Rules and Regulations. Statement of Policy
33,264 words·~151 min read·
/register/2007/06/07/07-2818A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 3410-01-M FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 11 CFR Part 104 [Notice 2007-13] Statement of Policy Regarding Treasurers' Best Efforts To Obtain, Maintain, and Submit Information as Required by the Federal Election Campaign Act AGENCY: Federal Election Commission. ACTION: Statement of Policy. SUMMARY: The Federal Election Commission (the “Commission”) is issuing a Policy Statement to clarify its enforcement policy with respect to the circumstances under which it intends to consider a political committee and its treasurer to be in compliance with the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the Federal Election Campaign Act, as amended (“FECA”).
Section 432(i) of FECA provides that when the treasurer of a political committee demonstrates that best efforts were used to obtain, maintain, and submit the information required by FECA, any report or records of such committee shall be considered in compliance with FECA or the statutes governing the public financing of Presidential candidates. In the past, the Commission has interpreted this section to apply only to a treasurer's efforts to obtain required information from contributors to a political committee, and not to maintaining information or to submitting reports.
However, the district court in *Lovely* v. *FEC* , 307 F. Supp. 2d 294 (D. Mass. 2004), held that the Commission should consider whether a treasurer used best efforts under FECA with regard to efforts made to submit a report in a timely manner. This Policy Statement makes clear that the Commission intends to apply FECA's best efforts provision to treasurers' and committees' efforts to obtain, maintain, and submit information and records to the Commission consistent with the holding of the Federal court in *Lovely* .
Further information is provided in the supplementary information that follows. DATES: *Effective Date:* June 7, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ron B. Katwan, Assistant General Counsel, or Ms. Margaret G. Perl, Attorney, 999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 20463,
(202)694-1650 or
(800)424-9530. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background A. Statutory and Regulatory Provisions FECA states the “best efforts defense” in 2 U.S.C. 432(i) as follows: When the treasurer of a political committee shows that best efforts have been used to obtain, maintain, and submit the information required by this Act for the political committee, any report or any records of such committee shall be considered in compliance with this Act or chapter 95 or chapter 96 of title 26. The Commission implemented this provision in 11 CFR 104.7(a) with regulatory language virtually identical to the statutory provision: When the treasurer of a political committee shows that best efforts have been used to obtain, maintain and submit the information required by the Act for the political committee, any report of such committee shall be considered in compliance with the Act. Paragraph
(b)of 11 CFR 104.7 specifies the actions that treasurers of a political committee must take to demonstrate that they have exercised best efforts to obtain and report the “identification” of each person whose contribution(s) to the political committee and its affiliated political committees aggregate in excess of $200 in a calendar year (or in an election cycle in the case of an authorized committee). 1 “Identification” includes the person's full name, mailing address, occupation, and name of employer. *See* 11 CFR 100.12. 1 The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit referred to 11 CFR 104.7(b) as a “Commission regulation interpreting what political committees must do under [FECA] to demonstrate that they have exercised their ‘best efforts’ to encourage donors to disclose certain personally identifying information.” *Republican Nat'l Comm.* v. *FEC* , 76 F.3d 400, 403 (D.C. Cir. 1996). Both the language of FECA and the Commission's regulation at 11 CFR 104.7(a) apply the best efforts defense broadly to efforts by treasurers to “obtain, maintain and submit” the information required to be disclosed by FECA. In past enforcement actions, however, the Commission has interpreted this statutory and regulatory language to apply only to efforts to “obtain” contributor information. 2 This interpretation draws from an example contained in the provision's legislative history. *See* H.R. Rep. No. 96-422, at 14
(1979)(“One illustration of the application of this [best efforts] test is the current requirement for a committee to report the occupation and principal place of business of individual contributors who give in excess of $100”). 2 In 1980, the Commission explained that “[i]n determining whether or not a committee has exercised ‘best efforts,’ the Commission's primary focus will be on the system established by the committee for *obtaining* disclosure information.” *Amendments to Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971; Regulations Transmitted to Congress* , 45 FR 15080, 15086 (Mar. 7, 1980) (emphasis added). In 1993, the Commission referred to “the requirement of [FECA] that treasurers of political committees exercise best efforts to obtain, maintain and report the complete identification of each contributor whose contributions aggregate more than $200 per calendar year.” *Final Rule on Recordkeeping and Reporting by Political Committees: Best Efforts* , 58 FR 57725, 57725 (Oct. 27, 1993). And in 1997, the Commission stated that “[t]reasurers of political committees must be able to show they have exercised their best efforts to obtain, maintain and report [contributor identification information].” *Final Rule on Recordkeeping and Reporting by Political Committees: Best Efforts* , 62 FR 23335, 23335 (Apr. 30, 1997). In 2003, the Commission asserted in the *Lovely* litigation: “the Commission has long interpreted the best efforts provision as creating a limited safe harbor regarding committees' obligations to report substantive information that may be beyond their ability to obtain.” FEC Supplemental Brief at 1, *Lovely* (Civil Action No. 02-12496-PBS). Furthermore, “when Congress originally enacted the ‘best efforts’ provision, it could not have been more clear that it was creating a limited defense regarding the inability to obtain specific information that was supposed to be disclosed, not the failure to file reports on time.” *Id* . at 12-13. The *Lovely* court summarized the Commission's argument: “The FEC in its briefing claims that it limits the reach of the best efforts statute to best efforts to ‘obtain’ contributor information.” *Lovely* , 307 F. Supp. 2d at 300. B. The Lovely Decision In *Lovely* , a political committee challenged an administrative fine the Commission had assessed for failing to file timely a report. The committee argued that it had made best efforts to file the report and that this constituted a complete defense to the fine. The court concluded that the plain language of the Act requires the Commission to entertain a best efforts defense in the Administrative Fine Program (“AFP”), and that it was unclear from the record if the Commission had done so. In so holding, the court drew on the legislative history of the best efforts provision, and specifically noted the 1979 amendments to FECA that made the best efforts defense “applicable to the entirety of FECA, rather than merely to one subsection.” *Lovely* , 307 F. Supp. 2d at 299. The court quoted the provision's legislative history: The best efforts test is *specifically made applicable to recordkeeping and reporting requirements in both Title 2 and Title 26* . The test of whether a committee has complied with the statutory requirements is whether its treasurer has exercised his or her best efforts to obtain, maintain, and submit the information required by the Act. If the treasurer has exercised his or her best efforts, the committee is in compliance. Accordingly, *the application of the best efforts test is central to the enforcement of the recordkeeping and reporting provisions of the Act* . It is the opinion of the Committee that the Commission has not adequately incorporated the best efforts test into its administration procedures, such as the systematic review of reports. *Id* . (emphasis added) (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 96-422, at 14 (1979), *reprinted in* 1979 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2860, 2873). After remand of the *Lovely* case, the Commission acknowledged in its Statement of Reasons that “[t]he Court held that FECA's ‘best efforts’ provision . . . requires the Commission to consider whether a committee's treasurer exercised best efforts to submit timely disclosure reports.” *Statement of Reasons in Administrative Fines Case #549* at 1 (Oct. 4, 2005), available at *http://www.fec.gov/law/law_rulemakings.shtml* under the heading “Best Efforts in Administrative Fine Challenges.” (“ *Lovely Statement of Reasons* ”). Upon further review, the Commission determined that the committee's treasurer had not made best efforts in filing the report in question and assessed a civil money penalty. *Id* . at 5. C. Proposed Policy Statement The Commission sought public comment on a Proposed Statement of Policy that would clarify the Commission's current enforcement practice to consider whether the treasurer and committee made best efforts to obtain, maintain or submit the required information under 11 CFR 104.7(a). *See Proposed Statement of Policy Regarding Treasurer's Best Efforts to Obtain, Maintain, and Submit Information as Required by the Federal Election Campaign Act* , 71 FR 71084 (Dec. 8, 2006). The Commission received two comments, which are available at *http://www.fec.gov/law/policy.shtml* under the heading “Best Efforts.” One comment made several recommendations as to how the Commission could further clarify the best efforts defense by incorporating the business management concept of “best practices” regarding corporate operation, financial controls, risk prevention and risk assessment. The comment also suggested that the Policy Statement provide guidance to political committees and treasurers regarding what conduct would qualify under the best efforts defense, and not rely solely on examples of conduct that would not qualify under the defense. The other comment was not relevant to this Policy Statement. II. Policy Regarding the Best Efforts Defense Although the court decision in *Lovely* only concerned permissible defenses within the AFP, the Commission has decided to adopt the court's interpretation of the best efforts defense with regard to other enforcement matters. While the Commission's enforcement practices formerly reflected the view that the best efforts defense was limited to obtaining certain contributor identification information ( *see* note 2 above) the Commission recognizes that this narrow application of the defense in previous enforcement matters derives from a single example of the defense's application in its 1979 legislative history. 3 In light of these considerations, the Commission hereby notifies the public and the regulated community through this Policy Statement that henceforth it intends to apply the best efforts defense of 2 U.S.C. 432(i), as promulgated at 11 CFR 104.7, not only to efforts made to obtain contributor information as currently set forth in section 104.7(b), 4 but also to efforts made to obtain other information, to maintain all information required by the statute, and to submit required information on disclosure reports. 3 A respondent's assertion in an enforcement matter that best efforts were made to maintain and/or submit required information was formerly considered by the Commission to be a mitigating factor, but not an outright defense to an alleged violation of the recordkeeping and reporting requirements. 4 As stated above, the standards for determining whether the best efforts defense is applicable in the context of obtaining specific contributor information are set forth at current 11 CFR 104.7(b). This Policy Statement does not affect or modify those standards. This Policy Statement does not affect the Commission's AFP, but applies only to matters in the Commission's traditional enforcement and audit programs, and in the Alternative Dispute Resolution program (“ADR”). The Commission recently completed a rulemaking adding a best efforts defense to the enumerated defenses available in the AFP. *See Final Rules for Best Efforts in Administrative Fines Challenges* , 72 FR 14662 (Mar. 29, 2007). In that rulemaking, the Commission incorporated the statutory best efforts standard, while taking into account the unique streamlined nature of the AFP. *See id* . at 14666. The Commission considers best efforts to be “a standard that has diligence as its essence.” E. Allan Farnsworth, *On Trying to Keep One's Promises: The Duty of Best Efforts in Contract Law* , 46 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 1, 8 (1984). As the Commission explained in its *Lovely Statement of Reasons* at 2: Section 432(i) creates a safe harbor for treasurers who “show[] that best efforts” have been made to report the information required to be reported by the Act. “Best” is an adjective of the superlative degree. “Best efforts” must therefore require more than “some” or “good” efforts. Congress's choice of a “best efforts” standard, rather than a “good faith” standard, suggests that a treasurer cannot rely upon his or her earnestness or state of mind to gain the shelter of Section 432(i)'s safe harbor. Rather, a treasurer has the burden of showing that the actions taken—the efforts he or she made to comply with applicable reporting deadlines—meet the statute's demanding benchmark. With respect to 11 CFR 104.7(a), the Commission intends to consider a committee's affirmative steps to keep adequate records and make accurate reports, as well as the reasons for its failure to obtain, maintain, or submit information properly. The Commission generally intends to consider the following:
(1)The actions taken, or systems implemented, by the committee to ensure that required information is obtained, maintained, and submitted;
(2)the cause of the failure to obtain, maintain, or submit the information or reports at issue; and
(3)the specific efforts of the committee to obtain, maintain, and submit the information or reports at issue. This general policy does not modify other guidance and policy standards issued by the Commission addressing specific circumstances, such as the *Internal Controls for Political Committees,* and *Policy Statement Regarding Safe Harbor for Misreporting Due to Embezzlement,* 72 FR 16695 (Apr. 5, 2007), both available at *http://www.fec.gov/law/policy.shtml* . The Commission will generally conclude that a committee has shown best efforts if the committee establishes the following: • At the time of its failure, the committee took relevant precautions such as double checking recordkeeping entries, regular reconciliation of committee records with bank statements, and regular backup of all electronic files; • The committee had trained staff responsible for obtaining, maintaining, and submitting campaign finance information in the requirements of the Act as well as the committee's procedures, recordkeeping systems, and filing systems; • The failure was a result of reasonably unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the committee, such as a failure of Commission computers or Commission-provided software; severe weather or other disaster-related incidents; a widespread disruption of information transmission over the Internet not caused by any failure of the committee's computer systems or Internet service provider; or delivery failures caused by mail/courier services such as U.S. Postal Service or Federal Express; and • Upon discovering the failure, the committee promptly took all reasonable additional steps to expeditiously file any unfiled reports and correct any inaccurate reports. In contrast, the Commission will generally conclude that a committee has not met the best efforts standard if the committee's failure to obtain, maintain, or submit information or reports is due to any of the following: • Unavailability, inexperience, illness, negligence or error of committee staff, agents, counsel or connected organization(s); • The failure of a committee's computer system; • Delays caused by committee vendors or contractors; • A committee's failure to know or understand the recordkeeping and filing requirements of the Act, or the Act's filing dates; or • A committee's failure to use Commission-or vendor-provided software properly. Under this policy, the Commission intends to consider the best efforts of a committee under section 432(i) when reviewing all violations of the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of FECA, whether arising in its traditional enforcement docket (Matters Under Review), audits, or the ADR Program. The best efforts standard is an affirmative defense and the burden rests with the political committee and its treasurer to present evidence sufficient to demonstrate that best efforts were made. The Commission does not intend to consider the best efforts defense in any enforcement or ADR matter, or in an audit unless a respondent or audited committee asserts the facts that form the basis of that defense. Effective as of this date, the Commission intends to apply the best efforts standard to all matters currently before the Commission in which a respondent has already asserted such a defense, and any matters in the future involving treasurers' and political committees' obligation to obtain, maintain, and submit information or reports. When treasurers make a sufficient showing of best efforts, the treasurers or committees shall be considered in compliance with FECA. The above provides general guidance concerning the applicability of the Commission's best efforts defense and announces the general course of action that the Commission intends to follow. This Policy Statement sets forth the Commission's intentions concerning the exercise of its discretion in its enforcement and audit programs. However, the Commission retains that discretion and will exercise it as appropriate with respect to the facts and circumstances of each matter or audit it considers. Consequently, this Policy Statement does not bind the Commission or any member of the general public. As such, it does not constitute an agency regulation requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunities for public participation, prior publication, and delay in effective date under 5 U.S.C. 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). The provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, which apply when notice and comment are required by the APA or another statute, are not applicable. Dated: June 1, 2007. Robert D. Lenhard, Chairman, Federal Election Commission. FR Doc. E7-10997 Filed 6-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6715-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of the Comptroller of the Currency 12 CFR Part 32 [Docket ID: OCC-2007-0011] RIN 1557-AD03 Special Lending Limits for Residential Real Estate Loans, Small Business Loans, and Small Farm Loans AGENCY: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Treasury. ACTION: Interim rule, request for comment. SUMMARY: The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
(OCC)is amending Part 32 to permanently incorporate special lending limits for 1-4 family residential real estate loans, small business loans, and small farm loans or extensions of credit. These special lending limits have, since 2001, been available to certain eligible national banks through a lending limits pilot program (pilot program). Under the pilot program, an eligible national bank with a main office located in a state that has a lending limit for residential real estate, small business, or small farm loans that is higher than the current Federal limit may apply to take part in the pilot program and make use of the higher limit. The OCC has found that banks in the pilot program, and loans made under the program, have operated in a safe and sound manner since 2001. Accordingly, this interim rule amends Part 32 to make permanent the special limits set forth in the pilot program. This interim rule removes the expiration date for the pilot program and makes one change to the special lending limits available under the pilot program. The OCC also seeks comment on any other changes that should be considered for the final rule. As in the past, only eligible banks can use the special limits. Those banks already approved to participate in the pilot program may continue to use the special lending limits and need not submit a new application to do so. DATES: *Effective Date:* June 7, 2007. Comments must be received by July 9, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal—“Regulations.gov”:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov,* select “Comptroller of the Currency” from the agency drop-down menu, then click “Submit.” In the “Docket ID” column, select “OCC-2007-0011” to submit or view public comments and to view supporting and related materials for this interim rule. The “User Tips” link at the top of the Regulations.gov home page provides information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for submitting or viewing public comments, viewing other supporting and related materials, and viewing the docket after the close of the comment period. • *E-mail: regs.comments@occ.treas.gov.* • *Fax:*
(202)874-4448. • *Mail:* Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 250 E Street, SW., Mail Stop 1-5, Washington, DC 20219. • *Hand Delivery/Courier:* 250 E Street, SW., Attn: Public Information Room, Mail Stop 1-5, Washington, DC 20219. *Instructions:* You must include “OCC” as the agency name and “Docket Number OCC-2007-0011” in your comment. In general, OCC will enter all comments received into the docket and publish them on Regulations.gov without change, including any business or personal information that you provide such as name and address information, e-mail addresses, or phone numbers. Comments, including attachments and other supporting materials, received are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Do not enclose any information in your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure. You may review comments and other related materials by any of the following methods: • *Viewing Comments Electronically:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov,* select “Comptroller of the Currency” from the agency drop-down menu, then click “Submit.” In the “Docket ID” column, select “OCC-2007-0011” to view public comments for this interim rule. • *Viewing Comments Personally:* You may personally inspect and photocopy comments at the OCC's Public Information Room, 250 E Street, SW., Washington, DC. You can make an appointment to inspect comments by calling
(202)874-5043. • *Docket:* You may also view or request available background documents and project summaries using the methods described above. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mitchell Plave, Counsel, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division,
(202)874-5090, Stuart Feldstein, Assistant Director, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division,
(202)874-5090, or Terry Howard, National Bank Examiner, Commercial Credit Risk,
(303)293-1866. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The percentage of capital and surplus that a bank may loan to any one borrower is limited by 12 U.S.C. 84. Section 84 and the OCC's implementing regulations, 12 CFR part 32, permit a national bank to make loans in an amount up to 15 percent of its unimpaired capital and surplus to a single borrower. A national bank may extend credit up to an additional 10 percent of unimpaired capital and surplus to the same borrower if the amount of the loan that exceeds the 15 percent limit is secured by “readily marketable collateral.” 1 Part 32 refers to these lending limits as the “combined general limit.” The statute and regulation also provide exceptions to, and exemptions from, the combined general limit for various types of loans and extensions of credit. 1 *See* 12 CFR 32.2(n) (defining “readily marketable collateral”). Section 84 authorizes the OCC to establish lending limits “for particular classes or categories of loans or extensions of credit” that are different from those expressly provided by the statute's terms. 2 Effective September 10, 2001, the OCC added to Part 32 a new § 32.7, which established a three-year pilot program with special lending limits for certain residential real estate loans and small business loans or extensions of credit. 3 The OCC extended the pilot program in 2004 for an additional three years and, at the same time, expanded the scope of the program to include certain small farm loans. 4 The aim of the program is to enable community national banks to utilize a higher lending limit for certain residential real estate, small business loans, and small farm loans, where the bank is located in a state that allows state-chartered banks to apply a higher lending limit, subject to the national bank's compliance with certain conditions designed to ensure that lending under the higher limits is consistent with safety and soundness. 2 12 U.S.C. 84(d). 3 66 FR 31114 (June 11, 2001); 12 CFR 32.7. 4 69 FR 51355 (August 19, 2004). For purposes of the special limits, a residential real estate loan is a loan secured by a perfected first-lien security interest in 1-4 family real estate in an amount that does not exceed 80 percent of the appraised value of the collateral at the time the loan is made. A small business loan is a loan “secured by nonfarm, nonresidential properties” or a “commercial and industrial loan” as those terms are described in the current version of the instructions for preparation of the Consolidated Report of Condition and Income (Call Report), Schedule RC-C, part I, item nos. 1.e and 4 (FFIEC 031 and 041) (Loans and Lease Financing Receivables). A “small farm loan or extension of credit” is a loan described in the current version of the instructions for preparation of the Call Report, Schedule RC-C, part I, item nos. 1.b and 3, as “loans secured by farmland” and “loans to finance agricultural production and other loans to farmers.” 5 5 For reporting purposes, the current version of the instructions for Schedule RC-C part II of the Call Report, provides that “loans to small farms” should be included on that schedule only if the loans are for original amounts of $500,000 or less. This $500,000 limit is not part of the regulation's definition of “loans to small farms.” Therefore, it does not apply to or condition the lending authority granted under the pilot program. Similarly, the current version of the instructions for Schedule RC-C, part II of the Call Report, provides that loans “secured by nonfarm residential property” and “commercial and industrial” loans should be included on that schedule only if they are loans for original amounts of $1,000,000 or less. This $1,000,000 limit is not part of the regulation's definition of loans “secured by nonfarm residential property” and “commercial and industrial” loans. Therefore, the $1,000,000 limit does not apply to or condition the lending authority granted under the pilot program. The pilot program authorizes an eligible national bank to apply for approval to make residential real estate, small business, and small farm loans to a single borrower in addition to amounts that they may already lend to that borrower under the existing combined general limit in 12 CFR 32.3(a) and the limits for the particular categories of loans enumerated in 12 CFR 32.3(b). A bank is eligible for the pilot program only if it is well capitalized, as defined in 12 CFR 6.4(b)(1), 6 and has a composite rating of 1 or 2 under the Uniform Financial Institutions Rating System (UFIRS), with at least a rating of 2 for asset quality and for management. These criteria ensure that the program is available only to banks in good financial condition with a demonstrated record of making sound loans. 6 A “well capitalized” bank under 12 CFR 6.4(b)(1) is one that:
(i)Has a total risk-based capital ratio of 10.0 percent or greater;
(ii)has a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 6.0 percent or greater;
(iii)has a leverage ratio of 5.0 percent or greater; and
(iv)is not subject to any written agreement, order or capital directive, or prompt corrective action directive issued by the OCC pursuant to section 8 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDI Act), the International Lending Supervision Act of 1983 (12 U.S.C. 3907), or section 38 of the FDI Act, or any regulation thereunder, to meet and maintain a specific capital level for any capital measure. Under the pilot program, an eligible national bank may make residential loans, small business loans, and small farm loans in an additional amount up to the lesser of 10 percent of its capital and surplus, or the percent of its capital and surplus in excess of 15 percent that a state bank is permitted to lend under the state lending limit that is available (in the state where the main office of the bank is located) for residential loans, small business loans, and small farm loans, or for unsecured loans. The pilot program contains a number of safeguards that apply to a bank using its special lending limits. For example, the amount that a bank may lend under the pilot program's special limits is subject to an individual borrower cap and an aggregate borrower cap expressed as percentages of the bank's capital and surplus. Under the individual borrower cap, the total outstanding amount of a bank's loans to one borrower under §§ 32.3(a) and (b), together with loans made to that borrower under the special limits authorized by § 32.7, may not exceed 25 percent of the bank's capital and surplus. The aggregate cap provides that the total outstanding amount of loans made by a bank to all of its borrowers under the special limits authorized by § 32.7 may not exceed 100 percent of the bank's capital and surplus. Finally, for each loan category covered by § 32.7, a bank may not lend more than $10 million to a single borrower under the special limit. A bank must apply and obtain the OCC's approval before it may use the special lending limits. The application includes: a certification that the bank is well capitalized and has the requisite ratings; citations to relevant state laws or regulations on lending limits; a copy of a written resolution by a majority of the bank's board of directors approving the use of the new lending authority; and a description of how the board will exercise its continuing responsibility to oversee the use of this lending authority. The OCC stated in the preamble to its 2001 and 2004 final rules that, prior to the conclusion of the pilot program, the OCC would evaluate the performance of the program and determine whether, and under what circumstances, to extend the program or adopt it permanently. A. Supervisory Experience, 2001-2004 As of the end of February 2004, 169 national banks headquartered in 23 states had received approval to participate in the program. At that time, the OCC compared the performance of 129 banks that participated in the program to that of comparable state-chartered banks and national banks that did not participate in the program focusing on:
(1)Loan portfolio composition;
(2)asset quality;
(3)liquidity and capital; and
(4)differences in interest expense, non-interest expense and profitability indicators between participating banks and their peers. The OCC could not attribute any statistical differences in this comparison group directly to participation in the pilot program and concluded that the program had operated in a safe and sound manner since its inception in 2001. 7 On this basis, the OCC extended the pilot program for three years, from 2004 until 2007, to collect additional data and assess whether to integrate the special lending limits provided by the program into Part 32 on a long-term or permanent basis. 7 69 FR 21978, 21980 (April 23, 2004). B. Supervisory Experience, 2004 to 2007 As of February, 2007, the OCC had approved more than 288 national banks to participate in the pilot program, representing nearly 15% of national community banks. Banks that participate in the pilot program are headquartered in twenty-four states in the U.S. The OCC gathered supervisory data during the second phase of the pilot program to assess the performance of participating banks. The data focused on:
(1)Adherence to the capital and surplus limits;
(2)adherence to the $10 million cap on loans to one borrower;
(3)whether loans made under the pilot program were subject to supervisory criticism and, if so, the amount of such loans and the category of supervisory criticism;
(4)whether loans made under the pilot program were past due and, if so, the amount of such loans;
(5)whether banks had adequate internal controls and monitoring systems to provide oversight of loans made under the pilot program; and
(6)whether loans made under the pilot program were in compliance with the resolutions issued by the bank's board governing the program. The OCC's supervisory experience between 2004 and 2007 shows that the expanded lending limits capacity has had a neutral impact on the asset quality and overall safety and soundness of participating institutions. This experience confirms our earlier observation that authorization to use higher lending limits has been consistent with the safety and soundness of participating institutions. National banks that have made use of the program have indicated to the OCC that the special lending limits allowed those banks to better serve their customers and communities. Description of the Interim Rule The interim rule incorporates the special lending limits currently authorized by the pilot program into Part 32 with one change, makes technical changes to remove references to the “pilot program,” and eliminates the provision in Part 32 that limits the duration, to September 10, 2007, of approvals given by the OCC to banks to lend under the program's special limits. The interim rule removes the $10 million cap on loans to one borrower for loans in each loan category covered by the interim rule. In view of the other limits and safeguards in the interim rule, and the OCC's experience with the pilot program, the OCC does not believe this restriction is necessary. Under the interim rule, an eligible national bank will continue to be required to apply to, and receive approval by, the OCC before using the special lending limits. A newly chartered national bank may apply to use the special limits once it meets the criteria for an eligible bank. The authority given by the OCC to national banks under the special limits will not expire, but will continue to be subject to discretionary termination by the OCC based on supervisory concerns about credit quality, undue concentrations in the bank's portfolio of residential real estate, small business, or small farm loans, or concerns about the bank's overall credit risk management systems and controls. The effect of this interim rule is to make the pilot program permanent with the change noted above. The OCC also requests comment on the interim rule and on ways in which the special lending limits could be expanded or enhanced, consistent with safety and soundness. Administrative Procedure Act/Effective Date The OCC finds that there is good cause to dispense with prior notice and public comment on this interim rule and with the 30-day delay of effective date generally prescribed by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). 5 U.S.C. 553. Under section 553(b) of the APA, the OCC is not required to provide notice and an opportunity for public comment on a rule if we find, for good cause, that notice and comment are “impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest.” The OCC finds that notice and public comment before the interim rule takes effect are unnecessary. The OCC has previously provided the opportunity for comment on all aspects of the pilot program, in 2001 and 2004. The one change made to the program by the interim rule relieves the restriction imposed by a cap that the OCC has concluded is unnecessary based on its experience supervising institutions that have participated in the program thus far. In addition, by issuing the rule on an interim final basis, the OCC will avoid any unnecessary disruption in the operation of the program and its special limits during the pendancy of the comment period. Under section 553(d) of the APA, the OCC must generally provide a 30-day delayed effective date for final rules. The OCC may dispense with the 30-day delayed effective date requirement “for good cause found and published with the rule.” The OCC finds that there is good cause to dispense with the effective date requirement because the interim rule recognizes an exemption and will prevent unnecessary disruption in the operation of the lending limits program in its current form. In addition, the purpose of the delayed effective date provision is to afford affected persons a reasonable time to comply with rule changes. The interim rule imposes no further restrictions on the substance of the existing lending limits pilot program. As such, there is no need for banks to make adjustments to their current lending under the program. Solicitation of Comments on Use of Plain Language Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Public Law 106-102, section 722, 113 Stat. 1338, 1471 (Nov. 12, 1999), requires an agency to use plain language in all proposed and final rules published. The OCC believes that the interim rule is presented in a clear and straightforward manner. We invite your comments on how to make this interim rule easier to understand. For example: • Have we organized the material to suit your needs? If not, how could this material be better organized? • Are the requirements in the regulation clearly stated? If not, how could the regulation be more clearly stated? • Does the regulation contain language or jargon that is not clear? If so, which language requires clarification? • Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) make the regulation easier to understand? If so, what changes to the format would make the regulation easier to understand? • What else could we do to make the regulation easier to understand? Solicitation of Comments on Impact on Community Banks The OCC adopted the pilot program following a review of our regulations that focused on ways to change the regulations to respond to community bank needs. 66 FR 31114, 31115 (June 11, 2001). The purpose of the review was to explore ways in which our regulations could be modified, consistent with safety and soundness, to reflect the fact that community banks operate with more limited resources, and often different risk profiles, than larger institutions. Our goal was to identify alternative regulatory approaches to minimize the burden on community banks and promote their competitiveness. The special lending limits in the interim rule are substantively identical to those authorized by the pilot program. The OCC seeks comments on how community banks assess the interim rule and on the impact of the proposal on community banks' current resources and available personnel with requisite expertise. The OCC also seeks comments on whether the goals of the interim rule could be achieved, for community banks, through an alternative approach. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis The Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA)does not apply to a rulemaking where a general notice of proposed rulemaking is not required. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. As noted previously, the OCC has determined that it is unnecessary to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for this interim final rule. Accordingly, the RFA's requirements relating to an initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis do not apply. Executive Order 12866 The OCC has determined that this interim rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMA), Public Law 104-4, 109 Stat. 48, applies only when an agency is required to issue a general notice of proposed rulemaking or a final rule for which the agency published a general notice of proposed rulemaking, 2 U.S.C. 1532. As noted previously, the OCC has determined, for good cause, that notice and comment is unnecessary for this interim rule. Accordingly, the UMA does not require a budgetary impact analysis. Paperwork Reduction Act The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has reviewed and approved the collection of information requirements contained in the pilot program under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). The interim rule does not change the information collection previously approved under control number 1557-0221 nor does it establish any new information collections. List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 32 National banks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Authority and Issuance For the reasons set forth in the preamble, Part 32 of chapter I of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 32—LENDING LIMITS 1. The authority citation for Part 32 continues to read as follows: Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1 *et seq.* , 84, and 93a. 2. In § 32.7: a. Remove the last sentence in paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3); b. Revise the section heading; c. Revise paragraph (c); and d. Remove paragraph
(e)and redesignate existing paragraph
(f)as paragraph (e). The revisions read as follows: § 32.7 Residential real estate loans, small business loans, and small farm loans.
(c)*Duration of approval.* Except as provided in § 32.7(d), a bank that has received OCC approval may continue to make loans and extensions of credit under the special lending limits in paragraphs (a)(1), (2), and
(3)of this section, provided the bank remains an “eligible bank.” Dated: May 24, 2007. John C. Dugan, Comptroller of the Currency. [FR Doc. E7-11014 Filed 6-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-33-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 23 [Docket No. CE269, Special Condition 23-209-SC] Special Conditions; Op Technologies, Inc.; Cirrus Design Corporation Model SR22; Protection of Systems for High Intensity Radiated Fields
(HIRF)AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final special conditions; request for comments. SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued to Op Technologies, Inc.; 15236 NW., Greenbrier Parkway, Beaverton, OR 97006 for a Supplemental Type Certificate for the Cirrus Design Corporation Model SR22 airplane. This airplane will have novel and unusual design features when compared to the state of technology envisaged in the applicable airworthiness standards. These novel and unusual design features include the installation of electronic flight instrument system
(EFIS)displays Model Pegasus Primary Flight Displays manufactured by Op Technologies for which the applicable regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate airworthiness standards for the protection of these systems from the effects of high intensity radiated fields (HIRF). These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to the airworthiness standards applicable to these airplanes. DATES: The effective date of these special conditions is May 25, 2007. We must receive your comments on or before July 9, 2007. ADDRESSES: Mail two copies of your comments to: Federal Aviation Administration, Regional Counsel, ACE-7, Attention: Rules Docket Clerk, Docket No. CE269, Room 506, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. Mark all comments: Docket No. CE269. You may inspect comments in the Rules Docket weekdays, except Federal holidays, between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Brady, Aerospace Engineer, Standards Office (ACE-110), Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone
(816)329-4132. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA has determined that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay issuance of the design approval and thus delivery of the affected aircraft. In addition, the substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA, therefore, finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon issuance. Comments Invited We invite interested persons to take part in this rulemaking by sending such written data, views, or arguments. Identify the regulatory docket or notice number and submit two copies of comments to the address specified above. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. We will consider all communications received on or before the closing date for comments, and we may change the special conditions in light of the comments received. All comments received will be available in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons, both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this notice must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. CE269.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter. Background On September 6, 2006, Op Technologies, Inc.; 15236 NW., Greenbrier Parkway; Beaverton, OR 97006 applied to the FAA for a new Supplemental Type Certificate for the Cirrus Design Corporation Model SR22 airplane. The Model SR22 is currently approved under TC No. A00009CH. The proposed modification incorporates a novel or unusual design feature, such as digital avionics consisting of an EFIS that is vulnerable to HIRF external to the airplane. Type Certification Basis Under the provisions of 14 CFR part 21, § 21.101, Op Technologies, Inc. must show that the Cirrus Design Corporation Model SR22 aircraft meets the following provisions, or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change to the Cirrus Design Corporation Model SR22: Part 23 of the Federal Aviation Regulations effective February 1, 1965, as amended by 23-1 through 23-53, except as follows: § 23.301 through Amendment 47; §§ 23.855, 23.1326, 23.1359, not applicable. 14 CFR part 36 dated December 1, 1969, as amended by current amendment as of the date of type certification. Equivalent Levels of Safety finding (ACE-96-5) made per the provisions of 14 CFR part 23, § 23.221; Refer to FAA ELOS letter dated June 10, 1998. Equivalent Levels of Safety finding (ACE-00-09) made per the provisions of 14 CFR part 23, §§ 23.1143(g) and 23.1147(b); Refer to FAA ELOS letter dated September 11, 2000, for model SR22. Special Condition (23-ACE-88) for ballistic parachute; 23-134-SC for protection of systems for High Intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF); and 23-163-SC for inflatable restraint system; exemptions, if any; and the special conditions adopted by this rulemaking action. Discussion If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness standards do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards because of novel or unusual design features of an airplane, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16. Special conditions, as appropriate, as defined in § 11.19, are issued in accordance with § 11.38 after public notice and become part of the type certification basis in accordance with § 21.101(b)(2). Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the applicant apply for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model already included on the same type certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under the provisions of § 21.101. Novel or Unusual Design Features Op Technologies, Inc. plans to incorporate certain novel and unusual design features into an airplane for which the airworthiness standards do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for protection from the effects of HIRF. These features include EFIS, which are susceptible to the HIRF environment, that were not envisaged by the existing regulations for this type of airplane. Protection of Systems From High Intensity Radiated Fields
(HIRF)Recent advances in technology have given rise to the application in aircraft designs of advanced electrical and electronic systems that perform functions required for continued safe flight and landing. Due to the use of sensitive solid state advanced components in analog and digital electronics circuits, these advanced systems are readily responsive to the transient effects of induced electrical current and voltage caused by the HIRF. The HIRF can degrade electronic systems performance by damaging components or upsetting system functions. Furthermore, the HIRF environment has undergone a transformation that was not foreseen when the current requirements were developed. Higher energy levels are radiated from transmitters that are used for radar, radio, and television. Also, the number of transmitters has increased significantly. There is also uncertainty concerning the effectiveness of airframe shielding for HIRF. Furthermore, coupling to cockpit-installed equipment through the cockpit window apertures is undefined. The combined effect of the technological advances in airplane design and the changing environment has resulted in an increased level of vulnerability of electrical and electronic systems required for the continued safe flight and landing of the airplane. Effective measures against the effects of exposure to HIRF must be provided by the design and installation of these systems. The accepted maximum energy levels in which civilian airplane system installations must be capable of operating safely are based on surveys and analysis of existing radio frequency emitters. These special conditions require that the airplane be evaluated under these energy levels for the protection of the electronic system and its associated wiring harness. These external threat levels, which are lower than previous required values, are believed to represent the worst case to which an airplane would be exposed in the operating environment. These special conditions require qualification of systems that perform critical functions, as installed in aircraft, to the defined HIRF environment in paragraph 1 or, as an option to a fixed value using laboratory tests, in paragraph 2, as follows:
(1)The applicant may demonstrate that the operation and operational capability of the installed electrical and electronic systems that perform critical functions are not adversely affected when the aircraft is exposed to the HIRF environment defined below: Frequency Field strength (volts per meter) Peak Average 10 kHz-100 kHz 50 50 100 kHz-500 kHz 50 50 500 kHz-2 MHz 50 50 2 MHz-30 MHz 100 100 30 MHz-70 MHz 50 50 70 MHz-100 MHz 50 50 100 MHz-200 MHz 100 100 200 MHz-400 MHz 100 100 400 MHz-700 MHz 700 50 700 MHz-1 GHz 700 100 1 GHz-2 GHz 2000 200 2 GHz-4 GHz 3000 200 4 GHz-6 GHz 3000 200 6 GHz-8 GHz 1000 200 8 GHz-12 GHz 3000 300 12 GHz-18 GHz 2000 200 18 GHz-40 GHz 600 200 The field strengths are expressed in terms of peak root-mean-square
(rms)values. or,
(2)The applicant may demonstrate by a system test and analysis that the electrical and electronic systems that perform critical functions can withstand a minimum threat of 100 volts per meter, electrical field strength, from 10 kHz to 18 GHz. When using this test to show compliance with the HIRF requirements, no credit is given for signal attenuation due to installation. A preliminary hazard analysis must be performed by the applicant, for approval by the FAA, to identify either electrical or electronic systems that perform critical functions. The term “critical” means those functions whose failure would contribute to, or cause, a failure condition that would prevent the continued safe flight and landing of the airplane. The systems identified by the hazard analysis that perform critical functions are candidates for the application of HIRF requirements. A system may perform both critical and non-critical functions. Primary electronic flight display systems, and their associated components, perform critical functions such as attitude, altitude, and airspeed indication. The HIRF requirements apply only to critical functions. Compliance with HIRF requirements may be demonstrated by tests, analysis, models, similarity with existing systems, or any combination of these. Service experience alone is not acceptable since normal flight operations may not include an exposure to the HIRF environment. Reliance on a system with similar design features for redundancy as a means of protection against the effects of external HIRF is generally insufficient since all elements of a redundant system are likely to be exposed to the fields concurrently. Applicability As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to Op Technologies, Inc.; Cirrus Design Corporation Model SR22 airplane. Should Op Technologies, Inc. apply at a later date for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model on the same type certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well under the provisions of § 21.101. Conclusion This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability and affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplane. The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. For this reason, and because a delay would significantly affect the certification of the airplane, which is imminent, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon issuance. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 23 Aircraft, Aviation safety, Signs and symbols. Citation The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113 and 44701; 14 CFR 21.16 and 21.101; and 14 CFR 11.38 and 11.19. The Special Conditions Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for Cirrus Design Corporation SR22 airplane modified by Op Technologies, Inc. to add an EFIS. 1. Protection of Electrical and Electronic Systems from High Intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF). Each system that performs critical functions must be designed and installed to ensure that the operations, and operational capabilities of these systems to perform critical functions, are not adversely affected when the airplane is exposed to high intensity radiated electromagnetic fields external to the airplane. 2. For the purpose of these special conditions, the following definition applies: *Critical Functions* : Functions whose failure would contribute to, or cause, a failure condition that would prevent the continued safe flight and landing of the airplane. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri on May 25, 2007. Kim Smith, Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-11044 Filed 6-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 23 [Docket No. CE268; Special Conditions No. 23-208-SC] Special Conditions: AmSafe, Incorporated; Quest Aircraft Company, LLC., Kodiak Model 100; Inflatable Four-Point Restraint Safety Belt With an Integrated Airbag Device AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final special conditions; request for comments. SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the installation of an AmSafe, Inc., Inflatable Four-Point Restraint Safety Belt with an Integrated Airbag Device on Quest Aircraft Company, LLC, Kodiak Model 100. These airplanes, as modified by the installation of this Inflatable Safety Belt, will have novel and unusual design features associated with the upper-torso restraint portions of the four-point safety belt, which contains an integrated airbag device. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards. DATES: The effective date of these special conditions is May 25, 2007. Comments must be received on or before July 9, 2007. ADDRESSES: Mail two copies of any comments to: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Regional Counsel, ACE-7, Attention: Rules Docket, Docket No. CE268, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. You may also deliver two copies of your comments to the Regional Counsel at the above address. Comments must be marked: Docket No. CE268. You may inspect comments in the Rules Docket weekdays, except Federal holidays, between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Bob Stegeman, Federal Aviation Administration, Aircraft Certification Service, Small Airplane Directorate, ACE-111, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri, 816-329-4140, fax 816-329-4090, e-mail *Robert.Stegeman@faa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA has determined that notice and opportunity for prior public comment is impractical because these procedures would significantly delay issuance of approval and thus delivery of the affected aircraft. In addition, the substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA, therefore, finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon issuance. Comments Invited We invite interested persons to take part in this rulemaking by sending written data, views, or comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. We ask that you send 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 about these special conditions. You may inspect the docket 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 the preamble between 7:30 am and 4 pm, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive. If you want us to let you know we received your comments on these special conditions, send us a pre-addressed, stamped postcard on which the docket number appears. We will stamp the date on the postcard and mail it back to you. Background On March 6, 2000, Quest Aircraft Company, LLC applied for a type certificate, for the installation of a four- point safety belt restraint system incorporating an inflatable airbag for the pilot, co-pilot, and passenger seats of the Quest Aircraft Company, LLC, Kodiak Model 100 airplane. The Quest Aircraft Company Kodiak Model 100 is a single engine, normal category airplane. The inflatable restraint system is a four-point safety belt restraint system consisting of a lap belt and shoulder harnesses. An inflatable airbag is attached to one shoulder harness. The inflatable portion of the restraint system will rely on sensors to electronically activate the inflator for deployment. The inflatable restraint system will be available on the pilot, co-pilot, and passenger seats. If an emergency landing occurs, the airbag will inflate and provide a protective cushion between the occupant's head and the structure within the airplane. This will reduce the potential for head and torso injury. The inflatable restraint behaves in a manner similar to an automotive airbag; however, in this case, the airbag is integrated into the shoulder harness. While airbags and inflatable restraints are standard in the automotive industry, the use of an inflatable four-point restraint system is novel for general aviation operations. The FAA has determined that this project will be accomplished on the basis of providing the same current level of safety as the conventional certification basis airplane occupant restraint systems. The FAA has two primary safety concerns with the installation of airbags or inflatable restraints: • That they perform properly under foreseeable operating conditions; and • That they do not perform in a manner or at such times as to impede the pilot's ability to maintain control of the airplane or constitute a hazard to the airplane or occupants. The latter point has the potential to be the more rigorous of the requirements. An unexpected deployment while conducting the takeoff or landing phases of flight may result in an unsafe condition. The unexpected deployment may either startle the pilot or generate a force sufficient to cause a sudden movement of the control yoke. Either action could result in a loss of control of the airplane, the consequences of which are magnified due to the low operating altitudes during these phases of flight. The FAA has considered this when establishing these special conditions. The inflatable restraint system relies on sensors to electronically activate the inflator for deployment. These sensors could be susceptible to inadvertent activation, causing deployment in a potentially unsafe manner. The consequences of an inadvertent deployment must be considered in establishing the reliability of the system. Quest Aircraft Company, LLC, must show that the effects of an inadvertent deployment in flight are not a hazard to the airplane or that an inadvertent deployment is extremely improbable. In addition, general aviation aircraft are susceptible to a large amount of cumulative wear and tear on a restraint system. The potential for inadvertent deployment may increase as a result of this cumulative damage. Therefore, the impact of wear and tear on inadvertent deployment must be considered. The effect of this cumulative damage means a life limit must be established for the appropriate system components in the restraint system design. There are additional factors to be considered to minimize the chances of inadvertent deployment. General aviation airplanes are exposed to a unique operating environment, since the same airplane may be used by both experienced and student pilots. The effect of this environment on inadvertent deployment must be understood. Therefore, qualification testing of the firing hardware/software must consider the following: • The airplane vibration levels appropriate for a general aviation airplane; and • The inertial loads that result from typical flight or ground maneuvers, including gusts and hard landings. Any tendency for the firing mechanism to activate as a result of these loads or acceleration levels is unacceptable. Other influences on inadvertent deployment include high intensity electromagnetic fields
(HIRF)and lightning. Since the sensors that trigger deployment are electronic, they must be protected from the effects of these threats. To comply with HIRF and lightning requirements, the AmSafe, Inc., inflatable restraint system is considered a critical system, since its inadvertent deployment could have a hazardous effect on the airplane. Given the level of safety of the current Quest Aircraft Company, LLC, Kodiak Model 100 occupant restraints, the inflatable restraint system must show that it will offer an equivalent level of protection for an emergency landing. If an inadvertent deployment occurs, the restraint must still be at least as strong as a Technical Standard Order approved belt and shoulder harnesses. There is no requirement for the inflatable portion of the restraint to offer protection during multiple impacts, where more than one impact would require protection. The inflatable restraint system must deploy and provide protection for each occupant under an emergency landing condition. The seats of the Kodiak Model 100 are certificated to the structural requirements of 14 CFR part 23, § 23.562; therefore, the test emergency landing pulses identified in § 23.562 must be used to satisfy this requirement. A wide range of occupants may use the inflatable restraint; therefore, the protection offered by this restraint should be effective for occupants that range from the fifth percentile female to the ninety-fifth percentile male. Energy absorption must be performed in a consistent manner for this occupant range. In support of this operational capability, there must be a means to verify the integrity of this system before each flight. Quest Aircraft Company, LLC, may establish inspection intervals where they have demonstrated the system to be reliable between these intervals. An inflatable restraint may be “armed” even though no occupant is using the seat. While there will be means to verify the integrity of the system before flight, it is also prudent to require unoccupied seats with active restraints not constitute a hazard to any occupant. This will protect any individual performing maintenance inside the cockpit while the aircraft is on the ground. The restraint must also provide suitable visual warnings that would alert rescue personnel to the presence of an inflatable restraint system. In addition, the design must prevent the inflatable seatbelt from being incorrectly buckled and/or installed such that the airbag would not properly deploy. Quest Aircraft Company, LLC may show that such deployment is not hazardous to the occupant and will still provide the required protection. The cabins of the Quest model airplane identified in these special conditions are confined areas, and the FAA is concerned that noxious gasses may accumulate if the airbag deploys. When deployment occurs, either by design or inadvertently, there must not be a release of hazardous quantities of gas or particulate matter into the cockpit. An inflatable restraint should not increase the risk already associated with fire. Therefore, the inflatable restraint should be protected from the effects of fire to avoid creating an additional hazard by, for example, a rupture of the inflator. Finally, the airbag is likely to have a large volume displacement, and possibly impede the egress of an occupant. Since the bag deflates to absorb energy, it is likely that the inflatable restraint would be deflated at the time an occupant would attempt egress. However, it is appropriate to specify a time interval after which the inflatable restraint may not impede rapid egress. Ten seconds has been chosen as reasonable time. This time limit will offer a level of protection throughout the impact event. Type Certification Basis Under the provisions of 14 CFR part 21, § 21.101, Quest Aircraft Company, LLC must show that the Kodiak Model 100 continues to meet the applicable provisions of the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the type certificate. The regulations incorporated by reference in the type certificate are commonly referred to as the “original type certification basis.” The following model is covered by this special condition: Quest Aircraft Company, LLC, Kodiak Model 100 For the model listed above, the certification basis also includes all exemptions, if any; equivalent level of safety findings, if any; and special conditions not relevant to the special conditions adopted by this rulemaking action. If the Administrator determines that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., part 23 as amended) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the AmSafe, Inc., inflatable restraint as installed on this Quest Aircraft Company model because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of 14 CFR part 21, § 21.16. The FAA issues special conditions, as appropriate, as defined in 14 CFR part 11, § 11.19, under 14 CFR part 11, § 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under 14 CFR part 21, § 21.101. Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the applicant apply for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on the same type certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to that model under the provisions of 14 CFR part 21, § 21.101. Novel or Unusual Design Features The Quest Aircraft Company, LLC, Kodiak Model 100 will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature: *The AmSafe, Inc., Four-Point Safety Belt Restraint System incorporating an inflatable airbag for the pilot, co-pilot, and passenger seats.* The purpose of the airbag is to reduce the potential for injury in the event of an accident. In a severe impact, an airbag will deploy from the shoulder harness, in a manner similar to an automotive airbag. The airbag will deploy between the head of the occupant and airplane interior structure, which will provide some protection to the head of the occupant. The restraint will rely on sensors to electronically activate the inflator for deployment. The Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 23 states performance criteria for seats and restraints in an objective manner. However, none of these criteria are adequate to address the specific issues raised concerning inflatable restraints. Therefore, the FAA has determined that, in addition to the requirements of 14 CFR part 21 and part 23, special conditions are needed to address the installation of this inflatable restraint. Accordingly, these special conditions are adopted for the Quest Aircraft Company, LLC, Kodiak Model 100 equipped with the AmSafe, Inc., four-point inflatable restraint. Other conditions may be developed, as needed, based on further FAA review and discussions with the manufacturer and civil aviation authorities. Applicability As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Quest Aircraft Company, LLC, Kodiak Model 100 equipped with the AmSafe, Inc., four-point inflatable restraint system. Conclusion This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on the previously identified Quest model. It is not a rule of general applicability, and it affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplane. Under standard practice, the effective date of final special conditions would be 30 days after the date of publication in the **Federal Register** ; however, the substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. For this reason, and because a delay would significantly affect the delivery of the airplane(s), the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon issuance. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 23 Aircraft, Aviation safety, Signs and symbols. Citation The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113 and 44701; 14 CFR 21.16 and 21.101; and 14 CFR 11.38 and 11.19. The Special Conditions The FAA has determined that this project will be accomplished on the basis of not lowering the current level of safety of the Quest Aircraft Company, LLC, Kodiak Model 100 occupant restraint system. Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for this model. *Inflatable Four-Point Restraint Safety Belt with an Integrated Airbag Device on the Pilot, Co-pilot, and Passenger Seats of the Quest Aircraft Company, LLC, Kodiak Model 100.* 1. It must be shown that the inflatable restraint will deploy and provide protection under emergency landing conditions. Compliance will be demonstrated using the dynamic test condition specified in 14 CFR part 23, § 23.562(b)(2). It is not necessary to account for floor warpage, as required by § 23.562(b)(3), or vertical dynamic loads, as required by § 23.562(b)(1). The means of protection must take into consideration a range of stature from a 5th percentile female to a 95th percentile male. The inflatable restraint must provide a consistent approach to energy absorption throughout that range. 2. The inflatable restraint must provide adequate protection for each occupant. In addition, unoccupied seats that have an active restraint must not constitute a hazard to any occupant. 3. The design must prevent the inflatable restraint from being incorrectly buckled and/or incorrectly installed such that the airbag would not properly deploy. Alternatively, it must be shown that such deployment is not hazardous to the occupant and will provide the required protection. 4. It must be shown that the inflatable restraint system is not susceptible to inadvertent deployment as a result of wear and tear or the inertial loads resulting from in-flight or ground maneuvers (including gusts and hard landings) that are likely to be experienced in service. 5. It must be extremely improbable for an inadvertent deployment of the restraint system to occur, or an inadvertent deployment must not impede the pilot's ability to maintain control of the airplane or cause an unsafe condition (or hazard to the airplane). In addition, a deployed inflatable restraint must be at least as strong as a Technical Standard Order
(C114)certificated belt and shoulder harness. 6. It must be shown that deployment of the inflatable restraint system is not hazardous to the occupant or will not result in injuries that could impede rapid egress. This assessment should include occupants whose restraint is loosely fastened. 7. It must be shown that an inadvertent deployment that could cause injury to a standing or sitting person is improbable. In addition, the restraint must also provide suitable visual warnings that would alert rescue personnel to the presence of an inflatable restraint system. 8. It must be shown that the inflatable restraint will not impede rapid egress of the occupants 10 seconds after its deployment. 9. To comply with HIRF and lightning requirements, the inflatable restraint system is considered a critical system since its deployment could have a hazardous effect on the airplane. 10. It must be shown that the inflatable restraints will not release hazardous quantities of gas or particulate matter into the cabin. 11. The inflatable restraint system installation must be protected from the effects of fire such that no hazard to occupants will result. 12. There must be a means to verify the integrity of the inflatable restraint activation system before each flight or it must be demonstrated to reliably operate between inspection intervals. 13. A life limit must be established for appropriate system components. 14. Qualification testing of the internal firing mechanism must be performed at vibration levels appropriate for a general aviation airplane. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri on May 25, 2007. Kim Smith, Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-11018 Filed 6-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 121 [Docket No. FAA-1998-4521; Amendment No. 121-332] RIN 2120-AF07 Drug and Alcohol Testing Requirements; Correction AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule; correcting amendment. SUMMARY: The FAA is correcting a technical amendment to its drug and alcohol testing requirements published on March 15, 2007 (72 FR 12082). The purpose of the technical amendment was to conform those requirements to the National Air Tour Safety Standards. In one paragraph of the regulation, we inadvertently referred to an “antidrug program,” when we should have referred to an “Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program.” DATES: Effective June 7, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrice M. Kelly, Deputy Division Manager, Drug Abatement Division, Office of Aerospace Medicine, 800 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC, 20591.
(202)267-3123; e-mail: *patrice.kelly@faa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On March 15, 2007 (72 FR 12082), we published a technical amendment that updated several references in the FAA's drug and alcohol testing regulations in title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), part 121, appendices I and J. The technical amendment was necessary because amendments in the National Air Tour Safety Standards final rule (72 FR 6884; Feb. 13, 2007) redefined terms used in the drug and alcohol testing regulations. In the technical amendment, we changed the language in several charts in part 121, appendix J. When we changed the language in section VII.B.3.b., we inadvertently referred to an “antidrug program,” when we should have referred to an “Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program.” Appendix J applies to alcohol testing programs, not drug testing programs. Accordingly, 14 CFR part 121 is corrected by making the following correcting amendment: PART 121—OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, AND SUPPLEMENTAL OPERATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 121 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 40119, 41706, 44101, 44701-44702, 44705, 44709-44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722, 44901, 44903-44904, 44912, 45101-45105, 46105, 46301. Appendix J—[Amended] 2. Amend Appendix J to Part 121, Section VII.B.3.b., by removing the words “antidrug program” and adding in their place the words “Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program.” Issued in Washington, DC, on June 1, 2007. Pamela Hamilton-Powell, Director, Office of Rulemaking. [FR Doc. E7-10973 Filed 6-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 136 [Docket No. FAA-1998-4521; Amendment No. 136-1] RIN 2120-AF07 National Air Tour Safety Standards; Correction AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule; correcting amendments. SUMMARY: The FAA is correcting references in its Commercial Air Tours and National Parks Air Tour Management regulations to conform to amendments made by the National Air Tour Safety Standards final rule published on February 13, 2007 (72 FR 6884). In addition, the FAA is removing a sentence from the preamble that referred to aircraft certificated as “Experimental Category” and clarifying the applicability of the rule to the “Young Eagles” program. DATES: Effective June 7, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alberta Brown, Air Transportation Division, AFS-200, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone:
(202)267-8166; e-mail: *alberta.brown@faa.gov.* For legal information, contact: Bruce Glendening, Operations Law Branch, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone:
(202)267-8011; facsimile:
(202)267-7971; e-mail: *bruce.glendening@faa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background A. Correction to Section References in Part 136 Subpart B On February 13, 2007, the FAA published the “National Air Tour Safety Standards” final rule (72 FR 6884) in which we designated the existing sections in part 136, consisting of §§ 136.1 through 136.11, as subpart B, consisting of §§ 136.31 through 136.49. The FAA inadvertently did not update the section references in the text of those sections to reflect the new numbering. This document corrects that oversight. B. Comments Against Part 135 Certification In the preamble to the February 13, 2007, final rule, on pages 6891-6892, the FAA discussed comments that opposed our proposal to require commercial air tour operators to conduct their operations under part 135. We explained the regulatory basis for our final decision and, in the second full paragraph of column 1 on page 6892, we described the regulations pertaining to the carriage of passengers under different categories of airworthiness certification. Upon review, we have determined that the first sentence of that paragraph was correct; however, the second sentence was not correct because we inadvertently omitted the words “for compensation or hire” when describing operations carrying passengers in aircraft with an “Experimental Category” airworthiness certificate. We therefore correct the preamble of the final rule on page 6892, column 1, the second full paragraph, by removing the sentence that reads, “An ‘Experimental Category’ certificate does not allow passengers at all.” C. EAA Young Eagles Program During development of the “National Air Tour Safety Standards” final rule, we believed that the Experimental Aircraft Association
(EAA)used its FAA-issued exemptions for all flights conducted under its Young Eagles program. Since publication of the final rule, however, we have learned that EAA uses its exemptions only for those few Young Eagles flights that are flown for compensation or hire. We therefore clarify that the final rule applies to only Young Eagles flights that are flown for compensation or hire, but the rule does not apply to other Young Eagles flights. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 136 Air transportation, Aircraft, Airplanes, Air tours, Air safety, Aviation safety, Commercial air tours, Helicopters, National Parks, Recreation and recreation areas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, 14 CFR part 136 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments: PART 136—COMMERCIAL AIR TOURS AND NATIONAL PARKS AIR TOUR MANAGEMENT 1. The authority citation for part 136 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 40119, 44101, 44701-44702, 44705, 44709-44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722, 44901, 44903-44904, 44912, 46105. § 136.33 [Amended] 2. Amend § 136.33— A. In paragraph (d)(1)(iii) by removing the reference “§ 136.5” and adding in its place the reference “§ 136.35.” B. In paragraph (d)(3) by removing the reference “§ 136.5” and adding in its place the reference “§ 136.35.” § 136.37 [Amended] 3. Amend § 136.37— A. In paragraph
(d)by removing the reference “§ 136.9” and adding in its place the reference “§ 136.39.” B. In paragraph
(h)by removing the reference “§ 136.11” and adding in its place the reference “§ 136.41.” Issued in Washington, DC, on June 1, 2007. Pamela Hamilton-Powell, Director, Office of Rulemaking. [FR Doc. E7-10972 Filed 6-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security 15 CFR Part 774 [Docket No. 070426098-7100-01] RIN 0694-AE03 Additional Corrections to the Rule That Implemented the New Formula for Calculating Computer Performance: Adjusted Peak Performance
(APP)in Weighted TeraFLOPS AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce. ACTION: Final rule; correction. SUMMARY: This rule makes changes to regulations implementing the new formula for calculating computer Adjusted Peak Performance in Weighted TeraFLOPS. This rule corrects the availability of the license exception for technology and software under restriction for specified “software” and “technology” for computers. These additional changes are intended to correct the scope of the license exception in certain Export Control Classification Numbers that were unintentionally narrowed by the rule published on March 22, 2007. In addition, this rule corrects a reference to a nonexistent Export Control Classification Number found in specified “technology” for computers. DATES: This rule is effective June 7, 2007. ADDRESSES: Although this is a final rule, comments are welcome and 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-AE03 in all comments, and in the subject line of e-mail comments. Comments on the collection of information should be sent to David Rostker, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), by e-mail to *David_Rostker@omb.gov* , or by fax to
(202)395-7285. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Young, Information Technology Controls Division, by telephone at 202-482-4197 or by e-mail at *jyoung@bis.doc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Bureau of Industry and Security
(BIS)published a final rule on April 24, 2006 (71 FR 20876) that implemented the new formula for calculating computer Adjusted Peak Performance
(APP)in Weighted TeraFLOPS (WT). Subsequently, BIS published a final rule on March 22, 2007 (72 FR 13440) that corrected the April 24, 2006 final rule, by removing certain references to Missile Technology controls and adjusting the scope of controls and license exceptions in certain Export Control Classification Numbers (ECCNs). In adjusting the scope and license exceptions in certain ECCNs, the March 22, 2007 final rule unintentionally narrowed the scope of the license exception for technology and software under restriction (License Exception TSR) for ECCNs 4D001 (specified “software”) and 4E001 (specified “technology”). That correction rule inserted language in ECCN 4D001 that limited the use of License Exception TSR to software described in 4D001.b that meets the requisite APP parameter. Likewise, that correction rule inserted language in ECCN 4E001 that limited the use of License Exception TSR to technology described in 4E001.b that meets the requisite APP parameter. To properly correct the scope of License Exception TSR, as intended by the original April 24, 2006 final rule, this rule changes the text of License Exception TSR for ECCN 4D001 to read: “Yes, except for ‘software' for the ‘development' or ‘production' of commodities with an ‘Adjusted Peak Performance' (‘APP') exceeding 0.1 WT.” Similarly, this rule changes the text of License Exception TSR for ECCN 4E001 to read: “Yes, except for ‘technology' for the ‘development' or ‘production' of commodities with an ‘Adjusted Peak Performance' (‘APP') exceeding 0.1 WT.” Moreover, this rule makes an additional correction to a reference made in the List of Items Controlled section for ECCN 4E001. Specifically, 4E001.a refers to ECCN 4A993. Currently, ECCN 4A993 does not exist in the Commerce Control List. Therefore, this rule removes the reference to “4A993” in 4E001.a. 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 final 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 a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA. This collection has previously been approved by OMB under control number 0694-0088 (Multi-Purpose Application), which carries a burden hour estimate of 58 minutes to prepare and submit form BIS-748. BIS expects that this rule will not change that burden hour estimate. 3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined under E.O. 13132. 4. The provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for public participation, and a delay in effective date, are inapplicable because this regulation involves a military and foreign affairs function of the United States (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1)). Further, no other law requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment be given for this final rule. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule under the Administrative Procedure Act or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ) are not applicable. Therefore, this regulation is issued in final form. Although there is no formal comment period, public comments on this regulation are welcome on a continuing basis. Comments should be submitted to Steven Emme, Regulatory Policy Division, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce, P.O. Box 273, Washington, DC 20044. List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 774 Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, part 774 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774) is amended as follows: PART 774—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 774 continues 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. 7420; 10 U.S.C. 7430(e); 18 U.S.C. 2510 *et seq.* ; 22 U.S.C. 287c, 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. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of August 3, 2006, 71 FR 44551 (August 7, 2006). Supplement No. 1 to Part 774 [Amended] 2. In Supplement No. 1 to part 774 (the Commerce Control List), Category 4—Computers, Export Control Classification Number
(ECCN)4D001 is amended by revising the License Exceptions section, to read as follows: 4D001 Specified “Software”, See List of Items Controlled License Exceptions *CIV:* N/A *TSR:* Yes, except for “software” for the “development” or “production” of commodities with an “Adjusted Peak Performance” (“APP”) exceeding 0.1 WT. *APP:* Yes to specific countries (see § 740.7 of the EAR for eligibility criteria). 3. In Supplement No. 1 to part 774 (the Commerce Control List), Category 4—Computers, Export Control Classification Number
(ECCN)4E001, is amended: a. By revising the License Exceptions section as set forth below; b. By revising paragraph
(a)in the “Items” paragraph of the List of Items Controlled section, as follows: 4E001 Specified “Technology”, See List of Items Controlled License Exceptions *CIV:* N/A *TSR:* Yes, except for “technology” for the “development” or “production” of commodities with an “Adjusted Peak Performance” (“APP”) exceeding 0.1 WT. *APP:* Yes to specific countries (see § 740.7 of the EAR for eligibility criteria). List of Items Controlled *Unit:* * * * *Related Controls:* * * * *Related Definitions:* * * * *Items:* a. “Technology” according to the General Technology Note, for the “development”, “production”, or “use” of equipment or “software” controlled by 4A (except 4A980 or 4A994) or 4D (except 4D980, 4D993, 4D994). Dated: June 1, 2007. Eileen M. Albanese, Director, Office of Exporter Services. [FR Doc. E7-11016 Filed 6-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-33-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 18 CFR Part 40 [Docket No. RM06-16-000] Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System; Stay of Effective Date May 31, 2007. AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE. ACTION: Stay of effective date. SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to the preamble of the Commission's Final Rule, which was published in the **Federal Register** of Wednesday, April 4, 2007 (72 FR 16,416). The Final Rule established mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System. The Government Accountability Office has determined that, pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(3)(A), the effective date of the Final Rule is June 18, 2007, rather than June 4, 2007. DATES: The rule published April 4, 2007 (72 FR 16416) is stayed until June 18, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan First (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,
(202)502-8529. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 16, 2007, the Commission issued a Final Rule in the above-docketed proceeding, *Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk Power System,* Order No. 693, 72 FR 16416 (Apr. 4, 2007), FERC Stats. and Regs. ¶ 31,241 (2007). The Government Accountability Office has determined that, pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(3)(A), the effective date of the Final Rule is June 18, 2007, rather than June 4, 2007. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-10831 Filed 6-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE 22 CFR Part 121 [Public Notice: 5823] Amendment of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations: United States Munitions List AGENCY: Department of State. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Department of State is amending the International Traffic in Arms Regulations
(ITAR)by revising Note (1)(i) of U.S. Munitions List
(USML)Category VIII(e) to add the term “primary” to references to a commercial standby instrument system. As a result, Category XII(d) and Category VIII(e) do not include quartz rate sensors if such items are integrated into and included as an integral part of a commercial primary or standby instrument system for use on civil aircraft prior to export or exported solely for integration into such systems. After this exclusion was instituted in 2004 for such standby systems, it became apparent that some primary systems also include the subject quartz rate sensors. DATES: *Effective Date:* This rule is effective June 7, 2007. ADDRESSES: Interested parties may submit comments at any time by any of the following methods: • *E-mail: DDTCResponseTeam@state.gov* with subject line Regulatory Change: Quartz Rate Sensors Change. • *Mail:* Department of State, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, Office of Defense Trade Controls Policy, ATTN: Regulatory Change, 12th Floor, SA-1, Washington, DC, 20522-0112. • *Fax:* 202-261-8199. • *Hand Delivery or Courier (regular work hours only):* Department of State, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, Office of Defense Trade Controls Policy, ATTENTION: Regulatory Change, SA-1, 12th Floor, 2401 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037. Persons with access to the Internet may also view this notice by going to the regulations.gov Web site at: *http://www.regulations.gov/index.cfm.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ann K. Ganzer, Office of Defense Trade Controls Policy, Department of State, 12th Floor, SA-1, Washington, DC 20522-0112; Telephone 202-663-2792 or FAX 202-261-8199; e-mail: *DDTCResponseTeam@state.gov.* ATTN: Regulatory Change: Quartz Rate Sensors Change. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In conjunction with requests for Commodity Jurisdiction, the Department of State has determined that certain quartz rate sensors otherwise controlled under the ITAR are not subject to the licensing jurisdiction of the Department of State when integrated into primary or backup inertial navigation systems for civil aircraft or exported solely for integration into such systems. The applicability of these determinations to a particular system will be made on a case-by-case basis in response to U.S. exporters' requests for Commodity Jurisdiction by the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls. These requests will be favorably considered only where the sensor is an integral part of the commercial system or is exported solely for integration into such a system and is important for the safe operation of the civil aircraft. In making these determinations, other factors also will be considered. Among them is the extent to which the sensors can be extracted without damage and used for a significant military application, the extent to which diversion of the sensors alone or in small quantities poses a threat to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States, and the scope of controls that would be applicable to the commercial system if licensing jurisdiction were transferred to the Department of Commerce. Exports of quartz rate sensors determined by the State Department to not be subject to USML controls will be subject to the licensing jurisdiction of the Department of Commerce whether the sensors are being exported for integration abroad or being exported as an integral part of a commercial primary or standby inertial navigation system. Regulatory Analysis And Notices Administrative Procedure Act This amendment involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and, therefore, is not subject to the procedures required by 5 U.S.C. 553 and 554. Regulatory Flexibility Act This rule does not require analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995 This rule does not require analysis under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 This amendment has been found not to be a major rule within the meaning of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Executive Orders 12372 and 13132 It is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant application of the consultation provisions of Executive Orders 12372 and 13132. Executive Order 12866 This amendment is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866, but has been reviewed internally by the Department of State to ensure consistency with the purposes thereof. Paperwork Reduction Act This rule does not impose any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35. List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 121 Arms and munitions, Exports, U.S. Munitions List. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, Title 22, Chapter I, Subchapter M, part 121 is amended as follows: PART 121—THE UNITED STATES MUNITIONS LIST 1. The authority citation for part 121 continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 2, 38, and 71, Pub. L. 90-629, 90 Stat. 744 (22 U.S.C. 2752, 2778, 2797); E.O. 11958, 42 FR 4311; 3 CFR, 1977 Comp., p. 79; 22 U.S.C. 2651a; Pub. L. 105-261, 112 Stat. 1920. 2. Section 121.1 is amended in paragraph
(c)by revising paragraph (e), Note (1)(i) and
(ii)of Category VIII—Aircraft and Associated Equipment to read as follows: § 121.1 General. The United States Munitions List. Category VIII—Aircraft and Associated Equipment
(e)* * * Note:
(1)* * *
(i)Are integrated into and included as an integral part of a commercial primary or commercial standby instrument system for use on civil aircraft prior to export or exported solely for integration into such a commercial primary or standby instrument system, and
(ii)When the exporter has been informed in writing by the Department of State that a specific quartz rate sensor integrated into a commercial primary or standby instrument system has been determined to be subject to the licensing jurisdiction of the Department of Commerce in accordance with this section. Dated: March 26, 2007. John C. Rood, Assistant Secretary for International Security and Nonproliferation, Department of State. [FR Doc. E7-11012 Filed 6-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-25-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration 29 CFR Part 1910 Interpretation of OSHA's Standard for Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor. ACTION: Interpretation. SUMMARY: This Notice constitutes the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's official interpretation and explanation of the phrase “on site in one location” in the “Application” section of OSHA's Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals standard. (“PSM”). DATES: *Effective Date:* June 7, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information contact: Kevin Ropp, Director, Office of Communications, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Room N-3647, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone:
(202)693-1999; fax
(202)693-1635. For technical information contact: Mike Marshall, PSM Coordinator, Directorate of Enforcement Programs, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Room N-3119, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone:
(202)693-1850; fax
(202)693-1681. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This **Federal Register** Notice addresses OSHA's interpretation of the term “on site in one location” in the scope and application section of the PSM standard. As set forth below, OSHA interprets this term to mean that the standard applies when a threshold quantity
(TQ)of a highly hazardous chemical
(HHC)exists within contiguous areas under the control of an employer, or group of affiliated employers, in any group of vessels that are interconnected, or in separate vessels that are located in such proximity that the HHC could be involved in a potential catastrophic release, as indicated in the regulatory definition of “process.” 1 1 The term “contiguous” has been found to mean either “nearby” or “in actual contact” in terms of the application of an OSHA standard. Empire Company, Inc., 17 BNA OSHC 1990 (Docket No. 93-1861, 1997), affirmed 136 F.3d 873 (1st Cir. 1998). See also 136 F.3d at 878, citing Black's Law Dictionary 320 (6th ed. 1990) (“In close proximity; neighboring * * *”). References to “contiguous” areas in this Notice carry the same meaning. A. Introduction The meaning of “on site in one location” was at issue in a recent case before the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. *Motiva Enterprises,* 21 BNA OSHC 1696 (OSHRC No. 02-2160, 2006). In that decision the Review Commission queried whether that language was meant to limit in some way the applicability of the standard to a highly-hazardous-chemical process. In the absence of an authoritative interpretation, the Review Commission decided it could not determine that the cited activities were “on site” and “in one location,” and it vacated the citations. Recognizing that OSHA is the policymaking actor under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, it left it to the agency to decide “in the first instance * * * the meaning of these terms and offer an ‘authoritative interpretation.’ ” It also said that “[a]ny such subsequent interpretation” would be reviewed in a future case “under ‘standard deference principles.’ ” The PSM standard provides, in pertinent part:
(a)*Application.*
(1)This section applies to the following:
(i)A process which involves a chemical at or above the specified threshold quantities listed in appendix A to this section;
(ii)A process which involves a flammable liquid or gas (as defined in § 1910.1200(c) of this part) on site in one location, in a quantity of 10,000 pounds (4535.9 kg) or more * * * ., 29 CFR 1910.119(a). The standard defines “process” to mean: * * * any activity involving a highly hazardous chemical including any use, storage, manufacturing, handling, or the on-site movement of such chemicals, or combination of these activities. For purposes of this definition, any group of vessels which are interconnected and separate vessels which are located such that a highly hazardous chemical could be involved in a potential release shall be considered a single process., 29 CFR 1910.119(b). The standard defines “highly hazardous chemical” to mean: * * *a substance possessing toxic, reactive, flammable, or explosive properties and specified by paragraph (a)(1) of this section. *Ibid.* The standard thus provides regulatory definitions for the application provision's key terms, “process” and “highly hazardous chemical.” It omits, however, any definition for the phrase “on site in one location” that is included in subsection (a)(1)(ii) of the Application provision. In providing this Notice's clarification of the intended coverage of the standard, OSHA has determined that, considering the history, language, structure and purposes of the PSM standard, it is abundantly clear that there is considerable overlap between the term “on site in one location” and the definition of “process” adopted in the final version of the standard. In addition, “on site in one location” serves the independent function of excluding coverage where the HHC threshold would be met only if all amounts in interconnected or proximate vessels or pipes were aggregated but some of the amounts needed to meet the threshold quantity are outside the perimeter of the employer's facility. For example, trucks and pipelines outside the boundaries of the employer's property, which may be regulated by the Department of Transportation in any event, are excluded. B. The Regulatory History 1. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, July 17, 1990
(NPRM)In response to several major disasters in both the United States and abroad, OSHA began to develop a comprehensive standard addressing hazards related to releases of HHCs in the workplace. On July 17, 1990, OSHA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM)at 55 FR 29150. Approximately four months later (November 15, 1990), Section 304 of the Clean Air Act Amendments
(CAAA)of 1990, Public Law 101-549, required the Secretary of Labor, in coordination with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, to promulgate, pursuant to the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, a chemical process safety standard to prevent accidental releases of hazardous chemicals that could pose a threat to employees. The Act also directed EPA to issue a rule addressing the hazards to the public of releases of such chemicals into the atmosphere and to coordinate the provisions with comparable OSHA requirements, (42 U.S.C. 7412(r)(7)). The NPRM's scope and application section included the following statement of the standard's intended application:
(b)*Application.*
(1)This section applies to the following* * *
(i)Processes* * *
(ii)Processes which involve flammable liquids or gases (as defined in § 1910.1200(c) of this part) onsite in one location in quantities of 10,000 lbs or more* * *, 55 FR 29163. Under the proposal the term “process” would be defined as: * * *any activity conducted by an employer that involves a highly hazardous chemical including any use, storage, manufacturing, handling, or movement of a highly hazardous chemical, or a combination of these activities. *Ibid.* Thus, the NPRM applied to processes in the plural, and the definition of “process” did not include any language indicating a geographic limit to what constituted a covered “activity.” The subsection on application to flammable liquids and gases included “on site in one location,” without explaining the phrase. The subsection on application to listed hazardous chemicals lacked any parallel language. 2. The Rulemaking Record and Hearing Process In response to the NPRM, OSHA received over 175 written comments. OSHA's review of the comments revealed a significant issue of how TQs of HHCs were to be calculated. Because OSHA had used the plural term “processes” in the NPRM, which could suggest multiple processes in separate locations, some stakeholders expressed concern as to whether OSHA intended TQs be calculated by an aggregate of all HHC present at an employer's facility, or by the amount of an HHC present in one particular process. ( *See e.g.* , Exs. 3-104, 109, 112, 119, 125, 126). 2 2 All citations to either exhibits or transcripts in this instruction are references to the PSM Standard's Rulemaking Docket, No. S026, available at *http://www.regulations.gov* . Recognizing this confusion, OSHA, in a **Federal Register** notice of November 1, 1990, 3 clarified its intent that TQs would be calculated by process or location, and not on a facility-wide basis: 3 This **Federal Register** notice also announced additional hearings in Houston, TX. OSHA did not intend that facilities aggregate quantities of covered chemicals. The important factor is the amount of a listed chemical in a plant that could be released at one point in time. If the total amount of a listed chemical in a plant exceeds its threshold quantity of 1000 pounds, for example, *but the chemical is used in small quantities around the plant and is not concentrated in one process or in one area,* OSHA believes that a catastrophic release of the entire material would be unlikely. 55 FR 46074, 46075) (emphasis added). At hearings on the proposal held in Washington, DC and Houston, TX, and in additional written comments, stakeholders almost uniformly accepted OSHA's explanation of its intent that TQs of HHCs were to be calculated by individual process and not through aggregation of all processes present in a facility. Several major trade associations and refinery employers concurred with OSHA's conclusions, (Tr. 1113, 2591-92, 3038, 3419, 3192; Exs. 3-165, 3-170). Commenters urged that this aggregation principle should apply regardless of the type of HHC, ( *e.g.* , Tr. 1113, 3038, 3192; Ex.-109). In addition, during the rulemaking, commenters noted that HHCs concentrated in a single interconnected process should be subject to the requirements of the PSM standard, (Ex. 3-165, 3-166). The concept of interconnectedness was integral to American Petroleum Institute
(API)750, *Management of Process Hazards,* an industry consensus document on managing process hazards. This was one of the industry practices OSHA referenced when developing the PSM Standard, (55 FR 29159). Specifically, API 750 defined a “facility” and “process” as follows: 1.4.4 A *facility* comprises the buildings, containers, and equipment that could reasonably be expected to participate in a catastrophic release as a result of their being physically interconnected or of their proximity and in which dangerous chemicals are used, stored, manufactured, handled, or moved. 1.4.5 *Process* refers to the activities that constitute use, storage, manufacture, handling, or movement in all facilities that contain dangerous substances. 3. The Final Rule On February 24, 1992, OSHA promulgated the final PSM standard, (57 FR 6356). With respect to TQ calculations, OSHA again reiterated its November 1, 1990 statement of intent, noting that it “continues to believe that the potential of a catastrophic release exists when a highly hazardous chemical is concentrated in a process.” OSHA also stated that it “agrees with those commenters” who argued that “highly hazardous chemicals in less than threshold quantities distributed in several processes would not present as great a risk of catastrophe as the threshold quantity in a single process.” (57 FR 6364). To reflect its agreement with the commenters and API 750 on this point, OSHA modified the definition of “process” in the final rule. First, the “Application” provision was stated in terms of a “process” rather than “processes.” Next, as set forth above, the final standard augmented the NPRM's definition of “process” by adding language to clarify that “interconnected and nearby vessels containing a highly hazardous chemical would be considered part of the single process and the quantities of the chemical would be aggregated to determine if the threshold quantity of the chemical is exceeded”. *Id.,* at 6372 (emphasis added). OSHA also added the term “on-site movement” to the list of covered activities. Finally, OSHA specifically stated that the term “process,” when used in conjunction with the application section of the standard, establishes the intent of the standard, (57 FR 6372). As a result, OSHA intended that the term “process” be read in conjunction with the terms “on site in one location” when evaluating the applicability of PSM. There was no further preamble discussion, however, on what, if anything, “on site in one location” was meant to convey. The regulatory history establishes several key points. First, OSHA intended “process” to be the central term elucidating the standard's coverage. Second, employers need not aggregate all amounts of a chemical in an entire facility to determine whether a threshold quantity is present. Instead, only amounts in a group of vessels that are interconnected, or in vessels that are separate but sufficiently close together that they could be involved in the same release, are to be aggregated. Finally, the agency intended no distinction in the application of these principles between listed chemicals subject to 29 CFR 1910.119(a)(i) and flammables subject to 29 CFR 1910.119(a)(ii). 4. The Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)Risk Management Program
(RMP)In addition to directing OSHA to develop the PSM standard, Congress directed EPA to address the hazards of catastrophic releases of highly hazardous chemicals to the atmosphere, (42 U.S.C. 7412(r)). EPA issued its rule on June 20, 1996, following promulgation of OSHA's PSM standard, (61 FR 31667). While the definition of “process” in the EPA-prescribed RMP is identical to the PSM definition, RMP does not use the term “on site in one location”. Instead, RMP uses the term “stationary source,” which is defined, in relevant part, as “any buildings, structures, equipment, installations, or substance emitting stationary activities which belong to the same industrial group, which are located on one or more contiguous properties, which are under the control of the same person (or persons under common control), and from which an accidental release may occur.” (40 CFR 68.3). This is the same definition used by Congress. (42 U.S.C.A 7412(r)(2)(c)). C. The Regulatory Language and Structure As noted above, the Secretary construes the phrase “on site in one location” to refer to contiguous areas under the control of an employer, or group of affiliated employers, and, within that area to a group of vessels that are interconnected, or separate but sufficiently near each other that they could be involved in a catastrophic release. This interpretation accords with the ordinary dictionary meanings of “site” and “location” and with the context of the entire application provision and the related regulatory definitions for “process” and “highly hazardous chemical.” In interpreting the phrase, moreover, the Secretary has concluded that to give meaning to all the words of the standard, a certain degree of redundancy is inevitable; and that it would not be faithful to the drafters' intent or the purposes of the standard to construe “on site in one location” as completely separate from the definition of “process,” since the result would be to read part of the “process” definition out of the standard altogether. In so concluding, the Secretary notes that the overlap of “process” with “on site in one location” parallels a similar overlap with “highly hazardous chemical,” as the latter term appears both in the “process” definition and in the language of the application provision and its definition includes a reference back to the application provision. Thus, the standard applies to a process, a process is an activity involving a highly hazardous chemical, and a highly hazardous chemical is, inter alia, a chemical that is specified by the standard's application provision, 29 CFR 1910.119(a), (b). But, despite this evident circularity, nobody has ever objected to that overlap. Similarly, there is unavoidable overlap between “on site in one location” and the portions of the process definition that refer to interconnection and location. The interpretation provided here is consistent with the ordinary dictionary meaning of “on site in one location.” The dictionary defines “site” to mean, primarily, “the position or location of a town, building, etc., esp. as to its environment.” *Webster's Unabridged Dictionary* *1128, 1788* (2d ed. 2001). It defines “location” to mean, primarily, “a place or situation occupied.” *See also American Heritage Dictionary* ( *1976* ), 1210 (defining “site” as “the place or plot of land where something was or is to be located” ), 765 (defining “location” to mean “a place where something is or might be located; a site or situation”); *Black's Law Dictionary* (7th ed. 1999), at 1392 (“site” means “a place or location; esp., a piece of property set aside for a specific use”), at 951 (“location” means “the specific place or position of a person or thing”). That “site” and “location” are virtually synonyms provides further support for the conclusion that avoiding redundancy was not uppermost in the minds of the drafters. Read together, however, they reinforce the idea that OSHA intended to give “highly hazardous chemical” and “process” a rough geographical, as well as functional, limit. This intent may be further discerned from consideration of relevant regulatory history. CAAA Section 304 directed the Secretary, in coordination with EPA, to promulgate a chemical process safety standard designed to protect employees from hazards associated with accidental releases of HHCs in the workplace. Although EPA's RMP Rule at 40 CFR part 68 *et seq.* does not contain an “on site” (or “in one location”) limitation in its text, Congress's defining EPA coverage in terms of a “stationary source” accomplishes the same limitation. “Stationary source” is defined as any buildings, structures, equipment, installations or substance emitting stationary activities
(i)which belong to the same industrial group,
(ii)which are located on one or more contiguous properties,
(iii)which are under the control of the same person (or persons under common control), and
(iv)from which an accidental release may occur, (42 U.S.C.A § 7412(r)(2)(c)). 4 Because Congress mandated OSHA and EPA coordination in addressing the release of hazardous substances, the regulations of the two agencies are to be construed together. In other words, the boundaries of a covered facility under PSM will be similar to the boundaries of a stationary source under RMP, and “on site in one location” is given essentially the same meaning as the “which are located on one or more contiguous properties” component of the term “stationary source,” while the rest of the definition mirrors OSHA's definition of “process.” Just as that term encompasses most of the PSM “process” definition, this construction of “on site in one location” also encompasses the inclusion of the “on-site movement” of HHCs that was added to the definition of “process” in the final rule. Although neither the NPRM nor the preamble to the final rule provides any detailed explanation of this inclusion, it would be consistent with the statutory aims of the CAAA to limit PSM coverage to facilities included in the “stationary source” definition. To that end, the Secretary also reads the limitation in “stationary source” to locations “ which are under the control of the same person (or persons under common control)” as being implicit in the phrase “on site in one location” and, indeed, in the definition of “process” (since the former phrase only relates explicitly to flammable liquids and gases, and not to Appendix A toxic substances). 4 This term was directly adopted into RMP at 40 CFR 68.3. This construction also comports with the regulatory history on aggregating the TQs of HHCs. As noted in the comments of stakeholders, “on site in one location” could not be naturally read with the plural term “processes” in proposed § 1910.119(b)(1)(ii). A large facility can have separate processes at different locations within its boundaries, a point raised by Allied Signal in its comments (Ex. 3-17). The American Paper Institute similarly commented that “a significant concern for us is that the proposed rule is unclear as to how an employer can determine when the rule would apply to a particular facility handling chemicals at different locations of that facility.” (Tr. 1112). Not only did the stakeholders point out that the NPRM's scope and application section was inconsistent with the proposed definition of “process,” OSHA itself recognized the issue and took the unusual step of clarifying its intent in an interim proposal document. By stating that a chemical used in small quantities around the plant and not concentrated in one process or in one area would be unlikely to cause a catastrophic release, OSHA clearly sought to limit coverage of the PSM standard to situations where a TQ of an HHC was concentrated in a single, including an interconnected, process. Despite the inexact use of the plural “processes” in the NPRM, it was never the agency's intent to cover HHCs sufficiently dispersed in various locations on a large site, and in more than one process, such that their release from any one process would not cause the type of catastrophic harm that this standard was aimed to prevent. The use of “on site in one location” in the provision regarding flammables was intended to signal that employers would not need to aggregate all sources of the chemical facility-wide, or those outside the bounds of the employers' facility, although the provision did not clearly describe the agency's intent regarding which sources should be aggregated. The hearing transcripts and written comments confirm that members of the refinery industry, an industry with a particular interest in OSHA's regulation of flammable liquids and gases, understood and accepted OSHA's clarified position. For instance, Shell Oil Company testified that it “strongly supports OSHA's position that owners should not aggregate quantities of chemicals at separate locations across a facility to determine if threshold quantities have been reached”, (Tr. 2591). BP testified that “if flammables are over 10,000 pounds in process, the rule applies to that process”, (Tr. 3038). Amoco Corporation agreed that “OSHA clarified that the threshold quantities of highly hazardous chemicals are determined on process basis, rather than by aggregating quantities of like chemicals for an entire facility”, (Ex. 3-165). Union Carbide similarly stated its understanding that “all of the thresholds be calculated on a ‘per process’ basis”, (Ex. 3-109). OSHA reiterated this position in the final rule, stating that it “continues to believe that the potential hazard of a catastrophic release exists when the highly hazardous chemical is concentrated in a single process”, (57 FR 6364). This was in agreement with those stakeholders who argued that TQs should not be aggregated over an entire facility, (e.g., Tr. 2591, 3192; Exs. 3-163, 3-164). OSHA's final position was that PSM coverage could only be found if a TQ of an HHC exists in a single process. To the extent “on site in one location” did not adequately convey that intent, the more precise revision of the definition of “process” as a result of the record comments did so by clarifying that the standard's scope was meant to apply to an area more confined than multiple processes, but more expansive than a single process point, where the process involves inter-connecting vessels or pipes, or vessels in close proximity such that the release of an HHC in one could trigger a chain reaction in the others. Accordingly, OSHA modified the definition of “process” to include the concepts of “interconnection” and “co-location” with addition of the language, “any group of vessels which are interconnected or separate vessels which are located such that a highly hazardous chemical could be involved in a potential release shall be considered a single process.” 29 CFR 1910.119(b). OSHA stated in the final rule that this definition, when read in conjunction with the application section, establishes the standard's intended coverage, (57 FR 6372). Therefore, a “single process” containing a TQ of an HHC includes an “interconnected” or closely co-located process. D. The Regulatory Purpose Construing “on site in one location” in tandem with the final, expanded definition of “process” also serves OSHA's intended purposes. First, the full definition of “process” makes clear that it was not OSHA's intent that it would be required to prove that a release of an HHC in one component of an interconnected process could affect a release in other components of the same interconnected process in order for the PSM standard to apply. Rather, the intent of OSHA and the understanding of the stakeholders were to the contrary, as the rulemaking record indicates. For example, AT&T recommended that OSHA define threshold quantity as “the maximum amount in pounds in a process (or connected processes)”, (Ex. 3-126). Asarco, in its comments, suggested that an interconnected process should be covered by the PSM standard. (Ex. 3-125). API, the leading trade organization of the refinery industry, included the concept of interconnection in its Recommended Practice 750. As described *supra,* API 750 applied to “facilities” that use, produce, process or store flammable or explosive substances that are present in such quantity and condition that a sudden, catastrophic release of more than five tons of gas or vapor can occur over a matter of minutes, based on credible failure scenarios and the properties of the materials involved, (API 750 1.3.1.1(a)). 5 The term “facilities”, as used in API 750, includes buildings, containers, and equipment that are physically interconnected, ( *see* API 750 1.4.4). 5 In the final rule, OSHA rejected API's TQ of 5 tons of released flammable vapor as too complex, using instead the 10,000 pounds TQ. 57 FR at 6366-67. The presence of the word “or” between interconnected and co-located vessels in the final rule demonstrates that two potential avenues exist to find a covered process when several aspects may be involved in the overall process. The plain language of the definition establishes two distinct burdens of proof when considering the applicability of PSM to an interconnected or a co-located process. With respect to a co-located process, OSHA would be required to demonstrate as part of its *prima facie* case that unconnected but co-located processes are situated in a manner that a release from one process could contribute to the release of the other. In contrast, the definition of “process” contains no such requirement for an interconnected process. In other words, OSHA's intent is that the phrase “which are located such that a highly hazardous chemical could be involved in a potential release” modifies only the immediately-preceding “separate vessels,” making the entire phrase parallel to the free-standing phrase “any group of vessels which are interconnected.” Thus, there is no additional requirement on OSHA to show the potentiality of a release with respect to interconnected (as opposed to separate) vessels. Rather, the PSM standard presumes that all aspects of a physically connected process can be expected to participate in a catastrophic release. Second, it is clear that, in revising the “process” definition to encompass the “on-site movement” of HHCs and the twin concepts of inter-connectedness and co-location, OSHA intended that definition to bear most of the weight of defining the scope of the standard. As originally drafted, the “process” definition not only did not have these clarifications, but “onsite in one location” appeared only in the subsection on flammable liquids and gases, and not in the subsection on Appendix A toxic substances. There is no obvious explanation why this was so. As noted, the phrase was intended to signal that it was not necessary to aggregate all sources of a chemical within, or beyond, the employer's facility. The final standard clarified and more precisely stated this intent and made clear that the same principles applied to both listed and flammable chemicals. The phrase in the final standard continues to carry its original NPRM meaning of setting a geographic boundary (“on site”) and, within that boundary, a site-specific parameter (“in one location”). But after the definition of “process” was changed in the final rule to include explicit language clarifying that a “single process” includes “any group of vessels which are interconnected or separate vessels which are located such that a highly hazardous chemical could be involved in a potential release,” the limitation placed on application of the standard to flammable liquids and gases denoted by the related phrase “on site in one location” no longer carries the independent weight it had before OSHA clarified the intended meaning of “process.” As previously stated, however, it continues to serve a separate purpose by operating to exclude coverage where the HHC threshold would be met only if all amounts in interconnected or co-located vessels were aggregated but some of the amounts needed to meet the threshold quantity are outside of the perimeter of the employer's facility. E. The Response to the Motiva Decision In the Motiva decision, the Review Commission appropriately left to the Secretary the task of interpreting “on site in one location” as it appears in the PSM standard, rather than doing so as an initial matter on its own. This Notice accomplishes that function. The interpretation set forth here is supported by the language, history and purposes of the standard and is consistent with the position adopted by EPA. In the absence of an agency interpretation, the Review Commission had focused on another guide to regulatory intent, the canon of construction that says that all the words of a statute (or regulation) should be assumed to have their own meaning, and suggested that “on site in one location” therefore has a meaning wholly apart from process. Regardless of the strength of this canon, the Secretary has satisfied it here by interpreting “on site in one location” to limit coverage to vessels within contiguous areas controlled by an employer or group of affiliated employers. More fundamentally, the Secretary agrees that canons of construction can be useful guides to regulatory intent. They are guides only, however, and should not be mechanically applied in the face of stronger indicia of intent. The flip side of the canon referred to above is the rule that the words of a standard (or regulation) should not be given meaning at the expense of rendering other words meaningless. Accordingly, the courts have put aside the general rule against redundancy in statutes if applying the rule would be counter to legislative intent. *See Gutierrez* v. *Ada,* 528 U.S. 250, 258
(2000)(“rule against redundancy does not necessarily have the strength to turn a tide of good cause to come out the other way”); *Morton* v. *United Parcel Service, Inc.,* 272 F.3d 1249, 1258 (9th Cir. 2001) (rule of redundancy not followed when intent of statute clear); *Mayer* v. *Spanel Intern. LTD.,* 51 F.3d 670, 674 (7th Cir. 1995) (every enacted word need not carry independent force absent strong evidence that at the time of enactment the words were understood as equivalents). In this case, the general statutory canon against redundancy cannot be given controlling weight given the clear intent of OSHA, in the final rule, and the stakeholders, through their comments, during the regulatory process. To do otherwise, in the Secretary's judgment, would render meaningless the most important revision affecting coverage that came out of the rulemaking process, namely the explicit inclusion of the twin concepts of interconnection and co-location in the definition of “process” and the clear intent that those concepts would determine coverage under the standard. Moreover, it is simply linguistically inescapable that there is overlap and redundancy among the terms of the standard. *Motiva* involved the interplay between “on site in one location” and the “interconnected” prong of the definition of “process,” but the other prong of that definition refers to vessels that are so “located” to create a risk of catastrophic release. Similarly, the appearance of “highly hazardous chemical” in the definition of “process” and in the application provision, and the reference back to the application section in the HHC definition, creates an unavoidable redundancy. So too here, the Secretary cannot reasonably interpret “on site in one location” in a way that has no overlap with “process.” Instead, consistent with how courts generally apply the canons of construction, she has settled on an interpretation of the term “on site in one location” that conforms as much as possible to the ordinary meaning of the words and to the standard's overall language, history, and purposes. Signature This document was prepared under the direction of Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. Signed at Washington, DC, this 1st day of June, 2007. Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health. [FR Doc. E7-10918 Filed 6-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-26-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R06-OAR-2007-0386; FRL-8321-7] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Texas; Revision to the Texas State Implementation Plan Regarding a Negative Declaration for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry Batch Processing Source Category in El Paso County AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. SUMMARY: Section 172(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA)requires areas that are not attaining a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) to reduce emissions from existing sources by adopting, at a minimum, reasonably available control technology (RACT). EPA has established source categories for which RACT must be implemented. If no major sources of volatile organic compound
(VOC)emissions in a particular source category exist in a nonattainment area, a State may submit a negative declaration for that category. Texas submitted a State Implementation Plan
(SIP)revision which included negative declarations for certain source categories in the El Paso 1-hour ozone standard nonattainment area. EPA previously approved the State's declaration that no major sources existed for 9 source categories in the El Paso area. In the approval EPA neglected to approve the negative declaration for the synthetic organic chemical manufacturing industry (SOCMI) batch processing category in the El Paso area. EPA is approving this negative declaration for the El Paso 1-hour ozone standard nonattainment area. DATES: This rule is effective on August 6, 2007 without further notice, unless EPA receives relevant adverse comment by July 9, 2007. If EPA receives such comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the **Federal Register** informing the public that this rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2007-0386, by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *EPA Region 6 “Contact Us” Web site: http://epa.gov/region6/r6coment.htm.* Please click on “6PD” (Multimedia) and select “Air” before submitting comments. • *E-mail:* Mr. Carl Young at *young.carl@epa.gov.* Please also send a copy by e-mail to the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below. • *Fax:* Mr. Carl Young, Acting Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), at fax number 214-665-7263. • *Mail:* Mr. Carl Young, Acting Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. • *Hand or Courier Delivery:* Mr. Carl Young, Acting Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Such deliveries are accepted only between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. weekdays except for legal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2007-0386. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *www.regulations.gov* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. The file will be made available by appointment for public inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review Room between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal holidays. Contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese at 214-665-7253 to make an appointment. If possible, please make the appointment at least two working days in advance of your visit. There will be a 15 cent per page fee for making photocopies of documents. On the day of the visit, please check in at the EPA Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. The State submittal is also available for public inspection at the State Air Agency listed below during official business hours by appointment: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Office of Air Quality, 12124 Park 35 Circle, Austin, Texas 78753. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Riley, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone 214-665-8542; fax number 214-665-7263; e-mail address *riley.jeffrey@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever “we”, “us”, or “our” is used, we mean the EPA. Outline I. What is the Background for this Action? II. What Action is EPA Taking? III. Final Action IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What is the Background for this Action? Section 172(c)(1) of the CAA requires SIPs for areas that are not attaining a NAAQS to provide, at a minimum, for such reductions in air emissions from existing sources in the areas as may be obtained through the adoption of reasonably available control measures including RACT. In our September 17, 1979 **Federal Register** notice (44 FR 53761) we define RACT as: “The lowest emission limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably available considering technological and economical feasibility.” Under CAA section 182(b)(2) State SIPs must require RACT for major stationary sources of VOC emissions in ozone NAAQS nonattainment areas classified as moderate or higher. VOC emissions can react with sunlight and nitrogen oxides to form ground-level ozone. If no major sources of VOC emissions exist in a particular source category in an ozone nonattainment area, the State may submit a negative declaration for that category. The El Paso area, consisting of El Paso County, Texas, was classified as a moderate nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS on November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56694). On January 10, 1996 Texas submitted a SIP revision that included negative declarations for certain source categories in the El Paso 1-hour ozone standard nonattainment area. The area consists of El Paso County. We approved the State's declaration that no major sources existed for 9 source categories in the El Paso area on October 30, 1996 (61 FR 55894). In our approval we neglected to approve the negative declaration for the synthetic organic chemical manufacturing industry (SOCMI) batch processing category in the El Paso area. We reviewed data from the Texas Point Source Emissions Inventory to confirm that there were no major sources of VOC emissions from SOCMI batch processing facilities in El Paso County. Our approval of the State's negative declaration will correct our earlier failure to take action on the negative declaration submitted by Texas. II. What Action is EPA Taking? We are taking direct final action to approve a negative declaration submitted by Texas concerning the SOCMI batch processing category in the El Paso 1-hour ozone standard nonattainment area. Texas submitted the negative declaration on January 10, 1996. It states that in the El Paso area there are no major stationary sources of VOC emissions for the SOCMI batch processing category. We have evaluated the State's submittal and have determined that it meets the applicable requirements of the CAA and EPA air quality regulations. We are approving the negative declaration pursuant to section 110 and part D of the CAA. We are also making ministerial corrections to the table in 40 CFR 52.2270(e) to reflect our earlier approval of negative declarations submitted by Texas. We are publishing this rule without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no relevant adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this **Federal Register** publication, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if relevant adverse comments are received. This rule will be effective on August 6, 2007 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse comment by July 9, 2007. If we receive relevant adverse comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the **Federal Register** informing the public that the rule will not take effect. We will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so now. Please note that if we receive adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, we may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. III. Final Action We are approving a SIP revision submitted by Texas which states that there are no major stationary sources of VOC emissions for the SOCMI batch processing category in the El Paso 1-hour ozone standard nonattainment area. Texas submitted this negative declaration on January 10, 1996. We are also making ministerial corrections to the table in 40 CFR 52.2270(e) to reflect our earlier approval of negative declarations submitted by Texas. IV. 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 and because this action will not have a significant, adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, 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 is not economically significant. Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Because this rule merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, EPA lacks the discretionary authority to modify today's regulatory decision on the basis of environmental justice considerations. In reviewing SIP submissions under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note), 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 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. section 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. section 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 6, 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, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: May 21, 2007. Richard E. Greene, Regional Administrator, Region 6. 40 CFR part 52 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 SS—Texas 2. The second table in paragraph
(e)entitled “EPA Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Texas SIP” is amended by adding entries for “VOC RACT Negative Declarations” and “VOC RACT Negative Declaration for SOCMI Batch Processing Source Category” immediately after the entry “Revision to Permitting Regulations and Board Orders No. 85-07, 87-09, 87-17, 88-08, 89-06, 90-05, 91-10, 92-06, 92-18, and 93-17” to read as follows: § 52.2270 Identification of plan.
(e)* * * EPA Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Texas SIP Name of SIP provision Applicable geographic or nonattainment area State submittal/effective date EPA approval date Comments * * * * * * * VOC RACT Negative Declarations Beaumont/Port Arthur, Dallas/Fort Worth, El Paso, Houston/Galveston 1/10/96 10/30/96, 61 FR 55894 Ref 52.2299(c)(103). VOC RACT Negative Declaration for SOCMI Batch Processing Source Category El Paso 1/10/96 6/7/07 [Insert *FR* page number where document begins] * * * * * * * [FR Doc. E7-10764 Filed 6-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 65 [Docket No. FEMA-B-7703] Changes in Flood Elevation Determinations AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Interim rule; removal. SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA)removes the interim change in flood elevation determination published at 72 FR 271 on January 4, 2007 for the Unincorporated areas of Frederick County, Maryland, Case No. 06-03-B384P, Community Number 240027. EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective June 7, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William R. Blanton, Jr., Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202)646-3151. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 19, 2006, FEMA issued a Letter of Map Revision
(LOMR)revising the Unincorporated areas of Frederick County, Maryland Flood Insurance Study
(FIS)report and Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), Case No. 06-03-B384P. In addition, the October 19, 2006 LOMR proposed base flood elevations along Ballenger Creek and Tributary No. 117 through a statutory 90-day appeal period and established an effective date of February 15, 2007. During the 90-day appeal period, FEMA received an appeal submitted by a property owner located within the revised area. After further investigation, it was found that the aforementioned flooding sources had been revised for the countywide map revision for Frederick County, Maryland, currently scheduled to go into effect in September 2007. When comparing the LOMR modeling to the countywide restudy, it was determined that the modeling for the countrywide restudy more accurately represented existing conditions. Therefore, the LOMR has been rescinded to eliminate the potential of incorrect flood insurance determinations along the revised flooding sources. Accordingly, the interim change in flood elevation determination published at 72 FR 271 on January 4, 2007 for the Unincorporated areas of Frederick County, Maryland, Case No. 06-03-B384P, Community No. 240027, is hereby removed. This matter is not a rulemaking governed by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553. FEMA voluntarily publishes flood elevation determinations for notice and comment, however, they are governed by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.* , and do not fall under the APA. If APA applicability is contested, however, FEMA asserts, for the reasons stated above, that it has good cause to issue this removal immediately, and without prior notice and opportunity to comment, because delaying implementation of this action to await public notice and comment is unnecessary, impracticable, and contrary to the public interest. *National Environmental Policy Act* . This rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Consideration. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared. *Regulatory Flexibility Act* . As flood elevation determinations are not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. *Regulatory Classification* . This rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735. *Executive Order 13132, Federalism* . This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. *Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform* . This rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988. List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 65 Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, 44 CFR part 65 is amended as follows: PART 65—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 65 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.* ; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 43 FR 41943, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127 of Mar. 31, 1979, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. § 65.4 [Amended] 2. The table published at 72 FR 271 on January 4, 2007 under the authority of § 65.4 is amended to remove the following: The interim change in flood elevation determination published at 72 FR 271 on January 4, 2007 for the Unincorporated areas of Frederick County, Maryland, Case No. 06-03-B384P, Community No. 240027. Dated: May 24, 2007. David I. Maurstad, Federal Insurance Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security. [FR Doc. E7-10951 Filed 6-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 65 Changes in Flood Elevation Determinations AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: Modified Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations
(BFEs)are finalized for the communities listed below. These modified BFEs will be used to calculate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and their contents. DATES: The effective dates for these modified BFEs are indicated on the following table and revise the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) in effect for the listed communities prior to this date. ADDRESSES: The modified BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William R. Blanton, Jr., Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202)646-3151. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA)makes the final determinations listed below of the modified BFEs for each community listed. These modified BFEs have been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety
(90)days have elapsed since that publication. The Mitigation Assistant Administrator of FEMA resolved any appeals resulting from this notification. The modified BFEs are not listed for each community in this notice. However, this final rule includes the address of the Chief Executive Officer of the community where the modified BFEs determinations are available for inspection. The modified BFEs are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.* , and with 44 CFR part 65. For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals. The modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required to either adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). These modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These modified BFEs are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are also used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final, and for the contents in these buildings. The changes in BFEs are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4. *National Environmental Policy Act* . This final rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not been prepared. *Regulatory Flexibility Act* . As flood elevation determinations are not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. *Regulatory Classification* . This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735. *Executive Order 13132, Federalism* . This final rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132, Federalism. *Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform* . This final rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988. List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 65 Flood insurance, Floodplains, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, 44 CFR part 65 is amended to read as follows: PART 65—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 65 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.* ; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. § 65.4 [Amended] 2. The tables published under the authority of § 65.4 are amended as follows: State and county Location and case No. Date and name of newspaper where notice was published Chief executive officer of community Effective date of modification Community No. Arkansas: Benton (FEMA Docket No.: B-7712) City of Rogers (07-06-0169P) January 24, 2007; January 31, 2007; *Arkansas Democrat Gazette* The Honorable Steve Womack, Mayor, City of Rogers, 301 West Chestnut Street, Rogers, AR 72756 April 25, 2007 050013 California: Contra Costa (FEMA Docket No.: B-7712) Unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County (06-09-B006P) January 18, 2007; January 25, 2007; *Contra Costa Times* The Honorable Brian Swisher, Mayor, City of Brentwood, 708 Third Street, Brentwood, CA 94513 April 26, 2007 060439 Riverside (FEMA Docket No.: B-7712) City of Murrieta (06-09-BD71P) January 18, 2007; January 25, 2007; *The Californian* The Honorable Kelly Seyarto, Mayor, City of Murrieta, 26442 Beckman Court, Murrieta, CA 92562 April 26, 2007 060751 Santa Barbara (FEMA Docket No.: B-7712) Unincorporated areas of Santa Barbara County (07-09-0251X) January 18, 2007; January 25, 2007; *Santa Barbara News Press* The Honorable Joni L. Gray, Chairperson, Santa Barbara County, 511 East Lakeside Parkway, Suite 126, Santa Maria, CA 93455 February 2, 2007 060331 Colorado: Summit (FEMA Docket No.: B-7712) Town of Breckenridge (06-08-B667P) January 12, 2007; January 19, 2007; *Summit County Journal* The Honorable Ernie Blake, Mayor, Town of Breckenridge, P.O. Box 168, Breckenridge, CO 80424 December 7, 2006 080172 Idaho: Boise (FEMA Docket No.: B-7712) Unincorporated areas of Boise County (06-10-B184P) January 4, 2007; January 11, 2007; *The Idaho Statesman* The Honorable Roger B. Jackson, Chairman, Boise County, Board of Commissioners, 420 Main Street, Idaho City, ID 83631 April 12, 2007 160205 Ohio: Lake (FEMA Docket No.: B-7712) City of Mentor (06-05-BY78P) January 12, 2007; January 19, 2007; *The News-Herald* The Honorable Ray Kirchner, Mayor, City of Mentor, 8500 Civic Center Boulevard, Mentor, OH 44060 January 2, 2007 390317 Oklahoma: Oklahoma (FEMA Docket No.: B-7712) City of Oklahoma City (06-06-B396P) January 11, 2007; January 18, 2007; *The Oklahoman* The Honorable Mick Cornett, Mayor, City of Oklahoma City, 200 North Walker Street, Third Floor, Oklahoma City, OK 73102 April 19, 2007 405378 Tulsa (FEMA Docket No.: B-7712) City of Broken Arrow (06-06-BJ56P) January 18, 2007; January 25, 2007; *Tulsa World* The Honorable Richard Carter, Mayor, City of Broken Arrow, P.O. Box 610, Broken Arrow, OK 74012 January 29, 2007 400236 Pennsylvania: Delaware (FEMA Docket No.: B-7712) Township of Thornbury (07-03-0012P) January 11, 2007; January 18, 2007; *Delaware County Daily Times* The Honorable Lou Gagliardi, Chairman, Thornbury Township Board of Supervisors, 8 Township Drive, Cheyney, PA 19319 December 18, 2006 425390 South Carolina: Richland (FEMA Docket No.: B-7712) Unincorporated areas of Richland County (06-04-BX98P) January 19, 2007; January 26, 2007; *The Columbia Star* Mr. J. Milton Pope, Interim County Administrator, Richland County P.O. Box 192, Columbia, SC 29202 April 27, 2007 450170 Richland (FEMA Docket No.: B-7712) Unincorporated areas of Richland County (06-04-BX99P) January 19, 2007; January 26, 2007; *The Columbia Star* The Honorable Anthony G. Mizzell, Chair, Richland County Council, 106 Wembley Street, Columbia, SC 29209 April 27, 2007 450170 Richland (FEMA Docket No.: B-7712) Town of Blythewood (06-04-C394P) January 18, 2007; January 25, 2007; *Country Chronicle* The Honorable Pete Amoth, Mayor, Town of Blythewood, P.O. Box 1004, Blythewood, SC 29016 April 26, 2007 450258 Texas: Bexar (FEMA Docket No.: B-7712) City of San Antonio (06-06-BH85P) January 11, 2007; January 18, 2007; *Daily Commercial Recorder* The Honorable Phil Hardberger, Mayor, City of San Antonio, P.O. Box 839966, San Antonio, TX 78283 January 29, 2007 480045 Bexar (FEMA Docket No.: B-7712) Unincorporated areas of Bexar County (05-06-A499P) January 11, 2007; January 18, 2007; *Daily Commercial Recorder* The Honorable Nelson W. Wolff, Bexar County Judge, Bexar County Courthouse, 100 Dolorosa, Suite 1.20, San Antonio, TX 78205 April 19, 2007 480035 Dallas (FEMA Docket No.: B-7712) City of Dallas (06-06-BF15P) January 11, 2007; January 18, 2007; *Daily Commercial Record* The Honorable Laura Miller, Mayor, City of Dallas, 1500 Marilla Drive, Dallas, TX 75201 April 19, 2007 480171 Wisconsin: Washington (FEMA Docket No.: B-7712) Village of Germantown (06-05-BH45P) January 18, 2007; January 25, 2007; *West Bend Daily News* The Honorable Charles J. Hargan, President, Village of Germantown, Board of Trustees, P.O. Box 337, Germantown, WI 53022 April 26, 2007 550472 (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: May 24, 2007. David I. Maurstad, Federal Insurance Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security. [FR Doc. E7-10965 Filed 6-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 65 [Docket No. FEMA-B-7717] Changes in Flood Elevation Determinations AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Interim rule. SUMMARY: This interim rule lists communities where modification of the Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations
(BFEs)is appropriate because of new scientific or technical data. New flood insurance premium rates will be calculated from the modified BFEs for new buildings and their contents. DATES: These modified BFEs are currently in effect on the dates listed in the table below and revise the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) in effect prior to this determination for the listed communities. From the date of the second publication of these changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has ninety
(90)days in which to request through the community that the Mitigation Assistant Administrator of FEMA reconsider the changes. The modified BFEs may be changed during the 90-day period. ADDRESSES: The modified BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William R. Blanton, Jr., Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472
(202)646-3151. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The modified BFEs are not listed for each community in this interim rule. However, the address of the Chief Executive Officer of the community where the modified BFE determinations are available for inspection is provided. Any request for reconsideration must be based on knowledge of changed conditions or new scientific or technical data. The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.* , and with 44 CFR part 65. For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals. The modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required to either adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). These modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established by the other Federal, State, or regional entities. The changes BFEs are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4. *National Environmental Policy Act.* This interim rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not been prepared. *Regulatory Flexibility Act.* As flood elevation determinations are not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. *Regulatory Classification.* This interim rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735. *Executive Order 13132, Federalism.* This interim rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132, Federalism. *Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform.* This interim rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988. List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 65 Flood insurance, Floodplains, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, 44 CFR part 65 is amended to read as follows: PART 65—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 65 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.;* Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. § 65.4 [Amended] 2. The tables published under the authority of § 65.4 are amended as follows: State and county Location and case No. Date and name of newspaper where notice was published Chief executive officer of community Effective date of modification Community No. Alabama: Elmore Unincorporated areas of Elmore County (07-04-0063P) March 21, 2007; March 28, 2007; *The Wetumpka Herald* The Honorable Joe Faulk, Chairman, Elmore County Board of Commissioners 100 East Commerce Street, Wetumpka, AL 36092 June 27, 2007 010406 Houston City of Ashford (07-04-1348P) March 15, 2007; March 22, 2007; *The Dothan Eagle* The Honorable Bryan Alloway, Mayor, City of Ashford, P.O. Box 428, Ashford, AL 36312 February 26, 2007 010099 Arizona: Coconino City of Williams (07-09-0126P) February 22, 2007; March 1, 2007; *Arizona Daily Sun* The Honorable Ken Edes, Mayor, City of Williams, 113 South First Street, Williams, AZ 86046 May 31, 2007 040027 Coconino Unincorporated areas of Coconino County (07-09-0126P) February 22, 2007; March 1, 2007; *Arizona Daily Sun* The Honorable Matt Ryan, Chairman, Coconino County Board of Supervisors, 219 East Cherry Avenue, Flagstaff, AZ 86001 May 31, 2007 040019 Maricopa Town of Buckeye (07-09-0135P) March 22, 2007; March 29, 2007; *Arizona Business Gazette* The Honorable Bobby Bryant, Mayor, Town of Buckeye, 100 North Apache Road, Suite A, Goodyear, AZ 85326 June 28, 2007 040039 Maricopa City of Peoria (07-09-0452P) March 29, 2007; April 5, 2007; *Arizona Business Gazette* The Honorable John C. Keegan, Mayor, City of Peoria, City of Peoria Municipal Complex, 8401 West Monroe Street, Peoria, AZ 85345 March 9, 2007 040050 Maricopa Unincorporated areas of Maricopa County (07-09-0135P) March 22, 2007; March 29, 2007; *Arizona Business Gazette* The Honorable Max Wilson, Chairman, Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, 301 West Jefferson, 10th Floor, Phoenix, AZ 85003 June 28, 2007 040037 Mohave City of Bullhead City (06-09-B164P) April 6, 2007; April 13, 2007; *Bullhead City Bee* The Honorable Norm Hicks, Mayor, City of Bullhead City, 1255 Marina Boulevard, Bullhead City, AZ 86442 July 11, 2007 040125 Pima Town of Oro Valley (07-09-0603P) April 5, 2007; April 12, 2007; *The Daily Territorial* The Honorable Paul H. Loomis, Town of Oro Valley, 11000 North La Canada Drive, Oro Valley, AZ 85737 March 21, 2007 040109 Yavapai City of Chino Valley (07-09-0415P) March 15, 2007; March 22, 2007; *Prescott Daily Courier* The Honorable Karen Fann, Mayor, Town of Chino Valley, P.O. Box 406, Chino Valley, AZ 86323 February 27, 2007 040094 Arkansas: Benton City of Bentonville (06-06-B031P) March 22, 2007; March 29, 2007; *Benton County Daily Record* The Honorable Bob McCaslin, Mayor, City of Bentonville, City Hall, 117 West Central, Bentonville, AR 72712 June 28, 2007 050012 Benton City of Springdale (06-06-BI15P) March 22, 2007; March 29, 2007; *Benton County Daily Record* The Honorable Jerre M. Van Hoose, Mayor, City of Springdale, 201 Spring Street, Springdale, AR 72764 June 28, 2007 050219 Benton Unincorporated areas of Benton County (06-06-BI15P) March 22, 2007; March 29, 2007; *Benton County Daily Record* The Honorable Gary D. Black, Benton County Judge, 215 East Central Avenue, Bentonville, AR 72712 June 28, 2007 050419 California: Riverside City of Corona (06-09-BB68P) February 15, 2007; February 22, 2007; *The Press-Enterprise* The Honorable Eugene Montenez, Mayor, City of Corona, 400 South Vicentia Avenue, Corona, CA 92882 January 30, 2007 060250 Riverside Unincorporated areas of Riverside County (06-09-BD43P) January 11, 2007; January 18, 2007; *The Press-Enterprise* The Honorable Bob Buster, Chairman, Riverside County, Board of Supervisors, 4080 Lemon Street, Fifth Floor, Riverside, CA 92501 April 19, 2007 060245 San Diego City of San Marcos (06-09-BE72P) March 8, 2007; March 15, 2007; *San Diego Transcript* The Honorable James Desmond, Mayor, City of San Marcos, One Civic Center Drive, San Marcos, CA 92069 February 23, 2007 060296 Shasta City of Redding (05-09-0728P) March 22, 2007; March 29, 2007; *Record Searchlight* The Honorable Ken Murray, Mayor, City of Redding, 777 Cypress Avenue, Redding, CA 96001 June 28, 2007 060360 Shasta Unincorporated areas of Shasta County (05-09-0728P) March 22, 2007; March 29, 2007; *Record Searchlight* The Honorable Trish Clarke, Chairman, Shasta County Board of Supervisors, 1450 Court Street, Redding, CA 96001 June 28, 2007 060358 Florida: Lake Unincorporated areas of Lake County (07-04-0194P) March 16, 2007; March 23, 2007; *The Daily Commerical* The Honorable Welton G. Cadwell, Chairman, Lake County Board of Commissioners, P.O. Box 7800, Tavares, FL 32778-7800 June 22, 2007 120421 Miami-Dade City of Miami (07-04-1922P) February 22, 2007; March 1, 2007; *Miami New Times* The Honorable Manuel A. Diaz, Mayor, City of Miami, 3500 Pan American Drive, Miami, FL 33133 February 7, 2007 120650 Polk City of Lakeland (06-04-C505P) March 19, 2007; March 26, 2007; *The Polk County Democrat* The Honorable Ralph L. Fletcher, Mayor, City of Lakeland, 228 South Massachusetts Avenue, Lakeland, FL 33801 February 26, 2007 120267 Polk Unincorporated areas of Polk County (07-04-1702P) March 19, 2007; March 26, 2007; *The Polk County Democrat* Mr. Michael Herr, County Manager, Polk County, P.O. Box 9005, Drawer BC01, Bartow, FL 33831 February 28, 2007 120261 Georgia: Columbia Unincorporated areas of Columbia County (07-04-1276P) March 21, 2007; March 28, 2007; *Columbia County News-Times* The Honorable Ron C. Cross, Chairman, Columbia County Board of Commissioners, P.O. Box 498, Evans, GA 30809 June 27, 2007 130059 Gwinnett City of Duluth (06-04-BO22P) March 22, 2007; March 29, 2007; *Gwinnett Daily Post* The Honorable Shirley Fanning-Lasseter, Mayor, City of Duluth, 3578 West Lawrenceville Street, Duluth, GA 30096 February 28, 2007 130098 Jackson Unincorporated areas of Jackson County (06-04-BY83P) March 21, 2007; March 28, 2007; *The Jackson Herald* The Honorable Pat Bell, Chairman, Jackson County Board of Commissioners, 67 Athens Street, Jefferson, GA 30549 June 27, 2007 130345 Lamar City of Barnesville (06-04-BZ31P) January 16, 2007; January 23, 2007; *The Herald-Gazette* The Honorable Dewaine T. Bell, Mayor, City of Barnesville, 109 Forsyth Street, Barnesville, GA 30204 April 24, 2007 130207 Idaho: Blaine Unincorporated areas of Blaine County (06-10-B204P) March 21, 2007; March 28, 2007; *Wood River Journal* The Honorable Tom Bowman, Chairman, Blaine County Board of Commissioners, 206 First Avenue South, Hailey, ID 83333 March 27, 2007 165167 Illinois: Peoria City of Peoria (06-05-BA71P) March 22, 2007; March 29, 2007; *Peoria Journal Star* The Honorable Jim Ardis, Mayor, City of Peoria, 6141 North Evergreen Circle, Peoria, IL 61614 February 28, 2007 17053677 Peoria Unincorporated areas of Peoria County (06-05-BA71P) March 22, 2007; March 29, 2007; *Peoria Journal Star* The Honorable David Williams, Chairman, Peoria County Board, County Courthouse, 324 Main Street, Peoria, IL 61602 February 28, 2007 170533 Iowa: Bremer City of Denver (06-07-B991P) February 22, 2007; March 1, 2007; *The Waverly Democrat* The Honorable Mike Isaacson, Mayor, City of Denver, 100 Washington Street, Denver, IA 50622 May 31, 2007 190026 Bremer Unincorporated areas of Bremer County (06-07-B991P) February 22, 2007; March 1, 2007; *The Waverly Democrat* The Honorable Steven Reuter, Head, Bremer County Board of Supervisors, 415 East Bremer Avenue, Waverly, IA 50677 May 31, 2007 190847 Michigan: Wayne City of Taylor (07-05-0263P) March 21, 2007; March 28, 2007; *The News Herald* The Honorable Cameron G. Priebe, Mayor, City of Taylor, Taylor City Hall, 23555 Goddard Road, Taylor, MI 48180 March 28, 2007 260728 Missouri: Greene City of Springfield (05-07-0451P) February 15, 2007; February 22, 2007; *Springfield News-Leader* The Honorable Thomas J. Carlson, Mayor, City of Springfield, 840 Boonville Avenue, Springfield, MO 65802 May 24, 2007 290149 Greene Unincorporated areas of Greene County (05-07-0451P) February 15, 2007; February 22, 2007; *Springfield News-Leader* The Honorable David Coonrod, Presiding Commissioner, Greene County Commission, 933 North Robberson, Springfield, MO 65802 May 24, 2007 290782 St. Louis City of Sunset Hills (06-07-BB03P) March 22, 2007; March 29, 2007; *The St. Louis Daily Record* The Honorable Kenneth Vogel, Mayor, City of Sunset Hills, 3939 South Lindbergh Boulevard, Sunset Hills, MO 63127 June 28, 2007 290387 Nevada: Washoe Unincorporated areas of Washoe County (06-09-BG15P) March 22, 2007; March 29, 2007; *Reno Gazette-Journal* The Honorable Robert Larkin, Chair, Washoe County Board of Commissioners, P.O. Box 11130, Reno, NV 89520 June 28, 2007 320019 New Mexico: Bernalillo City of Albuquerque (06-06-BG87P) April 5, 2007; April 12, 2007; *The Albuquerque Journal* The Honorable Martin J. Chavez, Mayor, City of Albuquerque, P.O. Box 1293, Albuquerque, NM 87103 March 21, 2007 350002 Ohio: Butler Unincorporated areas of Butler County (06-05-B014P) January 11, 2007; January 18, 2007; *The Middletown Journal* The Honorable Gregory V. Jolivette, President, Butler County Board of Commissioners, 315 High Street, Sixth Floor, Hamilton, OH 45011 April 19, 2007 390037 Cuyahoga City of Shaker Heights (05-05-A485P) March 1, 2007; March 8, 2007; *Bedford Times* The Honorable Judith H. Rawson, Mayor, City of Shaker Heights, 3400 Lee Road, Shaker Heights, OH 44120 June 7, 2007 390129 Oklahoma: Muskogee City of Muskogee (07-06-0707P) March 22, 2007; March 29, 2007; *Muskogee Phoenix* The Honorable Wren Stratton, Mayor, City of Muskogee, P.O. Box 1927, Muskogee, OK 74401 June 28, 2007 400125 Muskogee Unincorporated areas of Muskogee County (07-06-0707P) March 22, 2007; March 29, 2007; *Muskogee Phoenix* The Honorable Gene Wallace, Chair, Muskogee County Board of Commissioners, 124 South Fourth Street, Muskogee, OK 74401 June 28, 2007 400491 Osage City of Bartlesville (07-06-0393P) April 5, 2007; April 12, 2007; *Examiner-Enterprise* The Honorable Julie Daniels, Mayor, City of Bartlesville, 401 South Johnstone Avenue, Bartlesville, OK 74003 July 12, 2007 400220 Osage Unincorporated areas of Osage County (07-06-0393P) April 5, 2007; April 12, 2007; *Examiner-Enterprise* The Honorable Scott Hilton, Osage County Commissioner, P.O. Box 87, Pawhuska, OK 74056-0087 July 12, 2007 400146 South Dakota: Lawrence City of Spearfish (07-08-0282P) March 22, 2007; March 29, 2007; *Black Hills Pioneer* The Honorable Jerry Krambeck, Mayor, City of Spearfish, 625 Fifth Street, Spearfish, SD 57783 February 28, 2007 460046 Texas: Collin City of Frisco (07-06-0542P) March 16, 2007; March 23, 2007; *Frisco Enterprise* The Honorable Michael Simpson, Mayor, City of Frisco, 6101 Frisco Square Boulevard, Frisco, TX 75034 June 22, 2007 480134 Denton City of Lewisville (07-06-0243P) March 21, 2007; March 28, 2007; *Lewisville Leader* The Honorable Gene Carey, Mayor, City of Lewisville, P.O. Box 299002, Lewisville, TX 75029 June 27, 2007 480195 Montgomery City of Montgomery (06-06-B395P) March 14, 2007; March 21, 2007; *Montgomery County News* The Honorable Edith Moore, Mayor, City of Montgomery, P.O. Box 708, Montgomery, TX 77256 June 20, 2007 481483 Montgomery Unincorporated areas of Montgomery County (06-06-B395P) March 14, 2007; March 21, 2007; *Montgomery County News* The Honorable Alan B. Sadler, Montgomery County Judge, 301 North Thompson, Suite 210, Conroe, TX 77301 June 20, 2007 480483 Tarrant City of Fort Worth (07-06-0091P) February 15, 2007; February 22, 2007; *Fort Worth Star-Telegram* The Honorable Michael J. Moncrief, Mayor, City of Fort Worth, 1000 Throckmorton Street, Fort Worth, TX 76102 May 24, 2007 480596 Tarrant City of Fort Worth (07-06-0585P) March 15, 2007; March 22, 2007; *Fort Worth Star-Telegram* The Honorable Michael J. Moncrief, Mayor, City of Fort Worth, 1000 Throckmorton Street, Fort Worth, TX 76102 June 21, 2007 480596 Virginia: Fauquier Unincorporated areas of Fauquier County (06-03-B824P) March 28, 2007; April 4, 2007; *Fauquier Times-Democrat* The Honorable Harry Atherton, Chairman, Fauquier County Board of Supervisors, Warren Green Building, 10 Hotel Street, Suite 208, Warrenton, VA 20186 July 5, 2007 510055 Fauquier Unincorporated areas of Fauquier County (06-03-B867P) February 28, 2007; March 7, 2007; *Fauquier Times-Democrat* The Honorable Ray Graham, Chairman, Fauquier County Board of Supervisors, Warren Green Building, 10 Hotel Street, Suite 208, Warrenton, VA 20186 June 6, 2007 510055 Independent City City of Virginia Beach (06-03-B810P) March 22, 2007; March 29, 2007; *The Virginian-Pilot* The Honorable Meyera E. Oberndorf, Mayor, City of Virginia Beach, City Hall, Suite 1, 2401 Courthouse Drive, Virginia Beach, VA 23456 February 28, 2007 515531 Washington: King City of Issaquah (06-10-B001P) March 7, 2007; March 14, 2007; *The Issaquah Press* The Honorable Ava Frisinger, Mayor, City of Issaquah, P.O. Box 1307, Issaquah, WA 98027 June 13, 2007 530079 King City of Issaquah (06-10-B407P) March 14, 2007; March 21, 2007; *The Issaquah Press* The Honorable Ava Frisinger, Mayor, City of Issaquah, P.O. Box 1307, Issaquah, WA 98027 March 26, 2007 530079 Kitsap Unincorporated areas of Kitsap County (06-10-B516P) March 21, 2007; March 28, 2007; *Port Orchard Independent* The Honorable Chris Endresen, Chairman, Kitsap County Board of Commissioners, Commissioners' Office, MS-4, 614 Division Street, Port Orchard, WA 98366 March 27, 2007 530092 (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: May 24, 2007. David I. Maurstad, Federal Insurance Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security. [FR Doc. E7-10968 Filed 6-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 65 [Docket No. FEMA-B-7716] Changes in Flood Elevation Determinations AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Interim rule. SUMMARY: This interim rule lists communities where modification of the Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations
(BFEs)is appropriate because of new scientific or technical data. New flood insurance premium rates will be calculated from the modified BFEs for new buildings and their contents. DATES: These modified BFEs are currently in effect on the dates listed in the table below and revise the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) in effect prior to this determination for the listed communities. From the date of the second publication of these changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has ninety
(90)days in which to request through the community that the Mitigation Assistant Administrator of FEMA reconsider the changes. The modified BFEs may be changed during the 90-day period. ADDRESSES: The modified BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William R. Blanton, Jr., Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472
(202)646-3151. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The modified BFEs are not listed for each community in this interim rule. However, the address of the Chief Executive Officer of the community where the modified BFE determinations are available for inspection is provided. Any request for reconsideration must be based on knowledge of changed conditions or new scientific or technical data. The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.* , and with 44 CFR part 65. For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals. The modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required to either adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). These modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established by the other Federal, State, or regional entities. The changes BFEs are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4. *National Environmental Policy Act.* This interim rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not been prepared. *Regulatory Flexibility Act.* As flood elevation determinations are not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. *Regulatory Classification.* This interim rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735. *Executive Order 13132, Federalism.* This interim rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132, Federalism. *Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform.* This interim rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988. List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 65 Flood insurance, Floodplains, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, 44 CFR part 65 is amended to read as follows: PART 65—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 65 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.;* Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. § 65.4 [Amended] 2. The tables published under the authority of § 65.4 are amended as follows: State and country Location and case No. Date and name of newspaper where notice was published Chief executive officer of community Effective date of modification Community No. Alabama: Shelby City of Pelham (07-04-1305P) February 14, 2007; February 21, 2007; *Shelby County Reporter* The Honorable Bobby Hayes, Mayor, City of Pelham, P.O. Box 1419, Pelham, AL 35124 May 23, 2007 010193 Tuscaloosa City of Northport (06-04-C176P) February 14, 2007; February 21, 2007; *The Northport Gazette* The Honorable Harvey Fretwell, Mayor, City of Newport, Northport City Hall, 3500 McFarland Boulevard, Northport, AL 35476 March 1, 2007 010202 Alaska: Anchorage Municipality of Anchorage (06-10-B606P) December 21, 2006; December 28, 2006; *Anchorage Daily News* The Honorable Mark Begich, Mayor, Municipality of Anchorage, P.O. Box 196650, Anchorage, AK 99519-6650 November 29, 2006 020005 Arizona: Pima City of Tucson (06-09-BA36P) February 15, 2007; February 22, 2007; *The Daily Territorial* The Honorable Bob Walkup, Mayor, City of Tucson, P.O. Box 27210, Tucson, AZ 85726 January 26, 2007 040076 Pima City of Tucson (06-09-BG63P) December 14, 2006; December 21, 2006; *The Daily Territorial* The Honorable Bob Walkup, Mayor, City of Tucson, P.O. Box 27210, Tucson, AZ 85726 November 22, 2006 040076 Pima City of Tucson (07-09-0551P) March 15, 2007; March 22, 2007; *The Daily Territorial* The Honorable Bob Walkup, Mayor, City of Tucson, City Hall, 255 West Alameda Street, Tucson, AZ 85701 February 28, 2007 040076 Arkansas: Benton City of Bentonville (07-06-0537P) February 9, 2007; February 15, 2007; *Arkansas Democrat Gazette* The Honorable Terry L. Coberly, Mayor, City of Bentonville, 117 West Central Avenue, Bentonville, AR 72712 May 17, 2007 050012 Benton City of Lowell (07-06-0172P) February 8, 2007; February 15, 2007; *Arkansas Democrat Gazette* The Honorable Perry Long, Mayor, City of Lowell, P.O. Box 979, Lowell, AR 72745 May 10, 2007 050342 Pulaski Unincorporated areas of Pulaski County (06-06-BF55P) February 8, 2007; February 15, 2007; *Arkansas Democrat Gazette* The Honorable Floyd G. Villines, County Judge, Pulaski County Courthouse, 201 South Broadway, Little Rock, AR 72201 May 17, 2007 050179 Sebastian City of Fort Smith (05-06-1080P) February 8, 2007; February 15, 2007; *Times Record* The Honorable C. Ray Baker, Jr., Mayor, City of Fort Smith, P.O. Box 1908, Fort Smith, AR 72902 March 8, 2007 055013 Sebastian City of Fort Smith (05-06-1081P) February 9, 2007; February 16, 2007; *Times Record* The Honorable C. Ray Baker, Jr., Mayor, City of Fort Smith, 623 Garrison Avenue, Fort Smith, AR 72901 March 8, 2007 055013 California: Orange City of Orange (07-09-0201P) February 22, 2007; March 1, 2007; *The Orange County Register* The Honorable Carolyn V. Cavecche, Mayor, City of Orange, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, CA 92866 May 31, 2007 060228 Orange City of Tustin (07-09-0201P) February 22, 2007; March 1, 2007; *The Orange County Register* The Honorable Lou Bone, Mayor, City of Tustin, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 May 31, 2007 060235 Orange Unincorporated areas of Orange County (07-09-0201P) February 22, 2007; March 1, 2007; *The Orange County Register* The Honorable Chris Norby, Chairman, Orange County, Board of Supervisors, 333 West Santa Ana Boulevard, Santa Ana, CA 92701 May 31, 2007 060212 San Diego City of Poway (06-09-BE88P) January 11, 2007; January 18, 2007; *San Diego Transcript* The Honorable Robert C. Emergy, Mayor, City of Poway, P.O. Box 789, Poway, CA 92074-0789 April 19, 2007 060702 Yuba Unincorporated areas of Yuba County (06-09-B119P) January 18, 2007; January 25, 2007; *The Appeal-Democrat* Mr. Robert Bendorf, Yuba County Administrator, 915 Eighth Street, Suite 115, Marysville, CA 95901 January 29, 2007 060427 Colorado: El Paso City of Colorado Springs (05-08-0638P) February 14, 2007; February 21, 2007; *El Paso County Advertiser and News* The Honorable Lionel Rivera, Mayor, City of Colorado Springs, P.O. Box 1575, Colorado Springs, CO 80901 April 18, 2007 080060 Colorado: El Paso City of Fountain (06-08-B110P) January 3, 2007; January 10, 2007; *El Paso County Advertiser and News* The Honorable Jeri Howells, Mayor, City of Fountain, 116 South Main Street, Fountain, CO 80817 January 18, 2007 080061 Colorado: El Paso Unincorported areas of El Paso County (05-08-0638P) February 14, 2007; February 21, 2007; *El Paso County Advertiser and News* The Honorable Sallie Clark, Chair, El Paso County Board of Commissioners, 27 East Vermijo Avenue, Colorado Springs, CO 80903 April 18, 2007 080059 Colorado: El Paso Unincorporated areas of El Paso County (06-08-B110P) January 3, 2007; January 10, 2007; *El Paso County Advertiser and News* The Honorable Sallie Clark, Chair, El Paso County Board of Commissioners, 27 East Vermijo Avenue, Colorado Springs, CO 80903 January 18, 2007 080059 Colorado: Jefferson City of Lakewood (06-08-B627P) January 4, 2007; January 11, 2007; *The Golden Transcript* The Honorable Steve Burkholder, Mayor, City of Lakewood, Lakewood Civic Center South, 480 South Allison Parkway, Lakewood, CO 80226 December 11, 2006 085075 Colorado: Jefferson Unincorporated areas of Jefferson County (07-08-0130P) March 15, 2007; March 22, 2007; *The Golden Transcript* The Honorable J. Kevin McCasky, Chairman, Jefferson County Board of Commissioners, 100 Jefferson County Parkway, Golden, CO 80419-5550 January 22, 2007 080087 Colorado: Larimer City of Fort Collins (06-08-B336P) January 18, 2007; January 25, 2007; *Fort Collins Coloradoan* The Honorable Doug Hutchinson, Mayor, City of Fort Collins, P.O. Box 580, Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 April 19, 2007 080102 Colorado: Larimer Unincorporated areas of Larimer County (06-08-B336P) January 18, 2007; January 25, 2007; *Fort Collins Coloradoan* The Honorable Glenn Gibson, Chairman, Larimer County Board of Commissioners, P.O. Box 1190, Fort Collins, CO 80522-1190 April 19, 2007 080101 Florida: Charlotte City of Punta Gorda (07-04-1137P) February 22, 2007; March 1, 2007; *Charlotte Sun* The Honorable Larry Friedman, Mayor, City of Punta Gorda, 326 West Marion Avenue, Punta Gorda, FL 33950 January 29, 2007 120062 Florida: Charlotte Unincorporated areas of Charlotte County (07-04-1701P) March 15, 2007; March 22, 2007; *Charlotte Sun* The Honorable Bruce Loucks, County Administrator, Charlotte County, 18500 Murdock Circle, Port Charlotte, FL 33948 February 21, 2007 120061 Florida: Collier City of Naples (06-04-BH21P) February 8, 2007; February 15, 2007; *Naples Daily News* The Honorable Bill Barnett, Mayor, City of Naples, 735 Eight Street South, Naples, FL 34102 January 16, 2007 125130 Florida: Martin Unincorporated areas of Martin County (06-04-C015P) February 22, 2007; March 1, 2007; *The Stuart News* Mr. Duncan Ballantyne, County Administrator, Martin County, 2401 Southeast Monterey Road, Stuart, FL 34996 May 31, 2007 120161 Florida: Pasco Unincorporated areas of Pasco County (05-04-0987P) February 8, 2007; February 15, 2007; *Pasco Times* The Honorable Ann Hildebrand, Chairman, Pasco County Board of Commissioners, 7530 Little Road, New Port Richey, FL 34654 May 17, 2007 120230 Florida: Polk City of Haines City (06-04-BI19P) February 1, 2007; February 8, 2007; *The Polk County Democrat* The Honorable Horace West, Mayor, City of Haines City, P.O. Box 1507, Haines City, FL 33845 January 22, 2007 120266 Florida: Walton City of Freeport (06-04-BC49P) January 30, 2007; February 7, 2007; *Northwest Florida Daily News* The Honorable J. M. Marse, Mayor, City of Freeport, P. O. Box 339, Freeport, FL 32439 December 20, 2006 120319 Georgia: Columbia Unincorporated areas of Columbia County (06-04-B133P) February 21, 2007; February 28, 2007; *Columbia County News-Times* The Honorable Ron C. Cross, Chairman, Columbia County, Board of Commissioners, P.O. Box 498, Evans, GA 30809 May 30, 2007 130059 Fulton City of Atlanta (06-04-C646P) February 22, 2007; March 1, 2007; *Fulton County Daily Report* The Honorable Shirley Franklin, Mayor, City of Atlanta, 55 Trinity Avenue, Atlanta, GA 30303 January 31, 2007 135157 Fulton City of East Point (06-04-C646P) February 22, 2007; March 1, 2007; *Fulton County Daily Report* The Honorable Joseph L. Macon, Mayor, City of East Point, 2777 East Point Street, East Point, GA 30344 January 31, 2007 130087 Hawaii: Maui Unincorporated areas of Maui County (05-09-A226P) February 15, 2007; February 22, 2007; *Maui News* The Honorable Charmaine Tavares, Mayor, Maui County, 200 South High Street, Ninth Floor, Wailuku, Maui, HI 96793 May 24, 2007 150003 Illinois: Cook Village of South Barrington (06-05-BT49P) March 1, 2007; March 8, 2007; *Daily Herald* Mr. Frank J. Munao, Jr., President, Village of South Barrington, Village Hall, 30 South Barrington Road, Barrington, IL 60010 June 7, 2007 170161 Kankakee Village of Bradley (06-05-BJ19P) January 18, 2007; January 25, 2007; *Kankakee Daily Journal* The Honorable Gael K. Kent, Mayor, Village of Bradley, 147 South Michigan, Bradley, IL 60915 December 22, 2006 170338 Kankakee Unincorporated areas of Kankakee County (06-05-BJ19P) January 18, 2007; January 25, 2007; *Kankakee Daily Journal* The Honorable Karl Kruse, Chairman, Kankakee County Board, 189 East Court Street, Fifth Floor, Kankakee, IL 60901 December 22, 2006 170336 Lake Village of Lake Villa (06-05-BU68P) February 22, 2007; March 1, 2007; *The News Sun* The Honorable Frank M. Loffredo, Mayor, Village of Lake Villa, P.O. Box 519, Lake Villa, IL 60046 May 31, 2007 170375 Kansas: Sedgwick City of Wichita (06-07-B210P) February 15, 2007; February 22, 2007; *The Wichita Eagle* The Honorable Carlos Mayans, Mayor, City of Wichita, City Hall, 455 North Main Street, Wichita, KS 67202 May 24, 2007 200328 Maine: Cumberland Town of Gorham (07-01-0160P) January 18, 2007; January 25, 2007; *Portland Press Herald* The Honorable Michael J. Phinney, Chairman, Gorham Town Council, Gorham Municipal Center, 75 South Street, Gorham, ME 04038 April 26, 2007 230047 York City of Biddeford (06-01-B015P) January 11, 2007; January 18, 2007; *York County Coast Star* The Honorable Wallace H. Nutting, Mayor, City of Biddeford, 205 Main Street, Biddeford, ME 04005 December 15, 2006 230145 Maryland: Carroll Unincorporated areas of Carroll County (06-03-B843P) March 1, 2007; March 8, 2007; *Carroll County Times* The Honorable Julia W. Gouge, President, Carroll County, Board of Commissioners, 225 North Center Street, Room 300, Westminster, MD 21157 March 15, 2007 240015 Michigin: Washtenaw City of Ann Arbor (07-05-0217P) February 22, 2007; March 1, 2007; *The Ann Arbor News* The Honorable John Hieftje, Mayor, City of Ann Arbor, 100 North 5th Avenue, Ann Arbor, MI 48104 January 23, 2007 260213 Minnesota: Anoka City of Blaine (06-05-BY83P) February 23, 2007; March 2, 2007; *Blaine/Spring Lake Park Life* The Honorable Thomas Ryan, Mayor, City of Blaine, 10801 Town Square Drive NE, Blaine, MN 55449 January 31, 2007 270007 Minnesota: Olmsted City of Rochester (06-05-B433P) March 8, 2007; March 15, 2007; *Post-Bulletin* The Honorable Ardell F. Brede, Mayor, City of Rochester, City Hall, 201 Fourth Street Southeast, Room 281, Rochester, MN 55904 February 14, 2007 275246 Minnesota: Olmsted Unincorporated areas of Olmsted County (06-05-B433P) March 8, 2007; March 15, 2007; *Post-Bulletin* The Honorable Ken Brown, Commissioner, District 2, Olmsted County Board of Commissioners, 151 Fourth Street Southeast, Rochester, MN 55904 February 14, 2007 270626 Minnesota: Polk City of Crookston (07-05-1774P) February 15, 2007; February 22, 2007; *The Crookston Daily Times* The Honorable Dave Genereaux, Mayor, City of Crookston, 124 North Broadway, Crookston, MN 56716 February 26, 2007 270364 Mississippi: Rankin Pearl River Valley Water Supply District (06-04-BN09P) February 7, 2007; February 14, 2007; *Rankin County News* Mr. Benny French, P.E., PLS, General Manager, Pearl River Valley Water Supply District, P.O. Box 2180, Ridgeland, MS 39158 February 12, 2007 280338 Mississippi: Rankin Unincorporated areas of Rankin County (06-04-BN09P) February 7, 2007; February 14, 2007; *Rankin County News* Mr. Norman McLeod, County Administrator, Rankin County, 211 East Government Street, Suite A, Brandon, MS 39042 February 12, 2007 280142 Nevada: Clark Unincorporated areas of Clark County (06-09-B934P) December 14, 2006; December 21, 2006; *Las Vegas Review-Journal* The Honorable Rory Reid, Chair, Clark County Board of Commissioners, 500 South Grand Central Parkway, Las Vegas, NV 89106 March 22, 2007 320003 Nevada: Clark City of North Las Vegas (06-09-BD79P) December 21, 2006; December 28, 2006; *Las Vegas Review-Journal* The Honorable Michael L. Montandon, Mayor, City of North Las Vegas, 2200 Civic Center Drive, North Las Vegas, NV 89030 November 30, 2006 320007 New Jersey: Bergen Borough of Allendale (07-02-0297P) February 23, 2007; March 2, 2007; *The Record* The Honorable Vince Barra, Mayor, Borough of Allendale, 500 West Crescent Avenue, Allendale, NJ 07401 February 26, 2007 340019 New York: Westchester City of New Rochelle (06-02-B832P January 25, 2007; February 1, 2007; *The Journal News* The Honorable Noam Bramson, Mayor, City of New Rochelle, 515 North Avenue, New Rochelle, NY 10801 July 5, 2007 360922 North Carolina: Lee City of Sanford (06-04-BM79P) January 18, 2007; January 25, 2007; *The Sanford Herald* The Honorable Cornelia Olive, Mayor, City of Sanford, P.O. Box 3729, Sanford, NC 27331 December 21, 2006 370143 North Carolina: Mecklenburg City of Charlotte (06-04-BP55P) January 18, 2007; January 25, 2007; *The Charlotte Observer* The Honorable Patrick McCrory, Mayor, City of Charlotte, 600 East Fourth Street, Charlotte, NC 28202 September 29, 2006 370159 North Carolina: Orange Unincorporated areas of Orange County (06-04-BQ22P) January 17, 2007; January 24, 2007; *The Chapel Hill News* The Honorable Barry Jacobs, Chairman, Orange County Board of Commissioners, 2105 Moorefields Road, Hillsborough, NC 27278 February 3, 2007 370342 Ohio: Greene Unincorporated areas of Greene County (06-05-BJ18P) December 30, 2006; January 7, 2007; *Xenia Daily Gazette* The Honorable Ralph Harper, President, Greene County Board of Commissioners, 35 Greene Street, Xenia, OH 45385 April 9, 2007 390193 Ohio: Montgomery City of Kettering (06-05-BJ18P) December 30, 2006; January 7, 2007; *Kettering-Oakwood Times* The Honorable Don Patterson, Mayor, City of Kettering, 3600 Shroyer Road, Kettering, OH 45429 April 9, 2007 390412 Oklahoma: Rogers Unincorporated areas of Rogers County (06-06-BD69P) February 15, 2007; February 22, 2007; *Claremore Daily Progress* The Honorable Kenneth Crutchfield, County Commissioner, Rogers County, 219 South Missouri, Claremore, OK 74017 May 24, 2007 405379 Oklahoma: Washington Unincorporated areas of Washington County (06-06-BD69P) February 15, 2007; February 22, 2007; *Claremore Daily Progress* The Honorable Linda D. Herndon, County Commissioner, Washington County, Washington County Administration Office, 400 South Johnstone, Room 201, Bartlesville, OK 74003 May 24, 2007 400459 Oklahoma: Tulsa City of Tulsa (06-06-BH35P) February 8, 2007; February 15, 2007; *Tulsa World* The Honorable Kathy Taylor, Mayor, City of Tulsa, 200 Civic Center, 11th Floor, Tulsa, OK 74103 May 17, 2007 405381 Oregon: Multnomah City of Fairview (06-10-B082P) December 20, 2006; December 27, 2006; *The Gresham Outlook* The Honorable Mike Weatherby, Mayor, City of Fairview, 1300 Northeast Village Street, Fairview, OR 97024 March 28, 2007 410180 Puerto Rico: Puerto Rico Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (07-02-0109P) March 1, 2007; March 8, 2007; *El San Juan Star* The Honorable Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Governor of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, P.O. Box 82, La Fortaleza, San Juan, PR 00901 June 7, 2007 720000 South Carolina: Charleston Town of Mount Pleasant (07-04-0382P) February 14, 2007; February 21, 2007; *Moultrie News* The Honorable Harry M. Hallman, Jr., Mayor, Town of Mount Pleasant, Post Office Box 745, Mount Pleasant, SC 29465 January 29, 2007 455417 South Carolina: Horry Unincorporated areas of Horry County (06-04-B279P) January 18, 2007; January 25, 2007; *Horry Independent* The Honorable Elizabeth Gilland, Chairmain, Board of Commissioners Horry County, 1511 Elm Street, Conway, SC 29526 April 26, 2007 450104 South Carolina: Lexington Unincorporated areas of Lexington County (06-04-BI42P) February 22, 2007; March 1, 2007; *The Lexington County Chronicle* The Honorable M. Todd Cullum, Chairman, Lexington County Council, 212 South Lake Drive, Lexington, SC 29072 January 31, 2007 450129 South Dakota: Lawrence City of Spearfish (06-08-B498P) February 15, 2007; February 22, 2007; *Black Hills Pioneer* The Honorable Jerry Krambech, Mayor, City of Spearfish, 223 Vermont Street, Spearfish, SD 57783 January 25, 2007 460046 South Dakota: Pennington Unincorporated areas of Pennington County (06-08-B381P) January 18, 2007; January 25, 2007; *Rapid City Journal* The Honorable Ken Davis, Chairman, Pennington County Board of Commissioners, 315 Saint Joseph Street, Suite 156, Rapid City, SD 57701 January 22, 2007 460064 Tennessee: Shelby Unincorporated areas of Shelby County (04-04-A415P) January 11, 2007; January 18, 2007; *The Daily News* The Honorable A. C. Wharton, Jr., Mayor, Shelby County, 160 North Main Street, Suite 850, Memphis, TN 38103 April 19, 2007 470214 Texas: Collin Town of Fairview (06-06-B959P) January 11, 2007; January 18, 2007; *McKinney Courier Gazette* The Honorable Sim Israeloff, Mayor, Town of Fairview, 500 South Highway 5, Fairview, TX 75069 April 19, 2007 481069 Texas: Collin Unincorporated areas of Collin County (06-06-B959P) January 11, 2007; January 18, 2007; *McKinney Courier Gazette* The Honorable Ron Harris, Collin County Judge, 210 South McDonald Street, Suite 626, McKinney, TX 75069 April 19, 2007 480130 Texas: Dallas City of Irving (06-06-BD58P) March 8, 2007; March 15, 2007; *Dallas Morning News* The Honorable Herbert A. Gears, Mayor, City of Irving, 825 W. Irving Blvd., Irving, TX 75060 June 14, 2007 480180 Texas: Denton City of Denton (06-06-BH76P) March 15, 2007; March 22, 2007; *Denton Record-Chronicle* The Honorable Perry McNeill, Mayor, City of Denton, 215 East McKinney Street, Denton, TX 76201 February 27, 2007 480194 Texas: Denton City of Denton (06-06-BJ01P) February 15, 2007; February 22, 2007; *Denton Record-Chronicle* The Honorable Perry McNeill, Mayor, City of Denton, 215 East McKinney Street, Denton, TX 76201 January 26, 2007 480194 Texas: Denton Town of Shady Shores (06-06-BJ01P) February 15, 2007; February 22, 2007; *Denton Record-Chronicle* The Honorable Olive Stephens, Mayor, Town of Shady Shores, P.O. Box 362, Lake Dallas, TX 75065 January 26, 2007 481135 Texas: Erath City of Stephenville (07-06-0505P) January 25, 2007; February 1, 2007; *Stephenville Empire-Tribune* The Honorable Rusty Jergins, Mayor, City of Stephenville, 298 West Washington Street, Stephenville, TX 76401 May 3, 2007 480220 Texas: Fort Bend, Harris and Waller City of Katy (06-06-B244P) February 15, 2007; February 22, 2007; *Fort Bend Herald* The Honorable Doyle G. Callender, Mayor, City of Katy, P.O. Box 617, Katy, TX 77492 February 26, 2007 480301 Texas: Fort Bend Village of Pleak (06-06-BG61P) February 22, 2007; March 1, 2007; *Fort Bend Herald* The Honorable Margie Krenek, Mayor, Village of Pleak, 6621 FM 2218 South, Richmond, TX 77469 May 31, 2007 481615 Texas: Fort Bend City of Rosenberg (06-06-BG61P) February 22, 2007; March 1, 2007; *Fort Bend Herald* The Honorable Joe M. Gurecky, Mayor, City of Rosenberg, P.O. Box 32, Rosenberg, TX 77471 May 31, 2007 480232 Texas: Fort Bend Unincorporated areas of Fort Bend County (06-06-B244P) February 15, 2007; February 22, 2007; *Fort Bend Herald* The Honorable Robert E. Hebert, Ph.D., Fort Bend County Judge, 301 Jackson Street, Richmond, TX 77469 February 26, 2007 480228 Texas: Fort Bend Unincorporated areas of Fort Bend County (06-06-BG61P) February 22, 2007, March 1, 2007; *Fort Bend Herald* The Honorable Robert E. Hebert, Ph. D., Judge, Fort Bend County, 301 Jackson, Richmond, TX 77469 May 31, 2007 480228 Texas: Harris City of Houston (06-06-BJ02P) February 15, 2007, February 22, 2007; *Houston Chronicle* The Honorable Bill White, Mayor, City of Houston, P.O. Box 1562, Houston, TX 77251 January 25, 2007 480296 Texas: Harris Unincorporated areas of Harris County (06-06-BJ02P) February 15, 2007; February 22, 2007; *Houston Chronicle* The Honorable Robert Eckels, Harris County Judge, 1001 Preston, Suite 911, Houston, TX 77002 January 25, 2007 480287 Texas: Hays City of San Marcos (06-06-B107P) January 17, 2007; January 24, 2007; *The Free Press* The Honorable Susan Clifford-Narvaiz, Mayor, City of San Marcos, 630 East Hopkins, San Marcos, TX 78666 January 22, 2007 485505 Texas: Hays Unincorporated areas of Hays County (06-06-B107P) January 17, 2007; January 24, 2007; *The Free Press* The Honorable Jim Powers, Hays County Judge, 111 East San Antonio Street, Suite 300, San Marcos, TX 78666 January 22, 2007 480321 Texas: Hays City of Granbury (06-06-BG36P) February 14, 2007; February 21, 2007; *Hood County News* The Honorable David Southern, Mayor, City of Granbury, 116 West Bridge Street, Granbury, TX 76048 January 23, 2007 480357 Texas: Johnson City of Burleson (05-06-0645P) January 10, 2007; January 17, 2007; *Burleson Star* The Honorable Kenneth Shetter, Mayor, City of Burleson, 141 West Renfro Street, Burleson, TX 76028 January 19, 2007 485459 Texas: Jones and Taylor City of Abilene (06-06-BD70P) January 18, 2007; January 25, 2007; *Abilene Reporter-News* The Honorable Norm Archibald, Mayor, City of Abilene, 717 Byrd Drive, Abilene, TX 79601 April 19, 2007 485450 Texas: Kendall Unincorporated areas of Kendall County (06-06-B858P) January 19, 2007; January 26, 2007; *The Boerne Star* The Honorable Eddie John Vogt, Kendall County Judge, Kendall County Courthouse, 201 East San Antonio Street, Boerne, TX 78006 April 27, 2007 480417 Texas: Lubbock City of Lubbock (06-06-BD46P) March 8, 2007; March 15, 2007; *Lubbock Avalanche-Journal* The Honorable David Miller, Mayor, City of Lubbock, P.O. Box 2000, Lubbock, TX 79457 June 14, 2007 480452 Texas: Tarrant City of Fort Worth (06-06-B718P) November 30, 2006; December 7, 2006; *Fort Worth Star-Telegram* The Honorable Michael J Moncrief, Mayor, City of Forth Worth, 1000 Throckmorton Street, Fort Worth, TX 76102 March 8, 2007 480596 Texas: Tarrant City of Fort Worth (06-06-BG38P) October 26, 2006; November 2, 2006; *North West Tarrant County Times-Record* The Honorable Michael J. Moncrief, Mayor, City of Fort Worth, 1000 Throckmorton Street, Fort Worth, TX 76102 February 1, 2007 480596 Texas: Tarrant City of Fort Worth (06-06-BH34P) February 8, 2007; February 15, 2007; *Denton Record-Chronicle* The Honorable Michael J. Moncrief, Mayor, City of Fort Worth, 1000 Throckmorton Street, Fort Worth, TX 76102 May 17, 2007 480596 Texas: Tarrant City of Fort Worth (06-06-BK38P) March 1, 2007; March 8, 2007; *Fort Worth Star-Telegram* The Honorable Mike J. Moncrief, Mayor, City of Fort Worth, 1000 Throckmorton Street, Fort Worth, TX 76102 June 7, 2007 480596 Texas: Tarrant City of Fort Worth (07-06-0103P) November 30, 2006; December 7, 2006; *Fort Worth Star-Telegram* The Honorable Michael J. Moncrief, Mayor, City of Fort Worth, 1000 Throckmorton Street, Fort Worth, TX 76102 March 8, 2007 480596 Texas: Tarrant City of Saginaw (06-06-BG38P) October 26, 2006; November 2, 2006; *North West Tarrant County Times-Record* The Honorable Gary Brinkley, Mayor, City of Saginaw, 333 West McLeroy Boulevard, Saginaw, TX 76179 February 1, 2007 480610 Texas: Tarrant Unincorporated areas of Tarrant County (06-06-B718P) November 30, 2006; December 7, 2006; *Fort Worth Star-Telegram* The Honorable Tom Vandergriff, County Judge, Tarrant County, 100 East Weatherford Street, Suite 502A, Fort Worth, TX 76196 March 8, 2007 480582 Texas: Travis City of Austin (06-06-B467P) January 18, 2007; January 25, 2007; *Austin American-Statesman* The Honorable Will Wynn, Mayor, City of Austin, P.O. Box 1088, Austin, TX 78767 December 29, 2006 480264 Texas: Williamson City of Cedar Park (06-06-BI70P) February 21, 2007; February 28, 2007; *Hill County News* The Honorable Bob Lemon, Mayor, City of Cedar Park, City Hall, 600 North Bell Boulevard, Cedar Park, TX 78613 May 30, 2007 481282 Virginia: Fauquier Unincorporated areas of Fauquier County (06-03-B895P) February 7, 2007; February 14, 2007; *Fauquier Times* The Honorable Ray Graham, Chairman, Fauquier County Board of Supervisors, Warren Green Building, 10 Hotel Street, Suite 208, Warrenton, VA 20186 January 18, 2007 510055 (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: May 15, 2007. David I. Maurstad, Federal Insurance Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security. [FR Doc. E7-10969 Filed 6-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 73 [DA 07-2091; MB Docket No. 03-120; RM-10839] Radio Broadcasting Services; Chattanooga, Halls Crossroads, Harrogate, and Lake City, TN AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Final rule; dismissal of petition for reconsideration. SUMMARY: The staff approves the withdrawal of a petition for reconsideration in this FM allotment rulemaking proceeding and finds no reason for further consideration of the matters raised therein. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew J. Rhodes, Media Bureau,
(202)418-2180. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's *Memorandum Opinion and Order* , MB Docket No. 03-120, adopted May 16, 2007, and released May 18, 2007. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-800-378-3160 or *http://www.BCPIWEB.com.* The *Report and Order* in this proceeding granted a counterproposal filed by JBD Incorporated and dismissed a rulemaking petition filed by Ronald C. Meredith. The *Report and Order* substitued Channel 244A for Channel 243A at Harrogate, Tennessee, reallotted Channel 244A to Halls Crossroads, Tennessee, and modified the license for Station WMYL(FM), accordingly. The withdrawal of the petition for reconsideration complies with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's rules because Reynolds Technical Associates, LLC has documented that neither it nor its principals have or will receive any consideration in exchange for the withdrawal of its petition. *See* 69 FR 34114 (June 18, 2004). This document is not subject to the Congressional Review Act. (The Commission, is, therefore, not required to submit a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to GAO, pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, *see* 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) because the petition for reconsideration was dismissed). Federal Communications Commission. John A. Karousos, Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau. [FR Doc. 07-2818 Filed 6-6-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 47
Traces to 47 documents
U.S. Code
- Transferred§ 432
- Rule making§ 553
- Lending limits§ 84
- Capital adequacy§ 3907
- Initial regulatory flexibility analysis§ 603
- Statements to accompany significant regulatory actions§ 1532
- Purposes§ 3501
- Office of the Comptroller of the Currency§ 1
- Federal Aviation Administration§ 106
- Definitions§ 601
- Unusual and extraordinary threat; declaration of national emergency; exercise of Presidential authorities§ 1701
- Recruit basic training: privacy§ 7420
- Definitions§ 2510
- Economic and communication sanctions pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution§ 287c
- Congressional declaration of policy§ 3201
- Support for Cuban people§ 6004
- Rights-of-way for pipelines through Federal lands§ 185
- Regulations implementing requirements relating to licensing for components and other parts of facilities§ 2139a
- Repealed. Pub. L. 114–113, div. O, title I, § 101(a), Dec. 18, 2015, 129 Stat. 2987§ 6212
- Limitations on export of oil or gas§ 1354
- SHORT TITLE.§ 801
- Coordination with foreign policy§ 2752
- Organization of Department of State§ 2651a
- Hazardous air pollutants§ 7412
- Establishment, functions, and activities§ 272
- EXPEDITED PROCESSING OF REQUESTS FOR JAPANESE IMPERIAL GOVERNMENT RECORDS.§ 804
- Congressional findings and declaration of purpose§ 7401
- Disaster mitigation requirements; notification to flood-prone areas§ 4105
- Congressional findings and declaration of purpose§ 4001
CFR
- Best efforts (52 U.S.C. 30102(i)).§ 104.7
- Identification (52 U.S.C. 30101(13)).§ 100.12
- Definitions.§ 32.2
- Residential real estate loans, loans to small businesses, and loans or extensions of credit to small farms (“Supplemental Lending Limits Program”).§ 32.7
- Lending limits.§ 32.3
- Capital measures and capital categories.§ 6.4
- Special conditions.§ 21.16
- What public comment procedures does the FAA follow for Special Conditions?§ 11.38
- Process safety management of highly hazardous chemicals.§ 1910.119
- Identification of plan.§ 52.2270
register
statutes-at-large
39 references not yet in our index
- 11 CFR 104
- 307 F. Supp. 2d 294
- 76 F.3d 400
- 307 F. Supp. 2
- 12 CFR 32
- Pub. L. 106-102
- 113 Stat. 1338
- Pub. L. 104-4
- 109 Stat. 48
- 14 CFR 23
- 14 CFR 21
- 14 CFR 36
- 14 CFR 11
- 14 CFR 121
- 14 CFR 136
- 15 CFR 774
- 10 USC 7430(e)
- Pub. L. 106-387
- Pub. L. 107-56
- 18 CFR 40
- 22 CFR 121
- Pub. L. 90-629
- 90 Stat. 744
- Pub. L. 105-261
- 29 CFR 1910
- 136 F.3d 873
- Pub. L. 101-549
- 40 CFR 68.3
- 40 CFR 68
- 528 U.S. 250
- 272 F.3d 1249
- 51 F.3d 670
- 40 CFR 52
- 44 CFR 65
- 44 CFR 10
- 5 USC 601-612
- 44 CFR 60.3
- 44 CFR 65.4
- 47 CFR 73
Citation graph
cites case law
Rules and Regulations
Statement of Policy
F. Supp.307 F. Supp. 2d 294
F. App'x76 F.3d 400
F. Supp.307 F. Supp. 2
Cites 86 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources