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

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2007-06-18 · Nuclear Regulatory Commission · Rules and Regulations

Rules and Regulations. Final rule

37,964 words·~173 min read·/register/2007/06/18/07-2960

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

BILLING CODE 4310-RF-M NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Chapter I RIN 3150-AI18 Administrative Changes AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)is amending its regulations to update a telephone number for the Office of Information Services and an NRC Web site location. This document is necessary to inform the public of these changes to the NRC's regulations. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 18, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Smith, Office of Information Services, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, 301-415-7043, e-mail *TES@nrc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NRC is revising its regulations to update a telephone number for the Office of Information Services and an NRC Web site location. The Web site contains detailed guidance on making electronic submissions to the agency. This guidance discusses, among other topics, the formats the NRC can accept, the use of electronic signatures, and the treatment of nonpublic information. Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion The NRC has determined that this final rule is the type of action described in categorical exclusion 10 CFR 51.22(c)(1) and (2). Therefore, neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment has been prepared for this final rule. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This final rule does not contain a new or amended information collection requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). Public Protection Notification If a means used to impose an information collection does not display a currently valid OMB control number, the NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, the information collection. Regulatory Analysis A regulatory analysis has not been prepared for this final rule. This final rule makes only minor administrative changes to the regulations that reference a telephone number and an NRC Web site, and imposes no burden on licensees. Therefore, a regulatory analysis is not necessary. Backfit Analysis The NRC has determined that these amendments do not involve any provisions which would impose backfits as defined in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1); therefore a backfit analysis is not necessary. Congressional Review Act In accordance with the Congressional Review Act, the NRC has determined that this action is not a major rule and has verified this determination with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB. Because these amendments deal solely with agency organization and procedure, and represent minor administrative matters which do not raise any significant policy or regulatory issue, the NRC has determined that notice and comment is not necessary under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A), and that in any event there is good cause for dispensing with such notice and comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3)(B). In addition, the NRC has determined that good cause exists for making the rule immediately effective upon publication, as provided for under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), because the amendments represent minor administrative matters which do not raise any significant policy or regulatory issue and do not impose any significant regulatory requirement upon any regulated entity or person. For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, 42 U.S.C. 2201, as amended, and 42 U.S.C. 5841, the NRC is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR Chapter I to read as follows: 10 CFR Chapter I [Amended] 1. In Chapter I revise all references to “(301) 415-6030” to read “(301) 415-0439”. 2. In Chapter I revise all references to “ *http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/eie.html* ” to read “ *http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/ e-submittals.html* ”. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 4th day of June, 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Luis A. Reyes, Executive Director for Operations. [FR Doc. E7-11708 Filed 6-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 558 New Animal Drugs for Use in Animal Feeds; Lincomycin AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration
(FDA)is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect approval of a supplemental new animal drug application
(NADA)filed by Pharmacia & Upjohn Co., a Div. of Pfizer, Inc. The supplemental NADA provides for the use of lincomycin in feed of swine weighing greater than 250 pounds and for the addition of a reproductive cautionary statement to labeling. DATES: This rule is effective June 18, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joan C. Gotthardt, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-130), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 301-827-7571, e-mail: *joan.gotthardt@fda.hhs.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pharmacia & Upjohn Co., a Div. of Pfizer, Inc., 235 E. 42d St., New York, NY 10017, filed a supplement to NADA 97-505 that provides for use of LINCOMIX 20 (lincomycin hydrochloride) and LINCOMIX 50 Feed Medications in single-ingredient Type B and Type C medicated feeds for swine weighing greater than 250 pounds and for the addition of a reproductive caution statement to labeling. The supplemental application is approved as of May 23, 2007, and the regulations are amended in 21 CFR 558.325 to reflect the approval. Approval of this supplemental NADA did not require review of additional safety or effectiveness data or information. Therefore, a freedom of information summary is not required. The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.33(a)(1) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808. List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 558 Animal drugs, Animal feeds. Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR part 558 is amended as follows: PART 558—NEW ANIMAL DRUGS FOR USE IN ANIMAL FEEDS 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 558 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b, 371. 2. In § 558.325, add paragraph
(c)and in the table in paragraphs (d)(2)(i) through (d)(2)(iv), in the “Limitations” column, remove “Not to be fed to swine that weigh more than 250 lb.” wherever it occurs to read as follows: § 558.325 Lincomycin.
(c)*Special considerations* —(1) Labeling of Type A medicated articles and Type B and Type C medicated feeds containing lincomycin shall bear the following directions: “CAUTION: Do not allow rabbits, hamsters, guinea pigs, horses, or ruminants access to feeds containing lincomycin. Ingestion by these species may result in severe gastrointestinal effects.”
(2)Labeling of Type A medicated articles and Type B and Type C medicated feeds containing lincomycin intended for use in swine shall bear the following directions: “CAUTION: Occasionally, swine fed lincomycin may within the first 2 days after the onset of treatment develop diarrhea and/or swelling of the anus. On rare occasions, some pigs may show reddening of the skin and irritable behavior. These conditions have been self-correcting within 5 to 8 days without discontinuing the lincomycin treatment.”
(3)Labeling of Type A medicated articles and single-ingredient Type B and Type C medicated feeds containing lincomycin intended for use in swine shall bear the following directions:
(i)No. 000009: “CAUTION: The effects of lincomycin on swine reproductive performance, pregnancy, and lactation have not been determined. Not for use in swine intended for breeding when lincomycin is fed at 20 grams per ton of complete feed.”
(ii)Nos. 043733 and 051311: “CAUTION: Not to be fed to swine that weigh more than 250 lb.” Dated: June 8, 2007. Steven D. Vaughn, Director, Office of New Animal Drug Evaluation, Center for Veterinary Medicine. [FR Doc. E7-11611 Filed 6-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [TD 9331] RIN 1545-BG46 Deemed IRAs in Governmental Plans/Qualified Nonbank Trustee Rules AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Final regulations and removal of temporary regulations. SUMMARY: This document contains final regulations under section 408 of the Internal Revenue Code. The final regulations provide special rules for a governmental unit which seeks to qualify as a nonbank trustee of a deemed IRA that is part of its qualified employer plan. These final regulations affect only such governmental units. DATES: Effective Date: June 18, 2007. *Applicability Date:* For dates of applicability, see § 1.408-2(e)(8)(iv). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Linda L. Conway, 202-622-6090, or Cathy A. Vohs, 202-622-6090 (not toll-free numbers). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background This document contains final amendments to the Income Tax Regulations (26 CFR Part 1) under section 408 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (Code). On July 22, 2004, temporary and proposed regulations under section 408 were issued. A notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-101447-04) was published in the **Federal Register** (69 FR 43786). The text of the temporary regulations also served as the text of the proposed regulations. The text of temporary § 1.408-2(e)(8) was published in the same issue of the **Federal Register** (69 FR 43735). The RIN published in connection with that notice of proposed rulemaking was 1545-BD07. However, due to technical difficulties that RIN is no longer valid and the RIN number of these final regulations is 1545-BG46. No comments were received regarding the proposed regulations. Explanation of Provisions and Summary of Comments These final regulations amend § 1.408-2(e) of the regulations to provide that a governmental unit may serve as the trustee of any deemed IRA established by that governmental unit as part of its qualified employer plan if that governmental unit establishes to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that the manner in which it will administer the deemed IRA will be consistent with the requirements of section 408. These final regulations also provide special rules regarding the application of § 1.408-2(e) to governmental units. These final regulations are adopted without substantive change from the proposed and temporary regulations. These final regulations are applicable for written applications made on or after June 18, 2007. The rules in this section also may be relied on for applications submitted on or after August 1, 2003 (or such earlier application as the Commissioner deems appropriate) and before June 18, 2007. Special Analyses It has been determined that this Treasury Decision is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations, and, because the regulation does not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, the notice of proposed rulemaking preceding these final regulations was submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business. Drafting Information The principal author of these regulations is Linda L. Conway of the Office of the Division Counsel/Associate Chief Counsel (Tax Exempt and Government Entities). However, other personnel from the IRS and Treasury Department participated in the development of these regulations. List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1 Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Adoption of Amendments to the Regulations Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is amended as follows: PART 1—INCOME TAXES **Paragraph 1.** The authority citation for part 1 continues to read in part as follows: Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * **Par. 2.** Section 1.408-2(e)(8) is revised to read as follows: § 1.408-2 Individual retirement accounts.
(e)* * *
(8)*Special rules for governmental units* —(i) *In general.* A governmental unit that seeks to qualify as a nonbank trustee of a deemed IRA that is part of its qualified employer plan must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that it is able to administer the trust in a manner that is consistent with the requirements of section 408. The demonstration must be made by written application to the Commissioner. Notwithstanding the requirement of paragraph (e)(1) of this section that a person must demonstrate by written application that the requirements of paragraphs (e)(2) through (e)(6) of this section will be met in order to qualify as a nonbank trustee, a governmental unit that maintains a plan qualified under section 401(a), 403(a), 403(b) or 457 need not demonstrate that all of these requirements will be met with respect to any individual retirement accounts maintained by that governmental unit pursuant to section 408(q). For example, a governmental unit need not demonstrate that it satisfies the net worth requirements of paragraph (e)(3)(ii) of this section if it demonstrates instead that it possesses taxing authority under applicable law. The Commissioner, in his discretion, may exempt a governmental unit from certain other requirements upon a showing that the governmental unit is able to administer the deemed IRAs in the best interest of the participants. Moreover, in determining whether a governmental unit satisfies the other requirements of paragraphs (e)(2) through (e)(6) of this section, the Commissioner may apply the requirements in a manner that is consistent with the applicant's status as a governmental unit.
(ii)*Governmental unit.* For purposes of this special rule, the term *governmental unit* means a state, political subdivision of a state, and any agency or instrumentality of a state or political subdivision of a state.
(iii)*Additional rules.* The Commissioner may in revenue rulings, notices, or other guidance of general applicability provide additional rules for governmental units seeking approval as nonbank trustees.
(iv)*Effective/applicability date.* This section is applicable for written applications made on or after June 18, 2007. The rules in this section also may be relied on for applications submitted on or after August 1, 2003 (or such earlier application as the Commissioner deems appropriate) and before June 18, 2007. § 1.408-2T [Removed] **Par. 3.** Section 1.408-2T is removed. Kevin M. Brown, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement. Approved: Eric Solomon, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (Tax Policy). [FR Doc. E7-11636 Filed 6-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [COTP San Francisco Bay 07-025] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; BART Transbay Tube Seismic Upgrade; San Francisco, CA AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a moving temporary safety zone in the navigable waters of San Francisco Bay, California, during geotechnical borings for a seismic upgrade of the Bay Area Rapid Transit
(BART)Transbay tube. The borings will require placement of a drilling vessel at test sites along the BART Transbay tube. The safety zone will surround the vessel and move with the vessel as it conducts the tests at eighteen sites along the BART Transbay tube. This safety zone is necessary to protect persons and vessels from hazards, injury, and damage associated with the geotechnical borings. Unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or remaining in the safety zone without permission of the Captain of the Port or his designated representative. DATES: This rule is effective from May 30, 2007 through June 25, 2007. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket COTP San Francisco Bay 07-025 and are available for inspection or copying at the Waterways Safety Branch of Sector San Francisco, Yerba Buena Island, Bldg. 278, San Francisco, California 94130, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ensign Erin Bastick, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Francisco, at
(415)556-2950 or Sector San Francisco 24 hour Command Center at
(415)399-3547. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. The dates for the geotechnical borings along the Transbay tube were not finalized and presented to the Coast Guard in time to draft and publish an NPRM. As such, the borings would commence before the rulemaking process could be completed. Any delay in implementing this rule is contrary to the public interest since immediate action is necessary in order to protect the maritime public from the hazards associated with the vibro penetration testing. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . The dates for the geotechnical borings along the Transbay tube were not finalized and presented to the Coast Guard in time to publish this rule 30 days prior to its effective date. As such, the borings would commence before the rulemaking process could be completed. Delay in the effective date of this rule would expose the mariners and waterways users to undue hazards associated with the geotechnical borings. Background and Purpose Bay Area Rapid Transit has contracted Gregg Drilling & Testing, to conduct BART marine demonstration tests in support of their earthquake safety efforts. They will be conducting geotechnical borings for future seismic upgrades of the BART Transbay tube. The scope of the work will involve eighteen separate anchor spread locations, required to carry out the thirty-four geotechnical borings, located along the BART tube in the San Francisco Bay. The scope of work for the entire BART seismic upgrade project involves four primary activities carried out on the water. These activities include vibro penetration tests, vibro ground improvement, drilling, sampling and sonic borings. The Gregg Drilling & Testing work will involve the drilling portion of the BART seismic upgrade project. Gregg Drilling & Testing will be deploying the vessel QUIN DELTA which is 120 feet long and 30 feet wide, with a drilling apparatus attached to its hull. The vessel QUIN DELTA will be located over the tube alignment to perform drilling. The drilling will penetrate the sea floor at a depth of five feet. The contents recovered will be collected onto the vessel and further analyzed offsite. Discussion of Rule This safety zone will encompass the navigable waters from the surface to the sea floor, located in the San Francisco Bay, encompassing a circular safety zone with a 300-yard radius extending from the drilling platform, vessel QUIN DELTA. The vessel QUIN DELTA will transit and conduct testing along the BART Transbay tube between two points: 37°47′44.55″ N Latitude by 122°23′28.34″ W Longitude at the western extreme and 37°48′31.29″ N Latitude by 122°20′17.12″ W Longitude on the eastern extreme. This area between the two points will be used to maneuver and anchor the vessel QUIN DELTA as it conducts the geotechnical borings from May 30, 2007 through June 25, 2007. The BART Project manager coordinated the boring locations with the local Bar Pilots and the Vessel Traffic Service to ensure the testing would result in minimum impact to vessel traffic. This moving safety zone around the drilling Barge QUIN DELTA is necessary to protect persons and vessels from hazards, injury, and damage associated with the geotechnical borings. U.S. Coast Guard personnel will enforce this safety zone. Other Federal, State, or local agencies may assist the Coast Guard, including the Coast Guard Auxiliary. Section 165.23 of Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations, prohibits any unauthorized person or vessel from entering or remaining in a safety zone. Vessels or persons violating this section may be subject to both criminal and civil penalties. Regulatory Evaluation This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. Although this rule restricts access to the waters encompassed by the safety zone, the effect of this rule will not be significant because the local waterway users have been contacted to ensure the closure will result in minimum impact. The entities most likely to be affected are pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities. Not only is the safety zone small in size, but there will be ample space to navigate around the safety zone as well. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of the San Francisco Bay from May 30, 2007 through June 25, 2007. Although this regulation prevents traffic from transiting a portion of San Francisco Bay during the testing, the effect of this regulation will not be significant because small vessels will be able to transit around the regulated area. The entities most likely to be affected are pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing. Small entities and the maritime public will also be advised of this safety zone via public broadcast notice to mariners. In addition, vessels will be able to pass through the zone on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, the economic impact of this waterway closure is not expected to be significant. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We expect this rule may affect owners and operators of vessels, some of which may be small entities, intending to fish, sightsee, transit, or anchor in the waters affected by this safety zone. This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for several reasons: small vessel traffic will be able to pass safely around the area and vessels engaged in recreational activities, sightseeing and commercial fishing have ample space outside of the safety zone to engage in these activities. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). Collection of Information This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( *e.g.* , specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. Paragraph (34)(g) is applicable because this rule establishes a safety zone. A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” will be available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record keeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR Part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Add § 165.T11-197, to read as follows: § 165.T11-197 Safety Zone; San Francisco Bay, California.
(a)*Location.* This safety zone will encompass the navigable waters from the surface to the sea floor, in the San Francisco Bay, and its limits will encompass a circular safety zone with a radius of 300-yards extending from and around the drilling vessel QUIN DELTA. This safety zone will move and continue to extend 300-yards from the vessel QUIN DELTA while it operates along the charted BART Transbay tube between the following two points: 37°47′44.55″ N Latitude by 122°23′28.34″ W Longitude at the western extreme and 37°48′31.29″ N Latitude by 122°20′17.12″ W Longitude on the eastern extreme.
(b)*Effective dates.* This rule is effective from May 30, 2007 through June 25, 2007. If the need for the safety zone ends prior to the scheduled termination time, the Captain of the Port
(COTP)will cease enforcement of the safety zone.
(c)*Regulations.* In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry into, transit through, or anchoring within this safety zone by all vessels and persons is prohibited, unless specifically authorized by the COTP San Francisco, or his designated representative.
(d)*Enforcement.* All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard COTP or his designated representative. The COTP's designated representative can be comprised of commissioned, warrant, and petty officers of the Coast Guard onboard Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, local, state, and federal law enforcement vessels. Upon being hailed by U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel by siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed as directed. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol and enforcement of these two safety zones by local law enforcement as necessary. Dated: May 29, 2007. W.J. Uberti, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, San Francisco, California. [FR Doc. E7-11637 Filed 6-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [COTP San Francisco Bay 07-016] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; City of San Francisco Fourth of July Fireworks Display, San Francisco Bay, CA AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in the navigable waters of San Francisco Bay for the loading, transport, and launching of fireworks to celebrate Independence Day. This safety zone is established to ensure the safety of participants and spectators. Unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or remaining in the safety zone without permission of the Captain of the Port or his designated representative. DATES: This rule is effective from 9 a.m. on July 3, 2007 to 10 p.m. on July 4, 2007. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket COTP San Francisco Bay 07-016 and are available for inspection or copying at Coast Guard Sector San Francisco, 1 Yerba Buena Island, San Francisco, California, 94130, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ensign Sheral Richardson, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Francisco, at
(415)556-2950 ext. 136. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. Logistical details surrounding the event were not finalized and presented to the Coast Guard in time to draft and publish an NPRM. As such, the event would occur before the rulemaking process was complete. Because of the dangers posed by the pyrotechnics used in this fireworks display, safety zones are necessary to provide for the safety of event participants, spectators, and vessels transiting the event area. Because of these safety concerns, it is in the public interest to have these regulations in effect during the event. For the same reasons, the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . Any delay in the effective date of this rule would expose mariners to the dangers posed by the pyrotechnics used in this fireworks display. Background and Purpose The City of San Francisco is sponsoring a fireworks display on July 4, 2007 in the waters of San Francisco Bay near Pier 39. The fireworks display is meant for entertainment purposes in celebration of Independence Day. This safety zone is being issued to establish a temporary regulated area in San Francisco around the fireworks launch barge during loading of the pyrotechnics, during the transit of the barge to the display location, and during the fireworks display. This safety zone around the launch barge is necessary to protect spectators, vessels, and other property from the hazards associated with the pyrotechnics on the fireworks barge. The Coast Guard has granted the event sponsor a marine event permit for the fireworks display. Discussion of Rule The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on specified waters of San Francisco Bay near Piers 39 and 50. During the loading of the fireworks barge, while the barge is being towed to the display location, and until the start of the fireworks display, the safety zone will apply to the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge within a radius of 100 feet. Fifteen minutes prior to and during the twenty-five minute fireworks display, the area to which this safety zone applies to will increase in size to encompass the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge within a radius of 1,000 feet. Loading of the pyrotechnics onto the fireworks barge is scheduled to commence at 9 a.m. on July 3, 2007, and will take place at Pier 50 in San Francisco. Towing of the barge from Pier 50 to the display location is scheduled to take place on July 4, 2007. During the fireworks display, scheduled to commence at approximately 9:30 p.m., the fireworks barge will be located approximately 1,000 feet off of Pier 39 in position 37°48.71′ N, 122°24.46′ W. The effect of the temporary safety zone will be to restrict general navigation in the vicinity of the fireworks barge while the fireworks are loaded at Pier 50, during the transit of the fireworks barge, and until the conclusion of the scheduled display. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the safety zone. This safety zone is needed to keep spectators and vessels a safe distance away from the fireworks barge to ensure the safety of participants, spectators, and transiting vessels. Regulatory Evaluation This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. Although this rule restricts access to the waters encompassed by the safety zone, the effect of this rule will not be significant because the local waterway users will be notified via publicly broadcasted notice to mariners to ensure the safety zone will result in minimum impact. The entities most likely to be affected are pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: Owners and operators of pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing. This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for several reasons:
(i)Vessel traffic can pass safely around the area;
(ii)vessels engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing have ample space outside of the effected portion of San Francisco Bay to engage in these activities;
(iii)this rule will encompass only a small portion of the waterway for a limited period of time, and;
(iv)the maritime public will be advised in advance of this safety zone via publicly broadcasted notice to mariners. Assistance For Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph(34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. Paragraph (34)(g) is applicable because this rule establishes a safety zone. A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” will be available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR Part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Add temporary § 165.T11-195 to read as follows: § 165.T11-195 Safety Zone; City of San Francisco Fourth of July Fireworks Display, San Francisco Bay, CA.
(a)*Location.* The following area is a safety zone: The waters of San Francisco Bay near Piers 39 and 50 surrounding a barge used as the launch platform for a fireworks display to be held in celebration of Independence Day. During the loading of the fireworks barge, during the transit of the fireworks barge to the display location, and until fifteen minutes prior to the start of the fireworks display, the safety zone will encompass the navigable waters, from surface to bottom, around the fireworks barge within a radius of 100 feet. During the fifteen minutes preceding the fireworks display and during the twenty-five minute fireworks display itself, the safety zone increases in size to encompass the navigable waters, from surface to bottom, around the fireworks launch barge within a radius of 1,000 feet. Loading of the pyrotechnics onto the fireworks barge is scheduled to commence at 9 a.m. on July 3, 2007, and will take place at Pier 50 in San Francisco. Towing of the barge from Pier 50 to the display location is scheduled to take place on July 4, 2007. During the fireworks display, scheduled to start at approximately 9:30 p.m. on July 4, 2007, the barge will be located approximately 1,000 feet off of Pier 39 in position 37°48.71′ N, 122°24.46′ W.
(b)*Effective period.* This section is effective from 9 a.m. on July 3, 2007 through 10 p.m. on July 4, 2007. If the event concludes prior to the scheduled termination time, the Coast Guard will cease enforcement of the safety zone and will announce that fact via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
(c)*Regulations.* In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry into, transit through, or anchoring within this safety zone by any vessel or person is prohibited, unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port San Francisco, or his designated representative.
(d)*Enforcement.* All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port, or the designated on-scene patrol personnel. Patrol personnel can be comprised of commissioned, warrant, and petty officers of the Coast Guard onboard Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, local, state, or federal law enforcement vessels. Upon being hailed by U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel by siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed as directed. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol and enforcement of this safety zone by local law enforcement. Dated: June 4, 2007. W.J. Uberti, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, San Francisco. [FR Doc. E7-11716 Filed 6-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [CGD09-07-032] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Recovery of Aircraft, Lake Michigan, Milwaukee, WI AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in Lake Michigan, Milwaukee, WI. This zone is intended to restrict vessels from a portion of Lake Michigan during the recovery of an aircraft that crashed in Lake Michigan. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect divers and recovery workers and restrict spectators and vessels from the recovery site. DATES: This rule is effective from 8:30 p.m. on June 5, 2007 to 10 p.m. on June 29, 2007. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket CGD09-07-032 and are available for inspection or copying at U.S. Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan, 2420 South Lincoln Memorial Drive, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53207 between 8:30 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chief Warrant Officer Brad Hinken, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan, Prevention Department, 2420 South Lincoln Memorial Drive, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53207,
(414)747-7154. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. Publishing an NPRM would be impracticable as this safety zone was implemented for an emergency situation and required immediate activation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . Delaying this rule would be contrary to the public interest of ensuring the safety of spectators and vessels during this event and immediate action is necessary to prevent possible loss of life or property. Background and Purpose This temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of divers and other recovery workers recovering the wreckage of an aircraft that crashed in Lake Michigan on June 4, 2007. This safety zone is also intended to restrict spectators and media during the recovery of human remains. Establishing a safety zone to control vessel movement around the location of the crash site will help ensure the safety of persons and property involved in the recovery operation and provide privacy to the families of the persons deceased in the aircraft crash. Discussion of Rule A temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of divers and recovery workers during the recovery of aircraft wreckage and human remains. The safety zone will be in effect from 8:30 p.m. on June 5, 2007 to 10 p.m. on June 29, 2007. The safety zone encompasses all waters of Lake Michigan within a 1000-yard radius from the aircraft crash site located at position 43°01′52″ N, 087°51′23″ W (NAD 83). All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or his on-scene representative. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or his on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Regulatory Evaluation This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. This determination is based on the minimal time that vessels will be restricted from the zone and the zone is an area where the Coast Guard expects insignificant adverse impact to mariners from the zone's activation. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners and operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of Lake Michigan from 8:30 a.m. (local) on June 5, 2007 to 10 p.m. (local) on June 29, 2007. This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: Vessel traffic can safely pass outside the safety zone during the recovery operations. In the event that this temporary safety zone affects shipping, commercial vessels may request permission from the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan to transit through the safety zone. The Coast Guard will give notice to the public via a Broadcast to Mariners that the regulation is in effect. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). Collection of Information This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule would not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments The Coast Guard recognizes the treaty rights of Native American Tribes. Moreover, the Coast Guard is committed to working with Tribal Governments to implement local policies and to mitigate tribal concerns. We have determined that this safety zone and fishing rights protection need not be incompatible. We have also determined that this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Nevertheless, Indian tribes that have questions concerning the provisions of this rule or options for compliance are encouraged to contact the point of contact listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( *e.g.* , specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedure; and related management system practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. This event establishes a safety zone; therefore paragraph (34)(g) of the Instruction applies. A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Add § 165.T09-032 to read as follows: § 165.T09-032 Safety Zone; Recovery of Aircraft, Lake Michigan, Milwaukee, WI.
(a)*Location.* The following area is a temporary safety zone: all waters of Lake Michigan within a 1000-yard radius from an aircraft crash site located at position 43°01′52″ N, 087°51′23″ W (NAD 83).
(b)*Effective period.* This regulation is effective from 8:30 p.m. on June 5, 2007 to 10 p.m. on June 29, 2007.
(c)*Regulations.*
(1)In accordance with the general regulations in section 165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan, or his on-scene representative.
(2)This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or his on-scene representative.
(3)The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port to act on his behalf. The on-scene representative of the Captain of the Port will be aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel. The Captain of the Port or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.
(4)Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or his on-scene representative. Dated: June 5, 2007. Bruce C. Jones, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Lake Michigan. [FR Doc. E7-11635 Filed 6-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2004-IN-0006; FRL-8327-1] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana; NSR Reform Regulations AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: On July 10, 2006, EPA proposed partial approval of revisions to Indiana's prevention of significant deterioration
(PSD)and nonattainment new source review
(NSR)construction permit programs. EPA received comments on this proposal on August 9, 2006. An adverse comment regarding the inclusion of hazardous air pollutants
(HAPs)in Indiana's PSD rules was received. Subsequently, on January 17, 2007, the Indiana Department of Environmental Management
(IDEM)requested the withdrawal of the portion of this submittal pertaining to HAPs. EPA is partially approving the portions of the Indiana rule that were proposed for approval on July 10, 2006 and were not withdrawn on January 17, 2007. As noted in the July 10, 2006, notice, we are not taking action on the Clean Unit and Pollution Control Project
(PCP)portions of the Indiana rule. DATES: This final rule is effective on July 18, 2007. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2004-IN-0006. All documents in the docket are listed on the *www.regulations.gov* Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Sam Portanova, Environmental Engineer, at
(312)886-3189 before visiting the Region 5 office. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sam Portanova, Environmental Engineer, Air Permits Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,
(312)886-3189, *portanova.sam@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows: I. What Is EPA Addressing in This Document? II. What Comments Did EPA Receive and What Are EPA's Responses? III. What Action Is EPA Taking? IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What Is EPA Addressing in This Document? We are partially approving revisions to Indiana's PSD and nonattainment NSR construction permit programs. In our July 10, 2006, proposed partial approval (71 FR 38824), we discussed the history of Indiana's PSD and nonattainment NSR programs, the contents of the State's submission, and our analysis. Please consult that document for further information on this submittal. EPA received comments on this proposal on August 9, 2006. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (“the Alliance”) and the Air Permitting Forum (“the Forum”) urged EPA to partially disapprove the subsections of the definition of “regulated NSR pollutant” that reference HAPs listed under section 112 of the Clean Air Act (the Act). On January 17, 2007, IDEM submitted a letter requesting the withdrawal of 326 IAC 2-2-1(uu)(5) from the state implementation plan
(SIP)submittal, thus removing the references to HAPs from the definition of “regulated NSR pollutant.” EPA is, therefore, taking no action on 326 IAC 2-2-1(uu)(5) and approving the remaining portions of the Indiana submittal proposed for approval on July 10, 2006. II. What Comments Did EPA Receive and What Are EPA's Responses? We received comments from the CASE Coalition, the Indiana Manufacturers Association, and Eli Lilly and Company supporting our July 10, 2006, proposal to partially approve the Indiana rules. Since these were not adverse comments, no further EPA response is necessary. As mentioned above, we also received a comment from the Alliance and the Forum asking EPA to partially disapprove the inclusion of HAPs in Indiana's PSD rules. The following is our response to this adverse comment. Indiana included a new definition—“regulated NSR pollutant”—in its “NSR Reform” regulations. This definition is consistent with the definition in the federal rules, except that IDEM added a paragraph at 326 IAC 2-2-1(uu)(5) to reference HAPs from the existing state rules. On July 10, 2006, we proposed approval of the definition of “regulated NSR pollutant” as part of our proposed partial approval of Indiana's rules. In this proposal, we cited the preamble of the December 31, 2002, NSR rulemaking (67 FR 80240) as part of our justification: According to the preamble to the December 31, 2002, NSR rulemaking (67 FR 80240), “State and local agencies with an approved PSD program may continue to regulate the HAP now exempted from federal PSD by section 112(b)(6) if their PSD regulations provide an independent basis to do so. These State and local rules remain in effect unless they are revised to provide similar exemptions.” Indiana has included these HAP pollutants in its State PSD rules since prior to the 1990 amendments to the Act, which added the 112(b) HAP exemption. Therefore, Indiana may continue regulating these pollutants in its PSD rules. The Alliance and the Forum questioned this position, asserting that section 112(b)(6) of the Act contains a prohibition on the application of PSD to these pollutants. After consideration of this comment, EPA agrees that Indiana's history of inclusion of HAPs in its PSD rules, by itself, does not serve as a sufficient “independent basis” for the approval of these pollutants in this SIP submittal. IDEM's letter of January 17, 2007, requesting the withdrawal of 326 IAC 2-2-1(uu)(5) from this SIP submittal, removes all references to HAPs from this SIP submittal. As such, EPA is taking no action on 326 IAC 2-2-1(uu)(5), and is approving the remaining portions of the Indiana submittal that were proposed for approval on July 10, 2006. III. What Action Is EPA Taking? EPA is approving into the Indiana SIP the revisions to Indiana's PSD and NSR construction permits program submitted by IDEM on September 2, 2004. The revisions meet the minimum program requirements of the December 31, 2002, EPA NSR Reform rulemaking. As requested in IDEM's October 25, 2005, letter to EPA, we are not taking action on the Clean Unit and PCP provisions of Indiana's rule. As also requested in IDEM's January 17, 2007, letter to EPA, we are not taking action on 326 IAC 2-2-1(uu)(5). IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review 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. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use Because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 or a “significant regulatory action,” this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). Regulatory Flexibility Act 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.* ). Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 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). Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments 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). Executive Order 13132: Federalism This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal Standard. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 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 Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. Paperwork Reduction Act 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.* ). Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 17, 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, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: May 31, 2007. Bharat Mathur, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 52, chapter I, of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart P—Indiana 2. Section 52.770 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(181) to read as follows: § 52.770 Identification of plan.
(c)* * *
(181)On September 2, 2004, Indiana submitted modifications to its Prevention of Significant Deterioration and nonattainment New Source Review rules as a revision to the state implementation plan. On October 25, 2005, and January 17, 2007, Indiana submitted revisions to the September 2, 2004 submittal.
(i)Incorporation by reference.
(A)Title 326 of the Indiana Administrative Code, Rules 2-1.1-7, 2-2-1(a) through (l), 2-2-1(n) through (kk), 2-2-1(mm) through (tt), 2-2-1(uu)(1) through (4), 2-2-1(vv) through (aaa), 2-2-2(a) through (d)(4), 2-2-2(d)(6) through (e), 2-2-2(g) through (i), 2-2-3, 2-2-4, 2-2-5(a), 2-2-5(c) through (e), 2-2-6, 2-2-8, 2-2.4, 2-3-1(a) through (i), 2-3-1(k) through (ff), 2-3-1(hh) through (uu), 2-3-2(a) through (c)(4), 2-3-2(c)(6) through (k), 2-3-2(m), 2-3-3(a) through (b)(11), 2-3-3(b)(14), 2-3.4, 2-5.1-4. Filed with the Secretary of State on August 10, 2004, effective September 10, 2004. Published in the Indiana Register on September 1, 2004 (27 IR 3887). [FR Doc. E7-11571 Filed 6-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0619; FRL-8327-3] Revisions to the Nevada State Implementation Plan, Washoe County District Health Department AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the Washoe County District Health Department (WCDHD) portion of the Nevada State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern opacity, emissions of carbon monoxide
(CO)and particulate matter
(PM)from wood stoves and fireplaces, and air emergency episode plans. We are approving local rules that help regulate emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). DATES: This rule is effective on August 17, 2007 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by July 18, 2007. If we receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the **Federal Register** to notify the public that this direct final rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0619, by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the on-line instructions. • *E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov.* • *Mail or deliver:* Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. *Instructions:* All comments will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. www.regulations.gov is an “anonymous access” system, and EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. 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. *Docket:* The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at *http://www.regulations.gov* and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Al Petersen, EPA Region IX,
(415)947-4118, *petersen.alfred@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA. Table of Contents I. The State's Submittal A. What rules did the State submit? B. Are there other versions of the rules? C. What are the purposes of the submitted rule and rule revisions? II. EPA's Evaluation and Action A. How is EPA evaluating the rules? B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria? C. Public comment and final action III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. The State's Submittal A. What rules did the State submit? Table 1 lists the new or amended rules we are approving with the date that the rules were adopted by the WCDHD and were submitted by the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP). Table 1.—Rules Submitted Agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted or revised Submitted WCDHD 010.117 Definitions—“Pellet Stove” 02/23/06 Revised 05/05/06 WCDHD 040.005 Visible Air Contaminants 02/23/06 Revised 05/05/06 WCDHD 040.051 Wood Stove/Fireplace Insert Emissions 02/23/06 Revised 05/05/06 WCDHD 050.001 Emergency Episode Plan 03/23/06 Adopted 05/05/06 On November 4, 2006, the submittal of May 5, 2006 was found by operation of law to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review. B. Are there other versions of the rules? We approved a version of WCDHD Rule 040.005 into the SIP on July 27, 1972 (37 FR 15080). We approved a version of WCDHD Rule 050.001 into the SIP as Rules 060.005, 060.030, 060.035, 060.040, 060.045, 060.050, 060.055, and 060.060 on July 27, 1972 (37 FR 15080). Submitted Rule 050.001 does not contain provisions that substantively relate to 060.010, 060.015, 060.020, or 060.025. Thus, those provisions would remain in the applicable SIP after approval of Rule 050.001. Approval of 050.001 would supersede the other 8 rules in the 050-series that we approved in 1972. There is no version of WCDHD Rules 010.117 or 040.051 in the SIP. C. What are the purposes of the submitted rule and rule revisions? Section 110(a) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA)requires states to submit regulations that control volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, sulfur oxides, and other air pollutants which harm human health and the environment. The rules were developed as part of the Washoe County District Board of Health's program to control these pollutants. The purpose of Rule 010.117 is to define “pellet stove” for use in the rules below. The purpose of Rule 040.005 is to limit visible emissions from stationary sources. • The revised rule has a format change and two references added for clarity. The purpose of Rule 040.051 is to limit particulate matter and other pollutants (such as carbon monoxide) discharged into the ambient air from solid fuel burning devices. Rule 040.051 would be a new rule in the SIP but was adopted locally several years ago and revised a number of times since then. The general purposes of the latest revision by Washoe County to Rule 040.051 are to strengthen and to clarify the requirements of the rule. Notable elements of Rule 040.051 are as follows: • The rule provides 21 definitions for clarity. • The rule requires a PM emission standard for non-catalytic appliances of 7.5 grams PM per hour and a PM emission standard for catalytic appliances of 4.1 grams PM per hour. • The rule requires that existing non-certified wood stoves must be removed or replaced with certified wood stoves or low emission devices upon property sale or transfer. Antique wood stoves could be exempted by the Control Officer on a case-by-case basis. • The rule allows, if a property is undergoing renovation without change of ownership, the existing wood stove to be moved and re-installed or the same type of fireplace to be rebuilt. • The rule prohibits visible emissions from a chimney from exceeding No. 2 on the Ringlemann chart (40% opacity), except for a 15-minute startup period. • The rule provides a list of 12 prohibited fuels for use in solid fuel burning devices. • The rule allows wood less than 20% moisture to be sold for immediate use; wood over 20% moisture may be sold, providing a seasoning period to achieve 20% moisture is recommended to the buyer. • The rule allows no more than one certified wood stove or fireplace per acre to be installed in new construction. • The rule prohibits the installation of additional solid fuel burning devices in existing dwelling units or commercial/public property. • The rule provides various administrative requirements in order to enforce the standards in the rule, including qualifications and duties of a Wood Stove Inspector. The purpose of Rule 050.001 is to prevent the excessive buildup of air pollutants by recognizing atmospheric conditions conducive to such buildup and initiating effective remedial actions before the concentrations can build to unhealthy levels. Notable changes relative to the existing SIP include: • The rule includes new definitions that clarify the meaning of the rule's provisions. • The rule includes substantially more protective episode criteria levels for carbon monoxide
(CO)and ozone compared to the existing SIP and includes episode criteria levels for two pollutants, PM <sup>10</sup> and PM <sup>2.5</sup> , that are not included in the corresponding provision in the existing SIP. • The rule no longer includes episode criteria level for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and hydrocarbons. • The rule updates the list of entities to be notified in the event of an alert. • The rule includes additional control actions to be taken upon declaration of different stages (such as the suspension of operation of any solid fuel burning device upon the declaration of a stage 1 alert for CO, PM <sup>10</sup> or PM <sup>2.5</sup> ). EPA's technical support documents
(TSDs)have more information about these rules. II. EPA's Evaluation and Action A. How is EPA evaluating the rules? Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the CAA) and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). The WCDHD regulates a serious PM-10 nonattainment area where significant sources of PM-10 must fulfill the requirements of Best Available Control Measures (BACM), including Best Available Control Technology
(BACT)(see section 189(b)). Rule 040.005 regulates significant source categories and must fulfill the requirements of BACM/BACT. Rule 040.051 regulates a significant source category of PM-10 according to the *Revisions to the PM-10 State Implementation Plan for the Truckee Meadows Air Basin* (August 2002) (2002 Plan) and must fulfill the requirements of BACM/BACT. Guidance and policy documents that we used to help evaluate specific enforceability and BACM/BACT requirements consistently include the following: • *Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans* , U.S. EPA, 40 CFR part 51. • *PM-10 Guideline Document* (EPA-452/R-93-008). • *Technical Information Document for Residential Wood Combustion Best Available Control Measures* (EPA-450/2-92-002). • *Minimum BACM/RACM Control Measures for Residential Wood Combustion Rules* , EPA Region IX (March 22, 2007). B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria? We believe the rules are consistent with the relevant EPA rules, policy, and guidance regarding enforceability, SIP relaxations, BACM/BACT, and emergency episode plans. Specifically, we find amended WCDHD Rule 040.005 to be acceptable because it meets BACM, is relied upon in both the PM-10 and CO plans for Truckee Meadows, and is reasonably enforceable. We find the amended emergency episode plan recodified as WCDHD Rule 050.001 to be acceptable because it meets the applicable requirements for such plans in 40 CFR part 52, subpart H, is an improvement over the related existing SIP, and is relied upon by the PM-10 and CO plans for Truckee Meadows. The TSDs have more information on our evaluation. C. Public comment and final action As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, EPA is fully approving the submitted WCDHD Rules 010.117, 040.005, 040.051, and 050.001 because we believe they fulfill all relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this **Federal Register** , we are simultaneously proposing approval of the same submitted rules. If we receive adverse comments by July 18, 2007, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the **Federal Register** to notify the public that the direct final approval will not take effect and we will address the comments in a subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do not receive timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be effective without further notice on August 17, 2007. This will incorporate these rules into the federally enforceable SIP. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 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 Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 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 Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 17, 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, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: May 9, 2007. Laura Yoshii, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart DD—Nevada 2. Section 52.1470 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(63) to read as follows: § 52.1470 Identification of plan.
(c)* * *
(63)New or amended regulations were submitted on May 5, 2006, by the Governor's designee.
(i)Incorporation by reference.
(A)Washoe County District Health Department. ( *1* ) Rules 010.117, 040.005, and 040.051, revised on February 23, 2006, and Rule 050.001, adopted on March 23, 2006. [FR Doc. E7-11578 Filed 6-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R01-OAR-2006-0930; A-1-FRL-8327-9] Approval of Implementation Plan; Connecticut; Commitment to Submit Mid-Course Review AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of commitment fulfillment. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the State of Connecticut has fulfilled the enforceable commitments it made to EPA to complete a mid-course review
(MCR)assessing whether two one-hour ozone nonattainment areas are, or are not, making sufficient progress toward attainment of the one-hour ozone standard under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The two areas are the Connecticut portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island 1-hour ozone nonattainment area, and the Greater Connecticut 1-hour ozone nonattainment area. EPA has reviewed the MCR documents submitted by Connecticut and has determined that Connecticut has met the commitment to perform these MCRs. EPA has sent a letter to Connecticut finding that their MCRs fulfill the commitment made by Connecticut in their 1-hour ozone attainment demonstrations. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R01-OAR-2006-0930. All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard P. Burkhart, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (CAQ), Boston, MA 02114-2023, telephone number
(617)918-1664. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information EPA's findings letter and Technical support Document
(TSD)and the State's mid-course review
(MCR)submittal are available at the Regional Office, which is identified in the ADDRESSES section above. II. Further Information A. Background EPA's 1996 modeling guidance 1 recognized the need to perform a MCR as a means for addressing uncertainty in the modeling results. In its December 16, 1999 proposed rulemakings on the 1-hour ozone attainment demonstrations for ten ozone nonattainment areas (see one example at 64 FR 70348), EPA stated that because of the uncertainty in long-term projections, an attainment demonstration that relies on weight of evidence needs to contain provisions for periodic review of monitoring, emissions, and modeling data to assess the extent to which refinements to emission control measures are needed. In those December 16, 1999 proposed rulemakings, EPA set forth its framework for reviewing and processing 1-hour ozone attainment demonstrations and one element of that framework was a commitment for a MCR. 1 U.S. EPA (1996), Guidance on Use of Modeled Results to Demonstrate Attainment of the Ozone NAAQS, EPA-454/B-957-007, (June 1996), Web site: *http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/* (file name: “O3TEST”). A MCR provides an opportunity for the state and EPA to assess if a nonattainment area is, or is not, making sufficient progress toward attainment of the one-hour ozone standard. The MCR should utilize air quality monitoring and other data to assess whether the control measures relied on in a SIP's attainment demonstration have resulted in adequate improvement of the ozone air quality. The EPA believes that a MCR is a critical element in any attainment demonstration that employs a long-term projection period and relies on a weight-of-evidence test. The commitment to perform a MCR was required before EPA would approve most 1-hour ozone attainment demonstrations. Moreover, even though the 1-hour ozone standard has been revoked by EPA (70 FR 44470, June 15, 2005), the anti-backsliding provisions of EPA's 8-hour ozone implementation rule (69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004) continue to require areas with outstanding commitments to perform a 1-hour MCR to do so. The two 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas in Connecticut that are the subject of this notice are the Connecticut portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island ozone nonattainment area and the Greater Connecticut 1-hour ozone nonattainment area. The one-hour attainment demonstration for the Connecticut portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island ozone nonattainment area, with the commitment to perform a MCR, was approved in 66 FR 63921, published on December 11, 2001. This area also had an emissions shortfall. Connecticut adopted additional control measures to fill this shortfall. EPA approved these measures as fulfilling the shortfall in a previous rulemaking. See 71 FR 51761 (August 31, 2006). The one-hour attainment demonstration for the Greater Connecticut 1-hour ozone nonattainment area, with the commitment to perform a MCR, was approved in 66 FR 634, published on January 3, 2001. B. MCR Guidance On March 28, 2002, EPA issued a memorandum entitled “Mid-Course Review Guidance for the 1-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Areas that Rely on Weight-of-Evidence for Attainment Demonstration.” Attached to that memorandum is a technical guidance document dated January 2002 entitled “Recommended Approach For Performing Mid-course Review of SIP's To Meet the 1-hour NAAQS for Ozone.” *http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/policymem33d.pdf.* The technical guidance contains three basic steps:
(1)Perform an administrative test (e.g., demonstrate whether the appropriate emission limits were adopted and implemented);
(2)analyze available air quality, meteorology, emissions and modeling data and document findings; and
(3)document conclusions regarding whether progress toward attainment is being made using a weight of evidence determination (which may or may not include new modeling analyses). C. Review of MCR Submittals from Connecticut EPA reviewed the MCR documents Connecticut submitted for the two areas in Connecticut required to submit an MCR. The review compared the MCRs with EPA guidance. EPA concluded that the two MCRs meet EPA guidance and fulfill the commitment Connecticut made in their one-hour attainment demonstrations. Specifically, both of Connecticut's MCRs include an emission reduction regulation review, as well as a trend analysis and air quality monitoring data. A TSD with more detail on Connecticut's MCRs and EPA's review of these MCRs has been prepared and is available from EPA at the address provided in the ADDRESSES section above. III. Final Action EPA has reviewed the MCR documents submitted by Connecticut and has determined that Connecticut has adequately met its commitment to perform a MCR. This action is being taken for the following one-hour ozone nonattainment areas: The Connecticut portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island ozone nonattainment area; and the Greater Connecticut 1-hour ozone nonattainment area. EPA has sent a letter to Connecticut finding that their MCRs fulfill the commitment made by Connecticut in their 1-hour ozone attainment demonstrations. A copy of this letter is available from EPA at the address provided in the ADDRESSES section above. 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, 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 a state commitment as meeting federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this action 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 finding 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 action 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), because it merely approves a state commitment as meeting a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This action 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. In reviewing SIP submissions, as well as submission of reports that fulfill a state commitment, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 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, as well as submission of reports that fulfill a state commitment, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ) List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: June 6, 2007. Robert W. Varney, Regional Administrator, EPA New England. [FR Doc. E7-11690 Filed 6-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 635 [Docket No. 070330073-7116-02; I.D. 030507A] RIN 0648-AU87 Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Quota Specifications and Effort Controls AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: NMFS announces the final rule to set 2007 fishing year specifications for the Atlantic bluefin tuna
(BFT)fishery, including quotas for each of the established domestic fishing categories and effort controls for the General category and Angling category. This action is necessary to implement recommendations of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), as required by the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA), and to achieve domestic management objectives under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). This action also makes a minor administrative change to the permit regulations. DATES: The rule is effective July 18, 2007, except that the General category retention limit found within the preamble of this rule is effective July 18, 2007 through August 31, 2007, and the Angling category retention limit found within the preamble of this rule is effective July 18, 2007 through December 31, 2007. ADDRESSES: Supporting documents, including the Environmental Assessment (EA), Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), and Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA), are available from Sarah McLaughlin, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, Office of Sustainable Fisheries (F/SF1), NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. These documents are also available from the HMS Management Division website at *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/* or at the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah McLaughlin, 978-281-9260. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Atlantic tunas are managed under the dual authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the ATCA. The ATCA authorizes the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to promulgate regulations, as may be necessary and appropriate, to implement ICCAT recommendations. The authority to issue regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the ATCA has been delegated from the Secretary to the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA). The consolidated FMP regulations are at 50 CFR part 635. Background Background information about the need for the BFT quota specifications and effort controls for the 2007 fishing year (June 1 through December 31, 2007) was provided in the preamble to the proposed rule (72 FR 16318, April 4, 2007), and is not repeated here. The proposed rule reflected landings information through January 15, 2007. Since that date, additional landings have occurred, resulting in a slight modification of the 2006 landings figures. Revised landings estimates (calculated as of April 30, 2007, and therefore preliminary) are as follows: General category -- 165.0 mt (an increase of 5.2 mt); Harpoon category -- 22.2 mt; Longline category -- 57.0 mt [an increase of 25.6 mt, i.e., 1 mt in the North, 0.7 mt in the Northeast Distant gear restricted area (NED), and 23.9 mt in the South]; Angling category -- 191.0 mt (an increase of 4.2 mt); Trap category -- 0 mt; and Purse Seine category -- 3.6 mt. These landings estimates, totaling 438.8 mt, indicate that the preliminary 2006 fishing year underharvest is 2,400.4 mt. However, as the underharvest from the 2006 fishing year is capped at 595.1 mt, these adjusted landings do not change the 2007 fishing year quotas. 2007 Final Quota Specifications In accordance with the 2006 ICCAT quota recommendation, the Consolidated HMS FMP percentage shares for each of the domestic categories, and regulations regarding annual adjustments at § 635.27(a)(10), NMFS establishes final quota specifications for the 2007 fishing year as follows: General category -- 643.6 mt; Harpoon category -- 53.3 mt; Purse Seine category -- 254.1 mt; Angling category -- 269.2 mt; Longline category -- 200 mt; and Trap category -- 1.4 mt. Additionally, 207.6 mt are allocated to the Reserve category for inseason adjustments, scientific research collection, potential overharvest in any category except the Purse Seine category, and potential quota transfers. Based on the above specifications and considerations regarding the school BFT fishery, the Angling category quota of 269.2 mt is further subdivided as follows: School BFT -- 119 mt, with 45.8 mt to the northern area (north of 39°18′ N. latitude), 51.2 mt to the southern area (south of 39°18′ N. latitude), and 22 mt held in reserve; large school/small medium BFT -- 144 mt, with 68 mt to the northern area and 76 mt to the southern area; and large medium/giant BFT -- 6.2 mt, with 2.1 mt to the northern area and 4.1 mt to the southern area. The 2006 ICCAT recommendation includes an annual 25-mt set-aside quota to account for bycatch of BFT related to directed longline fisheries in the NED. This set-aside quota is in addition to the overall incidental longline quota to be subdivided in accordance with the North/South allocation percentages mentioned below. Thus, the Longline category quota of 200 mt is subdivided as follows: 80 mt to pelagic longline vessels landing BFT north of 31° N. latitude and 120 mt to pelagic longline vessels landing BFT south of 31° N. latitude, with 25 mt set-aside for bycatch of BFT related to directed pelagic longline fisheries in the NED. General Category Effort Controls NMFS implements General time-period subquotas to increase the likelihood that fishing would continue throughout the entire General category season. The subquotas are consistent with the objectives of the Consolidated HMS FMP and are designed to address concerns regarding the allocation of fishing opportunities, to assist with distribution and achievement of optimum yield, to allow for a late season fishery, and to improve market conditions and scientific monitoring. The regulations implementing the Consolidated HMS FMP divide the annual General category quota into five time-period subquotas as follows: 50 percent for June-August, 26.5 percent for September, 13 percent for October-November, 5.2 percent for December, and 5.3 percent for January. Because the fishing year is changing back to a calendar year effective January 1, 2008, NMFS is distributing the 5.3 percent of the General category quota that would be assigned to the January time period to the four time periods that will occur during the 2007 fishing year. Accordingly, the available 643.6-mt coastwide quota is divided as follows: 339.8 mt for the period beginning June 1 and ending August 31, 2007; 180.1 mt for the period beginning September 1 and ending September 30, 2007; 88.4 mt for the period beginning October 1 and ending November 30, 2007; and 35.3 mt for the period beginning December 1 and ending December 31, 2007. The January 2008 subquota will be included in the 2008 specifications, which NMFS plans to publish prior to the start of the fishing year on January 1, 2008. As discussed in the Consolidated HMS FMP, NMFS plans to work with the affected constituents through the 2008 specifications process to determine the most appropriate disposition of any under- or overharvest that has accrued in the General category by the end of December 2007. In addition to time-period subquotas, NMFS also implements General category restricted fishing days
(RFDs)to extend the General category fishing season. The RFDs are designed to address the same issues addressed by time-period subquotas and provide additional inseason management flexibility. Although the General category has a relatively large quota for the 2007 fishing year, this permit category has the ability to harvest a great amount of quota in a short period of time, and the RFDs are necessary as a way to manage effort in the subperiods at the end of the fishing year. Therefore, NMFS establishes a series of RFDs for the 2007 fishing year to extend the BFT fishery for the General category for as long as possible during the October through December time period. Persons aboard vessels permitted in the General category are prohibited from fishing (including catch-and-release and tag-and-release) for BFT of all sizes on the following days while the fishery is open: all Saturdays and Sundays from November 17, 2007, through December 31, 2007, plus November 22 and December 25, 2007. NMFS implements these RFDs to improve fishing opportunities during the October through December time period without increasing BFT mortality. NMFS may consider waiving the RFDs if the pace of landings indicates that the November and/or December General category subquotas will not be met by the end of the associated subperiod. NMFS' intention is to propose RFDs for January 2008 as part of the 2008 quota specifications and effort controls, scheduled to be published before January 1, 2008. Because of the large quota available for the General category, NMFS increases the retention limit of BFT for the first subperiod of the General category fishery. Therefore, persons aboard vessels permitted in the General category may retain three large medium or giant BFT (measuring 73 inches (185.4 cm) or greater) per vessel per day/trip from the effective date of this final rule through August 31, 2007. This BFT retention limit may be extended via inseason action, if warranted, under § 635.23(a)(4). Angling Category Effort Controls This final rule establishes an Angling category retention limit of one school BFT (27 inches (68.6 cm) to less than 47 inches (119.4 cm)), and two large school/small medium BFT (i.e., two BFT measuring 47 inches (119.4 cm) to less than 73 inches (185.4 cm)) per vessel. This retention limit is effective for persons aboard vessels permitted in the Angling category from the effective date of this rule through December 31, 2007. This retention limit may be changed via inseason action, if warranted, under § 635.23(b)(3). Permit Category Changes Because of the scheduled change to a calendar year fishing year beginning January 1, 2008, and because Atlantic Tunas, HMS Charter/Headboat, and HMS Angling category permits issued for the 2007 fishing year are effective through December 31, 2008, NMFS will allow permit holders to make a permit category change for the 2008 fishing year, i.e., once during the period of January 1, 2008, through May 31, 2008. Comments and Responses Below, NMFS summarizes and responds to all comments received on the proposed quota specifications and effort controls for the General and Angling categories. In addition, NMFS received comments on issues that were not considered part of this rulemaking. For example, NMFS received a request to relax all General category restrictions, including season duration and minimum size. Conversely, NMFS received several comments that, noting the overfished status of the stock, requested reduction of the U.S. BFT quota and commercial and recreational retention limits in general, an increase to the recreational minimum size, and prohibition of purse seine use due to bycatch concerns. While NMFS acknowledges that consideration of these concerns is important, these issues are not addressed in this action because they were not considered part of this rulemaking. A. BFT Quotas *Comment 1:* NMFS received a range of comments on the quota specifications. Some commenters supported the quotas as proposed. Others requested that NMFS distribute the underharvest carryover amount (595 mt) according to FMP percentages rather than as proposed. One commenter urged NMFS to set the Reserve at 40.7 mt, i.e., 2.5 percent of the adjusted U.S. quota and stated that unused Reserve should not be carried forward to the Reserve for the following fishing year. One commenter felt that underharvest should not be added to the following year's BFT quota given stock concerns and potential underreporting of landings. *Response:* The specifications included in this rule reflect appropriate distribution of the underharvest allowed to be carried forward for the 2007 fishing year. Such distribution provides for several existing and potential management needs, namely:
(1)Setting aside sufficient quota for a potential transfer to another ICCAT Contracting Party, if warranted;
(2)providing sufficient quota for pelagic longline operations;
(3)appropriately accounting for dead discards; and
(4)distributing the remainder per the Consolidated HMS FMP allocation percentages. NMFS allocates 2.5 percent of the baseline 2007 U.S. quota in the Reserve, consistent with the Consolidated HMS FMP. The rollover of quota in the Reserve from one year to the next (rather than reallocation of the unused Reserve to one or more quota categories) allows NMFS to consider several factors (as established in § 635.27(a)(8)), within the fishing year, prior to making quota adjustments from the Reserve. The regulations regarding annual adjustment of the BFT quota at § 635.27(a)(10) provide NMFS the flexibility to apply the underharvest to the overall quota for the following fishing year, provided that the total of the adjusted category quotas and the Reserve is consistent with the ICCAT recommendation. *Comment 2:* One commenter opposed allocation of 40 percent of the carryover amount to the Longline category, indicating such action is inappropriate given that the longline fishery incidentally catches BFT. *Response:* The application of 236.6 mt of the 2006 underharvest to the Longline category quota is conducted for two reasons:
(1)To provide sufficient quota for the subtraction of past longline dead discards; and
(2)to provide for the continued operation of the Longline category vessels during the 2007 fishing year, including anticipated future dead discards as well as allowed incidental landings under current retention limits. The TAC for each Contracting Party is now inclusive of dead discards. The 2006 ICCAT recommendation changed the accounting practices for dead discards by eliminating an additional dead discard allowance, and, therefore, NMFS must deduct the best estimate of dead discards from the fishing year quota. As these dead discards are attributed to the pelagic longline fishery, the dead discards are specifically deducted from the Longline category quota. Furthermore, distribution of the carryover amount by the FMP percentages would result in 48.2 mt added to the baseline amount (94.4 mt), for a total of 142.6 mt for the Longline category for the 2007 fishing year. After accounting for an estimated amount of dead discards (i.e., approximately 131 mt, assuming the amount is similar to the most recent available estimate), the quota for the Longline category would be 11.6 mt. This quota would not provide a sufficient amount of quota to allow for the legal landing of BFT taken incidental to catches of swordfish and other tunas. *Comment 3:* Some commenters opposed the potential transfer of U.S. quota to other ICCAT Contracting Parties. One commenter specifically objected to the use of the Reserve in making such a transfer to any ICCAT Contracting Party with an allocation. This commenter's understanding of the agreement at ICCAT was that the transfer to a specific Contracting Party could be undertaken at the request of industry, using the quota associated with that industry. *Response:* The 2006 ICCAT recommendation allows the United States to transfer up to 15 percent of its TAC, consistent with domestic obligations and conservation considerations. Before considering a possible quota transfer, the United States, through NMFS, would evaluate several factors, including the projected ability of U.S. vessels to harvest the U.S. TAC during the fishing year, and potential impacts to the stock. The United States would need to explore and analyze these factors prior to transferring quota through a separate action. In this action, NMFS is placing 178.5 mt (15 percent of the U.S. TAC) in the Reserve so that, if the United States were to approve a transfer, the quota could be from the Reserve and not from category-specific quotas. B. General Category Effort Controls *Comment 1:* NMFS received comments on the General category retention limit that ranged from support for the proposed three-BFT limit to a request for a zero-BFT limit. *Response:* The regulations allow NMFS to adjust the General category retention limit of large medium and giant BFT over a range of zero (on RFDs) to three. Given the low early season harvest rate in recent years, NMFS is setting the June through August retention limit at three BFT to allow General category fishermen the maximum harvest of BFT possible while keeping within the quota of the first General category subperiod. *Comment 2:* NMFS received a comment that the setting of RFDs for the 2007 fishing year may be an unnecessary administrative effort given the low harvest rate in recent years. *Response:* NMFS sets the RFDs in this action to ensure that the agency has the flexibility to manage the pace of the fishery should the need arise. If NMFS determines during the fishing season that the November and December RFDs are not necessary, NMFS will take the appropriate inseason action to waive them. C. Angling Category Effort Controls *Comment 1:* NMFS received comments on the Angling category effort controls that were supportive of the retention limit and season as proposed. NMFS received comments from a recreational fishing organization that supported the retention limits as proposed, but requested a fishing season of June 21 through December 31. Some commenters requested an increased retention limit for school BFT during specific time periods, due to the importance of catching school BFT in the charter fishing sector and in fishing tournaments. One commenter requested that NMFS shorten the school BFT fishing season by approximately two months. *Response:* NMFS has considered adjustment of the retention limits for certain time periods as implemented for 2006. However, based on the large number of comments received that supported the proposed retention limits, an evaluation of retention limits and landings estimates over recent years, and the ICCAT recommendation that Contracting Parties not exceed the tolerance of school BFT over the 2007-2010 period, NMFS is setting the Angling category retention limit at one school BFT and two large school/small medium BFT per vessel per day/trip from the effective date of the final rule through the end of the fishing year. *Comment 2:* Several commenters expressed concern about implementing a higher BFT retention limit, particularly for school BFT, because of the overfished nature of the western Atlantic BFT stock and because ICCAT recommends a “tolerance” on school BFT landings rather than a targeted fishery. *Response:* NMFS agrees that the school BFT retention limit should be no more than one fish for the 2007 fishing year to ensure that landings are within the ICCAT-recommended 10-percent limit. Classification NMFS publishes these final specifications and effort controls under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries
(AA)has determined that the regulations contained in this final rule are necessary to implement the recommendations of ICCAT and to manage the domestic Atlantic HMS fisheries, and are consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and its National Standards. This final rule been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. In compliance with Section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(FRFA)was prepared for this rule. The FRFA analyzes the anticipated economic impacts of the preferred actions and any significant alternatives that could minimize economic impacts on small entities. Each of the statutory requirements of Section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act has been addressed and a summary of the FRFA is below. The full FRFA and analysis of economic and ecological impacts, are available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ). Section 604(a)(1) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires the Agency to state the objective and need for the rule. As stated earlier, the objective of this rule is to set BFT quotas and effort controls for the General and Angling categories for the 2007 fishing year consistent with the Consolidated HMS FMP. This rule is needed to implement ICCAT recommendations pursuant to ATCA and to achieve domestic management objectives under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Section 604(a)(2) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires the Agency to summarize significant issues raised by the public comment in response to the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), a summary of the Agency's assessment of such issues, and a statement of any changes made as a result of the comments. NMFS received one comment specifically on the IRFA. The commenter wrote that the 2006 annual gross revenues ($3.4 million), if applied to the 8,751 commercially permitted vessels, would average less than $400 per vessel. The commenter felt that this must be an error given the expenses involved with fishing for BFT. The gross revenues presented in the analysis (which was updated for this final rule) represent the total of recorded sales of BFT in all commercial categories. NMFS agrees that the 2006 gross revenues were low and, for the General and Harpoon categories, were the lowest in over 10 years. However, availability of BFT to the commercial sector has been low in recent years, and many commercial participants are not solely dependent on BFT for fishing revenues. In addition, NMFS received two comments (one from an individual angler and one from an organization representing recreational anglers, the charter sector, and supporting industries) requesting an increased retention limit for BFT during certain windows of time due to the importance of school BFT to the charter sector and/or during tournaments. NMFS has considered this comment, as well as the many comments supporting the retention limits as proposed. NMFS finalizes the retention limit of one school BFT and two large school/small medium BFT per vessel per day/trip to ensure that the ICCAT-recommended tolerance of school BFT is not exceeded over the 2007-2010 period while allowing continued access to this fishery. Section 604(a)(3) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires the Agency to describe and provide an estimate of the number of small entities to which the rule will apply. The final action could directly affect the 35,075 vessel owners permitted in the HMS Angling category, the HMS Charter/Headboat category permit holders, or the Atlantic tunas commercial permit categories (General, Harpoon, Purse Seine, Longline, and Trap categories). Of these, 9,001 permit holders (the combined number of commercial category permit holders) are considered small business entities according to the Small Business Administration's standard for defining a small entity. Section 604(a)(4) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires the Agency to describe the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements of the final rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which would be subject to the requirements of the report or record. None of the alternatives considered for this final rule would result in additional reporting, recordkeeping, and compliance requirements. Section 604(a)(5) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires the Agency to describe the steps taken to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes. Additionally, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1)(4)) lists four general categories of “significant” alternatives that would assist an agency in the development of significant alternatives. These categories of alternatives are:
(1)Establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities;
(2)clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities;
(3)use of performance rather than design standards; and
(4)exemptions from coverage of the rule for small entities. In order to meet the objectives of this final rule, consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS cannot exempt small entities or change the reporting requirements only for small entities, because all of the affected businesses (commercial vessel permit holders) are considered small entities. Thus, there are no alternatives discussed that fall under the first and fourth categories described above. In addition, none of the alternatives considered would result in additional reporting or compliance requirements (category two above). NMFS does not know of any performance or design standards that would satisfy the aforementioned objectives of this rulemaking while, concurrently, complying with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. As described below, NMFS analyzed several alternatives in this final rulemaking and provides justification for selection of the preferred alternatives to achieve the desired objective. NMFS has estimated the average impact that the alternative to establish the 2007 BFT quota for all domestic fishing categories would have on individual categories and the vessels within those categories. As mentioned above, the 2006 ICCAT recommendation reduced the U.S. BFT TAC to 1,190.12 mt, which is distributed to the domestic fishing categories based on the allocation percentages established in the Consolidated HMS FMP. This quota allocation includes a set-aside quota of 25 mt to account for incidental catch of BFT related to directed longline swordfish and non-BFT tuna fisheries in the NED. In 2006, the annual gross revenues from the commercial BFT fishery were approximately $3.3 million. Approximately 9,000 vessels are permitted to land and sell BFT under four commercial BFT quota categories (including charter/headboat vessels). The commercial categories and their 2006 gross revenues are General ($2.4 million), Harpoon ($265,951), Purse Seine ($33,819), and Longline ($588,828). The FRFA assumes that vessels within a category will have similar catch and gross revenues in order to consider the relative impact of the final action on vessels. Data on net revenues of individual fishermen are lacking, so the economic impact of the alternatives is averaged across each category. More specifically, available landings data (weight and ex-vessel value of the fish in price/pound) allow NMFS to calculate the gross revenue earned by a fishery participant on a successful trip. The available data do not, however, allow NMFS to calculate the effort and cost associated with each successful trip (e.g., the cost of gas, bait, ice, etc.) so net revenue for each participant cannot be calculated. NMFS cannot determine whether net revenue varies among individual fishery participants within each category, and therefore whether the economic impact of a regulation would have a varying impact among individual participants. As a result, NMFS analyzes the average impact of the proposed alternatives among all participants in each category. For the allocation of BFT quota among domestic fishing categories, NMFS analyzed a no action alternative
(A1)and the preferred alternative (A2), which would implement the 2006 ICCAT recommendation. NMFS considered a third alternative (A3), which would allocate the 2006 ICCAT-recommended quota in a manner other than that designated in the Consolidated HMS FMP. However, since Alternative A3 would result in a de facto quota reallocation among categories, and an FMP amendment would be necessary for its implementation, NMFS did not further analyze it. Per the Consolidated HMS FMP, NMFS prepares quota specifications annually for the upcoming fishing year. Preparation of an FMP amendment would not be possible in the brief period of time between receipt of the ICCAT recommendation, which occurred in late November 2006, and the start of the 2007 fishing year on June 1, 2007. Therefore, analysis of the impacts of Alternative A3 is not available. But, if an FMP amendment was feasible, positive economic impacts would be expected to result on average for vessels in permit categories that would receive a greater share than established in the FMP, and negative economic impacts would be expected to result on average for vessels in permit categories that would receive a lesser share than established in the FMP. Impacts per vessel would depend on the temporal and spatial availability of BFT to participants. As noted above, the preferred alternative
(A2)would implement the 2006 ICCAT recommendation in accordance with the Consolidated HMS FMP and consistent with the ATCA, under which the United States is obligated to implement ICCAT-approved quota recommendations. Alternative A2 would have slightly positive impacts for fishermen. The no action alternative
(A1)would keep the quota at pre-2006 ICCAT recommendation levels (approximately 300 mt more) and would not be consistent with the purpose and need for this action and the Consolidated HMS FMP. It would maintain economic impacts to the United States and to local economies at a distribution and scale similar to 2006 or recent prior years, and would provide fishermen additional fishing opportunities, subject to the availability of BFT to the fishery. For these reasons, NMFS selects the preferred alternative (A1). The preferred alternative also would implement the provision of the 2006 ICCAT recommendation that limits school BFT landings to 10 percent of the U.S. TAC, calculated on a four-year average. This is expected to have neutral impacts on fishermen who fish for school BFT, particularly those who rely exclusively on the school size class for BFT harvest, since the available quota is the same as the level when the limit was 8-percent of the U.S. TAC under the 2002 ICCAT recommendation. Two alternatives were considered for effort control using RFDs in the General category. The no action alternative would not implement any RFDs with publication of the specifications but rather would use inseason management authority established in the Consolidated HMS FMP to implement RFDs during the season. This alternative could be most beneficial during a season of low catch rates and could have positive economic consequences if slow catch rates were to persist during the late season fishery, as General category participants would be able to fish every day while the fishery is open. During a slow season, fishermen could choose when to fish or not based on their own preferences. However, these positive economic effects may not be realized because it is impossible for NMFS to predict in advance whether the BFT fishing season will have low or high catch rates. The preferred alternative would designate RFDs according to a schedule published in the BFT specifications. NMFS has used RFDs to avoid oversupplying the market with BFT and extending the fishing season as late as possible. In addition, establishing RFDs at the season onset provides better planning opportunities than implementing RFDs during the season, since charter/headboat businesses could book trips and recreational and commercial fishermen could make plans ahead of time rather than waiting until the last minute to see if an RFD is going to be implemented. However, implementing RFDs to extend the late season may have some negative economic impacts to fishermen fishing in northern Atlantic states who choose to travel to fish off southern states during the late season fishery. Travel and lodging costs may be greater if the season were extended over a greater period of time under the selected alternative. Those additional costs could be mitigated if the ex-vessel price of BFT stays high, as is intended under this alternative. Without RFDs, travel costs may be less because of a shorter season; however, the market could be oversupplied and ex-vessel prices could fall. Overall, extending the season as late as possible and establishing formalized RFDs at the season onset would enhance the likelihood of increasing participation by fishermen in southern states, increase access to the fishery over a greater range of the fish migration, provide a reliable mechanism for slowing a fishery that has an ability to generate extremely high catch rates, and is expected to provide better than average ex-vessel prices with an overall increase in gross revenues. For these reasons, NMFS selects the preferred alternative over the no action alternative. A retention limit of three BFT (measuring 73 inches (185.4 cm) or greater per vessel per day/trip) is the preferred alternative for the opening retention limit for the General category, which would be in effect through August 31, 2007. This alternative is expected to result in the most positive socio-economic impacts by providing the best opportunity to harvest the quota while avoiding oversupplying the market, thus maximizing gross revenues. Thus, this alternative was selected over other alternatives considered, i.e., the no action alternative (one BFT measuring 73 inches or greater per vessel per day/trip) and a retention limit of two BFT (73 inches or greater per vessel per day/trip). Both of the non-selected alternatives are expected to be too restrictive given the large amount of quota available for the General category during the 2007 fishing year and could result in the negative economic impact of lower gross revenues. Although early season landings seldom occur at a rate that could oversupply the market, NMFS will monitor landings closely to ensure that the increased retention limit does not contribute to an oversupply. Six alternatives were considered for Angling category retention limits for the 2007 fishing year. The selected alternative
(D1b)is a three BFT retention limit (two fish measuring 47 inches (119.4 cm) to less than 73 inches (185.4 cm) and one fish measuring 27 inches (68.6 cm) to less than 73 inches) per vessel per day/trip for all sectors of the Angling category for the entire 2007 fishing year. The other two alternatives providing the same daily retention limits (per vessel) for both private recreational and charter/headboats were the no action alternative (D1a, i.e., one fish measuring 27 inches to less than 73 inches) and Alternative D1c (two fish measuring 47 inches to less than 73 inches and two fish measuring 27 inches to less than 73 inches). Alternative D1a was not selected because it could unnecessarily restrict the amount of Angling category landings which could result in an underharvest of the quota and a negative economic impact. Alternative D1c was not selected because it could result in an overharvest of the quota, with negative economic consequences. Three other alternatives were considered that would provide different retention limits for the Angling category sectors. The first
(D2a)would allow a private vessel daily retention limit of three fish (two measuring 47 inches to less than 73 inches and one measuring 27 inches to less than 47 inches) and a charter/headboat daily retention limit (per vessel) of five fish (three fish measuring 47 inches to less than 73 inches and two fish measuring 27 inches to less than 47 inches). The second alternative
(D2b)would allow three fish (two measuring 47 inches to less than 73 inches and one measuring 27 inches to less than 47 inches) for each vessel per day/trip for the season, with an increase to five fish (three measuring 47 inches to less than 73 inches and two measuring 27 inches to less than 47 inches) per vessel for charter/headboats during June 15, 2007 through July 31, 2007, and the month of September 2007. The third alternative
(D2c)would allow two fish (measuring 27 inches to less than 73 inches) less than 47 inches) for each vessel per day/trip for the season, with an increase to three fish (measuring 27 inches to less than 73 inches) per vessel for charter/headboats during June 15, 2007 through July 31, 2007, and the month of September 2007. Alternatives D2a and D2b were not selected because they were considered to be potentially too liberal with a greater potential for exceeding the Angling category quota for 2007. Alternative D2c was not selected because it was considered to be unnecessarily restrictive, with a greater potential for negative economic impacts associated with not harvesting the entire quota. In addition, the D2 subalternatives were not selected since they could result in perceived inequities between the two sectors of the Angling category fishery, i.e., due to potential greater fishing opportunities for charter/headboat anglers than for private vessel anglers. Alternative D1b was selected because it would allow the landing of the Angling category quota without overharvesting it, provide sufficient retention limits to offset costs, reduce any perceived inequities between the charter/headboat and private recreational vessel sectors of the Angling category fishery, and provide economic benefits to all regional sectors of the fishery. List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 635 Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, Foreign relations, Imports, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Treaties. Dated: June 11, 2007. John Oliver, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine Fisheries Service. For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 635 is amended as follows: PART 635 ATLANTIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES 1. The authority citation for part 635 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 971 *et seq.* ; 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* 2. In § 635.4, paragraph (j)(3) is revised to read as follows: § 635.4 Permits and fees.
(j)* * *
(3)A vessel owner issued an Atlantic tunas permit in the General, Harpoon, or Trap category or an Atlantic HMS permit in the Angling or Charter/Headboat category under paragraph (b), (c), or
(d)of this section may change the category of the vessel permit once within 10 calendar days of the date of issuance of the permit. After 10 calendar days from the date of issuance of the permit, the vessel owner may not change the permit category until the following fishing season, except during the period of January 1, 2008, through May 31, 2008, when one additional change is authorized. 3. In § 635.27, paragraphs
(a)introductory text, (a)(1) heading, (a)(1)(i), (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4)(i), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7)(i), (a)(7)(ii), (a)(10)(iii), and (a)(10)(iv) are revised to read as follows: § 635.27 Quotas.
(a)*BFT* . Consistent with ICCAT recommendations, and with paragraph (a)(10)(iv) of this section, NMFS may subtract the most recent, complete, and available estimate of dead discards from the annual U.S. BFT quota, and make the remainder available to be retained, possessed, or landed by persons and vessels subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The remaining baseline annual U.S. BFT quota will be allocated among the General, Angling, Harpoon, Purse Seine, Longline, Trap, and Reserve categories. BFT may be taken by persons aboard vessels issued Atlantic Tunas permits, HMS Angling permits, or HMS Charter/Headboat permits. The baseline annual U.S. BFT quota is 1,165.1 mt, not including an additional annual 25 mt allocation provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this section. Allocations of the baseline annual U.S. BFT quota are: General - 47.1 percent (548.8 mt); Angling - 19.7 percent (229.5 mt), which includes the school BFT held in reserve as described under paragraph (a)(7)(ii) of this section; Harpoon - 3.9 percent (45.4 mt); Purse Seine - 18.6 percent (216.7 mt); Longline - 8.1 percent (94.4 mt), which does not include the additional annual 25 mt allocation provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this section; and Trap - 0.1 percent (1.2 mt). The remaining 2.5 percent (29.1 mt) of the baseline annual U.S. BFT quota will be held in reserve for inseason or annual adjustments based on the criteria in paragraph (a)(8) of this section. NMFS may apportion a quota allocated to any category to specified fishing periods or to geographic areas and will make annual adjustments to quotas, as specified in paragraph (a)(10) of this section. BFT quotas are specified in whole weight.
(1)*General category quota* . * * *
(i)Catches from vessels for which General category Atlantic Tunas permits have been issued and certain catches from vessels for which an HMS Charter/Headboat permit has been issued are counted against the General category quota in accordance with § 635.23(c)(3). The amount of large medium and giant BFT that may be caught, retained, possessed, landed, or sold under the General category quota is 47.1 percent (548.8 mt) of the baseline annual U.S. BFT quota, and is apportioned as follows:
(A)January 1 through January 31 - 5.3 percent (29.1 mt);
(B)June 1 through August 31 - 50 percent (274.4 mt);
(C)September 1 through September 30 - 26.5 percent (145.4 mt);
(D)October 1 through November 30 - 13 percent (71.3 mt); and
(E)December 1 through December 31 - 5.2 percent (28.5 mt). * * * * *
(2)*Angling category quota* . In accordance with the framework procedures of the HMS FMP, prior to each fishing year or as early as feasible, NMFS will establish the Angling category daily retention limits. The total amount of BFT that may be caught, retained, possessed, and landed by anglers aboard vessels for which an HMS Angling permit or an HMS Charter/Headboat permit has been issued is 19.7 percent (229.5 mt) of the baseline annual U.S. BFT quota. No more than 2.3 percent (5.3 mt) of the annual Angling category quota may be large medium or giant BFT. In addition, over each 4 consecutive-year period (starting in 2007, inclusive), no more than 10 percent of the annual U.S. BFT quota, inclusive of the allocation specified in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, may be school BFT. The Angling category quota includes the amount of school BFT held in reserve under paragraph (a)(7)(ii) of this section. The size class subquotas for BFT are further subdivided as follows:
(i)After adjustment for the school BFT quota held in reserve (under paragraph (a)(7)(ii) of this section), 52.8 percent (51.2 mt) of the school BFT Angling category quota may be caught, retained, possessed, or landed south of 39°18′ N. lat. The remaining school BFT Angling category quota (45.8 mt) may be caught, retained, possessed or landed north of 39°18′ N. lat.
(ii)An amount equal to 52.8 percent (55.6 mt) of the large school/small medium BFT Angling category quota may be caught, retained, possessed, or landed south of 39°18′ N. lat. The remaining large school/small medium BFT Angling category quota (49.6 mt) may be caught, retained, possessed or landed north of 39°18′ N. lat.
(iii)An amount equal to 66.7 percent (3.5 mt) of the large medium and giant BFT Angling category quota may be caught, retained, possessed, or landed south of 39°18′ N. lat. The remaining large medium and giant BFT Angling category quota (1.8 mt) may be caught, retained, possessed or landed north of 39°18′ N. lat.
(3)*Longline category quota* . The total amount of large medium and giant BFT that may be caught incidentally and retained, possessed, or landed by vessels that possess Longline category Atlantic Tunas permits is 8.1 percent (94.4 mt) of the baseline annual U.S. BFT quota. No more than 60.0 percent of the Longline category quota may be allocated for landing in the area south of 31°00′ N. lat. In addition, 25 mt shall be allocated for incidental catch by pelagic longline vessels fishing in the Northeast Distant gear restricted area as specified at § 635.23 (f)(3).
(4)* * *
(i)The total amount of large medium and giant BFT that may be caught, retained, possessed, or landed by vessels that possess Purse Seine category Atlantic Tunas permits is 18.6 percent (216.7 mt) of the baseline annual U.S. BFT quota. The directed purse seine fishery for BFT commences on July 15 of each year unless NMFS takes action to delay the season start date. Based on cumulative and projected landings in other commercial fishing categories, and the potential for gear conflicts on the fishing grounds or market impacts due to oversupply, NMFS may delay the BFT purse seine season start date from July 15 to no later than August 15 by filing an adjustment with the Office of the **Federal Register** prior to July 1.
(5)*Harpoon category quota* . The total amount of large medium and giant BFT that may be caught, retained, possessed, landed, or sold by vessels that possess Harpoon category Atlantic Tunas permits is 3.9 percent (45.4 mt) of the baseline annual U.S. BFT quota. The Harpoon category fishery closes on November 15 each year.
(6)*Trap category quota* . The total amount of large medium and giant BFT that may be caught, retained, possessed, or landed by vessels that possess Trap category Atlantic Tunas permits is 0.1 percent (1.2 mt) of the baseline annual U.S. BFT quota.
(7)* * *
(i)The total amount of BFT that is held in reserve for inseason or annual adjustments and fishery-independent research using quotas or subquotas is 2.5 percent (29.1 mt) of the baseline annual U.S. BFT quota. Consistent with paragraph (a)(8) of this section, NMFS may allocate any portion of this reserve for inseason or annual adjustments to any category quota in the fishery.
(ii)The total amount of school BFT that is held in reserve for inseason or annual adjustments and fishery-independent research is 18.5 percent (22 mt) of the total school BFT Angling category quota as described under paragraph (a)(2) of this section. This is in addition to the amounts specified in paragraph (a)(7)(i) of this section. Consistent with paragraph (a)(8) of this section, NMFS may allocate any portion of the school BFT Angling category quota held in reserve for inseason or annual adjustments to the Angling category.
(10)* * *
(iii)Regardless of the estimated landings in any year, NMFS may adjust the annual school BFT quota to ensure that the average take of school BFT over each 4 consecutive-year period beginning in the 2007 fishing year does not exceed 10 percent by weight of the total annual U.S. BFT quota, inclusive of the allocation specified in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, for that period.
(iv)NMFS may subtract the best available estimate of dead discards from the amount of BFT that can be landed in the subsequent fishing year by those categories accounting for the dead discards. [FR Doc. E7-11630 Filed 6-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 679 [Docket No. 070213032-7032-01] RIN 0648-XA82 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Northern Rockfish, Pacific Ocean Perch, and Pelagic Shelf Rockfish for Catcher Vessels Participating in the Rockfish Limited Access Fishery in the Central Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Temporary rule; closure. SUMMARY: NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for northern rockfish, Pacific ocean perch, and pelagic shelf rockfish for catcher vessels participating in the rockfish limited access fishery in the Central Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the 2007 total allowable catch
(TAC)of northern rockfish, Pacific ocean perch, and pelagic shelf rockfish allocated to catcher vessels participating in the rockfish limited access fishery in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA. DATES: Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), July 1, 2007, through 2400 hrs, A.l.t., December 31, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Hogan, 907-586-7228. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska
(FMP)prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that the TAC of northern rockfish, Pacific ocean perch, and pelagic shelf rockfish allocated to catcher vessels participating in the rockfish limited access fishery in the Central GOA will be necessary as incidental catch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries for the 2007 fishing year. Consequently, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 0 mt. Therefore, in accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for northern rockfish, Pacific ocean perch, and pelagic shelf rockfish for catcher vessels participating in the rockfish limited access fishery in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA. After the effective date of this closure the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and
(f)apply at any time during a trip. Classification This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the closure of northern rockfish, Pacific ocean perch, and pelagic shelf rockfish for catcher vessels participating in the rockfish limited access fishery in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of June 8, 2007. The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment. This action is required by § 679.20 and § 679.82 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: June 11, 2007. James P. Burgess, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-11634 Filed 6-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 72 116 Monday, June 18, 2007 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28374; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-067-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300-600R Series Airplanes; and Model A310-300 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: While they were gaining access to the THS (trimmable horizontal stabilizer) fuel tank for maintenance check, several operators have found one or several of the 8 THS hoist point fitting bases cracked or broken-off. The breakage resulted in metallic debris being released within the Trim Tank. The origin of the damage is most probably due to interference with the THS hoisting lugs that are stowed in the hoist point fittings in the reverse position, being screwed too deep inside the THS hoist fittings. Damaged hoist point fittings could cause the release of metallic debris within the THS fuel system. * * * Compliance with the requirements of this AD will also eliminate potential contributing factor[s] to ignition risks. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 18, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *DOT Docket Web Site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-0001. • *Hand Delivery:* Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone
(800)647-5227) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Stafford, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-1622; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Streamlined Issuance of AD The FAA is implementing a new process for streamlining the issuance of ADs related to MCAI. This streamlined process will allow us to adopt MCAI safety requirements in a more efficient manner and will reduce safety risks to the public. This process continues to follow all FAA AD issuance processes to meet legal, economic, Administrative Procedure Act, and **Federal Register** requirements. We also continue to meet our technical decision-making responsibilities to identify and correct unsafe conditions on U.S.-certificated products. This proposed AD references the MCAI and related service information that we considered in forming the engineering basis to correct the unsafe condition. The proposed AD contains text copied from the MCAI and for this reason might not follow our plain language principles. Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2007-28374; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-067-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2007-0024, dated January 25, 2007 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: While they were gaining access to the THS (trimmable horizontal stabilizer) fuel tank for maintenance check, several operators have found one or several of the 8 THS hoist point fitting bases cracked or broken-off. The breakage resulted in metallic debris being released within the Trim Tank. The origin of the damage is most probably due to interference with the THS hoisting lugs that are stowed in the hoist point fittings in the reverse position, being screwed too deep inside the THS hoist fittings. Damaged hoist point fittings could cause the release of metallic debris within the THS fuel system. This Airworthiness Directive
(AD)requires the repair of any damaged THS hoist point fittings to prevent any risk of further hoist point fittings damage as well as any fuel leak. Compliance with the requirements of this AD will also eliminate potential contributing factor[s] to ignition risks. The MCAI requires an inspection of the internal base of the THS hoist point fittings for signs of score, cracks, perforation or other damage; and an inspection of the hoist point fittings base inside the fuel tank for structural damage, as applicable, and applicable corrective actions (repair damaged fittings and install new plastic plugs). Corrective actions must be done before return to revenue service. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information Airbus has issued Service Bulletins A300-55-6041, and A310-55-2042, both dated September 13, 2006. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 137 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 10 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $332 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $155,084, or $1,132 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **Airbus:** Docket No. FAA-2007-28374; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-067-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments by July 18, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Airbus Model A310-300 and A300-600R series airplanes; certificated in any category; all serial numbers fitted with a THS (trimmable horizontal stabilizer) containing fuel on which, during production Airbus Modifications 04801 and 04802 have been embodied, and Airbus Modification 06549 has not been embodied; except aircraft on which Airbus Modification 13191 has been embodied in production, or Airbus Service Bulletin A310-55-2042 or A300-55-6041 has been incorporated in service. Subject
(d)Stabilizers. Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: While they were gaining access to the THS (trimmable horizontal stabilizer) fuel tank for maintenance check, several operators have found one or several of the 8 THS hoist point fitting bases cracked or broken-off. The breakage resulted in metallic debris being released within the Trim Tank. The origin of the damage is most probably due to interference with the THS hoisting lugs that are stowed in the hoist point fittings in the reverse position being screwed too deep inside the THS hoist fittings. Damaged hoist point fittings could cause the release of metallic debris within the THS fuel system. This Airworthiness Directive
(AD)requires the repair of any damaged THS hoist point fittings to prevent any risk of further hoist point fittings damage as well as any fuel leak. Compliance with the requirements of this AD will also eliminate potential contributing factor[s] to ignition risks. The MCAI requires an inspection of the internal base of the THS hoist point fittings for signs of score, cracks, perforation or other damage; and an inspection of the hoist point fittings base inside the fuel tank for structural damage, as applicable, and applicable corrective actions (repair damaged fittings and install new plastic plugs). Corrective actions must be done before return to revenue service. Actions and Compliance
(f)Unless already done, within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(6) of this AD in accordance with the instructions given in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-55-6041 or A310-55-2042, both dated September 13, 2006, as applicable.
(1)Remove the 8 THS metallic hoisting lugs.
(2)Do a detailed visual inspection of the internal base of the 8 THS hoist point fittings in order to detect visible signs of score, cracks, perforation or other damage.
(3)In case of no finding, install the new plastic plugs.
(4)In case of any finding, entry into the fuel trim tank is required to do a detailed visual inspection for structural damage of the hoist point fittings base inside the fuel tank.
(5)If structural damage is not confirmed, blend-out/protect the scoring area of the fitting internal base and install the new plastic plugs.
(6)If structural damage is confirmed, repair the damaged fittings and install the new plastic plugs. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions
(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Tom Stafford, Aerospace Engineer, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-1622; fax
(425)227-1149. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(2)*Airworthy Product:* For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information
(h)Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2007-0024, dated January 25, 2007; and Airbus Service Bulletins A300-55-6041 and A310-55-2042, both dated September 13, 2006; for related information. Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 8, 2007. Stephen P. Boyd, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-11677 Filed 6-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-24270; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-200-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 777 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of comment period. SUMMARY: The FAA is revising an earlier proposed airworthiness directive
(AD)for all Boeing Model 777-200, -300, and -300ER series airplanes. The original NPRM would have required, for the drive mechanism of the horizontal stabilizer, repetitive detailed inspections for discrepancies; repetitive lubrication of the ballnut and ballscrew; repetitive measurements of the freeplay between the ballnut and the ballscrew; and corrective action if necessary. The original NPRM resulted from a report of extensive corrosion of a ballscrew in the drive mechanism of the horizontal stabilizer on a Boeing Model 757 airplane, which is similar in design to the ballscrew on Model 777 airplanes. This action revises the original NPRM by adding airplanes to the applicability. We are proposing this supplemental NPRM to prevent an undetected failure of the primary load path for the ballscrew in the horizontal stabilizer and subsequent wear and failure of the secondary load path, which could lead to loss of control of the horizontal stabilizer and consequent loss of control of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this supplemental NPRM by July 13, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this supplemental NPRM. • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, for the service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelly McGuckin, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)917-6490; fax
(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this supplemental NPRM. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2006-24270; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-200-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this supplemental NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this supplemental NPRM in light of those comments. We will post all comments submitted, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this supplemental NPRM. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* , or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone
(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level in the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in ADDRESSES . Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion We proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)for an AD (the “original NPRM”) for all 777-200, -300, and -300ER series airplanes. The original NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on March 30, 2006 (71 FR 16061). The original NPRM proposed to require, for the drive mechanism of the horizontal stabilizer, repetitive detailed inspections for discrepancies; repetitive lubrication of the ballnut and ballscrew; repetitive measurements of the freeplay between the ballnut and the ballscrew; and corrective action if necessary. Actions Since Original NPRM Was Issued Since we issued the original NPRM, we have determined that all Model 777 airplanes may be subject to the unsafe condition specified in the original NPRM. Therefore, we are issuing this supplemental NPRM to revise the applicability of the original NPRM to identify all Model 777 airplanes. Comments We have considered the following comments on the original NPRM. Request To Remove Unnecessary Instruction Two commenters, Boeing and Air Transport Association
(ATA)on behalf of its member United Airlines (UAL), assert that the added instruction in paragraph
(h)of the original NPRM regarding changing the position of the horizontal stabilizer to permit inspecting the entire ballscrew is not necessary as the Boeing 777 Aircraft Maintenance Manual and task cards already require such a change of position as part of the ballscrew inspection. A third commenter, British Airways (BA), also notes that the required instruction already exists as described. Boeing requests that we revise the description of the detailed inspection in the original NPRM as the specified instruction is unnecessary. UAL states that the phrase “or in the referenced AMM sections” is incorrect and requests that it be deleted from the first paragraph under the heading “Differences Between the Proposed AD and Service Information” in the original NPRM. We agree. The instruction to move the horizontal stabilizer is sufficiently addressed as part of the required inspection in the Boeing 777 Aircraft Maintenance Manual and task cards and need not be repeated in the AD. Since the “Differences Between the Proposed AD and Service Information” section of the original NPRM is not carried forward, there is no need to change the paragraph specified by UAL. However, we have removed the unnecessary instruction “changing the position of the horizontal stabilizer as needed to allow inspecting the entire ballscrew” from paragraph
(h)of the supplemental NPRM. Request To Revise Maintenance Records Check Boeing requests that we change the maintenance records check. Boeing states that, as written, the original NPRM would require production airplanes delivered after the effective date of the AD to have a maintenance records check within 6 months after the effective date. Further, Boeing states, airplanes delivered 6 months after the effective date would immediately be out of compliance. Boeing requests, therefore, that paragraph
(g)of the original NPRM be revised to include the following statement: “This paragraph applies only to those airplanes delivered prior to the effective date of this AD.” We agree. We have determined that the maintenance records check should apply only to airplanes that received a standard airworthiness certificate or original export certificate of airworthiness prior to the effective date of the AD. We have revised paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and
(j)of the supplemental NPRM to reflect this. We have also revised the Cost of Compliance of the supplemental NPRM to reflect the cost of the maintenance records check. Request To Revise Prior Replacement of Actuator ATA, on behalf of UAL, requests certain relief from the repetitive inspections of the horizontal stabilizer ballscrew. UAL states that paragraph
(l)of the original NPRM does not state requirements for operators who have replaced actuators with new or overhauled actuators. UAL states it has “hard-timed” its actuators at 9 years to be removed and overhauled per original equipment manufacturer
(OEM)component maintenance manual
(CMM)specifications. UAL requests that credit for repetitive inspections be given to operators who have a stabilizer trim actuator overhaul maintenance program in place. We agree. Any hard-time program that involves removing, overhauling, and re-installing the stabilizer trim actuator accomplishes the intent of performing one freeplay inspection, one detailed inspection, and one lubrication of the stabilizer ballscrew assembly, provided that the stabilizer ballscrew sub-assembly is removed from the trim actuator and overhauled. We find that removing, disassembling, and overhauling the stabilizer ballscrew sub-assembly in accordance with OEM CMM specifications provides a thorough detailed inspection and measurement of the condition of the stabilizer actuator and ballscrew. Therefore, we have revised paragraph
(l)of the supplemental NPRM to give credit for accomplishing the actions required by paragraphs (h), (i), and
(j)of this AD for actuators which have been overhauled as part of a hard-time program in accordance with OEM CMM specifications. Request To Revise Description of Affected Airplanes Boeing requests that certain language of the original NPRM be revised to clarify the extent to which Model 777 airplanes are affected. Boeing states that, at this time, Alert Service Bulletin 777-27A0059 applies to all Model 777 airplanes, current and future. Boeing requests that the original NPRM be changed as follows: • That the Costs of Compliance be changed from “there are about 582 airplanes” to “there are currently 582 airplanes” and from “would affect about” to “would currently affect about”; and • That paragraph
(c)Applicability be changed from “Boeing Model 777-200, -300, and -300ER series airplanes” to “all Boeing Model 777 series airplanes.” We partially agree. The costs of compliance estimate is understood to be based on the best information about affected airplanes currently in operation. There is no need to add “currently” to the costs of compliance. However, in reviewing this comment, we determined that there are about 596 airplanes in the worldwide fleet rather than 582 such airplanes, and about 203 airplanes of U.S. registry rather than 130 such airplanes. Further, we have determined that, as Alert Service Bulletin 777-27A0059 applies to future Model 777 airplanes, the applicability of the AD should be changed. Therefore, in this supplemental NPRM, we have revised the Costs of Compliance to reflect the increased number of airplanes and revised paragraph
(c)to read “all Boeing Model 777 airplanes.” Suggestion To Change Governance of Maintenance Program ATA, on behalf of its member American Airlines (AAL), suggests a change of governance for the maintenance program. AAL has no objections to the maintenance actions described in the original NPRM, but believes the maintenance program should be governed and dictated through the maintenance review board report
(MRBR)prepared by the FAA airplane evaluation groups (AEG), with proper oversight by the FAA Flight Standards Office, not via ADs. AAL asserts that implementation and oversight of ADs is costly to airlines, especially ADs which have no terminating action. We do not agree. We have determined that the maintenance actions and intervals described in the original NPRM for the horizontal stabilizer ballscrew can directly affect the safety of the airplane and should be mandated because of the identified unsafe condition. To prevent escalation of the intervals of maintenance tasks that are directly linked both to airplane safety and to an accident, we found it necessary to mandate these actions by issuance of the proposed AD. We have not changed the supplemental NPRM in this regard. Request To Change Intervals of Repetitive Actions Two commenters, BA and Air France, do not agree with the repeat intervals specified in the original NPRM for the lubrication; and BA also does not agree with the repeat intervals specified in the original NPRM for the detailed inspection and freeplay measurement. BA states that the 777 Industry Steering Committee/Maintenance Review Board (ISC/MRB) meeting, held in February 2004, produced the “Re-analysis of the Horizontal Stabilizer Control System MSG-3.” BA asserts that this re-analysis took into account Boeing's safety analysis, and the suggested alternative repeat intervals were agreed to by numerous attendees at the meeting, including Boeing, Boeing's designated engineering representative (DER), the FAA Seattle Aircraft Evaluation Group (AEG), and Model 777 operators. In addition, BA asserts that the use of an improved synthetic oil-based grease (conforming to Boeing material specification BMS3-33) and 10 years of operating experience support the alternative repeat intervals. BA further asserts that Boeing's safety analysis of the Model 777 stabilizer drive mechanism revealed no problems with the configuration of that mechanism. BA therefore requests that the repeat intervals of the original NPRM be revised as follows: • Detailed inspection—6,000 flight hours or 400 days, whichever comes first; • Freeplay inspection—25,000 flight hours or five years, whichever comes first; • Lubrication—2,000 flight hours or 400 days, whichever comes first. Air France explains that its request is based on information from the MRB Report revision of March 3, 2006, and the maintenance planning document
(MPD)revision of May 5, 2006. In addition, Air France states that a decision was made at the ISC meeting of January 2006 to revise the lubrication interval from 2,000 flight hours/400 days to 3,000 flight hours/400 days, based on in-service experience. Air France further states that it has never found any applicable corrosion or damage during 8 years of 777 operating experience. Air France states, therefore, that it does not agree with the lubrication interval specified in the original NPRM and requests that the interval be changed to 3,000 flight hours or 400 days, whichever comes first. We do not agree with this request. Consistent with our response shown above to the comment regarding a change of governance for the maintenance program, we have identified an unsafe condition and are proposing an AD to control the tasks and intervals needed to address this condition. The commenters assert that alternative repeat intervals were agreed to by numerous attendees at the February 2004 ISC/MRB meeting, however, those intervals are inconsistent with the intervals developed by Boeing's safety organization and transmitted via letter to the Seattle Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO)in support of development of this AD. The intervals for lubrication, detailed inspection, and freeplay inspection that appear in the FAA-approved Boeing service bulletin were determined from the results of a safety review by means of testing, failure mode analysis, and fault tree analysis and are based upon using BMS 3-33 grease or acceptable substitute. Boeing has not revised those intervals, and the intervals suggested by BA and Air France do not meet the requirements identified by the safety review. Further, Boeing has advised us that it intends to pursue revising the MPD task to reflect the compliance times specified in this AD at the next revision cycle of the document. Task intervals specified in maintenance programs may be increased based on positive results obtained from previous repetitions of the task. We are concerned with the practice of escalating safety related maintenance intervals until negative findings are discovered. We have not changed the supplemental NPRM as requested by the commenters. However, to obtain longer compliance times, anyone may request approval of an alternative method of compliance
(AMOC)as specified in paragraph
(n)of this supplemental NPRM, provided data are submitted to demonstrate that an acceptable level of safety will be maintained. FAA's Determination and Proposed Requirements of the Supplemental NPRM Certain changes discussed above expand the scope of the original NPRM; therefore, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for public comment on this supplemental NPRM. Costs of Compliance There are about 596 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 203 airplanes of U.S. registry. The proposed maintenance records check would take about 1 work hour per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed inspection for U.S. operators is $16,240, or $80 per airplane, per inspection cycle. The proposed detailed inspection would take about 1 work hour per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed inspection for U.S. operators is $16,240, or $80 per airplane, per inspection cycle. The proposed freeplay measurement would take about 5 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed freeplay measurement for U.S. operators is $81,200, or $400 per airplane, per measurement cycle. The proposed lubrication would take about 1 work hour per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed lubrication for U.S. operators is $16,240, or $80 per airplane, per lubrication cycle. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this supplemental NPRM and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **BOEING:** Docket No. FAA-2006-24270; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-200-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by July 13, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to all Boeing Model 777 airplanes, certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from a report of extensive corrosion of a ballscrew in the drive mechanism of the horizontal stabilizer of a Boeing Model 757 airplane, which is similar in design to the ballscrew on Model 777 airplanes. We are issuing this AD to prevent an undetected failure of the primary load path for the ballscrew in the drive mechanism of the horizontal stabilizer and subsequent wear and failure of the secondary load path, which could lead to loss of control of the horizontal stabilizer and consequent loss of control of the airplane. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Service Bulletin Reference
(f)The term “service bulletin,” as used in this AD, means Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-27A0059, Revision 1, dated August 18, 2005. Note 1: The service bulletin refers to the Boeing 777 Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM), subjects 12-21-05, 27-41-13, and 29-11-00, as additional sources of service information for accomplishing the actions required by this AD. Maintenance Records Check
(g)For airplanes that have received a certificate of airworthiness prior to the effective date of this AD: Within 180 days or 3,500 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, perform a maintenance records check or inspect to determine whether any horizontal stabilizer trim actuator has been replaced for any issue described in the service bulletin with a serviceable actuator that was not new or overhauled, and has not received a detailed inspection and freeplay measurement since the replacement. Detailed Inspection
(h)Within the compliance times specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD, as applicable: Perform a detailed inspection for discrepancies of the horizontal stabilizer trim actuator ballnut and ballscrew in accordance with Part 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin. Repeat the detailed inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 3,500 flight hours or 12 months, whichever occurs first. If any discrepancy is found during any inspection required by this AD, before further flight, replace the actuator with a new or serviceable actuator in accordance with the service bulletin.
(1)For airplanes identified in paragraph
(g)of this AD on which the actuator has not been replaced: Before the accumulation of 15,000 total flight hours, or within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(2)For airplanes identified in paragraph
(g)of this AD on which the actuator has been replaced, and for airplanes having received a certificate of airworthiness after the effective date of this AD: Before the accumulation of 3,500 flight hours or within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later. Freeplay Measurement (Inspection)
(i)Within the compliance times specified in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD, as applicable: Perform a freeplay measurement of the ballnut and ballscrew in accordance with Part 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin. Repeat the freeplay measurement thereafter at intervals not to exceed 18,000 flight hours or 60 months, whichever occurs first. If the freeplay is found to exceed the limits specified in the service bulletin during any measurement required by this AD, before further flight, replace the actuator with a new or serviceable actuator in accordance with the service bulletin.
(1)For airplanes identified in paragraph
(g)of this AD on which the actuator has not been replaced: Before the accumulation of 15,000 total flight hours, or within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(2)For airplanes identified in paragraph
(g)of this AD on which the actuator has been replaced, and for airplanes having received a certificate of airworthiness after the effective date of this AD: Before the accumulation of 3,500 flight hours or within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later. Lubrication
(j)Within the compliance times specified in paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) of this AD, as applicable: Lubricate the ballnut and ballscrew in accordance with Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin. Repeat the lubrication thereafter at intervals not to exceed 2,000 flight hours or 12 months, whichever occurs first.
(1)For airplanes identified in paragraph
(g)of this AD on which the actuator has not been replaced: Before the accumulation of 15,000 total flight hours, or within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(2)For airplanes identified in paragraph
(g)of this AD on which the actuator has been replaced, and for airplanes having received a certificate of airworthiness after the effective date of this AD: Before the accumulation of 3,500 flight hours or within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later. Credit for Using Original Issue of Service Bulletin
(k)Actions performed prior to the effective date of this AD in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-27A0059, dated September 18, 2003, are considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions of this AD. Credit for Hard-time Replacement of Actuator
(l)Any actuator overhauled within the compliance times specified for paragraphs (h), (i), and
(j)of this AD or before the effective date of this AD—as part of a “hard- time” replacement program that includes removal of the stabilizer actuator from the airplane and overhaul of the stabilizer ballscrew in accordance with original equipment manufacturer
(OEM)component maintenance manual
(CMM)instructions—meets the intent of one detailed inspection, one freeplay inspection, and one lubrication of the stabilizer ballscrew. Therefore, any such actuator is considered acceptable for compliance with the initial accomplishment of paragraphs (h), (i), and
(j)of this AD, and repetitions of those paragraphs may be determined from the performance date of that overhaul. Parts Installation
(m)As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install, on any airplane, a horizontal stabilizer trim actuator that is not new or overhauled, unless a detailed inspection, freeplay measurement, and lubrication of that actuator have been performed in accordance with paragraphs (h), (i), and
(j)of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (n)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office. Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 8, 2007. Stephen P. Boyd, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-11679 Filed 6-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-25174; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-007-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Learjet Model 45 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of comment period. SUMMARY: The FAA is revising an earlier proposed airworthiness directive
(AD)for certain Learjet Model 45 airplanes. The original NPRM would have required revising the Airworthiness Limitations section of the airplane maintenance manual to incorporate certain inspections and compliance times to detect fatigue cracking of certain principal structural elements (PSEs). The original NPRM resulted from new and more restrictive life limits and inspection intervals for certain PSEs. This action revises the original NPRM by changing the applicability to add certain airplanes. We are proposing this supplemental NPRM to ensure that fatigue cracking of various PSEs is detected and corrected; such fatigue cracking could adversely affect the structural integrity of these airplanes. DATES: We must receive comments on this supplemental NPRM by July 13, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this supplemental NPRM. • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Learjet, Inc., One Learjet Way, Wichita, Kansas 67209-2942, for service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Litke, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Services Branch, ACE-118W, FAA, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Mid-Continent Airport, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone
(316)946-4127; fax
(316)946-4107. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this supplemental NPRM. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “Docket No. FAA-2006-25174; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-007-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this supplemental NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this supplemental NPRM in light of those comments. We will post all comments submitted, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this supplemental NPRM. Using the search function of that web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov,* or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is located on the ground floor of the West Building at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion We proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)for an AD (the “original NPRM”) for certain Learjet Model 45 airplanes. The original NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on June 26, 2006 (71 FR 36255). The original NPRM proposed to require revising the Airworthiness Limitations section of the airplane maintenance manual to incorporate certain inspections and compliance times to detect fatigue cracking of certain principal structural elements (PSEs). Actions Since Original NPRM Was Issued Since we issued the original NPRM, the manufacturer has informed us that the actions in the NPRM apply to serial numbers (S/Ns) 45-005 through 45-302 inclusive, and 45-2001 through 45-2049 inclusive. We issued the original NPRM to apply to S/Ns 45-002 through 45-233 inclusive, and S/Ns 45-2001 through 45-2031 inclusive. The supplemental NPRM includes this change in applicability. Comments We have considered the following comments on the original NPRM. Requests to Withdraw the NPRM Koch Business Holdings, LLC (Koch), asks if this proposed AD is necessary. Koch states that operators are already required to use the most up-to-date manuals, and wonders if it can expect to see an AD for every make and model of airplane for which a more restrictive change is made to the Airworthiness Limitations section of the airplane maintenance manual (AMM). Koch suggests that we streamline the paperwork instead of increasing the paperwork. Koch further states that the FAA cannot write an AD against a maintenance manual, and that this proposed AD merely adds a requirement to comply with a requirement (the maintenance manuals). Koch states that the proposed AD will not make certain that maintenance items are complied with. Koch suggests, instead of an AD, that we send out the information using advisory wires, service newsletters, and letters from the FAA to the operators. Koch states that it is 100 percent about safety, but believes that the proposed AD just distracts from safety. McWane, Inc., also states that the proposed AD is unnecessary because the regulatory requirement for complying with the Chapter 4 AMM revisions already exists. McWane explains that the Chapter 4 items are Airworthiness Limitations that are directly tied to the original type certificate; non-compliance places the aircraft outside the requirements of the original type design. McWane feels that using an AD in this case is overkill and an inappropriate use of rulemaking. McWane is primarily concerned that this action would set a precedent that would allow an original equipment manufacturer to let the FAA “become their scapegoat” instead of working with operators to ensure compliance with revised data. McWane suggests getting the information out using other means, and issuing an AD only against non-compliant airplanes. We infer that the commenters would like us to withdraw the original NPRM. We disagree. We have determined that an unsafe condition exists, and that the actions proposed in the original NPRM are necessary to ensure the continued operational safety of the affected fleet. Compliance with the terms of Airworthiness Limitations sections is required by Federal Aviation Regulations Sections 43.16 (for persons maintaining products) and 91.403 (for operators). Based on in-service data or post certification testing and evaluation, the manufacturer may revise the Airworthiness Limitations section to include new or more restrictive life limits and inspections. Or it may become necessary for the FAA to impose new or more restrictive life limits and structural inspections in order to ensure continued structural integrity and continued compliance with damage tolerance requirements. However, in order to require compliance with these new inspection requirements and life limits, the FAA must engage in rulemaking. Therefore, if we do not issue an AD, the revised limitations in the AMMs cannot be made mandatory. Because loss of structural integrity would constitute an unsafe condition, it is appropriate to impose these requirements through the AD process. We have not changed the supplemental NPRM in this regard. Clarification of Alternative Method of Compliance
(AMOC)Paragraph We have revised this action to clarify the appropriate procedure for notifying the principal inspector before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies. Addition of Note To Clarify Requirements of Paragraph
(f)of the Supplemental NPRM We have added Note 2 to the supplemental NPRM to clarify that after an operator complies with the requirements of paragraph
(f)of the proposed AD, that paragraph does not require that operators subsequently record accomplishment of those requirements each time an action is accomplished according to that operator's FAA-approved maintenance inspection program. FAA's Determination and Proposed Requirements of the Supplemental NPRM The changes discussed in the section titled “Actions since Original NPRM was Issued” expand the scope of the original NPRM; therefore, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for public comment on this supplemental NPRM. Costs of Compliance There are about 347 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This supplemental NPRM would affect about 258 airplanes of U.S. registry. The proposed actions would take about 1 work hour per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of this supplemental NPRM for U.S. operators is $20,640, or $80 per airplane. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this supplemental NPRM and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **LEARJET:** Docket No. FAA-2006-25174; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-007-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by July 13, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Learjet Model 45 airplanes, certificated in any category; serial numbers (S/Ns) 45-002 through 45-302 inclusive, and S/Ns 45-2001 through 45-2049 inclusive. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from new and more restrictive life limits and inspection intervals for certain principal structural elements (PSEs). We are issuing this AD to ensure that fatigue cracking of various PSEs is detected and corrected; such fatigue cracking could adversely affect the structural integrity of these airplanes. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Note 1: This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new inspections. Compliance with these inspections is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by these inspections, the operator may not be able to accomplish the inspections described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance
(AMOC)according to paragraph
(g)of this AD. The request should include a description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure the continued damage tolerance of the affected structure. The FAA has provided guidance for this determination in Advisory Circular
(AC)25-1529-1. Revise the Airworthiness Limitations Section
(f)Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the ALS of the airplane maintenance manual
(AMM)to include new life limits and inspection intervals according to a method approved by the Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. Incorporating the applicable chapters in paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this AD in the AMM is one approved method for doing the revision. Thereafter, except as provided in paragraph
(g)of this AD, no alternative life limits or inspection intervals may be approved for the affected PSEs.
(1)For Learjet Model 45 airplanes, S/Ns 45-002 through 45-302 inclusive: Chapter 4 of the Learjet 45 Maintenance Manual, Revision 38, dated April 24, 2006.
(2)For Learjet Model 45 airplanes, S/Ns 45-2001 through 45-2049 inclusive: Chapter 4 of the Learjet 40 Maintenance Manual, Revision 6, dated April 24, 2006. Note 2: After an operator complies with the requirements of paragraph
(f)of this AD, that paragraph does not require that operators subsequently record accomplishment of those requirements each time an action is accomplished according to that operator's FAA-approved maintenance inspection program. AMOCs (g)(1) The Manager, Wichita ACO, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 8, 2007. Stephen P. Boyd, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-11682 Filed 6-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Minerals Management Service 30 CFR Part 251 RIN 1010-AD41 Geological and Geophysical (G&G) Explorations of the Outer Continental Shelf—Changing Proprietary Term of Certain Geophysical Information AGENCY: Minerals Management Service (MMS), Interior. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The MMS proposes to extend the proprietary term of certain reprocessed geophysical information submitted to MMS under a permit. The proposed rule would give up to 5 years of additional protection to reprocessed vintage geophysical information that MMS retained and, under the current rule, is subject to release by MMS 25 years after issuing the germane permit. The extension would provide incentives to permittees and third parties to reprocess, market, or in other ways use geophysical information that may not otherwise be reprocessed without the term extension. DATES: Submit comments by August 17, 2007. The MMS may not fully consider comments received after this date. Submit comments to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)on the information collection burden in this proposed rule by July 18, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on the rulemaking by any of the following methods. Please use the Regulation Identifier Number
(RIN)1010-AD41 as an identifier in your message. See also Public Availability of Comments under Procedural Matters. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions on the website for submitting comments. • *E-mail MMS at rules.comments@mms.gov.* Use RIN 1010-AD41 in the subject line. • *Fax:* 703-787-1546. Identify with the RIN, 1010-AD41. • Mail or hand-carry comments to the Department of the Interior; Minerals Management Service; Attention: Regulations and Standards Branch (RSB); 381 Elden Street, MS-4024; Herndon, Virginia 20170-4817. Please reference “Changing Proprietary Term of Certain Geophysical Information, 1010-AD41” in your comments and include your name and return address. • *Send comments on the information collection in this rule to:* Interior Desk Officer 1010-0048, Office of Management and Budget; 202-395-6566 (fax); e-mail: *oira_docket@omb.eop.gov.* Please also send a copy to MMS. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Zinzer, Geophysicist, Offshore Minerals Management, Resource Evaluation Division, at
(703)787-1628 or e-mail *david.zinzer@mms.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Summary of Proposed Rulemaking The MMS proposes to extend, upon successful application to MMS, the proprietary term of geophysical information that a permittee or third party reprocessed 20 or more years after MMS issued the germane permit under which the originating data were collected. The proposed rule gives up to 5 years of additional protection to reprocessed vintage geophysical information that MMS retained and, under the current rule, is subject to release by MMS 25 years after issuing the permit. The extension would provide incentives to permittees and third parties to reprocess, market, or in other ways use geophysical information that may not otherwise be reprocessed without the term extension. Industry Concerns With Previous Final Rulemaking Final rulemaking at part 251 (71 FR 16033, March 30, 2006, effective date May 1, 2006) modified the start dates of proprietary terms for geophysical data and information and any derivatives of these data and information that MMS acquires for retention from permittees and third parties. The start dates changed from the date of submittal to the date of the permit under which the originating data were collected, retroactive to 1976. The International Association of Geophysical Contractors (IAGC), in an April 21, 2006, letter to Director R.M. “Johnnie” Burton, mostly objected to changes that affect the proprietary term for reprocessed geophysical information. Before the May 1, 2006, rule changes, the derivative reprocessed information enjoyed its own new 25-year term, starting on the date of its submittal to MMS. After the May 1 changes, reprocessed information enjoyed the same 25-year term as the original information, starting on the date the germane permit was issued. An example of IAGC's concerns is if before the May 1, 2006, changes, geophysical information derived from data collected under a 1985 permit were reprocessed and submitted to MMS for retention in January 2006, its proprietary term would expire in 2031 (2006 + 25). After the May 1, 2006, rule changes, the proprietary term of the reprocessed information submitted in January 2006, would expire in 2010 (1985 + 25). If the same information were to be submitted in 2011 or later, it would be subject to immediate public release, since the applicable 25-year term would have already expired. The IAGC letter also stated that one permittee that is actively reprocessing vintage geophysical information derived from data collected in the Alaska Outer Continental Shelf
(OCS)concluded that the May 1 changes to the rule will cost the permittee significant future revenue, as repeated global experience demonstrates that some clients will just wait for the new geophysical information to be handed to them for free in a short time (after release by MMS). Third parties who reprocess geophysical information acquired from permittees would also lose reprocessing investment opportunities for their geophysical information. MMS Response to Industry Concerns The MMS recognizes that industry invests significant capital in reprocessing geophysical information; however, the IAGC letter did not document or quantify costs to industry directly related to the May 1 changes to part 251. Furthermore, MMS rarely selects and retains minimally processed geophysical information, the type of reprocessed geophysical information that is of most interest and value to industry. Permittees commonly offer licenses for geophysical information with application of only routine editing of field tapes and common processing and reprocessing techniques. Geophysical information at this early stage of the processing sequence is the most suitable and flexible for subsequent reprocessing. Many third parties prefer to apply their own advanced processing techniques to geophysical information licensed from permittees. Permittees will also further reprocess the information, applying advanced algorithms and other techniques, for license or sale. However, as a matter of practice, MMS does not acquire minimally reprocessed geophysical information, as MMS does not have the capability to further process the information using advanced techniques. Moreover, MMS does not release geophysical information it does not acquire for retention, including valuable minimally processed geophysical information. Most geophysical information submitted to and retained by MMS was reprocessed to or near the final stages of the processing sequence. This geophysical information is useful for viewing and merging with other types of information. However, it is basically not suitable for further processing and consequently of little interest or value to industry for that purpose when it is released to the public following expiration of its proprietary term. Furthermore, most reprocessing by permittees or third parties occurs in the first few years of the 25-year proprietary term, not near the end of the term, when there is less time to sell, license, or otherwise make use of the reprocessed information. Also cited in the IAGC letter is lost opportunity for MMS and the public interest to have vintage information made available in a format that can be meaningful using modern processing technologies. Industry submitted similar comments on changes put forth in the related notice of proposed rulemaking, published July 17, 2002 (67 FR 46942), which preceded the March 31, 2006, final rulemaking. In some cases the confidentiality period is in effect shortened by more than 10 years. In such cases, more than 40 percent of the time over which one would expect to recover the initial investment and earn a return will be lost. For example, if geophysical information from a 1985 permit were submitted to MMS in 2002, the information would be released in 2027 (2002 + 25), a total term of protection of 42 years (1985-2027) under the previous rule. It would be released in 2010 under the current rule, a loss of 17 years (2027-2010), or 40 percent (17/42) of the 42-year term under the previous rule. Resetting the start date of the 25-year proprietary term to the date the permit is issued reduces the economic life of new geophysical information, and in effect reduces the return on investment in future non-exclusive seismic programs, stifling healthy competition and investment in new technologies and innovation. Value-added derivative products created when legacy (vintage) geophysical information is reprocessed, applying new technology and computer power, are becoming increasingly vital to the exploration and production process in the Gulf of Mexico. The MMS notes that before the May 1, 2006, changes, reprocessed geophysical information could have in effect up to a 50-year proprietary term if it were submitted at the end of the initial 25-year term (25-year original term + 25-year new term). This would be virtually the same as the 50-year term for geophysical data and in sharp contrast to the proprietary terms for geophysical data and information submitted under a MMS lease (10 years or when the lease expires, whichever is sooner), or for geophysical information collected on the continental shelves of the United Kingdom, Australia, or Norway (2 to 10 years). The 25-year term, starting on the date of the permit, in the 2006 final rule was considered by MMS a reasonable amount of time for a permittee or third party to receive a fair return on investment in acquiring, processing, or reprocessing geophysical information. Proposed Rulemaking Details To address industry concerns regarding release of geophysical information reprocessed near the end of its 25-year term, MMS proposes in this rule to extend, upon successful application to MMS, the proprietary term for geophysical information for which reprocessing was completed in the last 5 years of its initial 25-year proprietary term, or thereafter. The term of geophysical information that was processed or reprocessed up to the 20th anniversary of the date of the germane permit is not affected by this proposed rulemaking. Permittees and third parties may apply to MMS for an extension of the proprietary term, starting on the date of completion of reprocessing the geophysical information. The application must include: • Name and address of the permittee or third party; • Product name; • Identification of the geophysical information-area; • Identification of originating permit number and date; • Description of reprocessing performed; • Identification of the date of completion of reprocessing the geophysical information; • Certification that the product meets the definition of processed geophysical information and that all other information in the application is accurate; and • Signature and date. If MMS disapproves the application for an extension, the Regional Director will state the reasons for the denial and will advise the applicant of changes needed to obtain approval. There will be a 1-year grace period, starting on the date that the final rule becomes effective, to allow permittees and third parties sufficient time to meet the above requirements and file separate applications for each extension. During this time, MMS will not release geophysical information which was reprocessed 20 or more years after MMS issued the germane permit. After the 1-year grace period, MMS will resume releasing eligible reprocessed information. Also, in order to obtain an extension, permittees and third parties must apply for the extension within 30 days after the date of completion of the reprocessing. If an application is not filed, not filed on time, or if the application is not approved by MMS, the original 25-year proprietary term applies to the release date of the reprocessed geophysical information. Procedural Matters Public Availability of Comments Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Order (E.O.) 12866) This proposed rule is not a significant rule as determined by the OMB and is not subject to review under E.O. 12866.
(1)The proposed rule would not have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy. It would not adversely affect in a material way the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities. The MMS estimates that over the first 5 years after the rule becomes effective, revenue generated by licensing or selling geophysical information reprocessed 20 or more years after MMS issued the germane permit and for which MMS extended the proprietary term, would be in a range from $3 million to $25 million over the period. More revenue would be generated in the first year during which there is a 1-year grace period to apply for extensions of proprietary terms of all eligible reprocessed information. In subsequent years, applications must be filed within 30 days of completion of processing. The range of estimated values depends on the number of lease sales in areas where eligible vintage geophysical information exists, mostly in the Alaska OCS, the amount and quality of reprocessed geophysical information, and economic factors. MMS assumes 15 extensions would be approved over the 5-year period after the final rule is effective.
(2)The proposed rule would not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency.
(3)The proposed rule would not alter the budgetary effects of entitlements, grants, user fees or loan programs, or the rights or obligations of their recipients.
(4)The proposed rule would not raise novel legal or policy issues. Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA)The Department certifies that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). This proposed rule would extend the proprietary term for vintage reprocessed geophysical information. The only entities affected by this proposed rule change are about 10 geophysical companies, if still in existence, whose reprocessed geophysical information being held by MMS may be released later than under current regulations. The Small Business Administration classifies geophysical surveying and mapping service companies under the North American Industry Classification System Code 541360. The criteria for determining a small entity for this classification code is annual receipts of less than $4.5 million. All of the 10 geophysical companies potentially affected by this proposed rule have annual receipts greater than $4.5 million; therefore, this proposed rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. Your comments are important. The Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and 10 Regional Fairness Boards were established to receive comments from small businesses about Federal agency enforcement actions. The Ombudsman will annually evaluate the enforcement activities and rate each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on the actions of MMS, call 1-888-734-3247. You may comment to the Small Business Administration without fear of retaliation. Disciplinary action for retaliation by an MMS employee may include suspension or termination from employment with the DOI. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) This proposed rule is not a major rule under the SBREFA (5 U.S.C. 804(2)). This proposed rule: a. Would not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. b. Would not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions. c. Would not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. Leasing on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf
(OCS)is limited to residents of the U.S. or companies incorporated in the U.S. The proposed rule would not change that requirement. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)This proposed rule would not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The proposed rule would not have a significant or unique effect on State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. A statement containing the information required by the UMRA (2 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ) is not required. This is because the proposal would not affect State, local, or tribal governments, and the effect on the private sector is small. Takings Implication Assessment (Executive Order 12630) This proposed rule is not a governmental action capable of interference with constitutionally protected property rights. Thus, MMS did not need to prepare a Takings Implication Assessment according to E.O. 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Federalism (Executive Order 13132) With respect to E.O. 13132, this proposed rule would not have federalism implications. This proposed rule would not substantially and directly affect the relationship between the Federal and State governments. To the extent that State and local governments have a role in OCS activities, this proposed rule would not affect that role. Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order 12988) With respect to E.O. 12988, The Office of the Solicitor has determined that the proposed rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and does meet the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)This proposed rule contains a collection of information that is being submitted to OMB for review and approval under § 3507(d) of the PRA. As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, MMS invites the public and other Federal agencies to comment on any aspect of the reporting and recordkeeping burden. If you wish to comment on the information collection aspects of revised 30 CFR 251, you may send your comments directly to OMB (see the ADDRESSES section of this notice). Please identify your comments with 1010-0048. Send a copy of your comments to the Regulations and Standards Branch, Attn: Comments; 381 Elden Street, MS-4024; Herndon, Virginia 20170-4817. You may obtain a copy of our submission to OMB to revise and extend the OMB approval for 1010-0048 by contacting the Bureau's Information Collection Clearance Officer at
(202)208-7744. The PRA provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information contained in these proposed regulations between 30 to 60 days after publication of this document in the **Federal Register** . Therefore, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB received it by July 18, 2007. This does not affect the deadline for the public to comment to MMS on the proposed regulations. The title of the collection of information for the rule is “30 CFR 251, Geological and Geophysical (G&G) Explorations of the Outer Continental Shelf.” Respondents for this rulemaking include approximately 10 Federal OCS permittees. Responses to this collection are mandatory and required for a benefit. The frequency of reporting is on occasion. The proposed new requirement allows permittees and third parties to apply for an extension of the 25-year proprietary term within 30 days after the date of completion of the reprocessing. MMS will protect proprietary information according to the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and its implementing regulations (43 CFR part 2), the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act of 1982 (30 U.S.C. 1733), and under regulations at 30 CFR parts 250, 251, and 252. The information collection
(IC)does not include questions of a sensitive nature. The collection of information required by the current subpart 30 CFR 251 regulations is approved under OMB Control Number 1010-0048 (expiration 7/31/09). The proposed rule imposes a new requirement to the information collection for 3 burden hours. Once the rulemaking becomes effective, the new burden hours will be incorporated into the existing information collection. Refer to the chart for the current and proposed burden. Current 30 CFR 251 proposed Reporting and recordkeeping requirement Hour burden Average number of annual responses Annual burden hours Fee Form 251.4(a), (b); 251.5(a), (b), (d); 251.6; 251.7 Apply for permits (form MMS-327) to conduct G&G exploration, including deep stratigraphic tests/revisions when necessary 6 110 Applications 660 110 applications × $1,900 fee = $209,000 Subtotal 110 responses 660 $209,000 General 251.4(b); 251.5(c), (d); 251.6 File notices to conduct scientific research activities, including notice to MMS prior to beginning and after concluding activities 6 4 Notices 24 251.6(b) 251.7(b)(5) Notify MMS if specific actions should occur; report archaeological resources. (No instances reported since 1982.) 1 1 Notice 1 251.7(c) Enter into agreement for group participation in test drilling, including publishing summary statement; provide MMS copy of notice/list of participants. (No agreements submitted since 1989.) 1 1 Agreement 1 251.9(c) Notify MMS to relinquish a permit 1/2 8 Notices 4 251.10(c) File appeals Not subject to the PRA. 0 251.1-251.14 General departure and alternative compliance requests not specifically covered elsewhere in part 251 regulations 2 1 Request 2 Permit Form (Form MMS-327) Retain G&G data/information for 10 years and make available to MMS upon request 1 100 Recordkeepers 100 Subtotal 115 responses 132 Submissions 251.7 Submit information on test drilling activities under a permit, including Form MMS-123 Burden included under 1010-0141. 0 251.7(d) Submit bond(s) on deep stratigraphic test Burden included under 30 CFR part 256 (1010-0006). 0 251.8(b),
(c)Submit modifications to, and status/final reports on, activities conducted under a permit 2 55 Respondents × 4 Reports = 220 440 251.11; 251.12 Notify MMS and submit G&G data information collected under a permit and/or processed by permittees or 3rd parties, including reports, logs or charts, results analyses, descriptions, etc 4 50 Submissions 200 251.14(a) Submit comments on MMS intent to disclose data/info. to the public 1 1 Comment 1 251.14(c)(2) Submit comments on MMS intent to disclose data/info. to an independent contractor/agent 1 1 Comment 1 251.14(c)(4) Contractor/agent submits written commitment not to sell, trade, license, or disclose data/info. without MMS consent 1 1 Commitment 1 Subtotal 273 responses 643 Requests 251.8(a) Request reimbursement for certain costs associated with MMS inspections. (No requests in many years. OCS Lands Act requires Government reimbursement.) 1 1 Request 1 251.13 Request reimbursement for certain costs associated with reproducing data/information 2 50 Submissions 100 Permit Form (MMS-327); 251.14(b)(3) Request extension of time period for permitted activities. 1 50 Extensions 50 Subtotal 101 responses 151 Extension 251.14(b)(1), (2),
(5)Permittees and 3rd parties apply for extension for geophysical information within 30 days after reprocessing completion date 1 3 Extensions 3 Subtotal 3 responses 3 Total Hour and Fee Burden 599 1,586 602 1,589 $209,000 Fee The MMS specifically solicits comments on the following questions:
(1)Is the collection of information necessary for MMS to properly perform its functions, and will it be useful?
(2)Are the estimates of the burden hours of the collection reasonable?
(3)Do you have any suggestions that would enhance the quality, clarity, or usefulness of the information to be collected?
(4)Is there a way to minimize the information collection burden on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other forms of information technology? In addition, the PRA requires agencies to estimate the total annual reporting and recordkeeping “non-hour cost” burden resulting from the collection of information. Other than the cost recovery fee listed in current regulations at § 251.5, we have not identified any other costs, and we solicit your comments. For reporting and recordkeeping only, your response should split the cost estimate into two components:
(1)Total capital and startup cost component, and
(2)annual operation, maintenance, and purchase of services components. Your estimates should consider the costs to generate, maintain, disclose or provide the information. You should describe the methods you use to estimate major cost factors including system and technology acquisition, expected useful life of capital equipment, discount rate(s), and the period over which you incur costs. Capital and start-up costs include, among other items, computers and software you purchase to prepare for collecting information; monitoring, sampling, drilling, and testing equipment; and record storage facilities. Generally, our estimates should not include equipment or services purchased: Before October 1, 1995; to comply with requirements not associated with the information collection; for reasons other than to provide information or keep records for the Government; or as part of customary and usual business or private practices. National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)of 1969 This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. MMS has analyzed this proposed rule under the criteria of the NEPA and 516 Departmental Manual 6, Appendix 10.4C(1). MMS completed a Categorical Exclusion Review for this action and concluded that “the rulemaking does not represent an exception to the established criteria for categorical exclusion; therefore, preparation of an environmental analysis or environmental impact statement will not be required.” Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (Executive Order 13211) Executive Order 13211 requires the agency to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects when it takes a regulatory action that is identified as a significant energy action. This proposed rule is not a significant energy action, and therefore would not require a Statement of Energy Effects because it: a. Is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866, b. Is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, and c. Has not been designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, as a significant energy action. Consultation With Indian Tribes (Executive Order 13175) Under the criteria in E.O. 13175, we have evaluated this proposed rule and determined that it has no potential effects on federally recognized Indian tribes. There are no Indian or tribal lands in the OCS. Clarity of This Regulation Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations that are easy to understand. MMS invites your comments on how to make this proposed rule easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the following:
(1)Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
(2)Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that interferes with its clarity?
(3)Does the format of the rule (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its clarity?
(4)Is the description of the proposed rule in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this preamble helpful in understanding the rule? What else can MMS do to make the rule easier to understand? Send a copy of any comments that concern how MMS could make this rule easier to understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240. You may also e-mail the comments to this address: *Exsec@ios.doi.gov.* List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 251 Continental shelf, Freedom of information, Oil and gas exploration, Public lands—mineral resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research. Dated: June 1, 2007. C. Stephen Allred, Assistant Secretary—Land and Minerals Management. For the reasons stated in the preamble, MMS proposes to amend 30 CFR part 251 as follows: PART 251—GEOLOGICAL AND GEOPHYSICAL (G&G) EXPLORATIONS OF THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF 1. The authority citation for part 251 continues to read as follows: Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1331 *et seq.* , 31 U.S.C. 9701. 2. Amend § 251.14 as set forth below: A. Revise the introductory text in paragraph (b); B. Revise the table in paragraph (b)(1); C. Redesignate paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) as (b)(6) and (b)(7), respectively; and D. Add new paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(3), (b)(4), and (b)(5) to read as follows: § 251.14 Protecting and disclosing data and information submitted to MMS under a permit.
(b)*Timetable for release of G&G data and information related to oil, gas, and sulphur that MMS acquires* . Except for high-resolution data and information released under 30 CFR 250.197(b)(2), MMS will release or disclose acquired data and information in accordance with paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(7) of this section.
(1)* * * If you or a third party submit and MMS retains . . . The Regional Director will release them to the public . . .
(i)Geological data and information 10 years after MMS issued the permit.
(ii)Geophysical data 50 years after MMS issued the permit.
(iii)Geophysical information reprocessed less than 20 years after MMS issued the germane permit 25 years after MMS issued the permit.
(iv)Geophysical information reprocessed 20 or more years after MMS issued the germane permit 25 years after MMS issued the permit; or, if you or a third party applied for an extension of the proprietary term, 5 years after MMS approved the application.
(2)Permittees and third parties may apply to MMS for an extension of the 25-year proprietary term for geophysical information reprocessed 20 or more years after MMS issued the germane permit. You must submit the application to MMS within 30 days after completion of the reprocessing, except during the initial 1-year grace period as provided in paragraph (b)(3) of this section. Filing locations are listed in § 251.5(d). Your application must include:
(i)Name and address of the permittee or third party;
(ii)Product name;
(iii)Identification of the geophysical information-area;
(iv)Identification of originating permit number and date;
(v)Description of reprocessing performed;
(vi)Identification of the date of completion of reprocessing the geophysical information;
(vii)Certification that the product meets the definition of processed geophysical information and that all other information in the application is accurate; and
(viii)Signature and date.
(3)There will be a 1-year grace period, starting [EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE], to allow permittees and third parties sufficient time to meet the above requirements and to apply for all eligible extensions. During this time, MMS will not release geophysical information which was reprocessed 20 or more years after the date that MMS issued the germane permit.
(4)After [DATE 1 YEAR AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE], MMS will resume releasing eligible reprocessed information. If an application for extension is not filed, not filed on time, or not approved by MMS, the original 25-year proprietary term applies to the release date of the reprocessed geophysical information.
(5)You may apply for multiple extensions related to the same permit; however, the maximum proprietary term for geophysical information is 50 years after MMS issued the permit. [FR Doc. 07-2960 Filed 6-15-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 37
Traces to 37 documents
21 references not yet in our index
  • 21 CFR 558
  • 5 USC 801-808
  • 26 CFR 1
  • T.D. 9331
  • 33 CFR 165
  • 5 USC 601-612
  • Pub. L. 104-121
  • 44 USC 3501-3520
  • 2 USC 1531-1538
  • 42 USC 4321-4370f
  • Pub. L. 107-295
  • 40 CFR 52
  • Pub. L. 104-4
  • 40 CFR 51
  • 50 CFR 635
  • 50 CFR 679
  • 50 CFR 600
  • 14 CFR 39
  • 30 CFR 251
  • 43 CFR 2
  • 30 CFR 256
Citation graph
cites case law
Rules and Regulations
Final rule
C.F.R.§ 51.22
U.S.C.§ 3501
C.F.R.§ 50.109
U.S.C.§ 553
U.S.C.§ 552
U.S.C.§ 2201
U.S.C.§ 5841
C.F.R.§ 558.325
C.F.R.§ 25.33
Cite21 CFR 558
Cite5 USC 801-808
Cite26 CFR 1
Cites 58 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

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

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