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

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2007-05-04 · PROPOSED RULES · Unknown

Unknown. Final rule

57,185 words·~260 min read·/register/2007/05/04/07-2203

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

--- schema: federal-register doc_type: fedreg source_file: FR-2007-05-04.xml --- 72 86 Friday, May 4, 2007 Contents Agricultural Agricultural Marketing Service PROPOSED RULES Onions (Vidalia) grown in Georgia, 25207 E7-8573 NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 25242-25243 07-2203 Grade standards: Summer squash, 25243 E7-8574 Agriculture Agriculture Department See Agricultural Marketing Service Blind Blind or Severely Disabled, Committee for Purchase From People Who Are See Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled Centers Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 25315-25317 E7-8593 E7-8641 Meetings:
Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panels, E7-8562 E7-8591 25317-25318 E7-8617 Immunization Practices Advisory Committee, 25318 E7-8590 National Center for Environmental Health/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry— Scientific Counselors Board, 25318 E7-8561 Centers Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services PROPOSED RULES Medicare: Home health prospective payment system; refinement and rate update (2008 CY), 25356-25481 07-2167 Skilled nursing facilities; prospective payment system and consolidated billing (2008 FY), 25526-25600 07-2180 NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 25318-25320 E7-8423 E7-8424 Medicare:
Inpatient psychiatric facilities prospective payment system; (2008 RY) update, 25602-25673 07-2172 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge operations: Massachusetts, 25203 E7-8612 Regattas and marine parades: Great Chesapeake Bay Swim and Chesapeake Challenge One Mile Swim, 25202 E7-8507 Maryland Swim for Life, 25202-25203 E7-8508 PROPOSED RULES Ports and waterways safety; regulated navigation areas, safety zones, security zones, etc.: Chicago Harbor, IL, 25217-25219 E7-8608 Lake Michigan Captain of Port Zone, WI, 25219-25226 E7-8607 Milwaukee Harbor, WI, 25226-25228 E7-8614 Regattas and marine parades:
SBIP-Fountain Powerboats Kilo Run and Super Boat Grand Prix, 25214-25217 E7-8509 Commerce Commerce Department See Industry and Security Bureau See International Trade Administration See National Institute of Standards and Technology See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Committee for Purchase Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled NOTICES Procurement list; additions and deletions, 25243-25244 E7-8511 Procurement list; correction, 25244 E7-8510 Defense Defense Department See Navy Department NOTICES Privacy Act; systems of records, 07-2196 07-2197 25269-25272 07-2199 Education Education Department PROPOSED RULES Elementary and secondary education:
Migrant Education Program, 25228-25241 E7-8580 NOTICES Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.: Postsecondary education— Federal student aid programs; deadline dates for documents and other information from institutions and applicants, 25276-25282 E7-8576 Vocational and adult education— Pacific Vocational Educational Improvement Program, 25282-25283 E7-8527 Energy Energy Department See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission EPA Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air quality implementation plans; approval and promulgation; various States:
Missouri, 25203-25206 E7-8560 PROPOSED RULES Air quality implementation plans; approval and promulgation; various States: Missouri, 25241 E7-8566 NOTICES Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Agency comment availability, 25301-25302 E7-8531 Agency weekly receipts, 25302 E7-8529 Meetings: National Drinking Water Advisory Council, 25302-25303 E7-8654 Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: Pesticides— Small-scale field testing and low-level intermittent presence in food of plant-incorporated protectants, 25303-25304 E7-8550 Executive Executive Office of the President See Trade Representative, Office of United States FAA Federal Aviation Administration PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness standards:
Rotorcraft turbine engines; one-engine-inoperative rating definitions and type certification standards, 25207-25214 E7-7943 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency NOTICES Disaster and emergency areas: California, 25325 E7-8512 Iowa, 25325-25326 E7-8514 Maine, 25326 E7-8513 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Electric rate and corporate regulation combined filings, 25284-25286 E7-8555 E7-8568 Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Southeast Supply Header, LLC, 25286-25287 E7-8519 Transwestern Pipeline Company, LLC, 25287-25290 E7-8524 Environmental statements; notice of intent:
Colorado Interstate Gas Co., 25290-25291 E7-8538 Copiah Storage, LLC, 25291-25293 E7-8540 Midcontinent Express Pipeline LLC, 25293-25296 E7-8522 Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc., 25296-25298 E7-8535 Hydroelectric applications, 25298-25300 E7-8520 E7-8521 E7-8536 Off-the record communications, 25300-25301 E7-8539 *Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:* Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, 25283 E7-8537 Gulf South Pipeline Co., LP, 25283 E7-8518 National Fuel Gas Supply Corp., 25283-25284 E7-8534 OkTex Pipeline Co., 25284 E7-8523 Federal Housing Federal Housing Finance Board NOTICES Meetings;
Sunshine Act, 25304 07-2242 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Banks and bank holding companies: Change in bank control, 25304 E7-8533 Permissible nonbanking activities, 25304 E7-8532 FTC Federal Trade Commission NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 25304-25314 E7-8567 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Endangered and threatened species and marine mammal permit applications, determinations, etc., 25327-25329 E7-8557 E7-8558 Health Health and Human Services Department See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention See Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services See National Institutes of Health NOTICES Organization, functions, and authority delegations:
Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, 25314-25315 07-2193 Homeland Homeland Security Department See Coast Guard See Federal Emergency Management Agency See U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.: Homeless assistance; excess and surplus Federal properties, 25327 07-2139 Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: Manufactured home procedural and enforcement regulations; federal manufactured construction and safety standards; recommendations request, 25327 E7-8498 Indian Indian Affairs Bureau NOTICES Land acquisitions into trust:
Jena Band of Choctaw Indians of Louisiana; correction, 25329 E7-8578 Industry Industry and Security Bureau RULES Export administration and national security industrial base regulations: Office names, office addresses, statements of legal authority, and statute name and citation; updated, 25194-25196 E7-8582 Interior Interior Department See Fish and Wildlife Service See Indian Affairs Bureau See Land Management Bureau See Minerals Management Service See National Park Service International International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping:
Folding metal tables and chairs from— China, 25244-25245 E7-8587 Honey from— Argentina, 25245-25246 E7-8584 Preserved mushrooms from— China, 25246-25247 E7-8585 Saccharin from— China, 25247-25252 E7-8581 Small diameter seamless carbon and alloy steel standard, line, and pressure pipe from— Brazil, 25252-25253 E7-8586 Steel concrete reinforcing bars from— Turkey, 25253-25261 E7-8583 Uruguay Round Agreements Act: Antidumping investigations; dumping margins calculation; World Trade Organization panel findings; implementation, 25261-25264 07-2212 Labor Labor Department See Occupational Safety and Health Administration NOTICES Meetings:
Trade Negotiations and Trade Policy Labor Advisory Committee, 25333 E7-8526 Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Meetings: Resource Advisory Councils— Coeur d’Alene District, 25329 E7-8592 Oil and gas leases: Wyoming, 25329-25330 E7-8616 Realty actions; sales, leases, etc.: Nevada, 25330-25332 E7-8502 Minerals Minerals Management Service RULES Outer Continental Shelf operations: Technical corrections affecting all offshore operators, lessees, pipeline right-of-way holders, and permittees, 25197-25202 E7-8417 National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration RULES Motor vehicle safety standards:
Head restraints for passenger cars and light multipurpose vehicles, trucks, and buses, 25484-25524 07-2011 National Institute National Institute of Standards and Technology NOTICES Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.: Post-Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor Nanoelectronics Research Program, 25264-25267 E7-8611 NIH National Institutes of Health NOTICES Inventions, Government-owned; availability for licensing, 25320-25322 E7-8500 Meetings: National Cancer Institute, 25322 07-2190 National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, 25322-25323 07-2184 07-2185 National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 25323-25324 07-2191 07-2192 National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, 25323 07-2187 Scientific Review Center, 25324-25325 07-2186 07-2188 07-2189 NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOTICES Meetings:
North Pacific Fishery Management Council, E7-8543 25267-25268 E7-8545 E7-8546 Pacific Fishery Management Council, 25268-25269 E7-8544 National Park National Park Service NOTICES National Register of Historic Places; pending nominations, 25332-25333 E7-8588 Navy Navy Department NOTICES Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Virginia Capes, Cherry Point, and Charleston offshore operating areas; expeditionary strike group composite training unit exercise, 25272 E7-8572 Environmental statements; notice of intent:
Naval Base Guam; Marine Corps units relocation, etc., 25272 E7-8571 Meetings: Naval Research Advisory Committee, 25273 E7-8570 Privacy Act; systems of records, 25273-25276 07-2195 07-2198 Nuclear Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, E7-8553 25335-25336 E7-8554 E7-8559 Plants and materials; physical protection: Unescorted access to research and test reactors; fingerprinting and criminal history check requirements, 25337-25339 07-2207 Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.:
Abnormal occurrences; annual report to Congress, 25339-25342 E7-8551 *Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:* Consumers Energy Co. et al, 25336-25337 E7-8549 Occupational Occupational Safety and Health Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 25333-25335 E7-8569 Office of U.S. Trade Office of United States Trade Representative See Trade Representative, Office of United States Peace Peace Corps NOTICES Privacy Act; systems of records, 25343-25344 07-2211 SEC Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Investment Company Act of 1940:
Gabelli Equity Trust Inc., et al., 25344-25346 E7-8504 Old Westbury Funds, Inc., et al., 25346-25348 E7-8506 Self-regulatory organizations; proposed rule changes: Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 25348-25350 E7-8505 Republication, 25350-25351 R7-4589 SBA Small Business Administration RULES Business loans: Lender examination and review fees, 25189-25194 E7-8516 State State Department NOTICES Biometric Visa Program: Fingerscan standards; change from two fingerscans to ten, 25351 E7-8604 Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.:
U.S. Climate Action Report, 25676 07-2251 Trade Trade Representative, Office of United States NOTICES Intellectual property rights protection; actions, reviews, country identification, etc.: Various countries, 25342-25343 E7-8496 Transportation Transportation Department See Federal Aviation Administration See National Highway Traffic Safety Administration MISSING FOR: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 25326-25327 E7-8548 Veterans Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.:
Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program, 25351-25354 E7-8528 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Health and Human Services Department, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 25356-25481 07-2167 Part III Transportation Department, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 25484-25524 07-2011 Part IV Health and Human Services Department, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 25526-25600 07-2180 Part V Health and Human Services Department, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 25602-25673 07-2172 Part VI State Department, 25676 07-2251 Reader Aids Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions. 72 86 Friday, May 4, 2007 Rules and Regulations SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 13 CFR Part 120 RIN Number 3245 AF49 Business Loan Program; Lender Examination and Review Fees AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration. ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This final rule implements a recent amendment to the Small Business Act authorizing the Small Business Administration
(SBA)to assess fees to Lenders participating in SBA's 7(a) loan guarantee program (Lenders) to cover the costs of examinations, reviews, and other Lender oversight activities. The rule describes the methodology for fee assessment. Lenders will pay the actual costs to SBA of the on-site examinations and reviews, and will be allocated off-site review/monitoring costs based on each Lender's proportionate share of loan dollars that SBA has guaranteed in the SBA portfolio. The rule also describes the billing and payment processes. DATES: This rule is effective June 4, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bryan Hooper, Director, Office of Lender Oversight, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416,
(202)205-3049. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background Information Section 7(a) of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 636(a), authorizes SBA to guarantee loans made by Lenders to eligible small businesses. Currently, there are nearly 5,000 Lenders authorized to make such SBA guaranteed loans that have outstanding 7(a) loans. SBA conducts off-site reviews/monitoring and on-site exams/reviews of these Lenders to ensure they are processing loans in accordance with prescribed standards and to minimize losses. Section 5(b)(14) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 634(b)(14)), authorizes SBA to require these Lenders to pay fees to cover “the costs of [the] examinations, reviews, and other Lender oversight activities.” Congress granted SBA this new fee authority under section 131 of Division K of Public Law 108-447, enacted December 8, 2004. Examination and review costs primarily consist of contractor charges for assistance with
(i)on-site examinations;
(ii)on-site reviews; and
(iii)off-site reviews/monitoring activities. On September 5, 2006, SBA published a proposed rule seeking comments by October 5, 2006 on its proposal implementing SBA's statutory exam/review fee authority. 71 FR 52296. SBA published a subsequent notice extending the comment period for the proposed Lender review fee to November 9, 2006. 71 FR 59411. The primary purpose of the fee is to cover the costs that SBA currently absorbs for on-site Lender examinations and reviews and off-site review and monitoring activities. On-site and off-site review and monitoring activities are performed to ensure that Lenders are processing, servicing, and liquidating loans in accordance with prescribed SBA standards. By ensuring that Lenders are performing their SBA-required responsibilities in accordance with prescribed standards, SBA reduces the costs of the 7(a) program and its risk of losses from the program. Under this rule, Lenders will be charged fees for two distinct oversight activities performed by SBA with the assistance of contractors. First, Lenders receiving an on-site review or examination by SBA's review and examination contractors will be charged for the contractors' actual review or examination cost. This cost will be charged to the Lender by SBA after completion of the review or examination for payment according to the terms of the invoice. SBA plans to review only those Lenders with a total outstanding 7(a) portfolio of more than $10 million in SBA guaranteed dollars, although it reserves the right to review Lenders with smaller portfolios if SBA determines in its discretion that circumstances warrant. Second, all Lenders will be charged a fee for contractor costs associated with SBA's off-site review/monitoring activities. The fee will be based upon each Lender's pro-rata share of the total outstanding 7(a) portfolio, measured by SBA guaranteed dollars. Each Lender's off-site review fee will be determined using that Lender's outstanding guaranteed dollars, relative to that of SBA's outstanding guaranteed portfolio, as of September 30 of each year. Guaranteed dollars outstanding includes guarantees of both loans held by the Lender and loans sold into the secondary market, securitized, or for which a Lender has sold a participating interest. It also includes loans that have been purchased by SBA but have not yet been charged-off. SBA may waive the off-site review/monitoring fee when SBA determines that it is not cost effective to collect the fee. Currently, SBA expects to waive the off-site review/monitoring fee for Lenders with a fee of less than $200. The rule also authorizes SBA to charge a fee to cover the costs of the additional expenses that SBA incurs in carrying out Lender oversight activities (for example, the salaries and travel expenses of SBA employees and equipment expenses that are directly related to carrying out Lender oversight activities). However, SBA does not plan at this time to charge Lenders for these costs. A discussion of the comments received and considered and a section by section analysis follows. II. Comments Received and Considered With approximately 5,000 individual Lenders, SBA received only 56 comments on the proposed Lender review fee. Forty-nine of the comments were from 7(a) Lenders other than Small Business Lending Companies (SBLCs), and three comments were from SBLCs. Three comments were from trade organizations, and one comment came from a regulatory organization. Comments generally covered the following areas:
(i)The fee levels were excessive;
(ii)there was no incentive to control costs;
(iii)the fee could drive small Lenders out of the program;
(iv)use of other regulators or SBA staff to perform the reviews;
(v)the manner and methodology used for the reviews and review fees (generally concerning the off-site review fee); and
(vi)other comments. Fee Levels Some commenters asserted that the overall fees described in the proposed notice were generally excessive. A few commenters stated that the off-site fees were excessive and other commenters expressed that the on-site review or examination fees were too high. SBA awards the contracts for the reviews and examinations in accordance with Federal procurement statutes and regulations, and makes the awards to those contractors that can best meet the program's needs while at the same time obtaining the best value for the Government. Further, SBA and its contractors work together to minimize costs whenever possible. For example, SBA may direct the on-site review or examination contractor to reduce its loan review sample sizes for SBA Supervised Lenders with small portfolios or no current lending activity. With respect to the cost of the on-site examinations, as we noted in the proposed rule, SBA's costs compare favorably to the assessments performed by other Federal regulators, which are similar in size and scope to SBA's examinations. For example, the Comptroller of the Currency's current annual assessment on a bank with $1 billion in assets is approximately $232,000, and the Office of Thrift Supervision assesses the same size institution approximately $215,682, whereas the annualized cost for an SBA Supervised Lender on a 24 month exam cycle with $1 billion in outstanding loan balances (with 71% of that portfolio guaranteed by SBA) would average $132,830. With respect to the off-site review fee, we note that the average size of an outstanding 7(a) loan is approximately $110,000 in SBA guaranteed dollars. The current off-site review fee is estimated to be $73 per million in outstanding guarantee dollars. Therefore, for the off-site review, the average outstanding 7(a) loan would cost the Lender an additional $8 per year, which SBA does not believe to be an unreasonable burden for Lenders. Consequently, SBA believes that both the off-site and on-site cost-based fees are reflective of the market for such services and are fair and reasonable. Cost Control Many of the commenters raised concerns as to future efforts to control the costs of SBA's oversight activities. These commenters contended that SBA has little incentive to control costs if oversight costs are passed along to Lenders, and that SBA should consult with Lenders before increasing any of the review fees. In addition, several commenters were concerned that SBA would pass along to the Lenders the Agency's costs associated with Lender oversight. SBA does not believe that the Lender fee structure will result in reduced efforts by SBA to minimize costs. For each of the contracts under which the examinations and reviews are conducted, SBA ensures that the contract cost is fair and reasonable in accordance with applicable law. In addition, SBA currently controls costs in general through fixed price contracts, contract monitoring and, as noted above, through coordinating the work with the contractors to minimize costs. For example, SBA works to control the costs of the on-site review primarily through a fixed-price contract, which currently ranges from $21,000 to $26,000 per review. The only variable rate component is for travel to and from the Lender's site, and these expenses are carefully evaluated for reasonableness by Office of Lender Oversight staff as part of the invoicing process. SBA also works closely with the Farm Credit Administration, its current contractor for on-site examinations, to control examination costs for SBLCs. For example, SBA and Farm Credit Administration have worked to ensure that the sample size of loans reviewed during the examination process is reflective of the SBLC's portfolio size. Finally, most of SBA's costs associated with the off-site reviews/monitoring are also fixed. These fixed costs minimize the potential for increased costs, and help ensure that costs will remain controlled during the life of the contracts (on-site reviews and off-site reviews/monitoring). As the contracts or agreements are re-competed or renewed, as appropriate, SBA will continue to consider cost as one of several important considerations in determining which offers or proposed agreements provide the best value to the government. SBA also believes that Lender concerns with respect to SBA charging a fee to cover its own internal costs are misplaced. As noted in the proposed rule, the statute upon which the rule is based authorizes the Agency to charge a fee to cover the Agency's internal Lender oversight costs. However, it is not the Agency's intention to charge a fee to cover such costs at the present time. Should SBA later decide to include charges for other Lender oversight activities, SBA will provide Lenders a notice describing the costs to be included in the fee. Many commenters suggested that SBA should establish a maximum charge for oversight activity fees and consult with Lenders before increasing the fees. As noted above, SBA minimizes the fees through competitive bidding processes, and by working with its contractors to reduce costs where possible (while still maintaining strong risk management capabilities). Therefore, SBA believes there is no need to establish a maximum fee threshold and, with respect to the comment on consultation, SBA will continue its practice of consulting with its Lenders through informal discussions and contacts. Impact on Small Lenders Many commenters asserted that the fee might force smaller Lenders out of SBA lending due to increased costs, damaging SBA's lending program. SBA believes that the fee will not have such an impact. First, we believe that the financial impact of the review fees themselves will be relatively minimal on most 7(a) Lenders, especially small Lenders. Since on-site reviews will generally only be performed on Lenders with SBA portfolios of at least $10 million in SBA guaranteed dollars, the overwhelming majority of Lenders will not be subject to on-site reviews, and will thus not be impacted by the on-site review cost. Of the approximately 5,000 SBA 7(a) Lenders, only about 350, or about 7 percent of all Lenders, have portfolios of greater than $10 million, and these Lenders hold about 84% of the outstanding SBA guaranteed dollars. In addition, it is SBA's expectation that on-site reviews would be normally performed approximately every two years and, thus, Lenders will not be bearing an annual on-site review cost. Off-site reviews will be performed on all 7(a) Lenders; however, the fee is relatively small for Lenders with lesser portfolios. The proposed rule stated that the cost for off-site reviews was expected to be approximately $82 for every $1 million SBA guaranteed dollars held by a Lender. SBA has revised its fee estimate and, due to several factors, we now estimate the cost of off-site reviews/monitoring to be approximately $73 for every $1 million in SBA guaranteed dollars. Thus, for a Lender with $10 million in SBA guaranteed loan dollars, the off-site review fee at this time would be $730. We do not believe this to be an unduly burdensome fee upon Lenders. Second, we note that many Lenders in the 7(a) program are local community banks. A major role of these banks is to be a source of funds within the community, and to lend those funds to small business borrowers in need of those funds to pursue their dreams and opportunities. Since SBA is a “credit elsewhere” program—i.e., recipients of 7(a) loans have not been able to obtain credit on reasonable terms from any other source—the banks are not willing to serve these customers without the SBA Guarantee. We believe that Banks—particularly local banks that must serve their community—will continue to offer SBA guaranteed loans to borrowers unable to obtain financing on such reasonable terms elsewhere. Finally, SBA believes that the off-site reviews and monitoring and additional on-site reviews that the fee will sustain will dramatically improve the Agency's risk management of the 7(a) program. Off-site reviews/monitoring will enable SBA to quickly and continually spot Lenders with poorly performing portfolios and work with those Lenders to turn around their performance. Regular on-site reviews will allow SBA to ensure that its highest risk 7(a) Lenders are meeting their program obligations and complying with Agency origination, underwriting, servicing, and liquidation requirements. Expanding the number of on-site reviews will enable SBA to educate more Lenders on the correct origination, servicing and liquidation procedures for Agency loans. By doing so, it is SBA's expectation that more Lenders will comply with Agency guidelines, cutting the Agency's processing times and possibly reducing program losses. These benefits would reduce SBA's costs, which may be passed along to its lending partners and borrowers through reductions in other fees and ultimately improve the 7(a) program. In the proposed rule, SBA indicated that it might establish a minimum fee threshold (below which it would waive the off-site fee) if it believed that collection costs would be high relative to the fee collected. SBA has determined that, currently, it will be cost effective to the Agency to waive the off-site review fee for Lenders with a total fee of less than $200 in lieu of incurring the cost associated with collecting these smaller fees. By setting this threshold, SBA estimates it will eliminate the fee for approximately 4,050 Lenders, while still collecting approximately 93 percent of the off-site review costs. SBA reserves the right to adjust this threshold from time to time in its sole discretion, and will periodically review the cost of collecting the off-site fee to determine if the threshold should be adjusted or eliminated. For example, if technological improvements reduce the cost of collections, SBA may reduce or eliminate the threshold at which it waives the fee. Such changes would be made through an SBA Notice. All Lenders owing more than the threshold amount will be required to pay the entire fee. It is important to note that the paying Lenders will not be paying more because the smaller fees are being waived for some Lenders; rather, SBA will absorb those costs. As a result, SBA believes the review fees will not have a detrimental effect upon the 7(a) program. Furthermore, the Agency believes that the size of the fee is not an undue burden on smaller Lenders, and that the establishment of a fee waiver threshold will further reduce the impact on smaller Lenders. Therefore, we do not believe that the imposition of the fee will cause smaller Lenders to leave the 7(a) program. Reviews by Other Regulators or SBA Staff Several commenters suggested that it might be more efficient for SBA to have others perform on-site reviews. Most recommended using staff from financial regulators, while one proposed using local SBA staff to perform the reviews, and another expressed concern with SBA finalizing the rule before attempting to coordinate the reviews with state and federal regulators who have primary supervisory authority over the Lenders. SBA believes that financial regulators generally do not have significant knowledge of SBA's 7(a) loan program; we would be concerned about a lack of consistency in the reviews performed. Thus, it could be difficult to rely on review results as a component of our Lender monitoring process, particularly when comparing review results between peers. In addition, by controlling reviews through dedicated contractors, we have maximum flexibility to move resources where immediately needed to timely address most pressing risk issues to SBA. It is also not feasible for local SBA staff to perform the on-site reviews. Local SBA staff is dedicated to program development and outreach which, by being separate from the Lender oversight functions, avoids the appearance of any conflict between the two. In addition, the Agency does not currently have staff with the training and experience necessary to perform risk-based reviews or safety and soundness examinations. Review Fee Methodology SBA received a number of comments on the manner and methodology that SBA proposed for assessing the review fees. These comments concerned:
(i)The frequency of the off-site review process,
(ii)using a different approach to determine the off-site review fee, and
(iii)applying the fee to loans already in Lenders' portfolios. Many commenters raised concerns about the frequency of the off-site reviews. Some expressed that reviewing and updating Lender risk ratings on a quarterly basis was too frequent, while others suggested that the frequency of the risk ratings be tied to each Lender's relative risk—less risky Lenders being subject to updated risk ratings less often than riskier Lenders. All lenders Risk Rating are updated on a quarterly base. Quarterly updating allows SBA to better monitor both individual Lender and portfolio-wide performance trends. Portfolio performance may change dramatically from quarter to quarter. Therefore, quarterly reviews may detect changes that threaten the 7(a) program sooner than reviews performed less frequently. The quarterly comparison enables SBA to regularly identify those Lenders with the greatest risk and to review them timely and more closely. Because the risk rating system was designed to compare each Lender's risk to SBA relative to its peers, it is essential to perform a risk rating on all Lenders each review cycle. If the Agency did not compare the performance of all Lenders in a peer group, Lenders would not be accurately rated for relative risk. For example, if SBA only risk rated the worst performing Lenders in each peer group (removing the best performing Lenders from the analysis), the relatively better performing Lenders in this higher risk subset would appear to be performing better than they are because they would only be compared to even higher risk Lenders rather than both higher and lower risk Lenders. In addition, under the risk rating system, individual Lender ratings may rise or fall every quarter, as each Lender's performance becomes relatively more or less risky. Unless all Lenders are risk rated each quarter, SBA will be unable to detect positive or negative performance trends. Several commenters requested that SBA consider adding a minimum fee component to the cost allocation methodology for the off-site review fee. These commenters suggested that SBA should charge each Lender a minimum fee, and then allocate the remainder of the cost to Lenders based upon the size of their 7(a) loan portfolios. The commenters reasoned that since at least a minimal level of contractual off-site review work is performed on each Lender, all Lenders should pay at least a minimal fee. However, some commenters supported SBA's proposal to provide a waiver or exemption of the fee for small volume lenders. SBA has decided against charging a minimum fee. Charging a minimum fee for lower volume Lenders would run counter to SBA's determination to absorb those costs that are not cost effective to collect and equitably assess the remaining cost to higher volume lenders. This comment also appears to be based on the erroneous assumption that the Lenders who pay the fee will be subsidizing the Lenders who will have the fees waived. The paying Lenders will not be subsidizing the non-paying Lenders because SBA currently plans to absorb the costs of the waived fees. In addition, a minimum fee allocation methodology may result in a disproportionate distribution of the review costs relative to each Lender's participation level. Several commenters suggested that SBA consider revising the formula upon which to base the off-site review fee. Rather than base the fee on portfolio size in SBA guaranteed dollars outstanding, commenters proposed that the fee be based upon such factors as the number of loans outstanding, average size of the loans in each Lenders' portfolio, historical portfolio performance, annual origination volume, and Lender risk ratings. The Agency believes that SBA guaranteed dollars outstanding is the factor most directly related to risk because it is a direct measure of the Agency's maximum risk exposure should SBA be forced to honor its loan guarantees. A few commenters objected to SBA applying the off-site review fee to loans originated before the fee rule effective date. The commenters suggested that SBA should only apply the off-site fee to loans originated after this rule's effective date, to enable Lenders to price the cost of the fee into their loan. This suggestion, however, does not consider that SBA's off-site monitoring approach takes into account a Lender's entire 7(a) portfolio when risk rating a Lender's portfolio. All of the loans in each Lender's portfolio are monitored as part of SBA's risk management process, and all of the loans are included in the portfolio analysis that SBA uses to determine which Lenders may present an unreasonable level of risk to SBA. To exclude earlier originated loans and their dollar risk from the analysis would present an incomplete picture of the portfolio's risk to SBA. Further, such a measure would have an unfair effect between Lenders: One Lender with a portfolio of $10 million in SBA guaranteed dollars originated prior to the effective date would not be subject to the off-site review fee for the entire life of that portfolio, while another Lender with the same size portfolio of loans all originating after the effective date would be subject to the fee. In sum, this suggestion fails to consider that all loans, including currently outstanding loans, represent some level of risk to SBA and must be monitored. Other Miscellaneous Comments One commenter requested that SBA exclude loans purchased by SBA, but not yet charged-off by SBA, from the off-site review fee calculation. SBA includes purchased loans in its off-site monitoring efforts to help assist its purchase centers in tracking charge-off and recovery data. SBA believes the cost associated with purchased loans will be minimal since the Agency has made a concentrated effort to reduce charge-off time. One commenter suggested that SBA limit the number of on-site reviews performed on individual Lenders to a maximum of one review every two years. SBA intends to perform an on-site review approximately every other year on SBA's larger 7(a) Lenders. However, SBA must reserve the right to review or examine these Lenders more frequently (and review smaller Lenders) if it determines that particular Lenders present an unacceptably high level of risk to SBA. It is possible that Lenders may be subject to multiple on-site reviews within a two-year cycle when there are significant weaknesses uncovered during an earlier review that must be corrected in order to reduce SBA's risk. However, SBA may also determine that Lenders with poor portfolio performance, as measured by their off-site Lender risk rating and performance factors, should be subject to a follow up review. Such decisions will be made in SBA's sole discretion. Finally, two commenters asserted that it was unreasonable to expect Lenders to pay the review fee within the 30 day time period. SBA believes that the response time is sufficient for payments to be made. We note that some federal financial institution regulators allow even less time for payment of assessment fees. However, if a Lender has an extraordinary situation and cannot timely make payment, it should contact the Office of Lender Oversight in writing to request additional time. The final rule provides that SBA may waive or abate the collection of interest, charges and/or penalties for delinquent payments if circumstances warrant. SBA has carefully reviewed the comments received and adopts the rule as proposed with three minor changes. Specifically, SBA has deleted a cite reference to a current enforcement regulation as SBA may in the future propose the relocation and revision of SBA's enforcement regulations, has added specific authority for SBA to waive the off-site review fee when it determines that it is not cost effective to collect the fee, and has clarified that Lenders will be required to pay a fee to cover other lender oversight activities only if SBA assesses such a fee. III. Compliance With Executive Orders 12866, 12988, and 13132, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), and the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C., Ch. 35) Executive Order 12866 The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this final rule constitutes a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 thus requiring a Regulatory Impact Analysis. We provided such an analysis in the proposed rule published on September 5, 2006. In that analysis, SBA stated that, as it delegates more authority to its Lenders, there is a need for better and more comprehensive Lender oversight, which SBA has developed through the off-site (L/LMS) and on-site reviews and examinations. The rule implements the recent amendment to the Small Business Act authorizing SBA to assess Lenders fees to cover the costs of those examinations or reviews. The costs of these oversight activities primarily consist of contractor charges for assistance in carrying out the reviews and examinations. In its analysis, SBA noted that the benefits of the proposed fees for Lenders include that the costs of on-site examinations or reviews are allocated directly to those Lenders for whom the costs are incurred, and that the costs of L/LMS would be allocated according to each Lender's participation level as measured by SBA guaranteed dollars. Besides allocating its review and monitoring costs to its Lenders, SBA will benefit through the relative ease of administering the assessment process. The analysis indicates that SBA considered alternatives to the L/LMS cost allocation plan, but that an allocation based on dollars at risk, rather than for example the number of loans, is better related to risk and, therefore, the most equitable. SBA received several comments on costs and alternatives. SBA addressed these comments in the comments section of the preamble. For example, some commenters suggested that the proposed fee was excessive. SBA's examination and review costs primarily consist of contractor charges and contracts are awarded in accordance with Federal procurement statutes and regulations, while providing best value for the Government. Consequently, SBA believes that both the off-site and on-site cost-based fees are reflective of the market for such services and are fair and reasonable. Some commenters also suggested that the fees would be prohibitive for small Lenders. As stated in the comments section, these fees will be waived for Lenders with small portfolios. The reviews may ultimately lead to greater compliance with Agency guidelines and less program losses, which may be passed along to Lenders through reductions in other fees. Therefore, SBA does not believe that the fees will force small Lenders out of SBA lending. SBA received several comments recommending alternatives. For example, SBA received suggestions that the Agency consider setting minimum and maximum fee levels; tie review fees to risk ratings; and utilize other bank regulators for SBA program on-site reviews. The comment on minimum fees appears to be based on the erroneous assumption that the Lenders who pay the fees will be subsidizing the Lenders who will have the fees waived. Also, charging a minimum fee for lower volume Lenders would run counter to SBA's determination to absorb those costs that are not cost effective to collect. As to setting a maximum fee, SBA minimizes the fees through competitive bidding processes, through fixed price contracts and by working with its contractors to reduce costs where possible. Therefore, SBA believes there is no need to establish a minimum or a maximum fee threshold. Some commenters suggested that SBA should tie review fees to risk ratings. Risk Rating trends are indirectly incorporated into the fee methodology to the extent that better ratings could translate into less frequent on-site examinations and reviews. Another alternative suggested was that SBA utilize the other bank regulators for SBA program on-site reviews. SBA believes that utilizing the other bank regulators to perform SBA's reviews would cause concern about a lack of consistency in the reviews performed. Thus, it could be difficult to rely on review results as a component of our Lender monitoring process, particularly when comparing review results between peers. Therefore, SBA did not accept this alternative. For a more detailed discussion on the costs and alternatives, see the main text of the preamble. Executive Order 12988 This final rule meets applicable standards set forth in §§ 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. This final rule will not have retroactive or pre-emptive effect. Executive Order 13132 This final rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the Federal government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, for the purposes of Executive Order 13132, SBA has determined that this final rule has no federalism implications warranting preparation of a federalism assessment. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, requires the Agency to “publish a final regulatory flexibility analysis” which will “describe the impact of the final rule on small entities.” 5 U.S.C. 604(a). Section 605 of the RFA allows an Agency to certify a rule, in lieu of preparing an analysis, if the rulemaking is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Although this rulemaking may affect a substantial number of small entities, for the reasons stated below, SBA does not believe that this rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule implements Small Business Act § 5(b)(14), which authorizes SBA to require 7(a) Lenders to pay examination and review fees. These fees are to be available to fund the costs of examinations, reviews, and other Lender oversight activities. The review fees will apply to all 7(a) Lenders with outstanding SBA guaranteed loan balances. Nearly 5,000 Lenders are currently participating in the 7(a) program, of which 11 are active SBLC Lenders. SBA has determined that SBLCs are classified under the size standard for NAICS 522298. Three of the 11 active SBLCs are below the $6.5 million in average annual receipts and are deemed small business concerns. Nearly all of the remaining 7(a) Lenders are covered under NAICS 522110 for commercial banks and other depository financial institutions. About 3,000 of the Lenders in this classification have less than $165 million in assets and are deemed small business concerns. (Note: with the waiver to any Lender with less than $200 in fees, SBA calculates that only approximately 300 Lenders that are classified as small will be affected.) The final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of the 3,000 Lenders covered under NAICS 522110. Most of these Lenders have very small SBA portfolios and will only be subject to fees for the off-site reviews/monitoring. The annual fee, if assessed for all 3,000 small Lenders, for 98 percent of these Lenders will be less than $945, the cost of a one year subscription to the “American Banker” magazine. SBA plans to waive the fees when it is not cost-effective to bill and collect. At this time, SBA has determined to waive the off-site fee for all Lenders with a fee of less than $200. That determination may be revised periodically to reflect changes in SBA's costs. SBA estimates that the annual fee will be waived for approximately 2700 small Lenders. For approximately 250 small Lenders, the annual fee will be between $200 and $1,000. The largest of the approximately 50 remaining Lenders classified as small business concerns has over $100 million in outstanding SBA guarantees. The largest annualized fee for a Lender classified as small, which will cover the cost of the bi-annual on-site review plus annual off-site monitoring cost, is estimated at $21,288. The estimated annualized fee of the on-site exam plus the annual off-site monitoring cost fee for the three SBLCs classified as small business concerns would range from $28,160 to $42,000. Moreover, since SBA will calculate and bill for the fee, there will be virtually no recordkeeping or other compliance requirements of the rule. There are also no relevant Federal rules governing fees for the 7(a) program which may duplicate, overlap or conflict with the final rule. SBA certified this rulemaking at the proposed rule stage. SBA did not receive any comments on SBA's certification. However, SBA received comments from small lenders about the fee. In reviewing the comments SBA has determined that those lenders will not be affected by the fee implementation. Since, the SBA has decided to waive the off-site review fee for lenders with a total fee of less than $200, in lieu of incurring the cost associated with collecting these smaller fees. Accordingly, the Administrator of SBA hereby certifies to the Chief Counsel of Advocacy that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Paperwork Reduction Act SBA has determined that this final rule does not impose additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35. List of Subjects in 13 CFR Part 120 Loan programs—business, Small businesses. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, SBA amends 13 CFR part 120 to read as follows: PART 120—BUSINESS LOANS 1. The authority citation for part 120 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 15 U.S.C. 634(b)(6), 634(b)(7), 634(b)(14), 633(b)(3), 636(a) and (h), 650, and 696(3) and 697(a)(2). 2. Revise § 120.454 to read as follows: § 120.454 PLP Performance Review. SBA may review the performance of a PLP Lender. 3. Add a new Subpart I to read as follows: Subpart I—Lender Oversight § 120.1070 Lender oversight fees. Lenders are required to pay to SBA fees to cover costs of examinations and reviews and, if assessed by SBA, other Lender oversight activities.
(a)*Fee components:* The fees may cover the following:
(1)*On-Site Examinations.* The costs of conducting on-site safety and soundness examinations of an SBA-Supervised Lender, including any expenses that are incurred in relation to the examination. For the purposes of this paragraph, the term “SBA-Supervised Lender” means a Small Business Lending Company or a Non-Federally Regulated Lender.
(2)*On-Site Reviews.* The costs of conducting an on-site review of a Lender, including any expenses that are incurred in relation to the review.
(3)*Off-Site Reviews/Monitoring.* The costs of conducting off-site reviews/monitoring of a Lender, including any expenses that are incurred in relation to the review/monitoring activities. SBA will assess this charge based on each Lender's portion of the total dollar amount of SBA guarantees in SBA's portfolio. SBA may waive the assessment of this fee for all Lenders owing less than a threshold amount below which SBA determines that it is not cost effective to collect the fee.
(4)*Other Lender Oversight Activities.* The costs of additional expenses that SBA incurs in carrying out Lender oversight activities (for example, the salaries and travel expenses of SBA employees and equipment expenses that are directly related to carrying out Lender oversight activities). This charge will be based on each Lender's portion of the total dollar amount of SBA guarantees in SBA's portfolio.
(b)*Billing Process.* For the on-site examinations or reviews conducted under (a)(1) and (a)(2) above, SBA will bill each Lender for the amount owed following completion of the examination or review. For the off-site reviews/monitoring conducted under (a)(3) above and the other Lender oversight expenses incurred under (a)(4) above, SBA will bill each Lender for the amount owed on an annual basis. SBA will state in the bill the date by which payment is due SBA and the approved payment method(s). The payment due date will be no less than 30 calendar days from the bill date.
(c)*Delinquent Payment and Late-Payment Charges.* Payments that are not received by the due date specified in the bill shall be considered delinquent. SBA will charge interest, and other applicable charges and penalties, on delinquent payments, as authorized by 31 U.S.C. 3717. SBA may waive or abate the collection of interest, charges and/or penalties if circumstances warrant. In addition, a Lender's failure to pay any of the fee components described in this section, or to pay interest, charges and penalties that have been charged, may result in a decision to suspend or revoke a participant's eligibility or to limit a participant's delegated authority. Dated: March 23, 2007. Steven C. Preston, Administrator. [FR Doc. E7-8516 Filed 5-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security 15 CFR Parts 705, 730, 736, 744, 747, 754, 756, 760, 766, 768, 770, and 772 [Docket No. 070411085-7088-01] RIN 0694-AE01 Updated Office Names, Office Addresses, Statements of Legal Authority and Statute Name and Citation AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This rule revises office names and addresses to reflect a recent Bureau of Industry and Security
(BIS)reorganization, updates the statements of legal authority for ten parts of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), and replaces an outdated statute name and citation with the current name of that statute in one section of the EAR. DATES: This rule is effective May 4, 2007. ADDRESSES: Comments concerning this rule should be sent to *publiccomments@bis.doc.gov* , fax
(202)482-3355, or to Regulatory Policy Division, Bureau of Industry and Security, Room H2705, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230. Please refer to regulatory identification number
(RIN)0694-AE01 in all comments, and in the subject line of email comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Arvin, Regulatory Policy Division, Bureau of Industry and Security, Telephone:
(202)482-2440. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Background This rule updates outdated office names, office addresses, legal authority citations and a reference to a statute as described below. Revision of Addresses in Accordance With Reassignment of Responsibilities Within BIS BIS recently created an Office of Technology Evaluation and assigned to it the responsibility for conducting investigations into the effect of imported articles on the national security pursuant to part 705 of the National Security Industrial Base Regulations (15 CFR Part 705) and for conducting foreign availability assessments pursuant to part 768 of the EAR (15 CFR Part 768). Accordingly, this rule revises both of those parts to include the mailing address of that office. Updating Statements of Legal Authority The legal authorities for the EAR (15 CFR 730-799) change from time to time. The expiration of the Export Administration Act on August 20, 2001, the issuance of Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783
(2002)and the annual notices declaring the continuation of the international emergency noted in that Executive Order mean that the legal authority for each part of the EAR has, in recent years, changed at least annually. In addition, the authority citations for some parts change more often due to periodic updates and amendments to the relevant statutes. This rule revises the citations of authority for parts 730, 736, 747, 754, 756, 760, 766, 768, 770, and 772 to reflect the legal authorities in currently in effect. Updating Statement of BIS Organization Section 730.9 of the EAR describes how the Bureau of Industry and Security is organized. This rule removes the reference to the Director, Office of International Programs from paragraph
(a)of that section and adds a reference to the Office of Technology Evaluation to paragraph
(b)of that section in accordance with recent BIS actions to eliminate the Office of International Programs and to create the Office of Technology Evaluation. Updating Name of a Referenced Statute Section 744.19 describes BIS's licensing policy for transactions that involve certain entities sanctioned by the Department of State and references the statutes that authorize such sanctions. Prior to publication of this rule, § 744.19 referenced one such statute as “the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-178)” This rule revises the reference to reflect the current name of the statute: the Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Act (Pub. L. 107-178, 114 Stat. 38 (March 14, 2000), as amended by Public Law 109-112, 119 Stat. 2366 (November 11, 2005) and Public Law 109-353, 120 Stat. 2015 (October 13, 2006)). Although the Export Administration Act expired on August 20, 2001, the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002), as extended by the Notice of August 3, 2006, 71 FR 44551 (August 7, 2006), has continued the Export Administration Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Rulemaking Requirements 1. This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ) (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)Control Number. This rule involves two collections that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. OMB control number 0694-0120 applies to procedures for initiating investigations into the effect of import on national security pursuant to part 705 of the National Security Industrial Base Regulations. OMB Control number 0694-0004 applies to foreign availability submissions and technical advisory committee certifications submitted to BIS pursuant to part 768 of the Export Administration Regulations. BIS believes that this rule will make no changes to the burdens associated with either of those two collections. Send comments about this collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to David Rostker, Office of Management and Budget, by e-mail to *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* , or by fax to
(202)395-7285; and to the Office of Administration, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce, 14th and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 6883, Washington, DC 20230. 3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined under E.O. 13132. 4. The Department finds that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act requiring prior notice and the opportunity for public comment because they are unnecessary. The changes made by this rule are not substantive changes. This rule only updates office names and addresses to reflect recent internal BIS organizational changes, updates legal authority citations, and updates the name and citation of a statute referenced in the National Security Industrial Base Regulations and the Export Administration Regulations. This rule does not alter any right, obligation or prohibition that applies to any person under those regulations. Because these revisions are not substantive changes, it is unnecessary to provide notice and opportunity for public comment. In addition, the 30-day delay in effectiveness required by 5 U.S.C. 553(d) is not applicable because this rule is not a substantive rule. List of Subjects 15 CFR Part 705 Administrative practice and procedure, Business and industry, exports, Government contracts, Reporting and recording requirements. 15 CFR Part 730 Administrative practice and procedure, Advisory committees, Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Strategic and critical materials. 15 CFR Parts 736, 770 and 772 Exports. 15 CFR Part 744 Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Terrorism. 15 CFR Part 747 Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Foreign trade, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 15 CFR Part 754 Agricultural commodities, Exports, Forests and forest products, Horses, Petroleum, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 15 CFR Part 756 Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Penalties. 15 CFR Part 760 Boycotts, Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 15 CFR Part 766 Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Exports, Law enforcement, Penalties. 15 CFR Part 768 Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Science and technology. Accordingly, parts 705, 730, 736, 744, 747, 754, 756, 760, 766, 768, 770, and 772 of Title 15, Chapter VII of the Code of Federal Regulations (15 CFR parts 700-799) are amended as follows: PART 705—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 705 continues to read as follows: Authority: Sec. 232, Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1862). 2. The second sentence of § 705.5(a) is revised to read as follows: § 705.5 Request or application for an investigation.
(a)* * * The original and 1 copy shall be filed with the Director, Office of Technology Evaluation, Room H-1093, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230. PART 730—[AMENDED] 3. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 730 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 *et seq.* ; 50 U.S.C. 1701 *et seq.* ; 10 U.S.C. 7420; 10 U.S.C. 7430(e); 22 U.S.C. 287c; 22 U.S.C. 2151 note, Pub. L. 108-175; 22 U.S.C. 3201 *et seq.* ; 22 U.S.C. 6004; 30 U.S.C. 185(s), 185(u); 42 U.S.C. 2139a; 42 U.S.C. 6212; 43 U.S.C. 1354; 46 U.S.C. app. 466c; 50 U.S.C. app. 5; Sec. 901-911, Pub. L. 106-387; Sec. 221, Pub. L. 107-56; E.O. 11912, 41 FR 15825, 3 CFR, 1976 Comp., p. 114; E.O. 12002, 42 FR 35623, 3 CFR, 1977 Comp., p.133; E.O. 12058, 43 FR 20947, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 179; E.O. 12214, 45 FR 29783, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 256; E.O. 12851, 58 FR 33181, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p. 608; E.O. 12854, 58 FR 36587, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p. 179; E.O. 12918, 59 FR 28205, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 899; E.O. 12938, 59 FR 59099, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 950; E.O. 12947, 60 FR 5079, 3 CFR, 1995 Comp., p. 356; E.O. 12981, 60 FR 62981, 3 CFR, 1995 Comp., p. 419; E.O. 13020, 61 FR 54079, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp. p. 219; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13099, 63 FR 45167, 3 CFR, 1998 Comp., p.208; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; E.O. 13224, 66 FR 49079, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 786; E.O. 13338, 69 FR 26751, May 13, 2004; Notice of August 3, 2006, 71 FR 44551 (August 7, 2006); Notice of October 27, 2006, 71 FR 64109 (October 31, 2006). 4. In § 730.9, the second sentence of the introductory text and the second sentence of paragraph
(a)are revised to read as follows: § 730.9 Organization of the Bureau of Industry and Security. * * * The Under Secretary is assisted by a Deputy Under Secretary for Industry and Security, the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration, the Assistant Secretary for Export Enforcement, the Director of Administration, the Director of the Office of Congressional and Public Affairs, and the Chief Information Officer. * * *
(a)* * * Its substantive work is carried out by six sub-units: the Office of Nonproliferation and Treaty Compliance, the Office of National Security and Technology Transfer Controls, the Office of Exporter Services, the Operating Committee, the Office of Strategic Industries and Economic Security, and the Office of Technology Evaluation. PART 736—[AMENDED] 5. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 736 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 *et seq.* ; 50 U.S.C. 1701 *et seq.* ; 22 U.S.C. 2151 (note), Pub. L. 108-175; E.O. 12938, 59 FR 59099, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 950; E.O. 13020, 61 FR 54079, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp. p. 219; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; E.O. 13338, 69 FR 26751, May 13, 2004; Notice of August 3, 2006, 71 FR 44551 (August 7, 2006); Notice of October 27, 2006, 71 FR 64109 (October 31, 2006). PART 744—[AMENDED] 6. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 744 continues to read as follows: Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 *et seq.* ; 50 U.S.C. 1701 *et seq.* ; 22 U.S.C. 3201 *et seq.* ; 42 U.S.C. 2139a; Sec. 901-911, Pub. L. 106-387; Sec. 221, Pub. L. 107-56; E.O. 12058, 43 FR 20947, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 179; E.O. 12851, 58 FR 33181, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p. 608; E.O. 12938, 59 FR 59099, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 950; E.O. 12947, 60 FR 5079, 3 CFR, 1995 Comp., p. 356; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13099, 63 FR 45167, 3 CFR, 1998 Comp., p. 208; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; E.O. 13224, 66 FR 49079, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 786; Notice of August 3, 2006, 71 FR 44551 (August 7, 2006); Notice of October 27, 2006, 71 FR 64109 (October 31, 2006). 7. Section 744.19(b) is revised to read as follows: § 744.19 Licensing policy regarding persons sanctioned pursuant to specified statutes. .
(b)A sanction issued pursuant to the Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Act (Pub. L. 106-178, 114 Stat. 38 (March 14, 2000), as amended by Pub. L. No. 109-112, 119 Stat. 2366 (November 22, 2005) and Pub. L. No. 109-353, 120 Stat. 2015 (October 13, 2006)) that prohibits the granting of a license for the transfer to foreign entities of items, the export of which is controlled under the Export Administration Act of 1979 or the Export Administration Regulations. PART 747—[AMENDED] 8. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 747 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 *et seq.* ; 50 U.S.C. 1701 *et seq.* ; Sec 1503, Pub. L. 108-11, 117 Stat. 559; E.O. 12918, 59 FR 28205, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 899; E.O. 13222, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Presidential Determination 2003-23 of May 7, 2003, 68 FR 26459, May 16, 2003; Notice of August 3, 2006, 71 FR 44551 (August 7, 2006). PART 754—[AMENDED] 9. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 754 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 *et seq.* ; 50 U.S.C. 1701 *et seq.* ; 10 U.S.C. 7420; 10 U.S.C. 7430(e); 30 U.S.C. 185(s), 185(u); 42 U.S.C. 6212; 43 U.S.C. 1354; 46 U.S.C. app. 466c; E.O. 11912, 41 FR 15825, 3 CFR, 1976 Comp., p. 114; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of August 3, 2006, 71 FR 44551 (August 7, 2006). PART 756—[AMENDED] 10. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 756 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 *et seq.* ; 50 U.S.C. 1701 *et seq.* ; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of August 3, 2006, 71 FR 44551 (August 7, 2006). PART 760—[AMENDED] 11. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 760 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 *et seq.* ; 50 U.S.C. 1701 *et seq.* ; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of August 3, 2006, 71 FR 44551 (August 7, 2006). PART 766—[AMENDED] 12. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 766 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 *et seq.* ; 50 U.S.C. 1701 *et seq.* ; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of August 3, 2006, 71 FR 44551 (August 7, 2006). PART 768—[AMENDED] 13. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 768 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 *et seq.* ; 50 U.S.C. 1701 *et seq.* ; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of August 3, 2006, 71 FR 44551 (August 7, 2006). 14. Section § 768.4(d) is revised to read as follows: § 768.4 Initiation of an assessment.
(d)*BIS mailing address* . All foreign availability submissions and TAC certifications should be submitted to: Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security, Room H-1093, 14th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. 15. The second sentence of § 768.8(h) is revised to read as follows: § 768.8 Eligibility of expedited licensing procedures for non-controlled countries.
(h)* * * Submissions and certifications should be sent to: Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security, Room H-1093, 14th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. PART 770—[AMENDED] 16. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 770 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 *et seq.* ; 50 U.S.C. 1701 *et seq.* ; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of August 3, 2006, 71 FR 44551 (August 7, 2006). PART 772—[AMENDED] 17. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 772 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 *et seq.* ; 50 U.S.C. 1701 *et seq.* ; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of August 3, 2006, 71 FR 44551 (August 7, 2006). Dated: April 30, 2007. Christopher A. Padilla, Assistant Secretary for Export Administration. [FR Doc. E7-8582 Filed 5-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-33-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Minerals Management Service 30 CFR Parts 203, 250, 251, and 260 RIN 1010-AD42 Outer Continental Shelf Regulations—Technical Amendments AGENCY: Minerals Management Service (MMS), Interior. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This document makes minor technical changes to regulations that were published in various **Federal Register** documents and are codified in the Code of Federal Regulations. These changes will correct form names in 30 CFR parts 250 and 251, as well as various citations and typographical errors in 30 CFR parts 203, 250, 251, and 260. DATES: Effective on May 4, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cheryl Blundon, Regulatory Specialist at
(703)787-1607, fax
(703)787-1555, or e-mail *cheryl.blundon@mms.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Background:* The technical corrections in this document affect all offshore operators, lessees, pipeline right-of-way holders, and permittees. The corrections are necessary to correct citation and typographical errors, to add or change a few words for clarification, and to correct form names or provide the form numbers. With respect to the table in § 250.125(a), we are assigning parenthetical numbered line designations for each requirement and its fee to make it easier to identify the affected requirements in future rulemakings or when referencing the items listed in this table. Where applicable, we also added the subsection to those citations in the third column that did not previously provide them (e.g., § 250.143 is corrected to read § 250.143(d)). Also, in final rulemaking (67 FR 44360, July 2, 2002) we inappropriately used the term “geologic” in § 250.175(b)(3). We are correcting that term to read “interpreted geophysical.” This document corrects regulations in 30 CFR parts 203, 250, 251, and 260 to reflect these changes. Because this rule makes no substantive change in any rule or requirement, MMS for good cause finds that notice and public comment are impracticable and unnecessary pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). Procedural Matters Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Order (E.O.) 12866) This rule is not a significant rule as determined by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)and is not subject to review under E.O. 12866.
(1)This rule will not have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy. It will not adversely affect in a material way the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities.
(2)This rule will not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with action taken or planned by another agency. It will have no effect on any other agency.
(3)This rule will not alter the budgetary effects of entitlements, grants, user fees or loan programs, or the rights or obligations of their recipients.
(4)This rule will not raise novel legal or policy issues. Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA)The Department certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Your comments are important to us. The Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and 10 Regional Fairness Boards were established to receive comments from small business about Federal agency enforcement actions. The Ombudsman will annually evaluate the enforcement activities and rate each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on the actions of MMS, call 1-888-734-3247. You may comment to the Small Business Administration without fear of retaliation. Disciplinary action for retaliation by an MMS employee may include suspension or termination from employment with the Department of the Interior. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) This rule is not a major rule under the SBREFA (5 U.S.C. 804(2)). This rule: a. Will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. b. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions. c. Will not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. Leasing in the U.S. OCS is limited to residents of the U.S. or companies incorporated in the U.S. This rule will not change that requirement. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)This rule will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. This rule will not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. A statement containing the information required by the UMRA (2 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ) is not required. Takings Implication Assessment (Executive Order 12630) This rule is not a governmental action capable of interference with constitutionally protected property rights. Thus, MMS did not need to prepare a Takings Implication Assessment according to E.O. 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Federalism (Executive Order 13132) With respect to E.O. 13132, this rule will not have federalism implications. This rule will not substantially and directly affect the relationship between the Federal and State governments. To the extent that State and local governments have a role in OCS activities, this rule will not affect that role. Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order 12988) With respect to E.O. 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has determined that this rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and does meet the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)This rule does not contain any new information collection requirements subject to the PRA, nor does it affect any previously approved collections. The rule does not require a submittal to OMB for review and approval under section 3507(d) of the PRA. Any information collection burdens referenced in this rulemaking are already approved under OMB Control Numbers 1010-0114, expiration October 31, 2007; 1010-0141, expiration August 31, 2008; and 1010-0048, expiration July 31, 2009, respectively. The PRA provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Until OMB approves a collection of information and assigns a control number, you are not required to respond. National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)of 1969 The MMS has determined that this rule is strictly administrative in nature. This qualifies for a categorical exclusion under 516 Departmental Manual
(DM)Chapter 2, Appendix 1.10. Therefore, it is categorically excluded from environmental review under section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), pursuant to 516 DM, Chapter 2, Appendix 1. In addition, the rule does not involve any of the 10 extraordinary circumstances listed in 516 DM, Chapter 2, Appendix 2. Pursuant to Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1508.4) and the environmental policies and procedures of the Department of the Interior, the term “categorical exclusions” means a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and that have been found to have no such effect in procedures adopted by a Federal agency and for which neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (Executive Order 13211) Executive Order 13211 requires the agency to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects when it takes a regulatory action that is identified as a significant energy action. This rule is not a significant energy action, and therefore would not require a Statement of Energy Effects because it: a. Is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866, b. Is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, and c. Has not been designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, as a significant energy action. Consultation With Indian Tribes (Executive Order 13175) Under the criteria in E.O. 13175, we have evaluated this rule and determined that it has no potential effects on federally recognized Indian tribes. There are no Indian or tribal lands in the OCS. List of Subjects 30 CFR Part 203 Continental shelf, Government contracts, Indians—lands, Mineral royalties, Oil and gas exploration, Public lands—mineral resources, Sulphur. 30 CFR Part 250 Administrative practice and procedures, Continental shelf, Environmental impact statements, Environmental protection, Government contracts, Investigations, Oil and gas exploration, Penalties, Pipelines, Public lands—minerals resource, Public lands—rights-of-way, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulphur. 30 CFR Part 251 Continental shelf, Freedom of information, Oil and gas exploration, Public lands—mineral resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research. 30 CFR Part 260 Continental shelf, Government contracts, Mineral royalties, Oil and gas exploration, Public lands—mineral resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: April 20, 2007. C. Stephen Allred, Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management. For the reasons stated above, MMS amends 30 CFR Parts 203, 250, 251, and 260 as follows: PART 203—RELIEF OR REDUCTION IN ROYALTY RATES 1. The authority citation for part 203 continues to read as follows: Authority: 25 U.S.C. 396 *et seq.* ; 25 U.S.C. 396a *et seq.* ; 25 U.S.C. 2101 *et seq.* ; 30 U.S.C. 181 *et seq.* ; 30 U.S.C. 351 *et seq.* ; 30 U.S.C. 1001 *et seq.* ; 30 U.S.C. 1701 *et seq.* ; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 43 U.S.C. 1301 *et seq.* ; 43 U.S.C. 1331 *et seq.* ; and 43 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* 2. In § 203.44(a), revise “§ 204.45” to read “§ 203.45”. PART 250—OIL AND GAS AND SULPHUR OPERATIONS IN THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF 3. The authority citation for part 250 continues to read as follows: Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1331 *et seq.* , and 31 U.S.C. 9701. 4. In § 250.102(b), revise the table in paragraph
(b)to read as follows: § 250.102. What does this part do?
(b)* * * Table—Where to Find Information for Conducting Operations For information about Refer to 30 CFR 250 subpart or
(1)Applications for permit to drill D.
(2)Development and Production Plans
(DPP)B.
(3)Downhole commingling K.
(4)Exploration Plans
(EP)B.
(5)Flaring K.
(6)Gas measurement L.
(7)Off-lease geological and geophysical permits 30 CFR 251.
(8)Oil spill financial responsibility coverage 30 CFR 253.
(9)Oil and gas production safety systems H.
(10)Oil spill response plans 30 CFR 254.
(11)Oil and gas well-completion operations E.
(12)Oil and gas well-workover operations F.
(13)Decommissioning Activities Q.
(14)Platforms and structures I.
(15)Pipelines and Pipeline Rights-of-Way J.
(16)Sulphur operations P.
(17)Training O.
(18)Unitization M. 5. In § 250.125, revise the table in paragraph
(a)to read as follows: § 250.125 Service fees.
(a)* * * Service Fee Table Service—processing of the following: Fee amount 30 CFR citation
(1)Change in Designation of Operator $150 § 250.143(d).
(2)Right-of-Use and Easement for State lessee $2,350 § 250.165.
(3)Suspension of Operations/Suspension of Production (SOO/SOP) Request $1,800 § 250.171(e).
(4)Exploration Plan
(EP)$3,250 for each surface location; no fee for revisions § 250.211(d).
(5)Development and Production Plan
(DPP)or Development Operations Coordination Document
(DOCD)$3,750 for each well proposed; no fee for revisions § 250.241(e).
(6)Deepwater Operations Plan $3,150 § 250.292(p).
(7)Conservation Information Document $24,200 § 250.296(a).
(8)Application for Permit to Drill (APD; Form MMS-123) $1,850 for initial applications only; no fee for revisions § 250.410(d); § 250.411; § 250.460; § 250.513(b); § 250.515; § 250.1605; § 250.1617(a); § 250.1622.
(9)Application for Permit to Modify (APM; Form MMS-124) $110 § 250.460; § 250.465(b); § 250.513(b); § 250.515; § 250.613(b); § 250.615; § 250.1618(a); § 250.1622; § 250.1704(g).
(10)New Facility Production Safety System Application for facility with more than 125 components $4,750 A component is a piece of equipment or ancillary system that is protected by one or more of the safety devices required by API RP 14C (incorporated by reference as specified in § 250.198); $12,500 additional fee will be charged if MMS deems it necessary to visit a facility offshore, and $6,500 to visit a facility in a shipyard § 250.802(e).
(11)New Facility Production Safety System Application for facility with 25-125 components $1,150 Additional fee of $7,850 will be charged if MMS deems it necessary to visit a facility offshore, and $4,500 to visit a facility in a shipyard § 250.802(e).
(12)New Facility Production Safety System Application for facility with fewer than 25 components $570 § 250.802(e).
(13)Production Safety System Application—Modification with more than 125 components reviewed $530 § 250.802(e).
(14)Production Safety System Application—Modification with 25-125 components reviewed $190 § 250.802(e).
(15)Production Safety System Application—Modification with fewer than 25 components reviewed $80 § 250.802(e).
(16)Platform Application—Installation—Under the Platform Verification Program $19,900 § 250.905(k).
(17)Platform Application—Installation—Fixed Structure Under the Platform Approval Program $2,850 § 250.905(k).
(18)Platform Application—Installation—Caisson/Well Protector $1,450 § 250.905(k).
(19)Platform Application—Modification/Repair $3,400 § 250.905(k).
(20)New Pipeline Application (Lease Term) $3,100 § 250.1000(b).
(21)Pipeline Application—Modification (Lease Term) $1,800 § 250.1000(b).
(22)Pipeline Application—Modification
(ROW)$3,650 § 250.1000(b).
(23)Pipeline Repair Notification $340 § 250.1008(e).
(24)Pipeline Right-of-Way
(ROW)Grant Application $2,350 § 250.1015(a).
(25)Pipeline Conversion of Lease Term to ROW $200 § 250.1015(a).
(26)Pipeline ROW Assignment $170 § 250.1018(b).
(27)500 Feet From Lease/Unit Line Production Request $3,300 § 250.1101(f).
(28)Gas Cap Production Request $4,200 § 250.1101(f).
(29)Downhole Commingling Request $4,900 § 250.1106(d).
(30)Complex Surface Commingling and Measurement Application $3,550 § 250.1202(a); § 250.1203(b); § 250.1204(a).
(31)Simple Surface Commingling and Measurement Application $1,200 § 250.1202(a); § 250.1203(b); § 250.1204(a).
(32)Voluntary Unitization Proposal or Unit Expansion $10,700 § 250.1303(d).
(33)Unitization Revision $760 § 250.1303(d).
(34)Application to Remove a Platform or Other Facility $4,100 § 250.1727.
(35)Application to Decommission a Pipeline (Lease Term) $1,000 § 250.1751(a) or § 250.1752(a).
(36)Application to Decommission a Pipeline
(ROW)$1,900 § 250.1751(a) or § 250.1752(a). § 250.143 [Amended] 6. Amend § 250.143(a), in the first sentence, by revising the word “form” to read “form (Form MMS-1123)”. § 250.160 [Amended] 7. In § 250.160, in paragraphs
(f)and (g), the term “a fee” is revised to read “a rental amount”. § 250.165 [Amended] 8. In § 250.165, in paragraph (a), the citation “§ 0.1010(a);” is revised to read as “§ 250.125;” and in paragraph (b), the citation “§ 250.1009(c)(2)” is revised to read as “§ 250.160(g).” § 250.169 [Amended] 9. In § 250.169(a), the citation “§ 250.180(b)” is revised to read “§ 250.180(b), (d), and (e).” § 250.175 [Amended] 10. In § 250.175(b)(3), in the first sentence, the word “geologic” is revised to read “interpreted geophysical”. § 250.186 [Amended] 11. In § 250.186(b)(2), the citation “§ 250.196” is revised to read “§ 250.197”. § 250.194 [Amended] 12. In § 250.194(c), in the first sentence, after the word “lease” add the words “or right-of-way”. § 250.197 [Amended] 13. In § 250.197(a)(8), in the third column, the word “seciton” is revised to read “section”; and in § 250.197(b)(7), in the third column, the citations “§§ 250.197(b)(6) and (b)(7)” are revised to read “§§ 250.197(b)(5) and (b)(6)”. 14. Revise the table in § 250.198(d), to read as follows: § 250.198 Documents incorporated by reference.
(d)* * * For Write to
(1)ACI Standards American Concrete Institute, P. O. Box 9094, Farmington Hill, MI 48333-9094.
(2)AISC Standards American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc., One East Wacker Drive, Suite #700, Chicago, IL 60601-1802.
(3)ANSI/ASME Codes American National Standards Institute, ATTN: Sales Department, 25 West 43rd Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10036; and/or American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 22 Law Drive, P.O. Box 2900, Fairfield, NJ 07007-2900.
(4)API Recommended Practices, Specs, Standards, Manual of Petroleum Measurement Standards
(MPMS)chapters American Petroleum Institute, 1220 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005-4070.
(5)ASTM Standards American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Bar Harbor Drive, P. O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.
(6)AWS Codes American Welding Society, 550 NW, LeJeune Road, P.O. Box 351040, Miami, FL 33135.
(7)NACE Standards National Association of Corrosion Engineers, First Services Dept., 1440 South Creek Drive, Houston, TX 77218. § 250.199 [Amended] 15. Section 250.199 is amended as follows: A. In § 250.199(b), in the 4th sentence, the citation “§ 250.196”, is revised to read “§ 250.197”. B. In § 250.199(e) the title of the first column is revised to read “30 CFR subpart, title and/or MMS Form (OMB Control No.)”. § 250.201 [Amended] 16. In § 250.201(a)(3), in the first column of the table, add the word “Development” before “Operations Coordination Document (DOCD)”. § 250.210 [Amended] 17. In § 250.210(a) and (b), in both paragraphs, revise “§ 250.196(b)” to read “§ 250.197(b).” § 250.232 [Amended] 18. In § 250.232(a)(2) the citation “section 307(c)(3)(B)(iii)” is revised to read “section 307(c)(3)(B)(ii)”. § 250.270 [Amended] 19. In § 250.270(a)(l)(i) the citation “§ 267(a)(1), (a)(2), and (b)” is revised to read “§ 250.267(a)(1), (a)(2), and (b)”. § 250.281 [Amended] 20. In § 250.281(a)(3), the citation “§ 250.901” is revised to read “§ 250.905”. § 250.285 [Amended] 21. In § 250.285(c) the citation “§ 250.274” is revised to read “§ 250.273”. § 250.408 [Amended] 22. In § 250.408 in the 2nd sentence, after the word “(APD)” add the parenthetical phrase, “(Form MMS-123)”. § 250.410 [Amended] 23. In § 250.410(d)(2), the citation “§ 250.127” is revised to read “§ 250.186”. § 250.417 [Amended] 24. In § 250.417(c)(1), the citation “§ 250.903” is revised to read “§ 250.915 through § 250.918.” § 250.466 [Amended] 25. In § 250.466 introductory text, in the third sentence, the citation “§ 250.469” is revised to read “§ 250.467.” § 250.490 [Amended] 26. In § 250.490(o)(3), in the third sentence the term “(f)(13)(iv)” is revised to read “(f)”. 27. In § 250.513, paragraphs (a), (c), and
(d)are revised to read as follows: § 250.513 Approval and reporting of well completion operations.
(a)No well-completion operation may begin until the lessee receives written approval from the District Manager. If completion is planned and the data are available at the time you submit the Application for Permit to Drill and Supplemental APD Information Sheet (Forms MMS-123 and MMS-123S), you may request approval for a well-completion on those forms (see §§ 250.410 through 250.418 of this part). If the District Manager has not approved the completion or if the completion objective or plans have significantly changed, you must submit an Application for Permit to Modify (Form MMS-124) for approval of such operations.
(c)Within 30 days after completion, you must submit to the District Manager an End of Operations Report (Form MMS-125), including a schematic of the tubing and subsurface equipment.
(d)You must submit public information copies of Form MMS-125 according to § 250.186. § 250.613 [Amended] 28. In § 250.613, the following revisions are made: A. In paragraph (d), the form name “Sundry Notices and Reports on Wells” is revised to read “Application for Permit to Modify”. B. In paragraph (d), the form name “Well Summary Report” is revised to read “End of Operations Report”. § 250.801 [Amended] 29. In § 250.801(h)(1), the form name “Sundry Notices and Reports on Wells” is revised to read “Application for Permit to Modify”. § 250.802 [Amended] 30. In § 250.802(e)(3), last sentence, after the word “Systems”, add the parenthetical phrase “(incorporated by reference as specified in § 250.198)”; and in paragraph (e)(4)(i), first sentence, after the words “Zone 2”, add the parenthetical phrase “(incorporated by reference as specified in § 250.198)”. § 250.1001 [Amended] 31. In § 250.1001, the following revisions are made: A. In the definition of “right-of-way pipelines”, paragraph
(a)is amended to add the word “of” after the word “group”. B. In the definition of “right-of-way pipelines”, paragraphs “(a)”, “(b)”, “(c)”, and “(d)” are redesignated as paragraphs “(1)”, “(2)”, “(3)”, and “(4)”. § 250.1002 [Amended] 32. In § 250.1002, paragraph (c)(2) is amended to add the word “pressure” after the parenthetical abbreviation “(HPT)”. § 250.1003 [Amended] 33. In § 250.1003, in paragraph (b)(1), the word “hydrostatically” is revised to read “pressure”. § 250.1004 [Amended] 34. In § 250.1004, paragraph (b)(2) is amended to remove the word “to” in the first sentence. § 250.1005 [Amended] 35. In § 250.1005, paragraph
(b)is amended to remove the last word in the paragraph, “measurements”. § 250.1007 [Amended] 36. In § 250.1007, in paragraph (a)(4), the word “were” is revised to read “will be”. § 250.1010 [Amended] 37. Section 250.1010 is amended as follows: A. In § 250.1010(c), the word “lessee” in the last sentence is revised to read “right-of-way holder”. B. In § 250.1010(h), the citation “§ 250.1014” is revised to read “§ 250.1019”. § 250.1011 [Amended] 38. In § 250.1011, paragraph (b)(1) is revised to read, “(1) The Gulf of Mexico and the area offshore the Atlantic Coast;” and in paragraph (b)(2), the word “area” is revised to read “areas”. § 250.1016 [Amended] 39. In § 250.1016(c)(1), the citation “§ 250.1010(c)” is revised to read “§ 250.1015(c)”. § 250.1019 [Amended] 40. In § 250.1019, the citation “§ 250.1009(c)(9)” is revised to read “§ 250.1010(h)”. § 250.1102 [Amended] 41. In § 250.1102(a)(l), the form name “Request for Reservoir Maximum Efficient Rate (MER)” is revised to read “Sensitive Reservoir Information Report (SRI)”. § 250.1103 [Amended] 42. In § 250.1103(a), the fourth sentence is amended to remove the parenthetical phrase “(15.025 psia in the Gulf of Mexico OCS Region)”. § 250.1202 [Amended] 43. Amend § 250.1202(f)(1) by revising the citation “30 CFR 250.101” to read as “30 CFR 250.198”. § 250.1602 [Amended] 44. Amend § 250.1602(b), by revising the list of subparts “A, B, C, G, I, J, M, N, and O” to read as “A, B, C, I, J, M, N, O, and Q”. § 250.1619 [Amended] 45. Amend § 250.1619(b), by revising the form name “Well Summary Report” to read as “End of Operations Report”; and the form name, “Sundry Notices and Reports on Wells” to read as “Application for Permit to Modify”. PART 251—GEOLOGICAL AND GEOPHYSICAL (G&G) EXPLORATIONS OF THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF 46. The authority citation for part 251 continues to read as follows: Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1331 *et seq.* , 31 U.S.C. 9701. 47. In § 251.7, paragraph
(b)introductory text and the first sentence in paragraph (b)(6) are revised to read as follows: § 251.7 Test drilling activities under a permit.
(b)*Deep stratigraphic tests.* You must submit to the appropriate Regional Director, at the address in § 251.5(d), a drilling plan, an environmental report, an Application for Permit to Drill (Form MMS-123), and a Supplemental APD Information Sheet (Form MMS-123S) as follows:
(6)*Application for permit to drill (APD).* Before commencing deep stratigraphic test drilling activities under an approved drilling plan, you must submit an APD and a Supplemental APD Information Sheet (Forms MMS-123 and MMS-123S) and receive approval. * * * § 251.14 [Amended] 48. In § 251.14(b) revise “250.196(b)(2)” to read “250.197(b)(2)”. PART 260—OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OIL AND GAS LEASING 49. The authority citation for part 260 continues to read as follows: Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1331 *et seq.* § 260.102 [Amended] 50. Amend § 260.102, in the definitions of Highest responsible qualified bidder and Qualified bidder, the citations “256, subpart G” and “§ 256, subpart G” are both revised to read as “30 CFR part 256, subpart G”. [FR Doc. E7-8417 Filed 5-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-MR-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [CGD05-07-019] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Chesapeake Bay Bridges Swim Races, Chesapeake Bay, MD AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is implementing the special local regulations at 33 CFR 100.507 during the Annual Great Chesapeake Bay Swim and Chesapeake Challenge One Mile Swim events to be held on June 10, 2007. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters before, during and after the event. The effect will be to restrict general navigation in the regulated area for the safety of event participants and support vessels in the event area. EFFECTIVE DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 100.507 will be enforced from 8:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. on June 10, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ronald Houck, Marine Events Coordinator, Commander, Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, 2401 Hawkins Point Road, Baltimore, MD 21226-1971, and
(410)576-2674. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Great Chesapeake Bay Swim, Inc. will sponsor the “Great Chesapeake Bay Swim” and the “Chesapeake Challenge One Mile Swim” on the waters of the Chesapeake Bay between and adjacent to the spans of the William P. Lane Jr. Memorial Bridge. Approximately 650 swimmers will start Great Chesapeake Bay Swim from Sandy Point State Park and swim between the spans of the William P. Lane Jr. Memorial Bridge to the Eastern Shore. Approximately 400 swimmers will start the Chesapeake Challenge One Mile Swim following a triangular shaped course beginning and ending at Hemingway's restaurant on the Eastern Shore adjacent to the William P. Lane Jr. Memorial Bridge. A large fleet of support vessels will be accompanying the swimmers. Therefore, to ensure the safety of participants and support vessels, 33 CFR 100.507 will be enforced for the duration of the event. Under provisions of 33 CFR 100.507, from 8:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. on June 10, 2007, vessels may not enter the regulated area unless they receive permission from the Coast Guard Patrol Commander. Vessel traffic will be allowed to transit the regulated area as the swim progresses, when the Patrol Commander determines it is safe to do so. In addition to this notice, the maritime community will be provided extensive advance notification via the Local Notice to Mariners and marine information broadcasts so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. Dated: April 24, 2007. Larry L. Hereth, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E7-8507 Filed 5-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [CGD05-07-039] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Chester River, Chestertown, MD AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is implementing the special local regulations at 33 CFR 100.533 during the Maryland Swim for Life swim event to be held on June 16, 2007. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters before, during and after the event. The effect will be to restrict general navigation in the regulated area for the safety of event participants and support vessels in the event area. EFFECTIVE DATES: The regulations at 33 CFR 100.533 will be enforced from 6:30 a.m. to 2 p.m. on June 16, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ronald Houck, Marine Events Coordinator, Commander, Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, 2401 Hawkins Point Road, Baltimore, MD 21226-1971, and
(410)576-2674. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Maryland Swim for Life Association will sponsor the “Maryland Swim for Life”, an open water swimming competition held on the waters of the Chester River, near Chestertown, Maryland. Approximately 100 swimmers will start from Rolph's Wharf and swim up-river 2.5 miles then swim down-river returning back to Rolph's Wharf. A large fleet of support vessels will be accompanying the swimmers. Therefore, to ensure the safety of participants and support vessels, 33 CFR 100.533 will be enforced for the duration of the event. Under provisions of 33 CFR 100.533, from 6:30 a.m. to 2 p.m. on June 16, 2007, vessels may not enter the regulated area unless they receive permission from the Coast Guard Patrol Commander. Vessel traffic may be allowed to transit the regulated area only when the Patrol Commander determines it is safe to do so. In addition to this notice, the maritime community will be provided extensive advance notification via the Local Notice to Mariners and marine information broadcasts so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. Dated: April 24, 2007. Larry L. Hereth, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E7-8508 Filed 5-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [CGD01-07-048] Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Charles River and Its Tributaries, Boston, MA AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations. SUMMARY: The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the Massachusetts Bay Commuter Railroad (MBCR)/Amtrak Bridge across the Charles River, mile 0.8, at Boston, Massachusetts. Under this temporary deviation, in effect for four weekends, the MBCR/Amtrak Bridge may remain in the closed position for five consecutive hours, each Friday evening from 11:59 p.m. through to 5 a.m. Saturday morning. From 5 a.m. on each Saturday morning through 11:59 p.m. on each Sunday evening the bridge will open on signal on the hour only. Vessels that can pass under the draw without a bridge opening may do so at all times. This deviation is necessary to facilitate bridge track repairs. DATES: This deviation is effective from April 28, 2007 through May 20, 2007. ADDRESSES: Materials referred to in this document are available for inspection or copying at the First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch Office, 408 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02110, between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is
(617)223-8364. The First Coast Guard District Bridge Branch Office maintains the public docket for this temporary deviation. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John McDonald, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, at
(617)223-8364. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The MBCR/Amtrak Bridge, across the Charles River, mile 0.8, at Boston, Massachusetts, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 3 feet at mean high water and 12 feet at mean low water. The existing drawbridge operation regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.591(c). The owner of the bridge, the Massachusetts Bay Commuter Railroad (MBCR), requested a temporary deviation to facilitate repairs to the bridge rails. Under this temporary deviation, in effect from Friday, April 27, 2007 through Sunday May 20, 2007, the MBCR/Amtrak Bridge need not open for the passage of vessel traffic from 11:59 p.m. on each Friday evening through 5 a.m. each Saturday morning. From 5 a.m. each Saturday morning through 11:59 p.m. each Sunday evening the bridge shall open on signal, on the hour only. Vessels that can pass under the bridge without a bridge opening may do so at all times. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. Should the bridge maintenance authorized by this temporary deviation be completed before the end of the effective period published in this notice, the Coast Guard will rescind the remainder of this temporary deviation, and the bridge shall be returned to its normal operating schedule. Notice of the above action shall be provided to the public in the Local Notice to Mariners and the **Federal Register** , where practicable. Dated: April 26, 2007. Gary Kassof, Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E7-8612 Filed 5-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R07-OAR-2007-0095; FRL-8309-3] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Missouri AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is approving an amendment to the Missouri State Implementation Plan (SIP). This action approves an amendment to the SIP-approved Doe Run Herculaneum Consent Judgment to remove language specifying the exact bag technology to be used in the baghouses. Related performance standard requirements will remain unchanged. This action is independent and does not affect the revision to the Missouri SIP due in April 2007, in response to the SIP Call issued April 14, 2006, to bring the area of Herculaneum into compliance with the lead National Ambient Air Quality Standard. DATES: This direct final rule will be effective July 3, 2007, without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by June 4, 2007. If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the **Federal Register** informing the public that the rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2007-0095, by one of the following methods: 1. *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. *E-mail: yoshimura.gwen@epa.gov.* 3. *Mail:* Gwen Yoshimura, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. 4. *Hand Delivery or Courier.* Deliver your comments to Gwen Yoshimura, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2007-0095. 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 through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *http://www.regulations.gov,* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket:* All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, *i.e.* , CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8 to 4:30 excluding Federal holidays. The interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the office at least 24 hours in advance. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gwen Yoshimura at
(913)551-7073, or by e-mail at *yoshimura.gwen@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following questions: What is a SIP? What is the Federal approval process for a SIP? What does Federal approval of a state regulation mean to me? What is being addressed in this document? Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met? What action is EPA taking? What is a SIP? Section 110 of the Clean Air Act
(CAA)requires states to develop air pollution regulations and control strategies to ensure that State air quality meets the national ambient air quality standards established by EPA. These ambient standards are established under section 109 of the CAA, and they currently address six criteria pollutants. These pollutants are: carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, lead, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. Each State must submit these regulations and control strategies to us for approval and incorporation into the Federally-enforceable SIP. Each Federally-approved SIP protects air quality primarily by addressing air pollution at its point of origin. These SIPs can be extensive, containing state regulations or other enforceable documents and supporting information such as emission inventories, monitoring networks, and modeling demonstrations. What is the Federal approval process for a SIP? In order for State regulations to be incorporated into the Federally-enforceable SIP, States must formally adopt the regulations and control strategies consistent with state and Federal requirements. This process generally includes a public notice, public hearing, public comment period, and a formal adoption by a State-authorized rulemaking body. Once a State rule, regulation, or control strategy is adopted, the State submits it to us for inclusion into the SIP. We must provide public notice and seek additional public comment regarding the proposed Federal action on the State submission. If adverse comments are received, they must be addressed prior to any final Federal action by us. All State regulations and supporting information approved by EPA under section 110 of the CAA are incorporated into the Federally-approved SIP. Records of such SIP actions are maintained in the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)at title 40, part 52, entitled “Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans.” The actual State regulations which are approved are not reproduced in their entirety in the CFR outright but are “incorporated by reference,” which means that we have approved a given State regulation with a specific effective date. What does Federal approval of a state regulation mean to me? Enforcement of the State regulation before and after it is incorporated into the Federally-approved SIP is primarily a State responsibility. However, after the regulation is Federally approved, we are authorized to take enforcement action against violators. Citizens are also offered legal recourse to address violations as described in section 304 of the CAA. What is being addressed in this document? EPA established the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for lead on October 5, 1978 (43 FR 46246). The standard for lead is set at a level of 1.5 micrograms (μg) of lead per cubic meter (m 3 ) of air, averaged over a calendar quarter. During the 1980s and 1990s, Missouri submitted and EPA approved a number of SIP revisions for lead to address ambient lead problems in various areas of the State. One such area was in Herculaneum, Missouri, which is the site of the Doe Run primary lead smelter. Doe Run-Herculaneum is the only currently operating primary lead smelter in the United States. The most recent SIP revisions for the Doe Run-Herculaneum area were published in the **Federal Register** on April 16, 2002 (67 FR 18497). The State submittal included a Consent Judgment entered into by the State and the Doe Run Company, which contained the control and contingency measures with enforceable dates for implementation. As part of the Consent Judgment, a Total Suspended Particulate
(TSP)limit of 0.022 grains per dry standard cubic foot was established for Number 7, 8, and 9 Baghouse. The Consent Judgment further specified that Teflon membrane filter bags be used in these baghouses. Since implementing these specifications, Doe Run found that the Teflon filters resulted in operational issues such as bag cleaning and high operating pressure differentials which reduced bag life and led to higher maintenance. The bags that Doe Run proposes to install are spun-bound pleated filter elements that have approximately twice the filter area as the original bags. The manufacturer's specifications state that this design significantly reduces the differential pressure and air-to-cloth ratios, resulting in improved performance and durability. The pleated bags must meet the current Total Suspended Particulate limits (0.022 grains per dry standard cubic foot) required in the Consent Judgment. MDNR has also modified the Consent Judgment to require a performance test to verify the new filter elements are meeting performance requirements. This action removes language referring to the exact bag technology while leaving the related performance standard requirements in place. This is an approvable change as it will not increase emissions and does not affect the stringency of the control requirement. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met? The State submittal has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submittal also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In addition, as explained above and in more detail in the technical support document which is part of this document, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations. What action is EPA taking? This action approves revision to the Missouri SIP-approved Doe Run Herculaneum Consent Judgment. The revision removes language referring to the exact bag technology while leaving the related performance standard requirements in place. We are processing this action as a direct final action because the revisions do not change performance standard requirements and are thus expected to be noncontroversial. Additionally, the revisions have gone through the Missouri approval process, including a public hearing and opportunity for public comments. EPA was the only party to provide comments during Missouri's comment period. Therefore, we do not anticipate any adverse comments. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on part of this rule and if that part can be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those parts of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under State law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by State law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a State rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a State rule implementing a Federal standard. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This 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.* ). The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 3, 2007. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: April 26, 2007. John B. Askew, Regional Administrator, Region 7. Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 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 AA—Missouri 2. In § 52.1320(d) the table is amended by adding entry
(24)at the end of the table to read as follows: § 52.1320 Identification of plan.
(d)* * * EPA-Approved Missouri Source-Specific Permits and Orders Name of source Order/permit number State effective date EPA approval date Explanation * * * * * * *
(24)Doe Run Herculaneum, MO Consent Judgment Modification, CV301-0052CCJ1 12/20/05 5/4/07 [insert FR page number where the document begins] [FR Doc. E7-8560 Filed 5-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P 72 86 Friday, May 4, 2007 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 955 [Docket No. AMS-FV-07-0040; FV07-955-1] Vidalia Onions Grown in Georgia; Continuance Referendum AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Referendum order. SUMMARY: This document directs that a referendum be conducted among eligible growers of Vidalia onions in Georgia, to determine whether they favor continuance of the marketing order regulating the handling of Vidalia onions grown in the production area. DATES: The referendum will be conducted from September 10 to September 28, 2007. To vote in this referendum, growers must have been producing Vidalia onions within the designated production area in Georgia during the period January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2006. ADDRESSES: Copies of the marketing order may be obtained from the office of the referendum agents at the Southeast Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Division, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 799 Overlook Dr., Suite A, Winter Haven, FL 33884-1671, Fax:
(863)325-8793, or the Office of the Docket Clerk, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Fax:
(202)720-8938, or Internet: *http://www.regulations.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doris Jamieson, Marketing Specialist, or Christian D. Nissen, Regional Manager, Southeast Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA; Telephone:
(863)324-3375, Fax:
(863)325-8793 or E-mail: *Doris.Jamieson@usda.gov* or *Christian.Nissen@usda.gov,* respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Marketing Agreement and Order No. 955 (7 CFR part 955), 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 the growers. The referendum shall be conducted from September 10 to September 28, 2007, among Vidalia onion growers in the production area. Only growers that were engaged in the production of Vidalia onions in Georgia, during the period of January 1 to December 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. USDA would consider termination of the order if less than two-thirds of the growers voting in the referendum, and growers of less than two-thirds of the volume of Vidalia onions represented in the referendum favor continuance. In evaluating the merits of continuance versus termination, USDA will consider the results of the continuance referendum and other relevant information regarding operation of the order. USDA will evaluate the order's relative benefits and disadvantages to growers, handlers, and consumers to determine whether continuing 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 to be used in the referendum herein ordered, are currently approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), under OMB No. 0581-0178, Vegetable and Specialty Crops. It has been estimated that it will take an average of 20 minutes for each of the approximately 101 growers of Vidalia onions in Georgia to cast a ballot. Participation is voluntary. Ballots postmarked after September 28, 2007, will not be included in the vote tabulation. Christian D. Nissen and Doris Jamieson of the Southeast Marketing Field Office, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, are hereby designated as the referendum agents of the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct this 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 part 900.400 *et seq* ). Ballots will be mailed to all growers of record and may also be obtained from the referendum agents, or from their appointees. List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 955 Marketing agreements, Onions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674. Dated: May 1, 2007. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E7-8573 Filed 5-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Parts 1 and 33 [Docket No. FAA-2007-27899; Notice No. 07-05] RIN 2120-AI96 Airworthiness Standards: Rotorcraft Turbine Engines One-Engine-Inoperative
(OEI)Ratings, Type Certification Standards AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)is proposing to amend OEI rating definitions and type certification standards for 30-second OEI, 2-minute OEI, and 30-minute OEI ratings for rotorcraft turbine engines. This proposed rule, if adopted, would revise the ratings' standards to reflect recent analyses of the ratings' usage and lessons learned from completed engine certifications and service experience. This proposal harmonizes FAA type certification standards for these ratings with the requirements of the European Aviation Safety Agency in the Certification Specifications for Engines (CS-E) and with proposed requirements for Transport Canada Civil Aviation. If adopted, the proposed changes would establish nearly uniform certification standards for ratings for rotorcraft turbine engines certificated in the United States under part 33 and in European countries under CS-E, thus simplifying airworthiness approvals for import and export. DATES: Send your comments on or before August 2, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket No. FAA-2007-27899, using any of the following methods: • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-0001. • *Fax:* 1-202-493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. For more information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. *Privacy:* We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov,* including any personal information that you provide. For more information, see the Privacy Act discussion in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. *Docket:* To read background documents or comments received, go to *http://dms.dot.gov* at any time or to Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dorina Mihail, Engine and Propeller Standards Staff, ANE-110, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, FAA, New England Region, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803-5229;
(781)238-7153; facsimile:
(781)238-7199; e-mail: *dorina.mihail@faa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. We ask that you send us two copies of written comments. We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. The docket is available for public inspection before and after the comment closing date. If you wish to review the docket in person, go to the address in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also review the docket using the Internet at the Web address in the ADDRESSES section. *Privacy Act:* Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Before acting on this proposal, we will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive. If you want the FAA to acknowledge receipt of your comments on this proposal, include with your comments a pre-addressed, stamped postcard on which the docket number appears. We will stamp the date on the postcard and mail it to you. Availability of Rulemaking Documents You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by: 1. Searching the Department of Transportation's electronic Docket Management System
(DMS)Web page ( *http://dms.dot.gov/search* ): 2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at *http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/* ; or 3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at *http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html* . You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling
(202)267-9680. Make sure to identify the docket number, notice number, or amendment number of this rulemaking. Background The One-Engine-Inoperative
(OEI)rating powers provide rotorcraft with higher than takeoff and maximum continuous rating powers during takeoff, cruise, and landing when one or more engines of a multi-engine rotorcraft fails or is shutdown. These OEI rating powers enable the rotorcraft to continue safe flight until it reaches a suitable landing site. Part 33 prescribes airworthiness standards for 30-second OEI, 2-minute OEI, 2 1/2 -minute OEI, 30-minute OEI, and other OEI ratings for the issuance of type certificates for rotorcraft turbine engines. All OEI ratings are optional ratings that engine manufacturers may select from those specified in § 33.7. The Certifications Specifications—Engines prescribe corresponding airworthiness standards of the European Aviation Safety Agency for these ratings. While these standards are similar, they differ in certain regulations. Non-uniform standards impose a regulatory hardship on applicants seeking certification under both sets of standards in the form of additional costs and delays in the time required for certification. The FAA is committed to promoting harmonization. As part of this commitment, the FAA, with the European Joint Aviation Authorities
(JAA)and Transport Canada Civil Aviation, developed a harmonized Terms of Reference for “2-Minute and 30-Second One-Engine-Out Ratings” in April 1992. The Terms of Reference established a joint effort to review and harmonize the requirements and interpretations for OEI ratings under part 33 and the corresponding Joint Aviation Requirements—Engines (JAR-E). The Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee
(ARAC)assigned the task of harmonizing the differing OEI ratings to its Engine Harmonization Working Group, which consisted of representatives from the FAA, JAA, TC, as well as from U.S., Canadian, and European industries. On February 29, 2000, the Engine Harmonization Working Group reported its recommendations to the ARAC, which recommended that the FAA proceed with rulemaking. This NPRM reflects the ARAC recommendations. Section-by-Section Discussion of the Proposals The working group developed and agreed to the following proposals. The proposed changes to parts 1 and 33 contain language similar to that proposed for JAR-E, and subsequently adopted in the CS-E, thereby establishing equivalency and creating consistency between the regulations. Section 1.1 Definitions The current definitions of rated OEI powers refer to engine failure but not to engine shutdown. We are proposing, therefore, to revise the definition of rated 30-second OEI, rated 2-minute OEI, rated 2 1/2 -minute OEI, rated 30-minute OEI, and rated continuous OEI powers to include engine shutdown. In addition, to be consistent with the usage definitions of 30-second OEI and 2-minute OEI ratings, we are proposing to revise the “period of use” for the 2 1/2 -minute OEI rating from “a period of use” to “periods of use.” Section 33.5 Instruction Manual for Installing and Operating the Engine We are proposing to add a new § 33.5(b)(4), applicable to rotorcraft engines having one or more OEI ratings, which would require applicants to provide engine data to aircraft manufacturers in support of aircraft power availability requirements, such as those specified in §§ 27.45(f) and 29.45(f). Since the power assurance data will not include a check of the highest OEI rating power level due to potential rapid engine hardware deterioration, the applicant must provide the necessary engine performance characteristics and variability to the engine installer. This data will enable the installer to establish power assurance procedures that enable the extrapolation of data to the highest OEI rating power. The engine database should include: a thermodynamic model; data gained from experience during development and certification testing; and data derived from service experience from engines of similar design, whenever applicable. Section 33.29 Instrument Connection We are proposing to revise § 33.29(c) to specify that the applicant must provide a means or a provision for a means to record the entry into the defined 30-second OEI and 2-minute OEI rating power bands. The applicant, for example, an engine manufacturer, may satisfy “a means” by providing a recorder to record entry into the OEI power bands. Alternatively, the applicant may fulfill “a provision for a means” by specifying that the installer provide a recorder to record entry into the OEI power bands. The revised proposal would also require a means to indicate to the pilot the entry into the power bands, the corresponding impending time expiration, and the time expiration point. The automatic recording system must record the number of usages of 30-second OEI and/or 2-minute OEI rating powers and the time of each usage, or accumulated time, including any exceedance of 30-second OEI and 2-minute OEI operating limitations or relevant time limitations. The automatic recording system should also provide a means to alert the maintenance personnel that the usage and/or exceedance of the 30-second and 2-minute OEI ratings has taken place. The required means for alerting the pilot, maintenance personnel, and the automatic recording system must not be capable of being reset in flight and must only be reset by maintenance personnel after retrieval of recorded data. The proposal would delete the redundant design requirements of § 33.29(c)(2). The automatic data recording requirements of the existing § 33.29(c)(3), with a minor wording change for clarification, will become the new § 33.29(c)(2). This proposal would add a new requirement designated as new § 33.29(c)(3) to alert maintenance personnel when the engines have been operated at the rating powers and of the need to retrieve the recorded engine data. A new § 33.29(c)(4) would specify the requirements for verification of the proper operation of indicating, recording, and retrieval systems. In addition, a new § 33.29(d) would specify resetting the recording on the ground only. Section 33.67 Fuel System The operating conditions requiring the use of 30-second OEI ratings may require the pilot to perform simultaneous actions to maintain safe flight. Therefore, an automatic means that does not require pilot input or control, other than a termination command, must apply and control the rating power. This automatic control requirement is intended to avoid the need for the pilot to monitor engine parameters, such as output shaft torque or power, output shaft speed, gas producer speed, and gas path temperature, during the OEI operation. Once the system is activated, it automatically controls the 30-second OEI power and prevents the engine from exceeding its specified operating limits. We are proposing to revise § 33.67(d) to clarify that the intent of the proposed “automatic control” is to control the engine operating conditions, which should not exceed the engine's operating limits. The applicant's design, however, should not limit the time at which OEI power is used. This will enable the pilot to exceed OEI time limitations to safely land the rotorcraft in an in-flight emergency as permitted by § 91.3(b). Section 33.87 Endurance Test For rotorcraft engines having 30-second and 2-minute OEI ratings, the applicant must consider all applicable paragraphs of § 33.87(a) in running the tests under § 33.87(f). However, to reduce test complexity, and to improve the flexibility needed to attain the key parameters (speed, temperature and torque) during the tests, we are proposing to allow that the maximum air bleed for engine and aircraft services under § 33.87(a)(5) need not be used for the tests under § 33.87(f)(1) through (f)(8) if the applicant can show by testing, or analysis based on testing, that the validity of the endurance test is preserved. The analysis should include, but is not limited to
(1)The effect of the bleed air extraction on the engine secondary air system that provides cooling air to various engine components, and
(2)the thermodynamic cycle effects of bleed ( *e.g.* , core speed to output shaft speed changes) which may enhance the engine's ability to meet the teardown inspection requirements of § 33.93(b)(2). This proposal would allow the applicant to run the tests under §§ 33.87(f)(1) through (f)(8) without loading the accessory drives and mounting attachments if the applicant can substantiate that the durability of any accessory drive or engine component is not significantly affected. However, to meet the requirements of § 33.87(a)(6) without the power turbine accessory drives loaded during the test, the applicant must add equivalent power required for loading these accessory drives. This power must be added to the output drive shaft so that the power turbine rotor assembly is operated at or above the levels as when the power turbine accessory drives are loaded. This proposal would clarify the intent of the test schedule for the first test sequence of the existing § 33.87(f)(4) test by adding a new sentence, “However, where the greatest is the 30-minute OEI power, that sixty-five minute period shall consist of 30 minutes at 30-minute OEI power followed by 35 minutes at whichever is the greater of continuous OEI power or maximum continuous power.” The proposal would also clarify the idle condition of § 33.87(f)(8) as flight idle. This proposal would specify that the four test sequences of the 2-hour test under § 33.87(f) are to be run continuously without stoppage. If a stop occurs, the applicant typically would need to repeat the interrupted sequence in full. However, the sequence may be re-started from the interrupt point if there are technical justifications acceptable to the FAA. If the FAA determines that the sequence need not be repeated in its entirety, then the test should be re-started from a point where the engine thermal condition would be the same as at the time of interruption. If an excessive number of interruptions occur, the applicant would be required to repeat the entire § 33.87(f) test. Additionally, we are proposing to revise the test schedule under § 33.87(c) for the 30-minute OEI rating to agree with the schedule in CS-E. The result would be the harmonization of the endurance test schedule for engines having a 30-minute OEI rating. The proposal would replace the existing § 33.87(c)(2) with a thirty-minute test at
(a)Rated maximum continuous power during fifteen of the twenty-five 6-hour endurance test cycles; and
(b)rated takeoff power during ten of the twenty-five 6-hour endurance test cycles. The existing § 33.87(c)(2) would be redesignated § 33.87(c)(4). The duration of the test in the existing § 33.87(c)(3) would be reduced from 2 hours to 1 hour. The existing § 33.87(c)(4) would be redesignated as § 33.87(c)(5) with the number of time and speed increments increased from 12 to 15, and with total running time increased from 2 hours to 2 hours and 30 minutes. The existing § 33.87(c)(5) and (c)(6) would be redesignated as § 33.87(c)(6) and (c)(7), respectively. Section 33.88 Engine Overtemperature Test We are proposing to delete the existing § 33.88(b), which refers to obtaining OEI ratings when the engine does not incorporate a means to limit gas temperature. This paragraph is not needed because the new § 33.67(d) requires automatic control of the 30-second OEI power within its gas temperature limit. The proposal would incorporate the existing test requirements in § 33.88(c) into the new § 33.88(b), which applies only to engines having the combined 30-second OEI and 2-minute OEI ratings. We are proposing to revise § 33.88(a) to apply to all other ratings, including all OEI ratings other than the combination specified above, regardless of whether the engine is equipped with an automatic temperature control. Section 33.93 Teardown Inspection In meeting the teardown inspection requirements after the 2-hour endurance tests of § 33.87(f), the applicant would be required to show that no failure of any significant engine component becomes evident during the test, shutdown, or the subsequent teardown inspection. For components that are distressed beyond serviceable limits by this test, the applicant must show that the inspections and mandatory maintenance actions for these components, specified in the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA), are adequate for maintaining their continued airworthiness. Additionally, the applicant would need to evaluate component condition against a minimum hardware condition that can be expected for in-service engines. For the purpose of § 33.93(b)(2), engine parts that can affect structural integrity include, but are not limited to, mounts, cases, bearing supports, shafts, and rotors. We are proposing to remove the reference in § 33.93(b)(2) to the above mentioned components to emphasize that after the test the applicant needs to consider deterioration of any engine component that could affect the structural integrity of the engine, not just those listed above. Appendix A33.4 Airworthiness Limitation Section We are proposing to revise A33.4, Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS), by adding a new paragraph for rotorcraft engines having 30-second OEI and 2-minute OEI ratings. For these engines, we will require the applicant to prescribe mandatory post-flight inspection and maintenance actions in the ALS of the ICA following the use of these ratings. We will also require the applicant to create a mandatory in-service engine evaluation program to ensure the continued adequacy of the airworthiness instructions for the engines. The concept of the 30-second OEI and 2-minute OEI ratings is that of limited use in service followed by mandatory inspection and maintenance. This concept assumes that some engine parts or components may not be suitable for further use and will need to be replaced after the application of these ratings. The mandatory inspections and maintenance actions following the use of 30-second OEI, or 2-minute OEI ratings, must be capable of
(1)Identifying and correcting any component distress that could significantly reduce subsequent engine reliability or prevent the engine from achieving 30-second OEI and 2-minute OEI rating powers; and
(2)maintaining the engine in condition for safe OEI flight. This proposal requires the applicant to prescribe the mandatory post-flight inspection and maintenance actions in the ALS of the ICA following the use of either of these two ratings, prior to next flight, regardless of the frequency of usage and the condition of the engine. The applicant must validate the adequacy of the required inspections and maintenance actions. The required inspections and maintenance actions are normally determined through certification testing supplemented by development testing and service experience of engines of the same type with similar design at the time of certification. Differences, however, may exist in hardware conditions and power availability characteristics between in-service engines and the conditions and characteristics of the engine prior to the § 33.87(f) tests. Similarly, differences may exist in power assurance characteristics for in-service engines after usage of 30-second or 2-minute OEI ratings and the characteristics observed following the § 33.87(f) tests. Therefore, we are proposing an in-service evaluation program in the ALS to obtain relevant data concerning the condition of hardware and power availability at various stages in the life of the engine. The data should be compared with corresponding data observed during certification that defined the post-flight inspection and maintenance actions. If the data obtained from the in-service program indicates that the in-service differences are not properly accounted for, then this data should be used to modify the instructions as appropriate. To achieve the objectives of the program, the engine manufacturer must ensure that operators understand and are aware of the need for the procedures to properly collect and return information needed by the manufacturer. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices Authority for This Rulemaking The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General Requirements.” Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce, including minimum safety standards for aircraft engines. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it updates the existing regulations for rotorcraft engine OEI ratings. Paperwork Reduction Act The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. We have determined there are no new information collection requirements associated with this proposed rule. International Compatibility In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with International Civil Aviation Organization
(ICAO)Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA determined there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices that correspond to these proposed regulations. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” dated September 30, 1993 (58 FR 51736) directs the FAA to assess both the costs and the benefits of a regulatory change. We are not allowed to propose or adopt a regulation unless we make a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify the costs. Our assessment of this rulemaking indicates that its economic impact is minimal because U.S. turbine rotorcraft manufacturers are already manufacturing rotorcraft turbine engines according to European requirements that are equivalent to these proposed requirements. Because the costs and benefits of this action do not make it a “significant regulatory action” as defined in the Order, we have not prepared a “regulatory evaluation,” which is the written cost/benefit analysis ordinarily required for all rulemaking under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures. We do not need to do a full evaluation where the economic impact of a rule is minimal. Economic Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination, Trade Impact Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment Proposed changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency propose or adopt a regulation only upon a determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, this Trade Act also requires agencies to consider international standards and, where appropriate, use them as the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this proposed rule. Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement to that effect and the basis for it be included in the preamble if a full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared. Such a determination has been made for this proposed rule. The reasoning for this determination follows. This proposed rule harmonizes FAA airworthiness standards for the 30-second and 2-minute OEI ratings with similar requirements already adopted by EASA and being processed by Transport Canada. Because the OEI ratings are optional, manufacturers will provide this capability only if they expect to recover any additional costs in the marketplace. The FAA estimates that this rule would affect 8 engine models, approximately 100 helicopters, and that there would be approximately 3 OEI events per year. The total estimated cost of the proposed rule over 20 years is approximately $619,000 in present value cost (in 2005 dollars). These optional costs would only be incurred if the manufacturer believes the enhanced capability benefits exceed the costs. The FAA has not attempted to quantify the cost savings that may accrue due to harmonization of this rule, beyond noting that they contribute to a large potential harmonization savings. Safety after an engine failure or shutdown under this rule would be at least equivalent to operational safety under the previous regulations. The FAA finds that the expected outcome of the proposed rule would have a minimal impact with positive net benefits, and, therefore, we did not prepare a full regulatory evaluation. The FAA requests comments with supporting justification about our determination of minimal impact. The FAA has, therefore, determined that this proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and is not “significant” as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA)of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) directs the FAA to fit regulatory requirements to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to the regulation. We are required to determine whether a proposed or final action will have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities” as they are defined in the Act. If we find the action will have a significant impact, we must do a “regulatory flexibility analysis.” However, if an agency determines that a proposed rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be clear. All U.S. multi-turbine engine rotorcraft manufacturers exceed the Small Business Administration small-entity criteria of 1,500 employees for aircraft manufacturers. Currently manufactured U.S. twin-turbine engine rotorcraft type certificate holders include: Bell Helicopter Textron, Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, and MD Helicopters, Inc. In addition, all of the U.S. rotorcraft engine manufacturers exceed the Small Business Administration small-entity criteria of 1,000 employees for aircraft engine manufacturers. There are four U.S. engine manufacturers that produce turbine engines for rotorcraft:
(1)General Electric, GE Transportation,
(2)Rolls-Royce Allison, Allison Engines, Inc.,
(3)Light Helicopter Turbine Engine Company (a partnership of Rolls-Royce and Honeywell), and
(4)Honeywell International, Inc. Given that there are no small-entity manufacturers of twin-engine rotorcraft or of rotorcraft engines and the rule would impose only minimal costs, the FAA certifies that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The FAA invites comments regarding this determination. International Trade Impact Assessment The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits Federal agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this rulemaking and has determined that it uses the European international standards as the regulation basis and is in accord with the Trade Agreements Act. Unfunded Mandates Assessment Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in a $100 million or more expenditure (adjusted annually for inflation with the base year 1995) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a “significant regulatory action.” The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value of $128.1 million in lieu of $100 million. This proposed rule does not contain such a mandate. The requirements of Title II of the Act, therefore, do not apply. Executive Order 13132, Federalism The FAA analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We have determined that this action would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, and therefore would not have federalism implications. Environmental Analysis FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has determined this proposed rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical exclusion identified in Chapter 3, paragraph 312d, and involves no extraordinary circumstances. Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use The FAA analyzed this NPRM under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under the executive order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, and it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. List of Subjects 14 CFR Part 1 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Engines, Helicopters, Ratings, Rotorcraft, Safety. 14 CFR Part 33 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Engines, Ratings, Rotorcraft, Safety. The Proposed Amendment In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend parts 1 and 33 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as follows: PART 1—DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. 2. Amend § 1.1 by revising the definitions for “Rated 30-second OEI power,” “Rated 2-minute OEI power,” “Rated continuous OEI power,” “Rated 30-minute OEI power,” and “Rated 2 1/2 -minute OEI power,” to read as follows: § 1.1 General definitions. *Rated 30-second OEI Power,* with respect to rotorcraft turbine engines, means the approved brake horsepower developed under static conditions at specified altitudes and temperatures within the operating limitations established for the engine under Part 33 of this chapter, for continuation of one flight operation after the failure or shutdown of one engine in multiengine rotorcraft, for up to three periods of use no longer than 30 seconds each in any one flight, and followed by mandatory inspection and prescribed maintenance action. *Rated 2-minute OEI Power,* with respect to rotorcraft turbine engines, means the approved brake horsepower developed under static conditions at specified altitudes and temperatures within the operating limitations established for the engine under Part 33 of this chapter, for continuation of one flight operation after the failure or shutdown of one engine in multiengine rotorcraft, for up to three periods of use no longer than 2 minutes each in any one flight, and followed by mandatory inspection and prescribed maintenance action. *Rated continuous OEI power,* with respect to rotorcraft turbine engines, means the approved brake horsepower developed under static conditions at specified altitudes and temperatures within the operating limitations established for the engine under Part 33 of this chapter, and limited in use to the time required to complete the flight after the failure or shutdown of one engine of a multiengine rotorcraft. *Rated 30-minute OEI power,* with respect to rotorcraft turbine engines, means the approved brake horsepower developed under static conditions at specified altitudes and temperatures within the operating limitations established for the engine under Part 33 of this chapter, and limited in use to one period of use no longer than 30 minutes after the failure or shutdown of one engine of a multiengine rotorcraft. * Rated 2 1/2 -minute OEI power, * with respect to rotorcraft turbine engines, means the approved brake horsepower developed under static conditions at specified altitudes and temperatures within the operating limitations established for the engine under Part 33 of this chapter for periods of use no longer than 2 1/2 minutes each after the failure or shutdown of one engine of a multiengine rotorcraft. PART 33—AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: AIRCRAFT ENGINES 3. The authority citation for part 33 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44704. 4. Amend § 33.5 to add a new paragraph (b)(4) to read as follows: § 33.5 Instruction manual for installing and operating the engine.
(b)* * *
(4)For rotorcraft engines having one or more OEI ratings, applicants must provide data on engine performance characteristics and variability to enable the aircraft manufacturer to establish aircraft power assurance procedures. 5. Amend § 33.29 by revising paragraph
(c)and adding paragraph
(d)to read as follows: § 33.29 Instrument connection.
(c)Each rotorcraft turbine engine having a 30-second OEI rating and a 2-minute OEI rating must have a means or a provision for a means to:
(1)Alert the pilot when the engine is at the 30-second OEI and the 2-minute OEI power levels, when the event begins, and when the time interval expires;
(2)Automatically record each usage and duration of power at the 30-second OEI and 2-minute OEI levels;
(3)Alert maintenance personnel in a positive manner that the engine has been operated at either or both of the 30-second and 2-minute OEI power levels, and permit retrieval of the recorded data; and
(4)Enable routine verification of the proper operation of the above means.
(d)The means, or the provision for a means, of paragraph
(c)of this section must not be capable of being reset in flight. 6. Revise § 33.67(d) to read as follows: § 33.67 Fuel system.
(d)Rotorcraft engines having a 30-second OEI rating must incorporate a means, or a provision for a means, for automatic availability and automatic control of the 30-second OEI power within its operating limitations. 7. Amend § 33.87 by redesignating paragraphs (c)(2), (c)(4), (c)(5), and (c)(6) as paragraphs (c)(4), (c)(5), (c)(6), and (c)(7) respectively, by adding new paragraph (c)(2), and by revising paragraphs (a)(5), (a)(6), (c)(3), newly redesignated paragraphs (c)(4) through (c)(7),
(f)introductory text, (f)(4) and (f)(8) to read as follows: § 33.87 Endurance test.
(a)* * *
(5)Maximum air bleed for engine and aircraft services must be used during at least one-fifth of the runs, except for the final 120-minute test required under paragraph
(f)of this section, provided the validity of the test is not compromised. However, for these runs, the power or thrust or the rotor shaft rotational speed may be less than 100 percent of the value associated with the particular operation being tested if the FAA finds that the validity of the endurance test is not compromised.
(6)Each accessory drive and mounting attachment must be loaded in accordance with paragraphs (a)(6)(i) and
(ii)of this section, except as permitted by paragraph (a)(6)(iii) of this section for the final 120-minute test required under paragraph
(f)of this section.
(i)The load imposed by each accessory used only for aircraft service must be the limit load specified by the applicant for the engine drive and attachment point during rated maximum continuous power or thrust and higher output.
(ii)The endurance test of any accessory drive and mounting attachment under load may be accomplished on a separate rig if the validity of the test is confirmed by an approved analysis.
(iii)The applicant is not required to load the accessory drives and mounting attachments when running the tests under paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(8) of this section if the applicant can substantiate that there is no significant effect on the durability of any accessory drive or engine component. However, the applicant must add the equivalent engine output power extraction from the power turbine rotor assembly to the engine shaft output.
(c)* * *
(2)*Rated maximum continuous and takeoff power.* Thirty minutes at—
(i)Rated maximum continuous power during fifteen of the twenty-five 6-hour endurance test cycles; and
(ii)Rated takeoff power during ten of the twenty-five 6-hour endurance test cycles.
(3)*Rated maximum continuous power.* One hour at rated maximum continuous power.
(4)*Rated 30-minute OEI power.* Thirty minutes at rated 30-minute OEI power.
(5)*Incremental cruise power.* Two hours and 30 minutes at the successive power lever positions corresponding with not less than 15 approximately equal speed and time increments between maximum continuous engine rotational speed and ground or minimum idle rotational speed. For engines operating at constant speed, power may be varied in place of speed. If there are significant peak vibrations anywhere between ground idle and maximum continuous conditions, the number of increments chosen must be changed to increase the amount of running conducted while subject to peak vibrations up to not more than 50 percent of the total time spent in incremental running.
(6)*Acceleration and deceleration runs.* Thirty minutes of accelerations and decelerations, consisting of six cycles from idling power to rated takeoff power and maintained at the takeoff power lever position for 30 seconds and at the idling power lever position for approximately 4 1/2 minutes. In complying with this paragraph, the power control lever must be moved from one extreme position to the other in not more than one second. If, however, different regimes of control operations are incorporated that necessitate scheduling of the power control lever motion from one extreme position to the other, then a longer period of time is acceptable, but not more than 2 seconds.
(7)*Starts.* One hundred starts, of which 25 starts must be preceded by at least a two-hour engine shutdown. There must be at least 10 false engine starts, pausing for the applicant's specified minimum fuel drainage time, before attempting a normal start. There must be at least 10 normal restarts not more than 15 minutes after engine shutdown. The remaining starts may be made after completing the 150 hours of endurance testing.
(f)*Rotorcraft Engines for which 30-second OEI and 2-minute OEI ratings are desired.* For each rotorcraft engine for which 30-second OEI and 2-minute OEI power ratings are desired, and following completion of the tests under paragraphs (b), (c), (d), or
(e)of this section, the applicant may disassemble the tested engine to the extent necessary to show compliance with the requirements of § 33.93(a). The tested engine must then be reassembled using the same parts used during the test runs of paragraphs (b), (c), (d), or
(e)of this section, except those parts described as consumables in the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness. Additionally, the tests required in paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(7) of this section must be run continuously. If a stop occurs during these tests, the interrupted sequence must be repeated unless the applicant shows that the severity of the test would not be reduced if it were continued. The applicant must conduct the following test sequence four times, for a total time of not less than 120 minutes:
(4)30-minute OEI power, continuous OEI power, or maximum continuous power. Five minutes at whichever is the greatest of rated 30-minute OEI power, rated continuous OEI power, or rated maximum continuous power, except that, during the first test sequence, this period shall be 65 minutes. However, where the greatest rating power is 30-minute OEI power, that sixty-five minute period shall consist of 30 minutes at 30-minute OEI power followed by 35 minutes at whichever is the greater of continuous OEI power or maximum continuous power.
(8)*Idle.* One minute at flight idle. 8. Amend § 33.88 by removing paragraph (b), redesignating
(c)and
(d)as paragraphs
(b)and (c), respectively; and revising the text of the paragraph
(a)and the new paragraph
(b)to read as follows: § 33.88 Engine overtemperature test.
(a)In addition to the test requirements for the ratings as provided in paragraph
(b)of this section, each engine must run for 5 minutes at maximum permissible rpm with the gas temperature at least 75 °F (42 °C) higher than the maximum rating's steady-state operating limit. Following this run, the turbine assembly must be within serviceable limits.
(b)Each engine for which 30-second OEI and 2-minute OEI ratings are desired, that incorporates a means for automatic temperature control within its operating limitations in accordance with § 33.67(d), must run for a period of 4 minutes at the maximum power-on rpm with the gas temperature at least 35 °F (19 °C) higher than the maximum operating limit at 30-second OEI rating. Following this run, the turbine assembly may exhibit distress beyond the limits for an overtemperature condition provided the engine is shown by analysis or test, as found necessary by the FAA, to maintain the integrity of the turbine assembly. 9. Revise § 33.93(b)(2) to read as follows: § 33.93 Teardown inspection.
(b)* * *
(2)Each engine may exhibit deterioration in excess of that permitted in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, including some engine parts or components that may be unsuitable for further use. The applicant must show by inspection, analysis, test, or by any combination thereof as found necessary by the FAA, that structural integrity of the engine is maintained; or 10. Amend Appendix A to part 33 by revising A33.4 to read as follows: Appendix A to Part 33—Instructions for Continued Airworthiness A33.4 AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS SECTION The Instructions for Continued Airworthiness must contain a section titled Airworthiness Limitations that is segregated and clearly distinguishable from the rest of the manual.
(a)For all engines:
(1)The Airworthiness Limitations section must set forth each mandatory replacement time, inspection interval, and related procedure required for type certification. If the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness consist of multiple documents, the section required under this paragraph must be included in the principal manual.
(2)This section must contain a legible statement in a prominent location that reads: “The Airworthiness Limitations section is FAA approved and specifies maintenance required under §§ 43.16 and 91.403 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations unless an alternative program has been FAA approved.”
(b)For rotorcraft engines having 30-second OEI and 2-minute OEI ratings:
(1)The Airworthiness Limitations section must also prescribe the mandatory post-flight inspections and maintenance actions associated with any use of either 30-second OEI or 2-minute OEI ratings. The applicant must validate the adequacy of these inspections and maintenance actions; and
(2)The applicant must establish an in-service engine evaluation program to ensure the continued adequacy of the data for § 33.5(b)(4) pertaining to power availability and the adequacy of the instructions for mandatory post flight inspection and maintenance actions. The program must include service engine tests or equivalent service engine test experience on engines of similar design and evaluations of service usage of the 30-second OEI or 2-minute OEI ratings. Issued in Washington, DC, on April 13, 2007. John J. Hickey, Director, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-7943 Filed 5-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [CGD05-07-032] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Pamlico River, Washington, NC AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish temporary special local regulations for the “SBIP—Fountain Powerboats Kilo Run and Super Boat Grand Prix”, a marine event to be held August 3 and August 5, 2007, on the waters of the Pamlico River, near Washington, North Carolina. These special local regulations are necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during the event. This action is intended to restrict vessel traffic in portions of the Pamlico River during the event. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before June 4, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander (dpi), Fifth Coast Guard District, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, Virginia 23704-5004; hand-deliver them to Room 415 at the same address between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays; fax them to
(757)398-6203; or e-mail them to *Dennis.M.Sens@uscg.mil.* The Inspections and Investigations Branch, Fifth Coast Guard District, maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at the above address between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis Sens, Project Manager, Inspections and Investigations Branch, at
(757)398-6204. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Request for Comments We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (CGD05-07-032), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them. Public Meeting We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to the Coast Guard at the address listed under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the **Federal Register** . Background and Purpose On August 3 and August 5, 2007, Super Boat International Productions Inc. will sponsor the “SBIP—Fountain Super Boat Kilo Run and Super Boat Grand Prix”, on the Pamlico River, near Washington, North Carolina. The event will consist of approximately 40 high-speed powerboats racing in heats along a 5-mile oval course on August 3 and 5, 2007. Preliminary speed trials along a straight one-kilometer course will be conducted on August 3, 2007. Approximately 20 boats will participate in the speed trials. Approximately 100 spectator vessels will gather nearby to view the speed trials and the race. If either the speed trials or races are postponed due to weather, they will be held the next day. During the speed trials and the races, vessel traffic will be temporarily restricted to provide for the safety of participants, spectators and transiting vessels. Discussion of Proposed Rule The Coast Guard proposes to establish temporary special local regulations on specified waters of the Pamlico River near Washington, North Carolina. The temporary special local regulations will be enforced from 6:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. on August 3, 2007, and from 10:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on August 5, 2007. If either the speed trials or races are postponed due to weather, then the temporary special local regulations will be enforced during the same time period the next day. The effect of the temporary special local regulations will be to restrict general navigation in the regulated area during the speed trials and races. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area. Non-participating vessels will be allowed to transit the regulated area between races, when the Coast Guard Patrol Commander determines it is safe to do so. These regulations are needed to control vessel traffic during the event to enhance the safety of participants, spectators and transiting vessels. Regulatory Evaluation This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. Although this proposed regulation will prevent traffic from transiting a portion of the Pamlico River near Washington, North Carolina during the event, the effect of this regulation will not be significant due to the limited duration that the regulated area will be in effect. Extensive advance notifications will be made to the maritime community via Local Notice to Mariners, marine information broadcasts, local radio stations and area newspapers, so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. Vessel traffic may be able to transit the regulated area between races, when the Coast Guard Patrol Commander deems it is safe to do so. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit this section of the Pamlico River during the event. This proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This rule will be enforced for only a short period, from 6:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. on August 3, 2007 and from 10:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on August 5, 2007. The regulated area will apply to a segment of the Pamlico River near the Washington, North Carolina waterfront. Marine traffic may be allowed to pass through the regulated area with the permission of the Coast Guard Patrol Commander. In the case where the Patrol Commander authorizes passage through the regulated area during the event, vessels will be required to proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course that minimizes wake near the race course. Before the enforcement period, we would issue maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding 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 the Coast Guard at the address listed under ADDRESSES . The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This proposed rule would not 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, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. Special local regulations issued in conjunction with a regatta or marine parade permit are specifically excluded from further analysis and documentation under that section. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the Instruction, an “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are not required for this rule. Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final decision on whether to categorically exclude this rule from further environmental review. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100 Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows: PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS 1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233. 2. Add temporary *§ 100.35-T05-032* to read as follows: § 100.35-T05-032, Pamlico River, Washington, North Carolina.
(a)*Regulated area.* The regulated area is established for the waters of the Pamlico River including Chocowinity Bay, from shoreline to shoreline, bounded on the south by a line running northeasterly from Camp Hardee at Latitude 35°28′23″ North, longitude 076°59′23″ West, to Broad Creek Point at latitude 35°29′04″ North, longitude 076°58′44″ West, and bounded on the north by the Norfolk Southern Railroad Bridge. All coordinates reference Datum NAD 1983.
(b)*Definitions.*
(1)*Coast Guard Patrol Commander* means a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the Coast Guard who has been designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector North Carolina.
(2)*Official Patrol* means any vessel assigned or approved by Commander, Coast Guard Sector North Carolina with a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer on board and displaying a Coast Guard ensign.
(3)*Participant* includes all vessels participating in the “Fountain Super Boat Grand Prix” under the auspices of the Marine Event Permit issued to the event sponsor and approved by Commander, Coast Guard Sector North Carolina.
(c)*Special local regulations.*
(1)Except for event participants and persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area.
(2)The operator of any vessel in the regulated area must:
(i)Stop the vessel immediately when directed to do so by any Official Patrol and then proceed only as directed.
(ii)All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Official Patrol.
(iii)When authorized to transit the regulated area, all vessels shall proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course that minimizes wake near the race course.
(d)*Enforcement period.* This section will be enforced from 6:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. on August 3, 2007, and from 10:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on August 5, 2007. If either the speed trials or the races are postponed due to weather, then the temporary special local regulations will be enforced during the same time period the next day. Dated: April 24, 2007. Larry L. Hereth, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E7-8509 Filed 5-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [CGD09-07-006] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone, Chicago Harbor, Navy Pier Southeast, Chicago, IL AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a Safety Zone in Chicago Harbor. This zone is intended to restrict vessels from portions of Chicago Harbor during fireworks displays that pose a hazard to public safety. This zone is necessary to protect the public from the hazards associated with fireworks displays. DATES: Comments and related materials must reach the Coast Guard on or before June 4, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan, 2420 South Lincoln Memorial Drive, Milwaukee, WI 53207. The Sector Lake Michigan 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 between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have further questions on this rule, contact CWO Brad Hinken, Prevention Department, Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan, Milwaukee, WI at
(414)747-7154. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Request for Comments We encourage you to submit comments and related materials. If you submit a comment, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking [CGD09-07-006], indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. You may submit your comments and material by mail (see ADDRESSES ). If you submit them by mail or delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period, which may result in a modification to the rule. Public Meeting We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a public meeting (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the **Federal Register** . Background and Purpose This safety zone is necessary to protect vessels and people from the hazards associated with fireworks displays. Such hazards include the explosive danger of fireworks and debris falling into the water that may cause death or serious bodily harm. Discussion of Rule The proposed safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and people during fireworks displays in Chicago Harbor. The proposed safety zone encompasses the waters of Lake Michigan within Chicago Harbor between the east end of the Chicago Lock guidewall and Chicago Harbor breakwater. The Coast Guard Patrol Commander will be on-scene while the safety zone is enacted and inform the public that the safety zone is being enforced. The Captain of the Port will cause notice of enforcement of the safety zone established by this section to be made by all appropriate means to the affected segments of the public including publication in the **Federal Register** as practicable, in accordance with 33 CFR 165.7(a). Such means of notification may also include, but are not limited to Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners. The Captain of the Port will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners notifying the public when enforcement of the safety zone established by this section is suspended. The proposed safety zone replaces 33 CFR 165.918 Safety Zones; Annual fireworks events in the Captain of the Port Chicago Zone,
(13)and (14). The safety zone will encompass the waters of Lake Michigan within Chicago Harbor between the east end of the Chicago Lock guidewall and the Chicago Harbor breakwater beginning at 41°53′24″ N, 087°35′26″ W; then south to 41°53′09″ N, 087°35′26″ W; then east to 41°53′09″ N, 087°36′09″ W; then north to 41°53′24″ N, 087°36′09″ W; then back to the point of origin. 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. It has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. The Coast Guard's use of this safety zone will be periodic in nature and will likely not exceed forty, one-hour events per year. This safety zone will only be enforced during the time the safety zone is actually in use. Furthermore, this safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit unrestricted to portions of the harbor not affected by the zone. The Coast Guard expects insignificant adverse impact to mariners from the activation of this zone. 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. We suspect that there may be small entities affected by this rule but are unable to provide more definitive information as to the number of small entities that may be affected. The risk, outlined above, is severe and requires that immediate action be taken. The Coast Guard will evaluate whether a substantial number of small entities are affected as more information becomes available. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule will have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES . In your comment, explain why you think it qualifies, 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 offered to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small businesses may send comments on actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). Collection of Information This proposed rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This proposed rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments The Coast Guard recognizes the treaty rights of Native American Tribes. Moreover, the Coast Guard is committed to working with Tribal Governments to implement local policies and to mitigate tribal concerns. We have determined that this proposed safety zone and fishing rights protection need not be incompatible. We have also determined that this Proposed Rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Nevertheless, Indian Tribes that have questions concerning the provisions of this Proposed Rule or options for compliance are encourage to contact the point of contact listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . 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, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore we believe this rule should be categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph 34(g) from further environmental documentation. This proposed rule establishes a safety zone and as such is covered by this paragraph. A preliminary “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a preliminary “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 § 165.931 to read as follows: § 165.931 Safety Zone, Chicago Harbor, Navy Pier Southeast, Chicago IL.
(a)*Location.* The following area is a safety zone: The waters of Lake Michigan within Chicago Harbor between the east end of the Chicago Lock guidewall and the Chicago Harbor breakwater beginning at 41°53′24″ N, 087°35′26″ W; then south to 41°53′09″ N, 087°35′26″ W; then east to 41°53′09″ N, 087°36′09″ W; then north to 41°53′24″ N, 087°36′09″ W; then back to the point of origin.
(b)*Definitions.* The following definitions apply to this section:
(1)*Designated representative* means any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer designated by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan to monitor this safety zone, permit entry into this zone, give legally enforceable orders to persons or vessels within this zones and take other actions authorized by the Captain of the Port.
(2)*Public vessel* means vessels owned, chartered, or operated by the United States, or by a State or political subdivision thereof.
(c)*Regulations.*
(1)The general regulations in 33 CFR 165.23 apply.
(2)All persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or a designated representative. Upon being hailed by the U.S. Coast Guard by siren, radio, flashing light or other means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed as directed.
(4)All vessels must obtain permission from the Captain of the Port or a designated representative to enter, move within or exit the safety zone established in this section when this safety zone is enforced. Vessels and persons granted permission to enter the safety zone shall obey all lawful orders or directions of the Captain of the Port or a designated representative. While within a safety zone, all vessels shall operate at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course.
(d)*Notice of Enforcement or Suspension of Enforcement.* The safety zone established by this section will be enforced only upon notice of the Captain of the Port. The Captain of the Port will cause notice of enforcement of the safety zone established by this section to be made by all appropriate means to the affected segments of the public including publication in the **Federal Register** as practicable, in accordance with 33 CFR 165.7(a). Such means of notification may also include, but are not limited to Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners. The Captain of the Port will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners notifying the public when enforcement of the safety zone established by this section is suspended.
(e)*Exemption.* Public vessels as defined in paragraph
(b)of this section are exempt from the requirements in this section.
(f)*Waiver.* For any vessel, the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a designated representative may waive any of the requirements of this section, upon finding that operational conditions or other circumstances are such that application of this section is unnecessary or impractical for the purposes of safety or environmental safety. Dated: March 12, 2007. Bruce C. Jones, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Lake Michigan. [FR Doc. E7-8608 Filed 5-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [CGD09-07-005] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zones; Annual Events Requiring Safety Zones in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan Zone AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes establishment of safety zones for annual events in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan zone. This proposed rule is intended to restrict vessels from portions of water and shore areas during events that pose a hazard to public safety. The safety zones established by this proposed rule are necessary to protect spectators, participants, and vessels from the hazards associated with fireworks displays, air shows, and other events. DATES: Comments and related materials must reach the Coast Guard on or before June 4, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander, Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan (spw), 2420 South Lincoln Memorial Drive, Milwaukee, WI 53207. Sector Lake Michigan 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 the Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan Prevention Office between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: CWO Brad Hinken, Prevention Department, Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan, Milwaukee, WI at
(414)747-7154. 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 [CGD09-07-005], 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 Commander, Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan
(SPW)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 In 2005 the Coast Guard consolidated the Captain of the Port Milwaukee Zone and the Captain of the Port Chicago Zone and realigned the boundaries of the Captain of the Port Sault Ste. Marine zone to create the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan zone. This proposed rule will consolidate the regulations found in 33 CFR 165.909, Safety Zones; Annual fireworks events in the Captain of the Port Milwaukee Zone and 33 CFR 165.918, Safety Zones; Annual fireworks events in the Captain of the Port Chicago Zone into one rule that will include all safety zones for annual events in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan Zone. This proposed rule will also add several annual events not previously listed in 33 CFR part 165 and remove several events that no longer occur annually or do not require a safety zone. These safety zones are necessary to protect vessels and people from the hazards associated with fireworks displays, air shows, or other events. Such hazards include obstructions to the waterway that may cause marine casualties and the explosive danger of fireworks and debris falling into the water that may cause death or serious bodily harm. Discussion of Proposed Rule The proposed rule and associated safety zones are necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and people during events in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan area of responsibility that may pose a hazard to the public. The proposed safety zones and associated events are described in subparagraphs
(1)though
(81)of this regulation. The proposed safety zones will be enforced only immediately before and during events that pose hazard to the public. If the event concludes prior to the scheduled termination time, the Coast Guard will cease enforcement of the safety zone and will announce that fact via Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local notice to Mariners. Regulatory Evaluation This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. The Coast Guard's use of these safety zones will be periodic in nature, of short duration, and designed to minimize the impact on navigable waters. These safety zones will only be enforced immediately before and during the time the events are occurring. Furthermore, these safety zones have been designed to allow vessels to transit unrestricted to portions of the waterways not affected by the safety zones. The Coast Guard expects insignificant adverse impact to mariners from the activation of these safety zones. 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 proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners and operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in the areas designated as safety zones during the dates and times the safety zones are being enforced. These safety zones would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. The safety zones in this proposed rule would be in effect for short periods of time and only once per year. The safety zones have been designed to allow traffic to pass safely around the zone whenever possible and vessels will be allowed to pass through the zones with the permission of the Captain of the Port. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and 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 CWO Brad Hinken, Prevention Department, Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan, Milwaukee, WI at
(414)747-7154. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This proposed rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This proposed rule will not effect the 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 proposed rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments The Coast Guard recognizes the treaty rights of Native American Tribes. Moreover, the Coast Guard is committed to working with Tribal Governments to implement local policies and to mitigate tribal concerns. We have determined that these safety zones and fishing rights protection need not be incompatible. We have also determined that this Proposed Rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Nevertheless, Indian Tribes that have questions concerning the provisions of this Proposed Rule or options for compliance are encourage to contact the point of contact listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . 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, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, we believe this proposed rule should be categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph 34
(g)of the Instruction from further environmental documentation. This proposed rule establishes a safety zone and as such is covered by this paragraph. A preliminary “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a preliminary “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 proposed rule should be categorically excluded from further environmental review. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record keeping 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 § 165.929 to read as follows: § 165.929 Safety Zones; Annual events requiring safety zones in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan zone.
(a)*Safety Zones.* The following areas are designated safety zones:
(1)*St. Patrick's Day Fireworks; Manitowoc, WI.*
(i)*Location.* All waters of the Manitowoc River and Manitowoc Harbor, near the mouth Manitowoc River on the south shore, within the arc of a circle with a 100-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 44°05′30″ N, 087°39′12″ W (NAD 83).
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* The third Saturday of March; 5:30 p.m. to 7 p.m.
(2)*Michigan Aerospace Challenge Sport Rocket Launch; Muskegon, MI.*
(i)*Location.* All waters of Muskegon Lake, near the West Michigan Dock and Market Corp facility, within the arc of a circle with a 1500-yard radius from the rocket launch site located in position 43°14′21″ N, 086°15′35″ W (NAD 83)
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* The last Saturday of April; 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.
(3)*Tulip Time Festival Fireworks; Holland, MI.*
(i)*Location.* All waters of Lake Macatawa, near Kollen Park, within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site in position 42°47′23″ N, 086°07′22″ W (NAD 83).
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* The first Friday of May; 7 p.m. to 11 p.m. If the Friday fireworks are cancelled due to inclement weather, then this section will be enforced on the first Saturday of May; 7 p.m. to 11 p.m.
(4)*Rockets for Schools Rocket Launch; Sheboygan, WI.*
(i)*Location.* All waters of Lake Michigan and Sheboygan Harbor, near the Sheboygan South Pier, within the arc of a circle with a 1500-yard radius from the rocket launch site located with its center in position 43°44′55″ N, 087°41′52″ W (NAD 83).
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* The first Saturday of May; 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
(5)*Celebrate De Pere; De Pere, WI.*
(i)*Location.* All waters of the Fox River, near Voyageur Park, within the arc of a circle with a 500-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 44°27′10″ N, 088°03′50″ W (NAD 83).
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* The Sunday before Memorial Day; 8:30 p.m. to 10 p.m.
(6)[Reserved]
(7)*River Splash; Milwaukee, WI.*
(i)*Location.* All waters of the Milwaukee River, near Pere Marquette Park, within the arc of a circle with a 300-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located on a barge in position 43°02′32″ N, 087°54′45″ W (NAD 83).
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* The first Friday and Saturday of June; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. each day.
(8)*International Bayfest; Green Bay, WI.*
(i)*Location.* All waters of the Fox River, near the Western Lime Company 1.13 miles above the head of the Fox River, within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 44°31′24″ N, 088°00′42″ W (NAD 83).
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* The second Friday of June; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m.
(9)*Harborfest Music and Family Festival; Racine, WI.*
(i)*Location.* All waters of Lake Michigan and Racine Harbor, near the Racine Launch Basin Entrance Light, within the arc of a circle with a 200-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 42°43′43″ N, 087°46′40″ W (NAD 83).
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* Friday and Saturday of the third complete weekend of June; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. each day.
(10)*Jordan Valley Freedom Festival Fireworks; East Jordan, MI.*
(i)*Location.* All waters of Lake Charlevoix, near the City of East Jordan, within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site in position 45°09′18″ N, 085°07′48″ W (NAD 83).
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* Saturday of the third weekend of June; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m.
(11)*Spring Lake Heritage Festival Fireworks; Spring Lake, MI.*
(i)*Location.* All waters of the Grand River, near buoy 14A, within the arc of a circle with a 500-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located on a barge in position 43°04′24″ N, 086°12′42″ W (NAD 83).
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* The third Saturday of June; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m.
(12)*Elberta Solstice Festival Fireworks; Elberta, MI.*
(i)*Location.* All waters of Betsie Bay, near Waterfront Park, within the arc of a circle with a 500-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 44°37′43″ N, 086°14′27″ W (NAD 83).
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* The last Saturday of June; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m.
(13)[Reserved]
(14)*Pentwater July Third Fireworks; Pentwater, MI.*
(i)*Location.* All waters of Lake Michigan and the Pentwater Channel within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 43°46′57″ N, 086°26′38″ W (NAD 83).
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* July 3; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. If the July 3 fireworks are cancelled due to inclement weather, then this section will be enforced July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m.
(15)*Taste of Chicago Fireworks; Chicago, IL.*
(i)*Location.* All waters of Monroe Harbor and Lake Michigan within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located on a barge in position 41°52′41″ N, 087°36′37″ W (NAD 83).
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* July 3; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. If the July 3 fireworks are cancelled due to inclement weather, then this section will be enforced July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m.
(16)*U.S. Bank Fireworks; Milwaukee, WI.*
(i)*Location.* All waters of Milwaukee Harbor, in the vicinity of Veteran's Park, within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located on a barge in position 43°02′27″ N, 087°53′45″ W (NAD 83).
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* July 3; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. If the July 3 fireworks are cancelled due to inclement weather, then this section will be enforced July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m.
(17)*National Cherry Festival Fourth of July Celebration Fireworks; Traverse City, MI.*
(i)*Location.* All waters of the West Arm of Grand Traverse Bay within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located on a barge in position 44°46′12″ N, 085°37′06″ W (NAD 83).
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. If the July 4 fireworks are cancelled due to inclement weather, then this section will be enforced July 5; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m.
(18)*Harbor Springs Fourth of July Celebration Fireworks; Harbor Springs, MI.*
(i)*Location.* All waters of Lake Michigan and Harbor Springs Harbor within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located on a barge in position 45°25′30″ N, 084°59′06″ W (NAD 83).
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. If the July 4 fireworks are cancelled due to inclement weather, then this section will be enforced July 5; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m.
(19)*Bay Harbor Yacht Club Fourth of July Celebration Fireworks; Petoskey, MI.*
(i)*Location.* All waters of Lake Michigan and Bay Harbor Lake within the arc of a circle with a 500-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located on a barge in position 45°21′50″ N, 085°01′37″ W (NAD 83).
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* July 3; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. If the July 3 fireworks are cancelled due to inclement weather, then this section will be enforced July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m.
(20)*Petoskey Fourth of July Celebration Fireworks; Petoskey, MI.*
(i)*Location.* All waters of Lake Michigan and Petoskey Harbor, in the vicinity of Bay Front Park, within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 45°22′40″ N, 084°57′30″ W (NAD 83).
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. If the July 4 fireworks are cancelled due to inclement weather, then this section will be enforced July 5; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m.
(21)*Boyne City Fourth of July Celebration Fireworks; Boyne City, MI.*
(i)*Location.* All waters of Lake Charlevoix, in the vicinity of Veterans Park, within the arc of a circle with a 1400-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 45°13′30″ N, 085°01′40″ W (NAD 83).
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. If the July 4 fireworks are cancelled due to inclement weather, then this section will be enforced July 5; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m.
(22)*Independence Day Fireworks; Manistee, MI.*
(i)*Location.* All waters of Lake Michigan, in the vicinity of the First Street Beach, within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 44°14′51″ N, 086°20′46″ W (NAD 83)
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* July 3; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. If the July 3 fireworks are cancelled due to inclement weather, then this section will be enforced July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m.
(23)*Frankfort Independence Day Fireworks; Frankfort, MI.*
(i)*Location.* All waters of Lake Michigan and Frankfort Harbor, in the vicinity of the north breakwater, within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 44°38′00″ N, 086°14′50″ W (NAD 83).
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. If the July 4 fireworks are cancelled due to inclement weather, then this section will be enforced July 5; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m.
(24)*Freedom Festival Fireworks; Ludington, MI.*
(i)*Location.* All waters of Lake Michigan and Ludington Harbor, in the vicinity of the Loomis Street Boat Ramp, within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 43°57′16″ N, 086°27′42″ W (NAD 83).
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. If the July 4 fireworks are cancelled due to inclement weather, then this section will be enforced July 5; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m.
(25)*White Lake Independence Day Fireworks; Montague, MI.*
(i)*Location.* All waters of White Lake, in the vicinity of the Montague boat launch, within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 43°24′33″ N, 086°21′28″ W (NAD 83).
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. If the July 4 fireworks are cancelled due to inclement weather, then this section will be enforced July 5; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m.
(26)*Muskegon Summer Celebration July Fourth Fireworks; Muskegon, MI.*
(i)*Location.* All waters of Muskegon Lake, in the vicinity of Heritage Landing, within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from a fireworks launch site located on a barge in position 43°14′00″ N, 086°15′50″ W (NAD 83).
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. If the July 4 fireworks are cancelled due to inclement weather, then this section will be enforced July 5; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m.
(iii)*Impact on Special Anchorage Area regulations:* Regulations for that portion of the Muskegon Lake East Special Anchorage Area, as described in 33 CFR 110.81(b), which are overlapped by this regulation, are suspended during this event. The remaining area of the Muskegon Lake East Special Anchorage Area not impacted by this regulation remains available for anchoring during this event.
(27)*Grand Haven Jaycees Annual Fourth of July Fireworks; Grand Haven, MI.*
(i)*Location.* All waters of The Grand River between longitude 087°14′00″ W, near The Sag, then west to longitude 087°15′00″ W, near the west end of the south pier (NAD 83).
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. If the July 4 fireworks are cancelled due to inclement weather, then this section will be enforced July 5; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m.
(28)*Celebration Freedom Fireworks; Holland, MI.*
(i)*Location.* All waters of Lake Macatawa, in the vicinity of Kollen Park, within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 42°47′23″ N, 086°07′22″ W (NAD 83).
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* July 4, 2007; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. Thereafter this section will be enforced the Saturday prior to July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. If the fireworks are cancelled due to inclement weather, then this section will be enforced the Sunday prior to July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m.
(29)*Van Andel Fireworks Show, Holland, MI.*
(i)*Location.* All waters of Lake Michigan and the Holland Channel within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 42°46′21″ N, 086°12′48″ W (NAD 83).
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* July 3; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. If the July 3 fireworks are cancelled due to inclement weather, then this section will be enforced July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m.
(30)*Independence Day Fireworks; Saugatuck, MI.*
(i)*Location.* All waters of Kalamazoo Lake within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site in position 42°38′52″ N, 086°12′18″ W (NAD 83).
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. If the July 4 fireworks are cancelled due to inclement weather, then this section will be enforced July 5; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m.
(31)*South Haven Fourth of July Fireworks; South Haven, MI.*
(i)*Location.* All waters of Lake Michigan and the Black River within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 42°24′08″ N, 086°17′03″ W (NAD 83).
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. If the July 4 fireworks are cancelled due to inclement weather, then this section will be enforced July 5; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m.
(32)*St. Joseph Fourth of July Fireworks; St. Joseph, MI.*
(i)*Location.* All waters of Lake Michigan and the St. Joseph River within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 42°06′48″ N, 086°29′15″ W (NAD 83).
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. If the July 4 fireworks are cancelled due to inclement weather, then this section will be enforced July 5; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m.
(33)*Town of Dune Acres Independence Day Fireworks; Dune Acres, IN.*
(i)*Location.* All waters of Lake Michigan within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 41°39′23″ N, 087°04′59″ W (NAD 83).
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. If the July 4 fireworks are cancelled due to inclement weather, then this section will be enforced July 5; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m.
(34)*Gary Fourth of July Fireworks; Gary, IN.*
(i)*Location.* All waters of Lake Michigan, approximately 2.5 miles east of Gary Harbor, within the arc of a circle with a 500-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 41°37′19″ N, 087°14′31″ W (NAD 83).
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. If the July 4 fireworks are cancelled due to inclement weather, then this section will be enforced July 5; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m.
(35)*Joliet Independence Day Celebration Fireworks; Joliet, IL.*
(i)*Location.* All waters of the Des Plains River, at mile 288, within the arc of a circle with a 500-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 41°31′31″ N, 088°05′15″ W (NAD 83).
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* July 3; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. If the July 3 fireworks are cancelled due to inclement weather, then this section will be enforced July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m.
(36)*Glencoe Fourth of July Celebration Fireworks; Glencoe, IL.*
(i)*Location.* All waters of Lake Michigan, in the vicinity of Lake Front Park, within the arc of a circle with a 500-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 42°08′17″ N, 087°44′55″ W (NAD 83).
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. If the July 4 fireworks are cancelled due to inclement weather, then this section will be enforced July 5; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m.
(37)*Lakeshore Country Club Independence Day Fireworks; Glencoe, IL.*
(i)*Location.* All waters of Lake Michigan within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 42°08′27″ N, 087°44′57″ W (NAD 83).
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. If the July 4 fireworks are cancelled due to inclement weather, then this section will be enforced July 5; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m.
(38)*Shore Acres Country Club Independence Day Fireworks; Lake Bluff, IL.*
(i)*Location.* All waters of Lake Michigan, approximately one mile north of Lake Bluff, IL, within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 42°17′59″ N, 087°50′03″ W (NAD 83).
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. If the July 4 fireworks are cancelled due to inclement weather, then this section will be enforced July 5; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m.
(39)*Kenosha Independence Day Fireworks; Kenosha, WI.*
(i)*Location.* All waters of Lake Michigan and Kenosha Harbor within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 42°35′17″ N, 087°48′27″ W (NAD 83).
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. If the July 4 fireworks are cancelled due to inclement weather, then this section will be enforced July 5; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m.
(40)*Fourthfest of Greater Racine Fireworks; Racine, WI.*
(i)*Location.* All waters of Lake Michigan and Racine Harbor, in the vicinity of North Beach, within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 42°44′17″ N, 087°46′42″ W (NAD 83).
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. If the July 4 fireworks are cancelled due to inclement weather, then this section will be enforced July 5; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m.
(41)*Sheboygan Fourth of July Celebration Fireworks; Sheboygan, WI.*
(i)*Location.* All waters of Lake Michigan and Sheboygan Harbor, in the vicinity of the south pier, within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 43°44′55″ N, 087°41′51″ W (NAD 83).
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. If the July 4 fireworks are cancelled due to inclement weather, then this section will be enforced July 5; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m.
(42)*Manitowoc Independence Day Fireworks; Manitowoc, WI.*
(i)*Location.* All waters of Lake Michigan and Manitowoc Harbor, in the vicinity of south breakwater, within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 44°05′24″ N, 087°38′45″ W (NAD 83).
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. If the July 4 fireworks are cancelled due to inclement weather, then this section will be enforced July 5; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m.
(43)*Sturgeon Bay Independence Day Fireworks; Sturgeon Bay, WI.*
(i)*Location.* All waters of Sturgeon Bay, in the vicinity of Sunset Park, within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located on a barge in position 44°50′37″ N, 087°23′18″ W (NAD 83).
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. If the July 4 fireworks are cancelled due to inclement weather, then this section will be enforced July 5; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m.
(44)*Fish Creek Independence Day Fireworks; Fish Creek, WI.*
(i)*Location.* All waters of Green Bay, in the vicinity of Fish Creek Harbor, within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located on a barge in position 45°07′52″ N, 087°14′37″ W (NAD 83).
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* The first Saturday after July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m.
(45)*Celebrate Americafest Fireworks; Green Bay, WI.*
(i)*Location.* All waters of the Fox River between the railroad bridge located 1.03 miles above the mouth of the Fox River and the Main Street Bridge located 1.58 miles above the mouth of the Fox River, including all waters of the turning basin east to the mouth of the East River.
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. If the July 4 fireworks are cancelled due to inclement weather, then this section will be enforced July 5; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m.
(46)*Marinette Fourth of July Celebration Fireworks; Marinette, WI.*
(i)*Location.* All waters of the Menominee River, in the vicinity of Stephenson Island, within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 45°06′09″ N, 087°37′39″ W and all waters located between the Highway U.S. 41 bridge and the Hattie Street Dam (NAD 83).
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. If the July 4 fireworks are cancelled due to inclement weather, then this section will be enforced July 5; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m.
(47)*Evanston Fourth of July Fireworks; Evanston, IL.*
(i)*Location.* All waters of Lake Michigan, in the vicinity of Centennial Park Beach, within the arc of a circle with a 500-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 42°02′56″ N, 087°40′21″ W (NAD 83).
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. If the July 4 fireworks are cancelled due to inclement weather, then this section will be enforced July 5; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m.
(48)[Reserved]
(49)*Muskegon Summer Celebration Fireworks; Muskegon, MI.*
(i)*Location.* All waters of Muskegon Lake, in the vicinity of Heritage Landing, within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from a fireworks barge located in position 43°14′00″ N, 086°15′50″ W (NAD 83).
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* The Sunday following July 4; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m.
(iii)*Impact on Special Anchorage Area regulations:* Regulations for that portion of the Muskegon Lake East Special Anchorage Area, as described in 33 CFR 110.81(b), which are overlapped by this regulation, are suspended during this event. The remaining area of the Muskegon Lake East Special Anchorage Area not impacted by this regulation remains available for anchoring during this event.
(50)*National Cherry Festival Air Show; Traverse City, MI.*
(i)*Location.* All waters of the West Arm of Grand Traverse Bay bounded by a line drawn from 44°46′48″ N, 085°38′18″ W, then southeast to 44°46′30″ N, 085°35′30″ W, then southwest to 44°46′00″ N, 085°35′48″ W, then northwest to 44°46′30″ N, 085°38′30″ W, then back to the point of origin (NAD 83).
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* Friday, Saturday, and Sunday of the first complete weekend of July; 12 noon to 4 p.m. each day.
(51)*National Cherry Festival Finale Fireworks; Traverse City, MI.*
(i)*Location.* All waters and adjacent shoreline of the West Arm of Grand Traverse Bay within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located on a barge in position 44°46′12″ N, 085°37′06″ W (NAD 83).
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* The second Saturday of July; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m.
(52)*Gary Air and Water Show; Gary, IN.*
(i)*Location.* All waters of Lake Michigan within the arc of a circle with a 5.75 statute mile radius with its center point in position 41°37′25″ N, 087°15′42″ W (NAD 83).
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* Friday, Saturday, and Sunday of the second weekend of July; from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. each day.
(53)*Milwaukee Air Expo, Milwaukee, WI.*
(i)*Location.* All waters Lake Michigan and Milwaukee Harbor located within a 4000-yard by 1000-yard rectangle with its major axis bearing approximately 030°T located in the northern half of Milwaukee Harbor and along the north shore of Milwaukee bounded by the points beginning at 43°01′36″ N, 087°53′02″ W; then northeast to 43°03′20″ N, 087°51′40″ W; then northwest to 43°03′35″ N, 087°52′16″ W; then southwest to 43°01′51″ N, 087°53′38″ W; the back to the point of origin (NAD 83).
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* Friday, Saturday, and Sunday of the second weekend of July; from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. each day.
(54)*Annual Trout Festival Fireworks; Kewaunee, WI.*
(i)*Location.* All waters of Kewaunee Harbor and Lake Michigan within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 44°27′29″ N, 087°29′45″ W (NAD 83).
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* Friday of the second complete weekend of July; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m.
(55)*Michigan City Summerfest Fireworks; Michigan City, IN.*
(i)*Location.* All waters of Michigan City Harbor and Lake Michigan within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 41°43′42″ N, 086°54′37″ W (NAD 83).
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* July 15, 2007, and thereafter the Sunday of the first complete weekend of July; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m.
(56)*Port Washington Fish Day Fireworks; Port Washington, WI.*
(i)*Location.* All waters of Port Washington Harbor and Lake Michigan, in the vicinity of the WE Energies coal dock, within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 43°23′07″ N, 087°51′54″ W (NAD 83).
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* The third Saturday of July; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m.
(57)*Bay View Lions Club South Shore Frolics Fireworks; Milwaukee, WI.*
(i)Location. All waters of Milwaukee Harbor and Lake Michigan, in the vicinity of South Shore Park, within the arc of a circle with a 500-foot radius from the fireworks launch site in position 42°59′42″ N, 087°52′52″ W (NAD 83).
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* Friday, Saturday, and Sunday of the second or third weekend of July; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. each day.
(58)*Venetian Festival Fireworks; St. Joseph, MI.*
(i)*Location.* All waters of Lake Michigan and the St. Joseph River, near the east end of the south pier, within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 42°06′48″ N, 086°29′15″ W (NAD 83).
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* Saturday of the third complete weekend of July; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m.
(59)*Joliet Waterway Daze Fireworks; Joliet, IL.*
(i)*Location.* All waters of the Des Plaines River, at mile 287.5, within the arc of a circle with a 300-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 41°31′15″ N, 088°05′17″ W (NAD 83).
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* Friday and Saturday of the third complete weekend of July; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. each day.
(60)*Charlevoix Venetian Festival Friday Night Fireworks; Charlevoix, MI.*
(i)*Location.* All waters of Lake Charlevoix, in the vicinity of Depot Beach, within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located on a barge in position 45°19′08″ N, 085°14″18″ W (NAD 83).
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* Friday of the fourth weekend of July; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m.
(61)*EAA Airventure; Oshkosh, WI.*
(i)*Location.* All waters of Lake Winnebago bounded by a line drawn from 43°57′30″ N, 088°30′00″ W; then south to 43°56′56″ N, 088°29′53″ W, then east to 43°56′40″ N, 088°28′40″ W; then north to 43°57′30″ N, 088°28′40″ W; then west returning to the point of origin (NAD 83).
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* The last complete week of July, beginning Monday and ending Sunday; from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. each day.
(62)*Charlevoix Venetian Festival Saturday Night Fireworks; Charlevoix, MI.*
(i)*Location.* All waters of Round Lake within the arc of a circle with a 300-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located on a barge in position 45°19′03″ N, 085°15′18″ W (NAD 83).
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* Saturday of the fourth weekend of July; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m.
(63)*Venetian Night Fireworks; Saugatuck, MI.*
(i)*Location.* All waters of Kalamazoo Lake within the arc of a circle with a 500-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located on a barge in position 42°38′52″ N, 086°12′18″ W (NAD 83).
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* The last Saturday of July; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m.
(64)*Roma Lodge Italian Festival Fireworks; Racine, WI.*
(i)*Location.* All waters of Lake Michigan and Racine Harbor within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 42°44′04″ N, 087°46′20″ W (NAD 83).
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* Friday and Saturday of the last complete weekend of July; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m.
(65)*Venetian Night Fireworks; Chicago, IL.*
(i)*Location.* All waters of Monroe Harbor and Lake Michigan within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located on a barge in position 41°52′41″ N, 087°36′37″ W (NAD 83).
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* Saturday of the last weekend of July; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m.
(66)*Port Washington Maritime Heritage Festival Fireworks; Port Washington, WI.*
(i)*Location.* All waters of Port Washington Harbor and Lake Michigan, in the vicinity of the WE Energies coal dock, within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 43°23′07″ N, 087°51′54″ W (NAD 83).
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* Saturday of the last complete weekend of July or the second weekend of August; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m.
(67)[Reserved]
(68)*Grand Haven Coast Guard Festival Fireworks; Grand Haven, MI.*
(i)*Location.* All waters of the Grand River between longitude 087°14′00″ W, near The Sag, then west to longitude 087°15′00″ W, near the west end of the south pier (NAD 83).
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* First weekend of August; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m.
(69)*Sturgeon Bay Yacht Club Evening on the Bay Fireworks; Sturgeon Bay, WI.*
(i)*Location.* All waters of Sturgeon Bay, in the vicinity of the Sturgeon Bay Yacht Club, within the arc of a circle with a 500-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located on a barge in position 44°49′33″ N, 087°22′26″ W (NAD 83).
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* The first Saturday of August; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m.
(70)*Elk Rapids Harbor Days Fireworks; Elk Rapids, MI.*
(i)*Location.* All waters of Grand Traverse Bay, in the vicinity of Edward G. Grace Memorial Park, within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 44°53′58″ N, 085°25′04″ W (NAD 83).
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* The first Saturday of August; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m.
(71)*Hammond Marina Venetian Night Fireworks; Hammond, IN.*
(i)*Location.* All waters of Hammond Marina and Lake Michigan within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 41°41′53″ N, 087°30′43″ W (NAD 83).
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* The first Saturday of August; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m.
(72)*North Point Marina Venetian Festival Fireworks; Winthrop Harbor, IL.*
(i)*Location.* All waters of Lake Michigan within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 42°28′55″ N, 087°47′56″ W (NAD 83).
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* The second Saturday of August; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m.
(73)*Waterfront Festival Fireworks; Menominee MI.*
(i)*Location.* All waters of Green Bay, in the vicinity of Menominee Marina, within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from a fireworks barge in position 45°06′17″ N, 087°35′48″ W (NAD 83).
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* Saturday following first Thursday in August; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m.
(74)*Ottawa Riverfest Fireworks; Ottawa, IL.*
(i)*Location.* All waters of the Illinois River, at mile 239.7, within the arc of a circle with a 300-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 41°20′29″ N, 088°51′20″ W (NAD 83).
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* The first Sunday of August; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m.
(75)*Algoma Shanty Days Fireworks; Algoma WI.*
(i)*Location.* All waters of Lake Michigan and Algoma Harbor within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 44°36′24″ N, 087°25′54″ W (NAD 83).
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* Sunday of the second complete weekend of August; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m.
(76)*New Buffalo Ship and Shore Festival Fireworks; New Buffalo, MI.*
(i)*Location.* All waters of Lake Michigan and New Buffalo Harbor within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 41°48′09″ N, 086°44′49″ W (NAD 83).
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* The second Sunday of August; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m.
(77)*Pentwater Homecoming Fireworks; Pentwater, MI.*
(i)*Location.* All waters of Lake Michigan and the Pentwater Channel within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 43°46′56.5″ N, 086°26′38″ W (NAD 83).
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* Saturday following the second Thursday of August; 9 p.m. to 11 p.m.
(78)*Chicago Air and Water Show; Chicago, IL.*
(i)*Location.* All waters and adjacent shoreline of Lake Michigan and Chicago Harbor bounded by a line drawn from 41°55′54″ N at the shoreline, then east to 41°55′54″ N, 087°37′12″ W, then southeast to 41°54′00″; N, 087°36′00″ W (NAD 83), then southwestward to the northeast corner of the Jardine Water Filtration Plant, then due west to the shore.
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* The third Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday of August; from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. each day.
(79)[Reserved]
(80)*Downtown Milwaukee BID 21 Fireworks; Milwaukee, WI.*
(i)*Location.* All waters of the Milwaukee River between the Kilbourn Avenue Bridge at 1.7 miles above the Milwaukee Pierhead Light to the State Street Bridge at 1.79 miles above the Milwaukee Pierhead Light.
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* The third Thursday of November; 6 p.m. to 8 p.m.
(81)*New Years Eve Fireworks; Chicago, IL.*
(i)*Location.* All waters of Monroe Harbor and Lake Michigan within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located on a barge in position 41°52′41″ N, 087°36′37″ W (NAD 83).
(ii)*Enforcement date and time.* December 31; 11 p.m. to January 1; 1 a.m.
(b)*Definitions.* The following definitions apply to this section:
(1)Designated representative means any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer designated by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan to monitor this safety zone, permit entry into this zone, give legally enforceable orders to persons or vessels within this zones and take other actions authorized by the Captain of the Port.
(2)Public vessel means vessels owned, chartered, or operated by the United States, or by a State or political subdivision thereof.
(c)*Regulations.*
(1)The general regulations in 33 CFR 165.23 apply.
(2)All persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or a designated representative. Upon being hailed by the U.S. Coast Guard by siren, radio, flashing light or other means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed as directed.
(3)All vessels must obtain permission from the Captain of the Port or a designated representative to enter, move within or exit the safety zone established in this section when this safety zone is enforced. Vessels and persons granted permission to enter the safety zone shall obey all lawful orders or directions of the Captain of the Port or a designated representative. While within a safety zone, all vessels shall operate at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course.
(d)*Suspension of Enforcement.* If the event concludes earlier than scheduled, the Captain of the Port or a designated representative will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners notifying the public when enforcement of the safety zone established by this section is suspended.
(e)*Exemption.* Public vessels as defined in paragraph
(b)of this section are exempt from the requirements in this section.
(f)*Waiver.* For any vessel, the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a designated representative may waive any of the requirements of this section, upon finding that operational conditions or other circumstances are such that application of this section is unnecessary or impractical for the purposes of safety or environmental safety. § 165.909 [Removed and Reserved] 3. Remove and reserve § 165.909. § 165.918 [Removed and Reserved] 4. Remove and reserve § 165.918. Dated: March 12, 2007. Bruce C. Jones, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Lake Michigan. [FR Doc. E7-8607 Filed 5-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [CGD09-07-008] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Milwaukee Harbor, Milwaukee, WI AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a safety Zone in Milwaukee Harbor near Lakeshore State Park. This zone is intended to restrict vessels from portions of Milwaukee Harbor during fireworks displays. This zone is necessary to protect the public from the hazards associated with fireworks displays. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before June 4, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander, Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan (spw), 2420 South Lincoln Memorial Drive, Milwaukee, WI 53207. The Sector Lake Michigan 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 the Sector Lake Michigan Prevention Department between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: CWO Brad Hinken, Prevention Department, Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan, Milwaukee, WI at
(414)747-7154. 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 [CGD09-07-008], indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them. Public Meeting We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to the Sector Lake Michigan Prevention Department 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 There are approximately twenty fireworks displays launched annually at Lakeshore State Park in Milwaukee, WI. The fireworks displays are sponsored festivals located at Henry W. Maier Festival Park. The fireworks displays impact the navigable waters of Milwaukee Harbor and pose a hazard to vessels and people. The purpose of this proposed rule it to establish a limited access area around the fireworks launch site to protect vessels and people from the hazards associated with fireworks displays. Such hazards include the explosive danger of fireworks and debris falling into the water that may cause death or serious bodily harm. Discussion of Proposed Rule The proposed safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of spectators and vessels during the setup, loading, and launching of fireworks displays at Lakeshore State Park in Milwaukee, WI. in conjunction with festivals at Henry W. Maier Festival Park. The proposed safety zone encompasses the waters of Lake Michigan within Milwaukee Harbor adjacent to the Lakeshore State Park and Henry W. Maier Festival Park. The proposed safety zone will be enforced only immediately before and during fireworks displays and only upon notice by the Captain of the Port. If the event concludes prior to the scheduled termination time, the Coast Guard will cease enforcement of the safety zone and will announce that fact via Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local notice to Mariners. The safety zone will encompass the waters of Lake Michigan within Milwaukee Harbor including the Harbor Island Lagoon enclosed by a line connecting the following points: beginning at 43°02′00″ N, 087°53′53″ W; then south to 43°01′44″ N, 087°53′53″ W; then east to 43°01′44″ N, 087°53′25″ W; then north to 43°02′00″ N, 087°53′53″ W; then west to the point of origin. Regulatory Evaluation This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. The Coast Guard's use of this safety zone will be periodic in nature and will likely not exceed twenty, three-hour events, per year. This safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit unrestricted to portions of the harbor not affected by the zone. The Coast Guard expects insignificant adverse impact to mariners from the activation of this zone. 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 proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: the owners of vessels intending to transits or anchor in a portion of Milwaukee Harbor during the dates and times the safety zone will be enforced. The safety zone would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This rule would be in effect for only 3 hours each time the safety zone is implemented. Vessel traffic can safely pass around the safety zone. 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 CWO Brad Hinken, Prevention Department, Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan, Milwaukee, WI at
(414)747-7154. 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 the 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 The Coast Guard recognizes the treaty rights of Native American Tribes. Moreover, the Coast Guard is committed to working with Tribal Governments to implement local policies and to mitigate tribal concerns. We have determined that this proposed safety zone and fishing rights protection need not be incompatible. We have also determined that this Proposed Rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Nevertheless, Indian Tribes that have questions concerning the provisions of this Proposed Rule or options for compliance are encourage to contact the point of contact listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . 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. This proposed rule establishes a safety zone and as such is covered by this paragraph. 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 this rule should be categorically excluded from further environmental review. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Add § 165.935 to read as follows: § 165.935 Safety Zone, Milwaukee Harbor, Milwaukee WI.
(a)*Location.* The following area is a safety zone: the waters of Lake Michigan within Milwaukee Harbor including the Harbor Island Lagoon enclosed by a line connecting the following points: Beginning at 43°02′00″ N, 087°53′53″ W; then south to 43°01′44″ N, 087°53′53″ W; then east to 43°01′44″ N, 087°53′25″ W; then north to 43°02′00″ N, 087°53′53″ W; then west to the point of origin.
(b)*Definitions.* The following definitions apply to this section:
(1)*Designated representative* means any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer designated by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan to monitor this safety zone, permit entry into this zone, give legally enforceable orders to persons or vessels within this zones and take other actions authorized by the Captain of the Port.
(2)*Public vessel* means vessels owned, chartered, or operated by the United States, or by a State or political subdivision thereof.
(c)*Regulations.*
(1)The general regulations in 33 CFR 165.23 apply.
(2)All persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or a designated representative. Upon being hailed by the U.S. Coast Guard by siren, radio, flashing light or other means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed as directed.
(3)All vessels must obtain permission from the Captain of the Port or a designated representative to enter, move within or exit the safety zone established in this section when this safety zone is enforced. Vessels and persons granted permission to enter the safety zone shall obey all lawful orders or directions of the Captain of the Port or a designated representative. While within a safety zone, all vessels shall operate at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course.
(d)*Suspension of Enforcement.* If the event concludes earlier than scheduled, the Captain of the Port or a designated representative will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners notifying the public when enforcement of the safety zone established by this section is suspended.
(e)*Exemption.* Public vessels as defined in paragraph
(b)of this section are exempt from the requirements in this section.
(f)*Waiver.* For any vessel, the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a designated representative may waive any of the requirements of this section, upon finding that operational conditions or other circumstances are such that application of this section is unnecessary or impractical for the purposes of safety or environmental safety. Dated: March 12, 2007. Bruce C. Jones, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan. [FR Doc. E7-8614 Filed 5-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 34 CFR Part 200 [Docket ID ED-2007-OESE-0130] RIN 1810-AA99 Title I—Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged (Subpart C—Migrant Education Program) AGENCY: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Secretary proposes to amend the regulations governing the Migrant Education Program
(MEP)administered under Part C of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA). These proposed regulations are needed to adjust the base amounts of the MEP Basic State formula grant allocations for fiscal year
(FY)2006 and subsequent years (as well as for supplemental MEP awards made for FY 2005); establish requirements to strengthen the processes used by State educational agencies
(SEAs)to determine and document the eligibility of migratory children under the MEP; and clarify procedures SEAs use to develop a comprehensive statewide needs assessment and service delivery plan. DATES: We must receive your comments on or before June 18, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not accept comments by fax or by e-mail. Please submit your comments only one time, in order to ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies. In addition, please include the Docket ID at the top of your comments. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov,* select “Department of Education” from the agency drop-down menu, then click “Submit.” In the Docket ID column, select ED-2007-OESE-0130 to add or view public comments and to view supporting and related materials available electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for submitting comments, accessing documents, and viewing the docket after the close of the comment period, is available through the site's “User Tips” link. • *Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery.* If you mail or deliver your comments about these proposed regulations, address them to James J. English, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 3E315, FB6, Washington, DC, 20202-6135. Privacy Note: The Department's policy for comments received from members of the public (including those comments submitted by mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery) is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at *http://www.regulations.gov.* All submissions will be posted to the Federal eRulemaking Portal without change, including personal identifiers and contact information. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James J. English. Telephone:
(202)260-1394 or via Internet: *James.English@ed.gov.* If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Relay Service
(FRS)at 1-800-877-8339. Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an alternative format ( *e.g.* , Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Invitation To Comment We invite you to submit comments regarding these proposed regulations. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in developing the final regulations, we urge you to identify clearly the specific section or sections of the proposed regulations that each of your comments addresses and to arrange your comments in the same order as the proposed regulations. We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific requirements of Executive Order 12866 and its overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from these proposed regulations. Please let us know of any further opportunities we should take to reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and efficient administration of the program. During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about these proposed regulations by accessing Regulations.gov. You may also inspect the comments, in person, in room 3E315, FB-6, 400 Maryland Ave., SW., Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Eastern time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays. Assistance to Individuals With Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking Record On request, we will supply an appropriate aid, such as a reader or print magnifier, to an individual with a disability who needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public rulemaking record for these proposed regulations. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Background The Department provides MEP formula grants to SEAs to establish or improve programs of education for the Nation's migrant children. These programs of education are expected to address the identified educational and educationally related needs of migrant children that result from their migratory lifestyle and to permit migrant children to participate effectively in school. Under the ESEA, a core responsibility of each SEA is to ensure that only those children who are eligible for the MEP are identified, counted, and served. Meeting this responsibility is key to ensuring that—
(1)States provide MEP-funded services only to eligible migrant children;
(2)Each SEA's MEP allocation accurately reflects its statutory share of the funds that Congress annually appropriates for the MEP; and
(3)Public confidence in the program's integrity remains strong. With regard to State MEP allocations, since FY 2002 the amount of an SEA's annual MEP award under section 1303(a)(2) of the ESEA has been tied to the level of its FY 2002 base-year MEP award, which itself is dependent in large part on the SEA's 2000-2001 count of eligible migratory children residing in the State in relation to the counts of other States. Over the last few years, the Department has become increasingly concerned about the accuracy and consistency of the processes SEAs have used to determine the eligibility of migratory children and the counts of children eligible for services that the SEAs report to the Department. Since 2004, the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education
(OESE)and the Office of Inspector General
(OIG)have undertaken efforts to examine SEA processes and child counts more closely. In order to assess and confirm the correctness of SEA eligibility determinations, OESE designed and implemented a process under which SEAs voluntarily re-interviewed a statewide, random sample of children they had identified as eligible for the MEP during the 2003-2004 program year. OESE provided guidance on reasonable ways to choose a random sample and to conduct this re-interviewing process, and requested that, following the re-interviews, participating States determine and report to the Department their “defect rate” ( *i.e.,* the percentage of children in the State's 2003-2004 re-interview sample that were determined ineligible under the re-interview process). To date, the vast majority of SEAs have voluntarily completed a re-interviewing process and reported their defect rates. The State-reported defect rates range from zero percent to 100 percent, with a mean defect rate of 9.8 percent and a median defect rate of 5.6 percent. The States that have reported defect rates account for more than 98 percent of the reported count of migratory children eligible for services nationally in the 2003-2004 program year. Independently, the OIG has completed or, in some cases, is still conducting audits and investigations in a number of States (including States that did not initially participate in OESE's voluntary re-interviewing initiative) and has found errors in State migratory child eligibility counts. In some cases, the errors the OIG or the States found on their own may be actionable as civil or criminal fraud. In other cases, errors may reflect incorrect interpretations of MEP eligibility requirements. In most cases, however, the errors seem attributable to factors such as: Poor training of State and local personnel responsible for determining eligibility; weak quality-control procedures for reviewing child eligibility determinations; and a lack of uniformity in the implementation of the MEP eligibility requirements. The OIG findings and the SEA-reported defect rates are very troubling for several reasons. First, they suggest that the level and quality of MEP-funded services that eligible migrant students needed and deserved have been diluted by the delivery of services to children who were not eligible to receive them. Second, they suggest that, over the last several years, the Department may have awarded MEP funds to States on the basis of inaccurate and, in some cases, perhaps significantly inflated State counts of eligible children. And third, because section 1303 of the ESEA requires the Department to use the FY 2002 State MEP allocation as the “base amount” for allocations made to SEAs in subsequent years, the State MEP allocations for FY 2006 and each subsequent year (as well as supplemental FY 2005 awards that were issued in September 2006) will continue to be flawed unless the Department takes action. Given these considerations, the Secretary is proposing these regulations, which would: Provide for the adjustment of the base amounts of the FY 2006 and subsequent year MEP allocations; clarify and expand the definitions governing who is a “migratory child”; and establish requirements for SEAs to develop and implement rigorous quality-control procedures in order to improve the accuracy of MEP eligibility determinations and State counts of eligible migratory children. The Secretary would also apply the procedures for determining final MEP allocations for FY 2006 and beyond to supplemental FY 2005 MEP awards that were made in September 2006. The Secretary also proposes to make minor changes to the current regulations governing development of a comprehensive statewide needs assessment and service delivery plan. Significant Proposed Regulations We discuss the following substantive issues under the sections of the proposed regulations to which they pertain. Generally, we do not address proposed regulatory provisions that are technical or otherwise minor in effect. Title I, Subpart C—Migrant Education Program Section 200.81 Program Definitions Agricultural Activity and Fishing Activity *Statute:* The definition of *migratory child* in section 1309 of the ESEA refers to agricultural work and fishing work but does not provide for a definition of these terms or the terms agricultural activity and fishing activity. *Current Regulations:* Section 200.81(a) and
(b)provides definitions of *agricultural activity* and *fishing activity* . In the current definitions, an *agricultural activity* is defined as any activity directly related to:
(1)The production or processing of agricultural products for initial commercial sale or personal subsistence;
(2)the cultivation or harvesting of trees; or
(3)fish farms. A *fishing activity* is defined as any activity directly related to the catching or processing of fish or shellfish for initial commercial sale or personal subsistence. *Proposed Regulations:* We propose to revise both the terms and definitions relating to *agricultural activity* and *fishing activity* . Specifically, we propose changing the terms *agricultural activity* and *fishing activity* to *agricultural work* and *fishing work,* respectively. We propose to remove the phrases “an activity directly related to” and “for initial commercial sale” from the definitions of both of these terms and to add the word “initial” before the term “processing” in both definitions. We also propose modifying the definitions of *agricultural work* and *fishing work* to include the phrase “work performed generally for wages or in rare cases personal subsistence.” Finally, we would modify the definition of *agricultural work* to remove the phrase “any activity directly related to fish farms”; the reference to fish farms would be added to the definition of *fishing work* . *Reasons:* We propose the changes to the current terms and definitions of *agricultural activity* and *fishing activity* in order to clarify and simplify these terms. Changing the terms *agricultural activity* and *fishing activity* to *agricultural work* and *fishing work* provides consistency with the statutory definition of *migratory child* in section 1309(2) of the ESEA, which refers to a move being made to obtain temporary or seasonal employment in agricultural or fishing work. In addition, the phrase “any activity directly related to” in the current definitions of *agricultural activity* and *fishing activity* is unnecessary and confusing because it could be interpreted to include an activity (such as trucking services that transport livestock or fish to a processing plant or managing workers in a field or processing plant) that may be directly related to agriculture or fishing but is not inherently agricultural or fishing work; thus, we propose eliminating this phrase. Further, the phrase “for initial commercial sale” in the current definitions of *agricultural activity* and *fishing activity* was primarily intended to limit the scope of these definitions to work that is involved with the initial processing of raw agricultural products, fish, or shellfish. However, as the definitions are currently written, use of the term “initial” with respect to a commercial sale is confusing, as there are circumstances in the agriculture and fishing industries where there may be two “initial” commercial sales: one associated with the production of agricultural products, fish, or shellfish, and the other associated with the processing of agricultural products, fish, or shellfish. For example, wheat is harvested and sold to a factory for processing into flour. The sale of the wheat to the factory is the initial commercial sale of a crop to the processor. This sale ends the production phase of the crop. The factory then processes the wheat into flour and sells the flour to a bakery. The sale of the flour to the bakery is an initial commercial sale of a processed product (flour) to a next-stage processor and ends the processing phase as a qualifying agricultural activity. Harvesting the wheat and processing the wheat into flour both meet the definition of agricultural activity because they are the production and processing of a crop for initial commercial sale. On the other hand, the processing of the flour into baked goods does not meet the definition of an agricultural activity because an initial commercial sale of a processed product had already occurred when the flour was sold to the bakery. While removing the reference to “initial commercial sale”, we propose to add the word “initial” before the term “processing” in both definitions in order to clarify that only initial processing of raw products is considered agricultural work or fishing work for the purposes of the MEP. We propose specifying in the revised definitions of *agricultural work* and *fishing work* that these types of work consist of “work performed generally for wages or in rare cases personal subsistence” to clarify that, while there are some rare circumstances in which the worker and his or her family do the work for personal subsistence, the work is generally performed for wages. It is therefore appropriate to include a reference to work performed “generally for wages or in rare cases personal subsistence.” Finally, we propose to move the reference to fish farms in the current definition of *agricultural activity* to the new definition of *fishing work* because this change reflects a more consistent and simpler way of grouping work that involves fishing. In Order To Obtain *Statute:* Section 1309 of the ESEA provides in part that an individual is considered a migratory child if the child or child's parent, guardian, or spouse moved “in order to obtain” temporary or seasonal employment in agricultural or fishing work. *Current Regulations:* The current regulations do not define the phrase “ ‘in order to obtain' * * * temporary or seasonal employment in agricultural or fishing work.” *Proposed Regulations:* We propose adding a definition of the term *in order to obtain* to clearly require that one of the purposes of the move must be to seek or obtain temporary or seasonal employment in agricultural or fishing work and that, absent this intent, the worker did not move “in order to obtain” temporary or seasonal employment in agricultural or fishing work. In addition, our proposed definition clarifies that a worker did not move in order to obtain temporary or seasonal employment in agricultural or fishing work if the worker would have moved and changed residence even if the work was unavailable. *Reasons:* The statutory phrase in section 1309(2) that a migratory move be made “in order to obtain * * * temporary or seasonal employment in agricultural or fishing work” can only mean that the purpose or intent of the worker in making the move must be to seek or obtain that work. We are proposing this change to ensure consistency with the statute and to clarify that a possible contrary interpretation of this language that was included in non-regulatory guidance for the MEP that the Department issued prior to its current draft guidance, issued on October 23, 2003, is inconsistent with the statute. The former guidance indicated that an SEA could determine that a child qualified under the MEP if the child or the child's parent, guardian, or spouse found temporary or seasonal employment in agricultural or fishing work “as a result of the move.” To the extent that this phrase may imply that the purpose or intent of the worker is irrelevant, it is inconsistent with the statute. Thus, our proposed definition of *in order to obtain* temporary or seasonal employment in agricultural or fishing work would distinguish between migratory agricultural workers and migratory fishers who move with the intent of obtaining temporary or seasonal employment in agricultural work or fishing work and individuals who move for other purposes but may end up working as a temporary or seasonal laborer in agriculture or fishing at a later date. Migratory Agricultural Worker; Migratory Fisher; Principal Means of Livelihood *Statute:* The statutory definition of *migratory child* refers to but does not further define a *migratory agricultural worker* or a *migratory fisher* . *Current Regulations:* The current regulations in 34 CFR 200.81(c) and
(e)define the terms *migratory agricultural worker* and *migratory fisher* . In the current definitions, a *migratory agricultural worker* and *migratory fisher* generally mean a person who, in the preceding 36 months, has moved from one school district to another in order to obtain temporary or seasonal employment in agricultural or fishing activities as a principal means of livelihood. The current regulations further define the term *principal means of livelihood,* in § 200.81(f), to mean that the activity plays an important part in providing a living for the worker and his or her family. *Proposed Regulations:* We propose to remove the parenthetical phrase “(including dairy work)” from the definition of *migratory agricultural worker* . We also propose to amend the definition of *migratory fisher* to clarify that, in the special case of moves in a school district of more than 15,000 square miles, the migratory fisher must have moved in order to obtain temporary employment or seasonal employment in fishing. We propose to continue, with minor editorial changes, to use the current term (and the associated separate definition restated in proposed § 200.81(i)), *principal means of livelihood,* in the definitions of *migratory agricultural worker* and *migratory fisher* . *Reasons:* We are removing the parenthetical “(including dairy work)” from the definition of *migratory agricultural worker* because it is redundant in view of the proposed definition of *agricultural work,* which includes the production and processing of dairy products. We propose to clarify that moves within a school district of more than 15,000 square miles must be “in order to obtain” temporary or seasonal employment in fishing work because this is consistent with the plain meaning of the statutory language in section 1309(2)(c). We propose to continue to use the term and current definition of *principal means of livelihood* in order to continue to clarify that the migratory work performed by a migratory agricultural worker or a migratory fisher must be an important part of providing a living to the migratory worker and his/her family. Migratory Child *Statute:* Section 1309(2) of the statute provides a basic definition of the term *migratory child* . *Current Regulations:* The term *migratory child* is defined in § 200.81(d) and is substantially the same as the statutory definition. In general, a *migratory child* is defined as a child whose parent is a migratory agricultural worker or a migratory fisher, and who, in the preceding 36 months, has moved from one school district to another because the parent has moved in order to obtain temporary or seasonal employment in agricultural or fishing work. In addition, the current definition notes that a *migratory child* may move on his or her own as the migratory agricultural worker or migratory fisher (or with a spouse or guardian who is a migratory agricultural worker or migratory fisher), and provides special circumstances for moves within
(1)a single-school-district-State and
(2)school districts of more than 15,000 square miles. *Proposed Regulations:* We propose to revise the organization and language of the definition of *migratory child* to make it clearer that a child may meet the definition if the child is a migratory agricultural worker or migratory fisher in his or her own right, or by accompanying or joining a parent, guardian, or spouse who is a migratory agricultural worker or migratory fisher. *Reasons:* We propose revising the definition of *migratory child* because, as taken verbatim from the statute, it is convoluted and confusing. The revised definition seeks to clarify that a child may be a *migratory child* by moving either
(1)as a migratory agricultural worker or migratory fisher in his or her own right or
(2)as the child or spouse of such a worker. We also propose to revise the regulation to clarify what has been a longstanding policy in the program's non-regulatory guidance: that a *migratory child* includes both a child who accompanied the worker and a child who has joined a worker in a reasonable period of time. Moved or Move *Statute:* The statute does not provide a meaning for the terms *moved* or *move* . *Current Regulations:* The current regulations also do not define the terms *moved* or *move* . *Proposed Regulations:* We propose adding a definition for the terms *moved* or *move* to specify that either of these terms means that a change in residence was made in order for the worker to obtain temporary or seasonal employment in agricultural or fishing work. We further propose that this definition not include travel or moves that occur either
(1)during or after a vacation or holiday, or
(2)for other personal reasons unrelated to seeking or obtaining temporary or seasonal employment in agricultural or fishing work even if this work is subsequently sought or obtained. *Reasons:* While our non-regulatory guidance has for many years referred to the terms “moved” and “move” in a similar way, some States have determined as eligible under the MEP children who simply returned home from a trip to visit relatives or from a location where they briefly stayed for other personal reasons. We do not consider these types of relocations to constitute a move for purposes of determining eligibility under the MEP because they are not made for the purpose of obtaining temporary or seasonal employment. This new definition, therefore, is necessary to make clear that a move under the MEP would not include travel that occurs as a result of a vacation, holiday, or for other personal reasons unrelated to obtaining temporary or seasonal employment in agricultural or fishing work even if such work is subsequently sought or obtained. Personal Subsistence *Statute:* The ESEA does not define the term *personal subsistence* for purposes of the MEP. *Current Regulations:* The current regulations also do not provide a definition of the term *personal subsistence* although the term is used in the current definitions of the terms *agricultural activity* and *fishing activity* and the proposed definitions of *agricultural work* and *fishing work* . *Proposed Regulations:* We propose adding a definition to clarify that, in the context of the proposed definitions of *agricultural work* or *fishing work* (which would replace the terms *agricultural activity* and *fishing activity* ), *personal subsistence* means that the worker and his or her family perform such work in order to consume the crops, dairy products, or livestock they produce or the fish they catch in order to survive. This proposed definition of *personal subsistence* would not include situations in which a family simply tends a backyard garden for personal consumption because the produce obtained from such gardening work, even though consumed by the family, is not necessary in order for the family to survive. *Reasons:* This proposed definition is intended to establish a consistent standard for all States to use in determining whether agricultural work or fishing work is performed for personal subsistence. Seasonal Employment *Statute:* The statute does not define the term *seasonal employment* . *Current Regulations:* The current regulations also do not define this term. *Proposed Regulations:* We propose adding a definition of the term *seasonal employment* to mean employment that is dependent on the cycles of nature (e.g., employment in agricultural work that lasts for a particular period of time due to specific meteorological or climatic conditions associated with the cultivation or harvesting of crops). *Reasons:* This additional definition is necessary to explain the meaning of the term seasonal employment as used in the statutory definition of *migratory child* . As such, it helps to distinguish between agricultural or fishing work that is seasonal employment (i.e., which lasts only for a particular season due to specific meteorological or climatic conditions) versus agricultural or fishing work that is temporary employment. Temporary Employment *Statute:* The ESEA does not define the term *temporary employment* for purposes of the MEP. *Current Regulations:* The current regulations also do not provide a definition of *temporary employment* . *Proposed Regulations:* We propose adding a definition of the term *temporary employment* to specify that this type of employment lasts for a limited period of time, usually a few months, and does not include employment that is constant and year-round. The definition includes examples of situations where employment in agriculture or fishing is temporary. The definition also clarifies that there are some circumstances (e.g., livestock processing plant facilities) in which an employer does not classify the work as temporary and workers may remain employed indefinitely but, in which, perhaps because of the nature of the work, the actual employment patterns of workers strongly indicate that employment in this agricultural or fishing work lasts only for a limited period of time. In these specific circumstances, we propose that an SEA may determine these types of employment to be temporary if it can document through annual surveys (by individual job site) of workers who move to obtain this work that virtually no workers remain employed more than 12 months. *Reasons:* This proposed definition is intended to establish a consistent standard
(1)applicable to employment in both production and initial processing activities, and
(2)for all States to use in determining which types of employment in agricultural work and fishing work are temporary. This proposed definition is also intended to set a higher standard than we currently have in place in our non-regulatory guidance—where we have provided that SEAs can deem a job temporary if an employer certifies that the job has more than a 50 percent turnover rate in 12 months. We envision that the proposed annual survey of workers to establish whether or not particular types of work can be deemed temporary would be included as part of the annual process that SEAs already conduct to re-establish the continued residency of previously-identified children over the 3-year window of eligibility. We believe that the proposed terms “a few months” and “virtually no workers * * * will remain employed for more than 12 months” will allow the SEAS some flexibility to respond to different conditions in different States and different work sites and avoid setting precise criteria that may not take into account future changes in agricultural or fishing work (e.g., longer seasons due to improved farming or fishing technologies). We do not wish to set arbitrary limits, especially because it is unclear that one fixed rate would be appropriate in all situations. For example, there is likely to be more precision in determining these rates in sites with larger numbers of workers than in sites with small numbers of workers. This said, we wish to solicit public comment specifically on whether to retain the proposed terms “a few months” and “virtually no workers * * * will remain employed more than 12 months,” whether those terms create opportunities for abuse, whether firm time limits and worker numbers or percentages should and might reasonably be established, and what those time limits or percentages might be. We also wish to solicit comments on whether there are additional regulatory requirements relating to the survey of workers to establish whether particular types of work are temporary that would: Improve the quality or consistency of the data; or provide for more efficient methods to collect this data. Section 200.83 Responsibilities of SEAs To Implement Projects Through a Comprehensive Needs Assessment and a Comprehensive State Plan for Service Delivery *Statute:* Under section 1306(a) of the ESEA, each SEA receiving MEP funds must ensure that it and its operating agencies identify and address the special educational needs of migratory children in accordance with a comprehensive needs assessment and service delivery plan that meets the requirements of that provision. Among other things, section 1306(a) states that the comprehensive State plan for service delivery must contain measurable program goals and outcomes. *Current Regulations:* Section 200.83 clarifies the statutory responsibilities of an SEA receiving MEP funds regarding the development of a comprehensive needs assessment and service delivery plan. Section 200.83(a)(1) requires the plan to specify the performance targets “that the State has adopted for all children in reading and mathematics achievement, high school graduation, and the number of school dropouts, as well as the State's performance targets, if any, for school readiness,” as well as “[a]ny other performance targets that the State has identified for migratory children.” However, the regulation does not reference the need for the plan to specify measurable outcomes related to those performance targets. *Proposed Regulations:* We propose to revise § 200.83 to clarify that the SEA's comprehensive needs assessment and plan for service delivery must also include the measurable outcomes that the State's MEP will produce for migratory children in relation to—
(1)The performance targets the State has adopted for all children in reading and mathematics achievement, high school graduation, and the number of school dropouts, as well as, if any, for children participating in school readiness programs, and
(2)Any other performance targets it has adopted for migratory children. *Reasons:* When the Department issued § 200.83, it failed to include one of the statutory requirements for a needs assessment and service delivery plan, i.e., measurable outcomes. Unfortunately, a number of States appear to have assumed that the requirements contained in § 200.83 were exhaustive. The proposed change, therefore, would simply clarify in the regulations what the statute already requires—that an SEA's comprehensive plan must include both the specific performance targets (i.e., goals) it has established in keeping with the statute and its measurable outcomes relative to those targets. Section 200.89(a) Allocation of Funds Under the MEP for Fiscal Year
(FY)2006 and Subsequent Years *Statute:* Section 1303(a)(2) and
(b)of the ESEA establishes a formula for State MEP allocations for FY 2003 and subsequent years under which each State receives the “base amount” awarded to it for FY 2002 and a share of any additional funds that Congress appropriates for the MEP over the level of the MEP's FY 2002 appropriations. Both the base amount and the amount of additional funds each State is entitled to receive are derived in part from State-submitted counts of eligible migratory children. In addition, section 1303(c)(1) directs the Secretary to reduce ratably the amount of State awards to reflect the actual amount Congress appropriates for the MEP in any fiscal year. Section 1303(c)(2) permits the Secretary to further reduce a State's MEP allocation if the Secretary determines, based on available information on the numbers and needs of eligible migratory children in the State and the State's program to address those needs, that the amount that would be awarded exceeds the amount the State needs. Section 1303(e)(1) also directs the Secretary to use such information as most accurately reflects the actual number of migratory children in a State in calculating the amount of State MEP allocations. Finally, section 1304(c)(7) requires each SEA to provide an assurance in its application for funds that it will assist the Secretary, through such procedures as the Secretary requires, in determining the eligible numbers of migratory children in the State for purposes of making State MEP allocations. *Current Regulations:* The current regulations do not address State MEP allocations and the formula used to calculate those allocations. *Proposed Regulations:* Proposed § 200.89(a) would establish a procedure for the Secretary to use State defect rates that the Secretary accepts as the basis for adjusting the 2000-2001 counts of eligible children, and thereby determine the base amount of a State's MEP award for FY 2006 and subsequent years. The proposed regulation would also require, as a condition to an SEA's receipt of its final FY 2006 and subsequent-year MEP awards, thorough re-documentation of the eligibility of all children (and the removal of all ineligible children) included in an SEA's 2006-2007 MEP child counts. *Reasons:* We know, as a result of the voluntary re-interviewing initiative and OIG's findings, that many of the State migratory child counts that were submitted to the Department for 2003-2004 were inaccurate to some degree. As further discussed in this preamble, we believe that there is significant reason to believe that comparable inaccuracies affect the SEAs' 2000-2001 counts of migratory children as well. Hence, we also believe that to continue to base MEP allocations on those 2000-2001 counts would be contrary to the statutory requirement that the Secretary award funds on the basis of “such information as the Secretary finds most accurately reflects the actual number of migratory children” in each State. Section 1303(a) of the ESEA provides that MEP allocations for FY 2003 and beyond are to be based in part on the States' counts for 2000-2001 of the following:
(1)All migratory children residing in their States during that year, and
(2)all migratory children who participated in MEP summer and intersession programs during that year. It is inconceivable however that, in enacting section 1303(a), Congress intended the Department to continue to use the FY 2002 MEP State allocations amounts to make subsequent years' awards if the underlying State counts of eligible migratory children that supported the FY 2002 allocation determinations were inaccurate. Congress also provided in section 1304(c)(7) of the ESEA that States would have continuing responsibility to “assist the Secretary in determining the number of migratory children [used in calculating State MEP allocations] through such procedures as the Secretary may require.” The Department annually provides instructions to the SEAs regarding the submission of accurate counts of migratory children in the “Migrant Child Count Report for State Formula Grant Migrant Education Programs under the [ESEA]” (OMB No. 1810-0519), and, by receipt of MEP funding through consolidated State applications submitted under section 9302 of the ESEA, each SEA provides an assurance to “adopt and use proper methods of administering each such program, including the enforcement of any obligations imposed by law. * * *” Given these related requirements, the responsibility of SEAs under section 1304(c)(7) of the ESEA to assist the Secretary in determining the number of migratory children clearly includes a responsibility to correct any originally submitted child counts that were inaccurate. Therefore, we believe that, to make the appropriate allocations for FY 2006 and subsequent years consistent with the statute, the Department must re- determine each SEA's FY 2002 base allocation amount by applying the defect rate accepted by the Department to the SEA's 2000-2001 child counts, and then use the adjusted base allocation amounts to calculate the allocations for FY 2006 and subsequent years. When the Department began the re-interviewing initiative, it acknowledged that, because of the passage of time, States could face significant challenges in locating all of the children within their random sample of children counted in 2000-2001 for the purposes of conducting the needed re-interviews. For this reason, the Department gave participating States the option of conducting re-interviews for a random sample of children identified either
(a)in 2000-2001, or
(2)in 2003-2004, in which case the Department would apply the defect rate for that year to the State's reported 2000-2001 child counts. We have no reason to believe that the defect rates States have reported for 2003-2004 would have been significantly different had States been able to conduct eligibility re-interviews of children they had identified as eligible for the MEP in 2000-2001. Indeed, for defect rates of children identified as eligible in 2000-2001 to be lower than those reported for 2003-2004, one would have to assume that State procedures for identifying eligible migratory children deteriorated between 2000-2001 and the time States conducted their re-interviews of children in their 2003-2004 migratory child counts. Given the major emphasis the Department has placed in recent years on improved migratory child eligibility decisions, we believe that State procedures for identifying eligible migratory children should have improved since 2000-2001. Proposed § 200.89(a) notes that the Department would use State defect rates “that the Secretary accepts” for adjusting the 2000-2001 counts of eligible children, and thereby determine the base amount of a State's MEP award for FY 2006 and subsequent years. To determine that the reported defect rates are acceptable, the Department will review how each State determined its defect rate. To the extent that a defect rate is determined from the review not to be acceptable, a State would be required under proposed § 200.89(b) to conduct further re-interviewing. We consider it necessary to conduct this review to determine the acceptability of reported defect rates, and perhaps require additional re-interviewing, because States did not use identical methodologies in determining their defect rates. We acknowledge that the State defect rates the Secretary ultimately accepts will not perfectly correct for errors in the 2000-2001 migratory child counts that States previously reported. However, we firmly believe that their use will enable the Department to distribute MEP funds for FY 2006 and subsequent years in a way that much better reflects the ESEA statutory formula and congressional intent than would the continued use of the original and inaccurate 2000-2001 child counts. Finally, proposed § 200.89(a)(2) requires re-documentation of the eligibility of all children (and the removal of all ineligible children) as a condition to SEA receipt of final FY 2006 and subsequent-year MEP awards. From a practical standpoint, we expect that this re-documentation effort can be completed as an SEA carries out its annual activities relative to examining whether children previously identified as eligible in a prior performance year (and who have eligibility under the statutory definition for 36 months) are still resident and can be counted and served as eligible under the program. We would expect SEAs to carefully examine the underlying eligibility of all previously-identified migratory children relative to the types of problems identified during the retrospective re-interviewing as causing defective eligibility determinations. We propose this re-documentation effort in order to ensure that only eligible migratory children receive MEP funded services and are included in an SEA's 2006-2007 MEP child counts. Section 200.89(b) Responsibilities of SEAs for Re-Interviewing To Ensure the Eligibility of Children Under the MEP *Statute:* Section 1309(2) of the ESEA provides the definition of a *migratory child* that States must use to determine eligibility for MEP services. Section 1304(c)(7) requires that SEAs assist the Secretary, through such procedures as the Secretary requires, in determining the eligible numbers of migratory children in the State. *Current Regulations:* The current regulations do not require States to conduct re-interviewing to ensure eligibility of children under the MEP. *Proposed Regulations:* Proposed § 200.89(b) would require SEAs to conduct retrospective and prospective re-interviewing of children to confirm their eligibility. Retrospective re-interviewing would be required for those SEAs that have either
(1)not conducted a re-interviewing process on a statewide random sample of identified migratory children and submitted a defect rate to the Secretary, or
(2)submitted a defect rate that the Secretary does not accept. The proposed regulations identify minimum requirements for retrospective re-interviewing as well as the minimum content of the report that these States would need to submit to the Secretary on the defect rate and re-interviewing process. Prospective re-interviewing would be required of all SEAs annually in order to provide an improved quality-control check on the accuracy of their current eligibility determinations and to guide any needed corrective actions or improvements in a State's migratory child identification and recruitment practices. *Reasons:* Nearly all SEAs voluntarily re-interviewed a random sample of their identified migratory children and submitted a defect rate to the Department. However, a few did not. As a matter of fairness, and to ensure that the procedures the Department would use to calculate the final amount of each State's MEP award for FY 2006 and subsequent years reflect defect rates that the Secretary accepts for all States, the Secretary proposes to require that those last few States conduct retrospective re-interviewing. The proposed regulations require the retrospective re-interviewing to be completed within six months of the effective date of these regulations by those SEAs that did not conduct a retrospective re-interviewing process on a voluntary basis. We believe requiring completion of retrospective re-interviewing within six months of the effective date of the regulations is appropriate based on our analysis of the amounts of time needed by SEAs who conducted the re-interviewing process voluntarily. The minimum elements of both the retrospective re-interviewing process and the report to the Secretary are included in proposed § 200.89(b) in order to clarify the procedures the Secretary expects States will use to determine and report a defect rate, and that the Secretary will review in assessing whether the reported defect rate is acceptable in order to adjust the base amounts of the FY 2006 and subsequent year MEP allocations. As set forth in the regulations, the minimum elements of retrospective re-interviewing would include: use of a statewide random sample (at a 95 percent confidence level with a confidence interval of plus or minus 5 percent); use of independent re-interviewers; and calculation of a defect rate based on the number of sampled children determined ineligible as a percentage of those sampled children whose parent/guardian was actually re- interviewed. The minimum elements for reporting on retrospective re-interviewing would include: An explanation of the sample and the re-interview procedures, and the findings and corrective actions, as well as an acknowledgement that the defect rate can be used to adjust the 2000-01 child counts previously submitted by the State and used to determine the FY 2002 base year allocations. To date, the Department has addressed various elements of quality control in non-regulatory guidance. However, since the counts of migratory children the States have reported have been found to include children ineligible for the program, we believe that it is necessary to require through regulations some minimum requirements for a State's quality-control system. (In this regard see the further discussion regarding proposed § 200.89(d).) In particular, we now propose that all States be required to conduct a process of prospective re-interviewing to ensure that State migratory child counts are not again affected by improper eligibility determinations. As described in proposed § 200.89(b)(2), prospective re-interviewing would include, as part of a State's system of quality controls, the face-to-face re-interviewing of a sufficient sample of identified migratory children (selected randomly on a statewide basis or within relevant strata) so as to enable the State to annually assess the level of accuracy of its eligibility determinations, uncover eligibility problems, and improve the accuracy of their child count determinations. It should be noted that while the regulation proposes that retrospective re-interviewing be based on a statewide random sample (at a 95 percent confidence level with a confidence interval of plus or minus 5 percent), the regulation also proposes that prospective re-interviewing be based on a sufficient sample of identified migratory children. This is the case since the defect rate to be calculated from the retrospective re-interviewing sample must be able to be generalized to the State's entire population of identified migratory children, while, for prospective re-interviewing, the sample to be re-interviewed must only be of sufficient size and scope to enable the prospective re-interviewing process to serve as an adequate early warning system of developing eligibility problems. The samples for prospective re-interviewing can be selected randomly on a statewide basis or within relevant strata; the Department plans to provide updated guidance concurrent with the issuance of the final rule providing instruction on how to appropriately conduct sampling to satisfy this requirement. The regulation proposes prospective re-interviewing on an annual basis. As discussed in the Paperwork Reduction Act submission to OMB, we expect that SEAs will need to prospectively re-interview no more than 100 families (on average) and that the burden would amount to less than 8,700 person-hours annually. However, the Department remains interested in the additional burden that mandatory prospective re-interviewing would impose and, therefore, requests comments on whether prospective re-interviewing on a different interval (e.g., biannually) would continue to be effective and efficient, while still retaining the program integrity goals outlined here. The proposed regulation would also require each SEA to implement needed corrective actions or improvements, including corrective actions required by the Secretary, in order to address any problems identified through prospective re-interviewing with child eligibility determinations. Section 200.89(c) Responsibilities of SEAs To Document the Eligibility of Migratory Children *Statute:* Section 1309(2) of the ESEA provides the definition of a *migratory child* that each SEA must use to determine eligibility of a migratory child. Except for the very limited exceptions specified in section 1304(e) of the ESEA that govern continuity of MEP services to children whose eligibility has terminated, sections 1302 and 1304(a) require SEAs to provide MEP services only to eligible migratory children. *Current Regulations:* While § 76.731 of the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) [34 CFR 76.731] requires SEAs to keep records to show their compliance with program requirements, the current MEP regulations do not specify a standard procedure for SEAs to document a child's eligibility under the MEP. *Proposed Regulations:* Proposed § 200.89(c) would require that all SEAs and local operating agencies use a standard, national Certificate of Eligibility
(COE)developed and promulgated by the Department to record and certify the accuracy of basic information documenting the eligibility of a migratory child. One COE would be completed per family per qualifying move and include basic information on each eligible child (e.g., name, age, grade). Proposed § 200.89(c) also identifies the SEA (i.e., the MEP grantee) as the responsible entity for all eligibility determinations, and would require an SEA to collect additional documentation on the child beyond that contained on the COE, as may be necessary to confirm a child's MEP eligibility. *Reasons:* The Secretary proposes to require use of a standard COE on which all SEAs would record the minimum information necessary to confirm migratory child eligibility because she believes that use of a more systematic national procedure is needed to help ensure that acceptable documentation exists for all children in the Nation who are found eligible for the MEP. Under section 9304(a)(1) of the ESEA, each SEA that receives MEP funds already must provide an assurance that it will administer all ESEA programs in accordance with applicable statutes and regulations, and section 1302 of the ESEA places responsibility on these SEAs to use their MEP funds, either directly or through local operating agencies, to establish or improve education programs “for migratory children in accordance with [Title I, Part C of the ESEA].” In addition, section 80.40 of EDGAR provides that each SEA is “responsible for managing the day-to-day operations of grant and subgrant supported activities,” and for “monitor[ing] grant and subgrant supported activities to assure compliance with applicable Federal requirements.” Despite these requirements, given that incorrect eligibility determinations have been a pervasive problem in many States, we believe further regulation is necessary to avoid any uncertainty about an SEA's responsibility for all MEP eligibility determinations in the State—whether made directly by the SEA, or by its local operating agencies, subgrantees, or contractors. Section 200.89(d) Responsibilities of an SEA To Establish and Implement a System of Quality Controls for the Proper Identification of Eligible Migratory Children *Statute:* Section 9304(a)(6) of the ESEA requires each SEA to provide an assurance that it will “maintain such records * * * as the Secretary may find necessary to carry out the Secretary's duties,” which would include the duty to collect the most accurate unduplicated counts possible of migratory children that each State had identified. However, the ESEA does not address the need of each SEA to maintain a system of quality controls designed to ensure the accuracy of child eligibility determinations under the MEP. *Current Regulations:* Current MEP regulations do not address a system of quality controls that all SEAs must have in place to ensure the accuracy of eligibility determinations. *Proposed Regulations:* Proposed § 200.89(d) would establish minimum requirements for a system of quality controls that all SEAs would need to implement to ensure accurate child eligibility determinations. *Reasons:* Section 76.731 of EDGAR requires each SEA and subgrantee to “keep records to show its compliance with program requirements.” However, as with section 9403 of the ESEA, it does not identify the steps SEAs need to take to ensure that their records are accurate. Generally, further regulations of this kind are not necessary. The program statutes and regulations, the cost principles contained in Office of Management and Budget circulars, as well as generally accepted audit standards, usually provide sufficiently clear instructions. Indeed for many years, the Department has treated quality control as a matter simply to be addressed in successive revisions of non-regulatory guidance issued for the MEP. However, the findings of pervasive problems with prior eligibility determinations underscore that more is needed with regard to documentation of the correctness of determinations on migratory child eligibility. While the proposed regulations on prospective re-interviewing in § 200.89(b), if finalized, would be an important step to help confirm, after the fact, whether eligibility determinations have been correctly made, it would not be a substitute for front-end, process-oriented quality controls to make sure those determinations are made correctly at the beginning of the process. Consequently, the Secretary proposes the requirements in § 200.89(d) to establish a clear set of both front-end, process-oriented quality controls and after-the-fact, product-oriented quality controls that SEAs and their local operating agencies or contractors would be required to use to improve and ensure the accuracy of child eligibility determinations for the MEP. The Department has for years included many of these elements in successive versions of non-regulatory guidance it has issued for the MEP. However, it is possible that because the Department has treated this matter as deserving only of guidance, some SEAs may have de-emphasized the pivotal importance of sound quality control procedures. Establishing such procedures now as a regulatory requirement governing an SEA's receipt and expenditure of MEP funds will help to ensure that SEAs examine whether or not they are adequately addressing some of the factors—such as poor or infrequent recruiter training and supervision, and lack of substantive review of COEs—that the national re-interviewing initiative and OIG have identified as contributing to the prevalence of incorrect eligibility determinations. Executive Order 12866 Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether this regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to the requirements of the Executive Order and subject to review by the OMB. Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may
(1)have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to as an “economically significant” rule);
(2)create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3)materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4)raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive order. The Secretary has determined that this regulatory action is significant under section 3(f)(4) of the Executive order. 1. Potential Costs and Benefits Under Executive Order 12866, we have assessed the potential costs and benefits of this regulatory action. The potential costs associated with the proposed regulations are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined to be necessary for administering this program effectively and efficiently. Elsewhere in this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section we identify and explain burdens specifically associated with information collection requirements. See the heading Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. In assessing the potential costs and benefits—both quantitative and qualitative—of this regulatory action, we have determined that the benefits would justify the costs. We have also determined that this regulatory action would not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions. Summary of Potential Costs and Benefits These proposed regulations require SEAs to establish specific procedures to standardize and improve the accuracy of program eligibility determinations and clarify requirements for development of comprehensive statewide needs assessments and service delivery plans. The primary impact of the regulations is on SEAs that receive MEP funds and the children who are eligible for services under the MEP. By requiring SEAs to establish procedures to improve the accuracy of their eligibility determinations, the regulations will ensure that program funds and the services they fund are directed only to children who are eligible to receive services and reduce the possibility that children who are not eligible for services receive program benefits. The regulations the Secretary proposes to issue through this notice would also add clarity where the statute is ambiguous or unclear. The Department estimates that the additional annual cost to recipients to comply with these regulations will be approximately $4.5 million: • Adding measurable program outcomes to the State comprehensive MEP service delivery plan [§ 200.83] will cost approximately $600 annually; • Re-interviewing samples of students [§ 200.89(b)] will cost approximately $220,000 annually; • Documenting the eligibility of migratory children, including the use of a standard COE [§ 200.89(c)] will cost approximately $2.8 million annually; and • Institution of specific quality control procedures [§ 200.89(d)] will cost approximately $1.5 million annually. This estimate is based on and further explained in the information collection package required under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and discussed in more detail elsewhere in this notice. The proposed regulations will not add significantly to the costs of implementing the MEP since we estimate that the SEAs are currently expending approximately these amounts implementing various eligibility determination activities, but the proposed regulations will add significantly to the consistency of eligibility determinations by standardizing the eligibility determination process nationally. The Department believes the activities required by the proposed regulations will be financed through the appropriation for Title I, Part C
(MEP)and will not impose a financial burden that SEAs and local educational agencies will have to meet from non-Federal resources. The proposed regulations will help maintain public confidence in the program and ensure its continued operational integrity. As discussed elsewhere in this notice, Department analyses have shown that, on average, close to 10 percent of the children identified by SEAs as eligible for services for school year 2003-04 did not meet the statutory eligibility criteria. The proposed regulations will provide a benefit by ensuring that program funds are directed only to eligible migratory children. Increased accuracy will also ensure that program funds are allocated in the proper amounts and to the locations where eligible children reside. If implementation of the regulations results in 10 percent of currently participating children being determined ineligible, then some $38 million annually (10 percent of the appropriation) would be redirected from services to statutorily ineligible children to serving children who meet the statutory criteria. Because the statute is intended to focus on eligible children who have a genuine need for services (as a result of having made a qualifying move), there is a clear societal benefit to ensuring that program funds are used only to serve eligible students. More specifically, society as a whole benefits when migratory children receive educational services targeted to their specific needs. As noted in numerous studies since the nineteen sixties, 1 the migratory children who are eligible to receive program benefits constitute a particularly needy and vulnerable school population. Migrant families tend to live in poverty, speak limited English, and lack access to preventive medical care. Few children from migrant families attend preschool, and they are often enrolled in high-poverty schools. Migratory youth are at high risk for dropping out of school without attaining a high school diploma. Access to education can help mitigate the effect of these risk factors. Preschool education prepares small children for the demands of elementary education and encourages parents to become active learners along with their children. Children who receive educational services targeted to address their specific needs are more likely to be successful in school and to receive other marginal services, such as vaccinations and health screenings, that are associated with school attendance. Youth who complete high school generally earn more in their lifetime than those who don't earn a high school diploma. These regulations benefit society because they require safeguards to ensure that the neediest migrant children will be identified and receive the services that will help them succeed in school. 1 See, for example, *Invisible Children: A portrait of migrant education in the United States,* National Commission on Migrant Education, U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Sept. 23, 1992; and *The same high standards for migrant students: Holding Title I schools accountable,* United States Department of Education, Washington, DC, 2002. There is also a potential cost to migratory children if these regulations are not enacted. In the absence of regulations, recipients have diluted the quantity and quality of services available to children who are legitimately eligible for services under the program by serving significant numbers of children who are not eligible. Since MEP services are only available to eligible children for a short period of time, preventing truly eligible migratory children from receiving the services they are entitled to may have an adverse effect on their educational attainment. 2. Clarity of the Regulations Executive Order 12866 and the Presidential memorandum on “Plain Language in Government Writing” require each agency to write regulations that are easy to understand. The Secretary invites comments on how to make these proposed regulations easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the following: • Are the requirements in the proposed regulations clearly stated? • Do the proposed regulations contain technical terms or other wording that interferes with their clarity? • Does the format of the proposed regulations (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce their clarity? • Would the proposed regulations be easier to understand if we divided them into more (but shorter) sections? (A “section” is preceded by the symbol “§” and a numbered heading; for example, § 200.81 Program Definitions.) • Could the description of the proposed regulations in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this preamble be more helpful in making the proposed regulations easier to understand? If so, how? • What else could we do to make the proposed regulations easier to understand? To send any comments that concern how the Department could make these proposed regulations easier to understand, see the instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the preamble. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification The Secretary certifies that these proposed regulations would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because these proposed regulations affect SEAs primarily. SEAs are not defined as “small entities” in the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The only small entities that could be subject to the proposed regulations would be small local educational agencies that receive MEP sub-grants from the SEA to act as “local operating agencies” under the MEP. In the case of these entities, as local operating agencies, they could be required to identify eligible migratory children; however, the costs of doing so would be financed through the State Title I, Part C MEP appropriation and would not impose a financial burden that a small entity would have to meet from non-Federal resources. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 The proposed regulations listed in the following chart contain information collection requirements. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), the Department of Education has submitted a copy of these sections to OMB for its review. Regulatory section Collection information Collection § 200.83 Requires SEAs to add measurable program outcomes into the comprehensive MEP State plan for service delivery “Migrant Education Program
(MEP)Regulations and Certificate of Eligibility (COE).” OMB No. 1910-0662. § 200.89(b)(1) Requires States to conduct retrospective re-interviewing “Migrant Education Program
(MEP)Regulations and Certificate of Eligibility (COE).” OMB No. 1910-0662. § 200.89(b)(2) Requires States to conduct retrospective re-interviewing “Migrant Education Program
(MEP)Regulations and Certificate of Eligibility (COE).” OMB No. 1910-0662. § 200.89(c) Requires States to document the eligibility of migratory children “Migrant Education Program
(MEP)Regulations and Certificate of Eligibility (COE).” OMB No. 1910-0662. § 200.89(d) Requires SEAs to establish a system of quality controls “Migrant Education Program
(MEP)Regulations and Certificate of Eligibility (COE).” OMB No. 1910-0662. Respondents to this collection consist of State or local educational agencies. The collection of information is necessary to accurately identify and serve eligible migratory children. The proposed frequency of response is no more than annually. The estimated total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden that will result from the collection of information is 510,456 hours. The estimated average burden hours per response are approximately 1,580 hours per each of 15 State respondents and 0.5 hours per each of 4,500 migrant parent respondents to address (on a one-time basis) the requirements of § 200.89(b)(1) for retrospective re-interviewing. We estimate that it will require approximately 152 hours per each of 49 State respondents and 0.5 hours per each of 2,450 migrant parent respondents to address (annually) the requirements of § 200.89(b)(2) for prospective re-interviewing. We estimate that it will require approximately 17,347 hours per each of 49 States and 1.5 hours per each of 300,000 parents (overall) to address the requirements of § 200.89(c) for documenting the eligibility of migratory children. We estimate that it will require approximately 1,220 hours per each of 49 States to address (annually) the requirements of § 200.89(d) to establish and implement adequate quality controls. We also estimate that the data burden associated with the proposed change in § 200.83 to add measurable program outcomes into the comprehensive MEP State plan for service delivery will not total more than one hour. If you want to comment on the information collection requirements, please address your comments to the Desk Officer for Education, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, and send via e-mail to *OIRA_DOCKET@omb.eop.gov* or via fax to
(202)395-6974. Commenters need only submit comments via one submission medium. You may also send a copy of these comments to the Department representative named in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. We consider your comments on these proposed collections of information in— • Deciding whether the proposed collections are necessary for the proper performance of our functions, including whether the information will have practical use; • Evaluating the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed collections, including the validity of our methodology and assumptions; • Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information we collect; and • Minimizing the burden on those who must respond. This includes exploring the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collections of information contained in these proposed regulations between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the **Federal Register** . Therefore, to ensure that OMB gives your comments full consideration, it is important that OMB receives the comments within 30 days of publication. This does not affect the deadline for your comments to us on the proposed regulations. Intergovernmental Review This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance. This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for this program. Federalism Executive Order 13132 requires us to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local elected officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications. “Federalism implications” means 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. The proposed regulations in §§ 200.81 through 200.89 may have federalism implications, as defined in Executive Order 13132, in that they will have some effect on the States and the operation of their State MEPs. It should be noted that several major components of the proposed regulations— *i.e.* , the need for all SEAs to complete the retrospective re-interviewing and the need for more and clearer eligibility definitions—were proposed to the Department by various State and local MEP staff in numerous public meetings over the last several years. We encourage State and local elected officials to review and provide comments on these proposed regulations. To facilitate review and comment by appropriate State and local officials, the Department will, aside from publication in the **Federal Register** , post the NPRM to our MEP Web site and to the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education
(OESE)Web site; make a specific email posting via a special listserv that is sent to each MEP State Director; and make a special posting to a more general MEP listserv that is accessed by State and local MEP staff other than State Directors. Electronic Access to This Document You may view this document, as well as all other Department of Education documents published in the **Federal Register** , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format
(PDF)on the Internet at the following site: *http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister* . To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at
(202)512-1530. You may also view this document in text or PDF at the following site: *http://www.ed.gov/programs/mep/legislation.html* . Note: The official version of this document is the document published in the **Federal Register** . Free Internet access to the official edition of the **Federal Register** and the Code of Federal Regulations is available on GPO Access at: *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html* . (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 84.011: Title I, Education of Migrant Children.) List of Subjects in 34 CFR Part 200 Administrative practice and procedure, Adult education, Allocation of funds, Children, Coordination, Education of children with disabilities, Education of disadvantaged children, Elementary and secondary education, Eligibility, Family, Family-centered education, Grant programs—education, Indians education, Institutions of higher education, Interstate coordination, Intrastate coordination, Juvenile delinquency, Local educational agencies, Local operating agencies, Migratory children, Migratory workers, Neglected, Nonprofit private agencies, Private schools, Public agencies, Quality control, Re-interviewing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, State-administered programs, State educational agencies, Subgrants. Dated: May 1, 2007. Kerri L. Briggs, Acting Assistant Secretary, for Elementary and Secondary Education. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Secretary proposes to amend part 200 of title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows: PART 200—TITLE I—IMPROVING THE ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT OF THE DISADVANTAGED 1. The authority citation for part 200 continues to read as follows: Authority: 20 U.S.C 6301 through 6578, unless otherwise noted. 2. Revise § 200.81 to read as follows: § 200.81 Program definitions. The following definitions apply to programs and projects operated under subpart C of this part:
(a)*Agricultural work* means the production or initial processing of crops, dairy products, poultry, or livestock, as well as the cultivation or harvesting of trees. It consists of work performed generally for wages or in rare cases personal subsistence.
(b)*Fishing work* means the catching or initial processing of fish or shellfish or the raising or harvesting of fish or shellfish at fish farms. It consists of work performed generally for wages or in rare cases personal subsistence.
(c)*In order to obtain,* when used to describe the purpose of a move, means that one of the purposes of the move is to seek or obtain temporary employment or seasonal employment in agricultural work or fishing work. A worker has not moved in order to obtain temporary employment or seasonal employment in agricultural work or fishing work if the worker would have changed residence even if temporary employment or seasonal employment in agricultural work or fishing work were unavailable.
(d)*Migratory agricultural worker* means a person who, in the preceding 36 months, has moved from one school district to another, or from one administrative area to another within a State that is comprised of a single school district, in order to obtain temporary employment or seasonal employment in agricultural work where the temporary employment or seasonal employment is a principal means of livelihood.
(e)*Migratory child* means a child—
(1)Who is a migratory agricultural worker or a migratory fisher; or
(2)Who, in the preceding 36 months, in order to accompany or join a parent, spouse, or guardian who is a migratory agricultural worker or a migratory fisher—
(i)Has moved from one school district to another;
(ii)In a State that is comprised of a single school district, has moved from one administrative area to another within such district; or
(iii)As the child of a migratory fisher, resides in a school district of more than 15,000 square miles, and migrates a distance of 20 miles or more to a temporary residence.
(f)*Migratory fisher* means a person who, in the preceding 36 months, has moved from one school district to another, or from one administrative area to another within a State that is comprised of a single school district, in order to obtain temporary employment or seasonal employment in fishing work where the temporary employment or seasonal employment is a principal means of livelihood. This definition also includes a person who, in the preceding 36 months, resided in a school district of more than 15,000 square miles and moved a distance of 20 miles or more to a temporary residence in order to obtain temporary employment or seasonal employment in fishing work where the temporary employment or seasonal employment is a principal means of livelihood.
(g)*Moved* or *Move* means that a change from one residence to another residence was made in order to obtain temporary employment or seasonal employment in agricultural work or fishing work. This definition does not include travel or moves that occur during or after a vacation or holiday, or for other personal reasons unrelated to seeking or obtaining temporary employment or seasonal employment in agricultural work or fishing work even if this work is subsequently sought or obtained.
(h)*Personal subsistence* means that the worker and his or her family perform such work in order to consume the crops, dairy products, or livestock they produce or the fish they catch in order to survive.
(i)*Principal means of livelihood* means that temporary employment or seasonal employment in agricultural work or fishing work plays an important part in providing a living for the worker and his or her family.
(j)*Seasonal employment* means employment that is dependent on the cycles of nature due to the specific meteorological or climatic conditions.
(k)*Temporary employment* means employment that lasts for a limited period of time, usually a few months.
(1)For example, it includes employment where:
(i)The employer hires the worker for a limited time frame (e.g., for a three-month period). For example, a poultry processing plant hires extra workers during the months of September, October, and November to handle the increase in turkey production before Thanksgiving. In this example, an employer hires temporary workers during a period of peak demand.
(ii)The employer hires the worker to perform a task that has a clearly defined beginning and end (e.g., digging an irrigation ditch or building a fence) and is not one of a series of activities that is typical of permanent employment.
(iii)The worker does not intend to remain employed indefinitely (e.g., the worker states that he plans to leave the job after four months).
(2)It does not include employment that is constant and year-round, except that an SEA may deem specific types of employment to be temporary if it documents through an annual survey that, given the nature of the work, virtually no workers who perform this work remain employed more than 12 months (e.g., they usually remain employed for only a few months), even though the work may be available on a year-round basis. Such surveys must be conducted separately for each employer and job site (i.e., each farm or processing plant). (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6391-6399, 6571) 3. Amend § 200.83 as follows: a. Redesignate paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4) as paragraphs (a)(4) and (a)(5), respectively, and add a new paragraph (a)(3). b. Revise the introductory text of redesignated paragraph (a)(4). The revision and addition read as follows: § 200.83 Responsibilities of SEAs to implement projects through a comprehensive needs assessment and a comprehensive State plan for service delivery.
(a)* * *
(3)*Measurable program outcomes.* The plan must include the measurable program outcomes (i.e., objectives) that a State's migrant education program will produce to meet the identified unique needs of migratory children and help migratory children achieve the State's performance targets identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
(4)*Service delivery.* The plan must describe the strategies that the SEA will pursue on a statewide basis to achieve the measurable program outcomes in paragraph (a)(3) of this section by addressing— 4. Add § 200.89 to read as follows: § 200.89 MEP allocations; Re-interviewing; Eligibility documentation; and Quality control.
(a)*Allocation of funds under the MEP for fiscal year
(FY)2006 and subsequent years.*
(1)For purposes of calculating the size of MEP awards for each SEA for FY 2006 and subsequent years, the Secretary determines each SEA's FY 2002 base allocation amount under section 1303(a)(2) and
(b)of the Act by applying, to the counts of eligible migratory children that the SEA submitted for 2000-2001, the defect rate that the SEA reports to the Secretary and that the Secretary accepts based on a statewide re-interviewing process that the SEA has conducted.
(2)The Secretary conditions an SEA's receipt of final FY 2006 and subsequent-year MEP awards on the SEA's completion of a thorough re-documentation of the eligibility of all children (and the removal of all ineligible children) included in the State's 2006-2007 MEP child counts.
(b)*Responsibilities of SEAs for re-interviewing to ensure the eligibility of children under the MEP—(1) Retrospective re-interviewing.*
(i)As a condition for the continued receipt of MEP funds in FY 2006 and subsequent years, an SEA that received such funds in FY 2005 but did not implement a statewide re-interviewing process and submit a defect rate accepted by the Secretary under § 200.89(a) must, within six months of the effective date of these regulations, or as subsequently required by the Secretary under paragraph (b)(2)(vii) of this section—
(A)Conduct a statewide re-interviewing process consistent with paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section; and
(B)Consistent with paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section, report to the Secretary on the procedures it has employed, its findings, its defect rate, and corrective actions it has taken or will take to avoid a recurrence of any problems found.
(ii)At a minimum, the re-interviewing process must include—
(A)Selection of a sample of identified migratory children (from the child counts of a particular year as directed by the Secretary) randomly selected on a statewide basis to allow the State to estimate the statewide proportion of eligible migratory children at a 95 percent confidence level with a confidence interval of plus or minus 5 percent.
(B)Use of independent re-interviewers (i.e., interviewers who are neither SEA or local operating agency staff members working to administer or operate the State MEP nor any other persons who worked on the initial eligibility determinations being tested) trained to conduct personal interviews and to understand and apply program eligibility requirements; and
(C)Calculation of a defect rate based on the number of sampled children determined ineligible as a percentage of those sampled children whose parent/guardian was actually re-interviewed.
(iii)At a minimum, the report must include—
(A)An explanation of the sample and procedures used in the SEA's re-interviewing process;
(B)The findings of the re-interviewing process, including the determined defect rate;
(C)An acknowledgement that, consistent with § 200.89(a), the Secretary will adjust the child counts for 2000-2001 and subsequent years downward based on the defect rate that the Secretary accepts;
(D)A summary of the types of defective eligibility determinations that the SEA identified through the re-interviewing process;
(E)A summary of the reasons why each type of defective eligibility determination occurred; and
(F)A summary of the corrective actions the SEA will take to address the identified problems.
(2)*Prospective re-interviewing.* As part of the system of quality controls identified in § 200.89(d), an SEA that receives MEP funds must, on an annual basis, validate current-year child eligibility determinations through the re-interview of a randomly selected sample of children previously identified as migratory. In conducting these re-interviews, an SEA must—
(i)Use, at least once every three years, one or more independent interviewers (i.e., interviewers who are neither SEA or local operating agency staff members working to administer or operate the State MEP nor any other persons who worked on the initial eligibility determinations being tested) trained to conduct personal interviews and to understand and apply program eligibility requirements;
(ii)Select a random sample of identified migratory children so that a sufficient number of eligibility determinations in the current year are tested on a statewide basis or within strata associated with identified risk factors (e.g., experience of recruiters, size or growth in local migratory child population, effectiveness of local quality control procedures) in order to help identify possible problems with the State's child eligibility determinations;
(iii)Conduct re-interviews with the parents or guardians of the children in the sample. States must use a face-to-face approach to conduct these re-interviews unless extraordinary circumstances make face-to-face re-interviews impractical and necessitate the use of an alternative method of re-interviewing;
(iv)Determine and document in writing whether the child eligibility determination and the information on which the determination was based were true and correct;
(v)Stop serving any children found not to be eligible and remove them from the data base used to compile counts of eligible children;
(vi)Certify and report to the Department the results of re-interviewing in the SEA's annual report of the number of migratory children in the State required by the Secretary; and
(vii)Implement corrective actions or improvements to address the problems identified by the State (including the identification and removal of other ineligible children in the total population) and any corrective actions required by the Secretary, including retrospective re-interviewing.
(c)*Responsibilities of SEAs to document the eligibility of migratory children.*
(1)An SEA and its operating agencies must use the Certificate of Eligibility
(COE)form established by the Secretary to document the State's determination of the eligibility of migratory children.
(2)In addition to the form required under paragraph
(a)of this section, the SEA and its operating agencies must develop and maintain such additional documentation as may be necessary to confirm that each child found eligible for this program meets all of the eligibility definitions in § 200.81.
(3)An SEA is responsible for the accuracy of all the determinations of the eligibility of migratory children identified in the State.
(d)*Responsibilities of an SEA to establish and implement a system of quality controls for the proper identification and recruitment of eligible migratory children.* An SEA must establish and implement a system of quality controls for the proper identification and recruitment of eligible migratory children on a statewide basis. At a minimum, this system of quality controls must include the following components:
(1)Training to ensure that recruiters and all other staff involved in determining eligibility and in conducting quality control procedures know the requirements for accurately determining and documenting child eligibility under the MEP.
(2)Supervision and annual review and evaluation of the identification and recruitment practices of individual recruiters.
(3)A formal process for resolving eligibility questions raised by recruiters and their supervisors and for transmitting responses to all local operating agencies in written form.
(4)An examination by qualified individuals at the SEA or local operating agency level of each COE to verify that the written documentation is sufficient and that, based on the recorded data, the child is eligible for MEP services.
(5)A process for the SEA to validate that eligibility determinations were properly made, including conducting prospective re-interviewing as described in § 200.89(b)(2).
(6)Documentation that supports the SEA's implementation of this quality-control system and of a record of actions taken to improve the system where periodic reviews and evaluations indicate a need to do so.
(7)A process for implementing corrective action if the SEA finds COEs that do not sufficiently document a child's eligibility for the MEP, or in response to internal audit findings and recommendations. (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6391-6399, 6571, 7844(d); 18 U.S.C. 1001) [FR Doc. E7-8580 Filed 5-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R07-OAR-2007-0095; FRL-8309-4] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Missouri AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve an amendment to the Missouri State Implementation Plan (SIP). This action approves an amendment to the SIP-approved Doe Run Herculaneum Consent Judgment to remove language specifying the exact bag technology to be used in the baghouses. Related performance standard requirements will remain unchanged. This action is independent and does not affect the revision to the Missouri SIP due in April 2007, in response to the SIP Call issued April 14, 2006, to bring the area of Herculaneum into compliance with the lead National Ambient Air Quality Standard. DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by June 4, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2007-0095 by one of the following methods: 1. *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. *E-mail: yoshimura.gwen@epa.gov.* 3. *Mail:* Gwen Yoshimura, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. 4. *Hand Delivery or Courier.* Deliver your comments to Gwen Yoshimura, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays. Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this **Federal Register** for detailed instructions on how to submit comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gwen Yoshimura at
(913)551-7073, or by e-mail at *yoshimura.gwen@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section of the **Federal Register** , EPA is approving the state's SIP revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial revision amendment and anticipates no relevant adverse comments to this action. The revisions will not increase emissions and do not affect the stringency of the control requirement. Additionally, the revisions have gone through the Missouri approval process, including a public hearing and opportunity for public comment. EPA was the only party to provide comments during Missouri's comment period. Therefore, we do not anticipate any adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no relevant adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated in relation to this action. If EPA receives relevant adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on part of this rule and if that part can be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those parts of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the rules section of this **Federal Register** . Dated: April 26, 2007. John B. Askew, Regional Administrator, Region 7. [FR Doc. E7-8566 Filed 5-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P 72 86 Friday, May 4, 2007 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service [Docket No. AMS-FV-07-0063; FV07-902-1NC] 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 an extension and revision to a currently approved generic information collection for marketing orders covering fruit crops. DATES: Comments on this notice must be received by July 3, 2007. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR COMMENTS: Contact Valerie L. Emmer-Scott, Marketing Specialist, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 0237, room 1406-S. Washington, DC 20250-0237; Tel:
(202)205-2829, Fax:
(202)720-8938, E-mail: *moab.docketclerk@usda.gov,* or Internet: *http://www.regulations.gov.* Comments should reference the docket number and the date and page number of this issue of the **Federal Register** and will be made available for public inspection in the Office of the Docket Clerk during regular business hours, or can be viewed at: *http://www.ams.usda.gov/fv/moab.html.* Small businesses may request information on this notice by contacting Jay Guerber, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., STOP 0237, room 1406-S, Washington, DC, 20250-0237; telephone
(202)720-2491, Fax:
(202)720-8938, or E-mail: *Jay.Guerber@usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Marketing Orders for Fruit Crops. *OMB Number:* 0581-0189. *Expiration Date of Approval:* September 30, 2007. *Type of Request:* Extension and Revision of a currently approved information collection. *Abstract:* Marketing order programs provide an opportunity for producers of fresh fruits, vegetables and specialty crops, in specified production areas, to work together to solve marketing problems that cannot be solved individually. This notice covers the following marketing order program citations 7 CFR parts 905, 906, 915, 916, 917, 920, 922, 923, 924, 925, 927, and 929. Marketing order No. 931, “Fresh Bartlett Pears Grown in Oregon and Washington”, previously included in this information collection, has been consolidated into Marketing Order No. 927, by order amendment effective May 21, 2005, and as published in the **Federal Register** on May 20, 2005 [70 FR 29388]. Order regulations help ensure adequate supplies of high quality product and adequate returns to producers. Under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 (Act), as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674) industries enter into marketing order programs. The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to oversee the order operations and issue regulations recommended by a committee of representatives from each commodity industry. The information collection requirements in this request are essential to carry out the intent of the Act, to provide the respondents the type of service they request, and to administer the marketing order programs. Under the Act, orders may authorize the following: Production and marketing research, including paid advertising; volume regulations; reserves, including pools and producer allotments; container regulations; and quality control. Assessments are levied on handlers regulated under the marketing orders. Several forms are required to be filed by USDA to enable its administration of each program. These include forms covering the selection process for industry members to serve on a marketing order's committee or board and ballots used in referenda to amend or continue marketing order programs. Under Federal marketing orders, producers and handlers are nominated by their peers to serve as representatives on a committee or board which administers each program. Nominees must provide information on their qualifications to serve on the committee or board. Nominees are selected by the Secretary. Formal rulemaking amendments must be approved in referenda conducted by USDA and the Secretary. For the purposes of this action, ballots are considered information collections and are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. If an order is amended, handlers are asked to sign an agreement indicating their willingness to abide by the provisions of the amended order. Some forms are required to be filed with the committee or board. The orders and their rules and regulations authorize the respective commodities' committees and boards, the agencies responsible for local administration of the orders, to require handlers and producers to submit certain information. Much of the information is compiled in aggregate and provided to the respective industries to assist in marketing decisions. The committees and boards have developed forms as a means for persons to file required information relating to supplies, shipments, and dispositions of their respective commodities, and other information needed to effectively carry out the purpose of the Act and their respective orders, and these forms are utilized accordingly. The forms covered under this information collection require the minimum information necessary to effectively carry out the requirements of the orders, and their use is necessary to fulfill the intent of the Act as expressed in the orders rules and regulations. The information collected is used only by authorized employees of the committees and authorized representatives of the USDA, including AMS, Fruit and Vegetable Programs' regional and headquarters' staff. Authorized committee or board employees are the primary users of the information and AMS is the secondary user. *Estimate of Burden:* Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average .28 hours per response. *Respondents:* Producers, handlers, processors, cooperatives, and public members. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 16,043 *Estimated Number of Responses:* 30,604 *Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent:* 1.91 *Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents:* 8,419 hours. *Comments:* Comments are invited on:
(1)Whether the proposed collection of the 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 through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments should reference this docket number and the appropriate marketing order, and be mailed to the Docket Clerk, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., STOP 0237, room 1406-S, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Fax
(202)720-8938; or E-mail: *moab.docketclerk@usda.gov* or *www.regulations.gov.* Comments should reference the docket number and the date and page number of this issue of the **Federal Register** . All comments received will be available for public inspection in the Office of the Docket Clerk during regular USDA business hours at 1400 Independence Ave., SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC, room 1406-S, or can be viewed at: *http://www.ams.usda.gov/fv/moab.html.* 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. Dated: May 1, 2007. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. 07-2203 Filed 5-1-07; 2:23 pm]
Connectionstraces to 61
Traces to 61 documents
U.S. Code
61 references not yet in our index
  • 13 CFR 120
  • Pub. L. 108-447
  • 5 USC 601-612
  • 15 CFR 705
  • 15 CFR 768
  • 15 CFR 730
  • Pub. L. 106-178
  • Pub. L. 107-178
  • 114 Stat. 38
  • Pub. L. 109-112
  • 119 Stat. 2366
  • Pub. L. 109-353
  • 120 Stat. 2015
  • 15 CFR 744
  • 15 CFR 747
  • 15 CFR 754
  • 15 CFR 756
  • 15 CFR 760
  • 15 CFR 766
  • 10 USC 7430(e)
  • Pub. L. 108-175
  • Pub. L. 106-387
  • Pub. L. 107-56
  • 15 CFR 736
  • Pub. L. 108-11
  • 117 Stat. 559
  • 15 CFR 770
  • 15 CFR 772
  • 40 CFR 1508.4
  • 30 CFR 203
  • 30 CFR 250
  • 30 CFR 251
  • 30 CFR 260
  • 30 CFR 253
  • 30 CFR 254
  • 30 CFR 256
  • 33 CFR 100
  • 33 CFR 100.507
  • 33 CFR 100.533
  • 33 CFR 117
+ 21 more
Citation graph
cites case law
Unknown
Final rule
U.S.C.§ 636
U.S.C.§ 634
Fed. Reg.Notices
Fed. Reg.Notices
Fed. Reg.Proposed Rules
U.S.C.§ 604
U.S.C.§ 3717
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 3501
Cite13 CFR 120
Pub. L.Pub. L. 108-447
Cite5 USC 601-612
Cites 122 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

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

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