Proposed Rules. Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)

15,284 words·~69 min read·/register/2007/04/16/07-1882

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

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P > DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-27747; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-030-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Cessna Aircraft Company Models 150 and 152 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for certain Cessna Aircraft Company (Cessna) Models 150 and 152 airplanes. This proposed AD would require replacing the rudder stop, rudder stop bumper, and attachment hardware with a new rudder stop modification kit. This proposed AD also requires replacing the safety wire with jamnuts. This proposed AD results from two accidents where the rudder was found in the over-travel position with the stop plate hooked over the stop bolt heads. We are proposing this AD to prevent the rudder from traveling past the normal travel limit and becoming jammed in the over-travel position. This condition could result in loss of control. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 15, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to comment on this proposed AD: • DOT Docket Web site: Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-0001. • Fax:

(202)493-2251. • Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Cessna Aircraft Company, Product Support, P.O. Box 7706, Wichita, KS 67277; telephone:

(316)517-5800; fax:

(316)942-9006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Park, Aerospace Engineer, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone:

(316)946-4123; fax:

(316)946-4107. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number, “FAA-2007-27747; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-030-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of 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 concerning this proposed AD. Discussion This AD results from two spin accidents involving Cessna Model 152 airplanes where the rudder was found in the over-travel position with the stop plate hooked over the stop bolt heads. In the first accident, which occurred in Canada, a flight instructor and student pilot were unable to recover after performing a spin maneuver. When the airplane was inspected, the rudder was found jammed. In the second accident the rudder bumper was found to be installed incorrectly, which resulted in a rudder jam during an attempted spin recovery. Upon recovery of the airplanes after the accidents, both accident airplanes had their rudder stop plates hooked over the stop bolts. After examining the accident airplanes and other Cessna Models 150 and 152 airplanes, accident investigators determined that, under certain conditions, it is possible to jam the rudder past its normal travel limit. The jam occurs when the stop plate is forced aft of the stop bolt head. The forward edge of the stop plate can then become lodged under the head of the stop bolt causing the rudder to jam in this over-travel position. Recovery from a spin may not be possible with the rudder jammed beyond the normal rudder travel stop limits. This condition, if not corrected, could result in loss of control. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed the following Cessna Aircraft Company service information, dated January 22, 2001: • Service Bulletin SEB01-1; • Service Kit SK152-25; and • Service Kit SK152-24. The service information describes procedures for replacing the rudder stop, rudder stop bumper, and attachment hardware with a new rudder stop modification kit. The service information also describes the procedure for replacing the safety wire with jamnuts. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. This proposed AD would require replacing the rudder stop, rudder stop bumper, and attachment hardware with a new rudder stop modification kit. This proposed AD also requires replacing the safety wire with jamnuts. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 18,670 airplanes in the U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to do the proposed modification: Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane Total cost on U.S. operators 4 work-hours × $80 per hour = $320 $60 $380 $7,094,600 Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this 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 that the 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. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket that contains the proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information 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 Docket Office (telephone

(800)647-5227) is located at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. 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: **Cessna Aircraft Company:** Docket No. FAA-2007-27747; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-030-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)We must receive comments on this airworthiness directive

(AD)action by June 15, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to the following airplane models and serial numbers that are certificated in any category: Models Serial numbers

(1)150F 15061533 through 15064532.

(2)150G 15064533 through 15064969 and 15064971 through 15067198.

(3)150H 15067199 through 15069308 and 649.

(4)150J 15069309 through 15071128.

(5)150K 15071129 through 15072003.

(6)150L 15072004 through 15075781.

(7)150M 15075782 through 15079405.

(8)A150K A1500001 through A1500226.

(9)A150L A1500227 through A1500432 and A1500434 through A1500523.

(10)A150M A1500524 through A1500734 and 15064970.

(11)A-150L A-1501001 through A-1501039.

(12)A-A150L A-A1500001 through A-A1500009.

(13)F150F F150-0001 through F150-0067.

(14)F150G F150-0068 through F150-0219.

(15)F150H F150-0220 through F150-0389.

(16)F150J F150-0390 through F150-0529.

(17)F150K F15000530 through F15000658.

(18)F150L F15000659 through F15001143.

(19)F150M F15001144 through F15001428.

(20)FA150K FA1500001 through FA1500081.

(21)FA150L FA1500082 through FA1500261.

(22)FA150M FA1500262 through FA1500336.

(23)152 15279406 through 15286033.

(24)A152 A1520735 through A1521049, A1500433, and 681.

(25)F152 F15201429 through F15201980.

(26)FA152 FA1520337 through FA1520425. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from two accidents where the rudder was found in the over-travel position with the stop plate hooked over the stop bolt heads. We are issuing this AD to prevent the rudder from traveling past the normal travel limit and becoming jammed in the over-travel position. This condition could result in loss of control. Compliance

(e)To address this problem, you must do the following, unless already done: Action Compliance Procedures

(1)*For airplanes with a forged bulkhead:* Replace the rudder stop, rudder stop bumper, and attachment hardware with the new rudder stop modification kit SK152-25; and replace safety wire with jamnuts Within the next 100 hours time-in-service

(TIS)or 12 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first Follow Cessna Aircraft Company Service Bulletin SEB01-1, and Cessna Aircraft Company Service Kit SK152-25, both dated January 22, 2001.

(2)*For airplanes with a sheet metal bulkhead:* Replace the rudder stop, rudder stop bumper, and attachment hardware with the new rudder stop modification kit SK152-24; and replace safety wire with jamnuts Within the next 100 hours TIS or 12 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first Follow Cessna Aircraft Company Service Bulletin SEB01-1, and Cessna Aircraft Company Service Kit SK152-24, both dated January 22, 2001. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

(f)The Manager, FAA, ATTN: Gary Park, Aerospace Engineer, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone:

(316)946-4123; fax:

(316)946-4107, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector

(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. Related Information

(g)To get copies of the service information referenced in this AD, contact Cessna Aircraft Company, Product Support, P.O. Box 7706, Wichita, KS 67277; telephone:

(316)517-5800; fax:

(316)942-9006. To view the AD docket, go to the Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC, or on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* . The docket number is Docket No. FAA-2007-27747; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-030-AD. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on April 10, 2007. Kim Smith, Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-7180 Filed 4-13-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [DoD-2007-HA-0015] RIN 0720-AB13 32 CFR Part 199 TRICARE; Expansion of Geographic Scope of the TRICARE Retiree Dental Program

(TRDP)AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DoD. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This proposed rule expands the geographic scope of the TRICARE Retiree Dental Program

(TRDP)to overseas locations not currently covered by the program. At this time, TRDP is only applicable in the 50 United States and the District of Columbia, Canada, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Expanding the geographic scope of the program will ensure that all TRICARE-eligible retirees are eligible for the same dental benefits, regardless of their location. There are no additional Government costs associated with this proposed expansion of TRDP overseas as TRDP costs are borne entirely by enrollees through premium payments. DATES: Written comments received at the address indicated below by June 15, 2007 will be accepted. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number and/or RIN number and title, by any of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • Mail: Federal Docket Management System Office, 1160 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1160. *Instructions:* All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number or Regulatory Information Number

(RIN)for this **Federal Register** document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at *http://regulations.gov* as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Debra Hatzel, Program Requirements Division, TRICARE Management Activity, telephone

(303)676-3572. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposed rule expands the geographic scope of TRDP to overseas locations not currently covered by the program. Although 10 U.S.C. 1076c, does not restrict the geographic availability of the TRDP, per 32 CFR 199.22(b)(3), TRDP is currently limited to the 50 United States and the District of Columbia, Canada, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Expanding the geographic scope of the program will ensure that all TRICARE-eligible retirees are eligible for the same dental benefits, regardless of their location. This expansion of the geographic scope of the TRDP program is based upon feedback from the TRICARE-eligible retiree community which indicated that there is a demand for this program in all overseas locations. Although the TRDP is administered in a manner similar to the TDP, there are significant differences in program funding. TDP costs are shared for two of the four eligible categories of TDP enrollees between the enrollees and the Department of Defense; however, for the other two categories of TDP enrollees, and all TRDP enrollees, costs are borne entirely by enrollees through premium payments. Enrollees are also responsible for any dental costs in excess of the TRDP coverage limits, and the contractor is solely responsible for any program costs in excess of annual premium payments. Therefore, there are no additional Government costs associated with this proposed expansion of TRDP coverage overseas. Specific methods of TRDP program administration, payment rates and procedures, provider licensure and certification requirements, and other program elements may differ by location to the extent necessary for the effective and efficient operation of the plan. These differences may include, but are not limited to, specific provisions for preauthorization of care, varying licensure and certification requirements for foreign providers, and other differences based on limitations in the availability and capabilities of the Uniformed Services overseas dental treatment facilities and a particular nation's civilian sector providers in certain areas. Regulatory Procedures Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits available, regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity. The Order classifies a rule as a significant regulatory action requiring review by the Office of Management and Budget if it meets any one of a number of specified conditions, including having an annual effect on the national economy of $100 million or more, creating a serious inconsistency or interfering with an action of another agency, materially altering the budgetary impact of entitlements or the rights of entitlement recipients, or raising novel legal or policy issues. DoD has examined the economic, legal, and policy implications of this proposed rule and has concluded that it is a significant regulatory action because it may raise novel legal or policy issues of enhancing the dental health of military retirees and their dependents who reside overseas. The changes set forth in the proposed rule to the existing regulation do not change the basic TRDP benefit structure. Regulatory Flexibility Act

(RFA)requires that each Federal Agency prepare and make available for public comment, a regulatory flexibility analysis when the agency issues a Regulation which would have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule does not have a significant impact on small entities. This proposed rule is not a major rule under the Congressional Review Act because its economic impact will be less than $100 million. Executive Order 13132 requires that each Federal Agency shall consult with State and local officials and obtain their input if a rule has federalism implications which have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have examined the impact of the proposed rule under Executive Order 13132 and it does not have policies that have federalism implications that would have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government; therefore, consultation with State and local officials is not required. This rule contains a collection-of-information requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act

(PRA)of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3511) and which has been approved by OMB under control number 0720-0015. This rule will not change this requirement, but will only increase the number of beneficiaries who are eligible to enroll in the TDRP by approximately 100,000 people. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 15 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Service, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0720-0015), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 199 Claims, Dental health, Health care, Health insurance, Individuals with disabilities, Military personnel. Accordingly, 32 CFR part 199 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 199—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 199 continues to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 10 U.S.C. chapter 55. 2. Section 199.22 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows: § 199.22 TRICARE Retiree Dental Program (TRDP).

(b)* * *

(3)*Geographic scope.*

(i)The TRDP is applicable to authorized providers in the 50 United States and the District of Columbia, Canada, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

(ii)The Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) (ASD(HA)) may extend the TRDP to geographic areas other than those specified in paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section. In extending the TRDP overseas, the ASD(HA), or designee, is authorized to establish program elements, methods of administration, and payment rates and procedures that are different from those in effect for the areas specified in paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section to the extent the ASD(HA), or designee, determines necessary for the effective and efficient operation of the TRDP. These differences may include, but are not limited to, specific provisions for preauthorization of care, varying licensure and certification requirements for foreign providers, and other differences based on limitations in the availability and capabilities of the Uniformed Services overseas dental treatment facilities and a particular nation's civilian sector providers in certain areas. The Director, TRICARE Management Activity shall issue guidance, as necessary, to implement the provisions of this paragraph. TRDP enrollees residing in overseas locations will be eligible for the same benefits as enrollees residing in the continental United States, although dental services may not be available or accessible in all locations. Dated: April 10, 2007. L.M. Bynum, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. [FR Doc. E7-7132 Filed 4-13-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 147 [CGD08-07-004] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Outer Continental Shelf Facility in the Gulf of Mexico for Mississippi Canyon Block 920 AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a 500 meter safety zone around the oil and natural gas production facility Independence Hub in Mississippi Canyon Block 920 of the Outer Continental Shelf in the Gulf of Mexico. This safety zone is needed to protect the crew of the Independence Hub and vessels operating in the vicinity of the facility. Vessels are prohibited from entering this proposed safety zone with the following exceptions: an attending vessel; a vessel under 100 feet in length overall not engaged in towing; or a vessel authorized by the Eighth Coast Guard District Commander. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before June 15, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District (dpw), Hale Boggs Federal Bldg., 500 Poydras Street, New Orleans, LA 70130, or comments and related material may be delivered to Room 1230 at the same address between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is

(504)671-2107. Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District

(dpw)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 location listed above during the noted time periods. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Blakemore, waterways management specialist for Eighth Coast Guard District Commander, Hale Boggs Federal Bldg., 500 Poydras Street, New Orleans, LA 70130, telephone

(504)671-2109. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Requests 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 [CGD08-07-004], 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 plan to hold a public meeting. However, you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District

(dpw)at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that a public meeting 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 Coast Guard proposes to establish a safety zone around the Independence Hub facility, an oil and natural gas production facility in the Gulf of Mexico in Mississippi Canyon Block 920, located at position 28.085° N, 87.986° W. The Independence Hub is an integrated development of nine gas fields and consists of a deepdraft, column-legged, semi-submersible production platform, a subsea production infrastructure, connecting flowlines and a trunk line terminating at a junction platform in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana. Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (Anadarko), the lead operator of the Independence Hub, has requested that a safety zone be established 500 meters around the semi-submersible production platform. Navigation in the vicinity of the proposed safety zone consists of large commercial shipping vessels, fishing vessels, cruise ships, tugs with tows and the occasional recreational vessel. Significant amounts of vessel traffic occur in or near the various fairways in the deepwater area. Information provided by Anadarko to the Coast Guard indicates that the location, production levels, and personnel levels on board the facility make it highly likely that any allision with the facility or its mooring system could result in a catastrophic event. The proposed rule would reduce the threat of allisions, oil spills and natural gas releases and increase the safety of life, property, and the environment in the Gulf of Mexico. Discussion of Proposed Rule The proposed safety zone would encompass the area within 500 meters from each point on the Independence Hub's structure outer edge. No vessel would be allowed to enter or remain in this proposed safety zone except the following: an attending vessel; a vessel under 100 feet in length overall not engaged in towing; or a vessel authorized by the Eighth Coast Guard District Commander. Regulatory Evaluation This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not significant under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full regulatory evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. The impacts on routine navigation are expected to be minimal because the proposed safety zone will not overlap any of the safety fairways within the Gulf of Mexico. 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. Since the Independence Hub facility will be located far offshore, few privately owned fishing vessels and recreational boats/yachts operate in the area and alternate routes are available for those vessels. Therefore, the Coast Guard expects the impact of this proposed rule on small entities to be minimal. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies 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 Doug Blakemore, waterways management specialist for Eighth Coast Guard District Commander, Hale Boggs Federal Bldg., 500 Poydras Street, New Orleans, LA 70130, telephone

(504)671-2109. 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 will not result in such expenditure, we discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This proposed rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it 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. We invite your comments on this proposed rule. This proposed rule might impact tribal governments, even though the impact may not constitute a tribal implication under the rule. 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 M16475.1D, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1 paragraph (34)(g), of the instruction, from further environmental documentation because this rule is not expected to result in any significant environmental impact as described in NEPA. A draft “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a draft “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final decision on whether the rule should be categorically excluded from further environmental review. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 147 Continental shelf, Marine safety, Water. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 147 as follows: PART 147—SAFETY ZONES 1. The authority citation for part 147 continues to read as follows: Authority: 14 U.S.C. 85; 43 U.S.C. 1333; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Add § 147.845 to read as follows: § 147.845 Independence Hub safety zone.

(a)*Description.* The Independence Hub, Mississippi Canyon Block 920, is located at position 28.08505611° N, 87.98583917° W. The area within 500 meters (1640.4 feet) from each point on the structure's outer edge is a safety zone. These coordinates are based upon [NAD 83].

(b)*Regulation.* No vessel may enter or remain in this safety zone except the following:

(1)An attending vessel;

(2)A vessel under 100 feet in length overall not engaged in towing; or

(3)A vessel authorized by the Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District. Dated: April 5, 2007. Richard G. Sullivan, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 8th Coast Guard District, Acting. [FR Doc. E7-7186 Filed 4-13-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [CGD1-07-008] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone: Beverly Homecoming Fireworks, Beverly, MA. AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes establishing a temporary safety zone for the Town of Beverly Homecoming Fireworks in Beverly, Massachusetts currently scheduled to occur on August 5, 2007 temporarily closing all navigable waters of Beverly Harbor within a five hundred

(500)yard radius of the fireworks launch barge located at approximate position 42° 32.650 N, 070° 51.980 W. The safety zone is needed to protect the maritime public from the potential hazards posed by a fireworks display. The safety zone will prohibit entry into or movement within this portion of Beverly Harbor during its effective period. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before May 16, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Sector Boston 427 Commercial Street, Boston, MA. Sector Boston 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 Sector Boston, 427 Commercial Street, Boston, MA between the hours of 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Petty Officer Joseph Yonker, Sector Boston, Waterways Management Division, at

(500)yard radius of the fireworks launch barge located at approximate position 42° 32.650 N, 070° 51.980 W. The safety zone would be in effect from 8:30 p.m. EDT until 11:30 p.m. EDT on August 5, 2007. This safety zone would temporarily prohibit entry into or movement within the effected portion of Beverly Harbor and is needed to protect the maritime public from the potential dangers posed by a fireworks display. Discussion of Proposed Rule The Coast Guard proposes establishing a temporary safety zone in a portion of Beverly Harbor. The safety zone would be in effect from 8:30 p.m. EDT until 11:30 p.m. EDT on August 5, 2007. Marine traffic may transit safely outside of the safety zone during the event thereby allowing navigation of Beverly Harbor except for the portion delineated by this rule. This safety zone will control vessel traffic during the fireworks event to protect the safety of the maritime public. Due to the limited time frame of the firework display and because the zone leaves the majority of Beverly Harbor open for navigation, the Captain of the Port anticipates minimal negative impact on vessel traffic due to this event. Public notifications will be made prior to the effective period via local notice to mariners and marine information broadcasts. Regulatory Evaluation This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. Although this rule would prevent vessel traffic from transiting a portion of Beverly Harbor during the fireworks event, the effect of this regulation would not be significant for several reasons: vessels will be excluded from the proscribed area for only three hours, vessels will be able to operate in the majority of Beverly Harbor during this time period; and advance notifications will be made to the local maritime community by marine information broadcasts and Local Notice to Mariners. 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 rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in the effected portion of Beverly Harbor from 8:30 p.m. EDT on August 5, 2007 until 11:30 p.m. EDT on August 5, 2007. This safety zone would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: vessel traffic can safely pass outside of the safety zone during the effective period; the effective period is limited in duration, and advance notifications via safety marine informational broadcast and local notice to mariners will be made to the local maritime community. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding 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 Petty Officer Joseph Yonker at the address listed under ADDRESSES . The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This 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 affect 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 may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, we believe that this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g) of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. This rule fits the category selected from paragraph (34)(g), as it would establish a safety zone. A preliminary “Environmental Analysis Check List” is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final decision on whether this rule should be categorically excluded from further environmental review. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Add temporary § 165.T07-008 to read as follows: § 165.T07-008 Safety Zone: Beverly Homecoming Fireworks—Beverly, Massachusetts.

(a)*Location.* The following area is a safety zone: All navigable waters of Beverly Harbor within a 500 yard radius of the fireworks launch barge located at approximate position 42° 32.650 N, 070° 51.980 W.

(b)*Effective Date.* This section is effective from 8:30 p.m. EDT on August 5, 2007 until 11:30 p.m. EDT on August 5, 2007.

(c)*Definitions.*

(1)As used in this section, *designated representative* means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port (COTP).

(2)*[Reserved]*

(d)*Regulations.*

(1)In accordance with the general regulations in section 165.23 of this part, entry into or movement within this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Boston or the designated representative.

(2)All vessel operators shall comply with the instructions of the COTP or the designated representative. Dated: April 5, 2007. J.L. McDonald, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Boston, Massachusetts. [FR Doc. E7-7177 Filed 4-13-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [CGD1-07-001] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Town of Marblehead Fourth of July Fireworks Display, Marblehead Harbor, MA AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes establishing a temporary safety zone for the Town of Marblehead Fourth of July Fireworks. This safety zone is necessary to protect the life and property of the maritime public from the potential hazards associated with a fireworks display. The safety zone would temporarily prohibit entry into or movement within this portion of Marblehead Harbor during the closure period. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before May 16, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Sector Boston, 427 Commercial Street, Boston, MA. Sector Boston 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 are part of docket CGD01-07-001 and are available for inspection or copying at Sector Boston, 427 Commercial Street, Boston, MA between the hours of 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Petty Officer Joseph Yonker, Sector Boston, Waterways Management Division, at

(617)223-5007. 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 the rulemaking (CGD01-07-001), 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 materials in an unbound format, no larger than 8.5 by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know that your submission reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We may change this proposed rule in view of them. Public Meeting We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. You may, however submit a request for a meeting by writing to Sector Boston at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the **Federal Register** . Background and Purpose This rule proposes to establish a safety zone on the waters of Marblehead Harbor within a 500-yard radius of the fireworks barge located at approximate position 42° 30′.567″ N, 070° 50′.162″ W. The safety zone would be in effect from 8:30 p.m. until 10 p.m. EDT on July 4, 2007. The rain date for the fireworks event is from 8:30 p.m. until 10 p.m. EDT on July 5, 2007. The safety zone would temporarily restrict movement within this effected portion of Marblehead Harbor and is needed to protect the maritime public from the dangers posed by a fireworks display. Marine traffic may transit safely outside the safety zone during the effective period. The Captain of the Port does not anticipate any negative impact on vessel traffic due to this event. Public notifications will be made prior to the effective period of this proposed rule via safety marine information broadcasts and Local Notice to Mariners. Discussion of Proposed Rule The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a temporary safety zone in Marblehead Harbor, Marblehead, Massachusetts. The safety zone would be in effect from 8:30 p.m. until 10 p.m. EDT on July 4, 2007, with a rain date of 8:30 p.m. until 10 p.m. EDT on July 5, 2007. Marine traffic may transit safely outside of the safety zone in the majority of Marblehead Harbor during the event. This safety zone will control vessel traffic during the fireworks display to protect the safety of the maritime public. Due to the limited time frame of the fireworks display, the Captain of the Port anticipates minimal negative impact on vessel traffic due to this event. Public notifications will be made prior to the effective period via local media, local notice to mariners and marine information broadcasts. Regulatory Evaluation This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. Although this proposed rule would prevent traffic from transiting a portion of Marblehead Harbor during the effective period, the effects of this rule will not be significant for several reasons: vessels will be excluded from the proscribed area for only one and one half hours, and advance notifications will be made to the local maritime community by marine information broadcasts and Local Notice to Mariners. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Coast Guard considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in the effected portion of Marblehead Harbor from 8:30 p.m. EDT on July 4, 2007 to 10 p.m. EDT on July 4, 2007 or during the same hours on July 5. This safety zone would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: this proposed rule would be in effect for only one and one half hours, vessel traffic can safely pass around the safety zone during the effected period, and advance notification via safety marine informational broadcast and Local Notice to Mariners will be made before and during the effective period. 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. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding 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 Petty Officer Joseph Yonker at the address listed under ADDRESSES . The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This proposed rule 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 expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This proposed rule 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. 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 may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it 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 Coast Guard Instruction M16475.1D, which guides 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 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, we believe that this rule should be categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. This rule fits the category selected from paragraph (34)(g), as it would establish a safety zone. A preliminary “Environmental Analysis Check List” is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final decision on whether this rule should be categorically excluded from further environmental review. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Add temporary § 165.T01-001 to read as follows: § 165.T01-001 Safety Zone; Town of Marblehead Fourth of July Fireworks Display, Marblehead, Massachusetts.

(a)*Location.* The following area is a safety zone: All waters of Marblehead Harbor within a 500-yard radius of the fireworks barge located at approximate position 42°30′567″ N, 070°50′162″ W.

(b)*Effective date.* This section is effective from 8:30 p.m. until 10 p.m. EDT on July 4, 2007, with a Rain date of 8:30 p.m. until 10 p.m. EDT on July 5, 2007.

(c)*Definitions.* As used in this section.

(1)*Designated representative* means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port (COTP).

(2)*[Reserved]*

(d)*Regulations.*

(2)All vessel operators shall comply with the instructions of the COTP or the designated representative. Dated: April 5, 2007. James L. McDonald, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Boston, Massachusetts. [FR Doc. E7-7185 Filed 4-13-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [CGD1-07-002] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone: Town of Weymouth Fourth of July Celebration Fireworks, Weymouth, MA AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes establishing a temporary safety zone for the Town of Weymouth's Fourth of July Celebration Fireworks in Weymouth, Massachusetts currently scheduled to occur on June 30, 2007 with a rain date of July 1, 2007 temporarily closing all navigable waters of the Weymouth Fore River within a five hundred

(500)yard radius of the fireworks launch barge located at approximate position 42°15.2 N, 070°56.7 W. The safety zone is needed to protect the maritime public from the potential hazards posed by a fireworks display. The safety zone will prohibit entry into or movement within this portion of the Weymouth Fore River during its effective period. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before May 16, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Sector Boston, 427 Commercial Street, Boston, MA. Sector Boston 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 Sector Boston, 427 Commercial Street, Boston, MA between the hours of 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Petty Officer Joseph Yonker, Sector Boston, Waterways Management Division, at

(500)yard radius of the fireworks launch barge located at approximate position 42°15.2 N, 070°56.7 W. The safety zone would be in effect from 8:30 p.m. EDT until 11:15 p.m. EDT on June 30, 2007, with a rain date of July 1, 2007. This safety zone would temporarily prohibit entry into or movement within the effected portion of the Weymouth Fore River and is needed to protect the maritime public from the potential dangers posed by a fireworks display. Discussion of Proposed Rule The Coast Guard proposes establishing a temporary safety zone in a portion of the Weymouth Fore River. The safety zone would be in effect from 8:30 p.m. EDT until 11:15 p.m. EDT on June 30, 2007 with a rain date of July 1, 2007. Marine traffic may transit safely outside of the safety zone during the event thereby allowing navigation of the Weymouth Fore River except for the portion delineated by this rule. This safety zone will control vessel traffic during the fireworks event to protect the safety of the maritime public. Due to the limited timeframe of the firework display and because the zone leaves the majority of the Weymouth Fore River open for navigation, the Captain of the Port anticipates minimal negative impact on vessel traffic due to this event. Public notifications will be made prior to the effective period via local notice to mariners and marine information broadcasts. Regulatory Evaluation This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. Although this rule would prevent vessel traffic from transiting a portion of the Weymouth Fore River during the fireworks event, the effect of this regulation would not be significant for several reasons: Vessels will be excluded from the proscribed area for only two and three quarter hours, vessels will be able to operate in the majority of the Weymouth Fore River during this time period; and advance notifications will be made to the local maritime community by marine information broadcasts and Local Notice to Mariners. 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 rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in the effected portion of the Weymouth Fore River from 8:30 p.m. EDT on June 30, 2007 until 11:15 p.m. EDT on June 30, 2007 with a rain date of July 1, 2007. This safety zone would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: Vessel traffic can safely pass outside of the safety zone during the effective period; the effective period is limited in duration, and advance notifications via safety marine informational broadcast and local notice to mariners will be made to the local maritime community. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding 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 Petty Officer Joseph Yonker at the address listed under ADDRESSES . The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This proposed rule 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 affect 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 may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( *e.g.* , specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(34)(g), as it would establish a safety zone. A preliminary “Environmental Analysis Check List” is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final decision on whether this rule should be categorically excluded from further environmental review. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Add temporary § 165.T01-002 to read as follows: § 165.T01-002 Safety Zone: Town of Weymouth Fourth of July Celebration Fireworks—Weymouth, Massachusetts.

(a)*Location.* The following area is a safety zone: All navigable waters of the Weymouth Fore River within a 500 yard radius of the fireworks launch barge located at approximate position 42° 15.2 N, 070° 56.7 W.

(b)*Effective Date.* This section is effective from 8:30 p.m. EDT on June 30, 2007 until 11:15 p.m. EDT on June 30, 2007, with a rain date of July 1, 2007.

(c)*Definitions.*

(2)*[Reserved]*

(d)*Regulations.*

(2)All vessel operators shall comply with the instructions of the COTP or the *designated representative.* Dated: April 5, 2007. J.L. McDonald, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Boston, Massachusetts. [FR Doc. E7-7189 Filed 4-13-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No. 070321063-7063-01; I.D. 031607E] RIN 0648-AV22 Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Multispecies Fishery; 2007 Georges Bank Cod Fixed Gear Sector Operations Plan and Agreement and Allocation of Georges Bank Cod Total Allowable Catch AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments. SUMMARY: Framework Adjustment

(FW)42 to the Northeast

(NE)Multispecies Fishery Management Plan

(FMP)created the Georges Bank

(GB)Cod Fixed Gear Sector (Fixed Gear Sector) and authorized allocation of up to 20 percent of the annual GB cod total allowable catch

(TAC)to the Fixed Gear Sector. Pursuant to that authorization, a representative of the Fixed Gear Sector has submitted an Operations Plan, Sector Agreement (Contract) and requested an allocation of GB cod to the Fixed Gear Sector for fishing year 2007 (FY 2007). A Supplemental Environmental Assessment

(EA)has also been prepared. This document provides interested parties an opportunity to comment on the proposed Sector Operations Plan and EA prior to final approval or disapproval of the Sector Operations Plan and allocation of GB cod TAC to the Fixed Gear Sector for FY 2007. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before May 1, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit written comments by any of the following methods: • Mail: Paper, disk, or CD-ROM comments should be sent to Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, 1 Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope “Comments on GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector 2007 Operations Plan.” • Fax:

(978)281-9135. • E-mail: *2007FixedGearSector@NOAA.gov* . • Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Copies of the Sector Agreement and the EA are available from the NE Regional Office at the mailing address specified above. Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in the proposed rule may be submitted to the address above or by e-mail to David-Rostker@omb.eop.gov, or fax to

(202)395-7285. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Grant, Fishery Management Specialist, phone

(978)281-9145, fax

(978)281-9135, e-mail Mark.Grant@NOAA.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Regional Administrator has made a preliminary determination that the Fixed Gear Sector Contract and Operations Plan is consistent with the goals of the FMP and applicable law and is in compliance with the regulations governing the development and operation of a sector as specified under 50 CFR 648.87. The final rule implementing Amendment 13 (69 FR 22906, April 27, 2004) specified a process for the formation of sectors within the NE multispecies fishery and the allocation of TAC for specific groundfish species (or days-at-sea (DAS)), implemented restrictions that apply to all sectors, and authorized the first sector of the FMP (GB Cod Hook Sector). FW 42 (71 FR 62156, October 23, 2006) established the Fixed Gear Sector. The FW 42 regulations that apply to the Fixed Gear Sector specify that:

(1)all vessels with a valid limited access NE multispecies DAS permit are eligible to participate in the Fixed Gear Sector, provided they have documented landings of GB cod through valid dealer reports submitted to NMFS during FY 1996 through 2001 (regardless of gear fished);

(2)membership in the Fixed Gear Sector is voluntary, and each member must remain in the Fixed Gear Sector for the entire fishing year and may not fish outside the NE multispecies DAS program during the fishing year, unless certain conditions are met;

(3)vessels fishing in the Fixed Gear Sector (participating vessels) are confined to fishing in the GB Cod Hook Sector Area, which is that portion of the GB cod stock area north of 39°00′ N. lat. and east of 71°40′ W. long; and

(4)participating vessels must comply with all pertinent Federal fishing regulations, unless specifically exempted by a Letter of Authorization, and the provisions of an approved Operations Plan. Although FW 42 established the Fixed Gear Sector, in order for GB cod to be allocated to the Fixed Gear Sector and the Fixed Gear Sector authorized to fish, the Fixed Gear Sector must submit an Operations Plan and Sector Contract to the Regional Administrator annually for approval. The Operations Plan and Sector Contract must contain certain elements, including a contract signed by all Fixed Gear Sector participants and a plan containing the management rules that the Fixed Gear Sector participants agree to abide by in order to avoid exceeding the allocated TAC. An additional analysis of the impacts of the Fixed Gear Sector's proposed operations may be required in order to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. Further, the public must be provided an opportunity to comment on the proposed Operations Plan and Sector Contract. The regulations require that, upon completion of the public comment period, the Regional Administrator will make a determination regarding approval of the Sector Contract and Operations Plan. If approved by the Regional Administrator, participating vessels would be authorized to fish under the terms of the Operations Plan and Sector Contract. The Fixed Gear Sector submitted an initial version of the Operations Plan and Sector Contract to NMFS on January 22, 2007. The Fixed Gear Sector subsequently submitted additional iterations of the Operations Plan to clarify the Operations Plan and refine the analyses, with a final submission date of March 7, 2007. A Supplemental Environmental Assessment was also prepared. The Fixed Gear Sector would be overseen by a Board of Directors and a Sector Manager. The Sector Contract specifies, in accordance with Amendment 13, that the Sector's GB cod TAC would be based upon the number of Fixed Gear Sector members and their historic landings of GB cod. The GB cod TAC is a “hard” TAC, meaning that, once the TAC is reached, Fixed Gear Sector vessels could not fish under a NE multispecies DAS, possess or land GB cod or other regulated species managed under the FMP (regulated species), or use gear capable of catching groundfish (unless fishing under charter/party or recreational regulations). The proposed 2007 Operations Plan proposes exemption from the following restrictions of the FMP: GB cod trip limit, the GB Seasonal Closure Area (when fishing with hook gear), the 3,600-hook limit for longline gear in the GB Regulated Mesh Area (RMA), and the 2,000-hook limit in the Gulf of Maine

(GOM)and Southern New England

(SNE)RMAs. Justification for the proposed exemptions and analysis of the potential impacts of the Operations Plan are contained in the EA. A Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

(IRFA)is summarized in the Classification section of this proposed rule. As of March 7, 2007, 19 prospective Fixed Gear Sector members had signed the 2007 Sector Contract. The GB cod TAC calculation is based upon the historic GB cod landings of the participating vessels, using all gear. The allocation percentage is calculated by dividing the sum of total landings of GB cod by Sector members for FY 1996 through 2001, by the sum of the total accumulated landings of GB cod harvested by all NE multispecies vessels for the same time period (12,119,410 lb (5,497 mt)/113,278,842 lb (51,382.4 mt)). The resulting number is 900 mt, or 10.70 percent of the proposed fishery-wide GB cod target TAC of 8,416 mt. If prospective members of the Fixed Gear Sector change their minds about participating in the Fixed Gear Sector after the publication of this proposed rule and prior to a final decision by the Regional Administrator, it is possible that the total number of participants in the Sector and the TAC for the Sector may be reduced from the numbers above, but no additional members may join the Fixed Gear Sector for FY 2007 fishing year. The Sector Contract contains procedures for the enforcement of the Operations Plan, a schedule of penalties, and provides the authority to the Fixed Gear Sector Manager to issue stop fishing orders to members of the Fixed Gear Sector. Participating vessels would be required to land fish only in designated landing ports and would be required to provide the Fixed Gear Sector Manager with a copy of the Vessel Trip Report

(VTR)within 48 hrs of offloading. Dealers purchasing fish from participating vessels would be required to provide the Fixed Gear Sector Manager with a copy of the dealer report on a weekly basis. On a monthly basis, the Fixed Gear Sector Manager would transmit to NMFS aggregate catch data from dealer slips and aggregate discard data from the VTRs. After 90 percent of the Fixed Gear Sector's allocation has been harvested, the Fixed Gear Sector Manager would be required to provide NMFS with aggregate reports on a weekly basis. A total of 1/12 of the Fixed Gear Sector's GB cod TAC, minus a reserve, would be allocated to each month of the fishing year. GB cod quota that is not landed during a given month would be rolled over into the following month. Once the aggregate monthly quota of GB cod is reached, for the remainder of the month, participating vessels may not fish under a NE multispecies DAS, possess or land GB cod or other regulated species, or use gear capable of catching regulated NE multispecies. The harvest rules would not preclude vessels from fishing under the charter/party or recreational regulations, provided the vessel fishes under the applicable charter/party and recreational rules on separate trips. For each fishing trip, participating vessels would be required to fish under the NE multispecies DAS program regulations to account for any incidental groundfish species that they may catch while fishing for GB cod. In addition, participating vessels would be required to call the Sector Manager prior to leaving port. All legal-sized cod caught would be retained and landed and counted against the Fixed Gear Sector's aggregate allocation. Participating vessels would not be allowed to fish with or have on board gear other than jigs, non-automated demersal longline, handgear, or sink gillnets. Participating Fixed Gear Sector vessels fishing with hook gear could use an unlimited number of hooks in the Sector Area and would be exempt from the GB Seasonal Closure Area during May. The EA prepared for the Fixed Gear Sector operations concludes that the biological impacts of the Fixed Gear Sector will be positive because the hard TAC and the use of DAS will provide two means of restricting both the landings and effort of the Fixed Gear Sector. Implementation would have a positive impact of essential fish habitat

(EFH)and bycatch by allowing a maximum number of hook and gillnet vessels to remain active in those fisheries, rather than converting to (or leasing DAS to) other gear types that have greater impacts on EFH. The analysis of economic impacts of the Fixed Gear Sector concludes that the members would realize higher economic returns if the Fixed Gear Sector is implemented. The EA asserts that fishing in accordance with the Sector Contract rules enables more efficient harvesting of GB cod with hook and gillnet gear than would be possible if the vessels were fishing in accordance with the common pool (non-sector) rules. The social benefits of the Fixed Gear Sector would accrue to members as well as the Chatham and Harwichport, MA, communities, which are more dependent upon groundfish revenues than other communities. The supplemental EA concludes that the self-governing nature of the Fixed Gear Sector and the development of rules by the members enables stewardship of the cod resource by the Fixed Gear Sector. The cumulative impacts of the Fixed Gear Sector are expected to be positive due to a positive biological impact, positive impact on habitat, and a positive social and economic impact. In contrast, the cumulative impact of the no action alternative is estimated to be neutral, with negative social and economic impacts. Should the Regional Administrator approve the Sector Contract as proposed, a Letter of Authorization would be issued to each member of the Fixed Gear Sector exempting them, conditional upon their compliance with the Sector Contract, from the GB cod possession restrictions, the 3,600-hook limit in the GB RMA, the 2,000-hook limit in the GOM and SNE RMAs and the GB Seasonal Closure Area when using hook gear, as specified in §§ 658.86(b)(2), 648.80(a)(4)(v), 648.80(a)(3)(v), 648.80(b)(2)(v) and 648.81(g), respectively. Classification This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. This proposed rule does not contain policies with federalism or “takings” implications as those terms are defined in E.O. 13132 and E.O. 12630, respectively. An IRFA was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Below is a summary of the IRFA, which describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained in the preamble to this proposed rule and in sections 1.0 and 2.0 of the EA prepared for this action. The Small Business Administration size standard for small commercial fishing entities is $4 million in average annual receipts, and the size standard for small charter/party operators is $6.5 million in average annual receipts. While an entity may own multiple vessels, available data make it difficult to determine which vessels may be controlled by a single entity. For this reason, each vessel is treated as a single entity for purposes of size determination and impact assessment. All permitted and participating vessels in the groundfish fishery, including prospective Fixed Gear Sector members, are considered to be small entities because gross sales by any one entity (vessel) do not exceed this threshold. The number of prospective participants in the Fixed Gear Sector is 19, substantially less than the total number of active vessels in the groundfish fishery. Only these 19 vessels would be subject to the regulatory exemptions and operational restrictions proposed for the Fixed Gear Sector for FY 2007. Economic Impacts of the Proposed Action The proposed alternative would allocate a GB cod TAC of 900 mt to the Fixed Gear Sector. Once the GB cod TAC is harvested, participating vessels would not be allowed to fish under a NE multispecies DAS, possess or land GB cod, or other regulated species managed under the NE multispecies FMP, or use gear capable of catching groundfish (unless fishing under recreational or charter/party regulations). Vessels intending to fish in the Fixed Gear Sector during the 2007 fishing year may only fish with hook gear or gillnet gear and may not fish for NE multispecies under a NE multispecies DAS during the 2007 fishing year until the Sector Operations Plan is approved. Under the proposed Operations Plan, members would be exempt from several restrictions of the FMP described in the preamble to this proposed rule and in the EA. The fixed gear fishermen and the Chatham and Harwichport, MA, communities are dependent upon GB cod and other groundfish. The Amendment 13 restrictions that reduced the GB cod trip limit had a disproportionate affect on these fixed gear fishermen. According to Amendment 13, Chatham's overall community dependence on NE multispecies as a percentage of total fisheries revenues from federally permitted vessels averaged about 71 percent and likely at least some of the active groundfish vessels in Chatham and Harwichport are even more than 71% dependent on the multispecies fishery. Because the Fixed Gear Sector was implemented late in the 2006 FY and only one vessel participated, quantitative data on the precise economic impact of the Fixed Gear Sector does not exist. However, a qualitative assessment of the Fixed Gear Sector is possible. The proposed alternative would positively impact the 19 vessels that have voluntarily joined the Fixed Gear Sector, who are relatively dependent upon cod revenue compared to other participants in the groundfish fishery. The proposed alternative would indirectly benefit the communities of Chatham and Harwichport, MA, and to a lesser extent other Cape Cod, MA, communities involved in the groundfish fishery. Allocation of cod TAC to a sector and the development of alternative fishing restrictions would mitigate the impacts of Amendment 13. Specifically, the proposed Operations Plan enables Fixed Gear Sector members to fish under a set of rules crafted by Fixed Gear Sector members in order to adapt to current economic and fishing conditions. The Fixed Gear Sector, by fishing under rules that are designed to meet their needs (as well as the conservation requirements of the FMP), is afforded a larger degree of flexibility and efficiency, which result in economic gains. For example, Fixed Gear Sector members are able to plan their fishing activity and income in advance with more certainty due to the fact that there is a cod TAC, which is apportioned to each month of the year. They are able to maximize their efficiency (revenue per trip), by targeting seasonal aggregations of cod, due to the exemption from trip limits and hook numbers. Thus, this proposed rule would enable Fixed Gear Sector members to remain economically viable by maximizing revenues and minimizing expenses in the short term. This would also help to maintain associated shoreside job opportunities. Economic Impacts of Alternatives to the Proposed Action Under the No Action alternative, all Fixed Gear Sector members would remain in the common pool of vessels and fish under all the rules implemented by Amendment 13 and subsequent Framework Adjustments, and there would be no allocation of GB cod to the Fixed Gear Sector. Because cod usually represents a high proportion of total fishing income for Cape Cod-based gillnet and hookgear vessels, revenues for such vessel owners are very sensitive to regulations that impact how and when they can fish for cod, such as trip limits and restrictions on the number of hooks fished. Under the common pool rules implemented by FW 42 (e.g., differential DAS counting) and Amendment 13 (restrictive daily trip limits for cod), it is likely that Fixed Gear Sector vessels would experience revenue losses. It is more likely under the No Action alternative that disruption to the Chatham/Harwichport communities would occur. Description of the Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements of the Proposed Rule This rule contains a collection-of-information requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act

(PRA)and which has been approved by OMB under control number 0648-0202. Public reporting burden for the Submission of a Plan of Operation for an Approved Sector Allocation is estimated to average 50 hr per response, and for the Annual Reporting Requirements for Sectors is estimated to average 6 hr per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate, or any other aspect of this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS (see ADDRESSES ) and by e-mail to David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov, or fax to

(202)395-7285. Nothwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. Regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act require publication of this notification to provide interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed TAC allocations and plans of operation of sectors. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: April 11, 2007. Samuel D. Rauch III Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 07-1882 Filed 4-12-07; 10:41 am]

Connectionstraces to 18

Traces to 18 documents