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 · 2007-06-25 · Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury · Notices

Notices. Final and temporary regulations

65,539 words·~298 min read·/register/2007/06/25/07-3073·

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

BILLING CODE 8025-01-M DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Parts 1 and 602 [TD 9332] RIN 1545-BG00 Exclusions From Gross Income of Foreign Corporations AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Final and temporary regulations. SUMMARY: This document contains final and temporary regulations under section 883(a) and
(c)of the Internal Revenue Code (Code), relating to the exclusion from gross income of income derived by certain foreign corporations engaged in the international operation of ships or aircraft. These regulations revise § 1.883-3 of the final regulations, relating to the eligibility of controlled foreign corporations for the exclusion under section 883, following the repeal of section 954(a)(4) and
(f)(foreign base company shipping provisions) by section 415 of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004. In addition, these regulations provide certain additional guidance under section 883(a) and (c), including for foreign corporations that are organized in countries providing an exemption from taxation for certain shipping and air transport income solely through an income tax convention. The text of these temporary regulations also serves as the text of the proposed regulations (REG-138707-06) set forth in the Proposed Rules section in this issue of the **Federal Register** . DATES: *Effective Date:* These regulations are effective on June 25, 2007. *Applicability Date:* For dates of applicability, see § 1.883-5T. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia A. Bray, at
(202)622-3880 (not a toll-free number). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Paperwork Reduction Act These regulations are being issued without prior notice and public procedure pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553). For this reason, the collections of information contained in these regulations has been reviewed, and pending receipt and evaluation of public comments, approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1545-1667. Responses to these collections of information are mandatory. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget. For further information concerning these collections of information, where to submit comments on the collections of information and the accuracy of the estimated burden, and suggestions for reducing this burden, please refer to the preamble to the cross-referencing notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Proposed Rules section of this issue of the **Federal Register** . Books and records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103. Background 1. Section 883 and the Final Regulations Sections 883(a)(1) and (a)(2) of the Code generally provide that income from the international operation of ships or aircraft derived by a foreign corporation will be excluded from gross income and exempt from U.S. taxation if the foreign country in which the corporation is organized grants an equivalent exemption to corporations organized in the United States. Section 883(c)(1) provides that a foreign corporation cannot qualify for the section 883(a) exemption if 50 percent or more of the value of its stock is owned by individuals who are not residents of a country that grants an equivalent exemption to U.S. corporations. However, under section 883(c)(2), section 883(c)(1) does not apply to a foreign corporation that is a controlled foreign corporation as defined in section 957(a)(CFC). In addition, under section 883(c)(3), section 883(c)(1) does not apply to a foreign corporation whose stock is primarily and regularly traded on an established securities market in the United States or in a foreign country that grants an equivalent exemption to U.S. corporations. On August 26, 2003, the IRS and the Treasury Department issued final regulations under section 883 in TD 9087 (68 FR 51394). The final regulations provide, in general, that a foreign corporation organized in a qualified foreign country and engaged in the international operation of ships or aircraft may exclude qualified income from gross income for purposes of U.S. Federal income taxation provided that the corporation can satisfy certain ownership and related substantiation and reporting requirements. A foreign corporation that meets these requirements is a “qualified foreign corporation.” A foreign country that grants U.S. corporations an equivalent exemption from gross income is a “qualified foreign country.” The final regulations also provide definitions of the terms “qualified income” and “equivalent exemption.” In addition, the final regulations specify how a foreign corporation can satisfy the ownership and related substantiation and reporting requirements, and the information that the foreign corporation must include on its U.S. income tax return in order to claim an exemption. In general, a foreign corporation must own or lease an entire ship or aircraft, and the ship or aircraft must carry cargo or passengers for hire, in order for the foreign corporation to be engaged in the operation of a ship or aircraft for this purpose. Section 1.883-1(e). Section 1.883-1(f) provides rules for determining whether income is derived from the international operation of a ship or aircraft. Section 1.883-1(g)(1) provides rules for determining whether certain activities of a foreign corporation that is engaged in the international operation of ships or aircraft are so closely related to that operation as to be considered incidental to the international operation of ships or aircraft. The final regulations provide a nonexclusive list of activities that are considered incidental to the international operation of ships or aircraft. Income from these incidental activities is deemed to be income derived from the international operation of a ship or aircraft for purposes of the exclusion under section 883. Section 1.883-1(g)(2) also provides a nonexclusive list of activities that are not incidental to the international operation of ships or aircraft. The final regulations reserve on whether services, including ground services, maintenance, catering, and other services, are considered incidental to the international operation of ships or aircraft. Section 1.883-1(h) provides that an equivalent exemption may exist if a foreign country generally imposes no tax on income or specifically provides a domestic tax law exemption for income derived from the international operation of ships or aircraft. Alternatively, a foreign country may exchange a diplomatic note, or enter into an agreement, with the United States that provides for a reciprocal exemption for purposes of section 883. Section 1.883-1(h)(3)(i) generally provides that a foreign country that grants an exemption from taxation for income from the international operation of ships or aircraft solely through an income tax convention with the United States is not considered to grant an equivalent exemption. Thus, a corporation organized in such a country may not claim an exclusion under section 883, and can only claim available treaty benefits to exempt income derived from international transport. The final regulations require that a foreign corporation must satisfy one of three stock ownership tests to satisfy the ownership requirements of section 883(c): A publicly-traded test in § 1.883-2(a), a CFC stock ownership test in § 1.883-3(a), or a qualified shareholder stock ownership test in § 1.883-4(a). Under § 1.883-3(a), a foreign corporation satisfies the CFC stock ownership test if it meets an “income inclusion test” and satisfies certain substantiation and reporting requirements under § 1.883-3(c) and (d). The income inclusion test requires that more than 50 percent of the CFC's adjusted net foreign base company income (as defined in § 1.954-1(d) and as increased or decreased by section 952(c)) derived from the international operation of ships or aircraft be includible in the gross income of one or more U.S. citizens, individual residents of the United States, or domestic corporations. Section 1.883-3(b). This rule prevents individuals residing in foreign countries that do not grant an equivalent exemption to U.S. corporations from benefiting from the section 883 exemption by owning a CFC through a domestic partnership, estate or trust. Section 1.883-4 of the final regulations provides rules for when a foreign corporation satisfies the qualified shareholder stock ownership test. To satisfy this test, qualified shareholders must own (applying the attribution rules of § 1.883-4(c)) more than 50 percent of the value of a foreign corporation's outstanding shares for half the number of days in the corporation's taxable year. The foreign corporation must also meet the substantiation and reporting requirements of § 1.883-4(d) and (e). Under the reporting requirements of § 1.883-4(e), a foreign corporation must attach a statement with certain information to its Form 1120-F, “U.S. Income Tax Return of a Foreign Corporation,” including the names and addresses of individual shareholders with large shareholdings (at least 5 percent) in the foreign corporation. 2. Elimination of Foreign Base Company Shipping Income Section 415 of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-357 (118 Stat. 1418)
(AJCA)repealed section 954(a)(4) and (f), eliminating foreign base company shipping income as a type of foreign base company income, and therefore, as subpart F income. The repeal is effective for taxable years of foreign corporations beginning after December 31, 2004, and for taxable years of United States shareholders with or within which such taxable years of foreign corporations end. Section 423 of AJCA also delayed the applicability date of the final regulations under section 883(a) and
(c)for one year, until taxable years beginning after September 24, 2004. Commentators noted that the repeal of the foreign base company shipping provisions created uncertainty about the application of the income inclusion test for CFCs that no longer have foreign base company income. On August 5, 2005, the IRS and the Treasury Department issued TD 9218 (70 FR 45529) to conform the applicability date of the final regulations in light of section 423 of AJCA. The preamble to TD 9218 also acknowledged commentators' concerns regarding the application of the income inclusion test after the repeal of the foreign base company shipping provisions. The preamble stated that a CFC that satisfied the income inclusion test prior to the effective date of section 415 of AJCA would continue to satisfy that test after the effective date of the legislation, provided the CFC is able to demonstrate that if the foreign base company shipping provisions had not been repealed, more than 50 percent of the its current earnings and profits derived from the international operation of ships or aircraft would have been attributable to amounts includible in the gross income of one or more U.S. citizens, individual residents of the United States, or domestic corporations (pursuant to section 951(a)(1)(A) or another provision of the Code) for the taxable years of such persons in which the taxable year of the CFC ends. The preamble to TD 9218 also stated that the IRS and the Treasury Department would issue regulations to clarify the application of the income inclusion test, and invited further comments on the most appropriate way to accomplish a clarification consistent with the principles of the existing section 883 regulations, and the repeal of the foreign base company shipping provisions. 3. Issuance of Notice 2006-43 The IRS and the Treasury Department received a number of comments in response to the preamble language in TD 9218 dealing with the income inclusion test. Generally, commentators stated that to require CFCs to calculate hypothetical amounts of subpart F income as though the foreign base company shipping provisions had not been repealed was too complex an approach to administer properly. Commentators proposed several alternative approaches they viewed as simpler to the approach described in TD 9218. After considering these comments, the IRS and the Treasury Department issued Notice 2006-43, “Interim Guidance With Respect to the Application of Treas. Reg. § 1.883-3,” (2006-21 IRB 921 (May 22, 2006)), which announced a new approach. Under the Notice, a CFC would satisfy the stock ownership test of § 1.883-1(c)(2) if it met a “qualified U.S. person ownership test” and satisfied revised substantiation and reporting requirements. To satisfy the qualified U.S. person ownership test, a corporation would be required to be a CFC for more than half the days of its taxable year, and more than 50 percent of the total value of the CFC's outstanding stock would have to be owned (within the meaning of section 958(a) as modified by the Notice) by one or more qualified U.S. persons for more than half the days of its taxable year. See § 601.601(d)(2). These temporary regulations incorporate the rules of Notice 2006-43, with certain amendments, and respond to comments that have been received concerning other portions of the existing section 883 regulations. 4. Additional Comments The following additional comments were received regarding the final regulations. A. Ground Services The final regulations reserved on whether the performance of a variety of ground services should be treated as activities that are incidental to the international operation of ships or aircraft. Section 1.883-1(g)(3). The IRS and the Treasury Department have received a number of comments from the air transport industry requesting guidance under section 883 on the treatment of ground services, including cargo handling, maintenance services, catering, and customer service. Commentators have pointed to recent changes in the Commentaries to Article 8 (Shipping, Inland Waterways Transport and Air Transport) of the Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (the OECD Model Convention) that clarify the circumstances under which certain services performed by an enterprise engaged in the operation of ships or aircraft in international traffic may be either ancillary or directly related to such operations, and thereby covered services for purposes of Article 8 of the OECD Model Convention. B. U.S. Income Tax Conventions as Equivalent Exemptions Commentators have also suggested that countries that provide an exemption to U.S. corporations only through an income tax convention with the United States should be treated as granting an equivalent exemption for purposes of section 883. In support of their position, commentators cite the Senate Committee Report to the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (Pub. L. 99-514 (100 Stat. 2085)), which states: The committee intends that a country which, as a result of a treaty with the United States, exempts U.S. citizens and domestic corporations from tax in the country on income derived from the operation of ships or aircraft, has an equivalent exemption, even though the treaty technically contains certain additional requirements other than residence, such as U.S. registration or documentation of the ship or aircraft. (S. Rep. No. 99-313, at 343-44 (1986)) Prior to 2001, a foreign country that provided an exemption from taxation for income from the international operation of ships or aircraft through an income tax convention was treated as granting an equivalent exemption for purposes of section 883. See Rev. Rul. 89-42 (1989-1 CB 234); Rev. Rul. 97-31 (1997-2 CB 77) (supplementing Rev. Rul. 89-42). In 2001, however, the IRS and the Treasury Department reconsidered this position, and concluded that an exemption under an income tax convention could not constitute an equivalent exemption for purposes of section 883(a) because the Code and income tax conventions have different eligibility requirements, and provide exemptions that vary in scope. See Rev. Rul. 2001-48 (2001-2 CB 324) (modifying and superseding Rev. Rul. 97-31). The position taken in Rev. Rul. 2001-48 was incorporated into § 1.883-1(h)(3)(i) of the final regulations. See § 601.601(d)(2). C. Reporting Requirements Related to Qualified Shareholder Stock Ownership Test In connection with the substantiation and reporting requirements for the qualified shareholder stock ownership test under § 1.883-4(a), the IRS and the Treasury Department have continued to receive comments expressing concern over the requirement that the names and addresses of individual shareholders with large shareholdings (at least 5 percent) in corporations relying on this ownership test be disclosed on Form 1120-F. Recent comments have suggested that in lieu of providing such names and addresses, taxpayers should be permitted to submit a sworn statement by a U.S. tax practitioner subject to Circular 230 with their return that states that the taxpayer satisfies the qualified shareholder stock ownership test, and that the names and addresses of shareholders with large shareholdings are available for inspection by the IRS at the office of that such practitioner. Explanation of Provisions These temporary regulations incorporate the rules of Notice 2006-43 and also address a number of comments that have been received concerning other portions of the existing section 883 regulations. 1. Modifications to the Income Inclusion Test These temporary regulations generally adopt the qualified U.S. person ownership test contained in Notice 2006-43. A CFC meets the qualified U.S. person ownership test in § 1.883-3T(b)(1) only if more than 50 percent of the total value of all the outstanding stock of the CFC is owned (within the meaning of section 958(a), as modified in § 1.883-3T(b)(4)), by one or more qualified U.S. persons. The term *qualified U.S. person* means a U.S. citizen, resident alien, domestic corporation, or domestic trust described in section 501(a). For purposes of applying the qualified U.S. person ownership test, the value of the stock of the CFC that is owned (directly or indirectly) through bearer shares is not taken into account in the numerator, but is taken into account in the denominator to determine the portion of the overall stock value that is owned by qualified U.S. persons. Section 1.883-3T(b)(3). For purposes of applying the qualified U.S. person ownership test, the attribution rules of section 958(a) will apply to determine the ownership interests of qualified U.S. persons held through foreign entities. In addition, the temporary regulations extend the attribution rules of section 958(a) to domestic partnerships, domestic trusts not described in section 501(a), and domestic estates. In the case of these domestic entities, stock will be treated as owned proportionately by the partners, beneficiaries, grantors, or other interest holders in such entities, respectively, applying the rules of section 958(a) as if the domestic partnership, estate, or trust were a foreign partnership, estate, or trust, respectively. The regulations also contain conforming changes to the substantiation and reporting provisions in this section to reflect the new qualified U.S. person ownership test for CFCs. A CFC that fails this test will not be a qualified foreign corporation unless it meets either the publicly-traded test of § 1.883-2(a) or the qualified shareholder stock ownership test of § 1.883-4(a). 2. Activities Incidental to the International Operation of Ships or Aircraft The IRS and the Treasury Department recognize that guidance is needed on the extent to which ground services that are conducted by foreign corporations engaged in the international operation of ships or aircraft are so closely related to such operation that they are considered activities incidental to the international operation of ships or aircraft. Section 1.883-1T(g)(1)(xi) treats the provision of goods and services by engineers, ground and equipment maintenance staff, cargo handlers, catering staff, and customer services personnel, and the provision of facilities such as passenger lounges, counter space, ground handling equipment, and hanger facilities as activities incidental to the international operation of a ship or aircraft. The regulations also make clear that such services will be treated as incidental, whether provided to another enterprise as part of a pooling arrangement, alliance, or other joint venture. 3. Countries Providing an Exemption Only Through an Income Tax Convention In response to comments and further study, the IRS and the Treasury Department believe that it is appropriate to provide additional guidance on when a country that only provides for an exemption by means of an income tax convention with the United States will be considered as granting an equivalent exemption for purposes of section 883(a). Section 1.883-1(h)(1), which sets forth the various bases on which equivalent exemptions may be claimed, is broadened by § 1.883-1T(h)(1)(ii) to include a domestic tax law exemption by income tax convention. Section 1.883-1T(h)(3) sets out the conditions under which an exemption under an income tax convention may constitute an equivalent exemption. If a foreign country provides an exemption from tax under a shipping and air transport or gains article of an income tax convention with the United States, and it does not otherwise provide an equivalent exemption through a diplomatic note, domestic statutory law, or by generally not imposing income tax on foreign corporations engaged in the international operation of ships or aircraft, a corporation organized in that country may treat that income tax convention as providing an equivalent exemption for purposes of section 883, but only if the foreign corporation meets all the conditions for claiming benefits with respect to such income under the income tax convention, and the category of income for which the convention grants benefits is also described in § 1.883-1(h)(2). For example, if a foreign corporation is seeking an exemption with respect to non-incidental container-related income, it may not treat an exemption provided by an income tax convention for that type of income as an equivalent exemption, because that category of income is not listed in § 1.883-1(h)(2). Equivalent exemptions are determined separately with respect to each category of income listed in § 1.883-1(h)(2). As a result, the foreign corporation may treat an exemption under an income tax convention with respect to another category of income that is listed in § 1.883-1(h)(2) (for example, incidental bareboat charter income) as an equivalent exemption for purposes of section 883. A foreign corporation that is entitled to treat an income tax convention as providing an equivalent exemption with respect to a particular category of income under § 1.883-1T(h)(1)(ii) will not always qualify for an exclusion from gross income under section 883. For example, a corporation that is a resident of a foreign country for purposes of an income tax convention because that is where it is managed and controlled is not a qualified foreign corporation under § 1.883-1(c)(1), and may not claim an exclusion from gross income under section 883, if it is not also organized in that country. Similarly, a foreign corporation that does not meet one of the stock ownership tests described in § 1.883-1(c)(2) is not a qualified foreign corporation under § 1.883-1(c)(1), and may not claim an exclusion from gross income under section 883, even though it would satisfy the limitation on benefits article under the relevant convention. 4. Countries That Provide an Exemption Through an Income Tax Convention and by Other Means As provided in the final regulations, a foreign corporation that qualifies for an exemption from tax under an income tax convention and an equivalent exemption under section 883 through a diplomatic note, domestic statutory law, or by generally imposing no income tax on foreign corporations engaged in the international operation of ships or aircraft will continue to have the choice of whether to claim an exemption under the income tax convention or under section 883. Section 1.883-1T(h)(3)(ii)(A). If a foreign corporation chooses to claim an exemption under an income tax convention, it may also choose to claim an exemption under section 883 for any category of income listed in § 1.883-1(h)(2), to the extent that such income is also exempt under an income tax convention. Section 1.883-1T(h)(3)(ii)(B). The rules provided in § 1.883-1(h)(3)(iii) of the final regulations for certain joint ventures also continue in modified form. A foreign corporation resident in a country that only provides an exemption through an income tax convention with the United States, and that participates in a joint venture entity that is fiscally transparent for U.S. tax purposes but not under the law of the treaty jurisdiction, will not be able to take advantage of the new rules on equivalent exemptions under income tax conventions, and must rely on § 1.883-1T(h)(3)(iii). 5. Reporting Requirements Related to Qualified Shareholder Stock Ownership Test Upon further study and review, the IRS and the Treasury Department have decided to bring the disclosure required under each of the stock ownership tests provided in § 1.883-1(c)(2) into greater accord with the disclosure required for comparable stock ownership tests with similar tax policy objectives. For example, reporting in conjunction with the stock ownership tests found in the branch profits tax regulations and limitation on benefits articles in U.S. income tax conventions does not require the disclosure of certain shareholder names and addresses to the IRS. See § 1.884-5 and Form 8833, “Treaty-Based Return Position Disclosure Under Section 6114 or 7701(b).” Consequently, these regulations have eliminated the requirement that the names and addresses of shareholders in corporations relying on the various stock ownership tests in § 1.883-1(c)(1) (that is, under the closely held exception to the publicly-traded test, the CFC stock ownership test, and the qualified shareholder stock ownership test) be disclosed on Form 1120-F. See §§ 1.883-2T(e), 1.883-3T(c), and 1.883-4T(d). Foreign corporations will continue to have to report on Form 1120-F certain summary information regarding the shareholdings that are relied upon to satisfy the applicable stock ownership test (for example, aggregate percentage of interests held by shareholders by country of residence). Under new § 1.883-1T(c)(3)(i)(G), they also will have to report whether any shareholder whose stock holdings are relied upon to meet an ownership test holds such stock either directly or indirectly through bearer shares. In addition, each qualified shareholder and intermediary (if any) must declare under penalties of perjury that its ownership interest in the foreign corporation or any corporate intermediary is not held through bearer shares. Conforming amendments to the substantiation and documentation requirements in §§ 1.883-2T(e) and 1.883-4T(d)(4) have been made. Commentators suggested alternative methods for making the names and addresses of 5-percent shareholders available to the IRS. However, these methods were not adopted due to the complexity of the regimes proposed, and questions as to whether such approaches would in fact address the commentators' concerns. Instead, the IRS and the Treasury Department chose to rely on procedures already in place in § 1.883-1(c)(3) and as modified by § 1.883-1T(c)(3), which requires, among other things, that a foreign corporation obtain ownership statements to document and substantiate all representations it has made on Form 1120-F, and that it provide substantiating documentation in response to a written request from the Commissioner. Such information must be provided to the IRS within 30 days (rather than the 60 days allowed by § 1.883-1(c)(3)) of a written request by the Commissioner, because the names and addresses of relevant shareholders will no longer be provided on the Form 1120-F by taxpayers. See § 1.883-1T(c)(3). The IRS and the Treasury Department believe that these revised reporting rules will simultaneously reduce disclosure concerns raised by taxpayers and encourage greater reporting of the information the IRS needs to administer section 883. The IRS and the Treasury Department also believe these changes, in conjunction with the remaining reporting requirements in §§ 1.883-2(f), 1.883-2T(f), 1.883-3T(d), 1.883-4(e), and 1.883-4T(e), will provide sufficient information to ensure the sound and efficient administration of section 883. Effective Dates See § 1.883-5T(d) for effective date of these temporary regulations and § 1.883-5T(e) for applicability dates that apply to these temporary regulations. Effect on Other Documents The following publications are modified as of June 25, 2007: Notice 2006-43 (2006-21 IRB 921 (May 22, 2006)) Rev. Rul. 2001-48 (2001-2 CB 324) 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 has also been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations. For applicability of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6), please refer to the Special Analyses section of the preamble to the cross-reference notice of proposed rulemaking published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** . Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, these regulations were submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on their impact on small business. Drafting Information The principal author of these regulations is Patricia A. Bray of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (International). However, other personnel from the IRS and the Treasury Department participated in their development. List of Subjects 26 CFR Part 1 Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 26 CFR Part 602 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Amendments to the Regulations Accordingly, 26 CFR parts 1 and 602 are 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 1.883-0 is amended by: 1. Revising the entries for § 1.883-1(g)(3) and (h)(3). 2. Revising the entry for § 1.883-2(e)(2). 3. Revising the entry for § 1.883-3. 4. Adding the entries for § 1.883-5(d) and (e). The revisions and additions read as follows: § 1.883-0 Outline of major topics. § 1.883-1 Exclusion of income from the international operation of ships or aircraft.
(g)* * *
(3)[Reserved]. For further guidance, see the entry for § 1.883-1T(g)(3).
(h)* * *
(3)[Reserved]. For further guidance, see the entries for § 1.883-1T(h)(3). § 1.883-2 Treatment of publicly-traded corporations. (e)(2) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see the entry for § 1.883-2T(e)(2). § 1.883-3 Treatment of controlled foreign corporations. [Reserved]. For further guidance, see the entry for § 1.883-3T. § 1.883-5 Effective/applicability dates.
(d)[Reserved]. For further guidance, see the entry for § 1.883-5T(d).
(e)[Reserved]. For further guidance, see the entry for § 1.883-5T(e). **Par. 3.** Section 1.883-0T is added to read as follows: § 1.883-0T Outline of major topics (temporary). This section lists the major paragraphs contained in §§ 1.883-1T through 1.883-5T. § 1.883-1T Exclusion of income from the international operation of ships or aircraft (temporary).
(a)through (c)(3)(i) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see entries for § 1.883-1(a) through (c)(3)(i).
(ii)Further documentation.
(A)General rule.
(B)Names and addresses of certain shareholders. (c)(4) through (g)(2) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see entries for § 1.883-1(c)(4) through (g)(2).
(3)Other services. [Reserved]. (g)(4) through (h)(2) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see entries for § 1.883-1(g)(4) through (h)(2).
(3)Special rules with respect to income tax conventions.
(i)Countries with only an income tax convention.
(ii)Countries with both an income tax convention and an equivalent exemption.
(A)General rule.
(B)Special rule for simultaneous benefits under section 883 and an income tax convention.
(iii)Participation in certain joint ventures.
(iv)Independent interpretation of income tax conventions. (h)(4) through
(j)[Reserved]. For further guidance, see entries for § 1.883-1(h)(4) through (j). § 1.883-2T Treatment of publicly-traded corporations (temporary).
(a)through (e)(1) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see entries for § 1.883-2(a) through (e)(1).
(2)Availability and retention of documents for inspection.
(f)[Reserved]. For further guidance, see entry for § 1.883-2(f). § 1.883-3T Treatment of controlled foreign corporations (temporary).
(a)General rule.
(b)Qualified U.S. person ownership test.
(1)General rule.
(2)Qualified U.S. person.
(3)Treatment of bearer shares.
(4)Attribution of ownership through certain domestic entities.
(5)Examples.
(c)Substantiation of CFC stock ownership.
(1)In general.
(2)Ownership statements from qualified U.S. persons.
(3)Ownership statements from intermediaries.
(4)Three-year period of validity.
(5)Availability and retention of documents for inspection.
(d)Reporting requirements. § 1.883-5T Effective/applicability dates (temporary).
(a)through
(c)[Reserved]. For further guidance, see entries for § 1.883-5(a) through (c).
(d)Effective date.
(e)Applicability dates.
(f)Expiration date. **Par. 4.** Section 1.883-1 is amended by: 1. Revising paragraphs (c)(3)(i)(D), (c)(3)(ii), (g)(1)(ix), (g)(1)(x), (g)(3), (h)(1)(ii), and (h)(3). 2. Revising paragraphs (c)(3)(i)(G) and (H). 3. Adding new paragraph (c)(3)(i)(I). 4. Adding paragraph (g)(1)(xi). 5. Revising paragraph (g)(3). The revisions and additions read as follows: § 1.883-1 Exclusion of income from the international operation of ships or aircraft.
(c)* * *
(3)* * *
(i)* * *
(D)[Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.883-1T(c)(3)(i)(D).
(G)through
(I)[Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.883-1T(c)(3)(i)(G) through (I).
(ii)[Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.883-1T(c)(3)(ii).
(g)* * *
(1)* * *
(ix)through
(xi)[Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.883-1T(g)(1)(ix) through (xi).
(2)* * *
(3)[Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.883-1T(g)(3).
(h)* * *
(1)* * *
(ii)[Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.883-1T(h)(1)(ii).
(3)[Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.883-1T(h)(3). **Par. 5.** Section 1.883-1T is added to read as follows: § 1.883-1T Exclusion of income from the international operation of ships or aircraft (temporary).
(a)through (c)(3)(i)(C) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.883-1(a) through (c)(3)(i)(C).
(D)The applicable authority for an equivalent exemption, for example, the citation of a statute in the country where the corporation is organized, a diplomatic note between the United States and such country, or an income tax convention between the United States and such country in the case of a corporation described in paragraphs (h)(3)(i) through
(iii)of this section; (c)(3)(i)(E) through
(F)[Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.883-1(c)(3)(i)(E) through (F).
(G)A statement that none of the foreign corporation's shares or shares of any intermediary entity, if any, that are held by qualified shareholders and relied on to satisfy any of the stock ownership tests described in § 1.883-1(c)(2) are issued in bearer form;
(H)Any other information required under § 1.883-2(f), § 1.883-2T(f), § 1.883-3T(d), § 1.883-4(e), or § 1.883-4T(e), as applicable; and
(I)Any other relevant information specified in Form 1120-F, “U.S. Income Tax Return of a Foreign Corporation,” and its accompanying instructions.
(ii)*Further documentation* —(A) *General rule.* Except as provided in this paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(B), if the Commissioner requests in writing that the foreign corporation document or substantiate representations made under paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section, or under § 1.883-2(f), § 1.883-2T(f), § 1.883-3T(d), § 1.883-4(e), or § 1.883-4T(e), as applicable, the foreign corporation must provide the documentation or substantiation within 60 days following the written request. If the foreign corporation does not provide the documentation and substantiation requested within the 60-day period, but demonstrates that the failure was due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect, the Commissioner may grant the foreign corporation a 30-day extension. Whether a failure to obtain the documentation or substantiation in a timely manner was due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect shall be determined by the Commissioner after considering all the facts and circumstances.
(B)*Names and addresses of certain shareholders.* If the Commissioner requests the names and permanent addresses of individual qualified shareholders of a foreign corporation, as represented on each such individual's ownership statement, to substantiate the requirements of the exception to the closely-held test in the publicly-traded test in § 1.883-2(e), the qualified shareholder stock ownership test in § 1.883-4(a), or the qualified U.S. person ownership test in § 1.883-3T(b), the foreign corporation must provide the documentation and substantiation within 30 days following the written request. If the foreign corporation does not provide the documentation and substantiation within the 30-day period, but demonstrates that the failure was due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect, the Commissioner may grant the foreign corporation a 30-day extension. Whether a failure to obtain the documentation or substantiation in a timely manner was due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect shall be determined by the Commissioner after considering all the facts and circumstances. (c)(4) through (g)(1)(viii) [Reserved]. For further guidance see § 1.883-1(c)(4) through (g)(1)(viii).
(ix)Arranging by means of a space or slot charter for the carriage of cargo listed on a bill of lading or airway bill or similar document issued by the foreign corporation on the ship or aircraft of another corporation engaged in the international operation of ships or aircraft;
(x)The provision of containers and related equipment by the foreign corporation in connection with the international carriage of cargo for use by its customers, including short-term use within the United States immediately preceding or following the international carriage of cargo (and for this purpose, a period of five days or less shall be presumed to be short-term); and
(xi)The provision of goods and services by engineers, ground and equipment maintenance staff, cargo handlers, catering staff, and customer services personnel, and the provision of facilities such as passenger lounges, counter space, ground handling equipment, and hanger facilities.
(2)[Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.883-1(g)(2).
(3)*Other services.* [Reserved]. (g)(4) through (h)(1)(i) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.883-1(g)(4) through (h)(1)(i).
(ii)Specifically provides a domestic law tax exemption for income derived from the international operation of ships or aircraft, either by statute, decree, income tax convention, or otherwise; or (h)(1)(iii) and (h)(2) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.883-1(h)(1)(iii) and (h)(2).
(3)*Special rules with respect to income tax conventions* —(i) *Countries with only an income tax convention.* If a foreign country only provides an exemption from tax for profits from the operation of ships or aircraft in international transport or international traffic under the shipping and air transport or gains article of an income tax convention with the United States, a foreign corporation organized in that country may treat that exemption as an equivalent exemption for purposes of section 883, but only if—
(A)The foreign corporation meets all the conditions for claiming benefits with respect to such profits under the income tax convention; and
(B)The profits that are exempt pursuant to the income tax convention also fall within a category of income described in paragraphs (h)(2)(i) through
(viii)of this section.
(ii)*Countries with both an income tax convention and an equivalent exemption* —(A) *General rule.* If a foreign country provides an exemption from tax for profits from the operation of ships or aircraft in international transport or international traffic under the shipping and air transport or gains article of an income tax convention, and that foreign country also provides an equivalent exemption under section 883 by some other means for one or more categories of income under paragraph (h)(2) of this section, the foreign corporation may choose annually whether to claim an exemption under section 883 or the income tax convention. Except as provided in this paragraph (h)(3)(ii)(B), any such choice will apply with respect to all categories of qualified income of the foreign corporation and cannot be made separately with respect to different categories of income. If a foreign corporation bases its claim for an exemption on section 883, it must satisfy all of the requirements of this section to qualify for an exemption from U.S. income tax. If the foreign corporation bases its claim for an exemption on an income tax convention, it must satisfy all of the requirements for claiming benefits under the income tax convention. See § 1.883-4(b)(3) for rules about satisfying the stock ownership test of § 1.883-1(c)(2) using shareholders resident in a foreign country that offers an exemption under an income tax convention.
(B)*Special rule for simultaneous benefits under section 883 and an income tax convention.* If a foreign corporation is organized in a foreign country that offers an exemption from tax under an income tax convention and also by some other means, such as by diplomatic note or domestic statutory law, with respect to the same category of income, and the foreign corporation chooses to claim an exemption under an income tax convention under paragraph (h)(3)(ii)(A) of this section, it may simultaneously claim an exemption under section 883 with respect to a category of income exempt from tax by such other means if it satisfies the requirements of paragraphs (h)(3)(i)(A) and
(B)of this section for each category of income, satisfies one of the stock ownership tests of paragraph (c)(2) of this section, and complies with the substantiation and reporting requirements in paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
(iii)*Participation in certain joint ventures.* A foreign corporation resident in a foreign country that provides an exemption only through an income tax convention will not be precluded from treating that exemption as an equivalent exemption if it derives income through a participation, directly or indirectly, in a pool, partnership, strategic alliance, joint operating agreement, code-sharing arrangement, or other joint venture described in § 1.883-1(e)(2), and the foreign corporation would be ineligible to claim benefits under the convention for that category of income solely because the joint venture was not fiscally transparent, within the meaning of § 1.894-1(d)(3)(iii)(A), with respect to that category of income under the income tax laws of the foreign corporation's country of residence.
(iv)*Independent interpretation of income tax conventions.* Nothing in §§ 1.883-1 through 1.883-5, or in this section and §§ 1.883-2T through 1.883-5T, affects the rights or obligations under any income tax convention. The definitions provided in §§ 1.883-1 through 1.883-5, or in this section and §§ 1.883-2T through 1.883-5T, shall not give meaning to similar terms used in any income tax convention, or provide guidance regarding the scope of any exemption provided by such convention, unless the income tax convention entered into force after August 26, 2003, and it, or its legislative history, explicitly refers to section 883 and guidance promulgated under that section for its meaning. **Par. 6.** Section 1.883-2 is amended by revising paragraphs (e)(2), (f)(3), and (f)(4)(ii) to read as follows: § 1.883-2 Treatment of publicly-traded corporations.
(e)* * *
(2)[Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.883-2T(e)(2).
(f)* * *
(3)[Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.883-2T(f)(3).
(4)* * *
(ii)[Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.883-2T(f)(4)(ii). **Par. 7.** Section 1.883-2T is added to read as follows: § 1.883-2T Treatment of publicly-traded corporations (temporary).
(a)through (e)(1) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.883-2(a) through (e)(1).
(2)*Availability and retention of documents for inspection.* The documentation described in § 1.883-2(e)(1) must be retained by the corporation seeking qualified foreign corporation status until the expiration of the statute of limitations for the taxable year of the foreign corporation to which the documentation relates. Such documentation must be made available for inspection by the Commissioner at such time and such place as the Commissioner may request in writing in accordance with § 1.883-1T(c)(3)(ii)(A) or (B), as applicable.
(f)through (f)(2) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.883-2(f) through (f)(2).
(3)A description of each class of stock relied upon to meet the requirements of § 1.883-2(d), including whether the class of stock is issued in registered or bearer form, the number of issued and outstanding shares in that class of stock as of the close of the taxable year, and the value of each class of stock in relation to the total value of all the corporation's shares outstanding as of the close of the taxable year;
(4)and (4)(i) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.883-2(f)(4) and (f)(4)(i).
(ii)With respect to all qualified shareholders who own directly, or by application of the attribution rules in § 1.883-4(c), stock in the closely-held block of stock upon which the corporation intends to rely to satisfy the exception to the closely-held test of § 1.883-2(d)(3)(ii)—
(A)The total number of qualified shareholders, as defined in § 1.883-4(b)(1);
(B)The total percentage of the value of the shares owned, directly or indirectly, by such qualified shareholders by country of residence, determined under § 1.883-4(b)(2) (residence of individual shareholders) or § 1.883-4(d)(3) (special rules for residence of certain shareholders); and
(C)The days during the taxable year of the corporation that such qualified shareholders owned, directly or indirectly, their shares in the closely held block of stock.
(5)[Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.883-2(f)(5). **Par. 8.** Section 1.883-3 is revised to read as follows: § 1.883-3 Treatment of controlled foreign corporations. [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.883-3T. **Par. 9.** Section 1.883-3T is added to read as follows: § 1.883-3T Treatment of controlled foreign corporations (temporary).
(a)*General rule.* A foreign corporation satisfies the stock ownership test of § 1.883-1(c)(2) if it is a controlled foreign corporation (as defined in section 957(a)), satisfies the qualified U.S. person ownership test in paragraph
(b)of this section, and satisfies the substantiation and reporting requirements of paragraphs
(c)and
(d)of this section, respectively. A CFC that fails the qualified U.S. person ownership test of paragraph
(b)of this section will not satisfy the stock ownership test of § 1.883-1(c)(2) unless it meets either the publicly-traded test of § 1.883-2(a) or the qualified shareholder stock ownership test of § 1.883-4(a).
(b)*Qualified U.S. person ownership test* —(1) *General rule.* A foreign corporation will satisfy the requirements of the qualified U.S. person ownership test only if it—
(i)Is a CFC for more than half the days in the corporation's taxable year; and
(ii)More than 50 percent of the total value of its outstanding stock is owned (within the meaning of section 958(a) and paragraph (b)(4) of this section) by one or more qualified U.S. persons for more than half the days of the CFC's taxable year, provided such days of ownership are concurrent with the time period during which the foreign corporation satisfies the requirement in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section.
(2)*Qualified U.S. person.* For purposes of this section, the term *qualified U.S. person* means a U.S. citizen, resident alien, domestic corporation, or domestic trust described in section 501(a), but only if the person provides the CFC with an ownership statement as described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, and the CFC meets the reporting requirements of paragraph
(d)of this section with respect to that person.
(3)Treatment of bearer shares. For purposes of applying the qualified U.S. person ownership test, the value of the stock of a CFC that is owned (directly or indirectly) through bearer shares by qualified U.S. persons is not taken into account in the numerator of the fraction, but is taken into account in the denominator to determine the portion of the value of stock owned by qualified U.S. persons.
(4)*Attribution of ownership through certain domestic entities.* For purposes of applying the qualified U.S. person ownership test of paragraph (b)(1) of this section, stock owned, directly or indirectly, by or for a domestic partnership, domestic trust not described in section 501(a), or domestic estate, shall be treated as owned proportionately by its partners, beneficiaries, grantors, or other interest holders, respectively, applying the rules of section 958(a) as if such domestic entity were a foreign entity. Stock considered to be owned by a person by reason of the preceding sentence shall, for purposes of applying such sentence, be treated as actually owned by such person.
(5)*Examples.* The qualified U.S. person ownership test of paragraph (b)(1) of this section is illustrated in the following examples: Example 1. Ship Co is a CFC for more than half the days of Ship Co's taxable year. Ship Co is organized in a qualified foreign country. All of its shares are owned by a domestic partnership for the entire taxable year. All of the partners in the domestic partnership are citizens and residents of foreign countries. Ship Co fails the qualified U.S. person ownership test of paragraph (b)(1) of this section because none of the value of Ship Co's stock is owned, applying the attribution rules of paragraph (b)(4) of this section, for at least half the number of days of Ship Co's taxable year, by one or more qualified U.S. persons. Therefore, Ship Co must satisfy the qualified shareholder stock ownership test of § 1.883-4(a) in order to satisfy the stock ownership test of § 1.883-1(c)(2), and be considered a qualified foreign corporation. Example 2. Ship Co is a CFC for more than half the days of its taxable year. Ship Co is organized in a qualified foreign country. Corp A, a foreign corporation whose stock is owned by a citizen and resident of a foreign country, owns 40 percent of the value of the stock of Ship Co for the entire taxable year. X, a domestic partnership, owns the remaining 60 percent of the value of the stock of Ship Co for Ship Co's entire taxable year. X is owned by 20 partners, all of whom are U.S. citizens and each of whom has owned a 5-percent interest in X for the entire taxable year of Ship Co. Ship Co satisfies the qualified U.S. person ownership test of paragraph (b)(1) of this section because 60 percent of the value of the stock of Ship Co is owned, applying the attribution of ownership rules of paragraph (b)(4) of this section, for at least half the number of days of Ship Co's taxable year by the partners of X, who are all qualified U.S. persons as defined in paragraph (b)(2) of this section. If Ship Co satisfies the substantiation and reporting requirements of paragraphs
(c)and
(d)of this section, it will meet the stock ownership test of § 1.883-1(c)(2). Example 3. Ship Co is a foreign corporation organized in a qualified foreign country. Ship Co has two classes of stock, Class A representing 60 percent of the vote and value of all the shares outstanding of Ship Co, and Class B representing the remaining 40 percent of the vote and value of Ship Co. A, a U.S. citizen, holds for the entire taxable year all of the Class A stock, which is issued in bearer form, and B, a nonresident alien, owns all the Class B stock, which is in registered form. Ship Co cannot satisfy the qualified U.S. person ownership test of paragraph (b)(1) of this section because A's bearer shares cannot be taken into account as being owned by a qualified U.S. person in determining if the qualified U.S. person ownership test has been met; the shares are, however, taken into account in determining the total value of Ship Co's outstanding shares.
(c)*Substantiation of CFC stock ownership* —(1) *In general.* A foreign corporation that relies on this CFC test to satisfy the stock ownership test of § 1.883-1(c)(2) must establish all the facts necessary to demonstrate to the Commissioner that it satisfies the qualified U.S. person ownership test of paragraph (b)(1) of this section. Specifically, the CFC must obtain a written ownership statement, signed under penalties of perjury by an individual authorized to sign that person's Federal tax or information return, from—
(i)Each qualified U.S. person upon whose stock ownership it relies to meet this test; and
(ii)Each domestic intermediary described in paragraph (b)(4) of this section, each foreign intermediary (including a foreign corporation, partnership, trust, or estate), and mere legal owners or record holders acting as nominees standing in the chain of ownership between each such qualified U.S. person and the CFC, if any.
(2)*Ownership statements from qualified U.S. persons.* A qualified U.S. person ownership statement must contain the following information:
(i)The qualified U.S. person's name, permanent address, and taxpayer identification number.
(ii)If the qualified U.S. person owns shares directly in the CFC, the number of shares of each class of stock of the CFC owned by the qualified person, the period of time during the taxable year of the CFC when the person owned the stock, and a representation that its interest in the CFC is not held through bearer shares.
(iii)If the qualified person owns an indirect interest in the CFC through an intermediary described in paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section, the name of that intermediary, the amount and nature of the interest in the intermediary, the period of time during the taxable year of the CFC when the person held such interest, and, in the case of an interest in a foreign corporate intermediary, a representation that such interest is not held through bearer shares.
(iv)Any other information as specified in guidance published by the Internal Revenue Service (see § 601.601(d)(2) of this chapter).
(3)*Ownership statements from intermediaries.* An intermediary ownership statement required of an intermediary described in paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section must contain the following information:
(i)The intermediary's name, permanent address, and taxpayer identification number, if any.
(ii)If the intermediary directly owns stock in the CFC, the number of shares of each class of stock of the CFC owned by the intermediary, the period of time during the taxable year of the CFC when the intermediary owned the stock, and a representation that such interest is not held through bearer shares.
(iii)If the intermediary indirectly owns the stock of the CFC, the name and address of each intermediary standing in the chain of ownership between it and the CFC, the period of time during the taxable year of the CFC when the intermediary owned the interest, the percentage of interest it holds indirectly in the CFC, and, in the case of a foreign corporate intermediary, a representation that its interest is not held through bearer shares.
(iv)Any other information as specified in guidance published by the Internal Revenue Service (see § 601.601(d)(2) of this chapter).
(4)*Three-year period of validity.* The rules of § 1.883-4(d)(2)(ii) apply for purposes of determining the validity of the ownership statements required under paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
(5)*Availability and retention of documents for inspection.* The documentation described in this paragraph
(c)must be retained by the corporation seeking qualified foreign corporation status (the CFC) until the expiration of the statute of limitations for the taxable year of the CFC to which the documentation relates. Such documentation must be made available for inspection by the Commissioner at such place as the Commissioner may request in writing in accordance with § 1.883-1T(c)(3)(ii).
(d)*Reporting requirements.* A foreign corporation that relies on the CFC test of this section to satisfy the stock ownership test of § 1.883-1(c)(2) must provide the following information in addition to the information required by § 1.883-1(c)(3) to be included in its Form 1120-F, “U.S. Income Tax Return of a Foreign Corporation,” for the taxable year. The information must be based upon the documentation received by the foreign corporation pursuant to paragraph
(c)of this section and must be current as of the end of the corporation's taxable year—
(1)The percentage of the value of the shares of the CFC that is owned by all qualified U.S. persons identified in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, applying the attribution of ownership rules of paragraph (b)(4) of this section;
(2)The period during which such qualified U.S. persons held such stock;
(3)The period during which the foreign corporation was a CFC;
(4)A statement that the CFC is directly held by qualified U.S. persons and does not have any bearer shares outstanding or, in the alternative, that it is not relying on direct or indirect ownership of such shares to meet the qualified U.S. person ownership test; and
(5)Any other relevant information specified by Form 1120-F, and its accompanying instructions, or in guidance published by the Internal Revenue Service (see § 601.601(d)(2) of this chapter). **Par. 10.** Section 1.883-4 is amended by: 1. Revising paragraphs (d)(4)(i)(C) and (d)(4)(i)(D). 2. Removing paragraph (e)(2). 3. Redesignating paragraphs (e)(3) and (e)(4) as paragraphs (e)(2) and (e)(3), respectively, and revising them. The revisions read as follows: § 1.883-4 Qualified shareholder stock ownership test.
(d)* * *
(4)* * *
(i)* * *
(C)and
(D)[Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.883-4T(d)(4)(i)(C) and (D).
(e)* * *
(2)and
(3)[Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.883-4T(e)(2) and (3). **Par. 11.** Section 1.883-4T is added to read as follows: § 1.883-4T Qualified shareholder stock ownership test (temporary).
(a)through (d)(4)(i)(B) [Reserved]. For further guidance see § 1.883-4(a) through (d)(4)(i)(B).
(C)If the individual directly owns stock in the corporation seeking qualified foreign corporation status, the name of the corporation, the number of shares in each class of stock of the corporation that are so owned, with a statement that such shares are not issued in bearer form, and the period of time during the taxable year of the foreign corporation when the individual owned the stock;
(D)If the individual directly owns an interest in a corporation, partnership, trust, estate, or other intermediary that directly or indirectly owns stock in the corporation seeking qualified foreign corporation status, the name of the intermediary, the number and class of shares or the amount and nature of the interest of the individual in such intermediary, and, in the case of a corporate intermediary, a statement that such shares are not held in bearer form, and the period of time during the taxable year of the foreign corporation seeking qualified foreign corporation status when the individual held such interest; (d)(4)(i)(E) through (e)(1) [Reserved]. For further guidance see § 1.883-4(d)(4)(i)(E) through (e)(1).
(2)With respect to all qualified shareholders relied upon to satisfy the 50 percent ownership test of § 1.883-4(a), the total number of such qualified shareholders as defined in § 1.883-4(b)(1); the total percentage of the value of the outstanding shares owned, applying the attribution rules of § 1.883-4(c), by such qualified shareholders by country of residence or organization, whichever is applicable; and the period during the taxable year of the foreign corporation that such stock was held by qualified shareholders; and
(3)Any other relevant information specified by the Form 1120-F, “U.S. Income Tax Return of a Foreign Corporation,” and its accompanying instructions, or in guidance published by the Internal Revenue Service (see § 601.601(d)(2) of this chapter). **Par. 12.** Section 1.883-5 is amended by revising the heading and adding paragraphs
(d)and
(e)to read as follows: § 1.883-5 Effective/applicability dates.
(d)through
(e)[Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.883-5T(d) through (e). **Par. 13.** Section 1.883-5T is added to read as follows: § 1.883-5T Effective/applicability dates (temporary).
(a)through
(c)[Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.883-5(a) through (c).
(d)*Effective date.* These regulations are effective on June 25, 2007.
(e)*Applicability dates.* Sections 1.883-1T, 1.883-2T, 1.883-3T, and 1.883-4T are applicable to taxable years of the foreign corporation beginning after June 25, 2007. Taxpayers may elect to apply § 1.883-3T to any open taxable years of the foreign corporation beginning on or after December 31, 2004.
(f)*Expiration date.* The applicability of §§ 1.883-1T, 1.883-2T, 1.883-3T, and 1.883-4T expires on or before June 22, 2010. PART 602—OMB CONTROL NUMBERS UNDER THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT **Par. 14.** The authority citation for part 602 continues to read as follows: Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805. **Par. 15.** In § 602.101, paragraph
(b)is amended by adding entries in numerical order to the table to read as follows: § 602.101 OMB Control numbers.
(b)* * * CFR part or section where identified and described Current OMB Control No. * * * * * § 1.883-1T 1545-1667 § 1.883-2T 1545-1667 § 1.883-3T 1545-1667 § 1.883-4T 1545-1667 § 1.883-5T 1545-1667 * * * * * Kevin M. Brown, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement. Approved: June 14, 2007. Eric Solomon, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (Tax Policy). [FR Doc. E7-12039 Filed 6-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Mine Safety and Health Administration 30 CFR Part 75 RIN 1219-AB52 Sealing of Abandoned Areas AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor. ACTION: Extension of comment period. SUMMARY: The Mine Safety and Health Administration
(MSHA)is extending the comment period for the Emergency Temporary Standard
(ETS)on sealing of abandoned areas of underground coal mines published on May 22, 2007 (72 FR 28796). DATES: The comment period will close on August 17, 2007. ADDRESSES: Comments must be clearly identified and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
(1)*Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
(2)*Electronic mail: zzMSHA-Comments@dol.gov.* Include “RIN 1219-AB52” in the subject line of the message.
(3)*Telefax:*
(202)693-9441. Include “RIN 1219-AB52” in the subject.
(4)*Regular Mail:* MSHA, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, 1100 Wilson Blvd., Room 2350, Arlington, Virginia 22209-3939.
(5)*Hand Delivery or Courier:* MSHA, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, 1100 Wilson Blvd., Room 2350, Arlington, Virginia 22209-3939. Sign in at the receptionist's desk on the 21st floor.
(6)*Docket:* Comments can be accessed electronically at *http://www.msha.gov* under the “Rules and Regs” link. MSHA will post all comments on the Internet without change, including any personal information provided. Comments may also be reviewed at the Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, 1100 Wilson Blvd., Room 2350, Arlington, Virginia. Sign in at the receptionist's desk on the 21st floor. MSHA maintains a listserve that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when rulemaking documents are published in the **Federal Register** . To subscribe to the listserve, go to *http://www.msha.gov/subscriptions/subscribe.aspx.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia W. Silvey, Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, Room 2350, Arlington, Virginia 22209-3939. Ms. Silvey can be reached at *Silvey.Patricia@dol.gov* (Internet E-mail),
(202)693-9440 (voice), or
(202)693-9441 (facsimile). This notice is available on the Internet at *http://www.msha.gov/REGSINFO.HTM.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: MSHA issued an ETS on May 22, 2007, which included hearing dates and a deadline for receiving comments. The comment period was scheduled to close on July 6, 2007, forty-five days from the date of publication, and the last hearing date was scheduled on July 19, 2007. MSHA believes this action allows commenters sufficient time to prepare comments including post-hearing comments. MSHA will accept written comments and other appropriate data for the record from any interested party up to the close of the comment period on August 17, 2007. Dated: June 18, 2007. Richard E. Stickler, Assistant Secretary for Mine Safety and Health. [FR Doc. E7-12242 Filed 6-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-43-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [CGD01-07-072] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Boston Pops Fireworks, Boston, MA AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for the “Boston Pops Esplanade Fireworks” display on July 4, 2007 with a rain date of July 5, 2007 in Boston, Massachusetts, temporarily closing all navigable waters of the Charles River within a four hundred
(400)yard radius of the fireworks launch barges located at approximate position 42°21.28′ N, 071°05.00′ W. The safety zone is necessary to protect the life and property of the maritime public from the potential hazards posed by a fireworks display. The safety zone temporarily prohibits entry into or movement within this portion of the Charles River during its closure period. DATES: This rule is effective from 9 p.m. EDT on July 4, 2007 until 11:30 p.m. EDT on July 4, 2007 with a rain date of July 5, 2007. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket CGD01-07-072 and are available for inspection or copying at Sector Boston, 427 Commercial Street, Boston, MA, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Petty Officer Joseph Yonker, Sector Boston, Waterways Safety and Response Division, at
(617)223-5007. 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 logistics with respect to the fireworks presentation were not determined with sufficient time to draft and publish an NPRM. Any delay encountered in this regulation's effective date would be contrary to the public interest since the safety zone is needed to prevent traffic from transiting a portion of the Charles River during the fireworks display and to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters. 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** . Any delay encountered in this regulation's effective date would be contrary to the public interest since the safety zone is needed to prevent traffic from transiting a portion of the Charles River during the fireworks event thus ensuring that the maritime public is protected from any potential harm associated with such an event. Background and Purpose “Boston 4 Celebrations,” the organization responsible for Boston's Fourth of July event, is holding a fireworks display in honor of Independence Day. This rule establishes a temporary safety zone on the navigable waters of the Charles River within a four hundred
(400)yard radius of the fireworks launch barges located at approximate position 42°21.28′ N, 071°05.00′ W. This safety zone is necessary to protect the maritime public from the dangers posed by this event. It will protect the public by prohibiting entry into or movement within the proscribed portion of the Charles River during the fireworks display. Marine traffic may transit safely outside of the zone during the effective period. The Captain of the Port does not anticipate any negative impact on vessel traffic due to this event. Public notifications will be made prior to and during the effective period via safety marine information broadcasts and Local Notice to Mariners. Discussion of Rule This rule is effective from 9 p.m. EDT on July 4, 2007 until 11:30 p.m. EDT on July 4, 2007 with a rain date of 9 p.m. EDT on July 5, 2007 until 11:30 p.m. EDT on July 5, 2007. Marine traffic may transit safely outside of the safety zone in the majority of the Charles River during the event. Given the limited timeframe of the effective period of the zone, the size of the river and the size of the zone itself, the Captain of the Port anticipates minimal negative impact on vessel traffic due to this event. Public notifications will be made prior to and during the effective period via Local Notice to Mariners and marine information broadcasts. 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 will prevent traffic from transiting a portion of the Charles River during this event, the effect of this rule will not be significant for several reasons: Vessels will be excluded from the area of the safety zone for only two and one-half hours, although vessels will not be able to transit the river in the vicinity of the zone, they will be able to operate in other areas of the river during the effective period; and advance notifications will be made to the local maritime community by marine information broadcasts and Local Notice to Mariners. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this 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 Charles River from 9 p.m. until 11:30 p.m. EDT on July 4, 2007 or the same times on July 5, 2007 as a rain date. This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the reasons described under the Regulatory Evaluation section. Assistance for Small Entities Under subsection 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 [Pub. L. 104-121], the Coast Guard wants to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. If this rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call Petty Officer Joseph Yonker, Sector Boston, Waterways Management Division, at
(617)223-5007. 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. This rule fits the category selected from paragraph (34)(g), as it would establish a safety zone that will be in effect for only two and one-half hours. 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; 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.T07-072 to read as follows: § 165.T01-072 Safety Zone: Boston Pops Fireworks, Boston, Massachusetts.
(a)*Location.* The following area is a safety zone: All navigable waters of the Charles River within a four hundred
(400)yard radius of the fireworks launch barges located at approximate position 42°21.28′ N, 071°05.00′ W.
(b)*Effective Date.* This rule is effective from 9 p.m. EDT on July 4, 2007 until 11:30 p.m. EDT on July 4, 2007 with a rain date of 9 p.m. EDT on July 5, 2007 until 11:30 p.m. EDT July 5, 2007.
(c)*Definitions.* As applied to this section;
(1)Designated on-scene U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel means commissioned officers, warrant officers, and petty officers of the Coast Guard on board Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, local, state, and federal law enforcement vessels.
(2)*[Reserved]*
(d)*Regulations.*
(1)In accordance with the general regulations in 165.23 of this part, entry into or movement within this zone by any person or vessel is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP), Boston or the COTP's designated representative.
(2)All vessel operators shall comply with the instructions of the COTP or the designated on-scene U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel. The safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
(3)Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the COTP or the COTP's designated representative on VHF Channel 16 (156.8 MHz) to seek permission to do so. If permission is granted, vessel operators must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative. Dated: June 12, 2007. James L. McDonald, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Boston, Massachusetts. [FR Doc. E7-12137 Filed 6-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [COTP San Francisco Bay 07-027] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; City of Richmond July 3rd Fireworks Show, San Francisco Bay, CA AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone in the navigable waters of San Francisco Bay for the loading, transport, and launching of fireworks used during the City of Richmond Fireworks Display to be held on July 3, 2007. This safety zone is intended to prohibit vessels and people from entering into or remaining within the regulated areas in order to ensure the safety of participants and spectators. DATES: This rule is effective from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. on July 3, 2007. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of the docket COTP San Francisco Bay 07-027 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 United States Coast Guard Sector San Francisco, at
(415)556-2950 extension 136, or the 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)(3)(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, this safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of event participants, spectator craft, and other vessels transiting the event area. For the safety concerns noted, it is in the public interest to have these regulations in effect during the event. 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** . 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 City of Richmond, Library and Community Department Recreation Division will sponsor a fireworks display on July 3, 2007, in the waters of San Francisco Bay on Richmond Inner Harbor near the Point Potrero. The fireworks display is meant for entertainment purposes. This safety zone is issued to establish a temporary restricted area in San Francisco Bay 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 restricted area 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 in the navigable waters of San Francisco Bay on Richmond Inner Harbor near Point Potrero. 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 temporary safety zone applies to the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge within a radius of 100 feet. Fifteen minutes prior to and during the twenty minute fireworks display, the area to which the temporary safety zone applies 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 8 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 between 6 p.m. and 8:30 p.m. on July 3, 2007. During the twenty minute fireworks display, scheduled to commence at approximately 9:15 p.m. on July 3, 2007, the fireworks barge will be located approximately 1,200 feet offshore from Point Potrero in the Richmond Inner Harbor in position 37°54.40′ N, 122°21.54′ W. The effect of the temporary safety zone will be to restrict 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 restricted area. These regulations are 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 regulation prevents traffic from transiting a portion of San Francisco Bay during the event, the effect of this regulation will not be significant due to the small size and limited duration of the regulated area. The entities most likely to be affected are pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing. We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. 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 is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of entities, some of which may be small entities. This rule may affect 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 public 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 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. If the rule will affect your small business, organization, or government jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions, options for compliance, or assistance in understanding this rule, please contact Ensign Sheral Richardson, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Francisco, at
(415)556-2950 extension 136. 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. 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-T11-205 to read as follows: § 165-T11-205 Safety Zone; City of Richmond July 3rd Fireworks Show, San Francisco Bay, CA.
(a)*Location.* A safety zone is established for the waters of San Francisco Bay in the Richmond Inner Harbor surrounding a barge used as the launch platform for a fireworks display. 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 restricted area encompasses the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge within a radius of 100 feet. During the fifteen minutes preceding the fireworks display and during the twenty minute fireworks display itself, the safety zone increases in size to encompass the navigable waters around and under the fireworks launch barge within a radius of 1,000 feet. Loading of the pyrotechnics onto the fireworks barge is scheduled to commence at 8 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 between 6 p.m. and 8:30 p.m. on July 3, 2007. During the twenty minute fireworks display, scheduled to start at approximately 9:15 p.m. on July 3, 2007, the fireworks barge will be located approximately 1,000 feet offshore from Point Potrero in the Richmond Inner Harbor in position 37°54.40′ N, 122°21.54′ W.
(b)*Effective Period.* This section will be enforced from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. on July 3, 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 all vessels and persons 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, 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 this safety zone by local law enforcement as necessary. Dated: June 13, 2007. W.J. Uberti, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, San Francisco. [FR Doc. E7-12140 Filed 6-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [CGD09-07-034] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Mercyhurst College “Old Fashion 4th of July” Presque Isle Bay, Erie, PA AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on Presque Isle Bay and Lake Erie near Erie, Pennsylvania. This zone is intended to restrict vessels from a portion of Presque Isle Bay and Lake Erie during the Mercyhurst College “Old Fashion 4th of July”, fireworks display on July 4, 2007. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with fireworks displays. DATES: This rule is effective from 10 p.m. (local) to 10:30 p.m. (local) on July 4, 2007. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket CGD09-07-034 and are available for inspection or copying at U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo, 1 Fuhrmann Boulevard, Buffalo, NY 14203 between 8 a.m. (local) and 3 p.m. (local), Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LT Tracy Wirth, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo,
(716)843-9573. 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. The permit application was not received in time to publish an NPRM followed by a final rule before the effective date. 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. The Coast Guard has not received any complaints or negative comments previously with regard to this event. For the same reasons, the Coast Guard also finds, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), that good cause exists for making this rule effective fewer than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . Background and Purpose This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect vessels and spectators from the hazards associated with a fireworks display. Based on accidents that have occurred in other Captain of the Port zones, and the explosive hazards of fireworks, the Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that fireworks launches proximate to watercraft pose a significant risk to public safety. The likely combination of large numbers of recreation vessels, congested waterways, darkness punctuated by bright flashes of light, and debris falling into the water could easily result in serious injuries or fatalities. Establishing a safety zone to control vessel movement around the location of the launch platform will help ensure the safety of persons and property at these events and help minimize the associated risks. Discussion of Rule A temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of spectators and vessels during the setup, loading and launching of a fireworks display in conjunction with the Mercyhurst College “Old Fashion 4th of July” fireworks display. The fireworks display will occur between 10 p.m. (local) and 10:30 p.m. (local) on July 4, 2007. The safety zone for the fireworks will encompass all waters of Presque Isle Bay and Lake Erie, Erie, PA within a five hundred foot radius of position 42°08′41″ N, 080°06′40″ W. [DATUM: NAD 83]. All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the designated on-scene representative. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted on 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. 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 zones' 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 Presque Isle Bay and Lake Erie, near Erie, PA between 10 p.m. (local) and 10:30 p.m. (local) on July 4, 2007. This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This rule will be in effect for only thirty minutes for one event. Vessel traffic can safely pass outside the safety zone during the event. In the event that this temporary safety zone affects shipping, commercial vessels may request permission from the Captain of the Port Buffalo 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 (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 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 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 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 these special local regulations 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 Proposed 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. That paragraph applies because this event establishes a safety zone. 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 temporary § 165.T09-034 to read as follows: § 165.T09-034 Safety zone; Mercyhurst College “Old Fashion 4th of July”, Presque Isle Bay, Erie, PA.
(a)*Location.* The following area is a temporary safety zone: All waters of Presque Isle Bay and Lake Erie, from surface to bottom, within a five hundred foot radius of position 42°08′41″ N, 080°06′40″ W. [DATUM: NAD 83].
(b)*Effective period.* This regulation is effective from 10 p.m. (local) to 10:30 p.m. (local), on July 4, 2007.
(c)*Regulations.*
(1)In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo, or his designated on-scene representative.
(2)This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated 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 designated on-scene representative may be contacted on VHF Channel 16.
(4)Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo 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 Buffalo or his on-scene representative. Dated: June 11, 2007. S.J. Ferguson, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo. [FR Doc. E7-12141 Filed 6-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [CGD01-07-031] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Town of Lynn Fourth of July Fireworks Display, Nahant Bay, MA AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for the Town of Lynn Fourth of July Fireworks on July 3, 2007, temporarily closing all navigable waters of Nahant Bay within a 500 yard radius of the fireworks barge located at approximate position 42°27′41.2″ N, 70°55′6.1″ W. The safety zone is necessary to protect the life and property of the maritime public from the potential hazards posed by a fireworks display. The safety zone temporarily prohibits entry into or movement within this portion of Nahant Bay during the closure period. DATES: This rule is effective from 8:15 p.m. EDT on July 3, 2007 until 9:45 p.m. EDT on July 3, 2007. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket CGD01-07-031 and are available for inspection or copying at Sector Boston, 427 Commercial Street, Boston, MA between the hours of 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Petty Officer Joseph Yonker, Sector Boston, Waterways Management Division, at
(617)223-5007. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory History 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 fireworks display is scheduled to occur on July 3, 2007, and there is insufficient time to conduct a notice and comment rulemaking. Any delay in the regulation's effective date would be contrary to the public interest because the safety zone is needed to ensure the maritime public is protected from the potential harm associated with a fireworks display. For the same reasons, the Coast Guard finds, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . Background and Purpose This rule establishes a safety zone on the navigable waters of Nahant Bay within a 500 yard radius around the fireworks barge located at approximate position 42°27′41.2″ N, 70°55′6.1″ W. The safety zone is in effect from 8:15 p.m. EDT until 9:45 p.m. EDT on July 3, 2007. The safety zone temporarily restricts movement within this portion of Nahant Bay and is needed to protect the maritime public from the dangers posed by a fireworks display. Marine traffic may transit safely outside of the zone during the effective period. The Captain of the Port does not anticipate any negative impact on vessel traffic due to the event. Public notifications will be made prior to the effective period via marine information broadcasts and Local Notice to Mariners. 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 prevents vessel traffic from transiting a portion of Nahant Bay during the effective period, the effects of this regulation will not be significant for several reasons: Vessels will be excluded from the proscribed area for one and one-half hours, vessels will be able to operate in the majority of Nahant Bay during the effective period, and advance notifications will be made to the local maritime community by marine information broadcasts and Local Notice to Mariners. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we 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 Nahant Bay from 8:15 p.m. EDT until 9:45 p.m. EDT on July 3, 2007. This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This rule will be in effect for only one and one-half hours, vessel traffic can safely pass around the zone, and advance notifications will be made to the local maritime community by marine information broadcasts and Local 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 State, local or tribal governments, 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 pose 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 M16475.1D 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 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 paragraph applies because the rule would establish a safety zone. 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. 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 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.T07-031 to read as follows: § 165.T07-031 Safety Zone; Town of Lynn Fourth of July Fireworks Display, Nahant Bay, Massachusetts.
(a)*Location.* The following area is a safety zone: All navigable waters of Nahant Bay, from surface to bottom, within a 500 yard radius of the fireworks barge located at approximate position 42°27′41.2″ N, 70°55′6.1″ W.
(b)*Effective Date.* This section is effective from 8:15 p.m. EDT until 9:45 p.m. EDT on July 3, 2007.
(c)*Definitions.*
(1)As used in this section, *designated representative* means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port
(COTP)in the enforcement of the safety zone.
(2)*[Reserved]*
(d)*Regulations.*
(1)In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry into or movement within this zone by any person or vessel is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP Boston or the COTP's designated representative.
(2)The safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
(3)Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the COTP or the COTP's designated representative on VHF Channel 16 (156.8 MHz) to seek permission to do so in advance. If permission is granted, vessel operators must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative. Dated: May 25, 2007. James L. McDonald, Captain, U. S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Boston, Massachusetts. [FR Doc. E7-12150 Filed 6-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [CGD09-07-043] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Independence Day Fireworks Display, St. Lawrence River, Alexandria Bay, NY AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the St. Lawrence River near Alexandria Bay, NY. This zone is intended to restrict vessels from a portion of the St. Lawrence River during the Independence Day Fireworks Display on July 4, 2007. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with fireworks displays. DATES: This rule is effective from 9 p.m. (local) to 10 p.m. (local) on July 4, 2007. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket CGD09-07-043 and are available for inspection or copying at U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo, 1 Fuhrmann Boulevard, Buffalo, NY 14203 between 8 a.m. (local) and 3 p.m. (local), Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LT Tracy Wirth, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo;
(716)843-9573. 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 permit application was not received in time to publish an NPRM followed by a final rule before the effective date. 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. The Coast Guard has not received any complaints or negative comments previously with regard to this event. For the same reasons, the Coast Guard also finds, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . Background and Purpose This temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and spectators from hazards associated with a fireworks display. Based on accidents that have occurred in other Captain of the Port Zones, and the explosive hazards of fireworks, the Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that fireworks launches proximate to watercraft pose a significant risk to public safety and property. The likely combination of large numbers of recreation vessels, congested waterways, darkness punctuated by bright flashes of light, and debris falling into the water could easily result in serious injuries or fatalities. Establishing a safety zone to control vessel movement around the location of the launch platform will help ensure the safety of persons and property at this event and help minimize the associated risks. Discussion of Rule A temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of spectators and vessels during the setup, loading and launching of a fireworks display in conjunction with the Independence Day Fireworks Display. The fireworks display will occur between 9 p.m. (local) and 10 p.m. (local) on July 4, 2007. The safety zone for the fireworks will encompass all waters of the St. Lawrence River at Heart Island, Alexandria Bay, NY within a seven hundred foot radius of position 44°20′42″ N, 075°55′16″ W. [DATUM: NAD 83]. All persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the designated on-scene representative. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted on 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. 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 zones' 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 the St. Lawrence River near Alexandria Bay, NY between 9 p.m. (local) and 10 p.m. (local) on July 4, 2007. This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This rule will be in effect for only one hour for one event. Vessel traffic can safely pass outside the safety zone during the event. In the event that this temporary safety zone affects shipping, commercial vessels may request permission from the Captain of the Port Buffalo 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 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want 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). 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 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 an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This 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 these special local regulations 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. That paragraph applies because this rule establishes a safety zone. 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 temporary § 165.T09-043 to read as follows: § 165.T09-043 Safety zone; Independence Day Fireworks, St. Lawrence River, Alexandria Bay, NY.
(a)*Location.* The following area is a safety zone: All waters of the St. Lawrence River, at Heart Island, Alexandria Bay, NY, from surface to bottom, within a seven hundred foot radius of position 44°20′42″ N, 075°55′16″ W. [DATUM: NAD 83].
(b)*Effective period.* This regulation is effective from 9 p.m. (local) to 10 p.m. (local) on July 4, 2007.
(c)*Regulations.*
(1)In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo, or his designated on-scene representative.
(2)This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated 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 designated on-scene representative may be contacted on VHF Channel 16.
(4)Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo 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 Buffalo or his on-scene representative. Dated: June 11, 2007. S.J. Ferguson, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo. [FR Doc. E7-12144 Filed 6-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [COTP San Francisco Bay 07-024] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Peninsula Celebration Association Annual Fireworks Spectacular, San Francisco Bay, CA AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone in the navigable waters of San Francisco Bay for the loading, transport, and launching of fireworks used during the Peninsula Celebration Association Annual Fireworks Spectacular Display to be held on July 4, 2007. This safety zone is intended to prohibit vessels and people from entering into or remaining within the regulated areas in order to ensure the safety of participants and spectators. DATES: This rule is effective from 9 a.m. to 10 p.m. on July 4, 2007. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of the docket COTP San Francisco Bay 07-024 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, United States Coast Guard Sector San Francisco, at
(415)556-2950 extension 136, or the 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)(3)(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, this Safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of event participants, spectator craft, and other vessels transiting the event area. For the safety concerns noted, it is in the public interest to have these regulations in effect during the event. 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** . 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 Peninsula Celebration Association will sponsor a fireworks display on July 4, 2007 in the waters of San Francisco Bay on Redwood Creek near the Port of Redwood City. The fireworks display is meant for entertainment purposes. This safety zone is issued to establish a temporary restricted area in San Francisco Bay 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 restricted area 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 in the navigable waters of San Francisco Bay near Pier 50 and in Redwood Creek. 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 temporary safety zone applies to the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge within a radius of 100 feet. Fifteen minutes prior to and during the fifteen minute fireworks display, the area to which the temporary safety zone applies 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 4, 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 between 12 p.m. and 8 p.m. on July 4, 2007. During the fireworks display, scheduled to commence at approximately 9:30 p.m., the fireworks barge will be located approximately 600 feet off Wharf #5 in the Port of Redwood City in approximate position 37°30.35′ N, 122°12.85′ W. The effect of the temporary safety zone will be to restrict 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 restricted area. These regulations are needed to keep spectators and vessels a safe distance away from the fireworks barge to ensure the safety of participants, spectators, and transiting vessels. The Code of Federal Regulations prohibits any unauthorized person or vessel from entering or remaining in a safety zone. Vessels or persons violating this section will 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 regulation prevents traffic from transiting a portion of San Francisco Bay during the event, the effect of this regulation will not be significant due to the small size and limited duration of the regulated area. The entities most likely to be affected are pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing. We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. 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 is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of entities, some of which may be small entities. This rule may affect 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 public 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 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. If the rule will affect your small business, organization, or government jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions, options for compliance, or assistance in understanding this rule, please contact Ensign Sheral Richardson, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Francisco, at
(415)556-2950 extension 136. 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. 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-T11-199 to read as follows: § 165-T11-199 Safety Zone; Peninsula Celebration Association Annual Fireworks Spectacular, San Francisco Bay, CA.
(a)*Location.* A safety zone is established for the waters of San Francisco Bay surrounding a barge used as the launch platform for a fireworks display. 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 restricted area encompasses the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge within a radius of 100 feet. During the fifteen minutes preceding the fireworks display and during the fifteen minute fireworks display itself, the safety zone increases in size to encompass the navigable waters around and under 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 4, 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 between 12 p.m. and 8 p.m. 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 600 feet off Wharf #5 in the Port of Redwood City in approximate position 37°30.35′ N, 122°12.85′ W.
(b)*Effective Period.* This section will be enforced from 9 a.m. to 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 all vessels and persons 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, 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 this safety zone by local law enforcement as necessary. Dated: June 11, 2007. W.J. Uberti, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Francisco. [FR Doc. E7-12145 Filed 6-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [CGD05-07-010] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Patapsco River, Northwest and Inner Harbors, Baltimore, MD AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a permanent safety zone upon certain waters of the Patapsco River, Northwest Harbor, and Inner Harbor during the movement of the historic sloop-of-war USS CONSTELLATION, annually, on the Friday following Labor Day. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during the tow of the vessel from its berth at the Inner Harbor in Baltimore, Maryland, to a point on the Patapsco River near the Fort McHenry National Monument and Historic Shrine in Baltimore, Maryland, and return. This action will restrict vessel traffic in portions of the Patapsco River, Northwest Harbor, and Inner Harbor during the event. DATES: This rule is effective July 25, 2007. ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket CGD05-07-010 and are available for inspection or copying at Commander, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, 2401 Hawkins Point Road, Building 70, Waterways Management Division, Baltimore, Maryland, 21226-1791 between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ronald Houck, at Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, Waterways Management Division, at telephone number
(410)576-2674 or
(410)576-2693. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information On April 9, 2007, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)entitled “Safety Zone; Patapsco River, Northwest and Inner Harbors, Baltimore, MD” in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 17458). We received no letters commenting on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held. Background and Purpose Each year, the USS CONSTELLATION Museum conducts a “turn-around” ceremony involving the sloop-of-war USS CONSTELLATION in Baltimore, Maryland on the Friday following Labor Day. The annual turning of the USS CONSTELLATION aids in the maintenance of the historic ship by ensuring even weathering of her hull. Planned events include a three-hour, round-trip tow of the CONSTELLATION in the Port of Baltimore, with an onboard salute with navy pattern cannon while the historic vessel is positioned off Fort McHenry National Monument and Historic Site. The historic sloop-of-war USS CONSTELLATION will be towed “dead ship,” which means that the vessel will be underway without the benefit of mechanical or sail propulsion. The return dead ship tow of the CONSTELLATION to its berth in the Inner Harbor is expected to occur immediately upon execution of a tug-assisted turn-around of the CONSTELLATION on the Patapsco River near Fort McHenry. The Coast Guard anticipates a large recreational boating fleet during this event, scheduled on a late Friday afternoon during the summer in Baltimore, Maryland. Operators should expect significant vessel congestion along the planned route. The purpose of this rule is to promote maritime safety and protect participants and the boating public in the Port of Baltimore immediately prior to, during, and after the scheduled event. The rule will provide for a clear transit route for the participating vessels, and provide a safety buffer around the participating vessels while they are in transit. The rule will impact the movement of all vessels operating upon certain waters of the Patapsco River, Northwest Harbor and Inner Harbor. Discussion of Comments and Changes The Coast Guard received no comments on the proposed rule during the comment period published in the NPRM. No public meeting was requested and none was held. As a result, no change to the proposed regulatory text was made. 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. This safety zone is a moving zone that will encompass only a small portion of the waterway. Vessels or persons may be able to transit safely around this zone. 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 would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to operate, remain or anchor within certain waters of the Patapsco River, Northwest Harbor and Inner Harbor, in Baltimore, Maryland, from 2 p.m. through 7 p.m. local time, annually, on the Friday following Labor Day. Because the zone is of limited size and duration, it is expected that there will be minimal disruption to the maritime community. Before the effective period, the Coast Guard will issue maritime advisories widely available to users of the river and harbors to allow mariners to make alternative plans for transiting the affected areas. In addition, smaller vessels not constrained by their draft, which are more likely to be small entities, may transit around the safety zone. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. We received no requests for assistance from any small entities. 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 effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This 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. That paragraph applies because this rule establishes a safety zone. 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; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Add § 165.512 to read as follows: § 165.512 Safety Zone; Patapsco River, Northwest and Inner Harbors, Baltimore, MD.
(a)*Definitions.* For the purposes of this section:
(1)*Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland* means the Commander, Coast Guard Sector Baltimore or any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland to act on his or her behalf.
(2)*USS CONSTELLATION “turn-around” participants* means the USS CONSTELLATION, its support craft and the accompanying towing vessels.
(b)*Location.* The following area is a moving safety zone: All waters, from surface to bottom, within 200 yards ahead of or 100 yards outboard or aft of the historic sloop-of-war USS CONSTELLATION, while operating in the Inner Harbor, the Northwest Harbor and the Patapsco River.
(c)*Regulations.*
(1)The general regulations governing safety zones, found in § 165.23, apply to the safety zone described in paragraph
(b)of this section.
(2)With the exception of USS CONSTELLATION “turn-around” participants, entry into or remaining in this zone is prohibited, unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland.
(3)Persons or vessels requiring entry into or passage through the moving safety zone must first request authorization from the Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland to seek permission to transit the area. The Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland can be contacted at telephone number
(410)576-2693. The Coast Guard vessels enforcing this section can be contacted on Marine Band Radio VHF Channel 16 (156.8 MHz). Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the person or vessel shall proceed as directed. If permission is granted, all persons or vessels must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland, and proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course while within the zone.
(d)*Enforcement.* The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol and enforcement of the zone by Federal, State and local agencies.
(e)*Enforcement period.* This section will be enforced from 2 p.m. through 7 p.m. local time, annually, on the Friday following Labor Day. Dated: June 14, 2007. Brian D. Kelley, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland. [FR Doc. E7-12246 Filed 6-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [COTP San Francisco Bay 07-023] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zones; Lake Tahoe Fireworks, Lake Tahoe, CA. AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing temporary safety zones in the navigable waters of Lake Tahoe for the loading, transport, and launching of fireworks to celebrate Independence Day. These safety zones are 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 zones without permission of the Captain of the Port or his designated representative. DATES: This rule is effective from 8 a.m. on July 2, 2007 to 10 p.m. on July 5, 2007. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of the docket COTP San Francisco Bay 07-023 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, spectator craft, and other vessels transiting the event area. For the safety concerns noted, it is in the public interest to have these regulations in effect during the event. For the same reasons listed in the previous paragraph, 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** . 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 North Tahoe Business Association is sponsoring a fireworks display on July 3, 2007; Tahoe City Rotary is sponsoring a fireworks display on July 4, 2007; and Westshore Café is sponsoring a fireworks display on July 5, 2007 in the waters of Lake Tahoe. The fireworks displays are meant for entertainment purposes in celebration of Independence Day. These safety zones are being issued to establish a temporary regulated area in Lake Tahoe 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. These safety zones around the launch barge are 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 marine event permits for the fireworks displays. Discussion of Rule The Coast Guard is establishing temporary safety zones on specified waters of Lake Tahoe. During the loading of the fireworks barges, while the barges are being towed to the display location, and until the start of the fireworks display, the safety zones will apply to the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barges within a radius of 100 feet. Fifteen minutes prior to and during the fireworks displays, the area to which these safety zones applies to will increase in size to encompass the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barges within a radius of 1,000 feet. Loading of the first pyrotechnics onto the fireworks barge is scheduled to commence at 8 a.m. on July 2, 2007, and will take place at Obexer's Boat Company, Homewood, California. Towing of the barge from Obexer's Boat Company to the display location is scheduled to take place between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on July 3, 2007. During the fireworks display, scheduled to commence at approximately 9:30 p.m. on July 3, 2007, the fireworks barge will be located approximately 600-700 feet off of the shore line of King's Beach in position 39°14′00″ N, 120°01′50″ W. Loading of the second pyrotechnics onto the fireworks barge is scheduled to commence at 8 a.m. on July 4, 2007, and will take place at Obexer's Boat Company, Homewood, California. Towing of the barge from Obexer's Boat Company to the display location is scheduled to take place between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m. on July 4, 2007. During the fireworks display, scheduled to commence at approximately 9:30 p.m. on July 4, 2007, the fireworks barge will be located approximately 600-700 feet off of the shore line of Tahoe City in position 39°10′00″ N, 120°08′00″ W. Loading of the third pyrotechnics onto the fireworks barge is scheduled to commence at 8 a.m. on July 5, 2007, and will take place at Obexer's Boat Company, Homewood, California. Towing of the barge from Obexer's Boat Company to the display location is scheduled to take place between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m. on July 5, 2007. During the fireworks display, scheduled to commence at approximately 9:30 p.m. on July 5, 2007, the fireworks barge will be located approximately 600-700 feet off of the shore line of Homewood near Westshore Café in McKinney Bay in position 39°05′00″ N, 120°09′00″ W. The effect of the temporary safety zones will be to restrict general navigation in the vicinity of the fireworks barges while the fireworks are loaded, 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 zones. These safety zones are 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 zones, the effect of this rule will not be significant because the local waterway users will be notified via public broadcast 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 is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of entities, some of which may be small entities. This rule may affect 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 Lake Tahoe 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 these safety zones via public 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 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. If the rule will affect your small business, organization, or government jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions, options for compliance, or assistance in understanding this rule, please contact Ensign Sheral Richardson, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Francisco, at
(415)556-2950 ext. 136. 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 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 § 165.35-T11-200 to read as follows: § 165.35-T11-200 Safety Zones; Lake Tahoe Fireworks Display, Lake Tahoe, CA.
(a)*Location.* These safety zones are established for the waters of Lake Tahoe surrounding barges used as the launch platform for fireworks displays to be held in celebration of Independence Day. During the loading of the fireworks barges, during the transit of the fireworks barges to the display location, and until fifteen minutes prior to the start of the fireworks display, the safety zone will encompass the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barges within a radius of 100 feet. During the fifteen minutes preceding the fireworks display and during the fireworks display, the safety zones will increase in size to encompass the navigable waters around and under the fireworks launch barge within a radius of 1,000 feet.
(1)Loading of the first pyrotechnics onto the fireworks barge is scheduled to commence at 8 a.m. on July 2, 2007, and will take place at Obexer's Boat Company, Homewood, California. Towing of the barge from Obexer's Boat Company to the display location is scheduled to take place between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on July 3, 2007. During the fireworks display, scheduled to commence at approximately 9:30 p.m. on July 3, 2007, the fireworks barge will be located approximately 600-700 feet off of the shore line of King's Beach in position 39°14′00″ N, 120°01′50″ W.
(2)Loading of the second pyrotechnics onto the fireworks barge is scheduled to commence at 8 a.m. on July 4, 2007, and will take place at Obexer's Boat Company, Homewood, California. Towing of the barge from Obexer's Boat Company to the display location is scheduled to take place between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m. on July 4, 2007. During the fireworks display, scheduled to commence at approximately 9:30 p.m. on July 4, 2007, the fireworks barge will be located approximately 600-700 feet off of the shore line of Tahoe City in position 39°10′00″ N, 120°08′00″ W.
(3)Loading of the third pyrotechnics onto the fireworks barge is scheduled to commence at 8 a.m. on July 5, 2007, and will take place at Obexer's Boat Company, Homewood, California. Towing of the barge from Obexer's Boat Company to the display location is scheduled to take place between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m. on July 5, 2007. During the fireworks display, scheduled to commence at approximately 9:30 p.m. on July 5, 2007, the fireworks barge will be located approximately 600-700 feet off of the shore line of Homewood near Westshore Café in McKinney Bay in position 39°05′00″ N, 120°09′00″ W.
(b)*Effective period.* This section is effective from 8 a.m. on July 2, 2007, through 10 p.m. on July 5, 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 all vessels and persons 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, 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 safety zones by local law enforcement as necessary. Dated: June 11, 2007. W.J. Uberti, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Francisco. [FR Doc. E7-12139 Filed 6-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [COTP San Francisco Bay 07-020] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zones; Lake Tahoe Independence Day Celebration, Lake Tahoe, CA and Lake Tahoe, NV AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing temporary safety zones in the navigable waters of Lake Tahoe for the loading, transport, and launching of fireworks to celebrate Independence Day. These safety zones are 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 zones without permission of the Captain of the Port or his designated representative. DATES: This rule is effective from 5 a.m. on July 1, 2007, to 10:15 p.m. on July 4, 2007. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of the docket COTP San Francisco Bay 07-020 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, spectator craft, and other vessels transiting the event area. For the safety concerns noted, it is in the public interest to have these regulations in effect during the event. For the same reasons listed in the previous paragraph, 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** . 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 Red, White, and Tahoe Blue, Lake Tahoe Visitor's Authority, and Glenbrooks Fireworks Committee are sponsoring fireworks displays on July 4, 2007. These fireworks displays are meant for entertainment purposes in celebration of Independence Day. These safety zones are being issued to establish temporary regulated areas in Lake Tahoe around the fireworks launch barge during loading of the pyrotechnics, during the transit of the barges to the display locations, and during the fireworks displays. These safety zones around the launch barges are necessary to protect spectators, vessels, and other property from the hazards associated with the pyrotechnics on the fireworks barges. The Coast Guard has granted each event sponsor a marine event permit for the fireworks display. Discussion of Rule The Coast Guard is establishing temporary safety zones on specified waters of Lake Tahoe. During the loading of the fireworks barges, while the barges are being towed to the display locations, and until the start of the fireworks displays, these safety zones will apply to the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barges within a radius of 100 feet. Fifteen minutes prior to and during the fireworks displays, the area to which these safety zones applies to will increase in size to encompass the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barges within a radius of 1,000 feet. The first fireworks show is sponsored by Red, White, and Tahoe Blue and is in the waters of Lake Tahoe on Crystal Bay. Commencing at 5 a.m. on July 1, 2007, the barges will be towed from the shoreline of Incline Village, Nevada, to the display location, which is approximately 700 feet off the shore on Crystal Bay in position 39°14′06″ N, 119°57′53″ W. While the barges are in their display location they will be anchored and loaded from July 1, 2007, until July 4, 2007. The fireworks display is scheduled to commence at 9 p.m. on July 4, 2007 and last approximately thirty minutes. The second fireworks show is being sponsored by Lake Tahoe Visitor's Authority and is in the waters of South Lake Tahoe. Loading of the pyrotechnics onto the fireworks barges is scheduled to commence at 8:30 a.m. on July 2, 2007, and will take place at Tahoe Keys Marina in South Lake Tahoe, California. Towing of the barges from Tahoe Keys Marina to the display location is scheduled to take place between 9:30 a.m. and 3 p.m. on July 4, 2007. During the fireworks display, scheduled to commence at approximately 9:45 p.m. on July 4, 2007, the fireworks barge will be located approximately 1,500 feet off of the shore line of South Lake Tahoe in position 38°57′56″ N, 119°57′21″ W. The fireworks display is scheduled to last approximately thirty minutes. The third fireworks show is being sponsored by Glenbrooks Fireworks Committee. 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 Obexers Marina in Homewood, California. Towing of the barge from Obexers Marina to the display location is scheduled to take place between 1 p.m. and 5 p.m. on July 3, 2007. The barge will be anchored overnight. During the fireworks display, scheduled to commence at approximately 9:30 p.m. on July 4, 2007, the fireworks barges will be located approximately 600 feet off of the shore line of Glenbrook, Nevada on Glenbrook Bay in position 39°05′23″ N, 119°56′39″ W. The fireworks display is scheduled to last approximately eighteen minutes. The effect of the temporary safety zones will be to restrict general navigation in the vicinity of the fireworks barges while the fireworks are loaded, during the transit of the fireworks barges, 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 zones. These safety zones are 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 zones, the effect of this rule will not be significant because the local waterway users will be notified via public broadcast notice to mariners to ensure the safety zones 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 is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of entities, some of which may be small entities. This rule may affect 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 Lake Tahoe 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 public 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 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. If the rule will affect your small business, organization, or government jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions, options for compliance, or assistance in understanding this rule, please contact Ensign Sheral Richardson, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Francisco, at
(415)556-2950 ext. 136. 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 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 § 165.35-T11-204 to read as follows: § 165.35-T11-204 Safety Zones; Lake Tahoe Independence Day Celebration, Lake Tahoe, CA, and Lake Tahoe, NV.
(a)*Location.* These safety zones are established for the waters of Lake Tahoe surrounding barges used as the launch platform for fireworks displays to be held in celebration of Independence Day. During the loading of the fireworks barge, during the transit of the fireworks barges to the display locations, and until fifteen minutes prior to the start of the fireworks displays, the safety zones will encompass the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barges within a radius of 100 feet. During the fifteen minutes preceding the fireworks displays and during the fireworks displays, the safety zones increases in size to encompass the navigable waters around and under the fireworks launch barges within a radius of 1,000 feet.
(1)The first fireworks show is in the waters of Lake Tahoe on Crystal Bay. Commencing at 5 a.m. on July 1, 2007, the barges will be towed from the shoreline of Incline Village, Nevada, to the display location, which is approximately 700 feet off the shore on Crystal Bay in position 39°14′06″ N, 119°57′53″ W. While the barges are in their display location they will be anchored and loaded from July 1, 2007, until July 4, 2007. The fireworks display is scheduled to commence at 9 p.m. on July 4, 2007 and last approximately thirty minutes.
(2)The second fireworks show is in the waters of South Lake Tahoe. Loading of the pyrotechnics onto the fireworks barges is scheduled to commence at 8:30 a.m. on July 2, 2007, and will take place at Tahoe Keys Marina in South Lake Tahoe, California. Towing of the barges from Tahoe Keys Marina to the display location is scheduled to take place between 9:30 a.m. and 3 p.m. on July 4, 2007. During the fireworks display, scheduled to commence at approximately 9:45 p.m. on July 4, 2007, the fireworks barge will be located approximately 1,500 feet off of the shore line of South Lake Tahoe in position 38°57′56″ N, 119°57′21″ W. The fireworks display is scheduled to last approximately thirty minutes.
(3)The third fireworks show is in the waters of Lake Tahoe on Glenbrook Bay. 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 Obexers Marina in Homewood, California. Towing of the barge from Obexers Marina to the display location is scheduled to take place between 1 p.m. and 5 p.m. on July 3, 2007. The barge will be anchored overnight. During the fireworks display, scheduled to commence at approximately 9:30 p.m. on July 4, 2007, the fireworks barge will be located approximately 600 feet off of the shore line of Glenbrook, Nevada on Glenbrook Bay in position 39°05′23″ N, 119°56′39″ W. The fireworks display is scheduled to last approximately eighteen minutes.
(b)*Effective Period.* This section will be enforced from 5 a.m. on July 1, 2007, to 10:15 p.m. on July 4, 2007. If the event concludes prior to the scheduled termination time, the Coast Guard will cease enforcement of this safety zone and will announce that fact via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
(c)*Regulations.* In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry into, transit through, or anchoring within these safety zones by all vessels and persons 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, 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 safety zones by local law enforcement as necessary. Dated: June 13, 2007. W.J. Uberti, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Francisco. [FR Doc. E7-12281 Filed 6-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 64 [Docket No. FEMA-7979] Suspension of Community Eligibility AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This rule identifies communities, where the sale of flood insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), that are scheduled for suspension on the effective dates listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA)receives documentation that the community has adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in the **Federal Register** on a subsequent date. DATES: *Effective Dates:* The effective date of each community's scheduled suspension is the third date (“Susp.”) listed in the third column of the following tables. ADDRESSES: If you want to determine whether a particular community was suspended on the suspension date, contact the appropriate FEMA Regional Office. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Stearrett, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202)646-2953. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP enables property owners to purchase flood insurance which is generally not otherwise available. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage as authorized under the NFIP, 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.* ; unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the community. However, some of these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities will not be suspended and will continue their eligibility for the sale of insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of the communities will be published in the **Federal Register** . In addition, FEMA has identified the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities by publishing a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may legally be provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than a year, on FEMA's initial flood insurance map of the community as having flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and unnecessary because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately notified. Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less than 30 days. *National Environmental Policy Act.* This rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Considerations. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared. *Regulatory Flexibility Act.* The Administrator has determined that this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no longer comply with the statutory requirements, and after the effective date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the communities unless remedial action takes place. *Regulatory Classification.* This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735. *Executive Order 13132, Federalism.* This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. *Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform.* This rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988. *Paperwork Reduction Act.* This rule does not involve any collection of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64 Flood insurance, Floodplains. Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows: PART 64—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 64 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.* ; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp.; p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp.; p. 376. § 64.6 [Amended] 2. The tables published under the authority of § 64.6 are amended as follows: State and location Community No. Effective date authorization/cancellation of sale of flood insurance in community Current effective map date Date certain Federal assistance no longer available in SFHAs Region III Virginia: Culpeper, Town of, Culpeper County 510042 June 16, 1975, Emerg, March 2, 1989, Reg, June 18, 2007, Susp June 18, 2007 June 18, 2007. Region VIII Utah: Bountiful, City of, Davis County 490039 July 19, 1973, Emerg, September 29, 1978, Reg, June 18, 2007, Susp ......do Do. Centerville, City of, Davis County 490040 July 24, 1975, Emerg, March 1, 1982, Reg, June 18, 2007, Susp ......do Do. Clearfield, City of, Davis County 490041 November 7, 1974, Emerg, February 20, 1979, Reg, June 18, 2007, Susp ......do Do. Davis County, Unincorporated Areas 490038 April 22, 1975, Emerg, March 1, 1982, Reg, June 18, 2007, Susp ......do Do. Farmington, City of, Davis County 490044 May 13, 1975, Emerg, August 17, 1981, June 18, 2007, Susp ......do Do. Fruit Heights, City of, Davis County 490045 May 11, 1977, Emerg, August 17, 1981, Reg, June 18, 2007, Susp ......do Do. Kaysville, City of, Davis County 490046 April 18, 1975, Emerg, March 1, 1982, Reg, June 18, 2007, Susp ......do Do. Layton, City of, Davis County 490047 December 13, 1974, Emerg, December 1, 1982, Reg, June 18, 2007, Susp ......do Do. North Salt Lake, City of, Davis County 490048 May 30, 1975, Emerg, August 29, 1978, Reg, June 18, 2007, Susp ......do Do. South Weber, City of, Davis County 490049 November 8, 1974, Emerg, September 12, 1978, Reg, June 18, 2007, Susp ......do Do. Sunset, City of, Davis County 490050 March 11, 1975, Emerg, November 21, 1978, Reg, June 18, 2007, Susp ......do Do. West Bountiful, City of, Davis County 490052 July 2, 1975, Emerg, August 3, 1981, Reg, June 18, 2007, Susp ......do Do. Woods Cross, City of, Davis County 490054 June 12, 1975, Emerg, August 29, 1978, Reg, June 18, 2007, Susp ......do Do. * do = Ditto. Code for reading third column: Emerg.—Emergency; Reg.—Regular; Susp.—Suspension. Dated: June 12, 2007. Michael K. Buckley, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Mitigation, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E7-12207 Filed 6-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 229 [Docket No. 0612242865-7168-01; I.D. 092506A] RIN 0648-AU90 Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing Operations; Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: NMFS revises regulations implementing the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan (ALWTRP) by expanding the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area and modifying regulations pertaining to gillnetting within the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area. NMFS prohibits gillnet fishing or gillnet possession during annual restricted periods associated with the right whale calving season. Limited exemptions to the fishing prohibitions are provided for gillnet fishing for sharks and for Spanish mackerel south of 29°00′ N. lat. An exemption to the possession prohibition is provided for transiting through the area if gear is stowed in accordance with this final rule. This action is required to meet the goals of the Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA)and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This action is necessary to protect northern right whales from serious injury or mortality from entanglement in gillnet gear in their calving area in Atlantic Ocean waters off the Southeast U.S. DATES: This final rule is effective July 25, 2007. ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of this final rule should be addressed to Chief, Marine Mammal Branch, Attn: Right Whale Gillnet Rule, Protected Resources, NMFS, 263 13 th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701. Copies of the Environmental Assessment (EA), Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA), and copies of all citations referenced in this final rulemaking may be obtained from the persons listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Engleby, 727-824-5312, Barb Zoodsma, 904-321-2806, or Nancy Young, 727-824-5607. *Electronic Access:* Regulations, compliance guides, and background documents for the ALWTRP can be downloaded from the ALWTRP web site at *http://www.nero.noaa.gov/whaletrp/* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background NMFS published a proposed rule on November 15, 2006 (71 FR 66482), to permanently prohibit gillnet fishing in portions of the Southeast U.S. to protect right whales from entanglement in gillnet gear during their annual calving season. The proposed rule included prohibitions on gillnet fishing and possession, with some exemptions. A detailed description of the proposed management measures and supporting background information and analysis is included in the proposed rule (71 FR 66482, November 15, 2006). NMFS would like to highlight that this action removes the definitions of “Shark gillnetting,” “Strikenet or to fish with strikenet gear,” and “To strikenet for sharks” from 50 CFR 229.2. The revised ALWTRP regulations are based on gear characteristics, and NMFS believes the regulations do not need to rely on these definitions. NMFS requested public comment on the proposed rule and provided a 30 day public comment period. NMFS received requests from the public to extend the comment period, and on January 16, 2007, NMFS published a notice in the **Federal Register** reopening the comment period for an additional 15 days (72 FR 1689). In that notice, NMFS announced that all comments received during the period November 15, 2007, through January 31, 2007, would be considered in this rulemaking. Below, we summarize the public comments received, our responses to those comments, and a change made to the proposed regulations based on the comments. Comments on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Responses NMFS received 4,571 comments on the proposed rule from fishery management agencies and commissions of southeastern U.S. states, the Marine Mammal Commission (MMC), environmental organizations, commercial fishing organizations, commercial and recreational fishermen, and interested members of the public. NMFS received these comments in the form of electronic mail, letters, and facsimile. Of those, 4,544 were identical, or slightly modified, form letters expressing support for the proposed rule, and 27 contained substantive comments on specific measures or components of the proposed rule. NMFS did not receive any comments on the removal of strikenet definitions. In the text below, NMFS provides a summary of the comments, recommendations, and issues raised that relate to the measures in this rulemaking, provides responses to them, and identifies changes to the proposed regulations. Comments not relevant to this rulemaking, such as those pertaining to the February 16, 2006, temporary rule; the November 15, 2006, emergency rule; and process-related comments relative to the ALWTRT′s Southeast
(SE)Subgroup meeting were read and considered but are not being discussed in this document addressing the proposed and final rule. *Comment 1:* Several commenters stated that gillnet fishing gear is dangerous to right whale mothers and calves. These commenters urged that the proposed rule be finalized, citing the right whale's extremely low abundance estimates and stating that the loss of even one animal contributes to the risk of extinction. Several of these commenters indicated that the loss of right whales has implications throughout the ecosystem. Others emphasized that it is NMFS' responsibility to protect this species and prevent its extinction. *Response:* NMFS agrees that gillnet fishing gear can be dangerous to right whale calves, as demonstrated by the January 22, 2006, right whale calf mortality, which occurred as a result of entanglement in gillnet gear allowed to be used in the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area during the restricted period. NMFS also agrees that estimates of right whale abundance are low, that the loss of one right whale may potentially have implications for the right whale population and its ecosystem (see response to Comment 2), and that NMFS has a responsibility to protect right whales. The purpose of this final rule is to protect right whales from the threat of entanglement in gillnet gear by implementing, with revisions, existing ALWTRP regulations promulgated in 1997 under the MMPA that require the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries
(AA)to close the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area to gillnet gear during the annual restricted period unless the AA revises the restricted period or implements other measures under 50 CFR 229.32(g)(2). *Comment 2:* One commenter stated that concerns for the status of the right whale are unwarranted and population figures are not valid based on his calculations of right whale abundance using a variety of variables (e.g., abundance in 1935, sex ratio, calving interval, age at senescence), and requested information upon which NMFS' population estimates were based. The commenter also questioned the role of fishing interactions as one of the causes of the right whale's reduced population. *Response:* NMFS relies on the best available scientific information, including peer-reviewed scientific literature, to assess northern right whale abundance, status, and threats in marine mammal Stock Assessment Reports (SAR), required by provisions of the MMPA. The SAR for northern right whales in the North Atlantic is updated annually and reviewed both internally and externally by teams of scientific experts. The 2006 SAR for northern right whales in the North Atlantic (Waring *et al.* , 2007) indicates that the best estimate of minimum population size for the species is 306 individually-recognized whales known to be alive during 2001. Because the data are from identification photographs and genetic samples in all known right whale aggregation areas, and very few new adult whales have been added since the mid-1990s, NMFS believes that these records represent a nearly complete census of the population. Therefore, NMFS does not rely on life history parameters to estimate right whale abundance and disagrees that the population figures quoted in the proposed rule are invalid. Additional population analyses and modeling exercises have been conducted and published in the peer-reviewed literature (e.g., Caswell *et al.* , 1999; Fujiwara and Caswell, 2001). These studies cite high mortality rates in the 1980s and 1990s and conclude that the population began to decline in the early 1990s. These studies conclude that preventing the death of even one adult female could significantly affect the population's trend. A 2001 evaluation by the International Whaling Commission's
(IWC)Scientific Committee (Best *et al.* , 2001) also concluded that the population of northern right whales in the North Atlantic is not likely much greater than 300 individuals. As a result of the low population size, the lack of observed population growth, and deaths from human activities, NMFS determined in 2000 and each year since that the MMPA-defined “Potential Biological Removal” (i.e., the maximum number of individuals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its Optimum Sustainable Population (OSP)) for northern right whales in the North Atlantic is zero. That is, the population cannot sustain any deaths or serious injuries due to human causes for the species to recover. Therefore, NMFS disagrees that concerns for the right whale population size are unwarranted. With regard to the role of fishing interactions as one of the true causes of the reduced population, NMFS acknowledges that by 1935, the northern right whale population was severely depleted by commercial whaling. However, the second-leading known cause of death in right whales from 1970 to 2005 is entanglement in fishing gear. Consequently, the current right whale recovery plan states that implementation of strategies to reduce the likelihood of entanglement is an action that must be taken to prevent extinction or to prevent the species from declining irreversibly (NMFS, 2005). In sum, NMFS believes that the status of right whales has not improved since the promulgation of the ALWTRP in 1997 and that implementing this provision of the ALWTRP, with revisions, is warranted and necessary for the protection and conservation of right whales. *Comment 3:* One commenter questioned whether the January 22, 2006, right whale mortality was the result of entanglement in gillnet gear. The commenter stated that NMFS initially reported to local media that the preliminary cause of death was ship strike, the immediate cause of death was never determined by the necropsy team, and the more typical causes of death from entanglement (e.g., infection, dehydration, or drowning) were not found in this case. The commenter also stated that the lead necropsy scientist reported that the scars on the whale were healing (i.e., the whale could not have been killed by recent entanglement), and that no gear was retrieved from the animal. The commenter further stated that NMFS falls short of satisfying the evidentiary requirements for implementing 50 CFR 229.32(g)(1). *Response:* NMFS disagrees that staff reported to local media the January 22, 2006, right whale calf mortality was the result of ship strike. However, NMFS is aware that, shortly following the necropsy, one media outlet erroneously quoted NMFS as stating the cause of death was a ship strike, and recently, the erroneous report was repeated by a second media outlet. In both instances, NMFS contacted the media outlets to correct the inaccuracy. NMFS acknowledges that the necropsy team did not determine the immediate cause of death of the right whale calf (e.g., infection, dehydration). Internal organs had autolyzed significantly by the time the animal was necropsied. However, the final necropsy report stated the following with regard to the pre-mortem net entanglement injuries: “the most parsimonious hypothesis is that these injuries were sufficiently serious to initiate the demise of” this right whale. Thus, the necropsy report supported NMFS′ determination that the right whale calf was seriously injured and ultimately died as a result of entanglement in gillnet gear. NMFS also acknowledges that healing processes had initiated in the peduncle lesions created by net entanglement. Normal live tissue responds immediately to injuries by initiating the healing process. For example, coagulation (“healing”) stops uncontrolled blood flow and similarly, tissue undergoes changes (“healing”) in an attempt to repair injuries. However, it is important not to confuse the process of “healing” (an injury yet to be repaired) with an animal′s ability to successfully complete the healing process (reparation). In the case of the right whale calf, the animal′s body was in the process of attempting to repair (healing) its wounds; however, it was unsuccessful at repairing its entanglement injuries prior to succumbing to death. Finally, NMFS also acknowledges that gillnet gear was not found on the dead right whale calf. However, evidence of recent entanglement was clearly documented by the necropsy team. Entanglement-related damage to the animal′s peduncle included “extensive epidermal and dermal indentation and penetration with overall pattern formation of diamond, vee, and straight lines....” Images of these lesions were presented at an informal orientation workshop conducted for interested participants prior to the formal SE Subgroup meeting. At least one gillnet fisherman present stated that the lesions were very similar to gillnet lesions observed on rays incidentally taken in gillnet during his fishing operations. The damage to the animal that was judged to be the result of entanglement met NMFS′ criteria of a serious injury (i.e., an injury likely to result in mortality (50 CFR 216.3)). Therefore, NMFS disagrees with the commenter that NMFS falls short of evidentiary requirements for implementing 50 CFR 229.32(g)(1) since NMFS has determined, based on best available information and discussions with scientific investigators, that the right whale′s entanglement and serious injury by gillnet gear ultimately led to the death of the animal (see also responses to comments 4, 5, and 6). *Comment 4:* One commenter stated that the proposed rule does not reflect the fishing industry's belief that illegal fishing gear used in the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area was likely involved in the interaction. The commenter stated that there was no clear evidence that legal gear used in the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area was the primary cause of death of the right whale calf found dead on January 22, 2006. The commenter also stated that NMFS ignored information provided by the fishing industry at the SE Subgroup meeting that an illegal gillnet operation was cited by the U.S. Coast Guard in the same area and time as the whale mortality event. *Response:* NMFS Office of Law Enforcement has actively investigated the January 22, 2006, right whale mortality, as well as gillnet fishing operations occurring in the same general time and area. As a matter of enforcement policy, NMFS does not provide information on alleged violations of fishery regulations prior to the issuance of charges or if no charges are filed. However, NMFS affirms that we have actively considered the information presented by the fishing industry regarding potential illegal fishing in developing both the proposed and this final rule and that there is no substantiated evidence indicating that illegal gear was involved in the entanglement of the right whale calf. The April 2006 SE Subgroup meeting Key Outcomes Document (Ellenberg Associates, Inc., 2006) does reflect that some attendees questioned whether legal or illegal fishing caused the right whale mortality. NMFS learned during the Subgroup meeting that there was some confusion among fishermen as to the legality of 4-7/8 inch (12.4 cm) stretched mesh gillnet being used in the restricted area during the restricted period, and, according to the fishermen, this gear was being used in the area where the whale calf was found. One of the industry statements captured in the Key Outcomes Document under Individual Comments reflects this confusion: “Industry knows what happened with this calf: Fishermen suspect the entanglement involved 4-7/8 inch stretched mesh gillnet.” However, fishing 4-7/8 inch (12.4 cm) stretched mesh gillnet was allowed under ALWTRP regulations in the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area during the restricted period. The actual gear entangling the calf was never recovered and the mesh size of the gillnet gear involved in the entanglement could not be determined. Various mesh sizes were legally used within the area, subject to different restrictions established under the ALWTRP regulations, fishery management plans, and applicable state authorities. Even if the actual gear used was 4-7/8 inch (12.4 cm) stretch mesh, as asserted by industry at the SE Subgroup meeting, that gear type was allowed to be used under ALWTRP regulations. Scientists conducting right whale aerial surveys during the weeks preceding the discovery of the dead right whale calf documented large numbers of buoys in Federal waters off the mouth of the St. Johns River. On-water scientists studying right whales reported and photographed fishermen hauling back large amounts of gillnet that were attached to the buoys. These observations were reported at the SE Subgroup meeting and included in the meeting's Key Outcomes Document (Ellenberg Associates, Inc. 2006) This fishing effort was in the vicinity of where the calf's carcass was found. It was also in an area that included a high density of right whale sightings, including the right whale calf prior to its death. NMFS asked right whale scientists conducting research in the area to report any activity that they felt might be a threat to right whales. No other fishing activity of concern in NE Florida or SE Georgia at that time was reported to NMFS. NMFS and its law enforcement partners strive to ensure compliance and detect violations. In this case, a large amount of legal fishing with gillnet gear was occurring in the time and place of the right whale calf′s entanglement and death. NMFS has considered and investigated the information presented by the fishing industry at the SE Subgroup meeting. NMFS continues to believe, consistent with its previous determinations under 50 CFR 229.32(g)(1), that the death of the right whale calf was the result of entanglement in gillnet gear allowed to be used in the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area during the restricted period. *Comment 5:* One commenter stated that NMFS failed to identify the specific fishery involved in the January 22, 2006, right whale calf mortality event. This commenter stated that there was no evidence the North Carolina whiting gillnet fishery was involved in the alleged entanglement. *Response:* The implementing regulations do not require NMFS to identify the specific fishery involved; rather, NMFS must determine that the entanglement was caused by gillnet gear allowed to be used in the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area during the restricted period. See response to Comments 3 and 6 regarding NMFS' determinations that gillnet gear was involved in the entanglement and that the gear was set within the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area, respectively. The restricted period at the time was from November 15 to March 31. The calf was sighted on December 30, 2005, and no linear lesions were evident. However, on January 8, 2006, aerial photographs taken of the calf reveal that the peduncle linear lesions were present. Therefore, the entanglement must have occurred between those two dates and during the restricted period. *Comment 6:* One commenter stated there was no scientific evidence that the gear implicated in the January 22, 2006, right whale mortality event was actually set in the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area. This commenter stated that gear could have been from outside the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area and pointed out that entangled whales often travel great distances. *Response:* The New England Aquarium′s right whale photograph database was consulted to determine the sighting history for the dead calf. On December 30, 2005, the calf and its mother were sighted together off St. Catherines Island, Georgia. The calf did not show evidence of entanglement at the time. On January 8 and 9, 2006, the pair were sighted off the mouth of Nassau Sound, Florida, and Cumberland Sound, Georgia, respectively. At that time, the aerial survey photographs suggested the calf had linear scars, consistent with some type of entanglement event. Both sightings occurred well within the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area (the Georgia and Florida sighting locations were greater than 30 nm (55.6 km) and 70 nm (129.6 km), respectively, from the nearest boundary of the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area). Since mother-calf pairs typically remain on the calving grounds in January and are unlikely to travel very long distances in a short period of time, NMFS believes the calf became entangled in gillnet gear within the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area. *Comment 7:* One commenter stated that NMFS did not adequately consider the alternative fishing restrictions proposed by gillnet fishermen at the SE Subgroup meeting that would allow gillnet fishing for whiting to continue north of 29° N. lat. The commenter then listed the restrictions proposed at the SE Subgroup meeting, and included the following additional fishing restrictions:
(1)600 pound (272.4 kg) weak links,
(2)all gear would be hauled back one hour before sunset, and
(3)cooperative research. The commenter stated these proposed restrictions were similar to those being proposed in the exemption for the Spanish mackerel fishery, but NMFS disregarded the North Carolina whiting fishermen′s proposal. The commenter also stated that, unlike the fishing industry proposal, NMFS fully considered comments from the MMC. Two other commenters stated that they did not support the alternative fishing restrictions proposed by the commercial fishing industry, stating that the proposed measures do not reduce risk inherent in the gear type and do not address the threat to newborn calves in that area. *Response:* NMFS explicitly considered the specific alternative gillnet restrictions proposed by the fishermen at the SE Subgroup meeting. The fishermen′s proposal was included in the Key Outcomes Document (Ellenberg Associates, Inc., 2006) and was analyzed in the EA as Alternative 2. However, NMFS determined neither the operational restrictions proposed by the commenter, nor any other operational restrictions, would provide sufficient reduction in the likelihood of gillnet gear interactions with right whales, or reduce the risk of right whale serious injury and mortality in the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area. The proposed restrictions would allow large amounts of net to be in the water for long periods of time (i.e., long soak time) in the core right whale calving area. NMFS considered the three additional fishing restrictions proposed by the commenter (see comment above). First, it is unknown whether weak links will release very young calves. Second, NMFS acknowledges that hauling back gear prior to sunset would likely result in risk reduction. However, the potential for right whale interactions with gillnets in a substantial and core portion of the right whale calving area would not be eliminated during the calving season because large amounts of net and vertical line with very long soak times would continue to be used in the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area. Third, cooperative research does not in and of itself reduce risk to right whales. Therefore, NMFS has determined that these newly proposed restrictions do not meet the bases in 50 CFR 229.32(g)(2) under which exemptions to a full, permanent closure of the restricted area are allowable. NMFS disagrees that the whiting gillnet proposal for fishing north of 29° N. lat. is similar to the Spanish mackerel exemption. Right whale distribution patterns south of 29° N. lat. and existing state gillnet prohibitions combine to result in minimal spatial and temporal overlap of right whales and Spanish mackerel fishing effort during the exempted periods. All gillnet fishing, including Spanish mackerel fishing, is prohibited north of 29° N. lat. by this final rule because any gillnet fishing activity in that area during the calving season would result in heavy spatial and temporal overlap with calving right whales. For the minimal amount of time that right whales and Spanish mackerel fishing effort do overlap south of 29° N. lat., the fishing gear characteristics and operational methods reduce risk to right whales: nets greater than 800 yards (2,400 ft, 732 m) are prohibited and soak time must be less than one hour. The whiting fishermen proposal would allow nets up to 2,800 yards (8,400 ft, 2.56 km) in length (2,000 more yards (6,000 ft, 1.83 km) of net and associated vertical lines than allowed by the Spanish mackerel exemption) and soak times of 4-6 hours (Ellenberg Associates, Inc. 2006). NMFS considered comments submitted by the MMC. Title II of the MMPA charges the MMC with recommending to Federal officials steps the MMC deems necessary or desirable for the protection and conservation of marine mammals. The MMPA charges Federal officials with responding to the MMC regarding their recommendations. As such, NMFS is required to consider MMC recommendations. As part of this rulemaking, NMFS has considered the MMC recommendations, similar to other recommendations, relative to 50 CFR 229.32(g)(1) and (2). *Comment 8:* One commenter stated that the actions contained in the proposed rule are beyond the scope of the authority of the NMFS Southeast Regional Office (SERO). *Response:* The regulations at 50 CFR 229.32(g)(1) state that the AA must take specific action when a serious injury or mortality of a right whale occurs in the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area from November 15 through March 31 as a result of entanglement by gillnet gear allowed to be used in that area and time. NMFS is required to close that area to that gear type for the rest of that time period and for that same time period in each subsequent year, unless the AA revises the restricted period or unless other measures are implemented in accordance with 50 CFR 229.32(g)(2). The January 22, 2006, right whale calf mortality occurred as a result of entanglement in gillnet gear allowed to be used in the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area during the restricted period (see responses to Comments 3, 4, 5, and 6). Consequently, the AA determined to take action through this final rule to prevent additional serious injury or mortalities of right whales. Thus, NMFS has appropriately implemented its authority. *Comment 9:* One commenter stated that the provisions required for the exemption of gillnetting for sharks and for Spanish mackerel south of 29° N. lat., including restrictions on setting nets within 3 nm (5.6 km) of right whales and other large whales and requiring the removal of nets from the water if a whale approaches within 3 nm (5.6 km), may be difficult to put into practice and impossible to enforce, given that the exemptions occur in areas for which there are no dedicated marine mammal surveys and the likelihood that fishermen would receive notification of whales in the area would be small. The commenter suggests continued research on methodology, such as passive acoustic monitoring, for determining that no whales are in the vicinity of nets in the water. *Response:* NMFS acknowledges these provisions may be challenging to enforce, but we believe other requirements for the exempted fisheries will allow fishermen to detect and avoid close interactions with large whale species. For example, fishermen gillnetting for sharks in the restricted area are required to use a spotter plane (50 CFR 229.32(f)(4)(iv)), so whales in the area will likely be seen and fishermen will be capable of removing gear from the water. The Spanish mackerel fishery has existing gear requirements at 50 CFR 622.41(c)(3)(ii), including short soak time, limit of one net fished, set, or placed in the water at any one time, and restrictions on float line length, as well as new requirements prohibiting the setting of gear at night or in low visibility and removing gear from the water before night or if visibility decreases below 500 yards (1,500 ft, 460 m). NMFS believes these factors, in conjunction with known and predicted right whale distribution patterns in the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area south of 29° N. lat. during December through March, and existing Florida regulations prohibiting gillnetting in state waters that further reduce the potential spatial overlap between gillnet fishing and right whales, are operationally effective and will protect right whales from the risk of serious injury and mortality. NMFS agrees that methods such as passive acoustic monitoring may be useful for managing human interactions with whales. However, at this time it is unknown if mother/calf pairs vocalize while in the Southeast U.S. calving area. Research in this area is underway. For example, hydrophone arrays were deployed during the 2006-2007 calving season in the vicinity of the St. Mary′s and Brunswick River entrances. Researchers will soon begin examining the findings and comparing them to aerial survey sightings to determine the efficacy of this technology in reliably detecting the presence of whales, including mother/calf pairs, in the Southeast U.S. calving area. *Comment 10:* NMFS received several comments regarding the economic impact of the proposed rule. One commenter stated that the proposed regulations disproportionately impact North Carolina gillnetters targeting whiting and stated that these fishermen are not being provided with a safe, viable economic alternative to continue fishing for whiting in the region. Other commenters stated that while the rule may impose a burden on some gillnetters, economic interests should not supersede necessary species protection, and fishing operations must be restricted to reduce entanglement risk to endangered right whales. *Response:* As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), NMFS conducted an analysis of the socio-economic impacts of these regulations, which can be found in the EA and regulatory flexibility analysis. NMFS agrees that this final rule is expected to most greatly affect fishermen who fish for whiting in the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area North. NMFS notes, however, that all gillnet fishing will be prohibited by this final rule in the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area North, not just whiting fishing. In addition, comments made by whiting fishermen at the SE Subgroup meeting suggest these losses could be mitigated by moving into other areas and/or targeting other species at other times of the year, resulting in minimal long-term impacts for these fishermen from this final rule. Finally, at the SE Subgroup meeting, NMFS inquired about the feasibility of fishing for whiting in other areas, such as the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area South, but fishermen reported that a unique habitat feature off northeast Florida resulted in a very localized concentration of whiting and this is where whiting gillnet fishing effort was necessarily focused. This final rule implements regulations at 50 CFR 229.32(g)(1), with associated revisions to 50 CFR 229.32(f). Consequently, anything less than a full and permanent closure of the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area to all gillnet fishing during the restricted period can only be authorized based on the considerations in 50 CFR 229.32(g)(2). This final rule eliminates the potential for right whale interactions with gillnets in the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area North, a substantial and core portion of the right whale calving area. However, this final rule does allow for gillnet fishing exemptions in the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area South. NMFS has determined that a combination of existing and new regulatory requirements for exempted fisheries in this area and during the restricted period are both operationally effective and capable of protecting right whales from the risk of serious injury and mortality pursuant to 50 CFR 229.32(g)(2)(i) (see also response to Comment 7). *Comment 11:* One commenter stated that there is no evidence that low-rise North Carolina-style whiting gear or associated vertical lines presents a serious threat to right whales in the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area. *Response:* Although the exact mechanism by which right whales become entangled in gillnet gear is unknown, NMFS has documented entanglements of right whales in gillnets and vertical lines. Therefore, NMFS cannot verify that gillnets fished in a low-rise fashion (i.e., sink gillnet) are less risky than other gillnets or gear with vertical lines in the core calving area. Therefore, fishing with low-rise gillnets in the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area North does not meet the bases in 50 CFR 229.32(g)(2) under which exemptions to a full, permanent closure of the restricted area are allowable. *Comment 12:* Comments were received regarding the proposed changes to the boundaries of the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area. Several commenters supported expanding the restricted area to include waters off South Carolina, and several other commenters requested further expansion. Two commenters supported a boundary of 40 nm (74.08 km) off the coast of South Carolina, with one commenter citing habitat analysis research that indicates potential right whale habitat extends in excess of 35 nm (64.82 km) from the South Carolina shoreline. Two other commenters advocated expanding the entire Southeast U.S. Restricted Area to 200 nm (370.4 km) (the outer limit of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)), with one commenter citing low survey effort in offshore waters and uncertainty about use of these waters by whales, and reasoning that extending the geographical boundary would have no significant economic impact and would prevent development of new fisheries in that area. Another commenter opposed the expansion of the restricted area, stating that the expansion is not based on credible science. The commenter stated that NMFS based its decision on aerial surveys conducted from 2001-2005, with no entanglements or strandings to indicate there is a problem in this area, a single observation of a right whale mother/calf pair in the 2004-2005 calving season, and a single year of acoustic monitoring. The commenter requested that more substantial and robust scientific evidence justifying the expansion be presented. *Response:* The decision to expand the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area to include waters off South Carolina is based on several factors, which are described in the proposed rule (71 FR 66482, November 15, 2006) and EA. These factors include aerial and acoustic monitoring data that show the consistent occurrence of right whales in waters off South Carolina throughout the winter months (McLellan *et al.* , 2001; Glass *et al.* , 2005; Clark 2006). During relatively limited aerial survey effort from 2001-2005, NMFS contractors documented numerous sightings of right whales off South Carolina during the calving season. NMFS consulted aerial survey data collected off South Carolina during the 2005/2006 and 2006/2007 calving season to determine if right whales were continuing to use that area. At least 25 sightings of one or more right whales, including mother/calf pairs, were observed off South Carolina during each of those calving seasons (Glass and Taylor 2006; and Wildlife Trust, unpub. data). One mother/calf pair was observed off South Carolina multiple times but was not observed during that calving season in any other survey area. Thus, the best available information indicates South Carolina is used exclusively as a calving area by some right whales. NMFS also relied on habitat models that demonstrate a strong relationship between the spatial distribution of calving right whales and specific environmental variables (i.e., water temperature and bathymetry). Environmental conditions strongly correlated with calving right whale distribution are typically found off South Carolina to distances of 35 nm (64.82 km) from shore during winter months. Thus, NMFS is expanding the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area to include waters 35 nm (64.82 km) off the coast of South Carolina to adequately protect right whales from the threat of entanglement in fishing gear during the calving season. NMFS specifically solicited public comment on the decision to place the boundary at 35 nm (64.82 km) rather than 40 nm (74.08) off the coast of South Carolina. Although NMFS considered various factors, including Hain and Kenney's
(2005)conclusion that uncertainty in predicting right whale occurrence is increased with distance from shoreline due to reduced search effort, we believe that scientific evidence does not support a 40 nm (74.08 km) boundary. Recent predictive modeling efforts show that the expected seasonal progression of temperature off South Carolina is such that the optimal water temperature/bathymetry correlates preferred by right whales, and peak predicted sighting rates, for calving right whales occurs throughout much of the spatial range in waters typically out to 50 km (27 nm) from shore (Garrison, 2007). However, habitat in the marine environment is best represented as a spatial gradient between the most suitable and least suitable environments, and there is no clear spatial boundary for the habitat and no boundary to the movement of right whales inside and outside of the optimal habitat. However, as habitat modeling in Garrison 2007 demonstrates, the water temperature bathymetry correlates preferred by calving right whales degrade from the optimal values of these variables with increasing distance from shore. Mean right whale calving density as a function of distance from shore predicted by the model is nearly zero at 35 nm (64.82 km) from shore. Therefore, NMFS has determined that a 35-nm (64.82-km) boundary provides a sufficient buffer from the 27-nm (50-km) distance predicted by the habitat model. NMFS is therefore maintaining the 35-nm (64.82-km) management boundary for waters off South Carolina. NMFS is not expanding the seaward boundary of the restricted area to the edge of the EEZ. This final rule is specific to right whale protection from gillnet fishing activity in critical calving area. While right whale survey effort is low east of 80° W. long., the Gulf Stream apparently serves as a thermal boundary to the eastward movements of right whales in the Southeast U.S. (Keller *et al.* , 2006). *Comment 13:* NMFS received several comments regarding the proposed changes to the restricted period. Two commenters recommended that the restricted period for the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area North be extended to November 1 through April 30 instead of the current period of November 15 to March 31 to adequately protect right whale mothers and calves in the calving area. One of these commenters stated that migration patterns of right whales are not well known, and appropriate closure periods will be determined more reliably as more is learned; however, the whales must occur in the northern area both earlier and later in the season than in the southern area, for the southward and northward migration. Another commenter proposed alternate dates for the restricted period for the right whale critical habitat area. This commenter requested that April 1 remain the ending date for the restricted period. More specifically, the commenter asked that the area south of the Georgia/Florida border open for the whiting fishery on April 1, and the area between the North Carolina/South Carolina border and the Georgia/Florida border remain closed through April 15, on the basis that this would allow right whales to exit the area on their northward migration route, and allow fishermen to salvage a two week fishing season (during the first portion of April) while water temperatures are favorable for a viable fishery. *Response:* The ALWTRP regulations at 50 CFR 229.32(g)(2)(v) authorize the AA to revise the restricted period if NMFS determines that right whales are remaining longer than expected in a closed area or have left earlier than expected. In developing this final rule, NMFS considered whether right whales were remaining longer in or leaving earlier from the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area than previously expected, recognizing that a substantial amount of aerial survey data and opportunistic sightings of right whales have been collected since the ALWTRP regulations were originally promulgated in 1997. The November 15 through March 31 timeframe was established as the restricted period for the entire Southeast U.S. Restricted Area in the original ALWTRP regulations. More recent data indicate that right whales are rarely sighted south of 29° N. lat. in November or in April; however, right whales have been sighted throughout the area north of 29° N. lat. and extending north to the South Carolina/North Carolina border from mid-November through mid-April. Consequently, in accordance with 50 CFR 229.32(g)(2)(v), NMFS has determined that it is appropriate to modify the annual restricted period to include two restricted periods specific to the northern and southern zones of the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area: November 15 through April 15 north of 29° N. lat. and December 1 through March 31 south of 29° N. lat. This is consistent with NMFS' June 21, 2005, proposed rule to amend the ALWTRP(70 FR 35894). NMFS believes the dates are sufficiently protective of right whale mothers and calves during their southward and northward migration. NMFS specifically re-evaluated available information in consideration of the alternate restricted period proposed by one commenter and described above, for the area south of the Georgia/Florida border. This information included habitat models and right whale sightings data from aerial surveys geographically stratified as north and south of the Georgia/Florida border. Habitat models predict right whales to be present south of the Georgia/Florida state boundary and as far south as Cape Canaveral through the end of March (Garrison 2007), indicating that whales would be migrating through the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area North during the first two weeks of April. This is confirmed by right whale sighting data from aerial surveys. NMFS reviewed effort-corrected right whale sighting records contained in the University of Rhode Island database for the area between 29° N. lat. and the Georgia/Florida border (30° 42.5′ N. lat.) for right whale sightings from April 1 to April 15. The mean number of sightings per unit of survey effort is zero for the area south of the Georgia/Florida border in the second half of April, but greater than zero during the first half of April, indicating that right whales are present in that area through mid-April. NMFS believes that allowing gillnet fishing in the area south of the Georgia/Florida border annually after March 31 would pose an unacceptable risk to right whales. *Comment 14:* Comments were received requesting additional exemptions to the prohibition on gillnet fishing and possession during the restricted period. These exemptions include beach-based recreational gillnetting in South Carolina, scientific research using gillnets, and traversing through Little River Inlet with fish on board. One commenter stated that any additional exemptions should be minimized and granted only in areas where such activities will not take right whales. Others opposed any additional exemptions. Finally, some commenters not only opposed additional exemptions but supported increased restrictions of gillnets and other fishing gear types. *Response:* NMFS reiterates that this final rule implements and amends the ALWTRP regulations under the MMPA and the ESA and applies only to certain commercial fisheries that interact with large whales. This final rule does not apply to recreational fishing or non-commercial fishing for scientific research if no sale or barter is involved. While NMFS has the statutory authority to issue protective regulations for right whale impacts caused by activities other than commercial fisheries, that is beyond the scope of this action which was triggered by existing regulatory requirements in 50 CFR 229.32(g)(1). Recreational and research gillnetting are not exempt from the take prohibitions under either the ESA or MMPA, and would need applicable authorizations if right whale takes were anticipated. South Carolina Department of Natural Resources permits a licensed recreational surf gillnet fishery that currently includes 212 participants operating mainly along the state's northern coast, and states they believe the characteristics of the fishery make the likelihood of interaction with large whales extremely low. Nets are restricted to no longer than 100 feet (30.48 m) and are used in unrestricted areas of the Atlantic Ocean, typically in water depths less than 8 feet (2.44 m). Fishermen are required to remain within 500 feet (152.4 m) or “hailing distance” of their nets at all times. Given the bathymetry off South Carolina's Atlantic beaches, gillnet gear is unlikely to extend into depths where right whales would normally occur. NMFS continually works with state fishery management agencies in the southeast U.S. to develop conditions for research permits for the safe conduct of research activities that avoid potential impacts to right whales. These conditions may include limits on net length, number of nets, soak time, tending requirements, observer requirements, disentanglement training, breakaway panels, and endline modifications. To date, fishing effort has been very low for scientific research gillnetting. NMFS agrees that it is reasonable to allow gillnet vessels to transit in and out of the Little River Inlet and is modifying the restricted area accordingly in this final rule. NMFS has moved the boundary of the restricted area southward to exclude the Little River Inlet from the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area. This modification will allow fishermen who participate in a legal commercial gillnet fishery off the southeastern coast of North Carolina to transit through Little River Inlet on the South Carolina/North Carolina border with gillnets and fish onboard. This measure alleviates safety concerns associated with fishermen in small vessels (typically less than 24 feet (7.3 m)) being required to use the closest navigable inlet beyond the restricted area, Shallotte Inlet, which is approximately 10 nm (18.52 km) away and can become unsafe in certain weather conditions. The modification poses no additional risk to right whales because the change in area is very small and gillnetting will remain prohibited in South Carolina state waters surrounding the inlet. *Comment 15:* Several commenters stated they support the gillnet closure in the Southeast U.S., but believe that additional measures should be taken to protect right whales in other areas, including the North Pacific Ocean, Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary, other National Marine Sanctuaries, and Cape Cod Bay. Comments were also received requesting protections for right whales in areas outside of U.S. jurisdiction. *Response:* The purpose of this final rule is to implement existing ALWTRP regulations at 50 CFR 229.32(g)(1) and (2), with associated revisions to 50 CFR 229.32(f), in response to the January 22, 2006, right whale calf mortality. The regulations only cover the Southeast U.S. calving area; therefore, measures addressing other geographical areas are outside the scope of this rulemaking. Summary of Changes in This Final Rule Relative to the Proposed Rule Based on comments received, NMFS has changed the final rule from the proposed rule to exclude the Little River entrance, South Carolina, from the expanded Southeast U.S. Restricted Area. Coordinates contained in the table in 50 CFR 229.32(f)(1)(i) have been revised to reflect this change. Figure 1 illustrates the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area as modified by this final rule. Furthermore, paragraph 229.32(f)(3) that addresses observer requirements in the Southeast U.S. Observer Area, is modified to eliminate references to observer requirements for the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area North. Since this final rule eliminates gillnetting in the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area North, modifying this paragraph as specified will avoid confusion. BILLING CODE 3510-22-S ER25JN07.002 BILLING CODE 3510-22-C Literature Cited Best, P.B., J.L. Bannister, R.L. Brownell, Jr., and G.P. Donovan. Eds. 2001. Right whales: worldwide status. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management. (Special Issue) 2. 309 pages. Caswell, H., M. Fujiwara, and S. Brault. 1999. Declining survival probability threatens the North Atlantic right whale. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 96: 3308-3313. Clark, C.W. 2006. Application of passive acoustic methods to detect migrating right whales in New England and Mid-Atlantic waters. Final Report to NMFS under Contract Number WC133F-04-CN-0060. 71 pp. Ellenberg Associates, Inc. 2006. Key Outcomes for the Southeast Subgroup of the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team. April 11-12, 2006, St. Augustine, Florida. Fujiwara, M. and H. Caswell. 2001. Demography of the endangered North Atlantic right whale. Nature 414: 537 541. Garrison, L.P. 2007. Defining the North Atlantic Right Whale Calving Habitat in the Southeastern United States: An Application of a Habitat Model. NOAA Technical Memorandum. NOAA NMFS-SEFSC-553: 66 p. Glass, A.H., C.R. Taylor, and D.M. Cupka. 2005. Monitoring North Atlantic right whales off the coasts of South Carolina and Georgia 2004-2005. Final report to National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. 16 pp. Hain, J.H. and R.D. Kenney. 2005. A Review and Update to the Technical Report of December 2002 for the Estimation of Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Densities in the Cherry Point OPAREA - Specific to the Distribution and Density of the North Atlantic Right Whale. Atlantic Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Norfolk, Virginia. Keller, C. A., L.I. Ward-Geiger, W.B. Brooks, C.K. Slay, C.R. Taylor, and B.J. Zoodsma. 2006. North Atlantic right whale distribution in relation to sea-surface temperature in the southeastern United States calving grounds. Marine Mammal Science 22(2): 426-445. McLellan, W.A., K.M. Lefler, G. Jones, K. Hardcastle, and D.A. Pabst. 2001. Winter right whale surveys from Savannah, Georgia to Chesapeake Bay, Virginia February-March 2001. Final Report to NMFS under Contract Number 40WCNF1A0249. 36 pp. Waring, G.T., E. Josephson, C.P. Fairfield, and K. Maze-Foley. Eds. 2007. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico marine mammal stock assessments 2006. NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFS-NE-201. 388 p. Classification In accordance with section 118(f)(9) of the MMPA, NMFS has determined that this action is necessary to implement take reduction measures to protect northern right whales in the North Atlantic. In addition, pursuant to section 11(f) of the ESA, NMFS is promulgating these regulations to enforce the ESA's prohibitions on the taking of endangered right whales. This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. NMFS prepared an EA for this action, and the AA concluded that there will be no significant impact on the human environment as a result of this final rule. A copy of the EA is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ). A final regulatory flexibility analysis
(FRFA)incorporates the IRFA, a summary of the significant issues raised by the public comments in response to the IRFA, and NMFS responses to those comments, and a summary of the analyses completed to support the action. A summary of the analysis follows. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ). In summary, the purpose for this final rule is to implement the requirements of § 229.32(g)(1) and to reduce serious injury and mortality to northern right whales in the North Atlantic incidental to commercial gillnet fishing in the Southeast U.S. Atlantic Ocean, in response to the death of a right whale calf in January 2006. The implemented ALWTRP provisions as amended include expanding the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area and prohibiting gillnet fishing and possession within that area, with certain exemptions. The MMPA and the ESA provide the statutory bases for this final rule. Commercial fishing vessels that operate in the expanded Southeast U.S. Restricted Area from November 15 through April 15 (waters off South Carolina, Georgia, and northeast Florida) and use gillnets are expected to be affected by this final rule. This final rule is expected to have greatest impact on gillnet fishermen targeting whiting, shark, and Spanish mackerel. Six to eight shark gillnet fishing vessels and up to 56 finfish gillnet fishing vessels are expected to be affected by this final rule. The Small Business Administration defines a small entity in the commercial fishing sector as a firm that is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation, and has average annual gross receipts not in excess of $4 million (2002 NAICS 114111). It is assumed that all of the affected vessels represent small businesses. All of the vessels that are engaged in shark and finfish gillnet fishing in the expanded Southeast U.S. Restricted Area are small businesses. This final rule is expected to affect all of those businesses. Consequently, it is expected to affect a substantial number of small businesses. Two comments were received pertaining to the IRFA or economic impacts specific to small entities resulting from the management actions presented in the proposed rule. A more expanded response to these comments is found above in the “Comments on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Responses” section. One commenter stated that the proposed regulations would disproportionately impact NC gillnetters targeting whiting, and stated that while other commercial fisheries have received limited exemptions, NC gillnet fishermen have no safe, viable economic alternative to continue fishing for whiting in the region. The Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA)that NMFS prepared for the proposed rule analyzes the impacts to these fishermen. Based on this analysis, NMFS agrees that this final rule is expected to most greatly affect fishermen that fish for whiting in the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area North. NMFS notes, however, that all gillnet fishing will be prohibited by this final rule in the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area North, not just whiting fishing. In addition, comments made by whiting fishermen at the SE Subgroup meeting suggest these losses could be mitigated by moving into other areas, or targeting other species at other times of the year, or both, resulting in minimal long-term impacts for these fishermen from the final rule. Finally, at the SE Subgroup meeting, NMFS inquired about the feasibility of fishing for whiting in other areas, such as the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area South, but fishermen reported that a unique habitat feature off northeast Florida resulted in a very localized concentration of whiting and this is where whiting gillnet fishing effort was necessarily focused. No changes were made to this final rule relative to this comment. Several commenters expressed concern regarding safety and fuel costs for fishermen that work out of Little River Inlet and fish off North Carolina. NMFS has removed this burden by moving the boundary of the restricted area southward to exclude the Little River Inlet from the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area. As discussed in the preamble of this final rule, NMFS has modified the expanded Southeast U.S. Restricted Area to exclude the Little River Inlet. The estimated economic impacts in the IRFA are not expected to change, as affecting legal gillnet fishing off North Carolina was an unintentional and unknown effect of the proposed rule. This final rule prohibits gillnet fishing in the northern zone of the expanded restricted area, during the restricted period, without exemptions. This final action is expected to reduce average annual shark gillnet revenue in the northern zone by $4,029. Total shark gillnet landings in Florida north of 29° N. lat. from November 1 through April 30 varied from zero to 38,229 lbs (17,340 kg) during the years from 2000 through 2004, with an annual average of 12,768 lbs (5,804 kg) and a dockside value of $7,712. These averages represent an over-estimation of losses from reduced shark gillnet landings in Florida from the northern zone because the restricted period is actually from November 15 through April 15, not November 1 through April 30. If November landings during the restricted period represent 50 percent of all November landings, and if April landings during the restricted period represent 50 percent of all April landings, this final rule is expected to reduce total shark gillnet landings in Florida from the northern zone by $3,856 and 6,384 lbs (2,902 kg). This final rule is expected to reduce average annual shark gillnet landings by 6,636 lbs (3,016 kg) and average annual shark gillnet revenue in the northern zone (South Carolina and Florida combined) by $4,029 ($3,856 from Florida plus $173 from South Carolina), assuming not all November and April landings occur in the restricted period. This final rule prohibits gillnet fishing during the restricted period in a southern zone of the expanded restricted area with certain limited exemptions for shark and Spanish mackerel gillnet fishing. The southern zone is composed of Trip Ticket area 732, which lies entirely in waters off Florida. This final rule is expected to have no effect on shark gillnet revenues in the southern zone because current shark gillnet requirements in the southern zone are the same as the requirements for the exemptions in this final action. The average annual shark gillnet revenue expected to be lost as a result of this final rule is $4,029 ($4,029 from the northern zone plus $0 from the southern zone), which represents about 2 percent of annual shark gillnet revenues from the combined zones. As six to eight shark gillnet fishing vessels are expected to be affected by this final rule, each shark gillnet fishing vessel is expected to lose on average from $504 to $672 annually from lost shark landings. It is estimated that Spanish mackerel gillnet fishermen in the northern zone may lose on average 1,509 lbs (686 kg) of Spanish mackerel with an average dockside value of $1,159 annually. During the 6-month period from November 1 through April 30 from 2000 through 2004, an average of 102 lbs (46 kg) of Spanish mackerel with a dockside value of $86 were landed from gillnets and caught in the northern zone. In the first four months of 2005, however, 1,509 lbs (686 kg) with a dockside value of $1,159 were landed from gillnets. It is possible that, since 2005, Spanish mackerel fishers are increasingly targeting the species in the northern zone during these 5 months. Consequently, November through December 2004 and January through April 2005 landings of Spanish mackerel were used to estimate losses of gillnet landings to Spanish mackerel fishers in the northern zone, although this method may significantly over-estimate losses to Spanish mackerel gillnet fishers who operate in the northern zone. These northern zone landings represent less than half a percent of annual Spanish mackerel landings in the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area. Annual losses to Spanish mackerel gillnet fishers in the southern zone are expected to be $2,928 on average. Spanish mackerel gillnet fishers will not be able to take the species in the southern zone during the months of January and February. From 2000 through 2004, landings during these 2 months averaged 5,442 lbs (2,474 kg), with a dockside value of $2,928, annually. This analysis assumes Spanish mackerel gillnet fishers will not experience any losses of landings during the other months of the restricted period because exemptions to this final rule are consistent with existing Spanish mackerel gillnet operations during these other months. Consequently, annual losses to Spanish mackerel gillnet fishers in the southern zone are expected to be $2,928 (5,442 lbs; 2,474 kg). These southern zone landings represent about 1.5 percent of annual Spanish mackerel gillnet landings in the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area. The combined loss of landings from the northern and southern zones of Spanish mackerel are expected to be 6,951 lbs (3,160 kg; $4,087). This combined loss represents approximately 2 percent of pounds annually landed in the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area. Average annual losses of king whiting from the northern zone are expected to be 356,604 lbs (162,093 kg) with a dockside value of $276,824. Average annual landings of king whiting during the 5-month period between November through April from 2000 through 2004 vary significantly from landings during the first 4 months of 2005. Consequently, November and December 2004 figures and the January through April 2005 figures are used to estimate average annual losses of gillnet landings of king whiting from the northern zone. If all November and April landings occur within the restricted period, average annual losses of king whiting landings in the northern zone are expected to be 419,418 lbs (190,245 kg) with a value of $327,053. However, if November and April landings are evenly distributed throughout those months, estimated loss of landings during the restricted period are expected to represent 50 percent of November and April landings, respectively (since the restricted period begins November 15 and ends April 15), average annual losses of king whiting from the northern zone are expected to be 356,604 lbs (162,093 kg) with a dockside value of $276,824. Average annual losses of king whiting landings from the southern zone are expected to be 4,255 lbs (1,934 kg) with a dockside value of $4,318. During the above 4-month period from 2000 through 2004, an average of 4,255 lbs (1,934 kg) of king whiting were landed in the southern zone with a dockside value of $4,318, annually. Figures from January 1 through March 31, 2005, do not suggest that king whiting gillnet fishers are increasingly targeting the species in the southern zone. The combined loss of king whiting landings from the northern and southern zones are expected to be 360,859 lbs (164,027 kg; $281,142). The combined loss represents at least 70 percent of pounds landed annually in the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area. Three other alternative operational measures were considered in this rulemaking. Alternative 1, a no-action alternative, was rejected because it would not address the risk of serious injury or mortality posed by commercial gillnet fishing to right whales in their calving area evidenced by the 2006 death of a right whale calf. Alternative 2 would implement permanent limited operational restrictions in the expanded Southeast U.S. Restricted Area during the current restricted period of November 15 through March 31, annually. Enacting operational restrictions, as detailed in section 2.2.2 of the EA, would provide a reduction in the likelihood of gillnet gear interactions with endangered right whales, reducing the risk of serious injury and mortality. This alternative would also result in a reduction in the risk of injury or mortality to other species that may become incidentally entangled in gillnet gear. However, the restrictions would only reduce and not eliminate the threat of serious injury and mortality of right whales from interacting with gillnet gear. Alternative 3 would implement the immediate closure of the expanded Southeast U.S. Restricted Area to all gillnets from November 15 through March 31 annually on a permanent basis. No exemptions would be provided during the closure. Losses of gillnet landings caused by Alternative 3 would be equal to losses of gillnet landings caused by Alternative 2 plus losses of king whiting gillnet landings. Alternative 2 would be expected to reduce gillnet dockside revenues by $84,506 ($16,944, $50,447, $642, $4,742, and $11,731 from reduced landings of shark, Spanish mackerel, King mackerel, Bluefish, and “Other Species”, respectively). Average annual losses to king whiting fishers caused by Alternative 3 were expected to be 348,301 lbs (158,319 kg), with dockside revenues of $271,696. Combined, Alternative 3 would be expected to result in losses of dockside revenue of $356,202. This alternative had the greatest economic impact of all alternatives, and was therefore not selected. Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. A small entity compliance guide was prepared as part of this rulemaking process. The guide will be sent to all registered gillnet fishers in the Marine Mammal Authorization Program in South Atlantic states. Guides will also be provided to state resource management agencies, the USCG, and others as appropriate for distribution to the fishing industry. In addition, copies of this final rule and guide are available from NMFS and on the ALWTRP website (see ADDRESSES ). This final rule does not contain a collection-of-information requirement for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). Any information collection requirements subject to PRA and related to VMS or observer requirements were addressed in previous rulemakings. This final rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other Federal rules. NMFS is presently finalizing a proposed rule that addresses broad modifications to the ALWTRP (70 FR 35894). When finalized, that rule will incorporate modifications to the ALWTRP that result from this final rule on gillnet fishing in the Southeast U.S. List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 229 Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Fisheries, Marine mammals, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: June 19, 2007. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. For reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 229 is amended as follows: PART 229—AUTHORIZATION FOR COMMERCIAL FISHERIES UNDER THE MARINE MAMMAL PROTECTION ACT OF 1972 1. The authority citation for part 229 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ; § 229.32(f) also issued under 16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* 2. In § 229.2, the definitions of “ *Shark gillnetting,* ” “ *Strikenet or to fish with strikenet gear,* ” and “ *To strikenet for sharks* ” are removed. 3. In § 229.32, paragraphs (f)(1)(i), (f)(3), (f)(4), and (g)(1) are revised to read as follows: § 229.32 Atlantic large whale take reduction plan regulations.
(f)* * *
(1)* * *
(i)*Southeast U.S. Restricted Area.* The Southeast U.S. Restricted Area consists of the area bounded by straight lines connecting the following points in the order stated from south to north, unless the Assistant Administrator changes that area in accordance with paragraph
(g)of this section: Point N. Lat. W. Long. SERA1 27°51′ ( 1 ) SERA2 27°51′ 80°00′ SERA3 32°00′ 80°00′ SERA4 32°36′ 78°52′ SERA5 32°51′ 78°36′ SERA6 33°15′ 78°24′ SERA7 33°27′ 78°04′ SERA8 ( 2 ) 78°33.9′ 1 Florida shoreline. 2 South Carolina shoreline.
(A)*Southeast U.S. Restricted Area N.* The Southeast U.S. Restricted Area N consists of the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area from 29°00′ N. lat. northward.
(B)*Southeast U.S. Restricted Area S.* The Southeast U.S. Restricted Area S consists of the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area southward of 29°00′ N. lat.
(3)*Observer requirement.* No person may fish for shark with gillnet with webbing of 5 inches (12.7 cm) or greater stretched mesh in the southeast U.S. observer area from December 1 through March 31 south of 29°00′ N. lat. unless the operator of the vessel calls the Southeast Fisheries Science Center Panama City Laboratory in Panama City, FL, not less than 48 hours prior to departing on any fishing trip in order to arrange for observer coverage. If the Panama City Laboratory requests that an observer be taken on board a vessel during a fishing trip at any time from December 1 through March 31 south of 29°00′ N. lat., no person may fish with such gillnet aboard that vessel in the southeast U.S. observer area unless an observer is on board that vessel during the trip.
(4)*Restricted periods, closure, and exemptions.*
(i)*Restricted periods.* The restricted period for the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area N is from November 15 through April 15, and the restricted period for the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area S is from December 1 through March 31, unless the Assistant Administrator revises the restricted period in accordance with paragraph
(g)of this section.
(ii)*Closure for gillnets.*
(A)Except as provided under paragraph (f)(4)(v) of this section, fishing with or possessing gillnet in the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area N during the restricted period is prohibited.
(B)Except as provided under paragraph (f)(4)(iii) of this section and (f)(4)(iv) of this section, fishing with gillnet in the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area S during the restricted period is prohibited.
(iii)*Exemption for Southeastern U.S. Atlantic shark gillnet fishery.* Fishing with gillnet for sharks with webbing of 5 inches (12.7 cm) or greater stretched mesh is exempt from the restrictions under paragraph (f)(4)(ii)(B) if:
(A)The gillnet is deployed so that it encloses an area of water;
(B)A valid commercial directed shark limited access permit has been issued to the vessel in accordance with 50 CFR § 635.4(e) and is on board;
(C)No net is set at night or when visibility is less than 500 yards (1,500 ft, 460 m);
(D)The gillnet is removed from the water before night or immediately if visibility decreases below 500 yards (1,500 ft, 460 m);
(E)Each set is made under the observation of a spotter plane;
(F)No gillnet is set within 3 nautical miles (5.6 km) of a right, humpback, or fin whale; and
(G)The gillnet is removed immediately from the water if a right, humpback, or fin whale moves within 3 nautical miles (5.6 km) of the set gear.
(iv)*Exemption for Spanish Mackerel component of Southeast Atlantic gillnet fishery.* Fishing with gillnet for Spanish mackerel is exempt from the restrictions under paragraph (f)(4)(ii)(B) from December 1 through December 31, and from March 1 through March 31 if:
(A)Gillnet mesh size is between 3.5 inches (8.9 cm) and 4 7/8 inches (12.4 cm) stretched mesh;
(B)A valid commercial vessel permit for Spanish mackerel has been issued to the vessel in accordance with 50 CFR § 622.4(a)(2)(iv) and is on board;
(C)No person may fish with, set, place in the water, or have on board a vessel a gillnet with a float line longer than 800 yards(2,400 ft, 732 m);
(D)No person may fish with, set, or place in the water more than one gillnet at any time;
(E)No more than two gillnets, including any net in use, may be possessed at any one time; provided, however, that if two gillnets, including any net in use, are possessed at any one time, they must have stretched mesh sizes (as allowed under the regulations) that differ by at least .25 inch (.64 cm);
(F)No person may soak a gillnet for more than 1 hour. The soak period begins when the first mesh is placed in the water and ends either when the first mesh is retrieved back on board the vessel or the gathering of the gillnet is begun to facilitate retrieval on board the vessel, whichever occurs first; providing that, once the first mesh is retrieved or the gathering is begun, the retrieval is continuous until the gillnet is completely removed from the water;
(G)No net is set at night or when visibility is less than 500 yards (1,500 ft, 460 m);
(H)The gillnet is removed from the water before night or immediately if visibility decreases below 500 yards (1,500 ft, 460 m);
(I)No net is set within 3 nautical miles (5.6 km) of a right, humpback, or fin whale; and
(J)Gillnet is removed immediately from the water if a right, humpback, or fin whale moves within 3 nautical miles (5.6 km) of the set gear.
(v)*Exemption for vessels in transit with gillnet aboard.* Possession of gillnet aboard a vessel in transit is exempt from the restrictions under paragraph (f)(4)(ii)(A) of this section if: All nets are covered with canvas or other similar material and lashed or otherwise securely fastened to the deck, rail, or drum; and all buoys, high flyers, and anchors are disconnected from all gillnets. No fish may be possessed aboard such a vessel in transit.
(g)* * *
(1)*Entanglements in critical habitat or restricted areas.* If a serious injury or mortality of a right whale occurs in the Cape Cod Bay critical habitat from January 1 through May 15, the Great South Channel Restricted Area from April 1 through June 30, the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area N from November 15 through April 15, or the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area S from December 1 through March 31 as the result of an entanglement by lobster or gillnet gear allowed to be used in those areas and times, the Assistant Administrator shall close that area to that gear type (i.e., lobster trap or gillnet) for the rest of that time period and for that same time period in each subsequent year, unless the Assistant Administrator revises the restricted period in accordance with paragraph (g)(2) of this section or unless other measures are implemented under paragraph (g)(2) of this section. [FR Doc. E7-12251 Filed 6-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 72 121 Monday, June 25, 2007 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 23 [Docket No. CE270; Notice No. 23-07-02-SC] Special Conditions: Adam Aircraft, Model A700; Fire Extinguishing for Aft Fuselage Mounted Engines AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed special conditions. SUMMARY: This action proposes special conditions for the Adam Aircraft, Model A700 airplane. This airplane will have a novel or unusual design feature(s) associated with aft mounted engine fire protection. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These proposed special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards. DATES: We must receive your comments by July 25, 2007. ADDRESSES: Mail two copies of your comments to: Federal Aviation Administration, Regional Counsel, ACE-7, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. You may deliver two copies to the Small Airplane Directorate at the above address. Mark your comments: Docket No. CE270. You may inspect comments in the Rules Docket weekdays, except Federal holidays, between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leslie B. Taylor, Regulations & Policy Branch, ACE-111, Federal Aviation Administration, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone
(816)329-4134; facsimile
(816)329-4090, e-mail at *leslie.b.taylor@faa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite interested parties to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. We ask that you send us two copies of written comments. We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning these special conditions. You may inspect the docket before and after the comment closing date. If you wish to review the docket in person, go to the address in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive. If you want the FAA to acknowledge receipt of your comments on this proposal, include with your comments a pre-addressed, stamped postcard on which the docket number appears. We will stamp the date on the postcard and mail it back to you. Background On April 12, 2004, Adam Aircraft applied for a type certificate for their new Model A700. The Model A700, is a 6 to 8 seat, pressurized, retractable-gear, composite structure airplane with two turbofan engines mounted on pylons on either side of the aft fuselage. Part 23 has historically addressed fire protection through prevention, identification, and containment. Prevention has been provided through minimizing the potential for ignition of flammable fluids and vapors. Identification has been provided by locating engines within the pilots' primary field of view and/or with the incorporation of fire detection systems. This has provided both rapid detection of a fire and confirmation when it was extinguished. Containment has been provided through the isolation of designated fire zones, through flammable fluid shutoff valves, and firewalls. This containment philosophy also ensures that components of the engine control system will function effectively to permit a safe shutdown of an engine. However, containment has only been demonstrated for 15 minutes. If a fire occurs in traditional part 23 airplanes, the appropriate corrective action is to land as soon as possible. For a small, simple airplane originally envisioned by part 23, it is possible to descend and land within 15 minutes. Thus, the occupants can safely exit the airplane before the firewall is breached. These simple airplanes normally have the engine located away from critical flight control systems and primary structure. This has ensured that, throughout a fire event, a pilot can continue safe flight, and it has made the prediction of fire effects relatively easy. Other design features of these simple aircraft, such as low stall speeds and short landing distances, ensure that even in the event of an off field landing, the potential for the outcome being catastrophic has been minimized. Title 14 CFR, part 23, did not envision the type of configuration of the Model A700 airplane. The Model A700 incorporates two turbofan engines located on pylons on either side of the aft fuselage. These engines are not in the pilots' field of view. With the location in the aft fuselage, the ability to visually detect a fire is minimal. Type Certification Basis Under 14 CFR 21.17, Adam Aircraft must show that the Model A700 meets the applicable provisions of part 23, as amended by Amendments 23-1 through 23-55 thereto. If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations in 14 CFR part 23 do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Model A700 because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under § 21.16. In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Model A700 must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36, and the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under § 611 of Public Law 92-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.” The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in § 11.19, under § 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2). Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101. Novel or Unusual Design Features The Model A700 will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features: The Model A700 incorporates two turbofan engines located on pylons on either side of the aft fuselage. These engines are not in the pilots' field of view. The effects of a fire in such a compartment are more varied and adverse than the typical engine fire in a simple part 23 airplane. With the location in the aft fuselage, the ability to visually detect a fire is minimal. However, the ability to extinguish an engine fire becomes extremely critical with the Model A700 engine location. While the certification basis for the Model A700 requires that a fire detection system be installed due to the engine location, fire extinguishing is also considered a requirement. A sustained fire could result in loss of control of the airplane and damage to primary structure before an emergency landing could be made. Because of the location of critical structures and flight controls, a means to minimize the probability of re-ignition from occurring is necessary. One acceptable method to minimize re-ignition is to install a two-shot system. The effects of a fire emanating from an enclosed engine installation are more varied, adverse, and more difficult to predict than an engine fire envisioned for typical part 23 airplanes. Discussion The engines are on pylons on either side of the aft fuselage so there is a need to prevent flammable vapors, flammable fluids, and flame from accumulating. Finally, there is a need to extinguish fires. Applicability As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Model A700. Should Adam Aircraft apply later for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well. Conclusion This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability, and it affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplane. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 23 Aircraft, Aviation safety, Signs and symbols. Citation The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, and 44701; 14 CFR 21.16 and 21.17; and 14 CFR 11.38 and 11.19. The Proposed Special Conditions Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)proposes the following special conditions as part of the type certification basis for Adam Aircraft, Model A700 airplanes. Aft fuselage mounted engines need to protect the airplane from fires that were not envisioned in the development of part 23. Therefore, special conditions for a fire extinguishing system are required for airplanes with this engine configuration. Regulations requiring and defining engine compartment fire extinguishing systems already exist for part 23 commuter category airplanes. These regulations will provide an adequate level of safety for the normal category Model A700 aircraft with its aft pylon mounted engines. As the extinguishing agent is subject to change during the service life of the airplane, the certification basis has the need to include 14 CFR part 23, § 23.1197 in its entirety. Each fire zone should be ventilated to prevent the accumulation of flammable vapors. It must also be designed such that it will not allow entry of flammable fluids, vapors, or flames from other fire zones. It must be designed such that it does not create an additional fire hazard from the discharge of vapors or fluids. *1. SC 23.1195* —Add the requirements of § 23.1195 while deleting “For commuter category airplanes.” 23.1195, Fire Extinguishing Systems
(a)Fire extinguishing systems must be installed and compliance shown with the following:
(1)Except for combustor, turbine, and tailpipe sections of turbine-engine installations that contain lines or components carrying flammable fluids or gases for which a fire originating in these sections is shown to be controllable, a fire extinguisher system must serve each engine compartment;
(2)The fire extinguishing system, the quantity of extinguishing agent, the rate of discharge, and the discharge distribution must be adequate to extinguish fires. An individual “one-shot” system may be used except for embedded engines where a “two-shot” system is required.
(3)The fire extinguishing system for a nacelle must be able to simultaneously protect each compartment of the nacelle for which protection is provided.
(b)If an auxiliary power unit is installed in any airplane certificated to this part, that auxiliary power unit compartment must be served by a fire extinguishing system meeting the requirements of paragraph (a)(2) of this section. *2. SC 23.1197* —Add the requirements of § 23.1197 while deleting “For commuter category airplanes.” 23.1197, Fire Extinguishing Agents The following applies:
(a)Fire extinguishing agents must—
(1)Be capable of extinguishing flames emanating from any burning fluids or other combustible materials in the area protected by the fire extinguishing system; and
(2)Have thermal stability over the temperature range likely to be experienced in the compartment in which they are stored.
(b)If any toxic extinguishing agent is used, provisions must be made to prevent harmful concentrations of fluid or fluid vapors (from leakage during normal operation of the airplane or as a result of discharging the fire extinguisher on the ground or in flight) from entering any personnel compartment, even though a defect may exist in the extinguishing system. This must be shown by test except for built-in carbon dioxide fuselage compartment fire extinguishing systems for which—
(1)Five pounds or less of carbon dioxide will be discharged under established fire control procedures into any fuselage compartment; or
(2)Protective breathing equipment is available for each flight crewmember on flight deck duty. *3. SC 23.1199* —Add the requirements of § 23.1199 while deleting “For commuter category airplanes.” 23.1199, Extinguishing Agent Containers The following applies:
(a)Each extinguishing agent container must have a pressure relief to prevent bursting of the container by excessive internal pressures.
(b)The discharge end of each discharge line from a pressure relief connection must be located so that discharge of the fire-extinguishing agent would not damage the airplane. The line must also be located or protected to prevent clogging caused by ice or other foreign matter.
(c)A means must be provided for each fire extinguishing agent container to indicate that the container has discharged or that the charging pressure is below the established minimum necessary for proper functioning.
(d)The temperature of each container must be maintained, under intended operating conditions, to prevent the pressure in the container from—
(1)Falling below that necessary to provide an adequate rate of discharge; or
(2)Rising high enough to cause premature discharge.
(e)If a pyrotechnic capsule is used to discharge the fire extinguishing agent, each container must be installed so that temperature conditions will not cause hazardous deterioration of the pyrotechnic capsule. *4. SC 23.1201* —Add the requirements of § 23.1201 while deleting “For commuter category airplanes.” 23.1201, Fire Extinguishing System Materials The following apply:
(a)No material in any fire extinguishing system may react chemically with any extinguishing agent so as to create a hazard.
(b)Each system component in an engine compartment must be fireproof. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on June 14, 2007. Kim Smith, Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-12121 Filed 6-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28378; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-089-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 727 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for all Boeing Model 727 airplanes. This proposed AD would require doing an initial detailed inspection for cracks in the aft pressure bulkhead web; repairing any discrepancy; and doing repetitive detailed inspections, and doing related investigative actions, if necessary. This proposed AD results from reports of cracking in the aft pressure bulkhead web. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct a cracked pressure bulkhead web, which could result in rapid decompression of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 9, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • *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 Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, for the service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Berhane Alazar, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)917-6577; fax
(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2007-28378; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-089-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. 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 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 level of the West Building at the DOT 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 have received a report of a 6.8-inch crack oriented horizontally in the aft pressure bulkhead web located at station 1183 at water line 210 from right buttock line
(RBL)50.7 to RBL 57.5. We also have received a report of a 14.5-inch crack in the same bay between left buttock line
(LBL)46 to LBL 63. These events occurred on Boeing Model 727 airplanes. The cracks were attributed to fatigue of the pressure bulkhead web due to cabin pressurization cycles. Analysis by Boeing revealed multiple crack origins along the length of the web, which propagated through the web thickness. A cracked pressure bulkhead web, if not corrected, could result in rapid decompression of the airplane. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 727-53-0230, dated January 8, 2007. The service information describes the following procedures: • Doing an initial detailed inspection for cracks in the aft pressure bulkhead web; • Doing repetitive detailed inspections if necessary; and • Repairing any crack, doing related investigative actions if necessary, and contacting Boeing for certain repairs. The related investigative actions include a high frequency eddy current inspection and a detailed inspection to make sure that structure common to the repair installation is crack free and that no disbonding or corrosion is present. The compliance time for the initial detailed inspection is before the accumulation of 40,000 total flight cycles, or within 3,500 flight cycles after the date of the service bulletin, whichever occurs later. The repeat interval is 12,000 flight cycles. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of this same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service Information.” Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service Information The service information specifies to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD would require repairing those conditions in one of the following ways: • Using a method that we approve; or • Using data that meet the certification basis of the airplane, and that have been approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization whom we have authorized to make those findings. Costs of Compliance There are about 842 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 459 airplanes of U.S. registry. 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 AD for U.S. operators is $36,720, 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 proposed AD 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-2007-28378; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-089-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by August 9, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to all Boeing Model 727, 727C, 727-100, 727-100C, 727-200, and 727-200F series airplanes, certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from reports of cracking in the aft pressure bulkhead web. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct a cracked pressure bulkhead web, which could result in rapid decompression 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. Inspection(s) and Corrective Actions
(f)Do an initial detailed inspection for cracks in the aft pressure bulkhead web in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 727-53-0230, dated January 8, 2007; except as provided by note
(a)in Table 1 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of the service bulletin. Do the inspection at the compliance time identified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of the service bulletin; except as provided by paragraph
(g)of this AD.
(1)If no crack is found, repeat the detailed inspection at the repeat interval identified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of the service bulletin, except as provided by note
(a)in Table 1 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of the service bulletin.
(2)If any crack is found, before further flight, repair the crack and do the related investigative actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin. If any crack, disbonding, or corrosion is found during related investigative actions, before further flight, repair the discrepancy using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(h)of this AD.
(g)Where Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 727-53-0230, dated January 8, 2007, specifies a compliance time after the date of the service bulletin, this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (h)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, 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.
(3)An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 18, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-12220 Filed 6-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28377; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-063-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER) Model ERJ 170 and ERJ 190 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: Periodic operational check of the firewall hydraulic shutoff valves, made during routine maintenance, has revealed that the failure rate of that component is significantly higher than expected. Such a dormant failure, when combined with further possible failures, such as engine fire, may lead to an unacceptable reduction of safety margins. The unsafe condition is failure of the firewall hydraulic shutoff valve, which, in combination with an engine fire, could result in loss of hydraulic pressure or spread of an engine fire beyond the firewall. 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 25, 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:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *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. • *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 Operations office 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 Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-1175; 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-2007-28377; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-063-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 Age ncia Nacional de Aviac a o Civil (ANAC), which is the aviation authority for Brazil, has issued Brazilian Airworthiness Directives 2007-02-01 and 2007-02-02, both effective February 27, 2007 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI state: Periodic operational check of the firewall hydraulic shutoff valves, made during routine maintenance, has revealed that the failure rate of that component is significantly higher than expected. Such a dormant failure, when combined with further possible failures, such as engine fire, may lead to an unacceptable reduction of safety margins. The unsafe condition is failure of the firewall hydraulic shutoff valve, which, in combination with an engine fire, could result in loss of hydraulic pressure or spread of an engine fire beyond the firewall. The MCAI requires repetitive operational checks of the firewall hydraulic shutoff valve, and if necessary, replacement of the valve. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information EMBRAER has issued Service Bulletins 170-29-0013 and 190-29-0008, both dated December 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 126 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $10,080, or $80 per product, per inspection 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 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: **Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER):** Docket No. FAA-2007-28377; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-063-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments by July 25, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to EMBRAER Model ERJ 170-100 LR, -100 STD, -100 SE, -100 SU, -200 LR, -200 STD, and -200 SU airplanes; and Model ERJ 190-100 STD, -100 LR, and -100 IGW airplanes; equipped with firewall hydraulic shutoff valves part number (P/N) 975287-3. Subject
(d)Hydraulic power. Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: Periodic operational check of the firewall hydraulic shutoff valves, made during routine maintenance, has revealed that the failure rate of that component is significantly higher than expected. Such a dormant failure, when combined with further possible failures, such as engine fire, may lead to an unacceptable reduction of safety margins. The unsafe condition is failure of the firewall hydraulic shutoff valve, which, in combination with an engine fire, could result in loss of hydraulic pressure or spread of an engine fire beyond the firewall. The MCAI requires repetitive operational checks of the firewall hydraulic shutoff valve, and if necessary, replacement of the valve. Actions and Compliance
(f)Unless already done, do the following actions.
(1)Within the next 600 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, and thereafter at intervals that do not exceed 600 flight hours, perform an operational check in accordance with EMBRAER Service Bulletin 170-29-0013, dated December 13, 2006; or EMBRAER Service Bulletin 190-29-0008, dated December 13, 2006; as applicable; for proper operation of the firewall hydraulic shutoff valves P/N 975287-3. If the valve does not operate properly, before further flight, replace the faulty hydraulic shutoff valve with another one bearing the same P/N. Note 1: For the purpose of this AD, an operational check is: “A task to determine that an item is fulfilling its intended purpose. The check does not require quantitative tolerances. This is a failure finding task.” FAA AD Differences Note 2: 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, ANM-116, International Branch, Transport Airplane Directorate, 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: Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-1175; 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 Brazilian Airworthiness Directives 2007-02-01 and 2007-02-02, both effective February 27, 2007; and EMBRAER Service Bulletins 170-29-0013 and 190-29-0008, both dated December 13, 2006; for related information. Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 18, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-12224 Filed 6-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service [REG-138707-06] 26 CFR Part 1 RIN 1545-BF90 Exclusions from Gross Income of Foreign Corporations AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations and notice of public hearing. SUMMARY: In the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the **Federal Register** , the IRS is issuing temporary regulations that modify final regulations issued under section 883(a) and
(c)of the Internal Revenue Code (Code), relating to income derived by foreign corporations from the international operation of ships or aircraft. Those regulations revise § 1.883-3 of the final regulations, relating to the treatment of controlled foreign corporations, following the repeal of section 954(a)(4) and
(f)(foreign base company shipping provisions) by section 415 of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004. In addition, those regulations provide guidance for foreign corporations organized in countries that provide an exemption from taxation solely through an income tax convention, and amend certain provisions in the current section 883 regulations. The text of those regulations serves as the text of these proposed regulations. This document also provides notice of a public hearing on these proposed regulations. DATES: Written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by September 24, 2007. Outlines of topics to be discussed at the public hearing scheduled for Wednesday, October 24, 2007, at 10 a.m. must be received by Monday, September 24, 2007. ADDRESSES: Send submissions to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-138707-06), room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-138707-06), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, or sent electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at *www.regulations.gov* (IRS REG-138707-06). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Concerning the regulations, Patricia A. Bray, at
(202)622-3880; concerning submissions of comments and/or requests for a hearing, Kelly Banks, at
(202)622-0392 (not toll-free numbers). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Paperwork Reduction Act The collections of information contained in this notice of proposed rulemaking have been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), and pending receipt and evaluation of public comments, approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1545-1667. Comments on the collections of information should be sent to the Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for the Department of the Treasury, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503, with copies to the Internal Revenue Service, Attn: IRS Reports Clearance Officer, SE:W:CAR:MP:T:T:SP Washington, DC 20224. Comments on the collection of information should be received by August 24, 2007. Comments are specifically requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Internal Revenue Service, including whether the information will have practical utility; The accuracy of the estimated burden associated with the proposed collection of information (see below); How the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected may be enhanced; How the burden of complying with the proposed collections of information may be minimized, including through the application of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and Estimates of start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of service to provide information. The collections of information in this proposed regulation are in §§ 1.883-2(f), 1.883-3(c) and (d), and 1.883-4(e). This information is required to enable a foreign corporation to determine if it is eligible to exclude its income from the international operation of ships or aircraft from gross income on its U.S. Federal income tax return. This information will also enable the IRS to monitor compliance with the provisions of the proposed regulations with respect to the stock ownership requirements of § 1.883-1(c)(2), and to make a preliminary determination of whether the foreign corporation is eligible to claim such an exemption and is accurately reporting income. The collections of information are mandatory. The likely respondents are foreign corporations engaged in the international operation of ships or aircraft that wish to claim an exemption from U.S. tax under section 883, and certain of their shareholders owning (directly or indirectly) a majority of the value of the shares of such corporations. *Estimated total annual reporting/recordkeeping burden on foreign corporations:* 1200 hours. The estimated annual burden per respondent varies from 0 minutes to 3 hours, depending on the circumstances of the foreign corporation, with an estimated average of one hour. *Estimated number of respondents:* 1,200. *Estimated annual frequency of responses:* Once. *Estimated total annual reporting burden on shareholders:* 925 hours. The estimated annual burden per respondent varies from 1 minute to one hour, depending on the circumstances of the shareholder or intermediary, with an estimated average of 30 minutes. *Estimated number of respondents:* 1850. *Estimated annual frequency of shareholder or intermediary responses:* Once every three years if no information changes and once a year if a change in ownership information occurs. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget. Books and records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103. Background and Explanation of Provisions Temporary regulations in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the **Federal Register** amend 26 CFR part 1. Those regulations amend the income inclusion test in § 1.883-3 of the final regulations issued in TD 9087 (68 FR 51394). Those regulations also address a number of comments that have been received concerning other portions of the final section 883 regulations. The text of those regulations serves as the text of these regulations. The preamble to the temporary regulations explains the temporary regulations and these proposed regulations. Special Analyses It has been determined that this notice of proposed rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. 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. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It is hereby certified that the collection of information in these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a significant number of U.S. small entities. This certification is based on the fact that these regulations apply solely to foreign corporations, and impose only a limited collection of information burden on shareholders of such corporations, which in some cases may include U.S. small entities. Therefore, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) is not required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, this regulation has been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business. Comments and Public Hearing Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any written (a signed original and eight
(8)copies) or electronic comments that are submitted timely to the IRS. The IRS and Treasury Department specifically request comments on the clarity of the proposed regulations and how they can be made easier to understand. All comments will be available for public inspection and copying. A public hearing has been scheduled for October 24, 2007, beginning at 10 a.m. in the IRS Auditorium of the Internal Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. Due to building security procedures, visitors must enter at the Constitution Avenue entrance. In addition, all visitors must present photo identification to enter the building. Because of access restrictions, visitors will not be admitted beyond the immediate entrance area more than 30 minutes before the hearing starts. For information about having your name placed on the building access list to attend the hearing, see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble. The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3) apply to the hearing. Persons who wish to present oral comments at the hearing must submit written or electronic comments by September 24, 2007 and an outline of the topics to be discussed and the time devoted to each topic (a signed original and eight
(8)copies) by September 24, 2007. A period of 10 minutes will be allocated to each person for making comments. An agenda showing the scheduling of the speakers will be prepared after the deadline for receiving outlines has passed. Copies of the agenda will be available free of charge at the hearing. Drafting Information The principal author of these proposed regulations is Patricia A. Bray of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (International). However, other personnel from the IRS and Treasury Department participated in their development. List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1 Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Proposed Amendments to the Regulations Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is proposed to be 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 1.883-0 is amended by revising the entries for §§ 1.883-1(g)(3) and (h)(3), 1.883-2(e)(2), 1.883-3, and 1.883-5(d) and
(e)to read as follows: § 1.883-0 Outline of major topics. § 1.883-1 Exclusion of income from the international operation of ships or aircraft.
(g)* * *
(3)[The text of the proposed entry for § 1.883-1(g)(3) is the same as the text of the entry for § 1.883-1T(g)(3) published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** ].
(h)* * *
(3)* * *
(i)through
(iv)[The text of the proposed entries for § 1.883-1(h)(3)(i) through
(iv)is the same as the text of the entries for § 1.883-1T(h)(3)(i) through
(iv)published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** ]. § 1.883-2 Treatment of publicly traded corporations.
(e)* * *
(2)[The text of the proposed entry for § 1.883-2(e)(2) is the same as the text of the entry for § 1.883-2T(e)(2) published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** ]. § 1.883-3 Treatment of controlled foreign corporations. [The text of the proposed entry for § 1.883-3 is the same as the entry for § 1.883-3T published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** ]. § 1.883-5 Effective/applicability dates.
(d)and
(e)[The text of the proposed entries for § 1.883-5(d) and
(e)is the same as the text of the entries for § 1.883-5T(d) and
(e)published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** ]. **Par. 3.** Section 1.883-1 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(3)(i)(D), (c)(3)(i)(G), (c)(3)(i)(H), (c)(3)(i)(I), (c)(3)(ii), (g)(1)(ix), (g)(1)(x), (g)(1)(xi), (g)(3), (h)(1)(ii), and (h)(3) to read as follows: § 1.883-1 Exclusion of income from the international operation of ships or aircraft.
(c)* * *
(3)* * *
(i)* * *
(D)[The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.883-1(c)(3)(i)(D) is the same as the text of § 1.883-1T(c)(3)(i)(D) published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** ].
(G)through
(I)[The text of the proposed amendments to § 1.883-1(c)(3)(i)(G) through
(I)is the same as the text of § 1.883-1T(c)(3)(i)(G) through
(I)published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** ].
(ii)[The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.883-1(c)(3)(ii) is the same as the text of § 1.883-1T(c)(3)(ii) published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** ].
(g)* * *
(1)* * *
(ix)through
(xi)[The text of the proposed amendments to § 1.883-1(g)(1)(ix) through
(xi)is the same as the text of § 1.883-1T(g)(1)(ix) through
(xi)published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** ].
(3)[The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.883-1(g)(3) is the same as the text of § 1.883-1T(g)(3) published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** ].
(h)* * *
(1)* * *
(ii)[The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.883-1(h)(1)(ii) is the same as the text of § 1.883-1T(h)(1)(ii) published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** ].
(2)* * *
(3)[The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.883-1(h)(3) is the same as the text of § 1.883-1T(h)(3) published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** ]. **Par. 4.** Section 1.883-2 is amended by revising paragraphs (e)(2), (f)(3), and (f)(4)(ii) to read as follows: § 1.883-2 Treatment of publicly-traded corporations.
(e)* * *
(2)[The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.883-2(e)(2) is the same as the text of § 1.883-2T(e)(2) published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** ].
(f)* * *
(3)[The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.883-2(f)(3) is the same as the text of § 1.883-2T(f)(3) published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** ].
(4)* * *
(ii)[The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.883-2(f)(4)(ii) is the same as the text of § 1.883-2T(f)(4)(ii) published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** ]. **Par. 5.** Section 1.883-3 is revised to read as follows: § 1.883-3 Treatment of controlled foreign corporations. [The text of this proposed section is the same as the text of § 1.883-3T published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** ]. **Par. 6.** Section 1.883-4 is amended by revising paragraphs (d)(4)(i)(C), (d)(4)(i)(D), (e)(2), and (e)(3) to read as follows: § 1.883-4 Qualified shareholder stock ownership test.
(d)* * *
(4)* * *
(i)* * *
(C)and
(D)[The text of the proposed amendments to § 1.883-4(d)(4)(i)(C) and
(D)is the same as the text of § 1.883-4T(d)(4)(i)(C) and
(D)published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** ].
(e)* * *
(2)and
(3)[The text of the proposed amendments to § 1.883-4(e)(2) and
(3)is the same as the text of § 1.883-4T(e)(2) and
(3)published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** ]. **Par. 7.** Section 1.883-5 is amended by revising paragraphs
(d)and
(e)to read as follows: § 1.883-5 Effective/applicability dates.
(d)[The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.883-5(d) is the same as the text of § 1.883-5T(d) published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** ].
(e)[The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.883-5(e) is the same as the text of § 1.883-5T(e) published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** ]. Kevin M. Brown, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement. [FR Doc. E7-12037 Filed 6-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD 36 CFR Parts 1190 and 1191 [Docket No. 2007-04] Accessibility Guidelines for Emergency Transportable Housing AGENCY: Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board. ACTION: Notice of intent to establish advisory committee. SUMMARY: The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) proposes to establish a Federal advisory committee to develop a proposed rule on accessibility guidelines for emergency transportable housing covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Architectural Barriers Act. The Access Board invites comments on the proposal to establish the advisory committee and the proposed committee membership. DATES: Comments and applications should be received by July 25, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments and applications, identified by Docket No. 2007-04, by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail:* *mazz@access-board.gov.* Include Docket No. 2007-04 in the subject line of the message. • *Fax:*
(202)272-0081. • *Mail or Hand Delivery:* Office of Technical and Information Services, Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, 1331 F Street, NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004-1111. All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this rulemaking. Comments will also be available for inspection at the above address from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on regular business days. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marsha Mazz, Office of Technical and Information Services, Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, 1331 F Street, NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004-1111. Telephone number
(202)272-0020 (Voice);
(202)272-0082 (TTY). These are not toll-free numbers. E-mail address: *mazz@access-board.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board or Board) 1 is responsible for developing accessibility guidelines under the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA)and the Architectural Barriers Act
(ABA)to ensure that newly constructed and altered facilities covered by these laws are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. In July 2004, the Access Board published revised accessibility guidelines for facilities covered by the ADA and ABA. 69 FR 44084 (July 23, 2004). The guidelines update accessibility requirements for a wide range of facilities in the public and private sectors. The ADA and ABA Accessibility Guidelines contain ADA scoping (Chapters 1 and 2), ABA scoping (Chapters F1 and F2) and common technical provisions (Chapters 3 through 10) and for the first time contain technical and scoping provisions for both transient lodging and residential dwelling units. 1 The Access Board is an independent Federal agency established by section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. 792) whose primary mission is to promote accessibility for individuals with disabilities. The Access Board consists of 25 members. Thirteen are appointed by the President from among the public, a majority of who are required to be individuals with disabilities. The other twelve are heads of the following Federal agencies or their designees whose positions are Executive Level IV or above: The Departments of Health and Human Services, Education, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, Labor, Interior, Defense, Justice, Veterans Affairs, and Commerce; General Services Administration; and United States Postal Services. The ADA and ABA Accessibility Guidelines did not anticipate the challenges associated with providing accessible and usable dwelling units which will meet structural and transportation criteria permitting them to be transported across roadways and to be installed in yards or on group trailer sites for emergency use. Therefore, the Access Board wishes to revisit the scoping provisions and technical criteria for residential dwelling units in its guidelines and proposes to establish a Federal advisory committee to develop a proposed rule on this subject. The following interest groups are likely to be affected by accessibility guidelines for emergency transportable housing: • Federal agencies; • Organizations representing the needs of individuals with disabilities; • Trade associations; • Manufacturers and designers of emergency transportable housing; • State and local governments; and • voluntary codes and standards groups. The Board proposes to appoint the following organizations to represent the interests identified above: • Advocacy Center. • Coalition for Citizens with Disabilities. • Department of Housing and Urban Development. • Department of Justice. • Federal Emergency Management Agency. • Manufactured Housing Institute. • National Council on Independent Living. • National Fire Protection Association. • Recreation Park Trailer Industry Association. • Recreation Vehicle Industry Association. • United Spinal Association. Comments are invited on the proposal to establish the advisory committee and the proposed membership. Organizations that will be affected by the accessibility guidelines for emergency transportable housing and who believe that their interests will not be adequately represented by the above organizations may apply for membership on the committee. Applications should include the following information:
(1)The name of the organization and the interest that the organization proposes to represent;
(2)the reasons why the organizations specified above do not adequately represent the interests that the organization proposes to represent;
(3)evidence that the person submitting the application is authorized to represent the organization; and
(4)a written commitment that the organization would participate on the committee in good faith. There is no specific application form. See ADDRESSES , above, for information on where and how to submit applications. To be effective, the size of the committee will be limited. Each organization affected by accessibility guidelines for emergency transportable housing need not have its own representative on the advisory committee. Rather, interests must be adequately represented and the membership must be fairly balanced. After reviewing the comments received in response to this notice and any applications for membership, the Board will issue a notice in the **Federal Register** announcing the establishment of the committee and the committee membership, unless it is determined based on comments that the establishment of the committee would be inappropriate. The first committee meeting is tentatively scheduled for September 24 and 25, 2007 at the Access Board offices in Washington, DC. The Board expects the committee to hold no more than three meetings and all meetings will be in the Washington, DC area. The meetings will be open to the public. Future committee meetings will be announced in the **Federal Register** . The Board will provide staff support to the committee. Members of the committee will not be compensated for their service. The Board may pay travel expenses for a limited number of persons who would otherwise be unable to serve on the committee. Members will not be considered special government employees since they will serve as representatives of their organizations and will not be required to file confidential financial disclosure reports. Availability of Copies and Electronic Access Single copies of this publication may be obtained at no cost by calling the Access Board's automated publications order line
(202)272-0080, by pressing 2 on the telephone keypad and then 1. Please record your name, address, city, State, zip code, telephone number and request the emergency transportable housing advisory committee notice. Persons using a TTY should call
(202)272-0082. This document is available in alternate formats upon request. Persons who want this publication in an alternate format should specify the type of format (cassette tape, Braille, large print, or ASCII disk). This document is also available on the Board's Web site ( *http://www.access-board.gov* ). Tricia Mason, Chair, Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board. [FR Doc. E7-12205 Filed 6-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8150-01-P ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD 36 CFR Part 1196 [Docket No. 2007-03] RIN 3014-AA22 Passenger Vessel Emergency Alarms Advisory Committee AGENCY: Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board. ACTION: Notice of intent to establish advisory committee. SUMMARY: The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board or Board) proposes to establish a Passenger Vessel Emergency Alarms Advisory Committee (Committee) to make recommendations on issues related to the effectiveness of passenger vessel emergency alarm systems for individuals with hearing loss or deafness. The Access Board invites comments on the proposal to establish the committee and the proposed committee membership. DATES: Comments and applications should be received by July 25, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments and applications, identified by Docket No. 2007-03, by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: pvag@access-board.gov.* Include Docket No. 2007-03 in the subject line of the message. • *Fax:*
(202)272-0081. • *Mail or Hand Delivery:* Office of Technical and Information Services, Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, 1331 F Street, NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004-1111. All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this rulemaking. Comments will be available for inspection at the above address from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on regular business days. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Beatty, Office of Technical and Information Services, Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, 1331 F Street, NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004-1111. Telephone number
(202)272-0012 (Voice);
(202)272-0082 (TTY). These are not toll-free numbers. E-mail address: *pvag@access-board.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board or Board) 1 is responsible for developing accessibility guidelines under the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA)to ensure that newly constructed and altered passenger vessels covered by the law are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. 1 The Access Board is an independent Federal agency established by section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. 792) whose primary mission is to promote accessibility for individuals with disabilities. The Access Board consists of 25 members. Thirteen are appointed by the President from among the public, a majority of whom are required to be individuals with disabilities. The other twelve are heads of the following Federal agencies or their designees whose positions are Executive Level IV or above: The Departments of Health and Human Services, Education, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, Labor, Interior, Defense, Justice, Veterans Affairs, and Commerce; General Services Administration; and United States Postal Services. In July 2006, the Access Board made available for public comment revised draft accessibility guidelines for passenger vessels which are permitted to carry more than 150 passengers or more than 49 overnight passengers. 71 FR 38563 (July 7, 2006). The revised draft guidelines will also apply to all ferries and certain tenders which carry 60 or more passengers. The revised draft guidelines are available on the Board's Web site at *http://www.access-board.gov/pvaac/revised-draft.htm* . Section V215 of the revised draft guidelines requires that where emergency alarm systems are provided to alert passengers, the alarms in public areas and certain guest rooms must comply with “principles of best practice.” This is similar to a provision in the Americans with Disabilities Act and Architectural Barriers Act Accessibility Guidelines (section 702) that permits fire alarm systems in medical care facilities to be provided in accordance with “industry practice.” An earlier draft of the passenger vessel guidelines in 2004 required emergency alarm systems (both audible and visible) to be permanently installed and to comply with NFPA 72. 69 FR 69244 (November 26, 2004). Commenters on the earlier draft primarily focused on the desire to allow portable systems with enhanced capabilities as an alternative to requiring permanently installed visible alarms in public areas and in guest rooms required to have communication features. Aside from problems in interfacing visible alarm systems with public address systems over which audible alarms operate, these commenters noted benefits in using portable systems. Many commenters argued that portable systems would allow technological advances to be more rapidly adopted which could provide better information during emergencies than permanently installed visible alarms. Portable systems would also allow more guest rooms to be covered than the two percent proposed in the 2004 draft. The same portable systems could also be used to communicate other information about shipboard activities more effectively to people who are deaf or hard of hearing. The Board is also aware of how employees on passenger vessels play an important role in providing directions and addressing passenger needs during emergencies. The Board pointed out that this heightened role is more analogous to how hospitals notify their patients and is different from most other facilities on land. As technology in this area is rapidly changing, the revised draft proposed that alarm systems comply with principles of best practice to alert passengers. Passenger vessel operators, individuals with disabilities, and organizations representing the various interest groups commented that the provision was vague and requested additional guidance. The Board agrees that additional guidance would be helpful and proposes to establish a Passenger Vessel Emergency Alarms Advisory Committee (Committee) to assist in this matter. The committee is expected to make recommendations to the Board on the following issues:
(a)Whether current emergency alarm system designs and practices on passenger vessels meet the access needs of individuals with hearing loss or deafness.
(b)Alternative designs or technologies for emergency alarm systems appropriate for use on passenger vessels that meet the access needs of individuals with hearing loss or deafness.
(c)The contents of proposed accessibility guidelines for passenger vessels related to emergency alarm systems. The following interest groups are likely to be affected by emergency alarm systems on passenger vessels: • Individuals with hearing loss or deafness and other individuals with disabilities concerned about emergency alarm systems; • Passenger vessel operators; • Manufacturers and designers of emergency alarm systems; and • Voluntary codes and standards groups which address emergency alarms. The Board proposes to appoint the following organizations to the committee to represent the interests identified above: • Community Emergency Preparedness Information Network. • Cruise Lines International Association. • Epilepsy Foundation. • Gallaudet University. • Hearing Access Program. • Hearing Loss Association of America. • National Association of the Deaf. • National Fire Protection Association. • Passenger Vessel Association. • Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers. Comments are invited on the proposal to establish the advisory committee and the proposed membership. Organizations that are affected by emergency alarm systems on passenger vessels and believe that their interests will not be adequately represented by the above organizations may apply for membership on the committee. Applications should include the following information:
(1)The name of the organization and the interest that the organization proposes to represent;
(2)the reasons why the organizations specified above do not adequately represent the interest that the organization proposes to represent;
(3)evidence that the person submitting the application is authorized to represent the organization; and
(4)a written commitment that the organization would participate on the committee in good faith. There is no specific application form. See ADDRESSES , above, for information on where and how to submit applications. To be effective, the size of the committee will be limited. Each organization affected by emergency alarm systems on passenger vessels need not have its own representative on the committee. Rather, each interest must be adequately represented and the membership must be fairly balanced. After reviewing the comments received in response to this notice and any applications for membership, the Board will issue a notice in the **Federal Register** announcing the establishment of the committee and the committee membership, unless it is determined based on comments that the establishment of the committee would be inappropriate. The first committee meeting is tentatively scheduled for August 15 and 16, 2007 at the Access Board offices in Washington, DC. The Board expects the committee to hold no more than three meetings and all meetings will be in the Washington, DC area. The meetings will be open to the public. Future committee meetings will be announced in the **Federal Register** . The Board will provide staff support to the committee. Members of the committee will not be compensated for their service. The Board may pay travel expenses for a limited number of persons who would otherwise be unable to serve on the committee. Members will not be considered special government employees since they will serve as representatives of their organizations and will not be required to file confidential financial disclosure reports. Availability of Copies and Electronic Access Single copies of this publication may be obtained at no cost by calling the Access Board's automated publications order line
(202)272-0080, by pressing 2 on the telephone keypad and then please record your name, address, city, State, zip code, telephone number and request the emergency alarms advisory committee notice. Persons using a TTY should call
(202)272-0082. This document is available in alternate formats upon request. Persons who want this publication in an alternate format should specify the type of format (cassette tape, Braille, large print, or ASCII disk). This document is also available on the Board's Web site ( *http://www.access-board.gov* ). Tricia Mason, Chair, Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board. [FR Doc. E7-12196 Filed 6-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8150-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health 42 CFR Part 52 RIN 0925-AA42 Grants for Research Projects AGENCY: National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The National Institutes of Health
(NIH)proposes to amend the existing regulations governing grants for research projects by revising the definition of Principal Investigator to mean one or more individuals designated by the grantee in the grant application and approved by the Secretary, who is or are responsible for the scientific and technical direction of the project, rather than limiting the role of principal investigator to one single individual, and the conditions for multiple or concurrent awards permitting the Secretary to evaluate, approve and make one or more awards pursuant to one or more applications. DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 24, 2007 in order to assure that NIH will be able to consider the comments in preparing the final rule. ADDRESSES: Persons and organizations interested in submitting comments, identified by RIN 0925-AA42, may do so by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: jm40z@nih.gov.* Include RIN number 0925-AA42 in the subject line of the message. • *Fax:* 301-402-0169. • *Mail:* Jerry Moore, NIH Regulations Officer, Office of Management Assessment, National Institutes of Health, 6011 Executive Boulevard, Suite 601, MSC 7669, Rockville, MD 20892. • *Hand Delivery/Courier:* 6011 Executive Boulevard, Suite 601, Rockville, MD 20892. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry Moore at the address above, or telephone 301-496-4607 (not a toll-free number). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 30, 2003, NIH Director Elias A. Zerhouni announced a series of far-reaching strategic initiatives known collectively as the NIH Roadmap for Medical Research (NIH Roadmap). The NIH Roadmap is an innovative approach designed to transform the nation's medical research capabilities and accelerate fundamental research discovery and translation of that knowledge into effective prevention strategies and new treatments. One of the NIH Roadmap initiatives encourages interdisciplinary research and team science and includes a recommendation to modify grant and research contract applications to allow proposing of more than one Principal Investigator when appropriate. This is congruent with the January 4, 2005, directive issued by the President's Office of Science and Technology Policy
(OSTP)to all Federal research agency heads instructing the heads to accommodate the recognition of two or more Principal Investigators on research projects (grants and contacts). While this new OSTP policy does not prohibit the use of a single Principal Investigator when that is most appropriate for a particular research project, it simply permits the designation of more than one Principal Investigator when that more accurately reflects the management needs of a research project. For the purpose of implementing the NIH Roadmap initiatives, the NIH plans to modify research grant and contract applications to request information on more than one Principal Investigator, consistent with the new OSTP policy establishing the appropriateness of multiple Principal Investigators. Accordingly, we propose to revise the definition of the term Principal Investigator set forth in § 52.2 of the Grants for Research Projects regulations codified at 42 CFR Part 52, and the conditions for multiple or concurrent awards permitting the Secretary to evaluate, approve and make one or more awards pursuant to one or more applications. Specifically, in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM)we propose to amend the existing regulations governing grants for research projects by revising the definition of Principal Investigator so that it does not limit the role of Principal Investigator to one single individual. As announced in NIH notice number NOT-OD-07-017 ( *http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-07-017.html* ), these individual(s) must be judged by the applicant organization to have the appropriate level of authority and responsibility to direct the project or program supported by the grant in order to be considered Principal Investigator(s). While this rule would permit the applicant organization to designate multiple individuals as Principal Investigators who share the authority and responsibility for leading and directing the project, intellectually and logistically, each Principal Investigator is responsible and accountable to the applicant organization (or, as appropriate, to a collaborating organization), for the proper conduct of the project or program, including the submission of all required reports. In other words, the presence of more than one identified Principal Investigator on an application or award diminishes neither the responsibility nor the accountability of any individual Principal Investigator. Additionally, we propose to amend § 52.6 by revising paragraph
(d)permitting the Secretary to evaluate, approve and make one or more awards pursuant to one or more applications. Under current regulations, the Secretary is permitted to evaluate, approve and make more than one award pursuant to two or more applications. In some cases, however, it may be desirable to disaggregate a single application to make more than one award. For example, in the case of an application for support of a project that involves more than one Principal Investigator affiliated with more than one institution, it may be desirable to administer the project with more than one award. In addition, applications that involve subprojects may be disaggregated into separate awards to improve scientific management. The revised regulatory language clarifies options and provides an opportunity to contemplate more than one award that may involve more than one institution in response to a single application. In some of these cases separate records will be associated in the NIH data system so that the components can be managed as a single project to promote close collaboration with their counterparts. Actual awards also will be associated through special terms of award to clearly note collaborations and any special requirements resulting from such collaborations, In other cases, it may be appropriate to consider multiple applications from more than one institutions that are managed as a single unit with multiple awards to the different institutions to facilitate collaboration. This change will foster interdisciplinary and collaborative research and will improve management flexibility even when components of such collaborative research programs are administered by different NIH awarding components. The purpose of this NPRM is to invite public comment on the proposed regulation. The following is provided as public information. Executive Order 12866 Executive Order 12866 requires that all regulatory actions reflect consideration of the costs and benefits they generate, and that they meet certain standards, such as avoiding the imposition of unnecessary burdens on the affected public. If a regulatory action is deemed to fall within the scope of the definition of the term “significant regulatory action” contained in § 3(f) of the Order, prepublication review by the Office of Management and Budget's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
(OIRA)is necessary. This proposed rule was reviewed under Executive Order 12866 by OIRA and was deemed significant. Executive Order 12866 also requires each agency to write all rules in plain language. In addition to your substantive comments on this proposed rule, we invite comments on how to make this proposed rule easier to understand. For example: • Have we organized the material to suit your needs? • Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated? • Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is not clear? • Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand? • Could we improve clarity by adding illustrative examples, tables, lists, or diagrams? • What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand.? Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) requires that regulatory proposals be analyzed to determine whether they create a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Director, NIH, certifies that any final rule resulting from this proposed rule will not have any such impact. Executive Order 13132 Executive Order 13132, Federalism, requires that federal agencies consult with State and local government officials in the development of regulatory policies with federalism implications. The Director, NIH, reviewed the proposed rule as required under the Executive Order and determined that it does not have any federalism implications. The Director, NIH, certifies that the proposed rule will not have an effect on the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Paperwork Reduction Act This proposed rule does not contain any information collection requirements which are subject to Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance numbered programs affected by the proposed regulations are: 93.113—Biological Response to Environmental Health Hazards 93.114—Applied Toxicological Research and Testing 93.115—Biometry and Risk Estimation-Health Risks from Environmental Exposures 93.118—Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome
(AIDS)Activity 93.121—Oral Diseases and Disorders Research 93.135—Centers for Research and Demonstration for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention 93.136—Injury Prevention and Control Research and State and Community Based Programs 93.172—Human Genome Research 93.173—Research Related to Deafness and Communication Disorders 93.184—Disabilities Prevention 93.213—Research and Training in Complementary and Alternative Medicine 93.242—Mental Health Research Grants 93.262—Occupational Safety and Health Program 93.271—Alcohol Research Career Development Awards for Scientists and Clinicians 93.273—Alcohol Research Programs 93.279—Drug Abuse and Addiction Research Programs 93.281—Mental Health Research Career/Scientist Development Awards 93.283—Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-Investigations and Technical Assistance 93.361—Nursing Research 93.389—National Center for Research Sources 93.390—Academic Research Enhancement Award 93.393—Cancer Cause and Prevention Research 93.394—Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research 93.395—Cancer Treatment Research 93.396—Cancer Biology Research 93.821—Biophysics and Physiological Sciences Research 93.837—Heart and Vascular Diseases Research 93.838—Lung Diseases Research 93.839—Blood Diseases and Resources Research 93.846—Arthritis, Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Research 93.847—Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism Research 93.848—Digestive Diseases and Nutrition Research 93.849—Kidney Diseases, Urology and Hematology Research 93.853—Clinical Research Related to Neurological Disorders 93.855—Allergy, Immunology and Transplantation Research 93.856—Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research 93.859—Biomedical Research and Research Training 93.865—Research for Mothers and Children 93.866—Aging Research 93.867—Vision Research 93.879—Medical Library Assistance 93.929—Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research 93.934—Fogarty International Center Research Collaboration Award 93.939—Blood Diseases and Resources Research 93.941—HIV Demonstration, Research, Public and Professional Education Projects 93.942—Research, Treatment and Education Programs on Lyme Disease in the United States 93.943—Epidemiologic Research Studies of Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome
(AIDS)and Human Immunodeficiency Virus
(HIV)Infection in Selected Population Groups 93.947—Tuberculosis Demonstration, Research, Public and Professional Education List of Subjects in 42 CFR Part 52 Grant programs—Health; Medical research; Occupational safety and health. Dated: May 11, 2006. Elias A. Zerhouni, Director, National Institutes of Health. Approved: October 12, 2006. Michael O. Leavitt, Secretary. Editorial Note: This document was received by the Office of the Federal Register on June 20, 2007. For reasons presented in the preamble, it is proposed to amend part 52 of title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below. PART 52—GRANTS FOR RESEARCH PROJECTS 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 216. 1A. We propose to amend § 52.2 by revising the definition of the term “Principal investigator” to read as follows: § 52.2 Definitions. *Principal investigator* means the individual(s) judged by the applicant organization to have the appropriate level of authority and responsibility to direct the project or program supported by the grant and who is or are responsible for the scientific and technical direction of the project. 2. We propose to amend *§ 52.6 by revising paragraph
(d)to read as follows:* § 52.6 Grant awards.
(d)*Multiple or concurrent awards.* Whenever a research project involves a number of different but related problems, activities or disciplines which require evaluation by different groups, or whenever support for a project could be more effectively administered by separate handling of separate aspects of the project, the Secretary may evaluate, approve and make one or more awards pursuant to one or more applications. [FR Doc. E7-12223 Filed 6-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Sierra Nevada Distinct Population Segment of the Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog (Rana muscosa) AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of an amended 12-month petition finding. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce an amended 12-month finding on a petition to list the Sierra Nevada distinct population segment
(DPS)of the mountain yellow-legged frog ( *Rana muscosa* ) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We are amending our previous 12-month petition finding, which found that listing is warranted but precluded, by revising the preclusion and expeditious progress section of that finding. DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on June 25, 2007. ADDRESSES: Supporting documentation used in the development of this amended 12-month finding will be available for inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the Endangered Species Program, Division of Conservation and Classification, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 420, Arlington, VA 22203. Comments and materials received, as well as supporting documentation used in the development of the initial 12-month finding published on January 16, 2003 (68 FR 2283), are available for inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605, Sacramento, CA 95825. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chris Nolin, Chief, Division of Conservation and Classification, Endangered Species Program (see ADDRESSES section) (telephone 703-358-2171). Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8339, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(Act)(16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ), requires that, for any petition to revise the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants that contains substantial scientific or commercial information that the petitioned action may be warranted, we make a finding within 12 months of the date of the receipt of the petition on whether the petitioned action is:
(a)Not warranted,
(b)warranted, or
(c)warranted, but that the immediate proposal of a regulation implementing the petitioned action is precluded by other pending proposals to determine whether any species is threatened or endangered, and expeditious progress is being made to add or remove qualified species from the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists). Such 12- month findings are to be published promptly in the **Federal Register.** In addition, section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that a petition for which the requested action is found to be warranted but precluded shall be treated as though resubmitted on the date of such finding, requiring a subsequent finding to be made within 12 months; we refer to such findings as “resubmitted petition findings.” Biological Information and Summary of Factors Affecting the Species Our initial 12-month finding, published in the **Federal Register** on January 16, 2003 (68 FR 2283), included information on the biology, status, and summary of factors affecting the species. This information has been updated annually through our Candidate Notice of Review (CNOR), in which we evaluate the available scientific information and make our resubmitted petition findings on this and other species for which we previously have made a 12-month finding that listing is warranted but precluded. The most recent CNOR was published on September 12, 2006 (71 FR 53756); in it we continued to find that listing the Sierra Nevada DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frog is warranted but precluded, based on the latest species assessment for this taxon. That assessment, which provides the most current information on the biology, status, and summary of factors affecting the species, is available on our Internet Web site at *http://www.fws.gov/endangered/candidates/index.html.* We are currently reviewing and evaluating the available information on this taxon and will again update our species assessment and resubmitted petition finding in the next CNOR, which we anticipate we will publish in fall 2007, unless we take some other listing action pertaining to the Sierra Nevada DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frog prior to that time. Previous Federal Actions On February 10, 2000, we received a petition, dated February 8, 2000, from the Center for Biological Diversity and Pacific Rivers Council to list the Sierra Nevada population of the mountain yellow-legged frog stating that the Sierra Nevada population of the mountain yellow-legged frog satisfies the criteria in our Distinct Population Segment
(DPS)Policy and that it should be listed as endangered. On October 12, 2000, we published a 90-day finding on that petition in the **Federal Register** (65 FR 60603), concluding that the petition presented substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate that the listing of the Sierra Nevada population of the mountain yellow-legged frog may be warranted; we also requested information and data regarding the species. On January 10, 2003, we made a 12-month petition finding that listing was warranted but precluded, and we published the 12-month finding in the **Federal Register** on January 16, 2003 (68 FR 2283). We made this finding in accordance with a court order requiring us to complete a finding by January 10, 2003 ( *Center for Biological Diversity* v. *Norton,* No. 01-2106 (N. D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2001)). Upon publication of that finding, we added the Sierra Nevada DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frog to our list of species that are candidates for listing. The Center for Biological Diversity and the Pacific Rivers Council challenged our finding that listing was warranted but precluded, and sought to compel the Service to proceed with listing the frog. On June 21, 2004, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California granted summary judgment in favor of the United States ( *Center for Biological Diversity* v. *Norton* , No. 03-01758 (E. D. Cal. June 21, 2004)). In response to an appeal of the decision, on October 18, 2006, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the District Court's judgment. Specifically, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the 12-month finding we published on January 16, 2003, did not meet the requirements of section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act, because the finding did not contain information demonstrating that:
(1)The immediate proposal and timely promulgation of a final regulation implementing the petitioned action is precluded by pending proposals to determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species; and
(2)expeditious progress is being made to add qualified species to either of the Lists and to remove from such Lists species for which the protections of the Act are no longer necessary ( *Center for Biological Diversity* v. *Kempthorne,* 466 F.3d 1098, 1103 (9th Cir. Oct. 18, 2006)). We are addressing the 9th Circuit Court's ruling by amending our January 16, 2003, warranted but precluded finding to include a description and evaluation of the reasons and data demonstrating why listing the Sierra Nevada DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frog was precluded and describing the expeditious progress we had made on adding qualified species to the Lists at the time we published the 12-month finding. Preclusion and Expeditious Progress Preclusion is a function of the listing priority of a species in relation to the resources that are available and competing demands for those resources. Thus, in any given fiscal year (FY), multiple factors dictate whether it will be possible to undertake work on a proposed listing regulation or whether promulgation of such a proposal is warranted but precluded by higher priority listing actions. The resources available for listing actions are determined through the annual Congressional appropriations process. The appropriation for the Listing Program is available to support work involving the following listing actions: Proposed and final listing rules; 90-day and 12-month findings on petitions to add species to the Lists or to change the status of a species from threatened to endangered; resubmitted petition findings; proposed and final rules designating critical habitat; and litigation-related, administrative, and program management functions (including preparing and allocating budgets, responding to Congressional and public inquiries, and conducting public outreach regarding listing and critical habitat). The work involved in preparing various listing documents can be extensive and may include, but is not limited to: gathering and assessing the best scientific and commercial data available and conducting analyses used as the basis for our decisions; writing and publishing documents; and obtaining, reviewing, and evaluating public comments and peer review comments on proposed rules and incorporating relevant information into final rules. The number of listing actions that we can undertake in a given year also is influenced by the complexity of those listing actions, i.e., more complex actions generally are more costly. For example, during the past several years, the cost (excluding publication costs) for preparing a 12-month finding, without a proposed listing rule, has ranged from approximately $11,000 for one species with a restricted range and involving a relatively uncomplicated analysis, to $305,000 for another species that is wide-ranging and involved a complex analysis. We cannot spend more than is appropriated for the Listing Program without violating the Anti-Deficiency Act (31 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1)(A)). In addition, in FY 1998 and for each fiscal year since then, Congress has placed a statutory cap on funds which may be expended for the Listing Program, equal to the amount expressly appropriated for that purpose in that fiscal year (see H.R. 2107, 105th Cong. (1997)). This cap was designed to prevent funds appropriated for other functions under the Act, or for other Service programs, from being used for Listing Program actions (see H.R. No. 105-163, at 21, 25 (1997)). Recognizing that designation of critical habitat for species already listed would consume most of the overall Listing Program appropriation, Congress also put a critical habitat subcap in place in FY 2002 and has retained it each subsequent year to ensure that some funds are available for other work in theListing Program: “The critical habitat designation subcap will ensure that some funding is available to address other listing activities” (H.R. Rep. No. 107-103, at 30 (2001). In FY 2002 and each year since then, the Service has had to use virtually the entire critical habitat subcap to address court-mandated designations of critical habitat, and consequently none of the critical habitat subcap funds have been available for other listing activities. Thus, through the listing cap, the critical habitat subcap, and the amount of funds needed to address court-mandated critical habitat designations, Congress and the courts have in effect determined the amount of money available for other listing activities. Therefore, the funds in the listing cap, other than those needed to address court-mandated critical habitat for already listed species, set the limits on our determinations of preclusion and expeditious progress. Congress also recognized that the availability of resources was the key element in deciding whether, when making a 12-month petition finding, we would prepare and issue a listing proposal or make a “warranted but precluded” finding for a given species. The Conference Report No. 835 accompanying Public Law 97-304, which established the current statutory deadlines and the warranted but precluded finding, states (in a discussion on 90-day petition findings that by its own terms also covers 12-month findings) that the deadlines were “not intended to allow the Secretary to delay commencing the rulemaking process for any reason other than that the existence of pending or imminent proposals to list species subject to a greater degree of threat would make allocation of resources to such a petition [i.e., for a lower-ranking species] unwise” (H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 97-835, at 21 (1982)). Taking into account the information presented above, in FY 2003 (the fiscal year in which we made our initial warranted but precluded finding for this population of the mountain yellow-legged frog), the outer parameter within which “expeditious progress” must be measured is that amount of progress that could be achieved by spending $3,077,000, which was the amount available in the Listing Program appropriation that was not within the critical habitat subcap. Our process is to make our determinations of preclusion on a nationwide basis to ensure that the species most in need of listing will be addressed first and also because we allocate our listing budget on a nationwide basis. However, through court orders and court-approved settlements, Federal district courts have mandated that we must complete certain listing activities with respect to specified species and have established the schedules by which we must complete those activities. The species involved in these court-mandated listing activities are not always those that we have identified as being most in need of listing. As described below, a large majority of the $3,077,000 appropriation available in FY 2003 for new listings of species was consumed by court-mandated listing activities; by ordering or sanctioning these actions the courts essentially determined that these were the highest priority actions to be undertaken with available funding. Copies of the court orders and settlement agreements referred to below are available from the Service (see ADDRESSES section above) and are part of the administrative record for this resubmitted petition finding. The FY 2003 appropriation of $3,077,000 for listing activities (i.e., the portion of the Listing Program funding not related to critical habitat designations for species that already are listed) was fully allocated to fund work in the following categories of actions in the Listing Program (see Table below): Compliance with court orders and court-approved settlement agreements requiring that petition findings or listing determinations be completed by a specific date; section 4 (of the Act) listing actions with absolute statutory deadlines; essential litigation-related, and administrative- and program-management functions; and a few high-priority listing actions. FY 2003 Listing Allocation Allocated Available balance FY03 Appropriation $3,077,000 $3,077,000 Capability Funding (Regional Office staff salaries) 700,000 2,377,000 Economic Analysis* 9,805 2,367,195 **Federal Register** Printing 188,700 2,178,495 Attorney Fee Awards and Litigation 39,496 2,138,999 General Program Activities (funds used primarily for work on 90-day and 12-month petition findings required by statute, or by court-order or settlement agreements; also for limited work on proposed rules; also includes Washington Office salaries) 2,138,999 0 * Funds used for work on critical habitat associated with a proposed listing determination for Scotts Valley polygonum. In FY 2003, our allocation of Listing Program funds included a limited amount of funding ($100,000) to each Regional office to ensure that the office maintained minimal core capacity for listing actions (e.g., evaluating the status of species to help ensure that an emergency listing action can be taken if necessary, participating in work to meet the statutory requirement to annually review and make findings on resubmitted petitions). In a Region that faces a relatively limited workload in the Listing Program with regard to deadlines resulting from court orders or settlement agreements, and a relatively limited workload related to meeting statutory deadlines, some of this “capability” funding may be available to address high priority listing actions. However, in most Regions the limited amount of capability funding for Regional offices included in an allocation is used for work associated with supporting listing actions related to court orders or settlement agreements, and for meeting statutory deadlines (i.e., there are no funds available for high priority listing actions). Based on the available funds and their allocation for these purposes, no FY 2003 funds were available for proposed listing actions for any species, including the Sierra Nevada DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frog, except for those with court-ordered deadlines and for the Miami blue butterfly (see explanation below for why we worked on a proposed rule for this species). Specific details regarding the individual actions taken using the FY 2003 funding, which precluded our ability to undertake a listing proposal for the Sierra Nevada DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frog, are provided below. As noted below, in some instances, the work was based on meeting deadlines established by court order or by settlement agreements. In other instances, the work was done in order to meet statutory deadlines. All 12-month findings are subject to an unqualified statutory deadline. With regard to 90-day findings, the decision in *Biodiversity Legal Foundation* v. *Badgley* , 309 F.3d 1166 (9th Cir. 2002), held that the Act requires that 90-day petition findings (i.e., the initial finding as to whether a petition contains substantial information, which the Act directs us to make within 90 days of receipt of a petition, if practicable) must be made no later than 12 months after receipt of the petition, regardless of whether it is practicable to do so. Thus, all 90-day findings are arguably subject to an absolute statutory deadline. As a result of this ruling, which changed our interpretation of section 4(b)(3) of the Act, we have been working to issue petition findings on outstanding petitions. Our decision that a proposed rule to list the Sierra Nevada DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frog was warranted but precluded, included consideration of its listing priority. In accordance with guidance we published on September 21, 1983, we assign a listing priority number
(LPN)to each candidate species (48 FR 43098). Such a priority ranking guidance system is required under section 4(h)(3) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(h)(3)). Using this guidance, we assign each candidate a LPN of 1 to 12, depending on the magnitude of threats, imminence of threats, and taxonomic status; the lower the listing priority number, the higher the listing priority (e.g., a species with a LPN of 1 would have the highest listing priority). At the time we made our 12-month finding (68 FR 2283, January 16, 2003), we assigned the Sierra Nevada DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frog a LPN of 3 based on threats that were of a high magnitude and imminent, and on its taxonomic status as a distinct population segment. Thus, listing this population of the frog was precluded by the more than 80 candidate species that had higher listing priority (LPN = 2) at the time of our petition finding (see Table 1 of the Notice of Review; 67 FR 40657, June 13, 2002), in addition to being precluded by lack of available funds. As explained above, a determination that listing is warranted but precluded also must demonstrate that expeditious progress is being made to add and remove qualified species to the Lists. (We note that in this amended finding we do not discuss specific actions taken on progress towards removing species from the Lists because that work is conducted using appropriations for our Recovery program, a separately-budgeted component of the Endangered Species Program. As explained above in our description of the statutory cap on Listing Program funds, the Recovery Program funds and actions supported by them cannot be considered in determining expeditious progress made in the Listing Program.) As with our “precluded” finding, expeditious progress in adding qualified species to the Lists is a function of the resources available and the competing demands for those funds. Our expeditious progress in FY 2003 in the Listing Program, up to the date we published the 12-month finding for the Sierra Nevada DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frog, included preparing and publishing the following:
(1)Final rule to list *Lomatium cookii* (Cook's lomatium) and *Limnanthes floccosa* (large-flowered woolly meadowfoam) (67 FR 68004, November 7, 2002). The deadline for this action was the result of a court-approved settlement agreement.
(2)Withdrawal of a proposed rule to list the flat-tailed lizard as threatened (68 FR 331, January 3, 2003). The deadline for this listing decision was the result of a court order.
(3)12-month petition finding for the Yosemite toad (67 FR 75834, December 10, 2002). The deadline for this action was the result of a court-approved settlement agreement.
(4)90-day petition findings for three species: Washington population of the western gray squirrel (67 FR 65931, October 29, 2002) (deadline set by a court order), Mono basin population of the greater sage-grouse (67 FR 78811, December 26, 2002) (statutory deadline), and cerulean warbler (67 FR 65083, October 23, 2002) (statutory deadline). Our expeditious progress also included work on listing actions for 55 species for which decisions had not been completed as of the date we published our initial 12-month finding for the Sierra Nevada population of the mountain yellow-legged frog. These actions are listed below; work on those actions with an asterisk (*) was conducted pursuant to a deadline set by a court and all other actions, with the exception of the work on a proposed listing for the Miami blue butterfly, were pursuant to meeting statutory timelines, i.e., timelines required under the Act:
(1)*90-day petition findings for the following species:* New England cottontail, greater/eastern sage-grouse, western sage-grouse*, mountain quail*, trumpeter swan, Colorado River cutthroat trout, and midvalley fairy shrimp*.
(2)*12-month petition findings for the following species:* Western gray squirrel*, Queen Charlotte goshawk*, California spotted owl*, Kootenai river burbot*, westslope cutthroat trout*, *Horkelia hendersonii* (Henderson's horkelia)*, and *Lupinus lepidus* var. *ashlandensis* (Mt. Ashland lupine)*.
(3)*Proposed listing determinations for the following species:* California tiger salamander (rangewide)*, Salt Creek tiger beetle (deadline subject to an out-of-court settlement agreement), and Miami blue butterfly. We worked on a proposed rule to list the Miami blue butterfly as it was a high priority listing action. The Miami blue butterfly is restricted to one isolated population on Bahia Honda Key in Florida and is threatened by the combined influences of catastrophic environmental events, habitat destruction or modification, mosquito control activities, potential illegal collection, potential loss of genetic heterogeneity, and potential predation. Work on assessing the status of the species and preparing a listing rule originally was approved for funding and was initiated in FY 2003 because at the time, the Region considered that it was an emergency. We later decided not to exercise our discretion under section 4(b)(7) to emergency list the species (based in part on the existence of a captive-bred population). However, because a review of the species had been conducted, and because it was a high priority species, continued work on the proposed listing was approved.
(4)*Final listing determinations for the following species:* Florida black bear*, pygmy rabbit, mountain plover*, Rota bridled white-eye*, California tiger salamander (Sonoma County)*, slickspot peppergrass*, Scott Valley polygonum (with critical habitat), and three Mariana Island plants ( * Nesogenes rotensis, * *Osmoxylon mariannense,* and *Tabernaemontana rotensis* )*.
(5)Resubmitted petition findings for 30 species (these species are identified with the code “C*” in Table 1 of the CNOR published in the **Federal Register** (67 FR 40657, June 13, 2002)). We have endeavored to make our listing actions as efficient and timely as possible, given the requirements of the relevant laws and regulations, and constraints relating to workload and personnel. We are continually considering ways to streamline processes or achieve economies of scale, such as by batching related actions together where feasible. Given our limited budget for implementing section 4 of the Act, the actions described above collectively constitute expeditious progress. Conclusion The information provided above amends our finding, published January 16, 2003 (68 FR 2283), that listing the Sierra Nevada DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frog is warranted but precluded. Specifically, the information amends the finding to include information pertaining to preclusion and expeditious progress. Thus this amended finding fully satisfies the requirements of section 4(b)(3)(B)(iii) of the Act. We note also that since publication of our initial warranted but precluded finding, we have made resubmitted petition findings pursuant to the requirement of section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act, and published these in the **Federal Register** on May 4, 2004 (69 FR 24875), May 11, 2005 (70 FR 24869), and September 12, 2006 (71 FR 53755). In each case we have found that the petitioned action is warranted but precluded, and our finding has included information demonstrating preclusion and expeditious progress. We will continue to monitor the status of this species and its habitat. Should an emergency situation develop, we will act to provide immediate protection, if warranted. We intend that any proposed listing action for the Sierra Nevada DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frog will be as accurate as possible. Therefore, we will continue to accept additional information and comments from all concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested party concerning the status of this species. Authority The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ). Dated: June 14, 2007. Kenneth Stansell, Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. E7-12282 Filed 6-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 224 [I.D. 021607C] Endangered and Threatened Species; Proposed Endangered Status for the Cook Inlet Beluga Whale; Public Hearing AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public hearing. SUMMARY: On April 20, 2007, NMFS proposed the listing of the Cook Inlet beluga whale as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). As part of that proposal, NMFS announced a public comment period to end on June 19, 2007, and then extended the comment period to August 3, 2007. NMFS has received requests for public hearings on this issue. In response, NMFS announced two public hearings to be held in Alaska in a previous **Federal Register** notice. In addition, NMFS is announcing a separate hearing in this notice that will be held in Silver Spring, Maryland, in order to provide greater opportunity for public comment. DATES: The hearing will be held on July 31, 2007, from 3:30 to 6:30 p.m. in Silver Spring, MD. Written comments must be received by August 3, 2007. ADDRESSES: The July 31, 2007, hearing will be held at NOAA Headquarters, Building 2, Conference Room 2358, 1325 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD. Written comments can be sent to Kaja Brix, Assistant Regional Administrator, Protected Resources Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Comments may be submitted by: • E-mail: *CIB-ESA-Endangered@noaa.gov* . Include in the subject line the following document identifier: Cook Inlet Beluga Whale PR. E-mail comments, with or without attachments, are limited to 5 megabytes. • Webform at the Federal eRulemaking Portal: *www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions at that site for submitting comments. • Mail: P. O Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802. • Hand delivery to the Federal Building : 709 W. 9th Street, Juneau, AK. • Fax:
(907)586-7557. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For specific information regarding the July 31, 2007, hearing in Silver Spring, MD, contact Chris Uyeda, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3226, telephone
(301)713-1401 . For all other information regarding the proposed listing of the Cook Inlet beluga whale contact Brad Smith, NMFS, 222 West 7th Avenue, Anchorage, AK 99517, telephone
(907)271-5006; Kaja Brix, NMFS,
(907)586-7235; or Marta Nammack,
(301)713-1401. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On April 20, 2007, NMFS published a proposed rule (72 FR 19854) to list the Cook Inlet beluga whale as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended. This action followed completion of the Cook Inlet beluga whale status review, which found this population to be at risk of extinction within the next 100 years and described NMFS' determination that this population constitutes a “species”, or distinct population segment under the ESA. On June 13, 2007, in response to requests, NMFS announced that two public hearings would be held in Alaska regarding the proposed listing of the Cook Inlet beluga whale (72 FR 32605). Following this announcement, NMFS received an additional request for a public hearing to be held in Silver Spring. This request was submitted beyond the 45-day statutory deadline for public hearing requests (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(5)(E)). However, NMFS has decided to voluntarily honor the request in order to provide additional opportunities for public comment. Public Hearings Joint Commerce-Interior ESA implementing regulations state that the Secretary shall promptly hold at least one public hearing if any person requests one within 45 days of publication of a proposed regulation to list a species or to designate critical habitat (see 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3)). In past ESA rule-makings NMFS has conducted traditional public hearings, consisting of recorded oral testimony from interested individuals. This format, although providing a means for public input, does not provide opportunities for dialogue and information exchange. NMFS believes that the traditional public hearing format can be improved upon by also including a brief presentation on the results of the Cook Inlet beluga Status Review and other topics of interest. The preferred means for providing public comment to the official record is via written testimony prepared in advance of the meeting which may also be presented orally. Blank “comment sheets” will be provided at the meetings for those without prepared written comments, and opportunity will also be provided for additional oral testimony. There is no need to register for these hearings. In scheduling these public hearings, NMFS has anticipated that many affected stakeholders and members of the public may prefer to discuss the proposed listing directly with staff during the public comment period. However, these public meetings are not the only opportunity for the public to provide input on this proposal. The public and stakeholders are encouraged to continue to comment and provide input to NMFS on the proposal (via correspondence, e-mail, and the Internet; see ADDRESSES ) up until the scheduled close of the comment period on August 3, 2007. References The proposed rule, status review, maps, a list of the references cited in this document, and other materials relating to the proposed listing can be found on the NMFS Alaska Region website *http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/* . Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* Dated: June 19, 2007. James H. Lecky, Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-12262 Filed 6-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 72 121 Monday, June 25, 2007 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request June 20, 2007. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding
(a)Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), *OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV* or fax
(202)395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling
(202)720-8681. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Agricultural Marketing Service *Title:* Poultry Market News Report. *OMB Control Number:* 0581-0033. *Summary of Collection:* The Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, legislates that USDA shall “collect and disseminate marketing information * * *” and “* * * collect, tabulate, and disseminate statistics on marketing agricultural products, including, but not restricted to statistics on marketing supplies, storage, stocks, quantity, quality, and condition of such products in various positions in the marketing channel, use of such products, and shipments and unloads thereof.” The mission of Market New is to provide current unbiased, factual information to all members of the Nation's agricultural industry, from farm to retailer. *Need and Use of the Information:* Information is used by the private sector to make economic decisions to establish market values for application in contracts or settlement value, and to address specific concerns or issues related to trade agreements and disputes as well as being used by educational institutions, specifically, agricultural colleges and universities. Government agencies such as the Foreign Agricultural Service, Economic Research Service and the National Agricultural Statistics Service use market news data in the performance of their missions. Also, the poultry and egg industry uses the data to help determine future production and marketing projections. The absence of these data would deny primary and secondary users information that otherwise would be available to aid them in their production and marketing decisions, analyses, research and knowledge of current market conditions. The omission of these data could adversely affect prices, supply, and demand. *Description of Respondents:* Business or other for-profit; farms. *Number of Respondents:* 1,785. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: Weekly; monthly. *Total Burden Hours:* 18,422. Agricultural Marketing Service *Title:* Regulations for Voluntary Grading of Poultry Products and Rabbit Products, 7 CFR part 70. *OMB Control Number:* 0581-0127. *Summary of Collection:* The Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 1087-1091, as amended; 7 U.S.C. 1621-1627)
(AMA)directs and authorizes the Department to develop standards of quality, grades, grading programs, and services to enable a more orderly marketing of agricultural products so trading may be facilitated and so consumers may be able to obtain products graded and identified under USDA programs. Regulations in 7 CFR part 70 provide for a voluntary program for grading poultry and rabbits on the basis of U.S. classes, standards and grades. The Agricultural Marketing Service
(AMS)carries out the regulations, which provide a voluntary program for grading poultry and rabbit products. *Need and Use of the Information:* This is a voluntary program on a fee for service basis. Respondents need to request or apply for the specific service they want and in doing so they provide information. The information is needed to administer the program, assess the cost of providing service, and to assure graded poultry and rabbits are properly labeled. Without this information the agency could not ensure properly labeled poultry and rabbit products and the integrity of the USDA grade mark if each new label was not submitted for approval. *Description of Respondents:* Business or other for profit; farms. *Number of Respondents:* 359. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: On occasion; semi-annually; monthly; annually; Other: Daily. *Total Burden Hours:* 1,813. Agricultural Marketing Service *Title:* Export Fruit Regulations. *OMB Control Number:* 0581-0143. *Summary of Collection:* Fresh apples and grapes grown in the United States shipped to any foreign destination must meet minimum quality and other requirements established by regulations issued under the Export Apple Act (7 CFR part 33) and the Export Grape and Plum Act (7 CFR part 35). These Acts were designed to promote the foreign trade of the United States in apples and grapes; to protect the reputation of these American-grown commodities; and to prevent deception or misrepresentation of the quality of such products moving in foreign commerce. Currently, plum and pear provisions are not covered under the Export Grape and Plum Act. The regulation issued under the Export Grape and Plum Act (7 CFR part 35) covers fresh grapes grown in the United States and shipped to foreign destinations, except Canada and Mexico. *Need and Use of the Information:* Persons who ship fresh apples and grapes grown in the U.S. to foreign destinations must have such shipment inspected and certified by Federal or Federal-State Inspection Service
(FSIS)inspectors. Agriculture Marketing Service administers the FSIS. Official FSIS inspection certificates and phytosanitary certificates issued by USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service provide the needed information for USDA. Export carriers are required to keep on file for three years copies of inspection certificates for apples and grapes. *Description of Respondents:* Business or other for-profit; farms. *Number of Respondents:* 100. *Frequency of Responses:* Recordkeeping; reporting; on occasion, monthly, annually. *Total Burden Hours:* 25. Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E7-12260 Filed 6-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request June 20, 2007. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding
(a)Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), *OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV* or fax
(202)395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling
(202)720-8958. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Farm Service Agency *Title:* Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program. *OMB Control Number:* 0560-0175. *Summary of Collection:* The Noninsured Crop Assistance Program
(NAP)is authorized under 7 U.S.C. 7333 and implemented under regulations issued at 7 CFR Part 1437. The collection of crop planting and production data is necessary for the Commodity Credit Corporation
(CCC)to calculate the producer's approved yield on the basis of actual production history. Information collection relative to the occurrence of crop damage or loss production and application for Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program
(NAP)is necessary for CCC to accept and consider a request for assistance under NAP and to facilitate eligibility determinations. NAP provides eligible producers of eligible crops with protection to the catastrophic risk protection plan of crop insurance. It helps reduce production risks faced by producers of crops for which Federal crop insurance is not available. It also reduces financial losses that occur when natural disasters cause a catastrophic loss of production or prevented planting of an eligible crop. The Farm Service Agency
(FSA)will collect information using several forms. *Need and Use of the Information:* FSA will collect the producer's name, address identification number, farm and tract, acreage, ownership, location, crop history, planted acreage, production, yield, share, etc. The information will be used to identify eligible NAP participants, acreage and location, crop and commodities. If information is not collected FSA will not be able to identify and determine eligible participants and crops being planted or produced, or provide assistance to agricultural producers who as a result of natural disaster have suffered catastrophic losses of agricultural crops or commodities. *Description of Respondents:* Individuals or household. *Number of Respondents:* 291,500. *Frequency of Responses:* Recordkeeping; Reporting: On occasion; Weekly; monthly; annually. *Total Burden Hours:* 2,143,562. Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E7-12261 Filed 6-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-05-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2006-0076] Availability of an Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for a Biological Control Agent for Old World Climbing Fern AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: We are advising the public that an environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact have been prepared by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service relative to the release of a nonindigenous gall mite, *Floracarus perrepae,* for the biological control of Old World climbing fern, *Lygodium microphyllum,* in the continental United States. Based on its finding of no significant impact, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Robert V. Flanders, Chief, Pest Permit Evaluation Branch, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1228;
(301)734-5930. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Old World climbing fern, *Lygodium microphyllum,* is a climbing fern that has a large native range that extends through much of the Old World tropics. It has become established in central and southern peninsular Florida, where it grows in a number of wetland and mesic (having a moderate supply of moisture) habitats including hammocks, cypress swamps, flatwoods, bayheads, and disturbed sites. The climbing fern is a highly invasive, exotic weed that climbs over plants, including tall trees, to form massive walls of vegetation. It also forms thick mats on the ground that smother native plants. New infestations can arise great distances from existing populations because the weed produces millions of spores that are spread by wind and other physical carriers. A single spore is capable of starting a new infestation. In addition, dense strands of Old World climbing fern present a major fire hazard. The biocontrol agent that is the subject of this notice, *Floracarus perrepae,* is a gall mite in the insect family Eriophyidae and is native to Australia and tropical Asia. The adult mites feed on young leaflets of the target weed, *L. microphyllum,* inducing the leaf margins to curl into galls. Female mites lay an average 60 eggs inside a gall. The eggs hatch in 5 days and immature mites feed on the specialized tissue within the gall, requiring 4 days to become adults. Galled leaflets are often infected by secondary ambient pathogens and have reduced life spans. Plants infested with the mite have slower rates of growth than uninfested plants. The mite is also host specific. Host specificity tests conducted in Australia indicate that *F. perrepae* is specific to only two *Lygodium* species (the target weed *L. microphyllum* and the Australian fern *Lygodium reticulatum* ). On May 23, 2006, we published in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 29607-29608, Docket No. APHIS-2006-0076) a notice 1 in which we announced the availability, for public review and comment, of an environmental assessment
(EA)that examined the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed release of this biological control agent into the continental United States. 1 To view the notice, environmental assessment, and finding of no significant impact, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* , click on the “Advanced Search” tab, and select “Docket Search.” In the Docket ID field, enter APHIS-2006-0076, then click “Submit.” Clicking on the Docket ID link in the search results page will produce a list of all documents in the docket. We solicited comments on the EA for 30 days ending June 22, 2006. We did not receive any comments by that date. In this document, we are advising the public of our finding of no significant impact (FONSI) regarding the release of the nonindigenous gall mite *F. perrepae* as a biological control agent to reduce the severity and extent of Old World climbing fern infestation in the continental United States. The finding, which is based on the EA, reflects our determination that release of this biological control agent will not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment. The EA and FONSI may be viewed on the Regulations.gov Web site (see footnote 1). Copies of the EA and FONSI are also available for public inspection at USDA, room 1141, South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. Persons wishing to inspect copies are requested to call ahead on
(202)690-2817 to facilitate entry into the reading room. In addition, copies may be obtained by writing to the individual listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . The EA and FONSI have been prepared in accordance with:
(1)The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* ),
(2)regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508),
(3)USDA regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b), and
(4)APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372). Done in Washington, DC, this 19th day of June 2007. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E7-12240 Filed 6-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Mendocino Resource Advisory Committee AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: The Mendocino County Resource Advisory Committee
(RAC)will meet July 20, 2007 in Willits, California. Agenda items to be covered include:
(1)Approval of minutes,
(2)Public Comment,
(3)Extension of RAC
(4)Discussion—items of interest
(5)Discussion/approval of projects,
(6)next agenda items and meeting date. DATES: The meeting will be held on July 20, 2007, from 9 a.m. to 12 noon. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Mendocino County Museum, located at 400 E. Commercial St., Willits, California. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roberta Hurt, Committee Coordinator, USDA, Mendocino National Forest, Covelo Ranger District, 78150 Covelo Road, Covelo, CA 95428.
(707)983-8503; email *rhurt@fs.fed.us.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting is open to the public. Persons who wish to bring matters to the attention of the Committee may file written statements with the Committee staff by July 10, 2007. Public will have the opportunity to address the committee at the meeting. Dated: June 14, 2007. Jim Ruhl, Designated Federal Official. [FR Doc. 07-3073 Filed 6-22-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 34
Traces to 34 documents
U.S. Code
59 references not yet in our index
  • T.D. 9332
  • T.D. 9087
  • Pub. L. 108-357
  • 118 Stat. 1418
  • T.D. 9218
  • Pub. L. 99-514
  • 100 Stat. 2085
  • Rev. Rul. 89-42
  • Rev. Rul. 97-31
  • Rev. Rul. 2001-48
  • 26 CFR 1
  • 26 CFR 602
  • 30 CFR 75
  • 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
  • 46 USC 701
  • 44 CFR 64
  • 44 CFR 59
  • 44 CFR 10
  • 50 CFR 229
  • 50 CFR 229.2
  • 50 CFR 229.32(g)(2)
  • 50 CFR 229.32(g)(1)
  • 50 CFR 216.3
  • 50 CFR 229.32(f)(4)(iv)
  • 50 CFR 622.41(c)(3)(ii)
  • 50 CFR 229.32(f)
  • 50 CFR 229.32(g)(2)(i)
  • 50 CFR 229.32(g)(2)(v)
  • 50 CFR 229.32(f)(1)(i)
  • 50 CFR 635.4(e)
  • 50 CFR 622.4(a)(2)(iv)
  • 14 CFR 23
  • 14 CFR 34
  • 14 CFR 36
+ 19 more
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Final and temporary regulations
U.S.C.§ 553
U.S.C.§ 6103
C.F.R.§ 1.883-3
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 7805
U.S.C.§ 605
Fed. Reg.Proposed Rules
Fed. Reg.Notices
Fed. Reg.Notices
F. App'x466 F.3d 1098
F. App'x309 F.3d 1166
Treas. Dec.T.D. 9332
Cites 93 · 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.