM-113), Docket No. NM366, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; or delivered in duplicate to the Transport Airplane Directorate at the above address. All comments must be marked Docket No. NM366. Comments may be inspected in the Rules Docket weekdays, except Federal holidays, between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Dostert, FAA, Propulsion/Mechanical Systems, ANM-112, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-2132; facsimile
(425)227-1320. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. We ask that you send us two copies of written comments. We will file in the docket all comments we receive as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning these proposed special conditions. The docket is available for public inspection before and after the comment closing date. If you wish to review the docket in person, go to the address in the ADDRESSES section of this notice between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change the proposed special conditions based on comments we receive. If you want the FAA to acknowledge receipt of your comments on this proposal, include with your comments a pre-addressed, stamped postcard on which the docket number appears. We will stamp the date on the postcard and mail it back to you. Background On March 28, 2003, Boeing applied for an FAA type certificate for its new Boeing Model 787-8 passenger airplane. The Boeing Model 787-8 airplane will be an all-new, two-engine jet transport airplane with a two-aisle cabin. The maximum takeoff weight will be 476,000 pounds, with a maximum passenger count of 381 passengers. Type Certification Basis Under provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, Boeing must show that Boeing Model 787-8 airplanes (hereafter referred to as “the 787”) meet the applicable provisions of 14 CFR part 25, as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-117, except §§ 25.809(a) and 25.812, which will remain at Amendment 25- 115. If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the 787 because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under provisions of 14 CFR 21.16. In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the 787 must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of part 36. In addition, the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy pursuant to section 611 of Pub. L. 92-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.” Special conditions, as defined in § 11.19, are issued in accordance with § 11.38 and become part of the type certification basis in accordance with § 21.17(a)(2). Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under the provisions of § 21.101. Novel or Unusual Design Features The 787 will incorporate a number of novel or unusual design features. Because of rapid improvements in airplane technology, the applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for these design features. These proposed special conditions for the 787 contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards. The 787 will be the first large transport category airplane that will not be fabricated primarily with aluminum materials for the fuel tank structure. Instead it will use predominantly composite materials for the structural elements and skin of the wings and fuel tanks. Conventional airplanes with aluminum skin and structure provide a well understood level of safety during post-crash fire scenarios with respect to fuel tanks. This is based on service history and extensive full-scale fire testing. Composites may or may not have capabilities equivalent to aluminum, and current regulations do not provide objective performance requirements for wing and fuel tank structure with respect to post-crash fire safety. Because the use of composite structure is new and novel compared to the designs envisioned when the applicable regulations were written, additional substantiation by test and analysis will be required to show that the 787 provides an acceptable level of safety with respect to the performance of the wings and fuel tanks during an external fuel-fed fire. Although the FAA has previously approved fuel tanks made of composite materials that are located in the horizontal stabilizer of some airplanes, the composite wing structure of the 787 will introduce a new fuel tank construction into service. Advisory Circular
(AC)20-107A, Composite Aircraft Structure, under the topic of flammability, states: “The existing requirements for flammability and fire protection of aircraft structure attempt to minimize the hazard to the occupants in the event ignition of flammable fluids or vapors occurs. The use of composite structure should not decrease this existing level of safety.” The relevance to the wing structure is that post-crash fire passenger survivability is dependent on the time available for passenger evacuation prior to fuel tank breach or structural failure. Structural failure can be a result of degradation in load-carrying capability in the upper or lower wing surface caused by a fuel-fed ground fire. Structural failure can also be a result of over-pressurization caused by ignition of fuel vapors in the fuel tank. The FAA has historically developed rules with the assumption that the material of construction for wing and fuselage would be aluminum. As a representative case, § 25.963 was developed as a result of a large fuel-fed fire following the failures of fuel tank access doors caused by uncontained engine failures. During the subsequent Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee
(ARAC)harmonization process with the JAA, 1 the structures group attempted to harmonize the requirements of § 25.963 regarding the impact and fire resistance of fuel tank access panels. Both authorities recognized that existing aluminum wing structure provided an acceptable level of safety. Further rulemaking has not yet been pursued. 1 The JAA is the Joint Aviation Authority of Europe and the JAR is its Joint Aviation Requirements, the equivalent of our Federal Aviation Regulations. In 2003, the European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA)was formed, and EASA is now the principal aviation regulatory agency in Europe. We intend to work with EASA to ensure that our rules are also harmonized with its Certification Specifications (CS). But since these efforts in developing harmonization of § 25.963 occurred before EASA was formed, it was the JAA that was involved with them. As with previous Boeing airplane designs with under-wing mounted engines, the wing tanks and center tanks are located in proximity to the passengers and near the engines. Past experience indicates post crash survivability is greatly influenced by the size and intensity of any fire that occurs. The ability of aluminum wing surfaces wetted by fuel on their interior surface to withstand post-crash fire conditions has been demonstrated by tests conducted at the FAA Technical Center. These tests have verified adequate dissipation of heat across wetted aluminum fuel tank surfaces so that localized hot spots do not occur, thus minimizing the threat of explosion. This inherent capability of aluminum to dissipate heat also allows the wing lower surface to retain its load carrying characteristics during a fuel-fed ground fire. It significantly delays wing collapse or burn-through for a time interval that usually exceeds evacuation times. In addition, as an aluminum fuel tank is heated with significant quantities of fuel inside, fuel vapor accumulates in the ullage space, exceeding the upper flammability limit relatively quickly and thus reducing the threat of a fuel tank explosion prior to fuel tank burn-through. Service history of conventional aluminum airplanes has shown that fuel tank explosions caused by ground fires have been rare on airplanes configured with flame arrestors in the fuel tank vent lines. Fuel tanks constructed with composite materials may or may not have equivalent capability. Current regulations were developed and have evolved under the assumption that wing construction would be of aluminum materials, which provide inherent properties. Current regulations may not be adequate when applied to airplanes constructed of different materials. Aluminum has the following properties with respect to fuel tanks and fuel-fed external fires. • Aluminum is highly thermally conductive. It readily transmits the heat of a fuel-fed external fire to fuel in the tank. This has the benefit of rapidly driving the fuel tank ullage to exceed the upper flammability limit prior to burn-through of the fuel tank skin or heating of the wing upper surface above the auto-ignition temperature. This greatly reduces the threat of fuel tank explosion. • Aluminum panels at thicknesses previously used in wing lower surfaces of large transport category airplanes have been fire resistant as defined in CFR 14 part 1 and AC 20-135. • The heat capacity of aluminum and fuel will prevent burn-through or wing collapse for a time interval that will generally exceed the passenger evacuation time. The extensive use of composite materials in the design of the 787 wing and fuel tank structure is considered a major change from conventional and traditional methods of construction. This will be the first large transport category airplane to be certificated with this level of composite material for these purposes. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain specific standards for post-crash fire safety performance of wing and fuel tank skin or structure. Discussion of Proposed Special Conditions In order to provide the same level of safety as exists with conventional airplane construction, Boeing must demonstrate that the 787 has sufficient post-crash survivability, in the event that the wings are exposed to a large fuel-fed fire, to enable occupants to safely evacuate. Factors in fuel tank survivability are the structural integrity of the wing and tank, flammability of the tank, burnthrough resistance of the wing skin, and the presence of auto-ignition threats during exposure to a fire. The FAA assessed post crash survival time during the adoption of amendment 25-111 for fuselage burnthrough protection. Studies conducted by and on behalf of the FAA indicated that, following a survivable accident, prevention of fuselage burn-through for approximately 5 minutes can significantly enhance survivability. ( See report numbers DOT/FAA/AR-99/57 and DOT/FAA/AR-02/49.) Beyond five minutes, there is little benefit, due to the effects of the fuel fire itself. That assessment was carried out based on accidents involving airplanes with conventional fuel tanks, and considering the ability of ground personnel to rescue occupants. In addition, AC20-135 indicates that, when aluminum is used for fuel tanks, the tank should withstand the effects of fire for 5 minutes without failure. Therefore, to be consistent with existing capability and related requirements, the 787 fuel tanks must be capable of resisting a post crash fire for at least 5 minutes. In demonstrating compliance, Boeing must address a range of fuel loads from minimum to maximum, as well as any other critical fuel load. Applicability As discussed above, these proposed special conditions are applicable to the 787. Should Boeing apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design features, these proposed special conditions would apply to that model as well under the provisions of § 21.101. Conclusion This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features of the 787. It is not a rule of general applicability, and it affects only the applicant that applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplane. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25 Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. The authority citation for these Special Conditions is as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704. The Proposed Special Conditions Accordingly, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)proposes the following special conditions as part of the type certification basis for the Boeing Model 787-8 airplane. In addition to complying with part 25 regulations governing the fire-safety performance of the fuel tanks, wings, and nacelle, the Boeing Model 787-8 must demonstrate acceptable post-crash survivability in the event the wings are exposed to a large fuel-fed ground fire. Boeing must demonstrate that the wing and fuel tank design can endure an external fuel-fed pool fire for at least 5 minutes. This shall be demonstrated for minimum fuel loads (not less than reserve fuel levels) and maximum fuel loads (maximum range fuel quantities), and other identified critical fuel loads. Considerations shall include fuel tank flammability, burn-through resistance, wing structural strength retention properties, and auto-ignition threats during a ground fire event for the required time duration. Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 30, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-6542 Filed 4-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-27806; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-287-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Model Mystere-Falcon 50 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: * * * discovery of interferences between the power wire supplying the galley's coffee-maker and the surrounding structure. These interferences might, by chafing and degrading the wire insulation, generate short circuits between the wire and the aircraft ground through the composite cabinet structure, without activation of the Circuit Breaker (C/B). Several hot spots may then be created and generate a large amount of thick smokes just behind the cockpit. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 9, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • DOT Docket Web site: Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Fax:
(202)493-2251. • Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-0001. • 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. • Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov;* or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone
(800)647-5227) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-1137; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Streamlined Issuance of AD The FAA is implementing a new process for streamlining the issuance of ADs related to MCAI. This streamlined process will allow us to adopt MCAI safety requirements in a more efficient manner and will reduce safety risks to the public. This process continues to follow all FAA AD issuance processes to meet legal, economic, Administrative Procedure Act, and **Federal Register** requirements. We also continue to meet our technical decision-making responsibilities to identify and correct unsafe conditions on U.S.-certificated products. This proposed AD references the MCAI and related service information that we considered in forming the engineering basis to correct the unsafe condition. The proposed AD contains text copied from the MCAI and for this reason might not follow our plain language principles. Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2007-27806; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-287-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments. 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 we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Emergency Airworthiness Directive 2006-0329-E, dated October 25, 2006 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: This Airworthiness Directive
(AD)is issued following discovery of interferences between the power wire supplying the galley's coffee-maker and the surrounding structure. These interferences might, by chafing and degrading the wire insulation, generate short circuits between the wire and the aircraft ground through the composite cabinet structure, without activation of the Circuit Breaker (C/B). Several hot spots may then be created and generate a large amount of thick smokes just behind the cockpit. This AD aims to prevent this kind of incident, mandating a wire inspection [for damaged wire sleeves], a check for a proper clearance and if necessary a wire re-routing. The MCAI also requires disabling the galley's coffee-maker, and, in addition to wire re-routing, any required corrective actions. (Corrective actions include replacing worn or defective wire sleeves and shortening wires.) You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information Dassault has issued Service Bulletins F50-471 and F50-456, both dated October 25, 2006. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 44 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 46 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $161,920, or $3,680 per product. 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 determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **Dassault Aviation:** Docket No. FAA-2007-27806; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-287-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments by May 9, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Dassault Model Mystere-Falcon 50 airplanes; certificated in any category; with serial number 275 through 293 and 295 through 303 and 305 through 330 inclusive, with the exception of airplanes which have already embodied the Dassault Service Bulletin F50-456. Subject
(d)Electrical Power; Equipment/Furnishings. Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: This Airworthiness Directive
(AD)is issued following discovery of interferences between the power wire supplying the galley's coffee-maker and the surrounding structure. These interferences might, by chafing and degrading the wire insulation, generate short circuits between the wire and the aircraft ground through the composite cabinet structure, without activation of the Circuit Breaker (C/B). Several hot spots may then be created and generate a large amount of thick smoke just behind the cockpit. This AD aims to prevent this kind of incident, mandating a wire inspection [for damaged wire sleeves], a check for a proper clearance and if necessary a wire re-routing. The MCAI also requires disabling the galley's coffee-maker, and, in addition to wire re-routing, any required corrective actions. (Corrective actions include replacing worn or defective wire sleeves and shortening wires.) Actions and Compliance
(f)Unless already done, do the following actions.
(1)Within 50 flight hours or 1 month after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, disable the galley's coffee-maker by pulling and locking out the circuit breaker 710HG, as instructed in Dassault Service Bulletin F50-471, dated October 25, 2006.
(2)Within 1,530 flight hours or 24 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, inspect for damaged wire sleeves, check their proper clearance, and if a discrepancy is found, prior to next flight, proceed to all applicable corrective actions as indicated in the Accomplishment Instructions of Dassault Service Bulletin F50-456, dated October 25, 2006. Doing the actions specified in this paragraph terminates the requirements of paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, and after the actions have been done, the circuit breaker collar required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD may be removed. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/ or service information as follows: The MCAI does not indicate that doing the actions specified in Dassault Service Bulletin F50-456, dated October 25, 2006, terminates the requirement to disable the coffee-maker. This AD indicates that doing the actions specified in Dassault Service Bulletin F50-456, terminates the requirements to disable the coffee-maker, and after the actions have been done, the circuit breaker collar may be removed. Other FAA AD Provisions
(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356, telephone
(425)227-1137; fax
(425)227-1149. Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office.
(2)Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(3)Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information
(h)Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Emergency Airworthiness Directive 2006-0329-E, dated October 25, 2006; Dassault Service Bulletin F50-471, dated October 25, 2006; and Dassault Service Bulletin F50-456, dated October 25, 2006; for related information. Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 30, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-6590 Filed 4-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2007-27439; Airspace Docket No. 07-AAL-04] Proposed Revision of Class E Airspace; Red Dog, AK AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: This action proposes to revise Class E airspace at Red Dog, AK. A review of controlled airspace for two new Area Navigation
(RNAV)Required Navigation Performance
(RNP)Special Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and an RNAV RNP Special Departure Procedure (DP), after a recent action (06-AAL-40) revealed that a small area of controlled airspace is required for the Red Dog Airport. Adoption of this proposal would result in revision of existing Class E airspace upward from 1,200 feet (ft.) above the surface at Red Dog Airport, AK. DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 24, 2007. ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal to the Docket Management System, U.S. Department of Transportation, Room Plaza 401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You must identify the docket number FAA-2007-27439/Airspace Docket No. 07-AAL-04, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov.* You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527) is on the plaza level of the Department of Transportation Nassif Building at the above address. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Manager, Safety, Alaska Flight Service Operations, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Rolf, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587; telephone number
(907)271-5898; fax:
(907)271-2850; e-mail: *gary.ctr.rolf@faa.gov.* Internet address: *http://www.alaska.faa.gov/at.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2007-27439/Airspace Docket No. 07-AAL-04.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter. All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. Availability of Notice of Proposed Rulemakings (NPRMs) An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov.* Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at *http://www.faa.gov* or the Superintendent of Documents' Web page at *http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.* Additionally, any person may obtain a copy of this notice by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Air Traffic Airspace Management, ATA-400, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591 or by calling
(202)267-8783. Communications must identify both docket numbers for this notice. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,
(202)267-9677, to request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure. The Proposal The FAA is considering an amendment to the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR Part 71), which would revise the Class E airspace at Red Dog Airport, AK. The intended effect of this proposal is to revise Class E airspace upward from 1,200 ft. above the surface to contain Instrument Flight Rules
(IFR)operations at Red Dog Airport, AK. A recent controlled airspace review revealed an additional small area of controlled airspace is necessary for two new Special RNAV RNP instrument approaches and one Special RNAV RNP departure procedure for the Red Dog Airport. The discovery was made too late to correct the recent rulemaking action associated with Red Dog Airport (06-AAL-40). The new approaches are
(1)the Area Navigation
(RNAV)Required Navigation Performance
(RNP)Runway
(RWY)05 and
(2)the RNAV RNP RWY 20. The departure procedure is the IHOPO ONE RNAV RNP Departure. Class E controlled airspace extending upward from 1,200 ft. above the surface within the Red Dog Airport area would be revised by this action. The proposed airspace is sufficient in size to contain aircraft executing the Special SIAPs at the Red Dog Airport. The current rulemaking action slated for charting (06-AAL-40) will still take place on May 10, 2007. The area would be depicted on aeronautical charts for pilot reference. The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North American Datum 83. The Class E airspace areas designated as 700/1200 foot transition areas are published in paragraph 6005 in FAA Order 7400.9P, *Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,* dated September 1, 2006, and effective September 15, 2006, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document would be published subsequently in the Order. The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2)is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and
(3)does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart 1, Section 40103, Sovereignty and use of airspace. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to ensure the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it proposes to create Class E airspace sufficient in size to contain aircraft executing instrument procedures at the Red Dog Airport and represents the FAA's continuing effort to safely and efficiently use the navigable airspace. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air). The Proposed Amendment In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows: PART 71— DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389. § 71.1 [Amended] 2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.9P, *Airspace Designations and Reporting Points* , dated September 1, 2006, and effective September 15, 2006, is to be amended as follows: *Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth.* AAL AK E5 Red Dog, AK [Revised] Red Dog Airport, AK (Lat. 68°01′53″ N., long. 162°54′11″ W.) Noatak NDB/DME, AK (Lat. 67°34′19″ N., long. 162°58′26″ W.) Selawik VOR/DME, AK (Lat. 66°36′00″ N., long. 159°59′30″ W.) That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.3-mile radius of the Red Dog Airport, AK; and that airspace extending upward from 1,200 ft. above the surface within a 14-mile radius of the Red Dog Airport, AK, and within 5 miles either side of a line from the Selawik VOR/DME, AK, to lat. 67°38′06″ N., long. 162°21′42″ W., to lat. 67°54′30″ N., long. 163°00′00″ W., and within 5 miles either side of a line from the Noatak NDB/DME, AK, to lat. 67°50′20″ N., long. 163°19′16″ W., and within 8 miles either side of the 219° bearing of the Red Dog NDB, AK, extending from the 14-mile radius from the Red Dog NDB, AK, to 30 miles southwest of the Red Dog Airport, AK. Issued in Anchorage, AK, on March 30, 2007. Michael A. Tarr, Acting Manager, Alaska Flight Services Information Area Group. [FR Doc. E7-6539 Filed 4-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration 23 CFR Part 637 [FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2006-26501] RIN 2125-AF21 Crash Test Laboratory Requirements for FHWA Roadside Safety Hardware Acceptance AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; request for comments. SUMMARY: The FHWA proposes to revise its regulation that establishes the general requirements for quality assurance procedures for construction on all Federal-aid highway projects on the National Highway System (NHS). 1 Specifically, the FHWA proposes to require accreditation of laboratories that conduct crash tests on roadside hardware by an accrediting body that is recognized by the National Cooperation for Laboratory Accreditation
(NCLA)or is a signatory to an International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation
(ILAC)Mutual Recognition Arrangement (MRA), an Asia Pacific Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (APLAC) MRA, or another comparable accreditation body approved by FHWA. The objective of this proposed rule is to improve the agency's ability to determine that crash test laboratories are qualified to conduct and evaluate tests intended to determine the crashworthiness of roadside safety features. Laboratory accreditation is widely recognized as a reliable indicator of technical competence. 1 The National Highway System
(NHS)includes the Interstate Highway System as well as other roads important to the nation's economy, defense, and mobility. See 23 U.S.C. 103(b). The NHS was developed by the Department of Transportation
(DOT)in cooperation with the States, local officials, and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs). DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 8, 2007. ADDRESSES: Mail or hand deliver comments to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Dockets Management Facility, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001, or submit electronically at *http://dmses.dot.gov/submit* or fax comments to
(202)493-2251. Alternatively, comments may be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at *http://www.regulations.gov* . All comments must include the docket number that appears in the heading of this document. All comments received will be available for examination and copying at the above address from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Those desiring notification of receipt of comments must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard or you may print the acknowledgment page that appears after submitting comments electronically. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70, Pages 19477-78) or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Lupes, Office of Safety Design, HSSD, 202-366-6994, Nicholas Artimovich, Office of Safety Design, HSSD, 202-366-1331, or Raymond Cuprill, Office of the Chief Counsel,
(202)366-0791, Federal Highway Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic Access You may submit or retrieve comments online through the Document Management System
(DMS)at: *http://dms.dot.gov/submit* . The DMS is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. Electronic submission and retrieval help and guidelines are available under the help section of the Web site. An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from the **Federal Register's** home page at: *http://www.archives.gov* and the Government Printing Office's database at: *http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara* . Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late comments and we will consider all late comments to the extent practicable. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material. Background Section 109(c) of title 23, United States Code, as amended by section 304 of the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-59; 109 Stat. 188; Nov. 28, 1995), requires the Secretary, in cooperation with the State transportation departments, to approve design and construction standards on the NHS, regardless of funding source. These design standards include not only elements pertaining to the roadway itself, but also to any appurtenances installed along the roadway, such as traffic barriers (roadside and median barriers, and bridge railings), sign and luminaire supports and crash cushions. *Statement of the Problem* . The roadside safety hardware sector has evolved since the 1960's and now includes additional crash test laboratories that are not sponsored by an academic institution. During the same period, the FHWA funding of roadside safety hardware testing at crash test laboratories and direct observation of crash test laboratories have decreased. There are about 10 laboratories within the United States that conduct, or have conducted, the types of vehicle/hardware tests needed to establish crashworthiness. Additionally, there are more manufacturers and increasing types of roadside safety hardware devices available. The FHWA recognized that most State DOT personnel were not experienced in assessing test laboratory reports to determine if the hardware was subjected to all required tests and if all tests met the appropriate evaluation criteria. Therefore, as a service to the State transportation departments, and to the highway safety industry in general, the FHWA began reviewing test reports, upon request, and providing written acknowledgements that specific appurtenances were crashworthy and thus eligible for use on the NHS. These “FHWA Acceptance Letters” quickly became essential to the manufacturers and widely recognized by the States. The FHWA Office of Safety Design reviews such requests for acceptance and currently maintains listings of crashworthy barriers, bridge railings, transitions to bridge railings, barrier terminals, crash cushions, truck mounted attenuators, breakaway luminaire support hardware, breakaway sign supports, work zone devices, and other hardware. Hardware approved through acceptance letters are posted on the FHWA Safety Web site at *http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/report350hardware* . Similar to the individual State DOTs, the FHWA does not have adequate personnel or resources to continuously verify, on-site, the capabilities of the established test laboratories to conduct required tests, to calibrate recording devices used to collect and analyze data, and to determine compliance with evaluation criteria. Should new laboratories be established in the future, the FHWA would be similarly limited in its ability to assess their competence to set up, run, and evaluate full-scale vehicular tests. The objective of this rule would be to provide increased confidence in roadside hardware safety by ensuring that all crash test laboratories are capable of conducting crash tests and analyzing and reporting test results. The FHWA believes that appropriate stewardship requires that we establish minimum accreditation requirements for these laboratories. General Discussion of the Proposal The FHWA is proposing to amend 23 CFR 637.209 by adding 637.209(a)(5) that would require all laboratories that perform crash testing for acceptance of roadside safety hardware to be accredited by an accreditation body that is recognized by NACLA or is a signatory to the APLAC MRA, ILAC MRA, or another comparable accreditation body approved by FHWA. To FHWA's knowledge, NACLA and laboratory accreditation bodies that are members of ILAC and APLAC are the only laboratory accreditation bodies that exist. Information on accrediting bodies that are signatories to APLAC's MRA and ILAC's MRA, including estimated costs and application procedures for laboratory accreditation, can be found at their respective Web sites *http:llwww.aplac.org* and *http://www.ilac.org* ; similar information on NACLA's accrediting bodies can be found at *http://nacla.net* . Formal accreditation assesses factors such as the technical competency of laboratory personnel, the validity of test methods, the calibration and maintenance of test equipment, and the quality assurance of calibration and test data. Laboratory accreditation will be assessed according to the current International Standard ISO/IEC 17025:2005, General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration of Laboratories. The ISO/IEC 17025:2005 standard is divided into management and technical requirements that ensure the competence of the laboratory to produce valid data and results. Many other countries require organizations and testing laboratories to be accredited to the ISO/IEC 17025 standard for any test results used for establishing compliance. The FHWA acknowledges the ISO/IEC 17025: 2005 standard as the benchmark for assessing the competence of the testing and calibration laboratories This rulemaking proposes to provide a 2-year phase-in period from the date of final rule to allow adequate time to prepare documentation and budgeting for formal accreditation. Based on the experience of the two accredited labs operating in the U.S., we estimate that adequate preparation for accreditation could vary depending on the size of the lab and could take 2 to 6 months. We welcome your comments on what burdens this proposed accreditation would impose on a laboratory and if the proposed 2-year phase-in period is sufficient. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices All comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above will be considered and will be available for examination using the docket number appearing at the top of this document in the docket room at the above address. The FHWA will file comments received after the comment closing date and will consider late comments to the extent practicable. In addition to late comments, the FHWA will also continue to file in the docket relevant information becoming available after the comment closing date, and interested persons should continue to examine the docket for new material. A final rule may be published at any time after the close of the comment period. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures The FHWA has determined preliminarily that this action would not be a significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 or would not be significant within the meaning of U.S. Department of Transportation regulatory policies and procedures. It is anticipated that the economic impact of this rulemaking would be minimal. Currently, two of the test laboratories in the U.S. are already accredited and this proposed regulation would have no effect on those entities. The two currently accredited laboratories, E-Tech Testing Services Incorporated in Rocklin, California and Safe Technologies Incorporated in Rio Vista, California provided an estimate of direct time and costs incurred to receive initial accreditation as 480 to 960 person-work hours to prepare documentation and $9,000 in direct costs. The initial fee of $9,000 included a one-time registration fee of $5,000, a 3-day on-site assessment visit costing $3,000, and materials and equipment costs of $1,000. It is expected that the amount of person work hours and costs associated with document preparation will vary depending on the size of the laboratory and the extent to which its operating procedures are already formalized. We believe the time and cost to gain accreditation is not a burden. Laboratory accreditation renewal is required bi-annually and includes an annual review. The two laboratories mentioned above cite recurring annual costs of maintaining formal accreditation to be 160 person work hours and only $3,000 annually. This rulemaking proposes to provide a 2-year phase-in period from the date of final rule to allow adequate time to prepare documentation and budgeting for formal accreditation. We believe 2 years is more than adequate time for laboratories to obtain the necessary accreditation. These proposed changes would not adversely affect, in a material way, any sector of the economy. In addition, these changes would not interfere with any action taken or planned by another agency and would not materially alter the budgetary impact of any entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs. Consequently, a full regulatory evaluation is not required. Regulatory Flexibility Act In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), the FHWA has evaluated the effects of this proposed action on small entities, including small governments. The FHWA certifies that this proposed action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As noted above, there are about ten
(10)agencies that test roadside hardware for crashworthiness and two of these have already been certified as proposed herein. Estimated time and cost for an initial certification is 3 days on-site and $ 9,000. Re-certification is required bi-annually at an estimated annual cost of $3,000. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) The FHWA analyzed this proposed amendment in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, dated August 4, 1999, and the FHWA has determined that this proposed action would not have a substantial direct effect or sufficient federalism implications on States and local governments that would limit the policy making discretion of the States and local governments. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act This proposed rule would not impose unfunded mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, March 22, 1995; 109 Stat. 48). This proposed rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $128.1 million or more in any one year (2 U.S.C. 1532). Paperwork Reduction Act Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA)(44 U.S.C. 3501, *et seq.* ), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for each collection of information they conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. The FHWA has determined that this proposed action does not contain a collection of information requirement for the purposes of the PRA. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform) This proposed action meets applicable standards in Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, to eliminate ambiguity, and to reduce burden. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children) The FHWA has analyzed this proposed action under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This is not an economically significant proposed action and does not concern an environmental risk to health or safety that may disproportionately affect children. Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property) This proposed action would not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects) The FHWA has analyzed this proposed action under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that this is not a significant energy action under this order because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211 is not required. Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation) Since none of the existing test laboratories are owned, operated, or in any way controlled by Indian tribes, the FHWA believes that it will not have any direct effects on one or more Indian tribes; will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments; and will not preempt tribal law. Therefore, a tribal summary impact statement is not required. National Environmental Policy Act The agency has analyzed this proposed action for the purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* ) and has determined that it would not have any effect on the quality of the environment. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This proposed rule uses voluntary consensus standards. Regulation Identification Number A regulation identification number
(RIN)is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the Unified Agenda. List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 637 Construction inspection and approval; Highways and roads. Issued on: March 30, 2007. J. Richard Capka, Federal Highway Administrator. In consideration of the foregoing, the FHWA proposes to amend, title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, part 637, as set forth below: PART 637—QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCEDURES FOR CONSTRUCTION 1. The authority citation for part 637 continues to read as follows: Authority: Sec. 1307, Pub. L. 105-178, 112 Stat. 107; 23 U.S.C. 109, 114, and 315; 49 CFR 1.48(b). 2. In § 637.209, add paragraph (a)(5) to read as follows: § 637.209 Laboratory and sampling and testing personnel qualifications
(a)* * *
(5)After [insert date two years after the date of publication of the final rule in the **Federal Register** ], laboratories that perform crash testing for acceptance of roadside hardware by the FHWA shall be accredited by a laboratory accreditation body that is recognized by the National Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (NACLA), is a signatory to the Asia Pacific Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (APLAC) Mutual Recognition Arrangement (MRA), is a signatory to the International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation
(ILAC)Mutual Recognition Arrangement (MRA), or another accreditation body acceptable to FHWA. [FR Doc. E7-6533 Filed 4-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-22-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 30 CFR Part 946 [VA-123-FOR] Virginia Regulatory Program AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), Interior. ACTION: Proposed rule; public comment period and opportunity for public hearing on proposed amendment. SUMMARY: We are announcing receipt of a proposed amendment to the Virginia regulatory program under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act). Virginia is proposing to revise its remining regulations to make three provisions permanent by deleting a termination date of September 30, 2004, from the regulations. The amendments are intended to render the State's regulations consistent with recent amendments to SMCRA. DATES: We will accept written comments on this amendment until 4 p.m. (local time), on May 9, 2007. If requested, we will hold a public hearing on the amendment on May 4, 2007. We will accept requests to speak at a hearing until 4 p.m. (local time), on April 24, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by VA-123-FOR, by any of the following methods: • *E-mail: tdieringer@osmre.gov.* Include VA-123-FOR in the subject line of the message. • *Mail/Hand Delivery:* Mr. Tim Dieringer, Director, Knoxville Field Office, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 1941 Neeley Road, Suite 201, Compartment 116, Big Stone Gap, Virginia 24219. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. *Instructions:* All submissions received must include the agency docket number for this rulemaking. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the “Public Comment Procedures” heading in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. You may also request to speak at a public hearing by any of the methods listed above or by contacting the individual listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . *Docket:* You may review copies of the Virginia program, this amendment, a listing of any scheduled public hearings, and all written comments received in response to this document at the addresses listed below during normal business hours, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. You may receive one free copy of the amendment by contacting OSM's Big Stone Gap Area Office. Mr. Tim Dieringer, Director, Knoxville Field Office, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 1941 Neeley Road, Suite 201, Compartment 116, Big Stone Gap, Virginia 24219, Telephone:
(276)523-4303. E-mail: *tdieringer@osmre.gov.* Mr. Leslie S. Vincent, Virginia Division of Mined Land Reclamation, P. O. Drawer 900, Big Stone Gap, Virginia 24219, Telephone:
(276)523-8100. E-mail: *lsv@mme.state.va.us.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Tim Dieringer, Director, Knoxville Field Office; Telephone:
(276)523-4303. E-mail: *tdieringer@osmre.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background on the Virginia Program II. Description of the Proposed Amendment III. Public Comment Procedures IV. Procedural Determinations I. Background on the Virginia Program Section 503(a) of the Act permits a State to assume primacy for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations on non-Federal and non-Indian lands within its borders by demonstrating that its program includes, among other things, “. . . a State law which provides for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations in accordance with the requirements of the Act . . .; and rules and regulations consistent with regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to the Act.” See 30 U.S.C. 1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis of these criteria, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally approved the Virginia program on December 15, 1981. You can find background information on the Virginia program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and conditions of approval of the Virginia program in the December 15, 1981, **Federal Register** (46 FR 61088). You can also find later actions concerning Virginia's program and program amendments at 30 CFR 946.12, 946.13, and 946.15. II. Description of the Proposed Amendment By letter dated February 13, 2007 (Administrative Record Number VA-1058), the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy
(DMME)submitted an amendment to the Virginia program. In its letter, the DMME stated that the program amendment revises Virginia Coal Surface Mining Reclamation Regulations to reflect the deletion from SMCRA at section 510(e) of the termination date of section 510(e) of September 30, 2004. Section 510 of SMCRA concerns permit approval or denial. Subsection 510(e) provides an exception to the prohibition of subsection
(c), which prohibits the issuance of a permit where any surface coal mining operation owned or controlled by an applicant is currently in violation of SMCRA or such other laws referenced at subsection 510(c). Prior to being amended by the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, subsection 510(e) provided as follows:
(e)After the date of enactment of this subsection, the prohibition of subsection
(c)shall not apply to a permit application due to any violation resulting from an unanticipated event or condition at a surface coal mining operation on lands eligible for remining under a permit held by the person making such application. As used in this subsection, the term “violation” has the same meaning as such term has under subsection (c). The authority of this subsection and section 515(b)(20)(B) shall terminate on September 30, 2004. The effect of the deletion of the termination date in the quoted paragraph above (the entire last sentence was deleted) is twofold:
(1)To make permanent the authority at subsection 510(e) of SMCRA to approve a permit application for surface coal mining and reclamation notwithstanding the existence of a violation resulting from an unanticipated event or condition at the site, and
(2)to make permanent the two-year revegetation responsibility period for lands eligible for remining at subsection 515(b)(20)(B) of SMCRA. In the proposed program amendments identified below, Virginia is deleting the termination date of September 30, 2004, from three of its program regulations concerning remining. 1. 4 VAC 25-130-785.25. Lands eligible for remining This provision is proposed to be amended by deleting subsection
(c)in its entirety. Currently, 4 VAC 25-130-785.25 provides as follows:
(a)This section contains permitting requirements to implement 4VAC25-130-773.15(b)(4). Any person who submits a permit application to conduct a surface coal mining operation on lands eligible for remining must comply with this section.
(b)Any application for a permit under this section shall be made according to all requirements of this subchapter applicable to surface coal mining and reclamation operations. In addition, the application shall:
(1)To the extent not otherwise addressed in the permit application, identify potential environmental and safety problems related to prior mining activity at the site and that could be reasonably anticipated to occur. This identification shall be based on a due diligence investigation which shall include visual observations at the site, a record review of past mining at the site, and environmental sampling tailored to current site conditions.
(2)With regard to potential environmental and safety problems referred in subdivision (b)(1) of this section, describe the mitigative measures that will be taken to ensure that the applicable reclamation requirements of this chapter can be met.
(c)The requirements of this section shall not apply after September 30, 2004. In its submittal letter, the DMME stated that the deletion of subsection
(c)containing the termination date of September 30, 2004, is intended to reflect the deletion of that same termination date at subsection 510(e) of SMCRA. 2. 4VAC25-130-816.116 and 817.116. Revegetation; Standards for Success These provisions are proposed to be amended by deleting the phrase “included in permits issued before September 30, 2004, or any renewals thereof” at the end of the first sentence in subparts (c)(2)(ii). Currently, 4 VAC 25-130-816.116(c) and 817.116(c) provide as follows:
(1)The period of extended responsibility for successful revegetation shall begin after the last year of augmented seeding, fertilizing, irrigation, or other work, excluding husbandry practices that are approved by the division in accordance with subdivision (c)(3) of this section.
(2)The period of responsibility shall continue for a period of not less than:
(i)Five full years except as provided in subdivision (c)(2)(ii) of this section. The vegetation parameters identified in subsection
(b)of this section for grazing land or pastureland and cropland shall equal or exceed the approved success standard during the growing seasons of any two years of the responsibility period, except the first year. Areas approved for the other uses identified in subsection
(b)of this section shall equal or exceed the applicable success standard during the growing season of the last year of the responsibility period.
(ii)Two full years for lands eligible for remining included in permits issued before September 30, 2004, or any renewals thereof. To the extent that the success standards are established by subdivision (b)(5) of this section, the lands shall equal or exceed the standards during the growing season of the last year of the responsibility period.
(3)The division may approve selective husbandry practices, excluding augmented seeding, fertilization, or irrigation, without extending the period of responsibility for revegetation success and bond liability, if such practices can be expected to continue as part of the postmining land use or if discontinuance of the practices after the liability period expires will not reduce the probability of permanent revegetation success. Approved practices shall be normal conservation practices within the region for unmined lands having land uses similar to the approved postmining land use of the disturbed area, including such practices as disease, pest, and vermin control; and any pruning, reseeding and/or transplanting specifically necessitated by such actions. In its submittal letter, the DMME stated that the deletion of the September 30, 2004, termination date at subparts (c)(2)(ii) is intended to reflect the deletion of that same termination date at subsection 510(e) of SMCRA. As amended, 4VAC25-130-816.116(c)(2)(ii) and 817.116(c)(2)(ii) provide as follows:
(ii)Two full years for lands eligible for remining. To the extent that the success standards are established by subdivision (b)(5) of this section, the lands shall equal or exceed the standards during the growing season of the last year of the responsibility period. III. Public Comment Procedures Under the provisions of 30 CFR 732.17(h), we are seeking your comments on whether the amendment satisfies the applicable program approval criteria of 30 CFR 732.15. If we approve the amendment, it will become part of the Virginia program. Written Comments Send your written or electronic comments to OSM at the address given above. Your written comments should be specific, pertain only to the issues proposed in this rulemaking, and include explanations in support of your recommendations. We may not consider or respond to your comments when developing the final rule if they are received after the close of the comment period (see DATES ). We will make every attempt to log all comments into the administrative record, but comments delivered to an address other than the Big Stone Gap Area Office may not be logged in. Electronic Comments Please submit Internet comments as an E-mail or Word file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Please also include Attn: SATS NO. VA-123-FOR and your name and return address in your Internet message. If you do not receive a confirmation that we have received your Internet message, contact the Big Stone Gap Area office at
(276)523-4303. Availability of Comments Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Public Hearing If you wish to speak at the public hearing, contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by 4 p.m. (local time), on April 24, 2007. If you are disabled and need special accommodations to attend a public hearing, contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . We will arrange the location and time of the hearing with those persons requesting the hearing. If no one requests an opportunity to speak, we will not hold a hearing. To assist the transcriber and ensure an accurate record, we request, if possible, that each person who speaks at the public hearing provide us with a written copy of his or her comments. The public hearing will continue on the specified date until everyone scheduled to speak has been given an opportunity to be heard. If you are in the audience and have not been scheduled to speak and wish to do so, you will be allowed to speak after those who have been scheduled. We will end the hearing after everyone scheduled to speak and others present in the audience who wish to speak, have been heard. Public Meeting If only one person requests an opportunity to speak, we may hold a public meeting rather than a public hearing. If you wish to meet with us to discuss the amendment, please request a meeting by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . All such meetings will be open to the public and, if possible, we will post notices of meetings at the locations listed under ADDRESSES . We will make a written summary of each meeting a part of the Administrative Record. IV. Procedural Determinations Executive Order 12630—Takings This rule does not have takings implications. This determination is based on the analysis performed for the counterpart Federal regulation. Executive Order 12866—Regulatory Planning and Review This rule is exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866. Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice Reform The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 and has determined that this rule meets the applicable standards of subsections
(a)and
(b)of that section. However, these standards are not applicable to the actual language of State regulatory programs and program amendments because each program is drafted and promulgated by a specific State, not by OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10), decisions on proposed State regulatory programs and program amendments submitted by the States must be based solely on a determination of whether the submittal is consistent with SMCRA and its implementing Federal regulations and whether the other requirements of 30 CFR Parts 730, 731, and 732 have been met. Executive Order 13132—Federalism This rule does not have Federalism implications. SMCRA delineates the roles of the Federal and State governments with regard to the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations. One of the purposes of SMCRA is to “establish a nationwide program to protect society and the environment from the adverse effects of surface coal mining operations.” Section 503(a)(1) of SMCRA requires that State laws regulating surface coal mining and reclamation operations be “in accordance with” the requirements of SMCRA, and section 503(a)(7) requires that State programs contain rules and regulations “consistent with” regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to SMCRA. Executive Order 13175—Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments In accordance with Executive Order 13175, we have evaluated the potential effects of this rule on Federally-recognized Indian tribes and have determined that the rule does not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. The basis for this determination is our decision is on a State regulatory program and does not involve a Federal regulation involving Indian lands. Executive Order 13211—Regulations That Significantly Affect The Supply, Distribution, Or Use Of Energy On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 which requires agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for a rule that is
(1)Considered significant under Executive Order 12866, and
(2)likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Because this rule is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866 and is not expected to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required. National Environmental Policy Act This rule does not require an environmental impact statement because section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that agency decisions on proposed State regulatory program provisions do not constitute major Federal actions within the meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). Paperwork Reduction Act This rule does not contain information collection requirements that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507 *et seq.* ). Regulatory Flexibility Act The Department of the Interior certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). The State submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an economic analysis was prepared and certification made that such regulations would not have a significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small entities. In making the determination as to whether this rule would have a significant economic impact, the Department relied upon the data and assumptions for the counterpart Federal regulations. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:
(a)Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million;
(b)Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; and
(c)Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. This determination is based upon the analysis performed under various laws and executive orders for the counterpart Federal regulations. Unfunded Mandates This rule will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any given year. This determination is based upon the analysis performed under various laws and executive orders for the counterpart Federal regulations. List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 948 Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining. Dated: March 2, 2007. H. Vann Weaver, Acting Regional Director, Appalachian Region. [FR Doc. E7-6577 Filed 4-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-05-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 30 CFR Part 946 [VA-124-FOR] Virginia Regulatory Program AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), Interior. ACTION: Proposed rule; public comment period and opportunity for public hearing on proposed amendments. SUMMARY: We are announcing receipt of a proposed amendment to the Virginia regulatory program under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act). The program amendment revises the Virginia Coal Surface Mining Reclamation Regulations concerning the distribution of topsoil and subsoil materials, revegetation standards for success, and to allow approval of natural stream restoration channel design, as developed in consultation with the Army Corps of Engineers. DATES: We will accept written comments on this amendment until 4 p.m. (local time), on May 9, 2007. If requested, we will hold a public hearing on the amendment on May 4, 2007. We will accept requests to speak at a hearing until 4 p.m. (local time), on April 24, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by VA-124-FOR, by any of the following methods: • *E-mail: tdieringer@osmre.gov* . Include VA-124-FOR in the subject line of the message. • *Mail/Hand Delivery:* Mr. Tim Dieringer, Director, Knoxville Field Office, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 1941 Neeley Road, Suite 201, Compartment 116, Big Stone Gap, Virginia 24219. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. *Instructions:* All submissions received must include the agency docket number for this rulemaking. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the “Public Comment Procedures” heading in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. You may also request to speak at a public hearing by any of the methods listed above or by contacting the individual listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . *Docket:* You may review copies of the Virginia program, this amendment, a listing of any scheduled public hearings, and all written comments received in response to this document at the addresses listed below during normal business hours, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. You may receive one free copy of the amendment by contacting OSM's Big Stone Gap Area Office. Mr. Tim Dieringer, Director, Knoxville Field Office, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 1941 Neeley Road, Suite 201, Compartment 116, Big Stone Gap, Virginia 24219, Telephone:
(276)523-4303. E-mail: *tdieringer@osmre.gov* . Mr. Leslie S. Vincent, Virginia Division of Mined Land Reclamation, P.O. Drawer 900, Big Stone Gap, Virginia 24219, Telephone:
(276)523-8100. E-mail: *lsv@mme.state.va.us* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Tim Dieringer, Director, Knoxville Field Office; Telephone:
(276)523-4303. E-mail: *tdieringer@osmre.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background on the Virginia Program II. Description of the Proposed Amendment III. Public Comment Procedures IV. Procedural Determinations I. Background on the Virginia Program Section 503(a) of the Act permits a State to assume primacy for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations on non-Federal and non-Indian lands within its borders by demonstrating that its program includes, among other things, “* * * a State law which provides for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations in accordance with the requirements of the Act* * *; and rules and regulations consistent with regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to the Act.” See 30 U.S.C. 1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis of these criteria, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally approved the Virginia program on December 15, 1981. You can find background information on the Virginia program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and conditions of approval of the Virginia program in the December 15, 1981, **Federal Register** (46 FR 61088). You can also find later actions concerning Virginia's program and program amendments at 30 CFR 946.12, 946.13, and 946.15. II. Description of the Proposed Amendment By letter dated February 13, 2007 (Administrative Record Number VA-1059), the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy
(DMME)submitted an amendment to the Virginia program. In its letter, the DMME stated that the program amendment reflects revisions of the Virginia rules to be consistent with the Federal rules to allow approval of natural stream restoration channel design, as developed in consultation with the Army Corp of Engineers. Specifically, the following amendments are proposed: 1. 4VAC 25-130-816.22 and 817.22 Topsoil and Subsoil Subsections (d), concerning redistribution of topsoil and subsoil materials are proposed to be revised. Subsections
(d)currently provide as follows:
(d)Redistribution.
(1)Topsoil materials removed under Paragraph
(a)of this section shall be redistributed in a manner that—
(i)Achieves an approximately uniform, stable thickness consistent with the approved postmining land use, contours, and surface-water drainage systems;
(ii)Prevents excess compaction of the materials; and
(iii)Protects the materials from wind and water erosion before and after seeding and planting. Subparts (d)(1) are proposed to be amended by inserting the words “and substitutes” between the word “materials” and the word “removed.” Also, the phrase “and (b)” is added immediately after the phrase “under subpart (a).” Subparts (d)(1)(i) are amended by adding the word “when” between the word “thickness” and the word “consistent.” Also, the following sentence is added at the end of subparts (d)(1)(i): “Soil thickness may also be varied to the extent such variations help meet the specific revegetation goals identified in the permit.” As amended, 4VAC 25-130-816.22(d) and 817.22(d) provide as follows:
(d)Redistribution.
(1)Topsoil materials and substitutes removed under Paragraphs
(a)and
(b)of this section shall be redistributed in a manner that—
(i)Achieves an approximately uniform, stable thickness when consistent with the approved postmining land use, contours, and surface-water drainage systems. Soil thickness may also be varied to the extent such variations help meet the specific revegetation goals identified in the permit;
(ii)Prevents excess compaction of the materials; and
(iii)Protects the materials from wind and water erosion before and after seeding and planting. In its submittal letter, the DMME stated that these changes in the Virginia rules will ensure they are consistent with the corresponding and applicable Federal rules at 30 CFR Parts 816 and 817; see **Federal Register** Vol. 71, No. 168, pages 51684 through 51706, which became final on August 30, 2006. In that **Federal Register** notice, OSM finalized changes to its regulations to improve the quality and diversity of revegetation in the reclamation of coal mined lands. The revised Federal provisions govern topsoil redistribution and revegetation success standards. 2. 4VAC25-130-816.43 and 817.43 Diversions Subsections (a), concerning general requirements, are proposed to be amended by revising subparts (a)(4) and deleting subparts (a)(5) in their entirety. Currently, subparts (a)(4) and (a)(5) provide as follow:
(a)General requirements.
(4)Diversions which convey water continuously or frequently shall be lined with rock rip rap to at least the normal flow depth, including an allowance for freeboard. Diversions constructed in competent bedrock and portions of channels above normal flow depth shall comply with the velocity limitations of Paragraph
(5)below.
(5)The maximum permissible velocity for the following methods of stabilization are: Vegetated channel constructed in soil: 3.5 feet per second; Vegetated channel with jute netting: 5.0 feet per second; Rock rip rap lined channel: 16.0 feet per second; Channel constructed in competent bedrock: No limit. Subparts (a)(4) are amended by deleting the second sentence and by revising the first sentence. In the first sentence, all the words following the phrase “continuously or frequently shall be” are deleted and are replaced by the words “designed by a qualified registered professional engineer and constructed to ensure stability and compliance with the standards of this Part and any other criteria set by the Division.” As amended, 4VAC 25-130-816.43(a)(4) and 817.43(a)(4) provide as follows:
(4)Diversions which convey water continuously or frequently shall be designed by a qualified registered professional engineer and constructed to ensure stability and compliance with the standards of this Part and any other criteria set by the Division. In its submittal letter, the DMME stated that these changes to the Virginia rules will allow the approval of natural stream restoration channel design approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and will ensure they are consistent with the corresponding and applicable Federal rules at 30 CFR Parts 816 and 817; see **Federal Register** Vol. 71, No. 168, pages 51684 through 51706, which became final on August 30, 2006. In that **Federal Register** notice, OSM finalized changes to its regulations to improve the quality and diversity of revegetation in the reclamation of coal mined lands. The Federal provisions govern topsoil redistribution and revegetation success standards. 3. 4VAC25-130-816.116 and 817.116 Revegetation; Standards for Success Subsections (a), concerning ground cover, production, or stocking, are proposed to be amended by revising subpart (a)(2). Subsections (b), concerning standards for success, are proposed to be amended by revising subparts (b)(3)(v)(C). Currently, subparts (a)(2) and (b)(3)(v)(C) provide as follows:
(a)Success of revegetation shall be judged on the effectiveness of the vegetation for the approved postmining land use, the extent of cover compared to the cover occurring in natural vegetation of the area, and the general requirements of 4VAC25-130-816.111.
(1)Statistically valid sampling techniques shall be used for measuring success.
(2)Ground cover, production, or stocking shall be considered equal to the approved success standard when they are not less than 90% of the success standard. The sampling techniques for measuring success shall use a 90% statistical confidence interval (i.e., one-sided test with a 0.10 alpha error). Sampling techniques for measuring woody plant stocking, ground cover, and production shall be in accordance with techniques approved by the division.
(b)Standards for success shall be applied in accordance with the approved postmining land use and, at a minimum, the following conditions:
(3)For areas to be developed for fish and wildlife habitat, recreation, shelter belts, or forest products, success of vegetation shall be determined on the basis of tree and shrub stocking and vegetative ground cover. Such parameters are described as follows:
(v)Where woody plants are used for wildlife management, recreation, shelter belts, or forest uses other than commercial forest land:
(A)The stocking of trees, shrubs, half-shrubs and the ground cover established on the revegetated area shall approximate the stocking and ground cover on the surrounding unmined area and shall utilize local and regional recommendations regarding species composition, spacing and planting arrangement;
(B)Areas planted only in herbaceous species shall sustain a vegetative ground cover of 90%;
(C)Areas planted with a mixture of herbaceous and woody species shall sustain a herbaceous vegetative ground cover of 90% and an average of 400 woody plants per acre. At least 40 of the woody plants for each acre shall be wildlife food-producing shrubs located suitably for wildlife enhancement, which may be distributed or clustered on the area. Subparts (a)(2) are amended by deleting the existing “90%” success standard and replacing that standard with a “70%” success standard. In addition, the following phrase is added to the end of the first sentence: “except as provided by
(b)of this section.” Also, the following parenthetical sentence is deleted: “The sampling techniques for measuring success shall use a 90% statistical confidence interval (i.e., one-sided test with a 0.10 alpha error.” Subparts (b)(3)(v)(C) are amended by deleting the “90%” success standard and replacing that standard with a “70%” success standard. As amended, 4VAC 25-130-816/817.116(a)(2) and (b)(3)(v)(C) provide as follows:
(a)Success of revegetation shall be judged on the effectiveness of the vegetation for the approved postmining land use, the extent of cover compared to the cover occurring in natural vegetation of the area, and the general requirements of 4VAC25-130-816.111.
(1)Statistically valid sampling techniques shall be used for measuring success.
(2)Ground cover, production, or stocking shall be considered equal to the approved success standard when they are not less than 70% of the success standard, except as provided by
(b)of this section. Sampling techniques for measuring woody plant stocking, ground cover, and production shall be in accordance with techniques approved by the division.
(b)Standards for success shall be applied in accordance with the approved postmining land use and, at a minimum, the following conditions:
(3)For areas to be developed for fish and wildlife habitat, recreation, shelter belts, or forest products, success of vegetation shall be determined on the basis of tree and shrub stocking and vegetative ground cover. Such parameters are described as follows:
(v)Where woody plants are used for wildlife management, recreation, shelter belts, or forest uses other than commercial forest land:
(A)The stocking of trees, shrubs, half-shrubs and the ground cover established on the revegetated area shall approximate the stocking and ground cover on the surrounding unmined area and shall utilize local and regional recommendations regarding species composition, spacing and planting arrangement;
(B)Areas planted only in herbaceous species shall sustain a vegetative ground cover of 90%;
(C)Areas planted with a mixture of herbaceous and woody species shall sustain a herbaceous vegetative ground cover of 70% and an average of 400 woody plants per acre. At least 40 of the woody plants for each acre shall be wildlife food-producing shrubs located suitably for wildlife enhancement, which may be distributed or clustered on the area. In its submittal letter, the DMME stated that these changes in the Virginia rules will ensure they are consistent with the corresponding and applicable Federal rules at 30 CFR Parts 816 and 817; see **Federal Register** Vol. 71, No. 168, pages 51684 through 51706, which became final on August 30, 2006. In that **Federal Register** notice, OSM finalized changes to its regulations to improve the quality and diversity of revegetation in the reclamation of coal mined lands. The revisions govern topsoil redistribution and revegetation success standards. III. Public Comment Procedures Under the provisions of 30 CFR 732.17(h), we are seeking your comments on whether the amendment satisfies the applicable program approval criteria of 30 CFR 732.15. If we approve the amendment, it will become part of the Virginia program. Written Comments Send your written or electronic comments to OSM at the address given above. Your written comments should be specific, pertain only to the issues proposed in this rulemaking, and include explanations in support of your recommendations. We may not consider or respond to your comments when developing the final rule if they are received after the close of the comment period (see DATES ). We will make every attempt to log all comments into the administrative record, but comments delivered to an address other than the Big Stone Gap Area Office may not be logged in. Electronic Comments Please submit Internet comments as an E-mail or Word file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Please also include Attn: SATS NO. VA-124-FOR and your name and return address in your Internet message. If you do not receive a confirmation that we have received your Internet message, contact the Big Stone Gap Area office at
(276)523-4303. Availability of Comments Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Public Hearing If you wish to speak at the public hearing, contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by 4 p.m. (local time), on April 24, 2007. If you are disabled and need special accommodations to attend a public hearing, contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . We will arrange the location and time of the hearing with those persons requesting the hearing. If no one requests an opportunity to speak, we will not hold a hearing. To assist the transcriber and ensure an accurate record, we request, if possible, that each person who speaks at the public hearing provide us with a written copy of his or her comments. The public hearing will continue on the specified date until everyone scheduled to speak has been given an opportunity to be heard. If you are in the audience and have not been scheduled to speak and wish to do so, you will be allowed to speak after those who have been scheduled. We will end the hearing after everyone scheduled to speak and others present in the audience who wish to speak, have been heard. Public Meeting If only one person requests an opportunity to speak, we may hold a public meeting rather than a public hearing. If you wish to meet with us to discuss the amendment, please request a meeting by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . All such meetings will be open to the public and, if possible, we will post notices of meetings at the locations listed under ADDRESSES . We will make a written summary of each meeting a part of the Administrative Record. IV. Procedural Determinations Executive Order 12630—Takings This rule does not have takings implications. This determination is based on the analysis performed for the counterpart Federal regulation. Executive Order 12866—Regulatory Planning and Review This rule is exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866. Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice Reform The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 and has determined that this rule meets the applicable standards of subsections
(a)and
(b)of that section. However, these standards are not applicable to the actual language of State regulatory programs and program amendments because each program is drafted and promulgated by a specific State, not by OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10), decisions on proposed State regulatory programs and program amendments submitted by the States must be based solely on a determination of whether the submittal is consistent with SMCRA and its implementing Federal regulations and whether the other requirements of 30 CFR Parts 730, 731, and 732 have been met. Executive Order 13132—Federalism This rule does not have Federalism implications. SMCRA delineates the roles of the Federal and State governments with regard to the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations. One of the purposes of SMCRA is to “establish a nationwide program to protect society and the environment from the adverse effects of surface coal mining operations.” Section 503(a)(1) of SMCRA requires that State laws regulating surface coal mining and reclamation operations be “in accordance with” the requirements of SMCRA, and section 503(a)(7) requires that State programs contain rules and regulations “consistent with” regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to SMCRA. Executive Order 13175—Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments In accordance with Executive Order 13175, we have evaluated the potential effects of this rule on Federally-recognized Indian tribes and have determined that the rule does not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. The basis for this determination is our decision is on a State regulatory program and does not involve a Federal regulation involving Indian lands. Executive Order 13211—Regulations That Significantly Affect the Supply, Distribution, or Use of Energy On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 which requires agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for a rule that is
(1)Considered significant under Executive Order 12866, and
(2)likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Because this rule is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866 and is not expected to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required. National Environmental Policy Act This rule does not require an environmental impact statement because section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that agency decisions on proposed State regulatory program provisions do not constitute major Federal actions within the meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). Paperwork Reduction Act This rule does not contain information collection requirements that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507 *et seq.* ). Regulatory Flexibility Act The Department of the Interior certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). The State submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an economic analysis was prepared and certification made that such regulations would not have a significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small entities. In making the determination as to whether this rule would have a significant economic impact, the Department relied upon the data and assumptions for the counterpart Federal regulations. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:
(a)Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million;
(b)Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; and
(c)Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. This determination is based upon the analysis performed under various laws and executive orders for the counterpart Federal regulations. Unfunded Mandates This rule will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any given year. This determination is based upon the analysis performed under various laws and executive orders for the counterpart Federal regulations. List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 948 Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining. Dated: March 2, 2007. H. Vann Weaver, Acting Regional Director, Appalachian Region. [FR Doc. E7-6578 Filed 4-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-05-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [CGD05-07-029] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulation for Marine Events; Roanoke River, Plymouth, North Carolina AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish special local regulations during the “Plymouth Drag Boat Race Series”, a series of power boat races to be held on the waters of the Roanoke River, Plymouth, North Carolina. These special local regulations are necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during the event. This action is intended to restrict vessel traffic in portions of the Roanoke River adjacent to Plymouth, North Carolina during the power boat race. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before May 9, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander (dpi), Fifth Coast Guard District, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, Virginia, 23704-5004, hand deliver them to room 415 at the same address between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, fax them to
(757)391-8149, or e-mail them to *Dennis.M.Sens@uscg.mil* . The Inspections and Investigations Branch, Fifth Coast Guard District, maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at the Federal Building, Fifth Coast Guard District between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: CWO Christopher Humphrey, Prevention Department, Sector North Carolina, at
(252)247-4525 or via e-mail to *Christopher.D.Humphrey@uscg.mil* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Request for Comments We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking [CCGD05-07-029], indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them. Public Meeting We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the **Federal Register** . Background and Purpose The Outboard Drag Boat Association will be sponsoring a series of seven
(7)power boat racing events titled the “Plymouth Drag Boat Race”. The power boat races will be held on the following dates: June 24, July 22, August 11, 12, 19, September 30 and October 21, 2007. The races will be held on the Roanoke River immediately adjacent to Plymouth, North Carolina. The power boat races will consist of approximately
(30)vessels conducting high speed straight line runs along the river and parallel with the shoreline. A fleet of spectator vessels are expected to gather near the event site to view the competition. To provide for the safety of participants, spectators and other transiting vessels, the Coast Guard will temporarily restrict vessel traffic in the event area during the power boat races. Discussion of Proposed Rule The Coast Guard proposes to establish special local regulations on specified waters of the Roanoke River, in the vicinity of Plymouth, NC. The regulated area includes a section of the Roanoke River approximately one mile long and bounded in width by each shoreline, immediately adjacent to Plymouth, NC. The effect of this regulation would be to restrict general navigation in the regulated area during the drag boat races. This special local regulation will be enforced from 10 a.m. to 8:30 p.m. on June 24, July 22, August 11, 12, 19, September 30 and October 21, 2007. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area. Non-participating vessels will be allowed to transit the regulated area between races, when the Coast Guard Patrol Commander determines it is safe to do so. This regulation is needed to control vessel traffic during the event to enhance the safety of participants, spectators and transiting vessels. Regulatory Evaluation This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. Although this regulation will prevent traffic from transiting a portion of the Roanoke River during the event, the effect of this regulation will not be significant due to the limited duration that the regulated area will be in effect and the extensive advance notification that will be made to the maritime community via marine information broadcast, local radio stations and area newspapers so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. Additionally, the regulated area has been narrowly tailored to impose the least impact on general navigation yet provide the level of safety deemed necessary. Vessel traffic will be able to transit the regulated area between heats, when the Coast Guard Patrol Commander deems it is safe to do so. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities: owners or operators of vessels intending to transit this section of the Roanoke River from 10 a.m. to 8:30 p.m. on June 24, July 22, August 11, 12, 19, September 30 and October 21, 2007. This proposed rule would not have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. Although the regulated area will apply to a one mile segment of the Roanoke River, traffic may be allowed to pass through the regulated area with the permission of the Coast Guard Patrol Commander. In the case where the Patrol Commander authorizes passage through the regulated area during the event, vessels shall proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course that minimizes wake near the race course. The Patrol Commander will allow non-participating vessels to transit the area between races. Before the enforcement period, we will issue maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact U.S. Coast Guard Sector North Carolina, listed at the beginning of this rule. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( *e.g.* , specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, we believe that this rule should be categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the instruction, an “Environmental Analysis Check List” is not required for this rule. Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final decision on whether this rule should be categorically excluded from further environmental review. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100 Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR Part 100 as follows: PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS 1. The authority citation for Part 100 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233. 2. Add temporary § 100.35-T05-029 to read as follows: § 100.35-T05-029 Roanoke River, Plymouth, North Carolina.
(a)*Regulated area.* The regulated area includes all waters of Roanoke River commencing at the north river bank at latitude 350°52′20″ N, longitude 0760°44′47″ W, thence a line 180 degrees due south across the river to the shoreline thence west along the shoreline to a position located at latitude 35°51′43″ N, longitude 076°43′45″ W, thence 000 degrees due north across the river to the shoreline thence east along the shoreline to the point of origin. All coordinates reference Datum NAD 1983.
(b)*Definitions.*
(1)*Coast Guard Patrol Commander* means a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the Coast Guard who has been designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector North Carolina.
(2)*Official Patrol* means any vessel assigned or approved by Commander, Coast Guard Sector North Carolina with a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer on board and displaying a Coast Guard ensign.
(c)*Special local regulations.*
(1)Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area.
(2)The operator of any vessel in the regulated area shall:
(i)Stop the vessel immediately when directed to do so by any Official Patrol.
(ii)Proceed as directed by any official patrol.
(d)*Enforcement period.* This section will be enforced from 10 a.m. to 8:30 p.m. on June 24, July 22, August 11, 12, 19, September 30 and October 21, 2007. Dated: March 20, 2007. Larry L. Hereth, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. 07-1621 Filed 4-6-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 28
Traces to 28 documents
CFR
- Designation of applicable regulations.§ 21.17
- Special conditions.§ 21.16
- May I address the unsafe condition in a way other than that set out in the airworthiness directive?§ 39.19
- Applicability.§ 71.1
- Laboratory and sampling and testing personnel qualifications.§ 637.209
- State program provisions and amendments not approved.§ 946.12
- State program amendments.§ 732.17
- Criteria for approval or disapproval of State programs.§ 732.15
- Inconsistent and more stringent State laws and regulations.§ 730.11
U.S. Code
- Federal Aviation Administration§ 106
- National Highway System§ 103
- Statements to accompany significant regulatory actions§ 1532
- Purposes§ 3501
- Congressional declaration of purpose§ 4321
- Establishment, functions, and activities§ 272
- Standards§ 109
- State programs§ 1253
- Other Federal laws§ 1292
- Cooperation of agencies; reports; availability of information; recommendations; international and national coordination of efforts§ 4332
- Public information collection activities; submission to Director; approval and delegation§ 3507
- Definitions§ 601
- EXPEDITED PROCESSING OF REQUESTS FOR JAPANESE IMPERIAL GOVERNMENT RECORDS.§ 804
- Avoidance of duplicative or unnecessary analyses§ 605
24 references not yet in our index
- 10 CFR 73
- 14 CFR 25
- 14 CFR 34
- Pub. L. 92-574
- 14 CFR 39
- 14 CFR 71
- 23 CFR 637
- Pub. L. 104-59
- 109 Stat. 188
- Pub. L. 96-354
- 5 USC 601-612
- Pub. L. 104-4
- 109 Stat. 48
- Pub. L. 105-178
- 112 Stat. 107
- 49 CFR 1.48(b)
- 30 CFR 946
- 30 CFR 948
- 33 CFR 100
- Pub. L. 104-121
- 44 USC 3501-3520
- 2 USC 1531-1538
- 42 USC 4321-4370f
- 33 USC 1233
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Petition for rulemaking; notice of receipt
Cite10 CFR 73
Cite14 CFR 25
Cite14 CFR 34
Cites 52 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources