Proposed Rules. Correction to notice of proposed rulemaking

16,039 words·~73 min read·/register/2007/07/20/07-3519

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

BILLING CODE 6116-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [REG-143601-06] RIN 1545-BG30 Mortality Tables for Determining Present Value; Correction AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Correction to notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to notice of proposed rulemaking that was published in the **Federal Register** on Tuesday, May 29, 2007 (72 FR 29456) providing mortality tables to be used in determining present value or making any computation for purposes of applying certain pension funding requirements. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bruce Perlin, Lauson C. Green, or Linda S.F. Marshall at

(202)622-6090. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-143601-06) that is the subject of these corrections is under sections 412, 430, and 431 of the Internal Revenue Code. Need for Correction As published, the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-143601-06) contains errors that may prove to be misleading and are in need of clarification. Correction of Publication Accordingly, the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-143601-06) that was the subject of FR Doc. 07-2631 is corrected as follows: 1. On page 29457, column 3, in the preamble, line 4 of footnote number 2, the language “XLVII (1995), p. 819. The RP-2000 Mortality Table” is corrected to read “XLVII (1995), p. 819. The RP-2000 Mortality Tables”. 2. On page 29460, column 3, in the preamble, second full paragraph of the column, line 7 from the bottom of the paragraph, the language “improvement factor is equal to (1—” is corrected to read “improvement factor is equal to (1-”. § 1.430(h)(3)-2 [Corrected] 3. On page 29471, § 1.430(h)(3)-2(d)(4)(i)(E), column 3, last line of the paragraph, the language “§ 1.430(h)-1(a)(3)).” is corrected to read “§ 1.430(h)(3)-1(a)(3)).” LaNita Van Dyke, Branch Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration). [FR Doc. E7-13494 Filed 7-19-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [REG-144859-04] RIN 1545-BD72 Section 1367 Regarding Open Account Debt; Correction AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Cancellation of notice of public hearing on proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: This document cancels a public hearing on proposed regulations under section 1367 of the Internal Revenue Code relating to the treatment of open account debt between S corporations and their shareholders. DATES: The public hearing, originally scheduled for July 31, 2007, at 10 a.m., is cancelled. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard A. Hurst of the Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration), at *Richard.A.Hurst@irscounsel.treas.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A notice of public hearing that appeared in the **Federal Register** on Thursday, April 12, 2007 (72 FR 18417), announced that a public hearing was scheduled for July 31, 2007, at 10 a.m., in the IRS Auditorium, Internal Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The subject of the public hearing is under section 1367 of the Internal Revenue Code. The public comment period for these regulations expired on July 11, 2007. The notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing instructed those interested in testifying at the public hearing to submit a request to speak and an outline of the topics to be addressed. As of Tuesday, July 17, 2007, no one has requested to speak. Therefore, the public hearing scheduled for July 31, 2007, is cancelled. LaNita Van Dyke Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration). [FR Doc. E7-14082 Filed 7-19-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [REG-103842-07] RIN 1545-BG33 Qualified Films Under Section 199; Correction AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Correction to notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to a notice of proposed rulemaking that was published in the **Federal Register** on Thursday, June 7, 2007 (72 FR 31478). These regulations involve the deduction for income attributable to domestic production activities under section 199 and affect taxpayers who produce qualified films under section 199(c)(4)(A)(i)(II) and (c)(6) and taxpayers who are members of an expanded affiliated group under section 199(d)(4). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Concerning § 1.199-3(k) of the proposed regulations, David McDonnell at

(202)622-3040; Concerning § 1.199-7 of the proposed regulations, Ken Cohen

(202)622-7790 (not toll-free numbers). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-103842-07) that is the subject of the correction is under section 199 of the Internal Revenue Code. Need for Correction As published, the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-103842-07) contains errors that may prove to be misleading and are in need of clarification. Correction of Publication Accordingly, the publication of the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-103842-07), that is the subject of FR Doc. E7-10821, is corrected as follows: 1. On page 31480, column 2, in the preamble, under the paragraph heading “ *Expanded Affiliated Groups* ”, second paragraph of the column, lines 25 through 28, the language “assume that X and Y each have $60 of taxable income and QPAI in 2007, Z has $170 of taxable income and QPAI in 2008, and that X, Y, and Z each have” is corrected to read “assume that X and Y each has $60 of taxable income and QPAI in 2007, Z has $170 of taxable income and QPAI in 2008, and that X, Y, and Z each has”. § 1.199-3 [Corrected] 2. On page 31482, column 1, § 1.199-3(k)(7)(i), line 2 from the bottom of the paragraph, the language “Paragraph (g)(4)(ii)(A) of this section” is corrected to read “Paragraph (g)(3)(ii)(A) of this section”. § 1.199-7 [Corrected] 3. On page 31482, column 3, § 1.199-7(e) *Example 10.* paragraph (i), line 5 of the paragraph, the language “B each use the section 861 method for” is corrected to read “B each uses the section 861 method for”. 4. On page 31482, column 3, § 1.199-7(e) *Example 10.* paragraph (iii), line 8 of the paragraph, the language “B becomes a non-member of the consolidated” is corrected to read “B becomes a nonmember of the consolidated”. 5. On page 31483, column 1, § 1.199-7(g)(3) *Example.* paragraph (i), lines 9 through 11 of the paragraph, the language “year, neither X, Y, nor Z join in the filing of a consolidated Federal income tax return. Assume that X, Y, and Z each have W-2” is corrected to read “year, neither X, Y, nor Z joins in the filing of a consolidated Federal income tax return. Assume that X, Y, and Z each has W-2”. 6. On page 31483, column 1, § 1.199-7(g)(3) *Example.* paragraph (ii), line 5 from the bottom of the column, the language “allocated $96 of the deduction. For the” is corrected to read “allocated $96 of the EAG's section 199 deduction. For the”. LaNita Van Dyke, Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration). [FR Doc. E7-14080 Filed 7-19-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 301 [REG-148951-05] RIN 1545-BF54 Change to Office To Which Notices of Nonjudicial Sale and Requests for Return of Wrongfully Levied Property Must Be Sent AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations. SUMMARY: In the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the **Federal Register** , the IRS is issuing temporary regulations relating to the discharge of liens under section 7425 and return of wrongfully levied upon property under section 6343 of the Internal Revenue Code

(Code)of 1986. Those regulations clarify that such notices and claims should be sent to the IRS official and office specified in the relevant IRS publications. The regulations will affect parties seeking to provide the IRS with notice of a nonjudicial foreclosure sale and parties making administrative requests for return of wrongfully levied property. The text of those regulations also serves as the text of these proposed regulations. DATES: Written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by October 18, 2007. ADDRESSES: Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-148951-05), Room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, PO Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-148951-05), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224. Alternatively, taxpayers may submit comments electronically to the IRS Internet site via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at *www.regulations.gov* (IRS REG-148951-05). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Concerning the proposed regulations, Robin M. Ferguson,

(202)622-3610; concerning submissions of comments, the hearing, call Kelly Banks,

(202)622-7180 (not toll-free numbers). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Temporary regulations in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the **Federal Register** contain amendments to the Procedure and Administration Regulations (26 CFR part 301) relating to the giving of notice of nonjudicial sales under section 7425(b) of the Code and requests for return of wrongfully levied property under section 6343(b) of the Code. The text of those regulations also serves as the text of these proposed regulations. The preamble to the temporary regulations explains the temporary regulations and these proposed regulations. Proposed Effective Date These regulations are proposed to apply to any notice of sale filed or request for return of property made after the date that these regulations are published as final regulations in the **Federal Register** . Special Analyses It has been determined that this notice of proposed rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations, and because the regulations do not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue 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 Requests for Public Hearing Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any electronic and written comments (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 rules and how they may be made easier to understand. All comments will be available for public inspection and copying. A public hearing will be scheduled if requested in writing by any person that timely submits written comments. If a public hearing is scheduled, notice of the date, time, and place for the public hearing will be published in the **Federal Register** . Drafting Information The principal author of these regulations is Robin M. Ferguson, Office of Associate Chief Counsel, Procedure and Administration (Collection, Bankruptcy and Summonses Division). List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 301 Employment taxes, Estate taxes, Excise taxes, Gift taxes, Income taxes, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Proposed Amendments to the Regulations Accordingly, 26 CFR part 301 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 301—PROCEDURE AND ADMINISTRATION **Paragraph 1.** The authority citation for part 301 continues to read in part as follows: Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * **Par. 2.** Section 301.6343-2 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) introductory text,

(b)introductory text, and

(e)to read as follows: § 301.6343-2 Return of wrongfully levied upon property. (a)(1) [The text of the proposed amendment for § 301.6343-2(a)(1) introductory text is the same as the text of § 301.6343-2T(a)(1) introductory text published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** ].

(b)[The text of the proposed amendment for § 301.6343-2(b) introductory text is the same as the text of § 301.6343-2T(b) introductory text published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** ].

(e)[The text of the proposed amendment for § 301.6343-2(e) is the same as the text of § 301.6343-2T(e) published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** ]. **Par. 3.** Section 301.7425-3 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1), (b)(1), (b)(2), (c)(1), (d)(2), (d)(3), and (d)(4), and adding paragraph

(e)to read as follows: § 301.7425-3 Discharge of liens; special rules.

(a)* * *

(1)[The text of the proposed amendment for § 301.7425-3(a)(1) is the same as the text of § 301.7425-3T(a)(1) published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** ].

(b)* * *

(1)[The text of the proposed amendment for § 301.7425-3(b)(1) is the same as the text of § 301.7425-3T(b)(1) published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** ].

(2)[The text of the proposed amendment for § 301.7425-3(b)(2) is the same as the text of § 301.7425-3T(b)(2) published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** ].

(c)* * *

(1)[The text of the proposed amendment for § 301.7425-3(c)(1) is the same as the text of § 301.7425-3T(c)(1) published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** ].

(d)* * *

(2)[The text of the proposed amendment for § 301.7425-3(d)(2) is the same as the text of § 301.7425-3T(d)(2) published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** ].

(3)[The text of the proposed amendment for § 301.7425-3(d)(3) is the same as the text of § 301.7425-3T(d)(3) published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** ].

(4)[The text of the proposed amendment for § 301.7425-3(d)(4) is the same as the text of § 301.7425-3T(d)(4) published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** ].

(e)[The text of the proposed amendment for § 301.7425-3(e) is the same as the text of § 301.7425-3T(e) published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** ]. Kevin M. Brown, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement. [FR Doc. E7-14051 Filed 7-19-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R06-OAR-2006-0849; FRL-8442-7] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Louisiana; Clean Air Interstate Rule Sulfur Dioxide Trading Program AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Louisiana State Implementation Plan

(SIP)submitted on September 22, 2006, enacted at Louisiana Administrative Code, Title 33, Part III, Chapter 5, Section 506(C) (LAC 33:III.506(C)). This revision addresses the requirements of EPA's Clean Air Interstate Rule

(CAIR)Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) Trading Program, promulgated on May 12, 2005 and subsequently revised on April 28, 2006. EPA is proposing to determine that the SIP revision fully implements the CAIR SO 2 requirements for Louisiana. Therefore, as a consequence of the SIP approval, EPA will also withdraw the CAIR Federal Implementation Plan (CAIR FIP) concerning SO 2 emissions for Louisiana. The CAIR FIPs for all States in the CAIR region were promulgated on April 28, 2006 and subsequently revised on December 13, 2006. CAIR requires States to reduce emissions of SO 2 and nitrogen oxides (NO X ) that significantly contribute to, and interfere with maintenance of, the national ambient air quality standards for fine particulates and/or ozone in any downwind state. CAIR establishes State budgets for SO 2 and NO X and requires States to submit SIP revisions that implement these budgets in States that EPA concluded did contribute to nonattainment in downwind states. States have the flexibility to choose which control measures to adopt to achieve the budgets, including participating in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs. In the SIP revision that EPA is proposing to approve, Louisiana would meet CAIR SO 2 requirements by participating in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade program addressing SO 2 emissions. The intended effect of this action is to reduce SO 2 emissions from the State of Louisiana that are contributing to nonattainment of the PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS or standard) in downwind states. This action is being taken under section 110 of the Federal Clean Air Act (the Act or CAA). DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 20, 2007. ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Mr. Jeff Robinson, Chief, Air Permits Section (6PD-R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following the detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the direct final rule located in the rules section of this **Federal Register** . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions concerning today's proposal, please contact Ms. Adina Wiley (6PD-R), Air Permits Section, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue (6PD-R), Suite 1200, Dallas, TX 75202-2733. The telephone number is

(214)665-2115. Ms. Wiley can also be reached via electronic mail at *wiley.adina@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section of this **Federal Register** , EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no relevant adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no relevant adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives relevant adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of the rule, and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the rules section of this **Federal Register** . Dated: July 11, 2007. Lawrence Starfield, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 6. [FR Doc. E7-14067 Filed 7-19-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [Region II Docket No. EPA-R02-OAR-2007-0368, FRL-8442-3] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New York Emission Statement Program AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA)is proposing to approve the State Implementation Plan

(SIP)revision submitted by the State of New York on July 7, 2006 for the purpose of enhancing an existing Emission Statement Program for stationary sources in New York. The SIP revision consists of amendments to Title 6 of the New York Codes Rules and Regulations, Chapter III, Part 202, Subpart 202-2, Emission Statements. The SIP revision was submitted by New York to satisfy the ozone nonattainment provisions of the Clean Air Act. These provisions require states in which all or part of any ozone nonattainment area is located to submit a revision to its SIP which requires owner/operators of stationary sources of volatile organic compounds

(VOC)and oxides of nitrogen (NO X ) to provide the State with a statement, at least annually, of the source's actual emissions of VOC and NO X . The Emission Statement SIP revision EPA proposes to approve enhances the reporting requirements for VOC and NO X and expands the reporting requirement, based on specified emission thresholds, to include carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxides (SO 2 ), particulate matter measuring 2.5 microns or less (PM 2.5 ), particulate matter measuring 10 microns or less (PM 10 ), ammonia (NH 3 ), lead

(Pb)and lead compounds and hazardous air pollutants (HAPS). The intended effect is to obtain improved emissions related data from facilities located in New York, allowing New York to more effectively plan for and attain the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The Emission Statement rule also improves EPA's and the public's access to facility-specific emission related data. DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 20, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R02-OAR-2006-0368, by one of the following methods: *www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. *E-mail: Werner.Raymond@epa.gov* *Fax:* 212-637-3901 *Mail:* Raymond Werner, Chief, Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. *Hand Delivery:* Raymond Werner, Chief, Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30 excluding Federal holidays. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R02-OAR-2006-0368. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *www.regulations.gov* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Raymond K. Forde, Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866,

(212)637-3716, *forde.raymond@epa.gov.* Copies of the State submittals are available at the following addresses for inspection during normal business hours: Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, Air Programs Branch, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Air Resources, 625 Broadway, 2nd Floor, Albany, New York 12233. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following table of contents describes the format for this section: I. What Is the Nature of EPA's Action? II. What Are the Emissions Reporting Required by the Clean Air Act and How Does New York's Regulation Address Them? III. What Was Included in New York's Submittal? IV. What Is EPA's Conclusion? V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What Is the Nature of EPA's Action? EPA is proposing to approve the State Implementation Plan

(SIP)revision submitted by the State of New York on July 7, 2006 for the purpose of enhancing an existing Emission Statement program for stationary sources in New York. The SIP revision consists of amendments to Title 6 of the New York Codes Rules and Regulations (NYCRR), Chapter III, Part 202, Subpart 202-2, Emission Statements (Emission Statement rule). The SIP revision was submitted by New York to satisfy the ozone nonattainment provisions of the Clean Air Act. These provisions require states in which all or part of any ozone non-attainment area is located to submit a revision to its SIP which requires owner/operators of stationary sources of volatile organic compounds

(VOC)and oxides of nitrogen (NO X ) to provide the State with a statement, at least annually, of the source's actual emissions of VOC and NO X . II. What Are the Emissions Reporting Required by the Clean Air Act and How Does New York's Regulation Address Them? Emission Statements (Annual Reporting of VOC and NO X ) The air quality planning and SIP requirements for ozone nonattainment and transport areas are established in Subparts 1 and 2 of Part D of Title I of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 (the Act). EPA has published a “General Preamble” and “Appendices to the General Preamble” (see 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992), and 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992)) describing how EPA intends to review SIPs submitted under Title I of the Act. EPA has also issued a draft guidance document, entitled “Guidance on the Implementation of an Emission Statement Program” (Emission Statement Guidance), dated July 1992, which describes the minimum requirements for approvable emission statement programs. Section 182(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act requires states in which all or part of any ozone non-attainment area is located to submit SIP revisions to EPA by November 15, 1992, which require owner/operators of stationary sources of VOC and NO X to provide the state with a statement, at least annually, of the source's actual emissions of VOC and NO X . Sources were to submit the first emission statements to their respective states by November 15, 1993. Pursuant to the Emission Statement Guidance, if the source emits either VOC or NO X at or above levels for which the State Emission Statement rule requires reporting, the other pollutant (VOC or NO X ) from the same facility should be included in the emission statement, even if the pollutant is emitted at levels below the minimum reporting level. Section 182(a)(3)(B)(ii) of the Act allows states to waive, with EPA approval, the requirement for an emission statement for classes or categories of sources located in nonattainment areas, which emit less than 25 tons per year of actual plant-wide VOC and NO X , provided the class or category is included in the base year and periodic inventories and emissions are calculated using emission factors established by EPA (such as those found in EPA publication AP-42) or other methods acceptable to EPA. EPA has determined that New York's Emission Statement rule, which requires facilities to report information for the criteria pollutants and the associated precursors listed above, satisfies the federal emission statement reporting requirements for major sources. Consolidated Emission Reporting Rule (Annual Reporting for All Criteria Pollutants) In order to consolidate reporting requirements by the states to EPA, on June 10, 2002 (See 67 FR 39602), EPA published the final Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule (CERR). The purpose of the CERR is to simplify the states' annual reporting, to EPA, of criteria pollutants (VOC, NO X , SO 2 , PM 10 , PM 2.5 , CO, Pb) for which National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) have been established, and annual reporting of NH 3 , a precursor pollutant. The CERR also provides options for data collection and exchange, and unified reporting dates for various categories of criteria pollutant emission inventories. The CERR requires states to report annually to EPA on emissions of NO X , CO, VOC, Pb, SO 2 and PM 10 , for industrial point sources, based on specific emission thresholds. The CERR emissions reports for calendar year 2001 were due on June 1, 2003, and subsequent reports were due every year thereafter (i.e., calendar year 2002 emission inventory due June 1, 2004, etc.). Reporting of PM 2.5 and NH3 from point sources was not required until June 2004, for emissions that occurred during calendar year 2002. EPA has determined that New York's Emission Statement rule, which requires facilities to report information for the criteria pollutants and the associated precursors mentioned above, satisfies the federal CERR requirements for major sources. Hazardous Air Pollutants (Periodic Reporting of Hazardous Air Pollutants) In addition to the emission inventory provisions related to the criteria pollutants, EPA has requested that the states report on hazardous air pollutants

(HAPs)emissions from anthropogenic sources, for the National Toxics Inventory (NTI). The NTI is a comprehensive national inventory of HAP emissions from stationary and mobile sources that is revised by EPA every three years. The NTI contains emission estimates for point sources, non-point sources and mobile sources. Point sources include major and non-point source categories as defined in Section 112 of the Clean Air Act. Non-point source categories include area source categories. Individual emission estimates are developed for point sources, while aggregate emission estimates at the county level are developed and recorded for non-point stationary and mobile sources. The NTI also identifies facilities and non-point source categories that are associated with MACT categories. Need for NTI Inventory Title V of the Act requires the Administrator to perform an oversight role with respect to state issued permits, including permits issued to major sources of HAP emissions. In order to determine whether that program is being appropriately and lawfully administered by the states with respect to major HAP sources, a HAP emission inventory is necessary. States are developing programs to regulate HAPs, and Title V of the Act requires state Title V programs to include permits for all HAP sources emitting major quantities of HAPs (10 tons of one HAP or 25 tons of multiple HAPs per year). Thus, EPA believes including HAPs in the point source inventory is appropriate and necessary. Section 112(n)(1)(A) of the Act requires EPA to report to Congress on the hazards to public health reasonably anticipated to occur as a result of emissions from electric utility steam generating units. Section 112(n)(1)(B) requires EPA to provide a report to Congress that considers the rate and mass of HAP emissions and the health and environmental effects of these emissions. Section 112(c)(6) requires a list of categories and subcategories of HAP sources subject to standards that account for not less than 90 percent of the aggregate emission of each pollutant. Although these new requirements do not include specific provisions requiring the compilation of HAP emissions inventories, they do introduce the need for such inventories in order to carry out the mandate of the statute. In addition, Section 112(k)(3) of the Act mandates that EPA develop a strategy to control emissions of HAPs from area sources in urban areas, and that the strategy achieves a reduction in the incidence of cancer attributable to exposure to HAPs emitted by stationary sources of not less than 75 percent, considering control of emissions from all stationary sources, as well as achieves a substantial reduction in public health risks posed by HAPs from area sources. These mandated risk reductions are to be achieved by taking into account all emission control measures implemented by the Administrator or by the states under this or any other laws. A reliable HAP emission inventory covering all stationary sources of HAPs, including point and area sources, is important in implementing the mandated strategy and demonstrating that the strategy achieves the mandated risk reductions. It would be virtually impossible for EPA to identify and estimate HAP-specific emission reductions from all the Federal and state rules that might result in HAP emission reductions. Therefore, EPA has determined that development of the strategy and assessment of progress in achieving the strategic goals requires the development and periodic update of a HAP emission inventory. As presented in the July 19, 1999 **Federal Register** notice on the National Air Toxics Program: The Integrated Urban Strategy (64 FR 38706), a designed approach has been developed that depends upon a reliable and periodically updated HAP emission inventory as a critical element in the assessments that support the development and evaluation of our urban strategy. EPA has determined that New York's Emission Statement rule, which requires facilities to report information for the HAPs, assists the State in satisfying the HAPs reporting requirements for major sources. III. What Was Included in New York's Submittal? New York's Submittal On July 7, 2006, New York submitted a SIP revision for ozone which included an adopted Emission Statement rule. The regulation amends Title 6 of the NYCRR, Subpart 202-2, Emission Statements, which was originally adopted on July 13, 2004. On April 12, 2005, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) adopted these amendments, which became effective on May 29, 2005. EPA's Findings EPA has determined that an approvable Emission Statement program must have several components. Specifically, a state must submit its program as a revision to its SIP, and the state's emission statement program must meet the minimum requirements for reporting as outlined in EPA's Emission Statement Guidance. The program must include, at a minimum, provisions specifying source applicability, definitions, compliance, and specific source reporting requirements. EPA's technical review of New York's Emission Statement program is contained in a technical support document (emission statement enforceability checklist) available in the docket at *www.regulations.gov* or by contacting the person identified earlier in this notice. Applicability In ozone nonattainment areas within the State, facilities which emit or have the potential to emit VOC and/or NO X in amounts of 25 tons per year or more must submit, to the State, an annual emission statement. In attainment areas located within the State, which is part of the ozone transport region

(OTR)established by operation of law under Section 184 of the Act, New York's Emission Statement rule requires facilities actually emitting or having the potential to emit 50 tons per year or more of VOC or 100 tons per year or more of NO X to submit, to the State, an annual emission statement. For Title V affected facilities located in ozone nonattainment areas within the State, which emit or have the potential to emit VOC and/or NO X in amounts of 25 tons per year or more, the Emission Statement rule includes provisions that require such facilities to submit annual emission statements for VOC, NO X , CO, SO 2 , Pb or lead compounds, PM 10 , PM 2.5 , NH 3 and HAPs. For Title V affected facilities located in OTR attainment areas within the State, which emit or have the potential to emit 50 tons per year or more of VOC or 100 tons per year or more of NO X , the Emission Statement rule includes provisions that require such facilities to submit annual emission statements for VOC, NO X , CO, SO 2 , Pb or lead compounds, PM 10 , PM 2.5 , NH 3 , and HAPs. New York's regulation includes provisions that require Title V facilities within the State, which emit or have the potential to emit 100 tons per year or more of any criteria pollutant, to submit annual emission statements for VOC, NO X , CO, SO 2 , Pb or lead compounds, PM 10 , PM 2.5 , NH 3 , and HAPs. New York's regulation includes provisions that require Title V facilities which emit or have the potential to emit 10 tons per year or more of an individual HAP or 25 tons per year or more of multiple HAPs, to submit annual emission statements for VOC, NO X , CO, SO 2 , Pb or lead compounds, PM 10 , PM 2.5 , NH 3 , and HAPs. EPA has determined that New York's Emission Statement rule contains applicability provisions that are consistent with the minimum requirements for state emission statement SIPs. In addition, the Emission Statement rule assists the State in satisfying the annual reporting requirements for the federal CERR, and in developing a HAPs emission inventory for use in National Air Toxics Assessment. Definitions The key definitions that New York included in its Emission Statement regulation are consistent with the EPA guidance. Compliance Under Section 110 of the Act, all SIP requirements must be enforceable by the State and EPA. Article 71 of the New York Environmental Conservation Law provides the State with the authority to, among other things, issue compliance orders with appropriate penalties and injunctive relief for sources failing to comply with the Emission Statement rule. EPA has determined that New York has an adequate program in place to ensure that the Emission Statement rule is enforceable. Reporting Requirements In accordance with CAA Section 182(a)(3)(B) and the Emission Statement Guidance, the Emission Statement rule requires facilities to supply the necessary source-specific data elements in annual emission statements. The survey forms that New York provides to facilities for use in reporting emission data are not EPA forms, but still require the necessary data. Confidential Business Information On December 29, 2006, EPA sent a letter to NYSDEC, regarding New York's Emission Statement rule, requesting clarification on the rule's confidential business information

(CBI)provision, as it relates to air pollutant emissions data collected under the emission statement program. The letter requested that NYSDEC clarify one issue related to the rule; the trade secret provision found in Title 6 of the NYCRR, Chapter III, Part 202, Subpart 202-2.4(i). Specifically, EPA requested that NYSDEC supplement the July 7, 2006 SIP submittal with a letter that confirms the trade secret provision will not restrict:

(1)The public's access to facility-related “emission data” that is contained in emission statements,

(2)EPA's access to all information contained in emission statements submitted to New York, including any emissions related information claimed and/or designated as trade secret or as confidential business information, and

(3)that confirms NYSDEC interprets 6 NYCRR Subpart 202-2.4(i), coupled with 6 NYCRR Subpart 200.2, Safeguarding Information, to require the submission to EPA and release to the public of all information that is considered to be emissions data, consistent with the applicable state and federal laws on public disclosure, including the Clean Air Act and its implementing regulations. On April 11, 2007, NYSDEC sent a letter to EPA in response. EPA has reviewed the letter and has determined that NYSDEC has adequately addressed EPA's concerns. IV. What Is EPA's Conclusion? EPA has concluded that the New York Emission Statement rule contains the necessary applicability, compliance, enforcement and reporting requirements for an approvable emission statement program. EPA is proposing to approve 6 NYCRR, Chapter III, Part 202, Subpart 202-2, Emission Statements, as part of New York's SIP. V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Dated: July 8, 2007. Alan J. Steinberg, Regional Administrator, Region 2. [FR Doc. E7-14061 Filed 7-19-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 42 CFR Part 455 [CMS-2264-P] RIN 0938-AO88 Medicaid Integrity Program; Limitation on Contractor Liability AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: Section 6034 of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 established the Medicaid Integrity Program to promote the integrity of the Medicaid program by authorizing the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services

(CMS)to enter into contracts with contractors that will review the actions of individuals or entities furnishing items or services (whether fee-for-service, risk, or other basis) for which payment may be made under an approved State plan and/or any waiver of the plan approved under section 1115 of the Social Security Act; audit claims for payment of items or services furnished, or administrative services furnished, under a State plan; identify overpayments of individuals or entities receiving Federal funds; and educate providers of services, managed care entities, beneficiaries, and other individuals with respect to payment integrity and quality of care. This proposed rule would set forth limitations on a contractor's liability while performing these services under the Medicaid Integrity Program. This proposed rule would provide for limitation of a contractor's liability for actions taken to carry out a contract under the Medicaid Integrity Program. The proposed rule would, to the extent possible, employ the same or comparable standards and other substantive and procedural provisions as are contained in section 1157 (Limitation on Liability) of the Social Security Act. DATES: To be assured consideration, comments must be received at one of the addresses provided below, no later than 5 p.m. on August 20, 2007. ADDRESSES: In commenting, please refer to file code CMS-2264-P. Because of staff and resource limitations, we cannot accept comments by facsimile

(Fax)transmission. You may submit comments in one of four ways (no duplicates, please): 1. *Electronically* . You may submit electronic comments on specific issues in this regulation to *http://www.cms.hhs.gov/eRulemaking* . Click on the link “Submit electronic comments on CMS regulations with an open comment period.” (Attachments should be in Microsoft Word, WordPerfect, or Excel; however, we prefer Microsoft Word.) 2. *By regular mail* . You may mail written comments (one original and two copies) to the following address Only: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Attention: CMS-2264-P, P.O. Box 8014, Baltimore, MD 21244-8014. Please allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be received before the close of the comment period. 3. *By express or overnight mail* . You may send written comments (one original and two copies) to the following address Only: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Attention: CMS-2264-P, Mail Stop C4-26-05, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850. 4. *By hand or courier* . If you prefer, you may deliver (by hand or courier) your written comments (one original and two copies) before the close of the comment period to one of the following addresses. If you intend to deliver your comments to the Baltimore address, please call telephone number

(410)786-8148 in advance to schedule your arrival with one of our staff members. Room 445-G, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20201; or 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850. (Because access to the interior of the HHH Building is not readily available to persons without Federal Government identification, commenters are encouraged to leave their comments in the CMS drop slots located in the main lobby of the building. A stamp-in clock is available for persons wishing to retain a proof of filing by stamping in and retaining an extra copy of the comments being filed.) Comments mailed to the addresses indicated as appropriate for hand or courier delivery may be delayed and received after the comment period. For information on viewing public comments, see the beginning of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Rufo, 410-786-5589 or Crystal High, 410-786-8366. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Submitting Comments:* We welcome comments from the public on all issues set forth in this rule to assist us in fully considering issues and developing policies. You can assist us by referencing the file code CMS-2064-P and the specific “issue identifier” that precedes the section on which you choose to comment. *Inspection of Public Comments:* All comments received before the close of the comment period are available for viewing by the public, including any personally identifiable or confidential business information that is included in a comment. We post all comments received before the close of the comment period on the following Web site as soon as possible after they have been received: *http://www.cms.hhs.gov/eRulemaking* . Click on the link “Electronic Comments on CMS Regulations” on that Web site to view public comments. Comments received timely will also be available for public inspection as they are received, generally beginning approximately 3 weeks after publication of a document, at the headquarters of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244, Monday through Friday of each week from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. To schedule an appointment to view public comments, phone 1-800-743-3951. I. Background A. Current Law States and the Federal Government share in the responsibility for safeguarding Medicaid program integrity. States must comply with Federal requirements designed to ensure that Medicaid funds are properly spent (or recovered, when necessary). The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services

(CMS)is the primary Federal agency responsible for providing oversight of States' activities and facilitating their program integrity efforts. B. Medicaid Integrity Program Section 6034 of the Deficit Reduction Act

(DRA)of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-171, enacted on February 8, 2006) established the Medicaid Integrity Program (the Program), within CMS to combat Medicaid fraud and abuse. For the first time, the Program authorizes the Federal government to directly identify, recover, and prevent inappropriate Medicaid payments. It would also support the efforts of the State Medicaid agencies through a combination of oversight and technical assistance. Although individual States work to ensure the integrity of their respective Medicaid programs, the Program represents our first comprehensive national strategy to detect and prevent Medicaid fraud and abuse. The Program would provide CMS with the ability to more directly ensure the accuracy of Medicaid payments and to deter those who would exploit the program. Section 6034 of the DRA amended title XIX of the Social Security Act (the Act), (42 U.S.C. 1396 *et seq.* ) by redesignating the old section 1936 as section 1937; and inserting the new section 1936 “Medicaid Integrity Program.” The new section 1936 of the Act states that the Secretary promote the integrity of the Medicaid program by entering into contracts with eligible entities to carry out the following activities: 1. Review of the actions of individuals or entities furnishing items or services (whether on a fee-for-service, risk or other basis) for which payment may be made under a State plan approved under title XIX (or under any waiver of this plan approved under section 1115 of the Act) to determine whether fraud, waste, and/or abuse has occurred, or is likely to occur, or whether these actions have any potential for resulting in an expenditure of funds under title XIX in a manner that is not intended under the provisions of title XIX. 2. Audit of claims for payment for items or services furnished, or administrative services rendered, under a State plan under title XIX, including cost reports, consulting contracts; and risk contracts under section 1903(m) of title XIX. 3. Identification of overpayments to individuals or entities receiving Federal funds under title XIX. 4. Education of providers of services, managed care entities, beneficiaries, and other individuals with respect to payment integrity and quality of care. Section 6034 of the DRA also mandated that the Secretary will by regulation provide for the limitation of a contractor's liability for actions taken to carry out a contract under the Medicaid Integrity Program. II. Provisions of the Proposed Rule [If you wish to comment on issues in this section, please include the caption “Provisions of the Proposed Rule” at the beginning of your comments.] Limitations on Contractor Liability Contractors that perform activities under the Medicaid Integrity Program (the Program), would be reviewing activities of providers and others seeking Medicaid payment for providing services to Medicaid beneficiaries. In an effort to reduce or eliminate the Program contractor's exposure to possible legal action from entities it reviews, section 6034 of the DRA requires that we, by regulation, limit the Program contractor's liability for actions taken in carrying out its contract. We must establish, to the extent we find appropriate, standards and other substantive and procedural provisions that are the same as, or comparable to, those contained in section 1157 of the Act. Section 1157 of the Act states that any organization having a contract with the Secretary, its employees, fiduciaries, and anyone who furnishes professional services to these organizations are protected from civil and criminal liability in performing their duties under the Act or their contract, provided these duties are performed with due care. Following the mandate of section 6034 of the DRA, this proposed rule, in § 455.1, Basis and scope, would add a new paragraph

(c)stating that subpart C implements section 1936 of the Act. Section 1936 of the Act establishes the Medicaid Integrity Program under which the Secretary will promote the integrity of the program by entering into contracts with eligible entities to carry out the activities under subpart C. In addition, new subpart C, § 455.200(a), would specify the statutory basis of proposed new subpart C, which would implement section 1936 of the Act, which states that the Secretary will promote the integrity of the Medicaid program by entering into contracts with eligible entities to carry out the activities under subpart C. Section 455.200(b) would provide the scope for the limitation on a contractor's liability to carry out a contract under the Medicaid Integrity Program as proposed under new § 455.202. Section 455.202(a) would protect Program contractors from liability in the performance of their contracts provided they carry out their contractual duties with due care. In accordance with section 6034 of the DRA, we propose to employ the same standards for payment of legal expenses as are contained in section 1157(d) of the Act. Therefore, § 455.202(b) would provide that we would make payment to Program contractors, their members, employees, and anyone who provides legal counsel or services to them, for expenses incurred in the defense of any legal action related to the performance of the Program contract. We also propose that any and all payment(s) and the amount of each payment(s) if any, would be determined exclusively by us, and conditioned upon

(1)the reasonableness of the expense(s);

(2)the amount of government funds available for payment(s); and

(3)whether the payment(s) is

(are)allowable under the terms of the contract. In drafting § 455.202, we considered employing a standard for the limitation of liability other than the due care standard. We considered whether it would be appropriate to provide that a contractor would not be civilly liable by reason of the performance of any duty, function, or activity under its contract provided the contractor was not grossly negligent in that performance. However, section 6034 of the DRA requires that we employ the same or comparable standards and provisions as are contained in section 1157 of the Act. This approach is consistent with a similar approach taken in the Medicare Integrity Program (see 70 FR 35204), which has virtually identical statutory limitations on contractor liability language. Therefore, we do not believe that it would be appropriate to expand the scope of immunity to a standard of gross negligence, as it would not be a comparable standard to that set forth in section 1157(b) of the Act. III. Collection of Information Requirements This document does not impose information collection and recordkeeping requirements. Consequently, it need not be reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. IV. Response to Comments Because of the large number of public comments we normally receive on **Federal Register** documents, we are not able to acknowledge or respond to them individually. We will consider all comments we receive by the date and time specified in the DATES section of this preamble, and, when we proceed with a subsequent document, we will respond to the comments in the preamble to that document. V. Regulatory Impact Statement [If you wish to comment on issues in this section, please include the caption “Regulatory Impact Statement” at the beginning of your comments.] We have examined the impact of this rule as required by Executive Order 12866 (September 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review), the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(RFA)(September 19, 1980, Pub. L. 96-354), section 1102(b) of the Social Security Act, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), and Executive Order 13132. Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). A regulatory impact analysis

(RIA)must be prepared for major rules with economically significant effects ($100 million or more in any 1 year). This rule would not reach the economic threshold and thus is not considered a major rule. The RFA requires agencies to analyze options for regulatory relief of small businesses. For purposes of the RFA, small entities include small businesses, nonprofit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. Most hospitals and most other providers and suppliers are small entities, either by nonprofit status or by having revenues of $6 million to $29 million in any 1 year. Individuals and States are not included in the definition of a small entity. We are not preparing an analysis for the RFA because we have determined that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In addition, section 1102(b) of the Act requires us to prepare a regulatory impact analysis if a rule may have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals. This analysis must conform to the provisions of section 603 of the RFA. For purposes of section 1102(b) of the Act, we define a small rural hospital as a hospital that is located outside of a Core-Based Statistical Area and has fewer than 100 beds. We are not preparing an analysis for section 1102(b) of the Act because we have determined that this rule would not have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals. Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 also requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule whose mandates require spending in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. That threshold level is currently approximately $120 million. This rule would have no consequential effect on State, local, or tribal governments or on the private sector. Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a proposed rule (and subsequent final rule) that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on State and local governments, preempts State law, or otherwise has Federalism implications. Since this regulation would not impose any costs on State or local governments, the requirements of E.O. 13132 are not applicable. In accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12866, this regulation was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. List of Subjects 42 CFR in Part 455 Fraud, Grant programs—health, Health facilities, Health professions, Investigations, Medicaid, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services would amend 42 CFR chapter IV as set forth below: PART 455—PROGRAM INTEGRITY; MEDICAID 1. The authority citation for part 455 continues to read as follows: Authority: Sec. 1102 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302). 2. In § 455.1, add new paragraph

(c)to read as follows: § 455.1 Basis and scope.

(c)Subpart C implements section 1936 of the Act. It establishes the Medicaid Integrity Program under which the Secretary will promote the integrity of the program by entering into contracts with eligible entities to carry out the activities of subpart C. 3. New subpart C, consisting of § 455.200 and § 455.202, is added to part 455 to read as follows: Subpart C—Medicaid Integrity Program Sec. 455.200 Basis and scope. 455.202 Limitation on contractor liability. Subpart C—Medicaid Integrity Program § 455.200 Basis and scope.

(a)*Statutory basis.* This subpart implements section 1936 of the Act that establishes the Medicaid Integrity Program under which the Secretary will promote the integrity of the program by entering into contracts with eligible entities to carry out the activities under this subpart C.

(b)*Scope.* This subpart provides for the limitation on a contractor's liability to carry out a contract under the Medicaid Integrity Program. § 455.202 Limitation on contractor liability.

(a)A program contractor, a person, or an entity employed by, or having a fiduciary relationship with, or who furnishes professional services to a program contractor will not be held to have violated any criminal law and will not be held liable in any civil action, under any law of the United States or of any State (or political subdivision thereof), by reason of the performance of any duty, function, or activity required or authorized under this subpart or under a valid contract entered into under this subpart, provided due care was exercised in that performance and the contractor has a contract with CMS under this subpart.

(b)CMS pays a contractor, a person, or an entity described in paragraph

(a)of this section, or anyone who furnishes legal counsel or services to a contractor or person, a sum equal to the reasonable amount of the expenses, as determined by CMS, incurred in connection with the defense of a suit, action, or proceeding, if the following conditions are met:

(1)The suit, action, or proceeding was brought against the contractor, person or entity by a third party and relates to the contractor's, person's or entity's performance of any duty, function, or activity under a contract entered into with CMS under this subpart.

(2)The funds are available.

(3)The expenses are otherwise allowable under the terms of the contract. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.778, Medical Assistance Program) Dated: March 15, 2007. Leslie V. Norwalk, Acting Administrator, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Approved: April 20, 2007. Michael O. Leavitt, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-14115 Filed 7-19-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 600 [Docket No. 070607179-7312-01] RIN 0648-AV66 Fishing Capacity Reduction Program for the Longline Catcher Processor Subsector of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Non-Pollock Groundfish Fishery, Industry Fee System AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments. SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations to implement an industry fee system for repaying a $35 million Federal loan financing a fishing capacity reduction program in the longline catcher processor subsector of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands

(BSAI)non-pollock groundfish fishery. This action's intent is to implement a fee collection system to ensure repayment of the loan. DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received by August 20, 2007. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: • E-mail: *0648-AV66.FeeSystem@noaa.gov* . Include in the subject line the following identifier: “Longline catcher processor buyback fee system proposed rule.” E-mail comments, with or without attachments, are limited to 5 megabytes; • Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* ; • Mail to: Leo Erwin, Chief, Financial Services Division, NMFS-MB5, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910; or • Fax to 301-713-1306. Comments involving the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed rule should be submitted in writing to Leo Erwin, at the above address, and to David Rostker, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), by email at *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* or by fax to 202 395 7285. Copies of the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/FRFA) prepared for the program may be obtained from Leo Erwin at the above address. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leo Erwin at 301-713 2390. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Sections 312(b)-(e) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1861a(b) through (e)) generally authorized fishing capacity reduction programs. In particular, section 312(d) authorized industry fee systems for repaying the reduction loans which finance reduction program costs. Subpart L of 50 CFR part 600 is the framework rule generally implementing sections 312(b)-(e). Subpart M of 50 CFR part 600 contains specific fishery or program regulations. Sections 1111 and 1112 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936 (46 App. U.S.C. 1279f and 1279g) generally authorized reduction loans. The FY 2005 Appropriations Act (Public Law 108-447, Section 219) authorized a fishing capacity reduction program for the longline catcher processor subsector of the BSAI non-pollock groundfish fishery (reduction fishery). NMFS published the longline catcher processor subsector BSAI non-pollock reduction program's (reduction program) proposed implementation rule on August 11, 2006 (71 FR 46364) and its final rule on September 29, 2006 (71 FR 57696). Anyone interested in the reduction program's full implementation details should refer to these two documents. NMFS proposed and adopted the reduction program's implementation rule as § 600.1105 of subpart M of 50 CFR part 600. The reduction program's objectives include promoting sustainable fishery management and maximum sustained reduction of fishing capacity from the reduction fishery at the least cost. This is a voluntary program in which, in return for reduction payments, selected offerors permanently relinquished their fishing licenses, surrendered the fishing histories upon which those licenses' issuance were based, and permanently withdrew vessels from fishing. NMFS financed the reduction program's $35 million cost, which post-reduction BSAI non-pollock groundfish longline catcher processors repay over an anticipated 30-year term but fees will continue indefinitely for as long as necessary to fully repay the loan. The fee amount, expressed in cents per pound rounded up to the next one-tenth of a cent, will be based upon the annual principal and interest due on the loan and could be up to 5 percent of longline catcher processor subsector BSAI Pacific cod landings. In the event that the total principal and interest due exceeds 5 percent of the ex-vessel Pacific cod revenues, an additional fee of one penny per pound will be assessed for pollock, arrowtooth flounder, Greenland turbot, skate, yellowfin sole and rock sole. The Freezer Longline Conservation Cooperative

(FLCC)received member offers and subsequently voted to accept four offers. The FLCC submitted a fishing capacity reduction plan (reduction plan) subsequently approved by NMFS. A referendum concerning the fees necessary for repayment of the $35 million loan followed the offer and acceptance process. Approval of the industry fee system required at least two-thirds of the votes cast in the referendum to be in favor before the reduction program could be implemented and payment tendered. NMFS mailed ballots to 39 qualified referendum voters on March 21, 2007, after approving the reduction plan. The voting period opened on March 21, 2007, and closed on April 6, 2007. NMFS received 34 timely and valid votes. All of the votes approved the fees. This exceeded the two-thirds minimum required for industry fee system approval. Consequently, this referendum was successful and approved the industry fee system. On April 26, 2007, NMFS published a **Federal Register** notice (72 FR 20836) advising the public that NMFS would, beginning on May 29, 2007, tender the reduction program's reduction payments to the four selected offerors. On May 29, 2007, NMFS required the selected offerors to permanently stop all fishing with the reduction vessels and permits. Subsequently, NMFS: 1. Disbursed $35,000,000 in reduction payments to the four selected offerors; 2. Revoked the relinquished reduction licenses; 3. Revoked each reduction vessel's fishing history; 4. Notified the National Vessel Documentation Center to revoke the reduction vessels' fishery trade endorsements and appropriately annotate the reduction vessel's document; and 5. Notified the U.S. Maritime Administration to prohibit the reduction vessel's transfer to foreign ownership or registry. Selected offerors participating in the reduction program have received $35 million in exchange for relinquishing valid non-interim Federal License Limitation Program BSAI groundfish licenses endorsed for catcher processor fishing activity, catcher/processor, Pacific cod, and hook and line gear, as well as any present or future claims of eligibility for any fishing privilege based on such permit, and additionally, any future fishing privilege of the vessel named on the permit. Individual fishing quota shares are excluded from relinquishment. II. Proposed Regulations NMFS has completed the reduction program except for implementing the industry fee system which this action proposes to implement. The fee amount will be calculated on an annual basis as: the principal and interest payment amount due over the proceeding twelve months, divided by the reduction fishery portion of the BSAI Pacific cod initial total allowable catch

(ITAC)allocation in metric tons multiplied by 2,205 to convert into pounds, provided that the fees should not exceed 5 percent of the average ex-vessel production value of the reduction fishery. The terms defined in § 600.1105 of the reduction program's implementation rule and in § 600.1000 of the framework rule apply to this action. The framework rule's § 600.1013 governs fee payment and collection in general, and this action applies the § 600.1013 provisions to the reduction program. Under § 600.1013, the first ex-vessel buyers (fish buyers) of post-reduction fish (fee fish) subject to an industry fee system must withhold the fee from the trip proceeds which the fish buyers would otherwise have paid to the parties (fish sellers) who harvested and first sold the fee fish to the fish buyers. For the purpose of the fee collection, deposit, disbursement, and accounting requirements of this subpart, subsector members are deemed to be both the fish buyer and fish seller. In this case, all requirements and penalties of § 600.1013 of this subpart that are applicable to both a fish seller and a fish buyer shall equally apply to parties performing both functions. The BSAI Pacific cod ITAC was chosen as the basis for fee calculation of the reduction program because Pacific cod is the only directed fishery with a total allowable catch set in advance of the fishing season. This methodology allows for a straightforward calculation of the fee due and simplifies future accounting. The fee will be assessed and collected on Pacific cod to the extent possible and if the amount is not sufficient to cover annual principal and interest due, additional fees will be assessed and collected. Fees will be assessed and collected on all harvested Pacific cod, including that used for bait or discarded. Although the fee could be up to 5 percent of the ex-vessel production value of all post-reduction longline catcher processor subsector non-pollock groundfish landings, the fee will be less than 5 percent if NMFS projects that a lesser rate can amortize the fishery's reduction loan over the reduction loan's 30-year term. If the total principal and interest due exceeds five percent of the ex-vessel Pacific cod revenues, a penny per pound round weight fee will be calculated based on the latest available revenue records and NMFS conversion factors for pollock, arrowtooth flounder, Greenland turbot, skate, yellowfin sole and rock sole. Any additional fees will be limited to the amount necessary to amortize the remaining twelve months principal and interest in addition to the five percent fee assessed against Pacific cod. If collections exceed the total principal and interest needed to amortize the payment due, the principal balance of the loan will be reduced. To verify that the fees collected do not exceed five percent of the reduction fishery revenues, the annual total of principal and interest due will be compared with the latest available annual reduction fishery revenues to ensure it is equal to or less than five percent of the total ex-vessel production revenues. In all likelihood this will be based on State of Alaska's Commercial Operator Annual Report produced annually in the March following the close of the previous season. If any of the components necessary to calculate the next year's fee are not available, or for any other reason NMFS believes the calculation must be postponed, the fee will remain at the previous year's amount until such time that new calculations are made and communicated to the post reduction fishery participants. The framework rule's § 600.1014 governs how fish buyers must deposit, and later disburse to NMFS, the fees which they have collected as well as how they must keep records of, and report about, collected fees. Under the framework rule's § 600.1014, fish buyers must, no less frequently than at the end of each business week, deposit collected fees through a date not more than two calendar days before the date of deposit in segregated and federally insured accounts. Fees shall be submitted to NMFS monthly and shall be due no later than fifteen

(15)calendar days following the end of each calendar month. Fee collection reports must accompany these disbursements. Fish buyers must maintain specified fee collection records for at least 3 years and submit to NMFS annual reports of fee collection and disbursement activities by February 1 of each calendar year. Under § 600.1015, the late charge to fish buyers for fee payment, collection, deposit, and/or disbursement shall be one and one-half (1.5) percent per month. The full late charge shall apply to the fee for each month or portion of a month that the fee remains unpaid. To provide more accessible services, streamline collections, and save taxpayer dollars, fish buyers may disburse collected fee deposits to NMFS by using a secure Federal system on the Internet known as *Pay.gov* . *Pay.gov* enables subsector members to use their checking accounts to electronically disburse their collected fee deposits to NMFS. Subsector members who have access to the Internet should consider using this quick and easy collected fee disbursement method. Subsector members may access *Pay.gov* by going directly to *Pay.gov's* Federal website at: *https://www.pay.gov/paygov/.* Subsector members who do not have access to the Internet or who simply do not wish to use the *Pay.gov* electronic system, must disburse collected fee deposits to NMFS by sending a check to our lockbox at: NOAA Fisheries Longline Catcher Processor Non-pollock Buyback P O Box 979060 St. Louis, MO 63197-9000 Subsector members must not forget to include with their disbursements the fee collection report applicable to each disbursement. Subsector members using *Pay.gov* will find an electronic fee collection report form to accompany electronic disbursements. Subsector members who do not use *Pay.gov* must include a hard copy fee collection report with each of their disbursements. Subsector members not using *Pay.gov* may also access the NMFS website for a PDF version of the fee collection report at: *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/mb/financial_services/buyback.htm* . NMFS will, before the fee's effective date, separately mail a copy of this rule, along with detailed fee payment, collection, deposit, disbursement, recording, and reporting information and guidance, to each fish seller and fish buyer of whom NMFS has notice. The fact that any fish seller or fish buyer might not, however, receive from NMFS a copy of the notice or of the information and guidance does not relieve the fish seller or fish buyer from his fee obligations under the applicable regulations. All parties interested in this action should carefully read the following framework rule sections, whose detailed provisions apply to the fee system for repaying the reduction program's loan: 1. § 600.1012; 2. § 600.1013; 3. § 600.1014; 4. § 600.1015; 5. § 600.1016; and 6. § 600.1017. NMFS, in accordance with the framework rule's § 600.1013(d), establishes the initial fee for the program's reduction fishery as 2.0 cents per pound. NMFS will then separately mail notification to each affected fish seller and fish buyer of whom NMFS has notice. Until this notification, fish sellers and fish buyers do not have to either pay or collect the fee. Please see the framework rule's § 600.1000 for the definition of ''delivery value'' and of the other terms relevant to this proposed rule. Each disbursement of the reduction loan's $35,000,000 principal amount began accruing interest as of the date of each such disbursement. The loan's interest rate is the applicable rate, plus 2 percent, which the U.S. Treasury determines at the end of fiscal year 2007. III. Classification The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NMFS, determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005, and other applicable laws. In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, NMFS prepared an EA for the reduction program's final implementing rule (September 29, 2006; 71 FR 57696). The EA discusses the impact of this proposed rule on the natural and human environment and integrates an RIR and a FRFA. The EA resulted in a finding of no significant impact. The EA considered, among other alternatives, the implementation of the fee payment and collection in this action. NMFS will send the EA, RIR, and FRFA to anyone who requests a copy (see ADDRESSES ). NMFS prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), to describe the economic impacts this proposed rule would have on small entities. This proposed rule does not duplicate or conflict with other Federal regulations. IRFA Analysis The Small Business Administration has defined small entities as all fish harvesting businesses that are independently owned and operated, not dominant in its field of operation, and with annual receipts of $4 million or less. In addition, processors with 500 or fewer employees for related industries involved in canned or cured fish and seafood, or preparing fresh fish and seafood, are also considered small entities. Small entities within the scope of this proposed rule include individual U.S. vessels and dealers. There are no disproportionate impacts between large and small entities. Description of the Number of Small Entities The IRFA uses the most recent year of data available to conduct the analysis (2003). Most firms operating in the reduction fishery have annual gross revenues of less than $4 million. The IRFA analysis estimates that 24 of the remaining 36 active longline catcher processor vessels (i.e., 36 vessels constitute the post-reduction longline subsector) that participated in 2003 are considered small entities. The remaining 10 vessels are not considered small entities for purposes of the RFA. There is 1 additional fisherman with a permit but no vessel remaining in the longline subsector. The vessels that might be considered large entities were either affiliated under owners of multiple vessels or were catcher processors. However, little is known about the ownership structure of the vessels in the fleet, so it is possible that the IRFA overestimates the number of small entities. Because the final reduction program rule has not resulted in changes to allocation percentages and participation is voluntary, net effects are expected to be minimal relative to the status quo. The economic impact to communities where non-pollock groundfish are landed and processed would be minimal because the harvest quotas and allocations would not be altered. Fewer vessels in the catcher processor fleet may mean that fewer on-shore fleet support services would be required in Seattle and in Dutch Harbor. The communities would see little change because total landings of non-pollock groundfish would remain at current levels. Some beneficial impacts may occur because this program has provided $35 million to successful offerors. Much of this could be reinvested in the various communities which serve as home ports to the vessels and a portion would be recovered through income taxes. Crew employment opportunities will be reduced when vessels were removed from the fishery. However, those vessels remaining in the fishery will likely experience increased fishing opportunities and higher per capita incomes. The proposed rule's impact will be positive for both those whose offers NMFS has accepted, the selected offerors who received payments to stop fishing, and for post-reduction catcher processors whose landing fees repay the reduction loan. The owners whose offers NMFS accepted have relinquished their fishing licenses, reduction privilege vessels where appropriate, and fishing histories in exchange for payment. These payments ranged from $1.5 million for an inactive license that was not attached to a vessel, up to $11.8 million for the removal of both an active license and vessel from the fishery. Those participants remaining in the fishery after the reduction program will incur additional fees of up to 5 percent of the ex-vessel production value of post-reduction landings. However, the additional costs could be mitigated by increased harvest opportunities by post-reduction fishermen. This is because removal of the vessels from the fishery creates immediate benefits to the longline catcher processor subsector by reducing competition pressure for each of the remaining vessels to catch fish. In theory, each of the vessels retaining their fishing licenses will be able to harvest more fish. This will likely result in net benefits to the subsector members who have voluntarily assumed the additional fees necessary to repay the reduction loan. For example, even though each vessel could, on average, pay approximately $77,440 in fees, the net increase per vessel, on average could be approximately $302,560 more than they would have been able to make before the reduction program's implementation due to the increased opportunity to harvest the TAC. The referendum voters also cast votes unanimously in favor of the fee collection system, which demonstrated to NMFS the involved members of the fishing community have high confidence in the cost-effectiveness of this buyback program. This rule, when implemented, would affect neither authorized BSAI Pacific cod ITAC and other non-pollock groundfish harvest levels or harvesting practices. NMFS rejected the no action alternative considered in the EA for the final rule implementing the reduction program because NMFS would not be in compliance with the mandate of Section 219 of the Act to establish a reduction program. In addition, the longline catcher processor subsector of the non-pollock groundfish fishery would remain overcapitalized. Although too many vessels compete to catch the current subsector ITAC allocation, fishermen remain in the fishery because they have no other means to recover their significant capital investment. Overcapitalization reduces the potential net value that could be derived from the non-pollock groundfish resource, by dissipating rents, driving variable operating costs up, and imposing economic externalities. At the same time, excess capacity and effort diminish the effectiveness of current management measures (e.g. landing limits and seasons, bycatch reduction measures). Overcapitalization has diminished the economic viability of members of the fleet and increased the economic and social burden on fishery dependent communities. It has been determined that this proposed rule is not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. This proposed rule contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. OMB has approved these information collections under OMB control number 0648 AU42. NMFS estimates that the public reporting burden for these requirements will average two hours for submitting a monthly fee collection report and four hours for submitting an annual fish buyer report. These response estimates include the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the information collection. Send comments regarding this burden estimate, or any other aspect of this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to both NMFS and OMB (see ADDRESSES ). Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person is subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, any information collection subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that information collection displays a currently valid OMB control number. List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 600 Fisheries, Fishing capacity reduction, Fishing permits, Fishing vessels, Intergovernmental relations, Loan programs business, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: July 17, 2007. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. For the reasons in the preamble, the National Marine Fisheries Service proposes to amend 50 CFR part 600 as follows: PART 600 MAGNUSON-STEVENS ACT PROVISIONS 1. The authority citation for part 600 continues to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 561 and 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* 2. Section 600.1106 is added to read as follows: § 600.1106 Longline catcher processor subsector Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands

(BSAI)non-pollock groundfish species fee payment and collection system.

(a)*Purpose* . As authorized by Public Law 108 447, this section's purpose is to:

(1)In accordance with § 600.1012 of subpart L, establish:

(i)The borrower's obligation to repay a reduction loan, and

(ii)The loan's principal amount, interest rate, and repayment term; and

(2)In accordance with §§ 600.1013 through 600.1016 of subpart L, implement an industry fee system for the reduction fishery.

(b)*Definitions* . Unless otherwise defined in this section, the terms defined in § 600.1000 of subpart L and § 600.1105 of this subpart expressly apply to this section. *Reduction fishery* means the longline catcher processor subsector of the BSAI non-pollock groundfish fishery that § 679.2 of this chapter defined as groundfish area/species endorsements.

(c)*Reduction loan amount* . The reduction loan's original principal amount is $35,000,000.

(d)*Interest accrual from inception* . Interest began accruing on the reduction loan from May 29, 2007, the date on which NMFS disbursed such loan.

(e)*Interest rate* . The reduction loan's interest rate shall be the applicable rate which the U.S. Treasury determines at the end of fiscal year 2007 plus 2 percent.

(f)*Repayment term* . For the purpose of determining fee rates, the reduction loan's repayment term is 30 years from May 29, 2007, but fees shall continue indefinitely for as long as necessary to fully repay the loan.

(g)*Reduction loan repayment* .

(1)The borrower shall, in accordance with § 600.1012, repay the reduction loan;

(2)For the purpose of the fee collection, deposit, disbursement, and accounting requirements of this subpart, subsector members are deemed to be both the fish buyer and fish seller. In this case, all requirements and penalties of § 600.1013 of this subpart that are applicable to both a fish seller and a fish buyer shall equally apply to parties performing both functions;

(3)Subsector members in the reduction fishery shall pay and collect the fee amount in accordance with § 600.1105;

(4)Subsector members in the reduction fishery shall, in accordance with § 600.1014, deposit and disburse, as well as keep records for and submit reports about, the fees applicable to such fishery; except the requirements specified under paragraph

(c)of this section concerning the deposit principal disbursement shall be made to NMFS no later than fifteen

(15)calendar days following the end of each calendar month; and the requirements specified under paragraph

(e)of this section concerning annual reports which shall be submitted to NMFS by February 1 of each calendar year; and

(5)The reduction loan is, in all other respects, subject to the provisions of §§ 600.1012 through 600.1017. [FR Doc. E7-14118 Filed 7-19-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 72 139 Friday, July 20, 2007 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Office of the Secretary Roadless Area Conservation National Advisory Committee AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, USDA. ACTION: Notice; request for nominations. SUMMARY: The current terms of the members of the Roadless Area Conservation National Advisory Committee (RACNAC) will expire in September 2007. The Secretary invites nominations of persons to serve on this committee for a two year period, to run from September 2007 to September 2009. Nominations should describe and document the proposed member's qualifications for membership. DATES: Nomination packages must include a signed and dated copy of form AD-755—Advisory Committee Membership Background Information. Form AD-755 may be obtained at *http://www.ocio.usda.gov/forms/ocio_forms.html* . Nominations must be received in writing by August 20, 2007. ADDRESSES: Nominations for membership on the RACNAC may be sent via fax to the Director, Ecosystem Management Coordination at 202-205-1012, or via mail to the Director, Ecosystem Management Coordination, USDA Forest Service, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Mail Stop 1104, Washington, DC 20250. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jessica Call, RACNAC Coordinator, at *jessicacall@fs.fed.us* or

(202)205-1056, USDA Forest Service, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Mailstop 1104, Washington, DC 20250. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of the RACNAC is to provide advice and recommendations to the Secretary on the management and conservation of roadless areas, including, but not limited to, petitions by the States to the Secretary, or his designee, under the authority of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(e) and 7 CFR 1.28). The RACNAC reviews submitted petitions and provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary. The RACNAC also provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary on any subsequent State-specific rulemakings. The RACNAC consists of up to 15 members appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture. Officers or employees of the Forest Service may not serve as members of the Committee. The Committee chair shall be elected by the members. The RACNAC shall be composed of a balanced group of representatives of diverse national organizations who can provide insights into the major contemporary issues associated with the conservation and management of inventoried roadless areas. Members operate in a manner designed to establish a consensus of opinion in order to develop recommendations that reflect relevant needs and perspectives. Members seek to reach mutual agreement on a course of action on issues. Collectively, the members should represent a diversity of organizations and perspectives. Members will work together to draft recommendations that are representative of the diverse values and interests represented in the Committee. Appointment to the RACNAC will be made by the Secretary of Agriculture. Equal opportunity practices will be followed in all appointments to the RACNAC. To ensure the recommendations of the RACNAC have taken into account the needs of the diverse groups served by the Department, membership will include, to the extent practicable, individuals with demonstrated ability to represent minorities, women and persons with disabilities. Dated: July 13, 2007. Gilbert L. Smith Jr., Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration. [FR Doc. E7-14016 Filed 7-19-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Kootenai National Forest, Rexford Ranger District, Montana; Young-Dodge Environmental Impact Statement AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement. SUMMARY: The USDA—Forest Service will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS)to disclose the environmental effects of timber harvest, prescribed burning, road management, recreation improvements, and special use permits in the Young-Dodge Decision Area (Decision Area) on the Rexford Ranger District of the Kootenai National Forest. The Forest Service is seeking comments from Federal; State, and local agencies and individuals and organizations that may be interested in or affected by the proposed actions. The comments will be used to prepared the draft EIS (DEIS). DATES: Written comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be postmarked by or received within 30 days following publication of this notice. The draft environmental impact statement is expected in April 2008. ADDRESSES: Send written comments concerning the proposed action to Glen M. McNitt, District Ranger, Rexford Ranger District, 1299 U.S. Highway 93 N, Eureka, MT 59917. All comments received must contain: name of commenter, postal service mailing address, and date of comment. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chris Fox, Interdisciplinary Team Leader, Rexford Ranger District, 1299 U.S. Highway 93N, Eureka, MT 59917. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Decision Area is located approximately 15 miles northwest of Eureka, Montana, and contains approximately 37,900 acres of land within the Kootenai National Forest. Proposed activities include all or portions of the following areas: T.37N R.28W and part of T.37N R.29W, PMM, Lincoln County, Montana. All proposed activities are outside the boundaries of any areas considered for inclusion to the National Wilderness System as recommended by the Kootenai National Forest Plan or by any past or present legislative wilderness proposals. A prescribed burn is proposed within the boundary of the Robinson Mountain Inventoried Roadless Area. Purpose and Need for Action The purpose and need for the project is to:

(1)Reduce fuel accumulations, both inside and outside the Wildland-Urban Interface, to decrease the likelihood that fires would become stand-replacing wildfires;

(2)Restore historical vegetation species and stand structure; and

(3)Restore historical patch sizes. Other consideration are:

(4)Identify the minimum transportation system necessary to provide safe, reasonable, and efficient access for Forest Service administrative activities and fire suppression, recreation use and public access, and private land owners and utility companies;

(5)Manage the transportation system to reduce effects to threatened, endangered, sensitive, and management indicator species habitat and security; streams, riparian areas, and wetlands; big game winter range; and old growth habitat, and to minimize road maintenance costs;

(6)Evaluate recreation facilities and opportunities to meet growing and anticipated demand; and

(7)Evaluate existing and proposed Special Use Permits. Proposed Action The Forest Service proposes to use regeneration harvest (shelterwood and seedtree prescriptions) on approximately 2,000 acres, and commercial thinning on approximately 1,120 acres. The Proposed Action would result in 26 openings over 40 acres, ranging from 41 to 1,121 acres. A 60-day public review period and approval by the Regional Forester for exceeding the 40-acre limitation for regeneration harvest would be required prior to the signing of the Record of Decision. This 60-day period is initiated with this Notice of Intent. The Proposed Action includes approximately 2,660 acres of underburning following timber harvest, 460 acres of excavator piling and burning, and approximately 2,050 acres of prescribed burning without timber harvest. Approximately 1,650 acres will be mechanically pre-treated followed by prescribed burning. Additionally, the Proposed Action includes 31 acres of post and pole harvest, 366 acres of roadside salvage, and up to 200 acres of salvage of incidental mortality associated with prescribed burning. The Proposed Action includes maintenance activities on portions of approximately 70 miles of road to meet Best Management Practices; decommissioning approximately 12 miles of roads currently restricted year-long to motorized vehicles; placing approximately 26 miles of roads, which are currently restrict year-long to motor vehicles, in intermittent stored service; placing seasonal restrictions on motorized vehicle use on approximately 6 miles of roads; adding approximately 9 miles of “unauthorized” roads to the National Forest Road System; and realigning and reconstructing approximately .25 miles of a road which is of poor standard and receiving heavy use. The Proposed Action includes the construction of a boat ramp and installation of a rest room, and improvements to a trail. The Proposed Action also includes a number of special use permits which will expire during the period this project will be implemented, and two proposed special use permits for utility lines. The Proposed Action may require several project-specific Forest Plan amendments to meet the project's objectives: An amendment to allow harvest in units adjacent to existing openings in Management Area

(MA)12 (Big Game Summer Range). The amendment would be needed to suspend Wildlife and Fish Standard #7 and Timber Standard #2 for this area. These standards state the movement corridors and adjacent hiding cover be retained. The resulting opening sizes more closely correlate to natural disturbance patterns. Snags and down woody material would be left to provide wildlife habitat and maintain soil productivity. A third amendment to allow the open road density in MA 12 to be managed at greater than 0.75 miles/square mile during project implementation may be required. The amendment would be necessary to suspend Facilities Standard #3, which states that open road density should be maintained at 0.75 miles/square mile. Possible Alternatives The Forest Service will consider a range of alternatives. One of these will be the “no action” alternative, in which none of the proposed activities will be implemented. Additional alternatives will be considered to achieve the project's purpose and need for action, and to respond to specific resource issues and public concerns. Responsible Official Paul Bradford, Forest Supervisor, Kootenai National Forest, 1101 Highway 2 West, Libby, MT 59923. Nature of the Decision To Be Made This project will provide approximately 10 MMBF of commercial forest products, reduce hazardous fuels within and outside the wildland-urban interface, provide for recreation facilities, and evaluate special-use permits. Scoping Process In March 2007, efforts were made to involve the public in considering management opportunities within the Decision Area. Open houses were held on March 14 and 15, 2007. A scoping package was mailed for public review on May 4, 2007. An open house was held on May 16, 2007, and field trips were held on May 17, 2007 and June 28, 2007. The proposal will be included in the quarterly Schedule of Proposed Actions. Comments received prior to this notice will be included in the documentation for the EIS. Preliminary Issues A preliminary issue identified reflects concern over the amount of regeneration harvest (approximately 2,000 acres) proposed in watersheds were logging has occurred and grizzly bears and lynx may be present. Comment Requested This Notice of intent initiates the scoping process which guides the development of the environment impact statement. At this stage of the planning process, site-specific public comments are being requested to determine the scope of the analysis, and identify significant issues and alternatives to the Proposed Action. Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent Environmental Review A draft environmental impact statement will be prepared for comment. The comment period on the draft environmental impact will be 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency published the notice of availability in the **Federal Register** . The Forest Service believes it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participating in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of DEIS' must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions. * Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. * v. *NRDC* , 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the draft environmental impact statement stage may be waived or dismissed by the Courts. *City of Angoon* v. *Hodel* , 803, F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and *Wisconsin Heritages, Inc.* v. *Harris* , 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1339 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 45 day comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider and respond to them in the final environmental impact statement. To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statements. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft environmental impact statement or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of The National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points. Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposal and will be available for public inspection. ( **Authority:** 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Section 21) Dated: July 10, 2007. Paul Bradford, Forest Supervisor. [FR Doc. 07-3519 Filed 7-19-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 16

Traces to 16 documents