Rules and Regulations. Final rule
23,935 words·~109 min read·
/register/2007/05/01/07-2110A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 97 [Docket No. 30548, Amdt. No. 3216] Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, Weather Takeoff Minimums; Miscellaneous Amendments AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This amendment establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, addition of new obstacles, or changes in air traffic requirements.
These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports. DATES: This rule is effective May 1, 2007. The compliance date for each SIAP and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums is specified in the amendatory provisions. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of May 1, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows: *For Examination* — 1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; 2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected airport is located; 3. The National Flight Procedures Office, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or, 4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html* . *For Purchase* —Individual SIAP and Weather Takeoff Minimums copies may be obtained from: 1.
FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA-200), FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; or 2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected airport is located. *By Subscription* —Copies of all SIAPs and Weather Takeoff Minimums mailed once every 2 weeks, are for sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald P. Pate, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd.
Oklahoma City, OK. 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082 Oklahoma City, OK. 73125) telephone:
(405)954-4164. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This amendment to Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums is contained in official FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA Forms are identified as FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5 and 8260-15A. Materials incorporated by reference are available for examination or purchase as stated above. The large number of SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the **Federal Register** expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums but refer to their depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums contained in FAA form documents is unnecessary. The provisions of this amendment state the affected CFR sections, with the types and effective dates of the SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums. This amendment also identifies the airport, its location, the procedure identification and the amendment number. The Rule This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums as contained in the transmittal. Some SIAP and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums amendments may have been previously issued by the FAA in a Flight Data Center
(FDC)Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need for some SIAP, and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided. Further, the SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting these SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists for making some SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums effective in less than 30 days. Conclusion The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2)is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and
(3)does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97 Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, and Navigation (Air). Issued in Washington, DC on April 20, 2007. James J. Ballough, Director, Flight Standards Service. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, under Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or revoking Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Weather Takeoff Minimums effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows: PART 97—STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES 1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722. 2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows: Effective 05 JUL 2007 Kotzebue, AK, Ralph Wien Memorial, ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 9, Amdt 1 Kotzebue, AK, Ralph Wien Memorial, RNAV
(GPS)RWY 9, Amdt 1 Kotzebue, AK, Ralph Wien Memorial, RNAV
(GPS)RWY 27, Amdt 1 Kotzebue, AK, Ralph Wien Memorial, VOR/DME RWY 9, Amdt 5 Kotzebue, AK, Ralph Wien Memorial, VOR/DME Y RWY 27, Amdt 1 Kotzebue, AK, Ralph Wien Memorial, VOR/DME Z RWY 27, Amdt 1 Kotzebue, AK, Ralph Wien Memorial, VOR RWY 9, Amdt 4 Kotzebue, AK, Ralph Wien Memorial, VOR RWY 27, Amdt 4 Kotzebue, AK, Ralph Wien Memorial, Takeoff Minimums & Obstacle DP, Amdt 3 Ruby, AK, Ruby, RNAV
(GPS)RWY 3, Amdt 1 Ruby, AK, Ruby, RNAV
(GPS)RWY 21, Amdt 1 Fort Lauderdale, FL, Fort Lauderdale-Executive, Takeoff Minimums & Obstacle DP, Amdt 2 Fort Myers, FL, Page Field, RNAV
(GPS)RWY 13, Orig Fort Myers, FL, Page Field, GPS RWY 13, Orig, CANCELLED Indianapolis, IN, Greenwood Muni, RNAV
(GPS)RWY 1, Amdt 1 Indianapolis, IN, Greenwood Muni, RNAV
(GPS)RWY 19, Amdt 1 Indianapolis, IN, Greenwood Muni, Takeoff Minimums & Obstacle DP, Amdt 2 Logansport, IN, Logansport/Cass County, Takeoff Minumums & Obstacle DP, Orig Logansport, IN, Logansport/Cass County, RNAV
(GPS)RWY 9, Orig Logansport, IN, Logansport/Cass County, RNAV
(GPS)RWY 27, Orig Logansport, IN, Logansport/Cass County, GPS RWY 9, Orig, CANCELLED Logansport, IN, Logansport/Cass County, GPS RWY 27, Orig, CANCELLED Great Falls, MT, Great Falls Intl, ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 3, Amdt 3 Great Falls, MT, Great Falls Intl, RNAV
(GPS)RWY 3, Amdt 1 Harrison, OH, Cincinnati West, Takeoff Minimums & Textual DP, Amdt 2 Greenville, SC, Greenville Downtown, ILS OR LOC RWY 1, Amdt 29 Greenville, SC, Greenville Downtown, RNAV
(GPS)RWY 19, Orig Greenville, SC, Greenville Downtown, NDB RWY 1, Amdt 22 Gallatin, TN, Sumner County Regional, RADAR-1, Amdt 4, CANCELLED Lexington, TN, Franklin Wilkins, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig, CANCELLED Nashville, TN, Nashville International, RADAR-1, Amdt 22, CANCELLED Parsons, TN, Scott Field, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig, CANCELLED Bellingham, WA, Bellingham Intl, Takeoff Minimums & Textual DP, Amdt 5 Effective 30 AUG 2007 Monroe, NC, Monroe Regional, RNAV
(GPS)RWY 5, Amdt 1A Columbus, OH, Ohio State University, NDB RWY 27L, Amdt 6B, CANCELLED The FAA published an Amendment in Docket No. 30545 Amdt No. 3214 to Part 97 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (Vol 72, FR No. 72, page 18867, dated, April 16, 2007) Under Section 97.15 effective 10 May 2007, which is hereby rescinded: Los Angeles, CA, Los Angeles Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Textual DP, Amdt 11 [FR Doc. E7-8014 Filed 4-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [TD 9322] RIN 1545-BG26 Anti-Avoidance and Anti-Loss Reimportation Rules Applicable Following a Loss on Disposition of Stock of Consolidated Subsidiaries; Correction AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Correction to final and temporary regulations. SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to final and temporary regulations that was published in the **Federal Register** on Tuesday, April 10, 2007 (71 FR 17804) providing guidance to corporations filing consolidated returns and applying an anti-avoidance rule and revising an anti-loss reimportation rule that applies following a disposition of stock of a subsidiary at a loss. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Theresa Abell,
(202)622-7700 or Phoebe Bennett,
(202)622-7770 (not toll-free numbers). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The final and temporary regulations (TD 9322) that are the subject of these corrections are under section 1502 of the Internal Revenue Code. Need for Correction As published, these final and temporary regulations (TD 9322) contain errors that may prove to be misleading and are in need of clarification. Correction of Publication Accordingly, these final and temporary regulations (TD 9322) that were the subject of FR Doc. E7-6541, are corrected as follows: 1. On page 17805, column 1, in the preamble, under the paragraph heading “ *Background and Explanation of Provisions* ” paragraph 2, line 6 from the bottom of the column, the language “the loss reimportation rule is also” is corrected to read “the anti-loss reimportation rule is also”. 2. On page 17805, column 2, in the preamble, under the paragraph heading “ *Special Analyses* ”, line 5 from the top of the column, the language “U.S.C. 553(b)(B) that prior notice and” is corrected to read “U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) that prior notice and”. 3. On page 17805, column 2, in the preamble, under the paragraph heading “ *Special Analyses* ”, line 16 from the top of the column, the language “reference notice of the proposed” is corrected to read “reference notice of proposed”. LaNita Van Dyke, Branch Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration). [FR Doc. E7-8316 Filed 4-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [CGD05-07-038] RIN 1625-AA00 Security Zone: Queen of England Visit, Jamestown Island, VA.; Correction AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule; correction. SUMMARY: The U. S. Coast Guard published a rule in the **Federal Register** of April 23, 2007, a document concerning the Queen of England's visit to Jamestown Island, VA. Inadvertently § 165.T07-038 was numbered incorrectly. This document corrects that number. DATES: This rule is effective from 8 a.m. on May 3, 2007, until 8 p.m. on May 4, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LCDR Thomas Tarrants, Enforcement Branch Chief, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Hampton Roads, Virginia at
(757)483-8571. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. Coast Guard published a document in the **Federal Register** of April 23, 2007, (72 FR 20051) inadvertently numbering the section § 165.T07-038. This correction removes the number published on April 23, 2007. In rule FR Doc. CGD05-07-038 published on April 23, 2007, (72 FR 20051) make the following correction. On page 20052, in two places, remove the number § 165.T07-038 and put in place of that number § 165.T05-038. Dated: April 25, 2007. Steve Venckus, Chief, Office of Regulations and Administrative Law. [FR Doc. E7-8315 Filed 4-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P 72 83 Tuesday, May 1, 2007 Proposed Rules OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 5 CFR Parts 315 and 752 RIN 3206-AL30 Career and Career-Conditional Employment and Adverse Actions AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel Management
(OPM)proposes to amend its regulations governing Federal adverse actions. The proposed regulations would conform the adverse action rules regarding employee coverage to binding judicial decisions interpreting the underlying statute. DATES: Submit comments on or before July 2, 2007. ADDRESSES: Send or deliver written comments to Ana A. Mazzi, Deputy Associate Director for Workforce Relations and Accountability Policy, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, NW., Room 7H28, Washington, DC 20415; by FAX to 202-606-2613; or by e-mail to *CWRAP@opm.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharon L. Mayhew by telephone at
(202)606-2930; by FAX at
(202)606-2613; or by e-mail at *CWRAP@opm.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 7514 of title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.), provides the statutory authority for OPM to prescribe regulations pertaining to adverse actions in the competitive or excepted service. In addition, these regulations are found at title 5, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 752, subpart D, and are the subject of this interim final rule. Corresponding and related regulations pertaining to probationary periods are found at 5 CFR part 315, subpart H, and also are the subject of this proposed rule. Amendments To Clarify Adverse Action Rules Regarding Employee Coverage Background—New Interpretation of the Statute—Van Wersch and McCormick Two decisions of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit or Court), *Van Wersch* v. *Department of Health and Human Services* , 197 F.3d 1144 (Fed. Cir. 1999) and *McCormick* v. *Department of the Air Force* , 307 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2002), *pet. for reh'g in banc denied* , 329 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2003) caused us to revise the pre-existing interpretation of 5 U.S.C. 7511(a)(1), and invalidated portions of the adverse actions regulations at 5 CFR part 752. The effect of these Federal Circuit opinions is to provide additional procedural and appeal rights to individuals who are working in a probationary period in the competitive service and in a trial period in the excepted service. OPM is proposing to change its regulations to conform to the Court's interpretation of the statute. The pertinent statutory text appears below: 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7511. Definitions; application
(a)For the purpose of this subchapter—
(1)“Employee” means—
(A)An individual in the competitive service—
(i)Who is not serving a probationary or trial period under an initial appointment; or
(ii)Who has completed 1 year of current continuous service under other than a temporary appointment limited to 1 year or less;
(B)A preference eligible in the excepted service who has completed 1 year of current continuous service in the same or similar positions—
(i)In an Executive agency; or
(ii)In the United States Postal Service or Postal Rate Commission; and
(C)An individual in the excepted service (other than a preference eligible)—
(i)Who is not serving a probationary or trial period under an initial appointment pending conversion to the competitive service; or
(ii)Who has completed 2 years of current continuous service in the same or similar positions in an Executive agency under other than a temporary appointment limited to 2 years or less; An individual who meets this definition of “employee” is entitled to certain procedural and appeal rights when he or she is the subject of an adverse action ( *e.g.* , removal, certain types of suspension, reduction in grade, reduction in pay, and furlough of 30 days or less). These rights include:
(1)At least 30 days' advance written notice of the reason for a proposed adverse action;
(2)a reasonable time, but not less than 7 days, to answer orally and in writing;
(3)the right to be represented by an attorney or other representative;
(4)a written decision and the specific reasons for the decision at the earliest practicable date; and
(5)a right to appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB or the Board). Individuals who do not meet this definition are not afforded all of these rights. Before the Court issued *Van Wersch* and *McCormick* , OPM and the MSPB interpreted the statute to exclude probationary or trial period employees from receiving the same rights as employees who have completed their probationary or trial period. Probationary and trial periods are essential for management to assess an individual's performance prior to granting full employment rights. Specifically, OPM regulations did not afford full employment rights to an individual in the competitive service who failed to meet one of the conditions of 5 U.S.C. 7511(a)(1)(A), or an individual in the excepted service who failed to meet one of the conditions of 5 U.S.C. 7511(a)(1)(C). Thus, for example, an individual in the competitive service serving in a probationary period was not an “employee” for purposes of 5 CFR part 752, nor was an individual who did not complete one year of current, continuous service under other than a temporary appointment limited to one year or less. Likewise, an individual in the excepted service serving a probationary or trial period was not an “employee” for purposes of 5 CFR part 752, nor was a nonpreference eligible who did not complete two years of current, continuous service under other than a temporary appointment limited to two years or less. Contrary to this interpretation, the Federal Circuit in *Van Wersch* held that an individual in the excepted service could meet the definition of “employee” if he or she met *either* of the two conditions listed at 5 U.S.C. 7511(a)(1)(C). Ms. Van Wersch was removed from Federal employment for alleged unacceptable conduct. At the time of her removal, she was serving a probationary or trial period under an initial excepted service appointment pending conversion to the competitive service and therefore was excluded from coverage under 5 U.S.C. 7511(a)(1)(C)(i). Ms. Van Wersch had been hired as a Clerk-Typist pursuant to 5 CFR 213.3102(u), which allowed agencies to appoint severely handicapped persons to excepted service positions. Employees hired under this authority may qualify for conversion to competitive status after they have completed two years of satisfactory service. Ms. Van Wersch served over two years in this position but was not converted to competitive status. The Federal Circuit addressed the question of whether an individual, like Ms. Van Wersch, serving in a probationary or trial period and therefore excluded from the definition of “employee” under 5 U.S.C. 7511(a)(1)(C)(i), could still be considered an employee, with full adverse action rights, if she met only the criteria of 5 U.S.C. 7511(a)(1)(C)(ii). The Government argued that Congress had not intended to extend employee appeal rights to excepted service personnel, such as Ms. Van Wersch, who were serving in probationary or trial positions pending conversion to the competitive service. While recognizing that the Government made a compelling case for its reading of the statute based on the legislative history, the Court rejected the Government's argument, holding that Congress had not used language that effectuated the putative legislative intent and that courts are not authorized to look at Congressional intent when the language of the statute was clear and unambiguous. *Van Wersch* v. *Department of Health and Human Services* , 197 F.3d 1144, 1152 (Fed.Cir. 1999). Because Ms. Van Wersch literally met what the Court determined was an alternative definition of “employee” in 5 U.S.C. 7511(a)(1)(C)(ii), the Court concluded that she was an employee under the statute and therefore had the right to appeal her termination to the MSPB. *Id* . at 1151. The Federal Circuit also noted that “if Congress determines that individuals in Ms. Van Wersch's position should not have the right to appeal adverse actions to the Board, it can amend § 7511(a)(1)(C) so as to compel a result different from the one we reach today.” *Id* . at 1152. The Federal Circuit applied the *Van Wersch* analysis to the competitive service in *McCormick* v. *Department of the Air Force* , 307 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2002), *pet. for reh'g denied* , 329 F. 3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2003) and found the appellant qualified as an employee under 5 U.S.C. 7511(a)(1)(A)(ii) even though she failed to qualify under (i). Ms. McCormick previously was a competitive service employee at the Department of Health and Human Services
(DHHS)before voluntarily moving to a new position at the Department of the Air Force. Her new competitive service appointment was subject to a one-year probationary period. Ms. McCormick was terminated during this probationary period. On appeal, Ms. McCormick argued that, while she did not meet the definition of an employee under 5 U.S.C. 7511(a)(1)(A)(i), she did meet the definition of 5 U.S.C. 7511(a)(1)(A)(ii), based on her DHHS employment. The Court held that “[t]he panel is bound by the court's earlier decision in *Van Wersch* .” *Id* . at 1342. Thus, the Federal Circuit concluded that Ms. McCormick met the definition of “employee” under 5 U.S.C. 7511(a)(1)(A)(ii), having completed more than 1 year of current or continuous service under other than a temporary appointment limited to 1 year or less, and therefore was to be afforded all the rights of an employee. *Id.* at 1343. Conforming the Adverse Action Regulations to the New Statutory Interpretation As yet, Congress has not accepted the Court's invitation to amend these provisions. Therefore, to eliminate potential confusion, OPM proposes to amend the regulations at 5 CFR part 752 to conform to the existing Federal Circuit case law described above. [0]We therefore propose to make four amendments to the text of paragraphs
(c)and
(d)of 5 CFR 752.401, to clarify the definition of “employee” for purposes of the adverse action rules. Three amendments are required to conform to the holding in *McCormick* , and one amendment is necessary to conform to *Van Wersch* First, to conform with *McCormick's* holding that an individual serving in the competitive service on a probationary period may meet the definition of an “employee,” we propose to amend paragraph (c)(1) at § 752.401, to state that a career or career conditional employee in the competitive service who is not serving a probationary or trial period is a covered employee. We propose adding the phrase, “career or career conditional” here to address recent cases in which individuals serving in positions not subject to a probationary or trial period have attempted to establish that they are “employees” within the meaning of the statute because they are not serving a probationary or trial period under an initial appointment. See e.g., *Johnson* v. *Department of Veterans Affairs* , 99 MSPR 362 (2005). Such a conclusion would produce an unreasonable result in that every temporary appointee would have a right to advance notice, an opportunity to respond, and the right of appeal, on his or her first day of work. This is contrary to OPM's interpretation of the phrase, “who is not serving a probationary or trial period under an initial appointment,” as applying only to individuals serving in positions that are subject to a probationary or trial period. The legislative history supports this interpretation and, accordingly, OPM explicitly continues its existing interpretation of the statute in this respect. We note that the MSPB adopted this interpretation in *Johnson* . Second, we propose to add a new § 752.401(d)(13) to clarify that a competitive service employee who is serving a probationary or trial period does not meet the definition of “employee” unless he or she has completed one year of current continuous service under other than a temporary appointment limited to one year or less. The *McCormick* decision also requires an amendment to paragraph (c)(2) of 5 CFR 752.401, which currently identifies as a covered employee, an individual “in the competitive service serving in an appointment that requires no probationary or trial period, and who has completed one year of current continuous service in the same or similar positions under other than a temporary appointment limited to 1 year or less.” We propose to remove the phrase, “serving in an appointment that requires no probationary or trial period, and” to comport with the Court's ruling in *McCormick* . To comply with *Van Wersch* , the final amendment would add modifying language to paragraph (d)(11) to make it clear that a nonpreference eligible excepted service employee, who is serving a probationary or trial period pending conversion to the competitive service, does not meet the definition of “employee” unless he or she has completed two years of current continuous service under other than a temporary appointment limited to two years or less. Conforming Part 315 to the New Statutory Interpretation We are also proposing to change part 315, Career and Career Conditional Employment, to make the regulations governing probationary periods consistent with the change in the definition of “covered employee.” Additional Regulatory Clarification Required by Payano OPM is proposing to remove the phrase “in the same or similar positions” from the regulation at the amended paragraph 5 CFR 752.401(c)(2), and also from the definition of “current continuous employment” at 5 CFR 752.402. This change addresses language in the current regulations concerning individuals in the competitive service that requires that “continuous service” be in “the same or similar positions.” That language is not found in the statute. This issue arose in administrative litigation before the MSPB. *See Payano* v. *Department of Justice* , 100 MSPR 74 (2005). The issue in that case was whether an employee could “tack on” the time served in another competitive service position that was not the same as or similar to the position from which he was removed, for the purpose of determining whether or not he was an employee. The MSPB held that an agency was required to take this time into account in determining whether a person in the competitive service was an “employee.” OPM has determined that this interpretation of the statute is the best one and is proposing to change the regulations to reflect that view. Public Participation OPM invites interested persons to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. Before finalizing these proposed amendments, we will consider all comments received on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change these proposed amendments in light of the comments we receive. E.O. 12866, Regulatory Review The Office of Management and Budget has reviewed this rule in accordance with E.O. 12866. Regulatory Flexibility Act OPM has determined these amendments will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they will apply only to Federal agencies and employees. List of Subjects 5 CFR Part 315 Government employees. 5 CFR Part 752 Administrative practice and procedure, Government employees. Office of Personnel Management. Linda M. Springer, Director. Accordingly, OPM proposes to amend parts 315 and 752 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: PART 315—CAREER AND CAREER CONDITIONAL EMPLOYMENT 1. The authority for part 315 continues to read: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 1302, 3301, and 3302; E.O. 10577, 3 CFR, 1954-1958 Comp., p. 218, unless otherwise noted; and E.O. 13162; secs, 315.601 and 315.609 also issued under 22 U.S.C. 3651 and 3652. Secs. 315.602 and 315.604 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 1104. Sec 315.603 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 8151. Sec 315.605 also issued under E.O. 12034, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 111. Sec 315.606 also issued under E.O. 11219, 3 CFR, 1964-1965 Comp., p. 303. Sec 315.607 also issued under 22 U.S.C. 2506. Sec 315.608 also issued under E.O. 12721, 3 CFR, 1990 Comp., p. 293. Sec. 315.610 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 3304(d). Sec 315.611 also issued under Section 511, Pub. L. 106-117, 113 Stat. 1575-76. Sec 315.708 also issued under E.O. 13318. Sec. 315.710 also issued under E.O. 12596, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 229. Subpart I also issued under 5 U.S.C. 3321, E.O. 12107, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 264. 2. Revise § 315.803 to read as follows: § 315.803 Agency action during probationary period (general).
(a)The agency shall utilize the probationary period as fully as possible to determine the fitness of the employee and shall terminate his services during this period if he fails to demonstrate fully his qualifications for continued employment.
(b)Termination of an individual serving a probationary period must be taken in accordance with subpart D of part 752 of this chapter if the individual has completed one year of current continuous service under other than a temporary appointment limited to 1 year or less and is not otherwise excluded by the provisions of that subpart. 3. Revise § 315.804
(a)to read as follows: § 315.804 Termination of probationers for unsatisfactory performance or conduct.
(a)Subject to § 315.803(b), when an agency decides to terminate an employee serving a probationary or trial period because his work performance or conduct during this period fails to demonstrate his fitness or his qualifications for continued employment, it shall terminate his services by notifying him in writing as to why he is being separated and the effective date of the action. The information in the notice as to why the employee is being terminated shall, as a minimum, consist of the agency's conclusions as to the inadequacies of his performance or conduct. 4. Revise § 315.805 introductory text to read as follows: § 315.805 Termination of probationers for conditions arising before appointment. Subject to § 315.803(b), when an agency proposes to terminate an employee serving a probationary or trial period for reasons based in whole or in part on conditions arising before his appointment, the employee is entitled to the following: PART 752—ADVERSE ACTIONS 1. The authority for part 752 continues to read: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 7504, 7514, and 7543. 2. Revise § 752.401 (c)(1) and (2), (d)(11) and (12), and add (d)(13) to read as follows: § 752.401 Coverage.
(a)* * *
(b)* * *
(c)* * *
(1)A career or career conditional employee in the competitive service who is not serving a probationary or trial period;
(2)An employee in the competitive service who has completed 1 year of current continuous service under other than a temporary appointment limited to 1 year or less;
(d)* * *
(11)A nonpreference eligible employee serving a probationary or trial period under an initial appointment in the excepted service pending conversion to the competitive service, unless they meet the requirements of paragraph (c)(5) of this section;
(12)An employee whose agency or position has been excluded from the appointing provisions of title 5, United States Code, by separate statutory authority in the absence of any provision to place the employee within the coverage of chapter 75 of title 5, United States Code; and
(13)An employee in the competitive service serving a probationary or trial period, unless they meet the requirements of paragraph (c)(2) of this section. 3. Revise § 752.402
(b)to read as follows: § 752.402 Definitions.
(a)* * * *(b) Current continuous employment* means a period of employment or service immediately preceding an adverse action without a break in Federal civilian employment of a workday. [FR Doc. E7-8061 Filed 4-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6325-39-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration 7 CFR Part 810 RIN 0580-AA96 Request for Public Comment on the United States Standards for Soybeans AGENCY: Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA. ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: We are initiating a review of the United States Standards for Soybeans to determine their effectiveness and responsiveness to current grain industry needs. Numerous changes have occurred in the breeding and production practices of soybeans as well as in the technology used to harvest, process, and test soybeans, and in the marketing practices of soybeans. As a result, soybean producer groups have asked us to initiate a review of the soybean standards. In order to ensure that the standards and subsequent grading practices remain relevant, we invite interested persons to submit comments and supporting information to assist in the evaluation of current standards and grading practices for soybeans and in the development of any recommendations for change. DATES: We will consider comments that we receive by July 2, 2007. ADDRESSES: We invite you to submit comments on this advance notice of proposed rulemaking. You may submit comments by any of the following methods: • *E-Mail:* Send comments via electronic mail to *comments.gipsa@usda.gov.* • *Mail:* Send hardcopy written comments to Tess Butler, GIPSA, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 1647-S, Washington, DC 20250-3604. • *Fax:* Send comments by facsimile transmission to:
(202)690-2755. • *Hand Delivery or Courier:* Deliver comments to: Tess Butler, GIPSA, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 1647-S, Washington, DC 20250-3604. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. • *Instructions:* All comments should make reference to the date and page number of this issue of the **Federal Register** . • *Read Comments:* All comments will be available for public inspection in the above office during regular business hours (7 CFR 1.27(b)). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Riese at GIPSA, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-3630; Telephone
(202)720-4116; Fax Number
(202)720-7883; e-mail *Rebecca.A.Riese@usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Executive Order 12866 This rule has been determined to be exempt from the purpose of Executive Order 12866, and therefore has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). We established the U.S. soybean standards on November 20, 1940, under the authority of the United States Grain Standards Act (7 U.S.C. 76). To further facilitate the marketing of U.S. soybeans, we revised the standards in 1994 and 2006. The 2006 revision becomes effective September 1, 2007. In 1994, we revised the reporting requirements of splits (broken soybeans where more than one fourth of the soybean removed and that are not damaged), reduced the U.S. Sample Grade criteria for stones and glass, established a special grade Purple Mottled or Stained, eliminated the grade limitation on materially weathered soybeans, clarified references to Mixed soybeans, and established a cumulative total for U.S. Sample Grade factors. In 2006, we published a Final Rule (71 FR 52403-52406), to be effective September 1, 2007, that changes the minimum test weight per bushel
(TW)from a grade determining factor to an informational factor. Various factors are identified for soybeans and are used to determine the level of the grade of the shipment of soybeans. TW will continue to be measured, but no longer used to determine grade; it will be provided as additional information on the certificate unless the applicant for inspection service for the soybeans indicates that the information is not needed. As an informational factor TW may continue to be of interest and specified in contracts for soybean shipments. The standards serve as the fundamental starting point to define U.S. soybean quality in the global marketplace. They include definitions, the basic principles governing application of standards, such as the type of sample used for a particular quality analysis, grades and grade requirements, and special grades and special grade requirements, such as for Garlicky soybeans and Purple Mottled or Stained soybeans. Official procedures for how the various grading factors are determined are provided in the Grain Inspection Handbook, Book II, Chapter 10, “Soybeans.” Official procedures may be viewed and printed from the GIPSA Web site at: *http://archive.gipsa.usda.gov/reference-library/handbooks/grain-insp/grbook2/soybean.pdf.* ) Also included are standardized procedures for additional soybean quality attributes not used to determine grade, such as oil and protein content. Together, the grading and testing standards allow buyers and sellers to communicate quality requirements for trade, compare soybean quality using equivalent forms of measurement, and assist in the establishment of price. GIPSA's grading and inspection services, as provided through a network of federal, state, and private laboratories, determine the quality and condition of soybeans. These determinations are performed in accordance with applicable standards using approved methodologies, and can be applied at any point in the marketing chain. The current testing technology for quality attributes, such as oil and protein content, is rapid and reliable, yielding consistent results. In addition, GIPSA issues certificates describing the quality and condition of the graded soybeans that are accepted as evidence in all Federal courts. U.S. soybean standards, and the affiliated grading and testing services offered by GIPSA, verify that the seller's commodity meets specified requirements, and that customers receive the quality they expect. Over time, numerous changes have occurred in the breeding and production practices of soybeans as well as in the technology used to harvest, process, and test soybeans, and in the marketing practices of soybeans. In this rapidly evolving market, we need to ensure that the U.S. soybean standards and associated grading procedures remain relevant. Therefore, we are issuing this advance notice of proposed rulemaking to invite comments from all interested persons for input and suggestions for amendments to the soybean standards and associated grading procedures so that the standards remain applicable and best facilitate the marketing of U.S. soybeans. We are requesting comments, supporting data, and other information in response to questions on the following topics, as well as about all aspects of the soybean standards and inspection procedures. This information may be viewed and printed from the GIPSA Web site at: *http://archive.gipsa.usda.gov/reference-library/handbooks/grain-insp/grbook2/soybean.pdf.* Foreign Material The soybean standards currently define foreign material
(FM)as: “All matter that passes through an 8/64 round-hole sieve and all matter other than soybeans remaining in the sieved sample after sieving according to procedures prescribed in FGIS instructions.” When separating FM (impurities) from soybeans, inspectors follow a process that entails using a combined mechanical (sieve) and manual separation procedure. Specifically, inspectors first handpick the 1,000 to 1,050-gram soybean sample for coarse foreign material ( *e.g.* , whole kernels of corn, cockleburs, sticks, and pods). Next, inspectors cut down the sample (free of coarse FM) to a portion of 125 grams. Using an approved shaker or hand sieve, the inspector sieves the sample with an 8/64” round-hole sieve. The inspector must handpick the material other than soybeans from the material remaining on top of the sieve and add it to the material that passed through the sieve (fine FM). It is important to note that when inspectors see soybean pods in the sample, they remove the soybeans from the pods and only the pod is considered as foreign material. Further, soybean hulls which remain on top of the sieve are not considered FM; whereas small broken pieces of soybeans, which pass through the sieve, are considered as FM. Finally, inspectors calculate the total amount of FM by adding the percentage of coarse FM to the percentage of fine FM. (This procedure may be viewed and printed from the GIPSA Web site at: *http://archive.gipsa.usda.gov/reference-library/handbooks/grain-insp/grbook2/soybean.pdf.* ) The following is a series of questions about the FM definition and procedure: 1. Is the definition of FM, as provided in the soybean standards, still sufficient for current marketing practices? 2. How does our method for separating FM from soybeans compare to the commercial cleaning process? Please provide as much detail as possible as to how FM is determined in the market or for the segment of the market that you represent. 3. In order to provide a better representation of actual market value of soybeans, should we consider developing and adopting a fully-automated process to better reflect commercial cleaning capabilities? Please elaborate on the type of equipment (and sieves, if applicable) necessary for using such a procedure for separating FM from soybeans. 4. Do small broken pieces of soybeans have processing value? Should the procedure be amended so that brokens are not considered as FM? 5. Do processors have a method for removing soybeans from the pod? If not, should the procedure be amended so that pods, with or without soybeans in them, will be considered as FM? 6. In light of changes in the production practices of soybeans brought about by various technological developments, farm programs, and other factors, should the grading limits for FM be amended? What should the new grade limits be? Please provide a rationale for any changes, and if possible, project the quantifiable costs and benefits for the U.S. soybean market if the grade limits were amended. Damage According to our current inspection procedures, inspectors cross section soybeans and pieces of soybeans that are immature and have a thin, flat, wrinkled, or wafer-like appearance to determine if there is “meat” in the kernel. If there is “meat” in the kernel and the “meat” is not otherwise damaged, the inspector considers the soybean to be sound. 7. Do wafered kernels (wafers) containing minimal amounts of “meat” have processing value? If not, or if the value is appreciably reduced, should the procedure be amended so that wafers, to include soybeans with minimal amounts of meat, are considered damaged for inspection and grading purposes? Other Factors In the Official Inspection and Weighing System, we currently offer analyses or determinations for a number of official criteria factors for soybeans. 8. Are there other factors for which we should offer analyses/determinations that would provide better or more complete information to facilitate the marketing and/or processing of soybeans? 9. Since oil and protein content are considered to be the true determinants of value for soybean processing, should analysis of oil and protein content be mandatory, nongrade-determining factors that would be determined and reported on all official certificates for grade? 10. Are there certain aspects about the oil and protein content that would provide more meaningful information? For example, should we offer not only protein content, but also the amino acid profile of the protein? 11. Considering the rapid growth in biodiesel production, would the information exchange between sellers and buyers of soybeans be facilitated if standardized tests existed for attributes, such as fatty acids? a. Please list the specific attributes. b. Should we have a role in standardizing tests for the attributes listed? Should we assist only in the standardization of the tests (e.g., develop reference methods or improve existing reference methods) or should we make tests for these attributes available throughout the official system? GIPSA has been working with life science companies in the pursuit of a standardized, rapid test for the determination of linolenic acid content in soybeans. Acres currently devoted to production of low linolenic acid soybean varieties are lower than previously anticipated. In 2006, these acres totaled approximately 750,000 out of the 72 million total planted soybean acres, less than 1 percent. However, seed distributors project acres devoted to production of low linolenic acid soybean varieties in 2007 to triple. 12. Should GIPSA continue to pursue a standardized, rapid test for the determination of linolenic acid content and, if so, why? Visual Reference Images In the determination of the grading factor total damage, inspectors look for a number of types of damage, including badly ground-damaged, badly weathered-damaged, diseased, frost-damaged, germ-damaged, heat-damaged, insect-bored, mold-damaged, sprout-damaged, stinkbug-stung, or otherwise materially damaged. 13. Are these the right types of damage, and are visual reference images/interpretive lines that are currently used to determine the various types of damages reflective of the level of quality desired in the marketplace? (Visual reference images/interpretive lines may be viewed on the GIPSA Web site at: *http://www.gipsa.usda.gov/GIPSA/webapp?area=home&subject=grpi&topic=sq-isd-soybeans.* ) Inspectors also rely on visual reference images to determine whether a sample meets the general appearance criteria for the special grade designation “Purple Mottled or Stained.” 14. In consideration of the fact that the overall appearance of the product is an important consideration for some customers, should we create other general appearance images? What appearance factors are of greatest interest? (Visual reference images/general appearance factors may be viewed on the GIPSA Web site at: *http://www.gipsa.usda.gov/GIPSA/webapp?area=home&subject=grpi&topic=sq-isd.* ) Basis of Determination As provided in 9 CFR 810.1603, Basis of determination, “each determination of class, heat-damaged kernels, damaged kernels, splits, and soybeans of other colors is made on the basis of the grain when free from foreign material. Inspectors make other determinations not specifically provided for under the general provisions on the basis of the grain as a whole.” For example, inspectors determine moisture content on the sample as a whole. 15. What basis of determination is used in the marketplace for the various factors? Why does the marketplace use that basis? 16. Would there be any positive or detrimental consequences if we were to determine all factors on the basis of a sample when free from foreign matter? Food Grade Soybeans 17. Should we establish a separate standard, for example, U.S. Standards for Food Grade Soybeans or a separate grade level, class, or special grade within the existing soybeans standards for food-grade soybeans? Please provide as much detail as possible as to: a. Explain why. b. What would a new standard look like or what would the grade limits be for a new grade level? We are committed to provide market-relevant soybean standards. We welcome your comments on these issues as well as any comments or suggestions on changes to the soybean standards and grading procedures. Authority: 7 U.S.C. 71-87. James E. Link, Administrator, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration. [FR Doc. E7-8291 Filed 4-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-KD-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 929 [Docket No. AMS-FV-07-0034; FV07-929-1] Cranberries Grown in the States of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, and Long Island in the State of New York; Continuance Referendum AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Referendum order. SUMMARY: This document directs that a continuance referendum be conducted among eligible growers of cranberries in the States of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, and Long Island in the State of New York to determine whether they favor continuance of the marketing order regulating the handling of cranberries grown in the production area. DATES: The referendum will be conducted from May 17 through May 31, 2007. To vote in this referendum, growers must have been engaged in producing cranberries within the production area during the period September 1, 2005, through August 31, 2006. ADDRESSES: Copies of the marketing order may be obtained from USDA, Washington, DC Marketing Field Office, 4700 River Road, Unit 155, Riverdale, Maryland 20737, or the Office of the Docket Clerk, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Stop 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia A. Petrella or Kenneth G. Johnson, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, Unit 155, 4700 River Road, Riverdale, MD 20737; telephone:
(301)734-5243, Fax:
(301)734-5275; or e-mail at: *Kenneth.Johnson@usda.gov* or *Patricia.Petrella@usda.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Marketing Order No. 929 (7 CFR part 929), hereinafter referred to as the “order,” and the applicable provisions of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act,” it is hereby directed that a referendum be conducted to ascertain whether continuance of the order is favored by growers. The referendum shall be conducted during the period May 17 through May 31, 2007, among eligible cranberry growers in the production area. Only growers that were engaged in the production of cranberries in the States of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, and Long Island in the State of New York during the period of September 1, 2005, through August 31, 2006, may participate in the continuance referendum. USDA has determined that continuance referenda are an effective means for determining whether growers favor continuation of marketing order programs. The USDA would not consider termination of the order if more than 50 percent of the growers who vote in the referendum and growers of more than 50 percent of the volume of cranberries represented in the referendum favor continuance of their program. In evaluating the merits of continuance versus termination, the USDA will not only consider the results of the continuance referendum. The USDA will also consider all other relevant information concerning the operation of the order and the relative benefits and disadvantages to growers, processors, and consumers in order to determine whether continued operation of the order would tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the ballot materials used in the referendum herein ordered have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)under OMB No. 0581-0189, OMB Generic Fruit Crops. It has been estimated that it will take an average of 20 minutes for each of the approximately 1,100 producers of cranberries in the production area to cast a ballot. Participation is voluntary. Ballots postmarked after May 31, 2007, will be marked invalid and not included in the vote tabulation. Kenneth G. Johnson, Patricia A. Petrella and Dawana Clark of the Washington, DC Marketing Field Office, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA, are hereby designated as the referendum agents of USDA to conduct such referendum. The procedure applicable to the referendum shall be the “Procedure for the Conduct of Referenda in Connection With Marketing Orders for Fruits, Vegetables, and Nuts Pursuant to the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as Amended” (7 CFR 900.400 *et seq.* ). Ballots will be mailed to all growers of record and may also be obtained from the referendum agents and from their appointees. List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 929 Cranberries, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674. Dated: April 25, 2007. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E7-8233 Filed 4-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 18 CFR Part 35 [Docket Nos. RM05-10-000 and AD04-13-000] Imbalance Provisions for Intermittent Resources; Assessing the State of Wind Energy in Wholesale Electricity Markets Issued April 25, 2007. AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE. ACTION: Withdrawal of notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is withdrawing its proposal to amend its regulations to require public utilities to append to their open access transmission tariffs (OATTs) an intermittent generator imbalance service schedule in light of the imbalance-related reforms adopted in Order No. 890, 72 FR 12266 (Mar. 15, 2007). DATES: The notice of proposed rulemaking published on April 14, 2005, at 70 FR 21349, is withdrawn as of May 1, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: W. Mason Emnett (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel—Energy Markets, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,
(202)502-6540. Daniel Hedberg (Technical Information), Office of Energy Markets and Reliability, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,
(202)502-6243. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Before Commissioners: Joseph T. Kelliher, Chairman; Suedeen G. Kelly, Marc Spitzer, Philip D. Moeller, and Jon Wellinghoff. Withdrawal of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 1. On April 14, 2005, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NOPR)in this proceeding. 1 For the reasons set forth below, we are withdrawing the NOPR and terminating this rulemaking. 1 *Imbalance Provisions for Intermittent Resources Assessing the State of Wind Energy in Wholesale Electricity Markets* , Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 70 FR 21349 (Apr. 26, 2005), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,581 (2005). 2. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to clarify and amend imbalance-related provisions in the *pro forma* Open Access Transmission Tariff
(OATT)as applied to intermittent resources. 2 The Commission concluded that, although the number of intermittent resources had grown since the adoption of the *pro forma* OATT in Order No. 888, 3 such resources were historically hesitant to take service under the *pro forma* OATT, thereby accessing broader markets, due to the application of imbalance provisions that were designed to apply to resources with the ability to control fuel input and thus schedule their energy with precision. The Commission concluded that the imbalance provisions of the Order No. 888 *pro forma* OATT may no longer be just, reasonable or not unduly discriminatory or preferential as applied to intermittent resources that by nature are weather-driven. 4 The Commission therefore proposed to establish a standard schedule under the *pro forma* OATT to address generator imbalances solely for intermittent resources and sought comment on issues related to that proposal. 2 For purposes of the NOPR, an intermittent resource was defined as an electric generator that is not dispatchable and cannot store its fuel source and therefore cannot respond to changes in system demand or respond to transmission security constraints. 3 *Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open Access Non-discriminatory Transmission Services by Public Utilities and Recovery of Stranded Costs by Public Utilities and Transmitting Utilities* , Order No. 888, 61 FR 21,540 (May 10, 1996), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,036 (1996), *order on reh'g* , Order No. 888-A, 62 FR 12,274 (March 14, 1997), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,048 (1997), *order on reh'g* , Order No. 888-B, 81 FERC ¶ 61,248 (1997), *order on reh'g* , Order No. 888-C, 82 FERC ¶ 61,046 (1998), *aff'd in relevant part, remanded in part on other grounds sub nom. Transmission Access Policy Study Group, et al.* v. *FERC* , 225 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2000), *aff'd sub nom* . *New York* v. *FERC,* 535 U.S. 1 (2002). 4 The Commission began exploring these issues at a technical conference held on December 1, 2004, in Denver, Colorado in Docket No. AD04-13-000. Other transmission-related issues regarding wind energy were also discussed at the technical conference and in post-technical conference comments, such as the interconnection process, credits for transmission upgrades, and adoption of a conditional firm transmission product. These issues were not addressed in the NOPR, which was limited to the imbalance provisions of the *pro forma* OATT as they relate to intermittent resources. 3. Since issuance of the NOPR, the Commission has completed its OATT reform rulemaking in Docket Nos. RM05-25-000, *et al.* , issuing Order No. 890 on February 16, 2007. 5 Among other things, Order No. 890 adopted a new Schedule 9 to govern generator imbalances. Under Schedule 9, imbalance charges “must be based on incremental cost or some multiple therefore” and “must provide an incentive for accurate scheduling, such as by increasing the percentage of the adder above (and below) incremental cost as the deviation becomes larger.” 6 Of particular relevance to this proceeding, the Commission also required that imbalance provisions “account for the special circumstances presented by intermittent generators and their limited ability to precisely forecast or control generation levels, such as waiving the more punitive adders associated with higher deviations.” 7 5 *See Preventing Undue Discrimination and Preference in Transmission Service,* Order No. 890, 72 FR 12266 (March 15, 2007), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,241 (2007), *reh'g pending.* 6 Order No. 890 at P 663. 7 *Id.* The Commission also adopted a standard definition of intermittent resource that is identical to that proposed in this proceeding. *See Id.* at P 666. 4. As a result of the imbalance-related reforms adopted in Order No. 890, and in particular the requirement that generator imbalance provisions in each transmission provider's OATT take into account an intermittent resources' limited ability to forecast or control generation levels, the Commission concludes that it is no longer necessary to address the NOPR proposal to add to the *pro forma* OATT a generator imbalance schedule solely for intermittent resources. The reforms adopted in Order No. 890 adequately ensure that the imbalance provisions of the *pro forma* OATT will not result in service to intermittent resources that is unjust, unreasonable, or unduly discriminatory or preferential. 5. The Commission therefore withdraws the NOPR and terminates this rulemaking proceeding. *The Commission orders:* Docket No. RM05-10-000 is hereby terminated. By the Commission. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-8236 Filed 4-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [COTP San Diego 07-225] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Labor Day Fireworks, Lower Colorado River, Laughlin, NV AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes establishing a temporary safety zone on the navigable waters of the Lower Colorado River, Laughlin, NV, in support of a Labor Day fireworks display near the AVI Resort and Casino. The safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of the crew, spectators, participants of the event, participating vessels and other vessels and users of the waterway. Persons and vessels will be prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within this safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before July 31, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander (SPW), Attn: Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard Sector San Diego, 2710 N. Harbor Drive, San Diego, CA 92101-1028. Marine Events, Prevention Department, 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 Coast Guard Sector San Diego between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chief Petty Officer Eric Carroll, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego, CA, at telephone
(619)278-7277. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Request for Comments We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking [COTP San Diego 07-225], indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them. Public Meeting We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to Coast Guard Sector San Diego 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 The Coast Guard proposes establishing a temporary safety zone on the navigable waters of the Lower Colorado River, Laughlin, NV, in support of a Labor Day fireworks show in the navigation channel of the Lower Colorado River, Laughlin, NV. The fireworks show is being sponsored by AVI Resort and Casino. The safety zone will be set at a 980-foot radius around the anchored firing barge. This temporary safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of the show's crew, spectators, participants of the event, participating vessels, and other vessels and users of the waterway. Discussion of Proposed Rule The event involves one anchored barge, which will be used as a platform for launching of fireworks. The safety zone is required because the barge's planned firing location is in the navigation channel. This safety zone would be enforced from 8 p.m. through 9:30 p.m. on September 2, 2007. The limits of this temporary safety zone include all areas within 980 feet of the firing location adjacent to the AVI Resort and Casino centered in the navigational channel between Laughlin Bridge and the northwest point of the AVI Resort and Casino Cove in position: 35°00′45″ N, 114°38′16″ W. U.S. Coast Guard personnel would enforce this safety zone. Other Federal, State, or local agencies may assist the Coast Guard, including the Coast Guard Auxiliary. Vessels or persons violating this rule would be subject to both criminal and civil penalties. Regulatory Evaluation This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. Although the safety zone will restrict boating traffic within the navigable waters of the Lower Colorado River, Laughlin, NV, the effect of this regulation will not be significant as the safety zone will encompass only a small portion of the waterway and will be very short in duration. The entities most likely to be affected are pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing. As such, the Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this rule to be minimal. 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. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of the Lower Colorado River, Laughlin, NV, from 8 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on September 2, 2007. This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. The safety zone only encompasses a small portion of the waterway, it is short in duration at a late hour when commercial traffic is low, and the Captain of the Port may authorize entry into the zone, if necessary. 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 Chief Petty Officer Eric Carroll, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego at telephone
(619)278-7277. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( *e.g.* , specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, we believe that this rule should be categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation because we would be establishing a safety zone. A preliminary “Environmental Analysis Check List” and “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 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 § 165.T11-179 to read as follows: § 165.T11-179 Safety Zone; Labor Day Fireworks, Lower Colorado River, Laughlin, NV.
(a)*Location.* The limits of this temporary safety zone include all areas within 980 feet of the anchored firing barge. The firing barge will be anchored adjacent to the AVI Resort and Casino, centered in the navigational channel between Laughlin Bridge and the northwest point of the AVI Resort and Casino Cove, Lower Colorado River, Laughlin, NV in position 35°00′45″ N, 114°38′16″ W.
(b)*Effective Period.* This safety zone will be in effect from 8 p.m. until the end of the fireworks show on September 02, 2007. The event is scheduled to conclude no later than 9:30 p.m. However, if the display concludes prior to the scheduled termination time, the Captain of the Port will cease enforcement of this safety zone and will announce that fact via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
(c)*Regulations.* In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry into, transit through, or anchoring within this zone by all vessels is prohibited, unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative. Mariners requesting permission to transit through the safety zone may request authorization to do so from the U.S. Coast Guard Patrol Commander. The U.S. Coast Guard Patrol Commander may be contacted via VHF-FM Channel 16.
(d)*Enforcement.* All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the designated on-scene patrol personnel. Patrol personnel can be comprised of commissioned, warrant, and petty officers of the Coast Guard onboard Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, local, State, and Federal law enforcement vessels. Upon being hailed by U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel by siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed as directed. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local agencies. Dated: April 5, 2007. C.V. Strangfeld, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, San Diego. [FR Doc. E7-8307 Filed 4-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [COTP San Diego 07-125] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Independence Day Fireworks, Lower Colorado River, Laughlin, NV AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes establishing a temporary safety zone on the navigable waters of the Lower Colorado River, Laughlin, NV, in support of a Independence Day fireworks display near the AVI Resort and Casino. The safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of the crew, spectators, participants of the event, participating vessels and other vessels and users of the waterway. Persons and vessels will be prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within this safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before May 31, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander (SPW), Attn: Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard Sector San Diego, 2710 N. Harbor Drive, San Diego, CA 92101-1028. Marine Events, Prevention Department, 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 Coast Guard Sector San Diego between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chief Petty Officer Eric Carroll, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego, CA, at telephone
(619)278-7277. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Request for Comments We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking [COTP San Diego 07-125], indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them. Public Meeting We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to Coast Guard Sector San Diego 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 The Coast Guard proposes establishing a temporary safety zone on the navigable waters of the Lower Colorado River, Laughlin, NV, in support of an Independence Day fireworks show in the navigation channel of the Lower Colorado River, Laughlin, NV. The fireworks show is being sponsored by AVI Resort and Casino. The safety zone will be set at a 980-foot radius around the anchored firing barge. This temporary safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of the show's crew, spectators, participants of the event, participating vessels, and other vessels and users of the waterway. Discussion of Proposed Rule The event involves one anchored barge, which will be used as a platform for launching of fireworks. The safety zone is required because the barge's planned firing location is in the navigation channel. This safety zone would be enforced from 8 p.m. through 9:45 p.m. on July 7, 2007. The limits of this temporary safety zone include all areas within 980 feet of the firing location adjacent to the AVI Resort and Casino centered in the navigational channel between Laughlin Bridge and the northwest point of the AVI Resort and Casino Cove in position: 35°00′45″ N, 114°38′16″ W. U.S. Coast Guard personnel would enforce this safety zone. Other Federal, State, or local agencies may assist the Coast Guard, including the Coast Guard Auxiliary. Vessels or persons violating this rule would be subject to both criminal and civil penalties. Regulatory Evaluation This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. Although the safety zone will restrict boating traffic within the navigable waters of the Lower Colorado River, Laughlin, NV, the effect of this regulation will not be significant as the safety zone will encompass only a small portion of the waterway and will be very short in duration. The entities most likely to be affected are pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing. As such, the Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this rule to be minimal. 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. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of the Lower Colorado River, Laughlin, NV, from 8 p.m. to 9:45 p.m. on July 7, 2007. This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. The safety zone only encompasses a small portion of the waterway, it is short in duration at a late hour when commercial traffic is low, and the Captain of the Port may authorize entry into the zone, if necessary. 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 Chief Petty Officer Eric Carroll, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego at telephone
(619)278-7277. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( *e.g.* , specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, we believe that this rule should be categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation because we would be establishing a safety zone. A preliminary “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 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 § 165.T11-178 to read as follows: § 165.T11-178 Safety Zone; Independence Day Fireworks, Lower Colorado River, Laughlin, NV.
(a)*Location.* The limits of this temporary safety zone include all areas within 980 feet of the anchored firing barge. The firing barge will be anchored adjacent to the AVI Resort and Casino, centered in the navigational channel between Laughlin Bridge and the northwest point of the AVI Resort and Casino Cove, Lower Colorado River, Laughlin, NV in position 35°00′45″ N, 114°38′16″ W.
(b)*Effective Period.* This safety zone will be in effect from 8 p.m. until the end of the fireworks show on July 7, 2007. The event is scheduled to conclude no later than 9:45 p.m. However, if the display concludes prior to the scheduled termination time, the Captain of the Port will cease enforcement of this safety zone and will announce that fact via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
(c)*Regulations.* In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry into, transit through, or anchoring within this zone by all vessels is prohibited, unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative. Mariners requesting permission to transit through the safety zone may request authorization to do so from the U.S. Coast Guard Patrol Commander. The U.S. Coast Guard Patrol Commander may be contacted via VHF-FM Channel 16.
(d)*Enforcement.* All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the designated on-scene patrol personnel. Patrol personnel can be comprised of commissioned, warrant, and petty officers of the Coast Guard onboard Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, local, State, and Federal law enforcement vessels. Upon being hailed by U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel by siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed as directed. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local agencies. Dated: April 5, 2007. C.V. Strangfeld, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, San Diego. [FR Doc. E7-8317 Filed 4-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 [EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0546; FRL-8308-1] Approval and Promulgation of Ohio SO <sup>2</sup> Air Quality Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve an assortment of rules, submitted by Ohio on May 16, 2006, setting limits on sulfur dioxide (SO <sup>2</sup> ) emissions. Most significantly, EPA is proposing to approve rules for Franklin, Stark and Summit Counties and for one source in Sandusky County that are currently regulated under limits that EPA promulgated in 1976 as a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). If finalized, this action would provide that the entire FIP for SO <sup>2</sup> in Ohio would be superseded by approved State limits. Consequently, EPA is proposing to rescind the entire FIP. EPA is also proposing to approve several substantive rule revisions and to approve numerous Ohio rules that update various company names and unit identifications. Finally, since this rulemaking resolves the issues which led a court to remand the designation for a portion of Summit County to EPA for reconsideration, EPA is proposing to promulgate a designation of attainment for the presently undesignated portion of this county. DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 31, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2007-0546, by one of the following methods: 1. *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. *E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov.* 3. *Fax:*
(312)886-5824. 4. *Mail:* John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 5. *Hand Delivery:* John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal holidays. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0546. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *www.regulations.gov* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the *www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. We recommend that you telephone John Summerhays at
(312)886-6067 before visiting the Region 5 office. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Summerhays, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,
(312)886-6067, *summerhays.john@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This supplementary information section is arranged as follows: I. Background II. Review of Ohio's Submittal A. General Rules B. Rules To Replace FIP Rules C. Additional Substantive Rule Revisions D. Rules With Only Name Changes or Other Administrative Changes E. Designation of Summit County III. What Action Is EPA Taking? IV. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background Ohio submitted its original State Implementation Plan on January 30, 1972, which EPA partially approved on May 31, 1972, and fully approved on September 22, 1972. After a court remanded this approval for EPA to solicit public comments on the rulemaking, Ohio withdrew its submittal of rules for SO <sup>2</sup> . In the absence of State rules for SO <sup>2</sup> , EPA promulgated a Federal Implementation Plan
(FIP)for SO <sup>2</sup> on August 27, 1976, with numerous subsequent amendments. The FIP provided limits for 55 Ohio counties. On September 12, 1979, Ohio submitted a plan with limits for SO <sup>2</sup> in all 88 Ohio counties. This plan relied on a set of rules that included 6 rules governing general provisions such as test methods and compliance schedules, plus one rule for each of the 88 counties setting emission limits for sources in the county. On January 27, 1981, at 46 FR 8481, EPA approved most of the 6 general rules and approved rules for parts of 13 counties and all of 61 counties. That rulemaking action also disapproved rules for Summit County because EPA concluded that the limits did not provide for attainment. That rulemaking notice provided further history of regulation of SO <sup>2</sup> emissions in Ohio as of that date. On April 20, 1982, at 47 FR 16784, EPA approved rules for parts of 3 additional counties and all of another three additional counties. EPA approved rules for an additional county on June 30, 1982, at 47 FR 28377. EPA approved subsequently submitted Ohio SO <sup>2</sup> rules on May 20, 1988 (at 53 FR 18087), August 23, 1994 (at 59 FR 43290), October 9, 1996 (at 61 FR 52882), March 30, 1998 (at 63 FR 15091), June 5, 2000 (at 65 FR 35577), January 31, 2002 (at 67 FR 4669), February 2, 2004 (at 69 FR 4856), and January 28, 2005 (at 70 FR 4023). As a result of these prior rulemakings, EPA has approved State rules for all sources in 84 of Ohio's 88 counties and for all but one source in an 85th county. Counties for which sources remain subject to the FIP include Franklin County (full county), Stark County (full county), Summit County (full county), and Sandusky County (only for Martin Marietta). Ohio submitted further rules on May 16, 2006, most significantly including State rules to replace these Federal rules. In 1978, EPA designated numerous areas in Ohio as nonattainment for the SO <sup>2</sup> air quality standard. EPA interprets section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990, to require approval of state regulations rather than promulgation of a FIP as a prerequisite for redesignation of areas from nonattainment to attainment. Thus, some of Ohio's prior submittals of state rules to replace federal rules served in part to satisfy this prerequisite for redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. As stated in 40 CFR 52.1881(a), “[w]here USEPA has approved the State's sulfur dioxide plan, those regulations supersede the federal sulfur dioxide plan contained in [40 CFR 52.1881(b)] and 40 CFR 52.1882.” On June 29, 1995, at 60 FR 33915, EPA rescinded numerous federally promulgated Ohio SO <sup>2</sup> rules, observing that the “superseded rules have no effect and are unenforceable, and thus no longer need be retained in the CFR.” On January 28, 2005, at 70 FR 4023, in conjunction with approving State rules for several counties, EPA rescinded the corresponding federally promulgated rules (where applicable) that were superseded by these State rules. As a result, what remains of the federally promulgated rules are the following: —40 CFR 52.1881 paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(6), providing definitions and other general provisions, —40 CFR 52.1881 paragraphs (b)(7) through (b)(10), providing limits for sources in Franklin, Sandusky (Martin-Marietta only), Stark, and Summit Counties, respectively, and —40 CFR 52.1882, providing schedules for compliance with the federally promulgated limits. Ohio law requires that the State review its regulations every five years. Ohio conducted this review and concluded that amendments were warranted for 4 of its 6 general rules and 40 of its county-specific rules. Since the regulations remain necessary for the State to continue to attain the SO <sup>2</sup> air quality standards, and since only in a few cases did information become available warranting a revision to emission limits, most of the revisions reflect administrative changes such as updating company names and correcting unit identifications. Ohio adopted these rules effective January 13, 2006, and submitted them to USEPA on May 16, 2006. Ohio currently has no areas designated nonattainment for SO <sup>2</sup> . The final area redesignated from nonattainment to attainment was in Cuyahoga County, which was redesignated on January 28, 2005, at 70 FR 4023. However, a portion of one county, Summit County, has no designation. As the result of a 1980 remand by the Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, in *PPG Industries, Inc.* v. *Costle* (630 F.2d 462), this area has been undesignated pending EPA's review of modeling analyses for the area. Such a review is an inherent part of EPA's review of the adequacy of the rules Ohio submitted regulating SO <sup>2</sup> emissions in Summit County. Consequently, in conjunction with submitting a rule for SO <sup>2</sup> emissions in Summit County, Ohio also requested that EPA reestablish a designation for this area, requesting that EPA designate this area as attaining the SO <sup>2</sup> standard. In 1981, EPA published multiple rulemaking notices that led to EPA taking no action on provisions of Ohio SO <sup>2</sup> regulations that provided for compliance on a 30-day average basis. EPA has approved only a stack test method (reflecting a 3-hour average) and other tests reflecting averaging times of generally 24 hours or less. On February 11, 1980, at 45 FR 9101, EPA published notice that EPA would nevertheless give priority to cases in which companies were violating SO <sup>2</sup> limits on a 30-day average basis or exceeding the limit on any day by more than 50 percent. This policy remains in effect, and today's rulemaking makes no change with respect to this issue. II. Review of Ohio's Submittal On May 16, 2006, Ohio EPA submitted 4 amended general SO <sup>2</sup> rules and 40 county-specific SO <sup>2</sup> rules. The county-specific rules include 4 rules that were submitted to supersede remaining FIP rules, 4 rules that include substantive revisions to the limits, and 32 rules which only change company names or unit identifications or make other such administrative changes. Ohio supplemented this submittal with an email from William Spires to John Summerhays dated February 22, 2007, providing supplemental information regarding a source in Sandusky County and requesting that EPA establish a designation of attainment for Summit County. A. General Rules Ohio submitted revisions to four of its six general SO <sup>2</sup> rules: Ohio Administrative Code
(OAC)3745-18-01, 3745-18-02, 3745-18-03, and 3745-18-06. Rule 3745-18-01, entitled “Definitions,” was modified to update the referencing of test methods in the Code of Federal Regulations, to retain only a general referencing of methods adopted by the American Society for Testing and Materials, to update the Web site from which the Code of Federal Regulations may be obtained, and to make editorial changes in the referencing of relevant material. Rule 3745-18-02, entitled “Ambient air quality standards—sulfur dioxide,” was modified only to add a preliminary note referring readers to Rule 3745-18-01 to find dates for applicable reference material and to specify which location of 40 CFR part 50 (namely, Appendix A) contains the test method to be used in assessing ambient air quality. Rule 3745-18-03, entitled “Attainment dates and compliance time schedules,” was revised to correct several facility identification numbers and to correct other referencing errors. The updated Web site in Rule 3745-18-01 is incorrect: Instead of ending “ecfr”, the Web site ends in “cfr,” to read *http://www.access.gpo.gov/cfr* (or *http://www.access.gpo.gov/cfr* ). However, this error does not change the stringency of any limits. Indeed, all of the changes to Rules 3745-18-01, 3745-18-02, and 3745-18-03 may be considered administrative changes that do not change the substance of the SIP. EPA believes that all of these revisions are approvable. Rule 3745-18-06 was revised to add jet engine test stands to a list of source types that are exempt from the emission limits given in Ohio's rules for any day that the equipment burns only natural gas. EPA has approved this exemption as previously worded, on January 28, 2005, at 70 FR 4023 (see also 69 FR 41336, dated July 8, 2004). The first listed source type is fuel burning equipment. Thus, this rule revision may be considered simply a clarification that jet engine test stands shall have the exemption that fuel burning equipment has. In any case, the SO <sup>2</sup> emissions from burning natural gas from jet engine test stands is sufficiently low that this combustion need not be subject to any specific emission regulation. The rule was also subject to a minor rearrangement. EPA believes this rule is approvable. B. Rules To Replace FIP Rules As noted above, FIP rules remain in 4 counties: Franklin, Sandusky (applicable only to Martin Marietta), Stark, and Summit Counties. Ohio submitted rules for each of these counties to replace the FIP rules. For Franklin and Summit Counties, Ohio amended its rules to assure that all sources with emission limits in the FIP have the same limits in the State rules. Criteria for EPA's review of these rules are described in guidance issued from the Director of the Air Quality Management Division to the Director of Region 5's Air and Radiation Division on September 28, 1994. This memorandum recommended approving State rules in place of FIP rules if three criteria are met: 1. That the FIP demonstrated the limits were adequately protective at the time of promulgation. 2. There is no evidence now that the FIP and associated emission limits are inadequate to protect the SO <sup>2</sup> national ambient air quality standards. 3. The rules do not relax existing emission limits. EPA believes that these criteria are satisfied, i.e., that limits were appropriately demonstrated at the time of FIP promulgation to provide for attainment, that no subsequent evidence suggests otherwise, and that the State's rules provide limits that are fully as stringent as the existing FIP limits. The State rules also establish limits for sources that are not included either in the FIP rules or in the modeling that demonstrated that the FIP limits provide for attainment. Therefore, EPA believes that the rules for Franklin and Summit County may be approved and may supersede the existing FIP rules. As noted above, EPA disapproved the State's rules for Summit County in 1981, stating that modeling evidence indicated that the limits did not assure attainment. Those rules differed substantially from the FIP limits and relied on a separate modeling analysis. The prior disapproval did not in any way indicate inadequacy of the FIP limits to assure attainment. EPA continues to believe that the FIP limits for Summit County provide for attainment. Thus, since the State rules have been modified to reflect the FIP limits, EPA believes the rules now provide for attainment, and the prior disapproval is moot. For Stark County, as with Franklin and Summit Counties, the State amended its rules as necessary for sources regulated under the FIP to have limits that match those of the FIP. The Stark County rules also tighten the limits for one source not regulated under the FIP, namely Canton Drop Forge. Modeling was conducted to assess impacts of this source and other nearby sources. This modeling used AERMOD, which is EPA's recommended model for this application. The modeling included emissions from all significant sources in this portion of Stark County. The modeling used 1988 to 1992 meteorological data for Akron, and the modeling considered the potential downwash effects of the buildings of Canton Drop Forge and reflected the terrain elevations of the ambient receptor locations analyzed. Based on its review, EPA finds that this modeling was properly conducted and finds that the modeling demonstrates that the State's limits provide for attainment in this part of Stark County. For the rest of the County, EPA believes that modeling conducted in support of the FIP continues to represent a suitable demonstration that the remainder of the County will attain the standard. For Sandusky County, only one source, Martin Marietta, remains subject to FIP rules. The FIP imposes a limit of 15.42 pounds of SO <sup>2</sup> per ton of material input into the lime kiln. Ohio's Rule 3745-18-78
(E)imposes a limit of 25 pounds per ton of product. A comparison of these limits requires a comparison of the quantity of material input to the quantity of lime produced. Ohio notes in its supplemental submittal that the weight ratio of limestone input to lime produced is commonly about two to one, and the ratio of total material input including fuel (coke and/or coal) is significantly higher than that. Since the FIP limit involves dividing emissions from each kiln by the larger quantity of input material, the corresponding limit on a per ton of product basis (i.e. the limit that would allow the same total emissions from the plant) would be a substantially higher number. In particular, the FIP limit corresponds to a limit on a per ton of product basis that is well over two times the number of pounds allowed on a per ton of input material basis, i.e. well over 30 pounds per ton of product. Thus, EPA believes that Ohio's limit is significantly more stringent. Furthermore, the Federal limit sets a limit on the emissions “from any stack.” The facility has multiple stacks, and the federal limit arguably allows 15.42 pounds per ton of material input from each stack, which would allow several times that much emissions in total. The state rule avoids this potential confusion by clearly imposing a limit on total emissions per ton of product. For these reasons, EPA believes that Ohio's limit may be approved as a replacement for the FIP limit. EPA has previously approved Ohio's rule for other sources in Sandusky County. The amended rule updates the names of three companies and deletes one source from the rule but makes no substantive changes in the limits. EPA believes that the full rule is approvable. C. Additional Substantive Rule Revisions Two additional rules include substantive revisions to applicable limits. The first is for Auglaize County. The applicable attainment demonstration, approved on January 27, 1981 at 46 FR 8481, provides for emissions above the county's generic limit of 2.6 pounds per million BTU for several emission points at the Saint Mary's municipal power plant, but the previously approved rules only authorize emissions above that generic limit for one unit. Ohio amended its rules to replace a limit of 6.5 #/MM Btu just for boiler number 6 with a limit of 5.9 #/MM Btu applicable to both the number 6 and the number 5 boilers. The previously approved attainment demonstration demonstrates that these limits will provide for attainment, so these amendments are approvable. For Cuyahoga County, Ohio amended its rules to incorporate an additional general emission limit. In the Cuyahoga County rules that EPA approved in January 2005, Ohio had generally amended the rules to match the federally promulgated rules for this county. In particular, Ohio adopted the federally promulgated generic limit for coal-fired boilers with greater than 350 MM Btu per hour heat input. However, the State had failed to adopt the federally promulgated generic limit for coal-fired boilers with heat input between 10 MM Btu and 350 MM Btu per hour. The rule submitted on May 16, 2006 adds this second generic limit that applies to smaller boilers. This limit is part of the plan that has been demonstrated to provide for attainment, and so the addition of this limit is approvable. D. Rules With Only Name Changes or Other Administrative Changes As a result of its periodic rule review, Ohio amended numerous rules to update company names, to correct various unit identifications, and to correct typographical errors. In addition to making these types of amendments in the rules discussed above, Ohio made these types of revisions to the rules for 34 additional counties. The counties for which Ohio submitted such rules are Allen, Ashtabula, Athens, Butler, Champaign, Clark, Erie, Fairfield, Geauga, Greene, Hamilton, Hancock, Lake Lawrence, Lorain, Lucas, Marion, Miami, Montgomery, Muskingum, Ottawa, Paulding, Pike, Richland, Ross, Scioto, Seneca, Shelby, Trumbull, Tuscarawas, Van Wert, Washington, Wayne, and Wood Counties. Ohio amended two rules because a source had been addressed in an incorrect county's rules. Specifically, a facility owned by Archer Daniels Midland (formerly A.E. Staley) is located in Hancock County, not Seneca County, and so Ohio removed this facility's limits from the Seneca County rule (Rule 3745-18-80) and inserted the identical limits in the Hancock County rule (Rule 3745-18-38). These various revisions do not affect the stringency of the SIP but do enhance the clarity of the applicability of these limits. Therefore, these revised rules are approvable. E. Designation of Summit County EPA published its initial designations on October 5, 1978, at 43 FR 46011. The designation for SO <sup>2</sup> for a portion of Summit County, Ohio, was litigated, with the result that the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit remanded the designation to EPA for reconsideration. See *PPG Industries, Inc.* v. *Costle* 630 F2d 462 (6th Cir. 1980). EPA's original nonattainment designation was based in large part on dispersion modeling analyses indicating that attainment could not be assured without reductions in allowable emissions from sources in the county. Thus, the remand was accompanied by an injunction to reassess the modeling analyses and the adequacy of the emission limits to assure attainment. Although EPA has subsequently reestablished designations for some portions of the county, an important part of the county remains undesignated. Since this rulemaking addresses the court's request for EPA to reconsider the modeling analysis of limits necessary to assure attainment, Ohio requested that EPA also reestablish a designation for this area, in particular requesting that EPA designate the area attainment. As discussed above, Ohio has requested approval of emission limits that match the limits of the FIP, i.e. limits which modeling underlying the FIP have demonstrated to provide for attainment. Therefore, no further review of the modeling underlying the State limits of 1979 is necessary, and EPA may proceed to establish a designation for the portion of Summit County that is presently undesignated. Air quality monitoring data from 2003 to 2006 indicate that SO <sup>2</sup> concentrations in Summit County are well below the standards, generally about a third the level of the standards or less. For the 24-hour standard of 365 ug/m3 (commonly the controlling standard), the high second high value (i.e., after computing the second high value for each monitoring site for each year, the highest of these second high values) is 141 ug/m3. Compared to the annual standard of 80 ug/m3, the highest value is 24 ug/m3. Compared to the 3-hour standard of 1300 ug/m3, the high second high value is 382 ug/m3. Modeling evidence also indicates that the relevant portion of Summit County is attaining the standard. EPA believes there are no companies within the undesignated area significantly violating their SO <sup>2</sup> emission limits. EPA has identified one facility elsewhere in Summit County as a high priority violator with excess SO <sup>2</sup> emissions. However, this facility is approximately 5 kilometers from the nearest edge of the undesignated area. Furthermore, whereas the attainment modeling for the undesignated part of Summit County reflects emissions from several significant sources, including Firestone Rubber (a Barberton facility of a division called Seiberling Tire and Rubber Company), Midwest Rubber Company, and Ohio Brass, these facilities have now shut down. Therefore, if the modeling underlying the attainment demonstration were redone with current actual emission rates replacing maximum allowable emissions, the results of this modeling would show that SO <sup>2</sup> concentrations in the undesignated area are well below the standard. Therefore, EPA believes that this area should be designated attainment. While EPA has not analyzed whether the excess emissions noted above might be causing violations of the air quality standards elsewhere in the county, EPA believes that any such violations will be resolved by its current enforcement action, so that no change in the attainment designation of the remainder of the county is warranted. Thus, in combination, EPA believes that all of Summit County should be designated as attaining the SO <sup>2</sup> standards. Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act describes several prerequisites for redesignation of areas from nonattainment to attainment. Because the relevant portion of Summit County is not designated nonattainment and in fact has no designation, these provisions of Section 107(d)(3)(E) are not germane here. III. What Action Is EPA Taking? EPA is proposing to approve 44 rules for SO <sup>2</sup> in Ohio, including 4 general rules, 4 county-specific rules that replace FIP rules, 2 county-specific rules that incorporate substantive changes in limits, and 34 county-specific rules that reflect only administrative changes such as updating company names. EPA is also proposing to establish an attainment designation for the portion of Summit County that is presently undesignated. For simplicity, EPA is proposing to combine the designations into a single designation for the entire county rather than have separate designations for four subdivisions of the county. By this action, EPA is proposing that state rules would supersede the last remaining portions of the FIP that was promulgated in 1976 *et seq.* Therefore, the FIP may be removed from the CFR if and when EPA makes final the action proposed today. Even after the FIP is removed, EPA may continue to take enforcement action against violations of the FIP limits discovered to have occurred during the time the FIP was in effect. Today's notice provides proposed revisions to the CFR to implement the actions proposed here. EPA is proposing to rescind the entirety of 40 CFR 52.1881(b) (including general provisions and county-specific limits) and of 40 CFR 52.1882 (providing FIP compliance schedules). Since EPA is proposing that Ohio has approvable rules for the entire State, EPA is proposing to rescind the sections of 40 CFR 52.1881(a) that identify counties for which EPA has taken no action or has disapproved the state's plan. EPA is proposing to replace the listing of counties having approved rules with a rule-by-rule listing of approved rules. EPA is proposing that the action concerning the designation of Summit County would establish a simplified, county-wide designation of attainment. Since EPA is proposing to address the court remand that has affected the designations for Summit County, EPA is proposing to rescind the footnotes that identify the effects of the remand. (EPA is also proposing to rescind the footnote that was inadvertently applied to the designation of Trumbull County.) IV. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? When submitting comments, remember to: 1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). 2. Follow directions—The EPA may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)part or section number. 3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. 4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. 5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. 6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives. 7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. 8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, September 30, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. Paperwork Reduction Act This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). Regulatory Flexibility Act This proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). Executive Order 13132: Federalism This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use Because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 or a “significant regulatory action,” this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). National Technology Transfer Advancement Act Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), 15 U.S.C. 272, requires Federal agencies to use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus to carry out policy objectives, so long as such standards are not inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Absent a prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus standards, EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use such standards, and it would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in place of a program submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Therefore, the requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTAA do not apply. List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Sulfur oxides. 40 CFR Part 81 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, Sulfur dioxide, Wilderness areas. Dated: April 19, 2007. Bharat Mathur, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. For the reasons stated in the preamble, parts 52 and 81, chapter I, of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations are proposed to be amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart KK—Ohio 2. Section 52.1870 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(136) to read as follows: § 52.1870 Identification of plan.
(c)* * *
(136)On May 16, 2006, Ohio submitted numerous regulations for sulfur dioxide. These regulations were submitted to replace the remaining federally promulgated regulations, to make selected revisions to applicable limits, and to update company names and make other similar administrative changes.
(i)*Incorporation by reference.* Ohio Administrative Code Rules 3745-18-01, 3745-18-02, 3745-18-03, 3745-18-06, 3745-18-08, 3745-18-10, 3745-18-11, 3745-18-12, 3745-18-15, 3745-18-17, 3745-18-18, 3745-18-24, 3745-18-28, 3745-18-29, 3745-18-31, 3745-18-34, 3745-18-35, 3745-18-37, 3745-18-38, 3745-18-49, 3745-18-50, 3745-18-53, 3745-18-54, 3745-18-57, 3745-18-61, 3745-18-63, 3745-18-66, 3745-18-68, 3745-18-69, 3745-18-72, 3745-18-76, 3745-18-77, 3745-18-78, 3745-18-79, 3745-18-80, 3745-18-81, 3745-18-82, 3745-18-83, 3745-18-84, 3745-18-85, 3745-18-87, 3745-18-90, 3745-18-91, and 3745-18-93, adopted on January 13, 2006, effective January 23, 2006.
(ii)*Additional material.* Letter from Joseph P. Koncelik, Director, Ohio EPA, to Bharat Mathur, EPA Region 5, dated May 16, 2006, with attachments providing supporting material. 3. Section 52.1881 is amended as follows: a. By revising paragraph (a)(4). b. By removing and reserving paragraphs (a)(7), (a)(8), and (b). § 52.1881 Control strategy: Sulfur oxides (sulfur dioxide).
(a)* * *
(4)Notwithstanding the portions of Ohio's sulfur dioxide rules identified in this section that EPA has either disapproved or taken no action on, EPA has approved a complete plan addressing all counties in the State of Ohio. EPA has approved the following rules, supplemented by any additional approved rules specified in 40 CFR 52.1870:
(i)Rules as effective in Ohio on December 28, 1979: OAC 3745-18-04 (measurement methods)—except for five disapproved paragraphs ((D)(2), (D)(3), (E)(2), (E)(3), and (E)(4)) and three paragraphs approved later ((D)(8), (D)(9), and (E)(7)), OAC 3745-18-05 (ambient monitoring), OAC 3745-18-08 (Allen)—except for one paragraph approved later (Cairo Chemical), OAC 3745-18-09 (Ashland County), OAC 3745-18-13 (Belmont), OAC 3745-18-14 (Brown), OAC 3745-18-16 (Carroll), OAC 3745-18-19 (Clermont)—except for one paragraph approved later (CG&E Beckjord), OAC 3745-18-20 (Clinton), OAC 3745-18-21 (Columbiana), OAC 3745-18-23 (Crawford), OAC 3745-18-25 (Darke), OAC 3745-18-26 (Defiance), OAC 3745-18-27 (Delaware), OAC 3745-18-30 (Fayette), OAC 3745-18-32 (Fulton), OAC 3745-18-36 (Guernsey), OAC 3745-18-39 (Hardin), OAC 3745-18-40 (Harrison), OAC 3745-18-41 (Henry), OAC 3745-18-42 (Highland), OAC 3745-18-43 (Hocking), OAC 3745-18-44 (Holmes), OAC 3745-18-45 (Huron), OAC 3745-18-46 (Jackson), OAC 3745-18-48 (Knox), OAC 3745-18-51 (Licking), OAC 3745-18-52 (Logan), OAC 3745-18-55 (Madison), OAC 3745-18-58 (Medina), OAC 3745-18-59 (Meigs), OAC 3745-18-60 (Mercer), OAC 3745-18-62 (Monroe), OAC 3745-18-64 (Morgan)—except for one paragraph approved later (OP Muskinghum River), OAC 3745-18-65 (Morrow), OAC 3745-18-67 (Noble), OAC 3745-18-70 (Perry), OAC 3745-18-73 (Portage), OAC 3745-18-74 (Preble), OAC 3745-18-75 (Putnam), OAC 3745-18-86 (Union), OAC 3745-18-88 (Vinton), OAC 3745-18-89 (Warren), OAC 3745-18-92 (Williams), and OAC 3745-18-94 (Wyandot);
(ii)Rules as effective in Ohio on October 1, 1982: OAC 3745-18-64
(B)(OP Muskinghum River in Morgan County);
(iii)Rules as effective in Ohio on October 31, 1991: OAC 3745-18-04 (D)(7), (D)(8)(a) to (D)(8)(e), (E)(5), (E)(6)(a), (E)(6)(b), (F), (G)(1) to (G)(4), and (I);
(iv)Rules as effective in Ohio on July 25, 1996: OAC 3745-18-47 (Jefferson);
(v)Rules as effective in Ohio on March 21, 2006: OAC 3745-18-22 (Coshocton), OAC 3745-18-33 (Gallia), and OAC 3745-18-71 (Pickaway);
(vi)Rules as effective in Ohio on September 1, 2003: OAC 3745-18-56 (Mahoning); and
(vii)Rules as effective in Ohio on January 23, 2006: OAC 3745-18-01 (definitions), OAC 3745-18-02 (air quality standards), OAC 3745-18-03 (compliance dates), OAC 3745-18-06 (general provisions), OAC 3745-18-07 (Adams), OAC 3745-18-10 (Ashtabula), OAC 3745-18-11 (Athens), OAC 3745-18-12 (Auglaize), OAC 3745-18-15 (Butler), OAC 3745-18-17 (Champaign), OAC 3745-18-18 (Clark), OAC 3745-18-24 (Cuyahoga), OAC 3745-18-28 (Erie), OAC 3745-18-29 (Fairfield), OAC 3745-18-31 (Franklin), OAC 3745-18-34 (Geauga), OAC 3745-18-35 (Greene), OAC 3745-18-37 (Hamilton), OAC 3745-18-38 (Hancock), OAC 3745-18-49 (Lake), OAC 3745-18-50 (Lawrence), OAC 3745-18-53 (Lorain), OAC 3745-18-54 (Lucas), OAC 3745-18-57 (Marion), OAC 3745-18-61 (Miami), OAC 3745-18-63 (Montgomery), OAC 3745-18-66 (Muskingum), OAC 3745-18-68 (Ottawa), OAC 3745-18-69 (Paulding), OAC 3745-18-72 (Pike), OAC 3745-18-76 (Richland), OAC 3745-18-77 (Ross), OAC 3745-18-78 (Sandusky), OAC 3745-18-79 (Scioto), OAC 3745-18-80 (Seneca), OAC 3745-18-81 (Shelby), OAC 3745-18-82 (Stark), OAC 3745-18-83 (Summit), OAC 3745-18-84 (Trumbull), OAC 3745-18-85 (Tuscarawas), OAC 3745-18-87 (Van Wert), OAC 3745-18-90 (Washington), OAC 3745-18-91 (Wayne), and OAC 3745-18-93 (Wood). § 52.1882 [Removed] 4. Section 52.1882 is removed and reserved. PART 81—[AMENDED] 5. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart C—Section 107 Attainment Status Designations 6. The table in § 81.336 entitled “Ohio—SO <sup>2</sup> ” is amended by removing the three footnotes and revising the entries for Summit and Trumbull Counties to read as follows: § 81.336 Ohio. Ohio—SO <sup>2</sup> Designated area Does not meet primary standards Does not meet secondary standards Cannot be classified Better than national standards * * * * * * * Summit County X Trumbull County X * * * * * * * [FR Doc. E7-8295 Filed 4-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P 72 83 Tuesday, May 1, 2007 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service [Docket # AMS-LS-07-0061; LS-07-09] Lamb Research and Promotion Program; Notice of Request for Extension and Revision of a Currently Approved Information Collection AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), this notice announces the Agricultural Marketing Service's
(AMS)intention to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget for an extension of the currently approved information collection of the Lamb Promotion, Research, and Information Program. Once approved, AMS will be requesting that the Office of Management and Budget merge this information collection with the information collection for National Research, Promotion and Consumer Information Programs. DATES: Comments on this notice must be received by July 2, 2007 to be assured of consideration. *Additional Information or Comments:* Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this notice of review. Comments must be sent to Kenneth R. Payne, Chief, Marketing Programs, Livestock and Seed Program, AMS, USDA, Room 2628-S, STOP 0251, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0251; Fax:
(202)720-1125; or, online at *www.regulations.gov* . All comments should reference the docket number, the date, and the page number of this issue of the **Federal Register** . Comments will be available for public inspection via the Internet at *www.regulations.gov* or during regular business hours. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Lamb Promotion, Research, and Information Program. *OMB Number:* 0581-0198. *Expiration Date of Approval:* September 30, 2007. *Type of Request:* Extension and revision of a currently approved information collection. *Abstract:* The current information collection is essential to carry out the intent of the Commodity Promotion, Research, and Information Act of 1996
(Act)(7 U.S.C. 7411 *et seq.* ) and the Lamb Promotion, Research, and Information Order (Order) (7 CFR part 1280). While the Order imposes certain recordkeeping requirements on persons subject to the Order, some information required under the Order can be compiled from records currently maintained. The Order's provisions have been carefully reviewed, and every effort has been made to minimize these recordkeeping costs or requirements. The requisite forms to be filled for recordkeeping require the minimum information necessary to effectively carry out the requirements of the program, and their use is necessary to fulfill the intent of the Act. Information required for records can be supplied without data processing equipment or outside technical expertise. In addition, there are no training requirements for individuals filling out the forms. The forms are simple, easy to understand, and place as small a burden as possible on those required to file information. The timing and frequency of collecting information are intended to meet the needs of the industry while minimizing the amount of work necessary to fill out the required reports. In addition, the information included on these forms is not available from other industry sources because such information relates specifically to individuals or organizations subject to the provisions of the Act. We estimate the paperwork and time burden of the above referenced information collection to be as follows: *Estimate of Burden:* Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.17 hours per response. *Respondents:* Producers, seedstock producers, market agencies, first handlers, feeders, and exporters. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 3,929 *Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent:* 151.12 *Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents:* 8,066.48 Comments are invited on:
(1)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information for those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments must be sent to Kenneth R. Payne, Chief, Marketing Programs, Livestock and Seed Program, AMS, USDA, Room 2628-S, STOP 0251, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0251; Fax:
(202)720-1125; or, online at *www.regulations.gov.* All comments should reference the docket number, the date, and the page number of this issue of the **Federal Register** . Comments will be available for public inspection via the Internet at *www.regulations.gov* or during regular business hours. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Dated: April 25, 2007. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E7-8237 Filed 4-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service [Docket Number: AMS-CN-07-0048, CN-07-001] Notice of Request for an Extension and Revision to a Currently Approved Information Collection AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), this notice announces the Agricultural Marketing Service's
(AMS)intention to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget, for an extension and revision to the currently approved information collection Cotton Classing, Testing, and Standards. DATES: Comments received by July 2, 2007 will be considered. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR COMMENTS: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this proposal to Shethir Riva, Chief, Research and Promotion, Cotton Program, Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20250-0224. Comments should be submitted in triplicate. Comments may also be submitted electronically through *www.regulations.gov* . All comments should reference the docket number and page number of this issue of the **Federal Register** . All comments received will be made available for public inspection at Cotton Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Room 2639-S, Washington, DC 20250 during regular business hours. A copy of this notice may also be found at *http://www.ams.usda.gov/cotton/rulemaking.htm* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shethir Riva, Chief, Research and Promotion, Cotton Program, Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Room 2639-S, Washington, DC 20250-0224, telephone
(202)720-3193, facsimile
(202)690-1718, or e-mail at *Shethir.riva@usda.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Cotton Classing, Testing, and Standards. *OMB Number:* 0581-0008. *Expiration Date of Approval:* September 30, 2007. *Type of Request:* Extension and Revision of a Currently Approved Information Collection. *Abstract:* Information solicited is used by the USDA to administer and supervise activities associated with the classification or grading of cotton, cotton linters, and cottonseed based on official USDA Standards. The information requires personal data, such as name, type of business, address, and description of classification services requested. These programs are conducted under the United States Cotton Standards Act (7 U.S.C. 51b), the Cotton Statistics and Estimates Act of 1927 (U.S.C. 473c), and the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1622h) and regulations appear at 7 CFR part 28. The information collection requirements in this request are essential to carry out the intent of the Acts and to provide the cotton industry the type of information they need to make sound business decisions. The information collected is the minimum required. Information is requested from growers, cooperatives, merchants, manufacturers, and other government agencies. The information collected is used only by authorized employees of the USDA, AMS. The Cotton Industry is the primary user of the compiled information and AMS and other government agencies are secondary users. *Estimate of Burden:* Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.08 hours per response. *Respondents:* Cotton merchants, warehouses, and gins. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 967. *Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent:* 2.56. *Estimated Number of Responses:* 1,867. *Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents:* 140.48. *Comments are invited on:*
(1)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to Shethir Riva, Chief, Research and Promotion, Cotton Program, Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Room 2639-S, Washington, DC 20250-0224. All comments received will be available for public inspection during regular business hours at the same address. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Dated: April 25, 2007. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E7-8240 Filed 4-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service [Docket No. AMS-FV-07-0049; FV07-996-1 N] Peanut Standards Board AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice; request for nominations. SUMMARY: The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 requires the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a Peanut Standards Board (Board) for the purpose of advising the Secretary on quality and handling standards for domestically produced and imported peanuts. The initial Board was appointed by the Secretary and announced on December 5, 2002. USDA seeks nominations for individuals to be considered for selection as Board members for terms of office ending June 30, 2010. Selected nominees sought by this action would replace those six producer and industry representatives who are currently serving for the term of office that ends June 30, 2007. The Board consists of 18 members representing producers and industry representatives. DATES: Written nominations must be received on or before May 18, 2007. ADDRESSES: Nominations should be sent to Dawana J. Clark, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, Unit 155, 4700 River Road, Riverdale, MD 20737: Telephone:
(301)734-5243; Fax:
(301)734-5275; e-mail: *Dawana.Clark@usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 1308 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Farm Bill) requires the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a Peanut Standards Board (Board) for the purpose of advising the Secretary regarding the establishment of quality and handling standards for all domestic and imported peanuts marketed in the United States. The Farm Bill requires the Secretary to consult with the Board before the Secretary establishes or changes quality and handling standards for peanuts. The Farm Bill provides that the Board consist of 18 members, with three producers and three industry representatives from the States specified in each of the following producing regions:
(a)Southeast (Alabama, Georgia, and Florida);
(b)Southwest (Texas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico); and
(c)Virginia/Carolina (Virginia and North Carolina). For the initial appointments, the Farm Bill required the Secretary to stagger the terms of the members so that:
(a)One producer member and peanut industry member from each peanut producing region serves a one-year term;
(b)one producer member and peanut industry member from each peanut producing region serves a two-year term; and
(c)one producer member and peanut industry member from each peanut producing region serves a three-year term. The term “peanut industry representatives” includes, but is not limited to, representatives of shellers, manufacturers, buying points, marketing associations and marketing cooperatives. The Farm Bill exempted the appointment of the Board from the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The initial Board was appointed by the Secretary and announced on December 5, 2002. USDA invites those individuals, organizations, and groups affiliated with the categories listed above to nominate individuals for membership on the Board. Nominees sought by this action would replace one producer and one industry member from each peanut producing region who served for the term of office that ends June 30, 2007. New members would serve for a 3-year term of office ending June 30, 2010. Nominees should complete a Peanut Standards Board Background Information form and submit it to Mrs. Clark. Copies of this form may be obtained at the Internet site: *http://www.ams.usda.gov/fv/peanut-farmbill.htm,* or from Mrs. Clark. USDA seeks a diverse group of members representing the peanut industry. Equal opportunity practices will be followed in all appointments to the Board in accordance with USDA policies. To ensure that the recommendations of the Board have taken into account the needs of the diverse groups within the peanut industry, membership shall include, to the extent practicable, individuals with demonstrated abilities to represent minorities, women, persons with disabilities, and limited resource agriculture producers. Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7958. Dated: April 25, 2007. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E7-8234 Filed 4-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2007-0058] Notice of Request for Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Importation of Live Poultry, Poultry Meat, and Other Poultry Products From Specified Regions AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Extension of approval of an information collection; comment request. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request an extension of approval of an information collection associated with regulations for the importation of live poultry, poultry meat, and other poultry products from specified regions. DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before July 2, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* , select “Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service” from the agency drop-down menu, then click “Submit.” In the Docket ID column, select APHIS-2007-0058 to submit or view public comments and to view supporting and related materials available electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket after the close of the comment period, is available through the site's “User Tips” link. • *Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery:* Please send four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to Docket No. APHIS-2007-0058, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road, Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. APHIS-2007-0058. *Reading Room:* You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call
(202)690-2817 before coming. *Other Information:* Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the Internet at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on an information collection associated with regulations for the importation of live poultry, poultry meat, and other poultry products from specified regions, contact Dr. Peter Merrill, Senior Staff Veterinarian, Technical Trade Services Team, National Center for Import and Export, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 39, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at
(301)734-7477. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Importation of Live Poultry, Poultry Meat, and Other Poultry Products From Specified Regions. *OMB Number:* 0579-0228. *Type of Request:* Extension of approval of an information collection. *Abstract:* The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States Department of Agriculture is authorized, among other things, to prohibit or restrict the importation of animals, animal products, and other articles into the United States to prevent the introduction of animal diseases and pests. In connection with this mission, APHIS regulates the importation of animals and animal products into the United States. The regulations are contained in title 9, chapter 1, subchapter D, parts 91 through 99, of the Code of Federal Regulations. Part 94, § 94.26, allows the importation, subject to certain conditions, of live poultry, poultry meat, and other poultry products from certain regions, including Argentina and the Mexican States of Campeche, Quintana Roo, and Yucatan, that are free of exotic Newcastle disease (END). The conditions for importation require, among other things, certification from a full-time salaried veterinary officer of the national government of the exporting region that poultry and poultry products exported from one of these regions originated in that region (or in another region recognized by APHIS as free of END) and that before export to the United States, the poultry and poultry products were not commingled with poultry and poultry products from regions where END exists. We are asking the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)to approve our use of these information collection activities for an additional 3 years. The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1)Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2)Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. *Estimate of burden:* The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response. *Respondents:* Federal animal health authorities of certain regions that export live poultry, poultry meat, and other poultry products. *Estimated annual number of respondents:* 10. *Estimated annual number of responses per respondent:* 10. *Estimated annual number of responses:* 100. *Estimated total annual burden on respondents:* 100 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.) All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record. Done in Washington, DC, this 26th day of April 2007. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E7-8297 Filed 4-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Commodity Credit Corporation Notice of Request for Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection AGENCY: Commodity Credit Corporation, USDA. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Commodity Credit Corporations
(CCC)intention to request an extension for a currently approved information collection in support of the CCC Facility Guarantee Program
(FGP)based on re-estimates. DATES: Comments on this notice must be received by July 2, 2007. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OF COMMENTS: Contact P. Mark Rowse, Director, Credit Programs Division, Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, AgStop 1035, Washington, DC 20250-1035, telephone
(202)720-0624 or e-mail at *mark.rowse@usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* CCC Facility Guarantee Program. *OMB Number:* 0551-0032. *Expiration Date of Approval:* September 30, 2007. *Type of Request:* Extension of and revision to a currently approved information collection. *Abstract:* The primary objective of the FGP is to expand U.S. agricultural exports by improving agricultural infrastructure in importing countries. The FGP makes available export credit guarantees to encourage U.S. private sector financing of foreign purchases of U.S. goods and services on credit terms. The CCC currently offers the FGP for exports to at least 1 country and 2 country regions. The FGP information collection is similar to those for the Export Credit Guarantee Program (GSM-102) (OMB control number 0551-0004). The information collection for the FGP differs primarily as follows:
(1)The applicant, in order to receive a payment guarantee, provides information evidencing that the exported goods and services used to develop improved infrastructure will primarily benefit exports of U.S. agricultural commodities and products; and
(2)The applicant is required to certify that the value of non-U.S. components of goods and services is less than 50 percent of the contract value covered under the payment guarantee. In addition, each exporter and exporter's assignee (U.S. financial institution) must maintain records on all information submitted to CCC and in connection with sales made under the FGP. The information collection is used by CCC to manage, plan, evaluate and account for government resources. The reports and records are required to ensure the proper and judicious use of public funds. *Estimate of Burden:* The public reporting burden for these collections is estimated to average 12 hours per response. *Respondents:* Exporters of U.S. agricultural commodities, banks or other financial institutions, producer associations, export trade associations, and U.S. Government agencies. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 5 per annum. *Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent:* 6 per annum. *Estimated Total Annual Burden of Respondents:* 360 hours. Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Tamoria Thompson-Hall, the Agency Information Collection Coordinator, at
(202)690-1690 or e-mail at *Tamoria.Thompson@usda.gov* . *Requests for Comments:* Send comments regarding
(a)whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to P. Mark Rowse, Director, Credit Programs Division, Office of Trade Programs, FAS, USDA, Stop 1035, Washington, DC 20250, or *mark.rowse@usda.gov* , or to the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Washington, DC 20503. Persons with disabilities who require an alternative means for communication of information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's Target Center at
(202)720-2600 (voice and TDD). All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record. Signed at Washington, DC on April 20, 2007. W. Kirk Miller, Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Service. [FR Doc. 07-2110 Filed 4-30-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 33
Traces to 33 documents
U.S. Code
- Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings§ 552
- Federal Aviation Administration§ 106
- Definitions; application§ 7511
- Regulations§ 1302
- Definitions§ 3651
- Delegation of authority for personnel management§ 1104
- Civil service retention rights§ 8151
- Peace Corps employees§ 2506
- Competitive service; examinations§ 3304
- Competitive service; probationary period§ 3321
- Regulations§ 7504
- Standards and procedures; establishment, amendment, and revocation§ 76
- Avoidance of duplicative or unnecessary analyses§ 605
- Establishment, functions, and activities§ 272
- Transferred§ 1226
- Transferred§ 191
- Purposes§ 3501
- Definitions§ 601
- Congressional findings and declaration of purpose§ 7401
- Findings and purpose§ 7411
- Licensing samplers; revocation and suspension of license§ 51b
- Miscellaneous provisions§ 7958
CFR
register
40 references not yet in our index
- 14 CFR 97
- 1 CFR 51
- 26 CFR 1
- T.D. 9322
- 33 CFR 165
- 5 CFR 315
- 197 F.3d 1144
- 307 F.3d 1339
- 329 F.3d 1354
- 5 CFR 752
- 5 CFR 213.3102(u)
- 5 CFR 752.401
- 5 CFR 752.401(c)(2)
- 5 CFR 752.402
- Pub. L. 106-117
- 113 Stat. 1575
- 7 CFR 810
- 7 CFR 1.27(b)
- 9 CFR 810.1603
- 7 USC 71-87
- 7 CFR 929
- 7 USC 601-674
- 7 CFR 900.400
- 18 CFR 35
- 225 F.3d 667
- 535 U.S. 1
- 5 USC 601-612
- Pub. L. 104-121
- 44 USC 3501-3520
- 2 USC 1531-1538
- 42 USC 4321-4370f
- Pub. L. 107-295
- 630 F.2d 462
- 40 CFR 50
- Pub. L. 104-4
- 40 CFR 52
- 40 CFR 81
- 7 CFR 1280
- 7 USC 1622h
- 7 CFR 28
Citation graph
cites case law
Rules and Regulations
Final rule
F. App'x197 F.3d 1144
F. App'x307 F.3d 1339
F. App'x329 F.3d 1354
Cites 73 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources