Rules and Regulations. Final rule; request for comments
50,664 words·~230 min read·
/register/2007/08/13/07-3934A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28940; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-131-AD; Amendment 39-15158; AD 2007-16-19] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747-200B, 747-300, and 747-400 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule; request for comments. SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for certain Boeing Model 747-200B, 747-300, and 747-400 series airplanes. This AD requires doing repetitive detailed inspections for cracking of the aft tension tie channels from body station
(BS)1120 to BS 1220 and from BS 880 to BS 1100, and corrective actions if necessary. This AD results from cracks found in the aft tension tie channels at four station locations, on a Model 747-200B series airplane that had been modified to a special freighter. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the aft tension tie channels; failure of more than one tension tie could result in rapid depressurization of the airplane. DATES: This AD becomes effective August 28, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of August 28, 2007. We must receive comments on this AD by October 12, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this AD. • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, for service information identified in this AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ivan Li, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)917-6437; fax
(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion We have received a report indicating that cracks were found in the aft tension tie channels at four station locations, on a Model 747-200B series airplane that had been modified to a special freighter. The cracks were found near the body frames at a location where the flanges of the aft tension tie channels are machined down to a flat plate in order to attach to the body frames. The largest crack was approximately 0.5 inch in length. The airplane had accumulated 4,856 flight cycles since modification to special freighter. Tension ties are considered to be structurally significant, in that they are critical to airplane structural integrity. Failure of more than one tension tie, if not corrected, could result in rapid depressurization of the airplane. The upper deck tension ties on Model 747-300 and -400 series airplanes that have been modified to a special freighter configuration are similar to those on the affected Model 747-200B series airplanes that have been modified to a special freighter configuration. Therefore, all of these airplanes are subject to the same unsafe condition. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2610, dated May 10, 2007. The service bulletin describes procedures for doing repetitive detailed inspections for cracking of the aft tension tie channels from body station
(BS)1120 to BS 1220 and from BS 880 to BS 1100, and doing corrective actions as applicable. The corrective actions include repairing any crack found in a tension tie, and contacting Boeing for repair instructions if any crack is found in a bolt hole. The service bulletin specifies that, as an option to accomplishing the repetitive detailed inspections, accomplishing the repairs at all tension tie locations can be done as a preventive modification. The service bulletin specifies accomplishing the initial inspection from BS 1120 to BS 1220 before the accumulation of 4,000 flight cycles since modification to special freighter or converted freighter, or within 1,000 flight cycles after the date on the service bulletin, whichever occurs later. The service bulletin specifies accomplishing the initial inspection from BS 880 to BS 1100 before the accumulation of 8,000 flight cycles since modification to special freighter or converted freighter, or within 1,000 flight cycles after the date on the service bulletin, whichever occurs later. The service bulletin also specifies repeating the inspections at intervals not to exceed 4,000 flight cycles. The service bulletin also specifies repairing any crack before further flight. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD The unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design that may be registered in the U.S. at some time in the future. Therefore, we are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the aft tension tie channels; failure of more than one tension tie could result in rapid depressurization of the airplane. This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Difference Between the AD and Service Bulletin.” Difference Between the AD and Service Bulletin The service bulletin specifies to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD would require repairing those conditions in one of the following ways: • Using a method that we approve; or • Using data that meet the certification basis of the airplane, and that have been approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization whom we have authorized to make those findings. Costs of Compliance If an affected airplane is imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future, the required inspections would take about 4 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the AD would be $320 per airplane, per inspection cycle. FAA's Determination of the Effective Date No airplane affected by this AD is currently on the U.S. Register. Therefore, providing notice and opportunity for public comment is unnecessary before this AD is issued, and this AD may be made effective in less than 30 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . Comments Invited This AD is a final rule that involves requirements that affect flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment; however, we invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2007-28940; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-131-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the AD that might suggest a need to modify it. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this AD. Using the search function of that web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov* . Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* , or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is located on the ground level of the West Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **2007-16-19 Boeing:** Amendment 39-15158. Docket No. FAA-2007-28940; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-131-AD. Effective Date
(a)This AD becomes effective August 28, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Boeing Model 747-200B, 747-300, and 747-400 series airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2610, dated May 10, 2007. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from cracks found in the aft tension tie channels at four station locations, on a Model 747-200B series airplane that had been modified to a special freighter. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the aft tension tie channels; failure of more than one tension tie could result in rapid depressurization of the airplane. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Repetitive Inspections
(f)At the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E. of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2610, dated May 10, 2007, except as provided by paragraph
(g)of this AD: Do repetitive detailed inspections for cracking of the aft tension tie channels from body station
(BS)1120 to BS 1220 and from BS 880 to BS 1100, and do all applicable corrective actions, by accomplishing all of the applicable actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2610, dated May 10, 2007, except as provided by paragraph
(h)of this AD. Exception to Compliance Times
(g)Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2610, dated May 10, 2007, specifies counting the compliance time from “* * * after the date on this service bulletin,” this AD requires counting the compliance time from the effective date of this AD. Exception for Bolt Hole Cracks
(h)If any crack is found in a bolt hole during any inspection required by this AD, and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2610, dated May 10, 2007, specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate action: Before further flight, repair the crack using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(j)of this AD. Optional Terminating Action
(i)Except as provided by paragraph
(h)of this AD, accomplishing the applicable repairs or modifications at all tension tie locations, in accordance with Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2610, dated May 10, 2007, terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph
(f)of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (j)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(3)An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference
(k)You must use Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2610, dated May 10, 2007, to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this document in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.* Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 2, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-15582 Filed 8-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28478; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-057-AD; Amendment 39-15153; AD 2007-16-14] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Taylorcraft A, B, and F Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule; request for comments. SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for all Taylorcraft A, B, and F series airplanes. This AD requires you to initially inspect the left and right wing front and aft lift struts for corrosion and cracks, replace any cracked strut or strut with corrosion that exceeds certain limits with either sealed or non-sealed struts, and repetitively inspect any non-sealed struts. This AD results from inspections where several different struts were found with moderate to severe corrosion and required strut replacement. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct corrosion or cracks in the right and left wing front and aft lift struts. This condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of the lift strut and lead to in-flight separation of the wing with consequent loss of control. DATES: This AD becomes effective on August 20, 2007. On August 20, 2007, the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD. We must receive any comments on this AD by October 12, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to comment on this AD. • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. To get the service information identified in this AD, contact Taylorcraft Aviation, LLC, 2124 North Central Avenue, Brownsville, Texas 78521; telephone:
(956)986-0700. To view the comments to this AD, go to *http://dms.dot.gov.* The docket number is FAA-2007-28478; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-057-AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew McAnaul, Aerospace Engineer, ASW-150 (c/o MIDO-43), 10100 Reunion Place, Suite 650, San Antonio, Texas 78216; telephone:
(210)308-3365; fax:
(210)308-3370. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion The FAA has received reports of several corroded wing lift struts from different Taylorcraft series airplanes. Independent laboratory analysis of the struts revealed varying degrees of excessive internal and external corrosion, including through-the-thickness corrosion. The struts exhibited corrosion severe enough to require strut replacement. Additional Taylorcraft owners reported finding severe corrosion on wing struts during routine maintenance, which required strut replacement. These same findings confirm strut corrosion Taylorcraft reported to the FAA. The internal cavity of the original design (vented) lift struts is exposed to the external environment and can hide internal surface corrosion resulting from environmental exposure. External surface corrosion can be masked by the external paint coating. This condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of a wing lift strut due to corrosion and lead to separation of the wing from the airplane with consequent loss of control. Relevant Service Information We reviewed Taylorcraft Aviation, LLC Service Bulletin
(SB)No. 2007-001, Revision A, dated August 1, 2007. The service information describes procedures for wing lift strut assembly corrosion inspection and/or replacement. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. This AD requires you to initially inspect the left and right wing front and aft lift struts for corrosion and cracks, replace any cracked strut or strut with corrosion that exceeds certain limits with either sealed or non-sealed struts, and repetitively inspect any non-sealed struts. The FAA is determining whether future rulemaking action is necessary. This could include inspection and/or modification or replacement in adjacent structure. In preparing this rule, we contacted type clubs and aircraft operators to get technical information and information on operational and economic impacts. We have included a discussion of information that may have influenced this action in the rulemaking docket. FAA's Determination of the Effective Date An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because corrosion and/or cracks in the wing lift struts could result in separation of the wing from the airplane with consequent loss of control. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in fewer than 30 days. Comments Invited This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and an opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2007-28478; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-057-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive concerning this AD. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2)Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
(3)Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket that contains the AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov;* or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is located at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **2007-16-14 Taylorcraft:** Amendment 39-15153; Docket No. FAA-2007-28478; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-057-AD. Effective Date
(a)This AD becomes effective on August 20, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to all serial numbers of Taylorcraft Models A, BC, BCS, BC-65, BCS-65, BC12-65 (Army L-2H), BCS12-65, BC12-D, BCS12-D, BC12-D1, BCS12-D1, BC12D-85, BCS12D-85, BC12D-4-85, BCS12D-4-85, (Army L-2G) BF, BFS, BF-60, BFS-60, BF-65, BFS-65, (Army L-2K) BF 12-65, BL, BLS, (Army L-2F) BL-65, BLS-65, (Army L-2J) BL12-65, BLS12-65, FA-III (Airphibian), 19, F19, F21, F21A, F21B, F22, F22A, F22B, F22C, and TG-6 Conversion airplanes that:
(1)Are certificated in any category; and
(2)Do not incorporate in all struts new sealed front lift struts (P/N MA-A815 or FAA-approved equivalent P/N) and new sealed aft lift struts (P/N MA-A854 or FAA-approved equivalent P/N). Note: This AD applies to all Taylorcraft models listed above, including those not listed in Taylorcraft Aviation, LLC Service Bulletin No. 2007-001, Revision A, dated August 1, 2007. If there are any other differences between this AD and the above service bulletin, this AD takes precedence. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from inspections where several different struts were found with moderate to severe corrosion and required strut replacement. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct corrosion or cracks in the right and left wing front and aft lift struts, which could result in failure of the lift strut and lead to in-flight separation of the wing with consequent loss of control. Compliance
(e)To address this problem, you must do the following, unless already done: Actions Compliance Procedures
(1)*Visual Inspection:* Visually inspect for corrosion or cracking in the lower 12 inches of the left and right wing front lift struts (part number (P/N) A-A815 or FAA-approved equivalent P/N) and aft lift struts (P/N A-A854 or FAA-approved equivalent P/N) and then inspect per paragraph (e)(2) of this AD. Within the next 5 hours time-in-service after August 20, 2007 (the effective date of this AD), unless the strut has:
(i)Been replaced with parts specified in either paragraph (e)(4)(i); or
(ii)Been replaced with parts specified by paragraph (e)(4)(ii) of this AD and been installed on an airplane for less than 24 months. Follow Part 1 of the Instructions in Taylorcraft Aviation, LLC Service Bulletin No. 2007-001, Revision A, dated August 1, 2007.
(2)*Initial Eddy Current or Ultrasound Inspection:* Inspect using the eddy current or ultrasound inspection methods to detect corrosion or cracking in the lower 12 inches of the left and right wing front lift struts (P/N A-A815 or FAA-approved equivalent P/N) and aft lift struts (P/N A-A854 or FAA-approved equivalent P/N). The eddy current or ultrasound inspection must be done by one of the following:
(i)A Level II or III inspector certified in the applicable eddy current or ultrasound inspection method using the guidelines established by the American Society of Nondestructive Testing or NAS 410 (formerly MIL-STD-410);
(ii)An inspector certified to specific FAA or other acceptable government or industry standards, such as Air Transport Association
(ATA)Specifications 105—Guidelines for Training and Qualifying Personnel in Nondestructive Testing Methods; or
(iii)A qualified FAA Repair Station or a qualified Testing/Inspection Laboratory. Initially inspect any original design (vented) strut or FAA-approved equivalent part number at whichever of the following that applies:
(A)Before further flight when corrosion or cracking is found during the visual inspection required in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD; or
(B)If no corrosion or cracking is found during the visual inspection in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD, within the next 3 months after August 20, 2007 (the effective date of this AD) or within 24 months of installation of the strut, whichever occurs later. Follow Part 2 of the Instructions in Taylorcraft Aviation, LLC Service Bulletin No. 2007-001, Revision A, dated August 1, 2007.
(3)*Repetitive Eddy Current or Ultrasound Inspections:* Inspect using the eddy current or ultrasound inspection methods to detect corrosion or cracking in the lower 12 inches of the left and right wing front lift struts (P/N A-A815 or FAA-approved equivalent P/N) and aft lift struts (P/N A-A854 or FAA-approved equivalent P/N). The eddy current or ultrasound inspection must be done by one of the following:
(i)A Level II or III inspector certified in the applicable Eddy Current or Ultrasound Inspection method using the guidelines established by the American Society of Nondestructive Testing or NAS 410 (formerly MIL-STD-410),
(ii)An Inspector certified to specific FAA or other acceptable government or industry standards, such as Air Transport Association
(ATA)Specifications 105—Guidelines for Training and Qualifying Personnel in Nondestructive Testing Methods, or
(iii)A qualified FAA Repair Station or a qualified Testing/Inspection Laboratory.
(A)For original or replacement left and right wing front lift struts (P/N A-A815 or FAA-approved equivalent P/N) and aft lift struts (P/N A-A854 or FAA-approved equivalent P/N) of original design (vented), repetitively inspect at intervals not to exceed 24 months after the initial inspection required in paragraph (e)(2) of this AD.
(B)Replacement of all struts with new sealed front lift struts (P/N MA-A815 or FAA-approved equivalent P/N) and new sealed aft lift struts (P/N MA-A854 or FAA-approved equivalent P/N) eliminates the repetitive inspection requirement of this AD.
(C)If not all the vented lift struts are replaced with new sealed units, then the lift struts that are not new sealed units are still subject to the repetitive inspection requirement of this AD. Follow Part 2 of the Instructions in Taylorcraft Aviation, LLC Service Bulletin No. 2007-001, Revision A, dated August 1, 2007.
(4)*Replacement:* Replace the original design (vented) front lift struts (P/N A-A815 or FAA-approved equivalent P/N) and original design (vented) aft lift struts (P/N A-A854 or FAA-approved equivalent P/N) with one of the following:
(i)new sealed front lift struts, (P/N MA-A815 or FAA-approved equivalent P/N) and new sealed aft lift struts, (P/N MA-A854 or FAA-approved equivalent P/N); or
(ii)New original design (vented) front lift struts (P/N A-815 or FAA-approved equivalent P/N) and new original design (vented) aft lift struts (P/N A-A854 or FAA-approved equivalent P/N). Replace before further flight any time cracking or corrosion is found during any required eddy current or ultrasound inspection that exceeds the acceptance/rejection criteria limits in Taylorcraft Aviation, LLC Service Bulletin No. 2007-001, Revision A, dated August 1, 2007. After replacing with an original design (vented) strut, begin the repetitive inspections of paragraph (e)(3) within 24 months after installation. Follow Taylorcraft Aviation, LLC Service Bulletin No. 2007-001, Revision A, dated August 1, 2007. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)
(f)The Manager, Fort Worth Airplane Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Andrew McAnaul, Aerospace Engineer, ASW-150 (c/o MIDO-43), 10100 Reunion Place, Suite 650, San Antonio, Texas 78216; telephone:
(210)308-3365; fax:
(210)308-3370. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. Material Incorporated by Reference
(g)You must use Taylorcraft Aviation, LLC Service Bulletin No. 2007-001, Revision A, dated August 1, 2007, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(1)The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2)For service information identified in this AD, contact Taylorcraft Aviation, LLC, 2124 North Central Avenue, Brownsville, Texas 78521; telephone: 956-986-0700.
(3)You may review copies at the FAA, Central Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.* Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on August 3, 2007. David R. Showers, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-15581 Filed 8-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 73 [Docket No. FAA-2007-27850; Airspace Docket No. 07-ASO-5] RIN 2120-AA66 Amendment to Restricted Areas R-3702A and R-3702B; Fort Campbell, KY AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This action amends the designated altitudes of restricted areas R-3702A and R-3702B, Fort Campbell, KY, to revise the internal altitude boundary separating the two restricted areas. This change is necessary to better accommodate training requirements and provide greater access to the airspace for nonparticipating aircraft flying through the area above 10,000 feet MSL. EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, October 25, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Gallant, Airspace and Rules Group, Office of System Operations Airspace and AIM, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone:
(202)267-8783. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: History On April 26, 2007, the FAA published in the **Federal Register** a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend R-3702A and R-3702B at Fort Campbell, KY (72 FR 20787). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments objecting to the proposal were received. With the exception of editorial changes, this amendment is the same as that proposed in the notice of proposed rulemaking. Section 73.37 of 14 CFR part 73 was published in the FAA Order 7400.8N, Special Use Airspace, dated February 16, 2007. The restricted area listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order. The Rule This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 73 to realign the designated altitudes separating restricted areas R-3702A and R-3702B at Fort Campbell, KY. This rule changes the designated altitudes for R-3702A from “surface to 6,000 feet MSL,” to “surface to 10,000 feet MSL.” In addition, the designated altitudes for R-3702B are changed from “6,000 feet MSL to FL 220,” to “10,000 feet MSL to FL 220.” This change will allow Fort Campbell to conduct hazardous activities that do not exceed 10,000 feet MSL without unnecessarily restricting the airspace up to FL 220. This change also allows air traffic control to provide better service to nonparticipating aircraft in the area. The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation:
(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2)is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation
(DOT)Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and
(3)does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Environmental Review The FAA has reviewed the above referenced action according to Department of Transportation Order 5610.1C, “Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts” and FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures.” In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E paragraphs 311d and 401p(5) it is determined that the action qualifies for categorical exclusion from further environmental review. Additionally, the implementation of this action will not result in any extraordinary circumstances in accordance with Order 1050.1E paragraph 304. Therefore, on July 27, 2007 the FAA issued a categorical exclusion declaration for the change in the internal boundaries for R-3702A and R-3702B. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 73 Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted areas. The Amendment In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 73 as follows: PART 73—SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE 1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389. § 73.37 [Amended] 2. Section 73.37 is amended as follows: R-3702A Fort Campbell, KY [Amended] Under Designated altitudes, by removing the words “Surface to 6,000 feet MSL,” and inserting the words “Surface to 10,000 feet MSL.” R-3702B Fort Campbell, KY [Amended] Under Designated altitudes, by removing the words “6,000 feet MSL to FL 220,” and inserting the words “10,000 feet MSL to FL 220.” Issued in Washington, DC, on August 6, 2007. Edith V. Parish, Manager, Airspace and Rules Group. [FR Doc. E7-15747 Filed 8-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Parts 510 and 529 Certain Other Dosage Form New Animal Drugs; Formalin AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration
(FDA)is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect approval of an abbreviated new animal drug application (ANADA) filed by B.L. Mitchell, Inc. The ANADA provides for the use of formalin in a water bath for the control of certain external parasites on finfish and shrimp and for the control of certain fungi on finfish eggs. DATES: This rule is effective August 13, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John K. Harshman, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-104), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 301-827-0169, e-mail: *john.harshman@fda.hhs.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: B.L. Mitchell, Inc., 103 Hwy. 82 E., Leland, MS 38756, filed ANADA 200-414 that provides for use of Formacide-B (formalin) in a water bath for the control of certain external parasites on finfish and shrimp and for the control of certain fungi on finfish eggs. B.L. Mitchell, Inc.'s Formacide-B is approved as a generic copy of Parasite-S, sponsored by Western Chemical, Inc., under NADA 140-989. The ANADA is approved as of July 17, 2007, and the regulations are amended in § 529.1030 to reflect the approval. In addition, B.L. Mitchell, Inc., has not been previously listed in the animal drug regulations as a sponsor of an approved application. Accordingly, 21 CFR 510.600(c) is being amended to add entries for this firm. In accordance with the freedom of information provisions of 21 CFR part 20 and 21 CFR 514.11(e)(2)(ii), a summary of safety and effectiveness data and information submitted to support approval of this application may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.33(a)(1) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808. List of Subjects 21 CFR Part 510 Administrative practice and procedure, Animal drugs, Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 21 CFR Part 529 Animal drugs. Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR parts 510 and 529 are amended as follows: PART 510—NEW ANIMAL DRUGS 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 510 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352, 353, 360b, 371, 379e. 2. In § 510.600, in the table in paragraph (c)(1) alphabetically add a new entry for “B.L. Mitchell, Inc.”; and in the table in paragraph (c)(2) numerically add a new entry for “067188” to read as follows: § 510.600 Names, addresses, and drug labeler codes of sponsors of approved applications.
(c)* * *
(1)* * * Firm name and address Drug labeler code * * * * * B.L. Mitchell, Inc., 103 Hwy. 82 E., Leland, MS 38756 067188 * * * * *
(2)* * * Drug labeler code Firm name and address * * * * * 067188 B.L. Mitchell, Inc., 103 Hwy. 82 E., Leland, MS 38756 * * * * * PART 529—CERTAIN OTHER DOSAGE FORM NEW ANIMAL DRUGS 3. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 529 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b. § 529.1030 [Amended] 4. In paragraph (b)(1) of § 529.1030, remove “Nos. 049968 and 050378” and add in its place “Nos. 049968, 050378, and 067188”. Dated: August 1, 2007. Stephen F. Sundlof, Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine. [FR Doc. E7-15763 Filed 8-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 522 Implantation or Injectable Dosage Form New Animal Drugs; Ampicillin Sodium AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration
(FDA)is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect approval of an abbreviated new animal drug application (ANADA) filed by G. C. Hanford Manufacturing Co. The ANADA provides for the use of ampicillin sodium powder in aqueous solution by injection in horses for the treatment of various bacterial infections. DATES: This rule is effective August 13, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John K. Harshman, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-104), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 301-827-0169, e-mail: *john.harshman@fda.hhs.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: G. C. Hanford Manufacturing Co., P.O. Box 1017, Syracuse, NY 13201, filed ANADA 200-335 that provides for use of ampicillin sodium as a constituted solution by injection in horses for the treatment of various bacterial infections. G. C. Hanford Manufacturing Co.'s Ampicillin Sodium is approved as a generic copy of Pfizer, Inc.'s, AMP-EQUINE, approved under NADA 55-084. The ANADA is approved as of July 12, 2007, and the regulations are amended in 21 CFR 522.90c to reflect the approval and a current format. The basis of approval is discussed in the freedom of information summary. In accordance with the freedom of information provisions of 21 CFR part 20 and 21 CFR 514.11(e)(2)(ii), a summary of safety and effectiveness data and information submitted to support approval of this application may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. FDA has determined under 21 CFR 25.33(a)(1) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808. List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 522 Animal drugs. Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR part 522 is amended as follows: PART 522—IMPLANTATION AND INJECTABLE DOSAGE FORM NEW ANIMAL DRUGS 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 522 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b. 2. Revise § 522.90c to read as follows: § 522.90c Ampicillin sodium.
(a)*Specifications* . Each milliliter of aqueous solution constituted from ampicillin sodium powder contains 300 milligrams
(mg)ampicillin equivalents.
(b)*Sponsors* . See Nos. 000069 and 010515 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
(c)*Conditions of use in horses* —(1) *Amount* : 3 mg per pound of body weight twice daily by intravenous or intramuscular injection.
(2)*Indications for use* . For the treatment of respiratory tract infections (pneumonia and strangles) due to *Staphylococcus* spp., *Streptococcus* spp. (including *S. equi* ), *Escherichia coli* , and *Proteus mirabilis* , and skin and soft tissue infections (abscesses and wounds) due to *Staphylococcus* spp., *Streptococcus* spp., *E. coli* , and *P. mirabilis* , when caused by susceptible organisms.
(3)*Limitations* . Do not use in horses intended for human consumption. Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian. Dated: August 1, 2007. Stephen F. Sundlof, Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine. [FR Doc. E7-15761 Filed 8-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [TD 9332] RIN 1545-BG00 Exclusions From Gross Income of Foreign Corporations; Correction AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Correcting amendment. SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to final and temporary regulations (TD 9332) that were published in the **Federal Register** on Monday, June 25, 2007 (72 FR 34600) relating to the exclusion from gross income of income derived by certain foreign corporations engaged in the international operation of ships or aircraft. DATES: The correction is effective August 13, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia A. Bray,
(202)622-3880 (not a toll-free number). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The final and temporary regulations that are the subject of this correction are under section 883 of the Internal Revenue Code. Need for Correction As published, final and temporary regulations (TD 9332) contain an error that may prove to be misleading and is in need of clarification. List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1 Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Correction of Publication Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is corrected by making the following correcting amendment: PART 1—INCOME TAXES **Paragraph 1.** The authority citation for part 1 continues to read in part as follows: Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * **Par. 2.** Section 1.883-1 is amended by revising paragraph (h)(3) to read as follows: § 1.883-1 Exclusion of income from the international operation of ships or aircraft.
(h)* * *
(3)For further guidance, see the entry for § 1.883-1T(h)(3). LaNita Van Dyke, Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration). [FR Doc. E7-15271 Filed 8-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [TD 9332] RIN 1545-BG00 Exclusions From Gross Income of Foreign Corporations; Correction AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Correction to final and temporary regulations. SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to final and temporary regulations (TD 9332) that were published in the **Federal Register** on Monday, June 25, 2007 (72 FR 34600) relating to the exclusion from gross income of income derived by certain foreign corporations engaged in the international operation of ships or aircraft. DATES: The correction is effective August 13, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia A. Bray,
(202)622-3880 (not a toll-free number). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The final and temporary regulations that are the subject of this correction are under section 883 of the Internal Revenue Code. Need for Correction As published, final and temporary regulations (TD 9332) contain errors that may prove to be misleading and are in need of clarification. Correction of Publication Accordingly, the publication of the final and temporary regulations (TD 9332), which was the subject of FR Doc. E7-12039, is corrected as follows: 1. On page 34601, column 3, in the preamble, under the paragraph heading “ *2. Elimination of Foreign Base Company Shipping Income* ”, line 3, the language “(118 Stat. 1418)
(AJCA)repealed section” is corrected to read “(118 Stat. 1418))
(AJCA)repealed section”. 2. On page 34602, column 3, in the preamble, under the paragraph heading “C. Reporting requirements related to *qualified shareholder stock ownership test* ”, last line, the language “at the office of that such practitioner.” is corrected to read “at the office of that practitioner.”. 3. On page 34603, column 1, in the preamble, under the paragraph heading “ *2. Activities Incidental to the International Operation of Ships or Aircraft* ”, line 7 from the bottom of the paragraph, the language “to the international operation of a ship” is corrected to read “to the international operation of ships”. 4. On page 34603, column 3, in the preamble, under the paragraph heading “ *4. Countries that Provide an Exemption Through an Income Tax Convention and by Other Means* ”, lines 5 through 10, the language “exemption under section 883 through a diplomatic note, domestic statutory law, or by generally imposing no income tax on foreign corporations engaged in the international operation of ships or aircraft will continue to have the choice” is corrected to read “exemption under section 883 (through a diplomatic note, domestic statutory law, or because income tax is generally not imposed on foreign corporations engaged in the international operation of ships or aircraft) will continue to have the choice”. 5. On page 34604, column 1, in the preamble, under the paragraph heading “ *5. Reporting Requirements Related to Qualified Shareholder Stock Ownership Test* ”, first paragraph of the column, line 9, the language “addresses of shareholders in” is corrected to read “addresses of shareholders of”. 6. On page 34604, column 2, in the preamble, under the paragraph heading “Effective Dates”, line 1, the language “See § 1.883-5T(d) for effective date of” is corrected to read “See § 1.883-5T(d) for the effective date of”. LaNita Van Dyke, Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration). [FR Doc. E7-15272 Filed 8-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [CGD09-07-108] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Petoskey Fireworks Display, Lake Michigan, Petoskey, MI AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on Lake Michigan near Petoskey, MI. This zone is intended to restrict vessels from a portion of Lake Michigan during the Petoskey August 17, 2007 Fireworks Display. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with fireworks displays. DATES: This rule is effective from 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. on August 17, 2007. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket CGD09-07-108 and are available for inspection or copying at U.S. Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan (spw), 2420 South Lincoln Memorial Drive, Milwaukee, WI 53207 between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: CWO Brad Hinken, Prevention Department, Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan, Milwaukee, WI at
(414)747-7154. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. The permit application was not received in time to publish an NPRM followed by a final rule before the effective date. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective fewer than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . Delaying this rule would be contrary to the public interest of ensuring the safety of spectators and vessels during this event and immediate action is necessary to prevent possible loss of life or property. Background and Purpose This temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and spectators from hazards associated with a fireworks display. Based on accidents that have occurred in other Captain of the Port zones, and the explosive hazards of fireworks, the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan has determined that fireworks launches proximate to watercraft pose a significant risk to public safety and property. The likely combination of large numbers of recreation vessels, congested waterways, darkness punctuated by bright flashes of light, alcohol use, and debris falling into the water could easily result in serious injuries or fatalities. Establishing a safety zone to control vessel movement around the location of the launch platform will help ensure the safety of persons and property at these events and help minimize the associated risks. Discussion of Rule A temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of spectators and vessels during the setup, loading, and launching of a fireworks display in conjunction with the Petoskey Fireworks Display. The fireworks display will occur between 10 p.m. and 10:30 p.m. on August 17, 2007. The safety zone will be in effect from between 9 p.m. and 11 p.m. on August 17, 2007. It will encompass all waters of Lake Michigan and Petoskey Harbor, in the vicinity of Bay Front Park, within a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site at position 45°22′39″ N, 084°57′30″ W. (DATUM: NAD 83). All persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the on-scene representative. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or his on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Regulatory Evaluation This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed this rule under that Order. This determination is based on the minimal time that vessels will be restricted from the zone and the zone is an area where the Coast Guard expects insignificant adverse impact to mariners from the zones' activation. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners and operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of Lake Michigan near Petoskey, Michigan, between 9 p.m. and 11 p.m. on August 17, 2007. This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This rule will be in effect for only two hours for one event. Vessel traffic can safely pass outside the safety zone during the event. In the event that this temporary safety zone affects shipping, commercial vessels may request permission from the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan to transit through the safety zone. The Coast Guard will give notice to the public via a Broadcast to Mariners that the regulation is in effect. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule would not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments The Coast Guard recognizes the treaty rights of Native American Tribes. Moreover, the Coast Guard is committed to working with Tribal Governments to implement local policies and to mitigate tribal concerns. We have determined that these regulations and fishing rights protection need not be incompatible. We have also determined that this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Nevertheless, Indian Tribes that have questions concerning the provisions of this Rule or options for compliance are encouraged to contact the point of contact listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedure; and related management system practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. This event establishes a safety zone; therefore paragraph (34)(g) of the Instruction applies. A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. A new temporary section 165.T09-108 is added as follows: § 165.T09-108 Safety zone; Petoskey Fireworks Display, Lake Michigan, Petoskey, MI.
(a)*Location.* The following area is a temporary safety zone: All waters of Lake Michigan and Petoskey Harbor, in the vicinity of Bay Front Park, within a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site at position 45°22′39″ N, 084°57′30″ W. (DATUM: NAD 83).
(b)*Effective period.* This zone is effective from 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. on August 17, 2007.
(c)*Regulations.*
(1)In accordance with the general regulations in section 165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan, or his on-scene representative.
(2)This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or his on-scene representative.
(3)The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port to act on his behalf. The on-scene representative of the Captain of the Port will be aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel.
(4)Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or his on-scene representative. Dated: August 3, 2007. B.C. Jones, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Lake Michigan. [FR Doc. E7-15826 Filed 8-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [COTP Sector St. Petersburg, FL. 07-047] RIN 1625-AA87 Security Zone; Tampa Bay, Port of Tampa, Rattlesnake, Big Bend, FL AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary Final Rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is temporarily revising the security zones in the Port of Tampa, East Bay, Rattlesnake, Sunshine Skyway Bridge and Big Bend for the purpose of providing counter-surveillance, intrusion detection and response measures. Entry into these zones will be prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative. DATES: This rule is effective from July 26, 2007 through January 1, 2008. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket [COTP 07-047] and are available for inspection or copying at Coast Guard Sector St. Petersburg, Prevention Department, 155 Columbia Drive, Tampa, FL 33606-3598 between 7:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lt. Ronaydee Marquez, Waterways Management Division, Sector St. Petersburg, FL
(813)228-2191 Ext 8307. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. It is necessary to implement these changes immediately to ensure the security of vessels, facilities, and the surrounding areas within the Captain of the Port Sector St. Petersburg Zone. These are temporary modifications of currently existing zones. The Coast Guard does intend to make these changes permanent, and will publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to request public comments before any permanent changes are made. For the same reasons, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . Background and Purpose The Maritime Transportation Security Act mandated Area Maritime Security Committee convened a working group to validate the existing security zones within Tampa Bay that were established following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. These existing security zones included some established September 3, 2003, codified in 33 CFR 165.760, and some established September 1, 2003, codified in § 165.764 (68 FR 47852, August 12, 2003). Using the newly developed Maritime Security Risk Analysis Model tool, the working group evaluated risk to the maritime transportation system
(MTS)within Tampa Bay. The results of the risk assessment indicated the need to revise the following established security zones for the purpose of implementing counter-surveillance; and, intrusion detection and response measures: • § 165.760(a)(1), Rattlesnake, Tampa, FL; • § 165.760(a)(3), Sunshine Skyway Bridge, Tampa, FL; • § 165.760(a)(5), Piers, Seawalls, and Facilities, Port of Tampa, Port Sutton and East Bay; • § 165.760(a)(6), Piers, Seawalls, and Facilities, Port of Tampa, East Bay and the eastern side of Hooker's Point; • § 165.760(a)(7), Piers, Seawalls, and Facilities, Port of Tampa, on the western side of Hooker's Point; and • § 165.760(a)(8), Piers, Seawalls, and Facilities, Port of Manatee. • § 165.764(a)(1), Big Bend, Tampa Bay, Florida zone. The Security Zones revised include 3 zones within the Port of Tampa (Port Sutton and East Bay; East Bay and the eastern side of Hooker's Point; and the western side of Hooker's Point), Sunshine Skyway Bridge, Rattlesnake and Big Bend and Port of Manatee. At the Port of Tampa, a minor adjustment to the Security Zone boundary was implemented for alignment with protected assets. The East Bay segment of the Security Zone was discontinued. The Security Zone beneath the Sunshine Skyway Bridge was reduced to the size of the navigable channel. The Rattlesnake area Security Zone was expanded shoreward to protect critical facilities. The Big Bend Security Zone was modified to align with the natural barriers around the facility. Discussion of Rule This temporary rule is establishing the following security zones and will temporarily suspend paragraphs in §§ 165.760 and 165.764 that are being replaced by these new security zones or that are no longer needed. The coordinates are based on North American Datum
(NAD)1983. • *Rattlesnake, Tampa, FL.* All water from surface to bottom, in Old Tampa Bay east and south of a line commencing at position 27°53.32′ N, 082°32.05′ W; north to 27°53.36′ N, 082°32.05′ W, including the fenced area encompassing the Chemical Formulators Chlorine Facility. • *Sunshine Skyway Bridge, FL.* All waters in Tampa Bay, from surface to bottom, in Cut “A” channel beneath the bridge's main span encompassed by a line connecting the following points: 27°37.30′ N, 082°39.38′ W to 27°37.13′ N, 082°39.26′ W; and, the bridge structure columns, base and dolphins. This is specific to the bridge structure and dolphins and does not include waters adjacent to the bridge columns or dolphins outside of the bridge's main span. • *Piers, seawalls, and facilities, Port of Tampa and Port Sutton, Tampa, FL.* All waters, from surface to bottom, extending 50 yards from the shore, seawall and piers around facilities in Port Sutton within the Port of Tampa encompassed by a line connecting the following points: 27°54.15′ N, 082°26.11′ W, east northeast to 27°54.19′ N, 082°26.00′ W, then northeast to 27°54.37′ N, 082°25.72′ W, closing off all Port Sutton channel, then northerly to 27°54.48′ N, 082°25.70′ W. • *Piers, seawalls, and facilities, Port of Tampa, on the western side of Hooker's Point, Tampa, FL.* All waters, from surface to bottom, extending 50 yards from the shore, seawall and piers around facilities on Hillsborough Bay northern portion of Cut “D” channel, Sparkman channel, Ybor Turning Basin, and Ybor channel within the Port of Tampa encompassed by a line connecting the following points: 27°54.74′ N, 082°26.47′ W, northwest to 27°55.25′ N, 082°26.73′ W, then north-northwest to 27°55.60′ N, 082°26.80′ W, then north-northeast to 27°56.00′ N, 082°26.75′ W, then northeast to 27°56.58′ N, 082°26.53′ W, and north to 27°57.29′ N, 082°26.51′ W, west to 27°57.29′ N, 082°26.61′ W, then southerly to 27°56.65′ N, 082°26.63′ W, southwesterly to 27°56.58′ N, 082°26.69′ W, then southwesterly and terminating at 27°56.53′ N, 082°26.90′ W. • *Big Bend Power Plant, FL.* All waters of Tampa Bay, from surface to bottom, adjacent to the Big Bend Power Facility, and within an area bounded by a line connecting the following points: 27°48.08′ N, 082°24.88′ W then northwest to 27°48.15′ N, 082°24.96′ W then southwest to 27°48.10′ N, 082°25.00′ W then south-southwest to 27°47.85′ N, 082°25.03′ W then southeast to 27°47.85′ N, 082°24.79′ W then east to 27°47.55′ N, 082°24.04′ W then north to 27°47.62′ N, 082°84.04′ W then west to 27°47.60′ N, 082°24.72′ W then north to 27°48.03′ N, 082°24.70′ W then northwest to 27°48.08′ N, 082°24.88′ W, closing off entrance to Big Bend Power Facility and the attached cooling canal. Entry into or remaining on or within these zones is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector St. Petersburg or his designated representative. Persons desiring to transit the area of the security zone may contact the Captain of the Port Sector St. Petersburg or his designee on VHF channel 16, or by phone at
(727)824-7506, to seek permission to transit the area. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port or his designated representative. Regulatory Evaluation This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. This rule may have some impact on the public, but these potential impacts will be minimized for the following reasons: There is ample room for vessels to navigate around security zones, and there are several locations for recreational and commercial fishing vessels to fish throughout the Tampa Bay Region. Also, the Captain of the Port may, on a case-by-case basis allow persons or vessels to enter a security zone. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule may impact the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels who wish to transit in the areas where the security zones are enforced. This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because the majority of the zones are limited in size, leaving ample room for vessels to navigate around the zones. The zones will not significantly impact commuter and passenger vessel traffic patterns, and mariners will be notified of the zones via local notice to mariners and marine broadcasts. Also, the Captain of the Port may on a case-by-case basis allow persons or vessels to enter a security zone. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the office listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , for assistance in understanding this rule. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g.), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. An “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for art 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6 and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Add new temporary § 165.T07-047 to read as follows: § 165.T07-047 Security Zone; Tampa Bay, Port of Tampa, Rattlesnake and Big Bend; Florida.
(a)*Regulated Areas.* The following areas, denoted by coordinates fixed using the North American Datum of 1983, are security zones:
(1)*Rattlesnake, Tampa, FL.* All water from surface to bottom, in Old Tampa Bay east and south of a line commencing at position 27°53.32′ N, 082°32.05′ W; north to 27°53.36′ N, 082°32.05′ W, including the fenced area encompassing the Chemical Formulators Chlorine Facility.
(2)*Sunshine Skyway Bridge, FL.* All waters in Tampa Bay, from surface to bottom, in Cut “A” channel beneath the bridge's main span encompassed by a line connecting the following points: 27°37.30′ N, 082°39.38′ W to 27°37.13′ N, 082°39.26′ W; and, the bridge structure columns, base and dolphins. This is specific to the bridge structure and dolphins and does not include waters adjacent to the bridge columns or dolphins outside of the bridge's main span.
(3)*Piers, seawalls, and facilities, Port of Tampa and Port Sutton, Tampa, FL.* All waters, from surface to bottom, extending 50 yards from the shore, seawall and piers around facilities in Port Sutton within the Port of Tampa encompassed by a line connecting the following points: 27°54.15′ N, 082°26.11′ W, east northeast to 27°54.19′ N, 082°26.00′ W, then northeast to 27°54.37′ N, 082°25.72′ W, closing off all Port Sutton Channel, then northerly to 27°54.48′ N, 082°25.70′ W.
(4)*Piers, seawalls, and facilities, Port of Tampa, on the western side of Hooker's Point, Tampa, FL.* All waters, from surface to bottom, extending 50 yards from the shore, seawall and piers around facilities on Hillsborough Bay northern portion of Cut “D” channel, Sparkman channel, Ybor Turning Basin, and Ybor channel within the Port of Tampa encompassed by a line connecting the following points: 27°54.74′ N, 082°26.47′ W, northwest to 27°55.25′ N, 082°26.73′ W, then north-northwest to 27°55.60′ N, 082°26.80′ W, then north-northeast to 27°56.00′ N, 082°26.75′ W, then northeast to 27°56.58′ N, 082°26.53′ W, and north to 27°57.29′ N, 082°26.51′ W, west to 27°57.29′ N, 082°26.61′ W, then southerly to 27°56.65′ N, 082°26.63′ W, southwesterly to 27°56.58′ N, 082°26.69′ W, then southwesterly and terminating at 27°56.53′ N, 082°26.90′ W.
(5)*Big Bend Power Plant, FL.* All waters of Tampa Bay, from surface to bottom, adjacent to the Big Bend Power Facility, and within an area bounded by a line connecting the following points: 27°48.08′ N, 082°24.88′ W then northwest to 27°48.15′ N, 082°24.96′ W then southwest to 27°48.10′ N, 082°25.00′ W then south-southwest to 27°47.85′ N, 082°25.03′ W then southeast to 27°47.85′ N, 082°24.79′ W the east to 27°47.55′ N, 082°24.04′ W the north to 27°47.62′ N, 082°84.04′ W then west to 27°47.60′ N, 082°24.72′ W then north to 27°48.03′ N, 082°24.70′ W then northwest to 27°48.08′ N, 082°24.88′ W, closing off entrance to Big Bend Power Facility and the attached cooling canal.
(b)*Regulation.*
(1)Entry into or remaining on or within these zones is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector St. Petersburg or his designee.
(2)Persons desiring to transit the area of the security zone may contact the Captain of the Port Sector St. Petersburg or his designee on VHF channel 16, or by phone at
(727)824-7506, to seek permission to transit the area. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port or his designated representative.
(c)*Effective period.* This section is effective from July 26, 2007, through January 1, 2008. § 165.760 [Amended] 3. In § 165.760, from July 26, 2007, until January 1, 2008, suspend paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7) and (a)(8). § 165.764 [Amended] 4. In § 165.764, from July 26, 2007 until January 1, 2008, suspend paragraph (a)(1). Dated: July 25, 2007. J.A. Servidio, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector St. Petersburg. [FR Doc. E7-15827 Filed 8-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0060; FRL-8452-6] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; State Implementation Plan Revision Variance for International Paper, Franklin Paper Mill, Virginia AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the Commonwealth of Virginia State Implementation Plan (SIP). This action will approve the SIP revision request submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia, consisting of the variance regulations adopted by Virginia for the International Paper, Franklin Paper Mill facility. The variance regulations provide regulatory relief from compliance with state regulations governing new source review for the implementation of the International Paper, Franklin Paper Mill innovation project. In lieu of compliance with these regulatory requirements, the variance requires the facility to comply with site-wide emission caps. EPA is approving this revision to the Commonwealth of Virginia State Implementation Plan in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act. DATES: This rule is effective on October 12, 2007 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by September 12, 2007. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the **Federal Register** and inform the public that the rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0060 by one of the following methods: A. *www.regulations.gov.* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. B. *E-mail:* *campbell.dave@epa.gov* . C. *Mail:* EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0060, David Campbell, Chief, Permits and Technical Assessment Branch, Mailcode 3AP11, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. D. *Hand Delivery:* At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0060. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, and may be made available online at *www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *www.regulations.gov* , your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket:* All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the *www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharon McCauley,
(215)814-3376, or by e-mail at *mccauley.sharon@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background International Paper operates a pulp and paper mill located in Franklin, Virginia. International Paper is a member of EPA's voluntary National Environmental Performance Track Program and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality's (VADEQ) Environmental Excellence Program. International Paper had entered into a partnership with the U.S. EPA and the VADEQ to implement an innovative approach to meeting environmental regulations in a more cost-effective manner. International Paper submitted a proposal for such an innovative project to VADEQ. International Paper's innovation project relied on the principles established in the Joint EPA/State Agreement to Pursue Regulatory Innovation that was signed by EPA and the Environmental Council of States
(ECOS)in 1998. The International Paper innovation project includes a number of environmentally beneficial projects that will:
(1)Reduce groundwater use;
(2)reduce solid waste generation and disposal;
(3)reduce chemical and biological oxygen demand, and total suspended solids discharges to surface water;
(4)reduce overall emissions for a number of air pollutants; and,
(5)increase the efficiency of pulp production. By implementing this project, emissions of hazardous air pollutants will be reduced at the Mill by an estimated 430 tons per year. Emissions increases of criteria pollutants and carbon dioxide from typical NESHAP control strategies will also be reduced under this project. These reductions, along with improvements in the combustion efficiencies of the No. 7 power boiler and No. 6 recovery furnace will result in a decreased use of fossil fuels and will net large decreases in criteria pollutant emissions from the Mill. The reduction in useable fiber discharges in the mill sewer along with improvements in the performance of the wastewater treatment system will result in substantial reductions in discharges of wastewater pollutants. Generation of thousands of tons per year of solid waste will also be eliminated. In order to implement these projects, certain innovations to the typical regulatory implementation process were necessary in order to make these environmentally beneficial projects a reality. First, the International Paper innovation project required an alternative regulatory approach under section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Pursuant to section 112, EPA promulgates the national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for various categories of air pollution sources. On April 15, 1998, EPA promulgated a NESHAP for the Pulp and Paper Industry, as codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart S, § 63.440 through 63.459. International Paper's Franklin Mill is subject to subpart S. Under Section 112(l) of the CAA, EPA may approve State or local rules or programs to be implemented and enforced in place of certain otherwise applicable Federally-promulgated section 112 rules, emission standards, or requirements. On April 15, 2004 (69 FR 19943), EPA published in the **Federal Register** an approval of an equivalency-by-permit determination made by the VADEQ for the International Paper, Franklin Mill. The VADEQ established the new requirements via a title V operating permit issued to the facility on March 31, 2006. In general, the equivalency-by-permit terms require International Paper to control different emission points of hazardous air pollutants
(HAPs)at its facility than prescribed by the Pulp and Paper NESHAP (subpart S). In addition to the approval above and in order to implement some of the other environmentally-beneficial projects contained in the innovation project proposal, International Paper would also need certain flexibility under the Commonwealth's existing preconstruction permitting regulations. The subject of this rulemaking action is to allow for those flexibilities by providing a limited variance to Virginia's existing permitting regulations. The variance allows the Commonwealth to establish site-wide emissions caps for a variety of pollutants, mostly criteria pollutants. The site-wide caps would be relied upon to limit the applicability of the provisions of Virginia's federally-enforceable major new source review provisions. Under Virginia's existing programs, sources may not rely upon site-wide emissions caps in order to limit the applicability of major new source review. Typically, unit-specific limitations are required. The site-wide caps allow International Paper to make certain changes to its emission sources, primarily the boilers, that will allow them to maximize their utilization while minimizing their existing emissions and limiting their future potential emissions. Site-wide emissions caps are a type of new source review program flexibility that EPA has experimented with in the past. In fact, EPA made changes to the federal new source review regulations at the end of 2002 (See 67 FR 80186) that incorporated this type of regulatory flexibility and called it a “plantwide applicability limit”. II. Summary of SIP Revision On December 13, 2005, the DEQ submitted a State Implementation Plan
(SIP)approval request entitled “Variance for International Paper, Franklin Paper Mill”. The applicable regulations for the variance were adopted by the State Air Pollution Control Board on June 22, 2005 in accordance with the requirements of the Virginia Air Pollution Control Law at Title 10.1 Chapter 13 of the Code of Virginia and 40 CFR part 51. These regulations allow the VADEQ to issue a permit for International Paper that will replace all previously issued minor NSR permits and PSD permits and establish site-wide emission caps for a number of regulated pollutants that may be relied upon for purposes of new source review applicability. The variance provides regulatory relief from compliance with state regulations governing new source review (Virginia Code—Article 4 of Chapter 50, and Articles 6, 8 and 9 of Chapter 80) for the implementation of the International Paper innovation project. In lieu of compliance with these regulatory requirements, the variance requires the facility to comply with site-wide emission caps. III. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the Commonwealth of Virginia In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit) “privilege” for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and information about the content of those documents that are the product of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not extend to documents or information
(1)that are generated or developed before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment;
(2)that are prepared independently of the assessment process;
(3)that demonstrate a clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public health or environment; or
(4)that are required by law. On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege to documents and information “required by law,” including documents and information “required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval,” since Virginia must “enforce Federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less stringent than their Federal counterparts * * *.” The opinion concludes that “[r]egarding § 10.1-1198, therefore, documents or other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of these programs could not be privileged because such documents and information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval.” Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that “[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal law,” any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute, regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12, 1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute inapplicable to enforcement of any Federally authorized programs, since “no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with Federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.” Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its program consistent with the Federal requirements. In any event, because EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under the Clean Air Act, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan, independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen enforcement under section 304 of the Clean Air Act is likewise unaffected by this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law. IV. Final Action EPA is approving this SIP revision request submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia. This revision consists of approving the variance regulations adopted by Virginia at 9 VAC 5 Chapter 230 for the International Paper, Franklin Paper Mill. The variance provides regulatory relief from compliance with state regulations governing new source review for the implementation of the International Paper innovation project. In lieu of compliance with these regulatory requirements, the variance requires the facility to comply with site-wide emission caps. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a non-controversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comment. This variance includes a number of environmentally beneficial projects which will reduce groundwater use, reduce solid waste generation and disposal, reduce Chemical Oxygen Demand and Total Suspended Solids disposal to surface water, increase the efficiency of pulp production and reduce overall emissions for a number of air pollutants. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's **Federal Register** , EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective on October 12, 2007 without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by September 12, 2007. If EPA receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the **Federal Register** informing the public that the rule will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not subject of an adverse comment. V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal requirement, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . This rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). C. Petitions for Judicial Review Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 12, 2007. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action approving the variance for International Paper, Franklin Paper Mill in Franklin, Virginia may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: July 31, 2007. William T. Wisniewski, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for 40 CFR Part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart VV—Virginia 2. In § 52.2420, the table in paragraph
(c)is amended by adding the entry for Chapter 230 to read as follows: § 52.2420 Identification of plan.
(c)* * * EPA-Approved Virginia Regulations and Statutes State citation (9 VAC 5) Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Explanation [former SIP citation] * * * * * * * Chapter 230 Variance for International Paper Franklin Paper Mill 5-230-10 Applicability and designation of affected facility 09/07/05 08/13/07 [ *Insert page number where the document begins* ]. 5-230-20 Definitions 09/07/05 08/13/07 [ *Insert page number where the document begins* ]. 5-230-30 Authority to operate under this chapter and FESOP 09/07/05 08/13/07 [ *Insert page number where the document begins* ]. 5-230-40 (Except A.7., A.9., A.10., and B.2.) Sitewide Emissions Caps 09/07/05 08/13/07 [ *Insert page number where the document begins* ] 5-230-50 New Source Review program and registration requirements 09/07/05 08/13/07 [ *Insert page number where the document begins* ]. 5-230-60 (Except A.1.) Other regulatory requirements 09/07/05 08/13/07 [ *Insert page number where the document begins* ]. 5-230-70 Federal Operating Permits 09/07/05 08/13/07 [ *Insert page number where the document begins* ]. 5-230-80 FESOP issuance and amendments 09/07/05 08/13/07 [ *Insert page number where the document begins* ]. 5-230-90 Transfer of ownership 09/07/05 08/13/07 [ *Insert page number where the document begins* ]. 5-230-100 Applicability of future regulation amendments 09/07/05 08/13/07 [ *Insert page number where the document begins* ]. 5-230-110 Termination of authority to operate under this chapter and FESOP 09/07/05 08/13/07 [ *Insert page number where the document begins* ]. 5-230-120 Review and confirmation of this chapter by Board 09/07/05 08/13/07 [ *Insert page number where the document begins* ]. * * * * * * * [FR Doc. E7-15587 Filed 8-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 [EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0956; FRL-8452-3] Determination of Attainment, Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Ohio; Redesignation of the Dayton-Springfield 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) submitted a request on November 6, 2006, and supplemented it on November 29, 2006, December 4, 2006, December 13, 2006, January 11, 2007, March 9, 2007, March 27, 2007, and May 31, 2007, for redesignation of the Dayton-Springfield, Ohio area (Clark, Greene, Miami, and Montgomery Counties) to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. On June 20, 2007, EPA proposed to approve this submission. EPA provided a 30-day review and comment period. The comment period closed on July 20, 2007. EPA received one comment in favor of redesignation from the Dayton area Regional Air Pollution Control Agency. Today, EPA is approving Ohio's request and the associated plan for continuing to attain the standard. As part of this action, EPA is making a determination that the Dayton-Springfield area has attained the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). This determination is based on three years of complete, quality-assured ambient air quality monitoring data for the 2004-2006 ozone seasons that demonstrate that the 8-hour ozone NAAQS has been attained in the area. Preliminary 2007 air quality data show that the area continues to attain the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA is approving the maintenance plan for this area and is redesignating the area to attainment. Finally, EPA is approving, for purposes of transportation conformity, the motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) for the years 2005 and 2018. DATES: This final rule is effective on August 13, 2007. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0956. All documents in the docket are listed on the *http://www.regulations.gov* web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Kathleen D'Agostino, Environmental Engineer, at
(312)886-1767 before visiting the Region 5 office. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen D'Agostino, Environmental Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,
(312)886-1767, *dagostino.kathleen@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the following, whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” are used, we mean the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Table of Contents I. What Is the Background for This Rule? II. What Comments Did We Receive on the Proposed Action? III. What Are Our Final Actions? IV. Statutory and Executive Order Review I. What Is the Background for This Rule? The background for today's action is discussed in detail in EPA's June 20, 2007, proposal (72 FR 33937). In that rulemaking, we noted that, under EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 8-hour ozone standard is attained when the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm. (See 69 FR 23857 (April 30, 2004) for further information). The data completeness requirement is met when the average percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data is greater than 90%, and no single year has less than 75% data completeness, as determined in accordance with Appendix I of part 50. Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA may redesignate nonattainment areas to attainment if sufficient complete, quality-assured data are available to determine that the area has attained the standard and that it meets the other CAA redesignation requirements in section 107(d)(3)(E). The Ohio EPA submitted a request on November 6, 2006 and supplemented it on November 29, 2006, December 4, 2006, December 13, 2006, January 11, 2007, March 9, 2007, March 27, 2007, and May 31, 2007, for redesignation of the Dayton-Springfield area (Clark, Greene, Miami, and Montgomery Counties) to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. The request included three years of complete, quality-assured data for the period of 2004 through 2006, indicating the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone had been achieved. The June 20, 2007 proposed rule provides a detailed discussion of how Ohio met this and other CAA requirements. On December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated EPA's Phase 1 Implementation Rule for the 8-hour Ozone Standard. (69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004). *South Coast Air Quality Management Dist.* v. *EPA,* 472 F.3d 882 (DC Cir. 2006). On June 8, 2007, in *South Coast Air Quality Management Dist.* v. *EPA,* Docket No. 04-1201, in response to several petitions for rehearing, the DC Circuit clarified that the Phase 1 Rule was vacated only with regard to those parts of the rule that had been successfully challenged. Therefore, the Phase 1 Rule provisions related to classifications for areas currently classified under subpart 2 of Title I, part D of the CAA as 8-hour nonattainment areas, the 8-hour attainment dates, and the timing for emissions reductions needed for attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, remain effective. The June 8 decision left intact the Court's rejection of EPA's reasons for implementing the 8-hour standard in certain nonattainment areas under subpart 1 in lieu of subpart 2. By limiting the vacatur, the Court let stand EPA's revocation of the 1-hour standard and those anti-backsliding provisions of the Phase 1 Rule that had not been successfully challenged. The June 8 decision reaffirmed the December 22, 2006, decision that EPA had improperly failed to retain four measures required for 1-hour nonattainment areas under the anti-backsliding provisions of the regulations:
(1)Nonattainment area New Source Review
(NSR)requirements based on an area's 1-hour nonattainment classification;
(2)Section 185 penalty fees for 1-hour severe or extreme nonattainment areas;
(3)measures to be implemented pursuant to section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of the CAA, contingent on an area not making reasonable further progress toward attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS, or for failure to attain that NAAQS; and
(4)certain transportation conformity requirements for certain types of federal actions. The June 8 decision clarified that the Court's reference to conformity requirements was limited to requiring the continued use of 1-hour motor vehicle emissions budgets until 8-hour budgets were available for 8-hour conformity determinations. For the reasons set forth in the proposal, EPA does not believe that the Court's rulings alter any requirements relevant to this redesignation action so as to preclude redesignation, and do not prevent EPA from finalizing this redesignation. EPA believes that the Court's December 22, 2006, and June 8, 2007, decisions impose no impediment to moving forward with redesignation of this area to attainment, because even in light of the Court's decisions, redesignation is appropriate under the relevant redesignation provisions of the CAA and longstanding policies regarding redesignation requests. With respect to the requirement for transportation conformity under the 1-hour standard, the Court in its June 8 decision clarified that for those areas with 1-hour motor vehicle emissions budgets in their maintenance plans, anti-backsliding requires only that those 1-hour budgets must be used for 8-hour conformity determinations until replaced by 8-hour budgets. To meet this requirement, conformity determinations in such areas must comply with the applicable requirements of EPA's conformity regulations at 40 CFR part 93. II. What Comments Did We Receive on the Proposed Action? EPA provided a 30-day review and comment period. The comment period closed on July 20, 2007. We received one comment in favor of redesignation from the Dayton area Regional Air Pollution Control Agency. III. What Are Our Final Actions? EPA is taking several related actions for the Dayton-Springfield area. First, EPA is making a determination that the Dayton-Springfield area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA is also approving the State's request to change the legal designation of the Dayton-Springfield area from nonattainment to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Further, EPA is approving Ohio's maintenance plan SIP revision for the Dayton-Springfield area (such approval being one of the CAA criteria for redesignation to attainment status). Finally, for the Dayton Springfield area, EPA is approving 2005 MVEBs of 29.19 tpd of Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOC)and 63.88 tpd of Oxides of Nitrogen (NO <sup>X</sup> ) and 2018 MVEBs of 14.73 tpd of VOCs and 21.42 tpd of NO <sup>X</sup> . In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d), EPA finds that there is good cause for these actions to become effective immediately upon publication. This is because a delayed effective date is unnecessary due to the nature of a redesignation to attainment, which relieves the area from certain CAA requirements that would otherwise apply to it. The immediate effective date for this action is authorized under both 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which provides that rulemaking actions may become effective less than 30 days after publication if the rule “grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction,” and section 553(d)(3) which allows an effective date less than 30 days after publication “as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.” The purpose of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in 553(d) is to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior and prepare before the final rule takes effect. Today's rule, however, does not create any new regulatory requirements such that affected parties would need time to prepare before the rule takes effect. Rather, today's rule relieves the State of planning requirements for these 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas. For these reasons, EPA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) for these actions to become effective on the date of publication of these actions. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Review Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and, therefore, is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use Because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 or a “significant energy action,” this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). Regulatory Flexibility Act This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Redesignation of an area to attainment under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act does not impose any new requirements on small entities. Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not impose any new regulatory requirements on sources. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Executive Order 13132: Federalism This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Redesignation is an action that merely affects the status of a geographical area, and does not impose any new requirements on sources, or allows a state to avoid adopting or implementing additional requirements, and does not alter the relationship or distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical area but does not impose any new requirements on sources. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. Paperwork Reduction Act This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 12, 2007. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review, nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to force its requirements. (See Section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Volatile organic compounds. 40 CFR Part 81 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas. Dated: August 1, 2007. Bharat Mathur, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. Parts 52 and 81, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart 1885—Ohio 2. Section 52.1885 is amended by adding paragraph (ff)(7) to read as follows: § 52.1885 Control strategy: Ozone.
(ff)* * *
(7)The Dayton-Springfield area which includes Clark, Greene, Miami, and Montgomery Counties, as submitted on November 6, 2006, and supplemented on November 29, 2006, December 4, 2006, December 13, 2006, January 11, 2007, March 9, 2007, March 27, 2007, and May 31, 2007. The maintenance plan for this area establishes Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
(MVEB)for 2005 and 2018. The 2005 MVEBs are 29.19 tpd of VOC and 63.88 tpd of NO <sup>X</sup> . The 2018 MVEBs are 14.73 tpd of VOCs and 21.42 tpd of NO <sup>X</sup> . PART 81—[AMENDED] 3. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* 4. Section 81.336 is amended by revising the entry for Dayton-Springfield, Ohio area: Clark, Greene, Miami, and Montgomery Counties in the table entitled “Ohio—Ozone (8-Hour Standard)” to read as follows: § 81.336 Ohio. Ohio—Ozone (8-Hour Standard) Designated area Designation a Date 1 Type Classification Date 1 Type * * * * * * * Dayton-Springfield, OH: Clark County Greene County. Miami County. Montgomery County. August 13, 2007 Attainment. * * * * * * * a Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified. 1 This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted. [FR Doc. E7-15604 Filed 8-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 575 [Docket No. NHTSA-2006-25772] New Car Assessment Program (NCAP); Safety Labeling AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule; technical amendments; response to petitions for reconsideration. SUMMARY: A provision of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users requires new passenger vehicles to be labeled with safety rating information published by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration under its New Car Assessment Program. NHTSA was required to issue regulations to ensure that the labeling requirements “are implemented by September 1, 2007.” In September 2006, we published a final rule to fulfill that mandate. We received petitions for reconsideration of the final rule. Today's document responds to those petitions and makes technical amendments clarifying certain details of the presentation of the information on the labels. DATES: *Effective Date:* This final rule is effective October 12, 2007. *Compliance Date:* This final rule applies to covered vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2007. Optional early compliance by vehicle manufacturers is permitted before that date. *Petitions for reconsideration:* Petitions for reconsideration of this final rule must be received not later than September 27, 2007. ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration of the final rule must refer to the docket number set forth above and be submitted to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. In addition, a copy of the petition should be submitted to: Docket Management, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues regarding the information in this document, please contact Mr. Nathaniel Beuse at
(202)366-1740. For legal issues, please contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama
(202)366-2992. Both of these individuals may be reached by mail at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Overview of SAFETEA-LU Labeling Provisions and September 2006 Final Rule II. Petitions for Reconsideration and NHTSA's Response A. Definition of “Automobile” B. Requirements for Altered Vehicles III. Technical Adjustments to the Regulatory Text Related to the Labels A. Large Safety Label Shown in Figure 1 B. Small Safety Label Shown in Figure 2 IV. Rulemaking Notices and Analyses Regulatory Text I. Overview of SAFETEA-LU Labeling Provisions and September 2006 Final Rule Section 10307 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) 1 requires that each new passenger automobile that has been rated under the NHTSA's New Car Assessment Program
(NCAP)must have those ratings displayed on a label on its new vehicle price sticker, known as the Monroney label. 2 SAFETEA-LU specifies detailed requirements for the label, including its content, size, location, and applicability, leaving the agency only limited discretion regarding the label. 3 It also required NHTSA (by delegation of authority from the Department of Transportation) to issue regulations to ensure that the new labeling requirements are implemented by September 1, 2007. 1 P.L. 109-59 (August 10, 2005); 119 Stat. 1144. 2 The Monroney label is required by the Automobile Information Disclosure Act
(AIDA)Title 15, United States Code, Chapter 28, Sections 1231-1233. SAFETEA-LU amended AIDA to require that NCAP ratings be placed on each vehicle required to have a Monroney label. 3 “(g) if one or more safety ratings for such automobile have been assigned and formally published or released by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration under the New Car Assessment Program, information about safety ratings that— “(1) includes a graphic depiction of the number of stars, or other applicable rating, that corresponds to each such assigned safety rating displayed in a clearly differentiated fashion indicating the maximum possible safety rating; “(2) refers to frontal impact crash tests, side impact crash tests, and rollover resistance tests (whether or not such automobile has been assigned a safety rating for such tests); “(3) contains information describing the nature and meaning of the crash test data presented and a reference to additional vehicle safety resources, including *http://www.safecar.gov* ; and “(4) is presented in a legible, visible, and prominent fashion and covers at least— “(A) 8 percent of the total area of the label; or “(B) an area with a minimum length of 4 1/2 inches and a minimum height of 3 1/2 inches; and “(h) if an automobile has not been tested by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration under the New Car Assessment Program, or safety ratings for such automobile have not been assigned in one or more rating categories, a statement to that effect.”. As required by SAFETEA-LU, on September 12, 2006 (71 FR 53572) (DOT Docket No. NHTSA-2006-25772) we published a final rule that provides that:
(1)New passenger automobiles manufactured on or after September 1, 2007 must display specified NCAP information on a safety rating label that is part of their Monroney label;
(2)The specified information must include a graphical depiction of the number of stars achieved by a vehicle for each safety test;
(3)Information describing the nature and meaning of the test data, and references to *www.safercar.gov* and NHTSA's toll-free hotline number for additional vehicle safety information, must be placed on the label;
(4)The label must be legible with a minimum length of 4 1/2 inches and a minimum width of 3 1/2 inches or 8 percent of the Monroney label, whichever is larger;
(5)Ratings must be placed on new vehicles manufactured 30 or more days after the manufacturer receives notification from NHTSA of NCAP ratings for those vehicles. In its discretion, the agency decided to require that the label indicate the existence of safety concerns identified during NCAP testing, but not reflected in the resulting NCAP ratings. We required that the agency's toll-free hotline number appear on the label and adopted specifications for such matters as the wording, arrangement of some of the messages and the size of the font. II. Petitions for Reconsideration and NHTSA's Response In response to the September 12, 2006 final rule, we received a petition for reconsideration from the Recreation Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA), asking us to reconsider the inclusion of “recreational vehicle” in the definition of “automobile.” A joint petition signed by the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA), the National Truck Equipment Association
(NTEA)and the National Mobility Equipment Dealers Association (NMEDA) asked us to reconsider the requirement of an additional label for automobiles that are altered before first sale to the customer. The issues raised in the petitions and NHTSA's response are provided below. A. Definition of “Automobiles” Per SAFETEA-LU, this final rule applies to all vehicles required to have Monroney labels. Those labels are required on new “automobiles” by the Automobile Information Disclosure Act
(AIDA)and derive their name from the primary author of AIDA, former Senator Mike Monroney. The Department of Justice (DOJ), which generally administers AIDA, interprets the term “automobiles,” by definition, to include passenger vehicles and station wagons, and, by extension, passenger vans. For purposes of the final rule, we decided to express the applicability section of the regulation by reference to AIDA and language based on the DOJ guidance, rather than referring to terms as used in § 571.3 for safety standards. Specifically, the regulatory text states that the section applies to “automobiles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, manufactured on or after September 1, 2007, that are required by the Automobile Information Disclosure Act, 15 U.S.C. 1231-1233, to have price sticker labels (Monroney labels), e.g., passenger vehicles, station wagons, passenger vans, sport utility vehicles, and recreational vehicles.” We explained that this approach was adopted because Congress made the applicability of the NCAP labeling requirement depend on whether a vehicle is an “automobile” required to have a Monroney label under AIDA. The DOJ, rather than NHTSA, administers and issues authoritative interpretations of that part of AIDA. Thus, while we want our regulation to be as clear as possible, we recognize that it is DOJ, rather than NHTSA, that would make any necessary interpretations under AIDA as to the meaning of “automobile.” In response to the final rule, the Recreation Vehicle Industry Association
(RVIA)petitioned for the removal of the term “recreational vehicles” from the definition of “automobile.” RVIA included with its petition a letter dated October 30, 2006 to Ms. Dianne Farrell, RVIA's Vice President of Government Affairs from, Mr. Eugene M. Thirolf, Director, Office of Consumer Litigation, DOJ. In that letter, Mr. Thirolf explained that language on the Office of Consumer Litigation's Web page had referred to “recreational vehicles” as being encompassed within the definition of “automobile.” That phrase was incorporated from printed material that pre-dated the Web page by many years. Mr. Thirolf noted that the phrase “recreational vehicle” can have a variety of meanings. He stated that in recent years, the term “Sport Utility Vehicle” has become commonplace, and has displaced “recreational vehicle” as the term used to refer to certain vehicles that are now called Sport Utility Vehicles or “SUVs.” Mr. Thirolf noted that the Office of Consumer Litigation's Web page has been rewritten to include the term “Sport Utility Vehicles” and remove “recreational vehicle.” Since NHTSA has already stated that it will conform its definition of “automobile” to that provided by DOJ, and DOJ has removed the term “recreational vehicle” from the definition of “automobile” and added the term “sport utility vehicle” on the DOJ Web page, in this final rule, NHTSA will make conforming changes in the definition of “automobile” at § 575.301(b). RVIA also asked for NHTSA to publish “a statement that declares invalid any mention of ‘recreational vehicles’ which previously appeared in its Final Rule.” We decline to make such a statement. Our references to “recreational vehicles” were made in the context of DOJ's use of the term. The October 2006 letter from Mr. Thirolf of DOJ provides clarification of how DOJ used the term, and its subsequent decision to remove that term from its Web site and add the term “sport utility vehicle.” In today's final rule, we have provided RVIA with the relief it sought, consistent with DOJ's October 30, 2006 letter. B. Requirements for Altered Vehicles In the September 12, 2006 final rule, we noted that the National Mobility Equipment Dealers Association (NMEDA) asked that “the proposed labeling requirements not apply to * * * altered vehicles, including those that have been altered in such a manner as to render void any previous NCAP results.” NMEDA is an association “dedicated to providing safe and quality adaptive transportation and mobility for consumers with disabilities.” To accommodate special needs drivers, NMEDA members (and others) may make vehicle alterations that require affixing an alterer's label to the vehicle pursuant to 49 CFR 567.7, “Requirements for persons who alter certified vehicles.” In the September 12, 2006 final rule, NHTSA agreed that in such cases, the continuing applicability of ratings on the safety rating label may be at issue. We therefore decided that if an alterer places a § 567.7 alterer's label on a vehicle with a safety rating label, the alterer must place another label (adjacent to the Monroney label) stating: “This vehicle has been altered. The stated star ratings on the safety rating label may no longer be applicable.” The new requirements are specified at § 575.301(g) *Labels for alterers.* In a joint petition for reconsideration, NMEDA, NADA and the NTEA asked that we remove § 575.301(g). The joint petitioners' position appeared to be that often, the alterations made to a vehicle are relatively minor (e.g., star ratings for side impact would not be affected if the alteration involves changes to the rear lighting), and the § 575.301(g) label may give the impression to some customers that the alterations are likely to result in the vehicle's receiving a lesser safety rating. We note that § 567.6 makes it clear that minor finishing operations or the addition or removal of rims and tires, mirrors, or other readily attachable components would not necessitate the placement of an alterer's label. The intent of the label specified by § 575.301(g) is to inform potential purchasers of altered vehicles that if the vehicle has been altered in such a way as to require an alterer's label, the NCAP safety ratings may no longer be applicable. We are concerned that without the § 575.301(g) label, consumers would assume that altered vehicles would continue to have the same performance as the model tested by NHTSA in the NCAP safety assessment tests. However, some alterations may affect the NCAP safety ratings and, in such situations, the NCAP ratings could be misleading. The statement that the stated star ratings “may no longer be applicable” is neutral, i.e., it does not imply a likelihood of the vehicle having a lower rating. The joint petitioners stated that NHTSA should not add this requirement that could further obstruct the driver's vision during test drives. In response, although we appreciate the field of obstruction concern, we did not specify a size or font requirement for the § 575.301(g) label in order to minimize any additional obstruction of vehicle glazing. The requirement is only that the label be placed adjacent to the Monroney label; we purposefully did not specify where that would be. Therefore, alterers can place the § 575.301(g) label adjacent to, or as close as possible to, the Monroney label but in an area such as the bottom of the window that would not obstruct the vision of a driver taking the vehicle out on a test drive. The joint petitioners also stated that the § 575.301(g) requirements are redundant, as consumers are already aware of the alterations or request the alterations prior to purchasing the vehicle. NHTSA notes that while this may be true in some cases, we have no data to support this statement, and none was provided by the joint petitioners. Moreover, even if they are aware of alterations, consumers may believe the star ratings are still valid, even in situations when this may not be the case. We note that while alterers must certify that the vehicle continues to meet safety standards, they are not required to ensure that alterations do not affect NCAP ratings. The joint petitioners stated that the Monroney label as required by the AIDA is only for vehicles as manufactured, but not neccessarily as sold at dealerships. NHTSA does not agree. In the NPRM, NHTSA proposed to state at § 575.301(a) *Purpose and Scope* in part that, “* * * the additional Monroney label information is intended to provide consumers with relevant information *at the point of sale.* ” (Emphasis added.) No commenter (including any of the joint petitioners) objected to, or otherwise commented on the quoted language. Thus, the quoted language was made final in the final rule. On the issue of AIDA requirements, NHTSA consulted with the Department of Justice's
(DOJ)Office of Consumer Litigation, the authority on the meaning of AIDA. On December 4, 2006, DOJ staff confirmed with NHTSA staff that they would not try to make a distinction between vehicles as manufactured and as sold at dealerships, as it was, in the view of the DOJ staff, contrary to the AIDA. The joint petitioners further stated that the AIDA never imposed on dealers or others who alter vehicles prior to first sale, any additional labeling burden. However, with the enactment of SAFETEA-LU, we believe the additional labeling is needed to ensure that consumers who consider purchasing or who purchase altered vehicles are aware that first, alterations have been made and second, that the alterations may have made the star ratings no longer applicable. We note that because it would be far more burdensome for alterers to determine and explain how alterations may affect the star ratings, we decided on the standard language specified in § 575.301(g) simply indicating that the ratings *may* no longer be applicable. The joint petitioners stated that neither the legislative history nor Section 10307 of SAFETEA-LU addresses vehicle alteration or vehicle alterers. They also argued the § 575.301(g) requirement was not a logical outgrowth of the notice of proposed rulemaking and violates the Administrative Procedure Act and NHTSA's own rulemaking process. In response, NHTSA notes that the rulemaking at issue was necessary to “aid potential purchasers in the selection of new passenger motor vehicles by providing them with safety rating information. * * * Manufacturers of passenger motor vehicles described in paragraph
(b)of this section are required to include this information on the Monroney label.” (see § 575.301(a).) 49 CFR part 567 includes alterers within the definition of manufacturer (See § 567.2(a)). Since § 575.301 applies to manufacturers, it applies to alterers. The final rule's clarification of requirements for all manufacturers, including alterers, is not outside the scope of the rule. Furthermore, the addition of § 575.301(g) to the final rule is a logical outgrowth of the proposal. We note § 575.301(g) was added to the final rule in response to NMEDA's comments on the January 30, 2006 NPRM. We believe it was necessary and appropriate to address the issue of how requirements apply to alterers, and to ensure that the NCAP ratings on the label do not provide misleading information to consumers. In commenting on the NPRM, NMEDA asked that “the proposed labeling requirements not apply to vehicles built in two or more stages or to altered vehicles including those that have been altered in such a manner as to render void any previous NCAP results.” NMEDA did not specify how its request should be carried out. In the final rule, we responded to NMEDA's comment by not making the safety ratings necessarily apply to altered vehicles, by specifying adding the label (stating in part) “The stated star ratings on the safety rating label may no longer be applicable.” In the final rule, NHTSA determined that the addition of the label with the stated quotation was the best way to respond to NMEDA's comment. It was a logical outgrowth of the proposal, which responded to NMEDA's comment, clarified final rule requirements for all manufacturers, including alterers, and continued to make the §§ 575.301(d) and
(e)requirements applicable to manufacturers that are not alterers. The joint petitioners also stated that neither the § 575.301(g) mandate nor the potential regulatory burden was taken into consideration by NHTSA in its E.O. 12866, Regulatory Flexibility Act, or Paperwork Reduction Act analyses. The joint petitioners stated that assuming 10 percent of the vehicle fleet would require the § 575.301(g) label at a cost of $1.00 per label results in a $1,500,000 cost burden. In response, NHTSA notes that the joint petitioners provided no bases for their assumptions regarding costs. We do not agree with these estimates. Based on a previous agency study that examined labeling costs, 4 we expect that the cost of a label would be $0.09 to $0.16 per vehicle (in 2006 dollars). Even with the 10 percent alteration rate, as assumed by the joint petitioners, the expected total cost burden would be far less than what the petitioners claimed. We believe that the cost burden would not have a significant economic impact on alterers. 4 See Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation, FMVSS No. 208, *Actions to Reduce the Adverse Effects of Air Bags,* July 1996. The Paperwork Reduction Act consequences of the label specified at § 575.301(g) were discussed in the final rule of September 12, 2006 at page 53585. The joint petitioners also suggested that in lieu of the § 575.301(g) label, NHTSA consider amending the “safety label” 5 with the disclaimer: “Crash test results reflect the actual vehicle tested and are designed for general model comparison purposes only. The actual vehicle you buy may not achieve the exact same results in a similar test.” 5 NHTSA assumes the joint petitioners meant the safety rating label specified at Sections 575.301(d) and (e). We decline to make this change. The petitioners did not provide any basis for including such a disclaimer on all vehicles. The § 575.301(g) label is narrowly tailored to inform potential purchasers of the very small number of vehicles that have been altered in such a way as to require an alterer's label that the NCAP safety ratings may no longer be applicable. It would be inappropriate to address this concern by adding a disclaimer to all vehicles. The petitioners also suggested that NHTSA provide clarification with respect to when a first sale occurs in various situations, to enable the regulated community to be able to distinguish alterations from modifications. We note that this is a general issue and not one specifically related to this rulemaking. If petitioners have specific questions in this area, they may send them to NHTSA's Chief Counsel. III. Technical Amendments to Regulatory Text Describing the Labels In this final rule, we also make the following technical amendments to descriptions of the labels, to ensure consistency among the preamble, the regulatory text, and Figures 1 and 2 provided in the final rule. No changes are made to either Figure 1 or Figure 2 as a result of this final rule. A. Large Safety Label Shown in Figure 1 1. We note that the height of the safety concern is not specified. In this final rule, NHTSA specifies superscript for both the safety concern symbol next to the star rating to which it applies and in the explanation section of the label. This is how the graphic is displayed in the sample label and how it is now specified at Section 301(e)(10)(ii) of the regulatory text. 2. We note the following inconsistencies between the sample label (Figure 1 to § 575.301) and the regulatory text:
(a)The regulatory text describing how the “Driver”/“Passenger” and “Front Seat/Rear Seat” should be positioned on the label is incorrect. As currently stated, the text would run into the stars on the label graphic. Therefore, we are revising the regulation to require the text to be left justified and horizontally centered, and to be vertically aligned at the top and middle of the label, respectively, for front and side crash ratings. Similarly, the star ratings are to be left justified, but aligned to the right of the label. In addition, the regulatory text for “Front Seat” and “Rear Seat” will not include a capitalized “S”, consistent with the label depicted in Figure 1. In this final rule, § 575.301, paragraphs (e)(4)(iii), (e)(4)(v), and (e)(5)(iii), and (e)(5)(v) will be revised to read as follows: Section 575.301(e)(4)(iii)—The word “Driver” must be on the same line as the word “Frontal” in “Frontal Crash”, and be left justified, horizontally centered and vertically aligned at the top of the label. The achieved star rating for “Driver” must be on the same line, left justified, and be aligned to the right side of the label. Section 575.301(e)(4)(v)—The word “Passenger” must be on the same line as the word “Crash” in “Frontal Crash” , below the word “Driver”, and be left justified, horizontally centered and be vertically aligned at the top of the label. The achieved star rating for “Passenger” must be on the same line, left justified, and be aligned to the right side of the label. Section 575.301(e)(5)(iii)—The words “Front seat” must be on the same line as the word “Side” in “Side Crash” and be left justified, horizontally centered and be vertically aligned in the middle of the label. The achieved star rating for “Front seat” must be on the same line, left justified, and be aligned to the right side of the label. Section 575.301(e)(5)(v)—The words “Rear seat” must be on the same line as the word “Crash” in “Side Crash”, below the word “Front seat” and be left justified, horizontally centered and be vertically aligned in the middle of the label. The achieved star rating for “Rear seat” must be on the same line, left justified, and be aligned to the right side of the label.
(b)There are no line justifications for “Not Rated” or alternatively, “To Be Rated” in sections (e)(4)(iv), (e)(4)(vi), (e)(5)(iv), (e)(5)(vi), and (e)(6)(iii). In this final rule, we will specify that both “Not Rated” and “To Be Rated”, and the to-be-determined star ratings be left justified and be aligned horizontally and vertically on the label. Therefore, these paragraphs read as follows: Section 575.301(e)(4)(iv)—If NHTSA has not released the star rating for the “Driver” position, the text “Not Rated” must be used in boldface. However, as an alternative, the words “To Be Rated” (in boldface) may be used if the manufacturer has received written notification from NHTSA that the vehicle has been chosen for NCAP testing. Both texts must be on the same line as the text “Driver”, be left justified, and be aligned to the right side of the label. Section 575.301(e)(4)(vi)—If NHTSA has not released the star rating for “Passenger”, the words “Not Rated” must be used in boldface. However, as an alternative, the words “To Be Rated” (in boldface) may be used if the manufacturer has received written notification from NHTSA that the vehicle has been chosen for NCAP testing. Both texts must be on the same line as the text “Passenger”, be left justified, and be aligned to the right side of the label. Section 575.301(e)(5)(iv)—If NHTSA has not released the star rating for “Front seat”, the words “Not Rated” must be used in boldface. However, as an alternative, the words “To Be Rated” (in boldface) may be used if the manufacturer has received written notification from NHTSA that the vehicle has been chosen for NCAP testing. Both texts must be on the same line as the text “Front seat”, be left justified, and be aligned to the right side of the label. Section 575.301(e)(5)(vi)—If NHTSA has not released the star rating for “Rear seat”, the text “Not Rated” must be used in boldface. However, as an alternative, the text “To Be Rated” (in boldface) may be used if the manufacturer has received written notification from NHTSA that the vehicle has been chosen for NCAP testing. Both texts must be on the same line as the text “Rear seat”, be left justified, and be aligned to the right side of the label. Section 575.301(e)(6)(iii)—If NHTSA has not tested the vehicle, the words “Not Rated” must be used in boldface. However, as an alternative, the words “To Be Rated” (in boldface) may be used if the manufacturer has received written notification from NHTSA that the vehicle has been chosen for NCAP testing. Both texts must be on the same line as the text “Rollover”, be left justified, and be aligned to the right side of the label. Finally, in § 575.301(3)(8)(B), the regulatory text will include a period at the end of the phrase to read: “Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).” B. Small Safety Label Shown in Figure 2 The following changes are made in this final rule to make the regulatory text consistent with the Small Safety Label shown in Figure 2:
(a)Since the border for the small safety label is not specified in the regulatory text, we will add at the end of § 575.301(f)(2), “and must be surrounded by a solid dark line that is a minimum of 3 points in width.”
(b)The justification for the text is not specified and the font size is incorrect. Therefore, the text of § 575.301(f)(4) is amended to read: Section 575.301(f)(4) *General Information.* The general information area must be below the header area. The text must be dark and the background must be light. The text must state the following, in at least 12-point font, be left justified, and be aligned to the left side of the label, in the specified order:
(c)In § 575.301(f)(3) and (f)(5), 14-point, not 12-point font should be specified for the header and footer areas to make the smaller label header and footer areas identical to that of the larger label. IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices The final rule of September 12, 2006 included discussion of Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Paperwork Reduction Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), Civil Justice Reform Act, the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Today's final rule consists only of technical amendments. Thus, the rulemaking analyses and notices discussion provided for the September 2006 is not affected by today's final rule. List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 575 Consumer protection, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Tires. In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR part 575 is amended to read as follows: PART 575—CONSUMER INFORMATION 1. The authority citation for part 575 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 32302, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30166, and 30168, Pub. L. 104-414, 114 Stat. 1800, Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 15 U.S.C. l232(g); delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50. 2. Section 575.301 is amended by: a. Revising paragraph (b); b. Revising paragraph (e)(4)(iii); c. Adding in paragraph (e)(4)(iv) a third sentence; d. Revising paragraph (e)(4)(v); e. Adding in paragraph (e)(4)(vi) a third sentence; f. Revising paragraph (e)(5)(iii); g. Adding in paragraph (e)(5)(iv) a third sentence; h. Revising paragraph (e)(5)(v); i. Adding in paragraph (e)(5)(vi) a third sentence; j. Adding in paragraph (e)(6)(iii) a third sentence; k. Revising paragraph (e)(10)(ii); l. Revising paragraph (f)(2); m. Revising paragraph (f)(3); n. Revising in paragraph (f)(4) the third sentence; and o. Revising in paragraph (f)(5) the first sentence, to read as follows: § 575.301 Vehicle Labeling of Safety Rating Information.
(b)*Application.* This section applies to automobiles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, manufactured on or after September 1, 2007, that are required by the Automobile Information Disclosure Act, 15 U.S.C. 1231-1233, to have price sticker labels (Monroney labels), e.g., passenger vehicles, station wagons, passenger vans, and sport utility vehicles.
(e)* * *
(4)* * *
(iii)The word “Driver” must be on the same line as the word “Frontal” in “Frontal Crash,” and be left justified, horizontally centered and vertically aligned at the top of the label. The achieved star rating for “Driver” must be on the same line, left justified, and aligned to the right side of the label.
(iv)* * * Both texts must be on the same line as the text “Driver”, left justified, and aligned to the right side of the label.
(v)The word “Passenger” must be on the same line as the word “Crash” in “Frontal Crash,” below the word “Driver,” and be left justified, horizontally centered and vertically aligned at the top of the label. The achieved star rating for “Passenger” must be on the same line, left justified, and aligned to the right side of the label.
(vi)* * * Both texts must be on the same line as the text “Passenger”, left justified, and aligned to the right side of the label.
(5)* * *
(iii)The words “Front seat” must be on the same line as the word “Side” in “Side Crash” and be left justified, horizontally centered and vertically aligned in the middle of the label. The achieved star rating for “Front seat” must be on the same line, left justified, and aligned to the right side of the label.
(iv)* * * Both texts must be on the same line as the text “Front seat”, left justified, and aligned to the right side of the label.
(v)The words “Rear seat” must be on the same line as the word “Crash” in “Side Crash,” below the word “Front seat,” and be left justified, horizontally centered and vertically aligned in the middle of the label. The achieved star rating for “Rear seat” must be on the same line, left justified, and aligned to the right side of the label.
(vi)* * * Both texts must be on the same line as the text “Rear seat”, left justified, and aligned to the right side of the label.
(6)* * *
(iii)* * * Both texts must be on the same line as the text “Rollover”, left justified, and aligned to the right side of the label.
(10)* * *
(ii)Include at the bottom of the relevant area (i.e., frontal crash area, side crash area, rollover area), as the last line of that area, the related symbol, as depicted in Figure 4 of this section, as a superscript of the rest of the line, and the text “Safety Concern: Visit *www.safercar.gov* or call 1-888-327-4236 for more details.”
(f)* * *
(2)The label must be at least 4 1/2 inches in width and 1 1/2 inches in height, and must be surrounded by a solid dark line that is a minimum of 3 points in width.
(3)*Heading Area.* The text must read “Government Safety Ratings” and be in 14-point boldface, capital letters that are light in color, and be centered. The background must be dark.
(4)*General Information.* * * * The text must state the following, in at least 12-point font, be left-justified, and aligned to the left side of the label, in the specified order:
(5)*Footer Area.* The text “ *www.safercar.gov* or 1-888-327-4236” must be provided in 14-point boldface letters that are light in color, and be centered. * * * Issued on: August 7, 2007. Nicole R. Nason, Administrator. [FR Doc. E7-15743 Filed 8-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P 72 155 Monday, August 13, 2007 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 9 CFR Part 94 [Docket No. APHIS-2007-0014] RIN 0579-AC47 Importation of Table Eggs From Regions Where Exotic Newcastle Disease Exists AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend the regulations regarding the importation of animal products in order to modify the requirements concerning the importation of eggs (other than hatching eggs) from regions where exotic Newcastle disease
(END)exists. This action is necessary in order to provide a more efficient and effective testing option for determining the END status of flocks producing eggs (other than hatching eggs) for export to the United States. DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before October 12, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and, select “Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service” from the agency drop-down menu, then click “Submit.” In the Docket ID column, select APHIS-2007-0014 to submit or view public comments and to view supporting and related materials available electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket after the close of the comment period, is available through the site's “User Tips” link. • *Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery:* Please send four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to Docket No. APHIS-2007-0014, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road, Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. APHIS-2007-0014. *Reading Room:* You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call
(202)690-2817 before coming. *Other Information:* Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the Internet at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Christopher Robinson, Senior Staff Veterinarian, Technical Trade Services, National Center for Import and Export, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 40, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231;
(301)734-7837. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA)regulates the importation of animals and animal products into the United States to guard against the introduction of animal diseases. The regulations in 9 CFR parts 93, 94, and 95 (referred to below as the regulations) govern the importation of certain animals, birds, poultry, meat, other animal products and byproducts, hay, and straw into the United States in order to prevent the introduction of various animal diseases, including exotic Newcastle disease (END). Egg Importation Requirements Currently, the regulations at § 94.6(c) provide two mechanisms by which flocks in foreign regions where END is considered to exist can be found free of END and thus approved for the purpose of exporting eggs (except hatching eggs) to the United States. One method requires the placement of sentinel birds (at least 1 per 1,000 birds) at the rate of at least 30 sentinel birds per house. These sentinel birds must remain free of clinical and immunological evidence of END as demonstrated by tests performed by a salaried veterinary officer of the national government of the region of origin. The second method requires weekly testing of any carcasses of poultry from the flock in question that died in that week as well as other testing performed on at least 10 percent of live birds. These two options have proven problematical. Many foreign egg producers cannot use sentinel birds because their flocks are vaccinated with strains of Newcastle disease. Even though the sentinel birds themselves cannot be vaccinated against END, they may nevertheless develop antibodies as a result of exposure to birds vaccinated with a live virus. Sentinel birds may therefore produce false positives when tested for END, necessitating the expense of further testing to differentiate a vaccine-induced response from a field infection. In such a situation, 10 percent flock testing becomes the only available option; however, many foreign egg producers find this approach to be time consuming, costly, and potentially statistically excessive. We are proposing to amend the regulations in order to provide for the use of a statistically valid testing regimen that would ensure the detection of infected birds in a timely and effective way while eliminating the need for potentially excessive testing. 1 1 While these proposed provisions are specific to END, we recognize that a testing regimen similar to that described in this document could be useful in addressing the risks presented by highly pathogenic avian influenza
(HPAI)in egg production flocks in regions affected with HPAI. We are currently developing regulations specific to HPAI and welcome any comments on the subject of targeted testing for HPAI in egg production flocks that are submitted in response to this proposed rule. Disease biology is an important consideration in testing for the presence of END. Of the three strains of END—mesogenic, lentogenic, and velogenic—we are concerned only with the velogenic strain. General sampling results (i.e., samples taken from live, apparently healthy birds as well as dead or sickly birds) may prove inaccurate, as sampling of birds infected with non-velogenic strains of END, which produce a minimal mortality rate, and birds that have been vaccinated against the disease may result in false positives. Additionally, clinically normal birds may shed virus only intermittently. If the choice of testing is to look for the presence of the virus in clinically normal flocks, the prevalence of birds shedding virus at any given time may be expressed in fractions of a percent. In order to derive an accurate picture of infection rates in this situation, the sample size required would be prohibitively large with very poor confidence of detecting the virus. In comparison, the proposed approach utilizing only sick or dead birds is a more efficient and accurate testing method. The prevalence of velogenic END is likely to be quite high in the population of sick or dead birds if the flock is, in fact, infected and the needed sample size would be quite small. According to our research and other available information, sampling 5 sick or dead birds in a group of up to 50,000 birds provides a 95 percent confidence of detecting infection in a house. Therefore, we propose to replace the current options for flock testing with a requirement that at least 1 cull (sick or dead) bird for each 10,000 live birds occupying each poultry house certified for exporting table eggs be tested for END virus at days 7 and 14 of the 21-day period before the certificate is signed and tested using a virus isolation test at a laboratory approved by the veterinary services organization of the national government of the region of origin. The tests must present no clinical or immunological evidence of END by either embryonated egg inoculation technique from tissues of dead birds or negative hemagglutination inhibition tests conducted on blood samples of sick birds collected by a salaried veterinary officer of the national government of the region of origin, or by an accredited veterinarian. We have prepared a risk assessment document titled “Justification for the proposed changes to the current 9 CFR 94.6 regulations governing the importation of table eggs from regions where exotic Newcastle disease exists into the United States.” This document assesses the effectiveness of sentinel birds, random sampling, and targeted sampling of sick or dead birds as surveillance methods. You may view the document on the Regulations.gov Web site or in our reading room. (Instructions for accessing Regulations.gov and information on the location and hours of the reading room are provided under the heading ADDRESSES at the beginning of this proposed rule.) In addition, copies may be obtained by calling or writing to the individual listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . The risk assessment document explains why the sentinel bird approach currently required does not provide the desired level of assurance that END virus is absent in a flock. It assesses random sampling as an alternative method of disease detection, and concludes that targeted sampling of cull (sick or dead) birds detects infections more efficiently and effectively than either sentinel birds or random sampling. It also concludes that targeted sampling provides more biological assurances about the absence of END virus when infection is absent than random sampling and the use of sentinel birds combined. We additionally propose to amend the requirements for importing eggs (other than hatching eggs) in order to require that the accompanying health certificate contain a specific additional certification that egg drop syndrome
(EDS)is notifiable in the region of origin and that there have been no reports of EDS in the flocks of origin, or within a 50 kilometer radius of the flocks, for 90 days prior to export. EDS is characterized by soft shelled and shell-less eggs produced by otherwise healthy looking birds. The virus is spread horizontally, primarily in commercial flocks, via contaminated eggs, droppings, and needles used to draw blood and administer vaccinations. There is no known treatment for EDS. Vaccines administered during the bird's growth phase (14 to 18 weeks of age) have been successful at reducing, but not eliminating, virus shedding. Since the United States is the only area in the world free of EDS, we believe that the proposed certification requirements are warranted to help prevent the introduction of the disease into domestic flocks. Currently, the regulations provide that flock inspections be conducted by a salaried veterinary officer of the national government of the region of origin. However, Mexico's Ministry of Agriculture developed a system for accrediting veterinarians who are not salaried employees of the national government of Mexico to perform official work in connection with the export of animals and animal products from Mexico. This work includes testing, examining, and certifying animals for export to the United States. Since 1992, we have allowed Mexican accredited veterinarians to perform certain necessary services detailed in 9 CFR part 93. These services, which were previously performed only by salaried veterinarians of the Mexican Government, are required by our regulations to prevent the introduction of communicable animal diseases into the United States through the entry of animals and animal products. We are therefore proposing to amend the regulations to allow veterinarians accredited by the Mexican Government to inspect the flocks of origin and issue animal health certificates as required by the regulations for the importation of eggs from Mexico into the United States. However, we also propose that each certificate issued by a veterinarian accredited by the Mexican Government must also be endorsed by a full-time salaried veterinary officer of the national government of Mexico. Under this system, the accredited veterinarian would make the necessary determinations about the health of the flock of origin and issue the certificate, and the Mexican Government veterinarian would endorse it, indicating that the issuing veterinarian is properly accredited and that the certificate is properly completed. These proposed provisions are identical to the provisions in part 93 that allow veterinarians accredited by the national government of Mexico to perform certain functions related to the export of animals to the United States. Miscellaneous The title of part 94 is “Rinderpest, Foot-and-Mouth Disease, Fowl Pest (Fowl Plague), Exotic Newcastle Disease, African Swine Fever, Classical Swine Fever, and Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy: Prohibited and Restricted Importations.” We would update the part heading so that it also refers to swine vesicular disease, a disease that is addressed in several sections of the regulations. Conversely, we would remove the part heading's reference to “fowl pest (fowl plague),” as the regulations in part 94 currently contains no provisions regarding fowl pest (fowl plague). The regulations in § 94.6(c)(1) set out the information to be included on certificates accompanying shipments of table eggs. We would make editorial changes to paragraphs (c)(1)(v) and (c)(1)(ix) to clarify that we expect the certificate to confirm compliance with the specific requirements of those paragraphs. Finally, the removal of the sentinel bird provisions and footnote 7 in § 94.6(c)(ix)(C) would make it necessary to renumber the remaining footnotes in part 94. Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. The rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. We are proposing to amend the regulations regarding the importation of animal products in order to modify the requirements concerning the importation of eggs (other than hatching eggs) from regions where END exists. This action is necessary in order to provide a more sound testing option for determining the END status of flocks producing eggs (other than hatching eggs) for export to the United States. The ultimate goal of this proposed rule is to make our import regulations more effective, more consistent with the available science, and less restrictive while continuing to protect domestic poultry from END. One mechanism by which foreign producers located in regions affected with END can currently export table eggs into the United States is to place sentinel birds within their flocks and then test these birds for presence of the disease. As many of these foreign producers vaccinate their flocks, such testing may produce false-positive results. Sentinel birds may therefore produce false positives when tested for END, necessitating the expense of further testing to differentiate a vaccine-induced response from a field infection. The second mechanism currently authorized, testing 10 percent of the flock, is viewed by foreign egg producers as problematic and potentially an excessive requirement. As such, this proposed rule seeks to replace the current options for flock testing with one that more accurately directs testing at those birds most likely to be infected. The United States is the world's largest producer of poultry meat and the second largest egg producer after China. Statistics indicated there was a domestic inventory of 449 million chickens in 2003, excluding commercial broilers, with a total cash value of $1.11 billion. 2 In 2004, broilers, which are raised specifically for meat production, had a total cash value of $20.4 billion, the total number produced being 8.74 billion. Also in 2004, turkey production totaled 7.3 billion pounds, with a cash value of $3.07 billion. 3 Table egg production during the year ending November 30, 2003, totaled 74.4 billion eggs. 4 2 USDA, *Chickens and Eggs 2003 Summary.* Washington, DC: National Agricultural Statistics Service, January 2004. Estimates cover the period from December 1, 2002-2003. 3 USDA, *Poultry-Production and Value 2004 Summary.* Washington, DC: National Agricultural Statistics Service, April 2005. This is the most recent annual statistic for broiler production. 4 USDA, *Chickens and Eggs 2003 Summary.* Washington, DC: National Agricultural Statistics Service, January 2004. Economic Effects The potential scope of any domestic effects of these proposed changes is somewhat uncertain. As the compliance costs for the flock testing requirements would decrease for producers exporting eggs to the United States due to the decrease in the number of birds required to be tested to demonstrate flock freedom from END, there is a potential for a small increase in the volume of table egg imports. In 2003, table egg imports from regions considered free of END, as listed in § 94.6(a)(2), totaled 77,861 dozen with an overall cash value of $411,000. For that same year, table egg imports from regions where END is considered to exist totaled 1,088,341 dozen, with an overall cash value of $709,000. 5 Total imports of table eggs for 2003 represented less than 0.02 percent of the total domestic supply for that year. 6 Usually, an increase in supply drives down the price of commodities. When both the retail and wholesale sectors of a market are inelastic, as is the case with table eggs, a small change in supply has the potential to have a large effect on price. 7 Consequently, if there is an increase in table egg imports as a result of the proposed changes, this could have an effect on the domestic market price of table eggs, causing the price to decrease as the supply of table eggs increases. In this case, there could be a slightly negative effect on domestic producers of table eggs due to declining price receipts. By contrast, if there is a slight increase in supply due to increased imports, the declining price will be a benefit to domestic consumers. Of course, any discernable changes in domestic prices of table eggs are also affected by domestic production, population changes, and changes in demand. Ultimately, as imports of table eggs represent less than 0.02 percent of the domestic supply available, we are confident that any increase in supply resulting from this proposed rule would not cause a significant change in the domestic market. 5 USDA, *HS 10-Digit Imports.* Washington, DC: Foreign Agricultural Service, 2004. Import quantities and cash value estimates of table eggs for regions where END is considered to exist were approximated by subtracting the quantity and value of imports from regions free of END from the “world total” query. 6 Domestic supply of table eggs found by examining domestic table egg production for 2003, 74.4 billion eggs, less total exports in 2003, 490.6 million eggs, plus total imports of 13.9 million eggs. USDA, *HS 10-Digit Imports.* Washington, DC: Foreign Agricultural Service, 2004. 7 USDA, *Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Outlook.* Washington, DC: Economic Research Service, February 17, 2004. Impact on Small Entities The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to consider the economic impact of their regulations on small entities. According to the guidelines established by the Small Business Association (SBA), domestic companies engaging in chicken egg production come under the North American Industry Classification System code 112310. The SBA defines a small chicken egg-producing entity as one that nets no more than $10.5 million per year. As of February 2004, the American Egg Board reported that there were approximately 260 egg-producing companies with flocks of 75,000 hens or more. These 260 companies represent about 95 percent of all the layers in the United States. 8 The exact number of operations engaged in table egg production is unclear. However, the 2002 agricultural census estimated that there were 83,381 domestic poultry and egg farms. While concrete information on the size distribution is unknown, the census does indicate that only 29,393 of those poultry operations have annual sales of $50,000 or more. As such, it is safe to assume that the majority of operations engaged in table egg production would be considered small entities by SBA standards. In the case of this proposed change, there are no direct effects on small entities, but the possibility of increased imports of table eggs does could result in an indirect effect. As mentioned previously, if there is an increase in table egg imports as a result of lower testing costs for exporters, thereby increasing supply to the domestic market, there is the potential for the domestic price of table eggs to decrease. However, given the fact that imports constitute such a small percentage of the domestic supply (0.02 percent) and because price is also affected by other factors including domestic production levels, population changes, and domestic demand, the prospects for any decrease in price as a direct result of the changes we are proposing are uncertain. Even if this potentiality is realized, we believe it is unlikely that the proposed changes would result in any significant economic effects on small entities. 8 *U.S. Egg Industry Fact Sheet.* Illinois: American Egg Board, February 2004. Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Executive Order 12988 This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is adopted:
(1)All State and local laws and regulations that are in conflict with this rule will be preempted;
(2)no retroactive effect will be given to this rule; and
(3)administrative proceedings will not be required before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule. Paperwork Reduction Act In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), the information collection or recordkeeping requirements included in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Please send written comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for APHIS, Washington, DC 20503. Please state that your comments refer to Docket No. APHIS-2007-0014. Please send a copy of your comments to:
(1)Docket No. APHIS-2007-0014, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road, Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238, and
(2)Clearance Officer, OCIO, USDA, room 404-W, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250. A comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication of this proposed rule. APHIS is proposing to amend the regulations regarding the importation of eggs (other than hatching eggs) from regions where END exists. This action is necessary in order to provide a more sound testing option for determining the END status of flocks producing eggs (other than hatching eggs) for export to the United States. The conditions for importation require, among other things, certification from a salaried veterinary officer of the national government of the region of origin, or a certificate issued by a veterinarian accredited by the national government of Mexico and endorsed by a full-time salaried veterinary officer of the national government of Mexico, thereby indicating that the veterinarian is authorized to issue the certificate. The certificate must also state that egg drop syndrome is notifiable in the region of origin and there have been no reports of egg drop syndrome in flocks of origin of the eggs, or within a 50 kilometer radius of the flock of origin, for the 90 days prior to the issuance of the certificate. APHIS is asking the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)to approve its use of these information collection activities for 3 years. We are soliciting comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our proposed information collection and recordkeeping requirements. These comments will help us:
(1)Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper performance of our agency's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2)Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who are to respond (such as through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses). *Estimate of burden:* Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1.3 hours per response. *Respondents:* Veterinarians accredited by the Mexican Government. *Estimated annual number of respondents:* 5. *Estimated annual number of responses per respondent:* 2. *Estimated annual number of responses:* 10. *Estimated total annual burden on respondents:* 13 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response). Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at
(301)734-7477. E-Government Act Compliance The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to compliance with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. For information pertinent to E-Government Act compliance related to this proposed rule, please contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at
(301)734-7477. List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 94 Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock, Meat and meat products, Milk, Poultry and poultry products, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, we propose to amend 9 CFR part 94 as follows: PART 94—RINDERPEST, FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE, EXOTIC NEWCASTLE DISEASE, AFRICAN SWINE FEVER, CLASSICAL SWINE FEVER, SWINE VESICULAR DISEASE, AND BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY: PROHIBITED AND RESTRICTED IMPORTATIONS 1. The heading of part 94 is revised to read as above. 2. The authority citation for part 94 continues to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450, 7701-7772, 7781-7786, and 8301-8317; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4. 3. In § 94.6, the introductory text of paragraph (c)(1), paragraph (c)(1)(v), paragraph (c)(1)(viii), the introductory text of paragraph (c)(1)(ix), and paragraph (c)(1)(ix)(C) are revised and a new paragraph (c)(1)(ix)(D) is added to read as follows: § 94.6 Carcasses, parts or products of carcasses, and eggs (other than hatching eggs) of poultry, game birds, or other birds; importations from regions where exotic Newcastle disease or highly pathogenic avian influenza subtype H5N1 is considered to exist.
(c)* * *
(1)*With a certificate.* The eggs may be imported if they are accompanied by a certificate signed by a salaried veterinary officer of the national government of the region of origin or, if exported from Mexico, accompanied either by such a certificate or by a certificate issued by a veterinarian accredited by the national government of Mexico and endorsed by a full-time salaried veterinary officer of the national government of Mexico, thereby representing that the veterinarian issuing the certificate was authorized to do so, and:
(v)The certificate states that no more than 90 days before the certificate was signed, a salaried veterinary officer of the national government of the region of origin or, if exported from Mexico, by a veterinarian accredited by the national government of Mexico, inspected the flock of origin and found no evidence of communicable diseases of poultry.
(viii)Before leaving the premises of origin, the cases in which the eggs were packed were sealed with a seal of the national government of the region of origin by the salaried veterinarian of the national government of the region of origin who signed the certificate or, if exported from Mexico, by the veterinarian accredited by the national government of Mexico who signed the certificate.
(ix)In addition, if the eggs were laid in any region where END is considered to exist (see paragraph
(a)of this section), the certificate must also state:
(C)The eggs are from a flock of origin found free of END as follows: On the seventh and fourteenth days of the 21-day period before the certificate is signed, at least 1 cull (sick or dead) bird for each 10,000 live birds occupying each poultry house certified for exporting table eggs was tested for END virus using a virus isolation test. The weekly cull rate of birds of every exporting poultry house within the exporting farm does not exceed 0.1 percent. The tests present no clinical or immunological evidence of END by either embryonated egg inoculation technique from tissues of dead birds or negative hemagglutination inhibition tests conducted on blood samples of sick birds collected by a salaried veterinary officer of the national government of the region of origin, or by an accredited veterinarian. All examinations and virus isolation tests were conducted in a laboratory located in the region of origin, and the laboratory was approved to conduct the examinations and tests by the veterinary services organization of the national government of that region. All results were negative for END.
(D)The certificate must state that egg drop syndrome is notifiable in the region of origin and there have been no reports of egg drop syndrome in the flocks of origin of the eggs, or within a 50 kilometer radius of the flock of origin, for the 90 days prior to the issuance of the certificate. §§ 94.8 and 94.9 [Amended] 5. In §§ 94.8 and 94.9, footnotes 8 through 11 are redesignated as footnotes 7 through 10, respectively. 6. Section 94.12 is amended as follows: a. In paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B), by redesignating footnote 12 as footnote 11. b. In paragraph (b)(3), by redesignating footnote 13 as footnote 12 and revising newly redesignated footnote 12 to read as set forth below. § 94.12 Pork and pork products from regions where swine vesicular disease exists.
(b)* * *
(3)* * * 12 12 See footnote 9 in § 94.9. § 94.16 [Amended] 7. In § 94.16, footnote 14 is redesignated as footnote 13. 8. Section 94.17 is amended as follows: a. In paragraph (e), by redesignating footnote 15 as footnote 14. b. In paragraph (p)(1)(i), by redesignating footnote 16 as footnote 15 and revising newly redesignated footnote 15 to read as set forth below. § 94.17 Dry-cured pork products from regions where foot-and-mouth disease, rinderpest, African swine fever, classical swine fever, or swine vesicular disease exists.
(p)* * *
(1)* * *
(i)* * * 15 15 See footnote 14 in paragraph
(e)of this section. §§ 94.18 and 94.24 [Amended] 9. In §§ 94.18 and 94.24, footnotes 17, 18, 20, and 21 are redesignated as footnotes 16 through 19, respectively. Done in Washington, DC, this 8th day of August 2007. Cindy Smith, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E7-15815 Filed 8-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Parts 32 and 35 RIN 3150-AI14 Medical Use of Byproduct Material—Minor Corrections and Clarifications AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)is proposing to amend its regulations to correct or clarify the rule language in several sections in the regulations that govern specific domestic licenses to manufacture or transfer certain items containing byproduct material and medical use of byproduct material. The regulations that govern medical use of byproduct materials were amended in their entirety on April 24, 2002 (67 FR 20249). Subsequently, these regulations were amended again to revise the training and experience requirements for the medical use of byproduct material on March 30, 2005 (70 FR 16336). Through implementation of these revised regulations, the NRC has identified additional changes that need to be made to these regulations. This action is necessary to clarify certain provisions and to make certain conforming changes to the regulations. DATES: Comments on the proposed rule must be received on or before September 12, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any one of the following methods. Please include the following number (RIN 3150-AI14) in the subject line of your comments. Comments on rulemakings submitted in writing or in electronic form will be made available for public inspection. Because your comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information, the NRC cautions you against including personal information such as social security numbers and birth dates in your submission. *Mail comments to:* Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. *E-mail comments to:* *SECY@nrc.gov.* If you do not receive a reply e-mail confirming that we have received your comments, contact us directly at
(301)415-1966. You may also submit comments via the NRC's rulemaking Web site at *http://ruleforum.llnl.gov.* Address questions about our rulemaking website to Carol Gallagher
(301)415-5905; email *cag@nrc.gov.* Comments can also be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal *http://www.regulations.gov.* *Hand deliver comments to:* 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 am and 4:15 pm Federal workdays. (Telephone
(301)415-1966). *Fax comments to:* Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at
(301)415-1101. Publicly available documents related to this rulemaking may be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), O1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Selected documents, including comments, may be viewed and downloaded electronically via the NRC rulemaking Web site at *http://ruleforum.llnl.gov.* Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC after November 1, 1999, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* From this site, the public can gain entry into the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room
(PDR)Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward M. Lohr, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone
(301)415-0253, e-mail *eml1@nrc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information see the Direct Final Rule published in the Final Rules section of this **Federal Register** . Because NRC considers this action noncontroversial and routine, we are publishing this proposed rule concurrently as a direct final rule. The direct final rule will become effective on October 29, 2007. However, if the NRC receives significant adverse comments on the proposed rule by September 12, 2007, then the NRC will publish a document to withdraw the direct final rule. If the direct final rule is withdrawn, the NRC will address the comments received in response to the proposed revisions in a subsequent final rule. Absent significant modifications to the proposed revisions requiring republication, the NRC will not initiate a second comment period for this action if the direct final rule is withdrawn. A significant adverse comment is a comment where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. A comment is adverse and significant if:
(1)The comment opposes the rule and provides a reason sufficient to require a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. For example, a substantive response is required when:
(a)The comment causes the NRC staff to reevaluate (or reconsider) its position or conduct additional analysis;
(b)The comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response to clarify or complete the record; or
(c)The comment raises a relevant issue that was not previously addressed or considered by the NRC staff.
(2)The comment proposes a change or an addition to the rule, and it is apparent that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without incorporation of the change or addition.
(3)The comment causes the staff to make a change (other than editorial) to the rule. List of Subjects 10 CFR Part 32 Byproduct material, Criminal penalties, Labeling, Nuclear materials, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 10 CFR Part 35 Byproduct material, Criminal penalties, Drugs, Health facilities, Health professions, Medical devices, Nuclear materials, Occupational safety and health, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 553; the NRC is proposing to adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR parts 32 and 35. PART 32—SPECIFIC DOMESTIC LICENSES TO MANUFACTURE OR TRANSFER CERTAIN ITEMS CONTAINING BYPRODUCT MATERIAL 1. The authority citation for part 32 continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 81, 161, 182, 183, 68 Stat. 935, 948, 953, 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2111, 2201, 2232, 2233); sec. 201, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5841); sec. 1704, 112 Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note), Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-58, 119 Stat. 594 (2005). 2. In § 32.72, paragraph (b)(5) is revised to read as follows: § 32.72 Manufacture, preparation, or transfer for commercial distribution of radioactive drugs containing byproduct material for medical use under part 35.
(b)* * *
(5)Shall provide to the Commission a copy of each individual's: (i)(A) Certification by a specialty board whose certification process has been recognized by the Commission or an Agreement State as specified in § 35.55(a) of this chapter with the written attestation signed by a preceptor as required by § 35.55(b)(2) of this chapter; or
(B)The Commission or Agreement State license; or
(C)The permit issued by a licensee of broad scope; and
(ii)State pharmacy licensure or registration, no later than 30 days after the date that the licensee allows, under paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (b)(2)(iii) of this section, the individual to work as an authorized nuclear pharmacist. 3. In § 32.74, the introductory text of paragraph
(a)is revised to read as follows: § 32.74 Manufacture and distribution of sources or devices containing byproduct material for medical use.
(a)An application for a specific license to manufacture and distribute sources and devices containing byproduct material to persons licensed under part 35 of this chapter for use as a calibration, transmission, or reference source or for the uses listed in §§ 35.400, 35.500, 35.600, and 35.1000 of this chapter will be approved if: PART 35—MEDICAL USE OF BYPRODUCT MATERIAL 4. The authority citation for part 35 continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 81, 161, 182, 183, 68 Stat. 935, 948, 953, 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2111, 2201, 2232, 2233); sec. 201, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5841); sec. 1704, 112 Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note). 5. In § 35.2, the definition of *Medium dose-rate remote afterloader* is revised to read as follows: § 35.2 Definitions. *Medium dose-rate remote afterloader* , as used in this part, means a brachytherapy device that remotely delivers a dose rate of greater than 2 gray (200 rads) per hour, but less than or equal to 12 gray (1200 rads) per hour at the point or surface where the dose is prescribed. 6. In § 35.41, paragraph (b)(4) is revised to read as follows: § 35.41 Procedures for administrations requiring a written directive.
(b)* * *
(4)Verifying that any computer-generated dose calculations are correctly transferred into the consoles of therapeutic medical units authorized by §§ 35.600 or 35.1000. 7. In § 35.75, the text of paragraph
(a)is republished and footnote 1 is revised to read as follows: § 35.75 Release of individuals containing unsealed byproduct material or implants containing byproduct material.
(a)A licensee may authorize the release from its control of any individual who has been administered unsealed byproduct material or implants containing byproduct material if the total effective dose equivalent to any other individual from exposure to the released individual is not likely to exceed 5 mSv (0.5 rem). 1 1 The current revision of NUREG-1556, Vol. 9, “Consolidated Guidance About Materials Licenses: Program-Specific Guidance about Medical Licenses” describes methods for Calculating doses to other individuals and contains tables of activities not likely to cause doses exceeding 5 mSv (0.5 rem). 8. In § 35.92, the introductory text of paragraph
(a)is revised to read as follows: § 35.92 Decay-in-storage.
(a)A licensee may hold byproduct material with a physical half-life of less than or equal to 120 days for decay-in-storage before disposal without regard to its radioactivity if it— 9. In § 35.190, paragraph (a)(1) is revised to read as follows: § 35.190 Training for uptake, dilution, and excretion studies.
(a)* * *
(1)Complete 60 hours of training and experience in basic radionuclide handling techniques and radiation safety applicable to the medical use of unsealed byproduct material for uptake, dilution, and excretion studies as described in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (c)(1)(ii)(F) of this section; and 10. In § 35.290, paragraph (a)(1) is revised to read as follows: § 35.290 Training for imaging and localization studies.
(a)* * *
(1)Complete 700 hours of training and experience in basic radionuclide handling techniques and radiation safety applicable to the medical use of unsealed byproduct material for imaging and localization studies as described in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (c)(1)(ii)(G) of this section; and Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 31st day of July, 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Martin J. Virgilio, Acting Executive Director for Operations. [FR Doc. E7-15762 Filed 8-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-26491; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-76-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Alpha Aviation Design Limited (Type Certificate No. A48EU Previously Held by APEX Aircraft and AVIONS PIERRE ROBIN) Model R2160 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of the comment period. SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier NPRM for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: To prevent fuel system leaks inspect the bronze/brass hollow threaded fuel line fittings for type and leaks, per Avions Pierre Robin Service Bulletin
(SB)No. 86. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 12, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *DOT Docket Web Site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:
(816)329-4146; fax:
(816)329-4090. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2006-26491; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-76-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion We proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with an earlier NPRM for the specified products, which was published in the **Federal Register** on January 8, 2007 (72 FR 676). That earlier NPRM proposed to require actions intended to address the unsafe condition for the products listed above. Since that NPRM was issued, we determined that replacing any type 1 fuel fittings with type 2 fuel fittings, not just leaking type 1 fuel fittings, is needed in order to eliminate future fuel leaks. The Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand, which is the airworthiness authority for New Zealand, has issued AD DCA/R2000/12, dated June 29, 2006 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: To prevent fuel system leaks inspect the bronze/brass hollow threaded fuel line fittings for type and leaks, per Avions Pierre Robin Service Bulletin
(SB)No. 86. Replace leaking Type 1 fuel line fittings with Type 2 fittings, per SB No. 86, before further flight. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information AVIONS PIERRE ROBIN (current type certificate responsibility with Alpha Aviation Design Limited) has issued Avions Pierre Robin Service Bulletin No. 86, dated July 30, 1980. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. Comments We received no comments on the earlier NPRM. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Certain changes described above expand the scope of the earlier NPRM. As a result, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for the public to comment on the proposed AD. Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a Note within the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 10 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $100 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $1,800, or $180 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **Alpha Aviation Design Limited (Type Certificate No. A48EU previously held by Apex Aircraft and AVIONS PIERRE ROBIN):** Docket No. FAA-2006-26491; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-76-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments by September 12, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Model R2160 airplanes, serial numbers 001 through 191, certificated in any category. Subject
(d)Air Transport Association of America
(ATA)Code 28: Fuel. Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: To prevent fuel system leaks inspect the bronze/brass hollow threaded fuel line fittings for type and leaks, per Avions Pierre Robin Service Bulletin
(SB)No. 86. Actions and Compliance
(f)Unless already done, within the next 25 hours time-in-service after the effective date of this AD, replace the Type 1 fuel line fittings with Type 2 fittings, per Avions Pierre Robin Service Bulletin No. 86 dated July, 1980. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: This AD requires the replacement of the Type 1 fuel line fittings with Type 2 fittings, per Avions Pierre Robin Service Bulletin No. 86 dated July, 1980. The MCAI required a one-time inspection for leaks and replacement if leaks were found. There was no MCAI action to determine whether leaks developed in the future. The FAA believes that mandatory replacement of the fittings will eliminate current leaking fittings as well as preventing the problem from developing in the future. Other FAA AD Provisions
(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, Standards Staff, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:
(816)329-4146; fax:
(816)329-4090. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(2)*Airworthy Product:* For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information
(h)Refer to MCAI Airworthiness Authority of New Zealand AD DCA/R2000/12, dated June 29, 2006; and Avions Pierre Robin Service Bulletin 86, dated July, 1980, for related information. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on August 6, 2007. Kim Smith, Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-15794 Filed 8-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 17 CFR Parts 36 and 40 RIN 3038-AC39 Amendments Pertinent to Registered Entities and Exempt Commercial Markets AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading Commission. ACTION: Proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The proposed regulations expand the set of persons delegated by the Commission with the authority to issue exempt commercial market
(ECM)special calls to include the Director of the Division of Enforcement and that Director's designees. The proposed regulations clarify the process for listing, clearing, or implementing registered entity products or rules, including dormant products and rules, and amend the definition of emergency to clarify that persons other than members of the governing board of a registered entity may declare an emergency on behalf of the governing board. The proposed regulations also clarify the duration of the rule approval period for designated contract market
(DCM)rules that may change a material term or condition of a contract based on the agricultural commodities enumerated in section 1a(4) of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA or Act). Finally, the proposed regulations clarify how far in advance of implementation registered entities must submit self-certified contracts and rules to the Commission, and identify three additional categories of rules that a registered entity may implement without filing certified submissions or receiving prior Commission approval. DATES: Comments must be received by September 12, 2007. ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581, attention: Office of the Secretariat. Comments may be sent by facsimile to 202.418.5521, or by e-mail to *secretary@cftc.gov.* Reference should be made to the “Amendments Pertinent to Registered Entities and Exempt Commercial Markets.” Comments may also be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at *http://www.regulations.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bruce Fekrat, Special Counsel, Office of the Director (telephone 202.418.5578, e-mail *bfekrat@cftc.gov* ), Division of Market Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (Commission) published comprehensive final regulations for trading facilities on August 10, 2001. 1 The final regulations codified the procedural provisions common to exempt boards of trade and ECMs operating pursuant to sections 5d or 2(h)(3) through
(5)of the Act, respectively, in part 36 of the Commission's regulations. The final regulations also codified the procedural provisions common to DCMs, derivatives transaction execution facilities (DTEF), and derivatives clearing organizations
(DCO)in part 40 of the Commission's regulations, and further established the regulatory framework necessary to implement and interpret the provisions of the CEA, as amended by the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (CFMA), 2 pertinent to trading facilities. Based upon its subsequent experience in administering the Act, the Commission herein proposes several amendments to parts 36 and 40 of the Commission's regulations to better implement the Act and provide clearer direction as to the Commission's regulatory requirements thereunder. 1 66 FR 42256 (August 10, 2001). 2 Pub. L. 106-554, 114 Stat. 2763 (December 21, 2000). II. Exempt Commercial Markets The CFMA created a qualified exemption from the Commission's jurisdiction for transactions executed or traded on ECMs. Section 2(h)(3) of the Act, which was added by the CFMA, applies the exemption to transactions in exempt commodities executed or traded on an electronic trading facility that are entered into on a principal-to-principal basis solely between persons that are eligible commercial entities. 3 The CEA specifically reserves the applicability of the Commission's antifraud and antimanipulation authority to transactions executed or traded on ECMs in section 2(h)(4) of the Act 4 and gives the Commission the authority to issue ECM special calls for information to, among other things, enforce that authority. 5 3 7 U.S.C. 2(h)(3). 4 7 U.S.C. 2(h)(4). 5 7 U.S.C. 2(h)(5). In July 2004, the Commission amended regulation 36.3(b), which governs the Commission's access to ECM transaction data, to improve the quality of accessible information relevant to its antifraud and antimanipulation authority. 6 In that rulemaking, the Commission stated that aberrant price behavior on ECMs may require further Commission investigation and the eventual use of the Commission's special call authority to identify wrongful conduct. 7 The authority to issue special calls to ECMs currently is delegated to the Directors of the Division of Market Oversight
(DMO)and the Division of Clearing and Intermediary Oversight and their designees. Given the importance of the authority to issue special calls to the Commission's ability to enforce its reserved antifraud and antimanipulation authority with respect to ECM transactions, the Commission herein proposes to amend regulation 36.3 to expand the set of persons with delegated authority to issue special calls pursuant to section 2(h)(5)(B)(iii) of the Act to include the Director of the Division of Enforcement and that Director's designees. 6 69 FR 43285 (July 20, 2004). 7 *Id.* at 43289. III. Proposed Amendments to Part 40 of the Commission's Regulations A. Self-Certification, Approval, and Dormancy Part 40 of the Commission's regulations currently does not clearly indicate that the procedural requirements for listing, clearing or implementing dormant contracts and rules 8 are identical to the requirements established for initial submissions of contracts and rules that have never been approved by, or certified with, the Commission. 9 The current product and rule filing provisions of part 40 also do not clearly indicate that a DCM or DCO, in general, must choose either to comply with the rule approval process established in part 40 or, in the alternative, the certification process established in part 40 prior to listing, clearing, or implementing any product or rule, including any product or rule that has become dormant. 10 The Commission therefore proposes to amend the language in regulations 40.2(a), 40.3(a), 40.4(a), 40.5(a) and 40.6(a) to clarify that a DCM or DCO in general must choose either to list, clear, or implement a product or rule, including any dormant product or rule, pursuant to the self-certification provisions of part 40 or, in the alternative, pursuant to the process established in part 40 for receiving the Commission's prior approval. 11 8 The Commission defines a dormant contract as a contract or product without open interest that, after the expiration of a thirty-six month development period following initial certification or approval, has not traded in the preceding twelve consecutive calendar months. 17 CFR 40.1(b). The Commission defines a dormant rule as a rule that has remained unimplemented for twelve consecutive calendar months following the rule's initial certification with, or approval by, the Commission. 17 CFR 40.1(f). 9 This alignment of procedural requirements is based, in part, on the premise that certain contracts and rules, which have remained inactive or unimplemented for a significant period of time, may no longer contain terms that are consistent with the Commission's regulations and prevailing market conditions. 67 FR 62783, 62784 (October 9, 2002). 10 The Commission's regulations do not require a DTEF to either certify or submit for Commission approval a product or rule prior to listing or implementation. However, a DTEF, which is generally subject to notice filing requirements, may choose to self-certify products or rules or submit them for Commission approval pursuant to the procedures established in part 40 of the Commission's regulations. *See* 17 CFR 37.7. 11 DCM rules that will materially change a term or condition of a contract with open interest that is based on an agricultural commodity enumerated in section 1a(4) of the Act must be approved by the Commission prior to implementation. 7 U.S.C. 7a-2(c)(2)(B). B. Dormant Registered Entities, Contracts, and Rules The Commission has applied the concept of dormancy to registered entities by defining a dormant market or clearing organization as a registered entity that has been designated by, or registered with, the Commission for a period of thirty-six months or more but has not served as a facility for the trading or clearing of transactions for a period of twelve consecutive calendar months. 12 The Commission recognizes that a significant period of inactivity can potentially have a negative impact on a registered entity's ability to implement rules and list and clear contracts in a manner that remains consistent with current market conditions, the Commission's regulations, and self-regulatory best practices. 13 Accordingly, the Commission has deemed that upon a registered entity becoming dormant, its rules and contracts shall also become dormant. 14 12 *See* 17 CFR 40.1. 13 *See* 47 FR 29515 (July 7, 1982). 14 *See* 71 FR 1953, 1960 (January 12, 2006). In contrast to this view, the current language of the Commission's regulations implies that the earliest possible time that a rule can become dormant, regardless of whether a registered entity has entered into dormancy, is at the end of a twelve month implementation period. 15 Similarly, the current language of the Commission's regulations implies that the earliest possible time that a contract can become dormant, regardless of whether a registered entity has entered into dormancy and absent affirmative action on the part of the registered entity, is at the end of a thirty-six month contract development period. To remedy any uncertainty, the Commission proposes to amend regulation 40.1(b), the definition of dormant product or contract, and regulation 40.1(f), the definition of a dormant rule, to clearly establish that the dormancy of a registered entity will automatically and separately trigger the dormancy of that entity's contracts and rules. In addition, the Commission is proposing a technical amendment to the definition of a dormant DCM, DTEF, and DCO in regulation 40.1 to conform the language used to define those terms to the proposed amendments of regulations 40.1(b) and 40.1(f). 15 The term “rule” is defined to include any registered entity (DCM, DTEF, or DCO) “* * * rule, regulation, resolution, interpretation, stated policy, term and condition * * * in whatever form adopted, and any amendment or addition thereto or repeal thereof * * *” 17 CFR 40.1(h). C. Definition of Emergency The Commission's regulations give registered entities the ability to implement rules in response to an emergency without certifying, or receiving the Commission's approval of, such rules prior to implementation. 16 The current definition of emergency implies that the full governing board of a registered entity must itself make the determination as to whether a circumstance is an emergency before operating under emergency procedures. 17 This notice of rulemaking proposes to amend Commission regulation 40.1(g), the definition of emergency, to clarify that persons other than members of the governing board may determine that a particular occurrence or circumstance constitutes an emergency. In a letter commenting on a previous notice of proposed rulemaking, the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) suggested that the full governing board of an exchange, under emergency conditions, may not be able to issue an opinion in a timely manner to address an emergency. 18 In such a situation, it may be optimal for a duly authorized subcommittee or exchange official to have the ability to respond to fast developing emergency conditions. 16 *See* 17 CFR 40.6(a)(2). 17 *See* 17 CFR 40.1(g). 18 *See* letter from James A. Newsome, President, NYMEX, to Jean A. Webb, Secretary of the Commission (September 26, 2005) (on file with the Commission), available at *http://www.cftc.gov/foia/comment05/foi05--004_1page2.htm.* The Commission is in agreement with NYMEX. Accordingly, the Commission proposes to amend the definition of emergency in part 40 to clarify that duly authorized persons may determine whether a particular occurrence or circumstance is an emergency that “requires immediate action and threatens or may threaten such things as the fair and orderly trading in, or the liquidation of or delivery pursuant to, any agreements, contracts or transactions.” 19 The amendment would require that the rules of the registered entity specify in detail
(1)the persons authorized to issue an emergency opinion on behalf of the governing board; and
(2)the procedures for the exercise of such authority. 20 19 17 CFR 40.1(g). 20 The Commission also proposes to amend the definition of emergency to clarify the definition's applicability to all registered entities, including DCOs. D. Commission Review and Approval of Registered Entity Rules In contrast to other registered entity rules that may be implemented pursuant to the self-certification process established in part 40, DCM rules that, as determined by the Commission, materially change a term or condition of a contract with open interest that is based on an agricultural commodity enumerated in section 1a(4) of the Act must be approved by the Commission prior to implementation. 21 Since a finding of materiality is by statute at the reasonable discretion of the Commission, part 40 affords DCMs the opportunity to request a materiality opinion from the Commission for rules that a submitting DCM characterizes as non-material. Upon request the Commission will determine whether a DCM rule submitted under regulation 40.4(b)(9) at least ten business days prior to implementation is material within the meaning of section 5c(c) of the Act. 22 21 7 U.S.C. 7a-2(c). 22 *Id* . DCMs often simultaneously request that agricultural rule changes be reviewed for materiality, and if found to be material, approved by the Commission. Currently, Commission regulation 40.5 does not clearly specify when the approval period commences with respect to rules submitted for materiality review under the process framed by regulation 40.4(b)(9). 23 To establish certainty, the amendments to regulation 40.5 propose to commence the rule approval period at the conclusion of the 10-day materiality review period under regulation 40.4(b)(9). The Commission believes that commencing the approval period at this point is appropriate because the determination as to whether a registered entity rule should be approved (that is whether a rule is consistent with the Act and the Commission's regulations thereunder) requires an analysis that is qualitatively different from the analysis required to determine whether the same rule is material within the meaning of section 5c(c) of the Act. 23 *See* 17 CFR 40.4(b) and 40.5(b). E. Listing of Products and the Implementation of Registered Entity Rules 1. The Timing of Submissions The Commission understands that there may be some confusion as to how far in advance of implementation registered entities must submit self-certified products and rules to the Commission. Commission regulations 40.2(a) and 40.6(a) provide that such submissions must be filed electronically with the Commission at or before the close of business on the business day preceding implementation. Questions have arisen as to whether these provisions refer to the Commission's business day or the business day of the submitting registered entity. The proposed regulations clarify that the specified date is the Commission's business day. For clarity and in order to ensure proper notice of certified products and rules, the Commission proposes to define business day in part 40 and add language to Commission regulations 40.2(a) and 40.6(a) to expressly require the filing of certified submissions with the Commission at least one full Commission business day prior to implementation. 24 In addition, to ensure that the appropriate operating divisions of the Commission have the ability to access electronic copies of submissions at the time of filing, the proposed regulations add the e-mail addresses *submissions@cftc.gov* and *DMOSubmissions@cftc.gov* to, and specify each regional branch chief in, Commission regulations 40.2(a)(1) and 40.6(a)(2) as additional mandatory recipients of electronically filed submissions. 24 These proposed amendments are consistent with other Commission regulations that exclude the day on which a notice is given or an event occurs in computing time periods that begin upon the occurrence of that notice or event. *See* 17 CFR 1.3(b) and 10.5. 2. Implementing Registered Entity Rules Without Certification a. *Additional Rule Categories* . As discussed above, the Commission's regulations generally permit a registered entity to implement a new or dormant rule without seeking prior Commission approval by certifying to the Commission that the rule complies with the Act and the regulations thereunder on the business day preceding implementation. 25 Registered entities, however, are not required to file certified submissions prior to implementing several categories of registered entity rules that are enumerated in regulation 40.6(c)(2). 26 Registered entity rules that come within these categories typically are limited in scope and are implemented under enabling rules that have already been approved by, or certified with, the Commission. In order to lessen the burden placed on registered entities as well as better utilize Commission resources, the Commission proposes to codify several additional registered entity rule categories that may be implemented without prior certification or Commission approval if subsequently included in a weekly notification of rule changes under regulation 40.6(c)(2). The Commission proposes to add
(1)changes in trading months with no open interest that are consistent with previously approved or certified standards;
(2)changes in lists of producers' brands or markings that are made pursuant to previously approved or certified standards or criteria relating to quality specifications, and for existing delivery locations,
(3)changes in lists of approved delivery facilities and delivery service providers that are made pursuant to previously approved or certified standards or criteria 27 to the categories of rules enumerated in regulation 40.6(c)(2). 25 *See* 17 CFR 40.6(a). 26 17 CFR 40.6(c)(2). 27 Commission regulation 40.4(b)(2) identifies rules that are changes in lists of approved delivery facilities as immaterial. In conformance with the proposed amendments to regulation 40.6(c)(2), the Commission proposes to amend regulation 40.4(b)(2) to also identify rules that are changes to lists of approved delivery service providers as immaterial. A registered entity's ability to notice file changes that relate to trading months under proposed regulation 40.6(c)(2) only extends to trading months within currently established cycles of trading months. By way of example, assume that the currently established cycle of trading months for a particular contract is December, March, May, July and September. Under the proposed regulations, the listing of a new trading month, such as November, would not qualify for notice filing under regulation 40.6(c) while an earlier than anticipated listing of a July contract could properly be notice filed. With respect to producers, facilities and service providers, the Commission reviews the relevant enabling standards and criteria to ensure their consistency with cash market practices and to ensure that their terms do not unreasonably restrain trade by inappropriately prohibiting the open participation of certain producers, facilities or service providers. 28 The identification of producers' brands and enumerated delivery facilities and service providers at a delivery location does not alter certified or Commission approved qualifying delivery standards or criteria, nor does it change exchange procedures that verify compliance with those standards or criteria. The Commission therefore proposes to be kept apprised of changes in lists of approved producers' brands or markings, changes in lists of delivery location delivery facilities and service providers, and changes in trading months with no open interest that are consistent with previously certified or approved standards through weekly notices of rule changes filed under regulation 40.6(c)(2) as opposed to requiring that such changes be certified with or approved by the Commission prior to implementation. 29 28 *See* 17 CFR part 40, Appendix A (Application for Designation of Physical Delivery Futures Contracts). 29 Registered entities must be able to cite registered entity rules that establish standards and criteria that are both substantive and clearly identifiable in any such submission made under regulation 40.6(c)(2). b. *Implementing Rules without Notification* . Rule changes that may appear in a weekly notification pursuant to regulation 40.6(c)(2)(iv) also include “[c]hanges to option contract rules relating to the strike price listing procedures, strike price intervals, and the listing of strike prices on a discretionary basis.” 30 The Commission currently receives substantially the same information under part 16 of the Commission's regulations, which specifies the daily reporting requirements that apply to DCMs. 31 In particular, regulation 16.01(b) stipulates that each reporting market must submit to the Commission on a daily basis various trade data, including trade volume, open interest and price information for all listed option strike prices, including discretionary prices. 32 30 17 CFR 40.6(c)(iv). 31 *See* 17 CFR part 16. 32 17 CFR 16.01(b). In January 2006, DMO staff granted no-action relief to permit DCMs to satisfy the regulation 40.6(c)(2)(iv) notification requirement by complying with the daily reporting requirements of regulation 16.01 of the Commission's regulations. 33 In order to codify the no-action relief granted by DMO and avoid duplicative regulatory requirements, the Commission proposes to amend regulation 40.6(c)(2)(iv) and add paragraph
(G)to regulation 40.6(c)(3)(ii) to allow registered entities that are in compliance with regulation 16.01(b) to implement the specified changes relating to option contract strike prices without either prior approval, certification or inclusion in a weekly notification to the Commission. 34 33 *See* CFTC Staff Letter 06-01 (January 9, 2006). 34 In July of 2006, the Commission adopted final rules to permit the trading of futures contracts based on corporate debt securities. 71 FR 39541 (July 13, 2006) (Debt Futures Release). The Commission herein proposes a technical amendment that conforms regulation 40.6(c)(2)(iii) to the adoption of the Debt Futures Release by replacing that regulation's reference to stock indexes with a reference to securities indexes, a general term that includes both equity and debt securities. Proposed regulation 40.6(c)(2)(iii) includes a reference to regulation 40.6(c)(3)(ii)(F) to alert registered entities that certain rule changes relating to securities indexes may be implemented pursuant to notification or without such notice if implemented under regulation 40.6(c)(3). The Commission is making a similar proposal with respect to registered entity rules denoting changes to contract trading months within currently established cycles of trading months to the categories of rules that may be implemented pursuant to a regulation 40.6(c)(2) notification filing. 35 As with rules that are changes to option contract strike prices, the Commission currently receives adequate notification of the same information under regulation 16.01(a). In order to avoid duplicative regulatory requirements, the Commission proposes to add paragraph
(H)to regulation 40.6(c)(3)(ii) to provide that registered entities that are in compliance with regulation 16.01(a) may implement changes to the listing of contract trading months with no open interest, other than the delisting of contract trading months or the relisting of temporarily delisted contract trading months, without prior approval, certification or inclusion in a weekly notification to the Commission. 36 35 As discussed in the previous subsection, the Commission is proposing to add such rules to the categories of rules that may be implemented without certification or prior Commission approval if subsequently included in a regulation 40.6(c)(2) weekly notification of rule changes. 36 In addition, the Commission proposes a technical amendment to the heading of regulation 40.6, and that rule's references to DCMs and DCOs, to clarify the potential applicability of that regulation to all registered entities, including DTEFs. IV. Related Matters A. Cost Benefit Analysis Section 15(a) of the Act requires the Commission to consider the costs and benefits of its actions before issuing new regulations under the Act. Section 15(a) does not require the Commission to quantify the costs and benefits of new regulations or to determine whether the benefits of the proposed regulations outweigh their costs. Rather, section 15(a) requires the Commission to consider the cost and benefits of the subject regulations. Section 15(a) further specifies that the costs and benefits of the proposed regulations shall be evaluated in light of five broad areas of market and public concern:
(1)Protection of market participants and the public;
(2)efficiency, competitiveness, and financial integrity of futures markets;
(3)price discovery;
(4)sound risk management practices; and
(5)other public interest considerations. The Commission may, in its discretion, give greater weight to any one of the five enumerated areas of concern and may, in its discretion, determine that, notwithstanding its costs, a particular regulation is necessary or appropriate to protect the public interest or to effectuate any of the provisions or to accomplish any of the purposes of the Act. The proposed regulations expand the set of persons delegated by the Commission with the authority to issue ECM special calls to include the Director of the Division of Enforcement and that Director's designees. The proposed rules do not expand the basis for issuing ECM special calls; rather, they simply expand the set of persons authorized to issue such special calls. There are no regulatory costs imposed by this extension of delegated special call authority. The proposed regulations clarify that a DCM or DCO must generally choose either to comply with the rule approval process established in part 40 of the Commission's regulations or, in the alternative, the certification process established in part 40, prior to listing or clearing any product, or implementing any rule, including any product or rule that has become dormant. The proposed regulations also clearly establish that the dormancy of a registered entity will automatically and separately trigger the dormancy of that entity's contracts and rules. These clarifications are consistent with current Commission practice, do not impose any regulatory cost, and serve the public interest by facilitating regulatory certainty for persons subject to the Act and the Commission's regulations thereunder. The proposed regulations clarify that the definition of emergency allows persons other than members of the governing board of a registered entity to declare an emergency on behalf of the governing board. The proposed regulations expressly recognize that the governing board of an exchange under emergency conditions may not be able to issue an opinion in a timely manner to address an emergency. Accordingly, the Commission's proposed definition of emergency in part 40 clearly permits duly authorized persons to determine whether a particular occurrence or circumstance is an emergency. The proposed regulations facilitate the ability of registered entities to undertake timely action in response to emergency events and thereby better protect market participants and the financial integrity of transactions executed and cleared on registered entities. The proposed regulations also limit the potential costs that may arise from any misuse of authority by requiring registered entities to adopt detailed procedural rules to effectuate the exercise of this delegated authority. The proposed regulations clearly set forth the duration of the rule approval period for DCM rules that may change a material term or condition of a contract based on the agricultural commodities enumerated in section 1a(4) of the Act by proposing to commence the rule approval period at the conclusion of the 10-day materiality review period under regulation 40.4(b)(9). Commencing the approval period at this point gives the Commission additional time to effectively discharge its separate regulatory responsibilities to review registered entity rule changes for their impact on contracts with open interest and to determine whether such changes are consistent with the Act and the Commission's regulations thereunder. The proposed review period is consistent with current Commission regulatory practice and should not place any additional cost or burden on submitting DCMs. The proposed regulations address how far in advance of implementation registered entities must submit self-certified contracts and rules to the Commission pursuant to regulations 40.2(a) and 40.6(a) by clarifying that the date specified in those regulations refers to the Commission's business day. The proposed regulations ensure that there is at least one full Commission business day between the submission of a certified product or rule and such product or rule's listing or implementation. The proposed regulations provide regulatory clarity and impose no additional cost or burden. The proposed regulations lessen the burden placed on registered entities as well as better utilize Commission resources by codifying several additional rule categories that may be implemented without prior certification or Commission approval if noticed to the Commission through other required filings or disclosure requirements or subsequently included in a weekly notification of rule changes to the Commission under regulation 40.6(c)(2). The proposed regulations add lists of approved producers' brands or markings, changes in lists of approved delivery facilities and delivery service providers, certain changes in contract trading months, and certain specified changes to option contract strike prices to the categories of rules may be implemented without prior certification or Commission approval, or as applicable, notification. Registered entity rules that come within these categories typically are limited in scope and are implemented under enabling rules that have already been approved by, or certified with, the Commission. Permitting their implementation without certification or approval, or as applicable, notification, avoids unnecessary or duplicative regulatory requirements and better utilizes the Commission's resources. B. The Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* , requires that agencies consider the impact of their regulations on small businesses. The requirements related to the proposed amendments fall mainly on registered entities. The Commission has previously determined that registered entities are not “small entities” for the purposes of the RFA. 37 In addition, these proposed regulations, collectively, tend to relieve regulatory burdens. Accordingly, the Chairman, on behalf of the Commission, hereby certifies, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that the actions proposed to be taken herein will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 37 *See* 47 FR 18618 (April 30, 1982). C. Paperwork Reduction Act When publicizing proposed regulations, the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ) imposes certain requirements on Federal agencies (including the Commission) in connection with their conducting or sponsoring any collection of information as defined by the PRA. The information collection requirements associated with the proposed regulations are administered under Office of Management and Budget control numbers 3038-0022 and 3038-0054. These proposed amendments to parts 36 and 40 of the Commission's regulations would not impose any new or additional recordkeeping or information collection requirement that would require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, *et seq.* Accordingly, the PRA is inapplicable. We solicit comment on the accuracy of our estimate that no additional recordkeeping or information collection requirements or changes to existing collection requirements would result from the amendments proposed herein. List of Subjects 17 CFR Part 36 Commodity futures. 17 CFR Part 40 Commodity futures, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. In consideration of the foregoing, and pursuant to the authority contained in the Act, and, in particular, sections 2, 4, 5, 5a, 5b, 5c, 5d and 8a of the Act, the Commission hereby proposes to amend Chapter I of Title 17 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows: PART 36—EXEMPT MARKETS 1. The authority citation for part 36 continues to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2, 5, 6, 6c, and 12a, as amended by the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, Appendix E of Pub. L. 106-554, 114 Stat. 2763 (2000). 2. In § 36.3, revise paragraphs (b)(3)(ii) to read as follows: § 36.3 Exempt commercial markets.
(b)* * *
(3)* * *
(ii)The Commission hereby delegates, until the Commission orders otherwise, the authority to make special calls as set forth in section 2(h)(5)(B)(iii) of the Act to the Directors of the Divisions of Market Oversight, the Division of Clearing and Intermediary Oversight, and the Division of Enforcement to be exercised by each such Director or by such other employee or employees as the Director may designate. The Directors may submit to the Commission for its consideration any matter that has been delegated in this paragraph. Nothing in this paragraph prohibits the Commission, at its election, from exercising the authority delegated in this paragraph. PART 40—PROVISIONS COMMON TO CONTRACT MARKETS, DERIVATIVES TRANSACTION EXECUTION FACILITIES AND DERIVATIVES CLEARING ORGANIZATIONS 3. The authority citation for part 40 continues to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1a, 2, 5, 6, 6c, 7, 7a, 7a-1, 7a-2, 8 and 12a, as amended by appendix E of Pub. L. 106-554, 114 Stat. 2763A-365. 4. In § 40.1, revise paragraph
(a)through
(g)to read as follows: § 40.1 Definitions.
(a)*Business day* means the same-day period of time starting at the business hour of 8:15 a.m. and ending at the *business hour* of 4:45 p.m.; business hour means any hour between 8:15 a.m. and 4:45 p.m., Eastern Standard Time or Eastern Daylight Savings Time, whichever is currently in effect in Washington, DC, on all days except Saturdays, Sundays and federal holidays in Washington, DC.
(b)*Dormant contract or dormant product* means:
(1)Any agreement, contract, transaction, or instrument, or any commodity futures or option contract with respect to all future or option expiries that has no open interest and in which no trading has occurred for a period of twelve complete calendar months following a certification with, or approval by, the Commission; *provided, however* , that no contract or instrument under this paragraph (b)(1) initially and originally certified with, or approved by, the Commission within the preceding 36 complete calendar months shall be considered to be dormant; or
(2)Any commodity futures or option contract or other agreement, contract, transaction or instrument of a dormant registered entity; or
(3)Any commodity futures or option contract or other agreement, contract, transaction or instrument not otherwise dormant that a registered entity self-declares through certification to be dormant.
(c)*Dormant designated contract market* means any designated contract market on which no trading has occurred for a period of twelve complete calendar months; *provided, however* , no designated contract market shall be considered to be dormant if its initial and original Commission order of designation was issued within the preceding 36 complete calendar months.
(d)*Dormant derivatives clearing organization* means any derivatives clearing organization that has not accepted for clearing any agreement, contract or transaction that is required or permitted to be cleared by a derivatives clearing organization under Sections 5b(a) and 5b(b) of the Act, respectively, for a period of twelve complete calendar months; *provided, however* , no derivatives clearing organization shall be considered to be dormant if its initial and original Commission order of registration was issued within the preceding 36 complete calendar months.
(e)*Dormant derivatives transaction execution facility* means any derivatives transaction execution facility on which no trading has occurred for a period of twelve complete calendar months; *provided, however* , no derivatives transaction execution facility shall be considered to be dormant if its initial and original Commission order of designation was issued within the preceding 36 complete calendar months.
(f)*Dormant rule* means:
(1)Any registered entity rule which remains unimplemented for twelve complete calendar months following a certification with, or an approval by, the Commission; or
(2)Any rule or rule amendment of a dormant registered entity.
(g)*Emergency* means any occurrence or circumstance that, in the opinion of the governing board of a registered entity, or a person or persons duly authorized to issue such an opinion on behalf of the governing board of a registered entity under circumstances and pursuant to procedures that are specified by rule, requires immediate action and threatens or may threaten such things as the fair and orderly trading in, or the liquidation of or delivery pursuant to, any agreements, contracts or transactions, including:
(1)Any manipulative or attempted manipulative activity; any actual, attempted, or threatened corner, squeeze, congestion, or undue concentration of positions;
(2)Any circumstances which may materially affect the performance of agreements, contracts or transactions, including failure of the payment system or the bankruptcy or insolvency of any participant; or
(3)Any action taken by any governmental body, or any other registered entity, board of trade, market or facility which may have a direct impact on trading; and any other circumstance which may have a severe, adverse effect upon the functioning of a registered entity. 5. In § 40.2, revise the heading and paragraphs
(a)introductory text, (a)(1) and (a)(2) to read as follows: § 40.2 Listing and accepting products for trading or clearing by certification.
(a)Unless permitted otherwise by § 37.7 of this chapter, a designated contract market or a registered derivatives transaction execution facility must comply with the submission requirements of this section prior to listing a product for trading that has not been approved under § 40.3 of this chapter or that remains dormant subsequent to being submitted under this section or approved under § 40.3 of this chapter. A registered clearing organization must comply with the submission requirements of this section prior to accepting a product for clearing that is not traded on a registered entity and has not been approved for clearing under § 40.5 of this chapter or that remains dormant subsequent to being submitted under this section or approved under § 40.5 of this chapter. A submission shall comply with the following conditions:
(1)The registered entity has filed its submission electronically with the Secretary of the Commission at *submissions@cftc.gov* , the Division of Market Oversight at *DMOSubmissions@cftc.gov* , and the relevant branch chief at the regional office having local jurisdiction over the registered entity, in a format specified by the Secretary of the Commission;
(2)The Commission has received the submission at its headquarters by the open of business on the business day preceding the product's listing or acceptance for clearing; and 6. In § 40.3, revise paragraph
(a)introductory text to read as follows: § 40.3 Voluntary submission of new products for Commission review and approval.
(a)*Request for approval.* Pursuant to Section 5c(c) of the Act and §§ 37.7 and 38.4 of this chapter, a designated contract market or registered derivatives transaction execution facility may request that the Commission approve a new or dormant product prior to listing the product for trading, or if initially submitted under § 40.2 of this chapter, subsequent to listing the product for trading. A submission requesting approval shall: 7. In § 40.4, revise paragraph
(a)and (b)(2) to read as follows: § 40.4 Amendments to terms or conditions of enumerated agricultural contracts.
(a)Notwithstanding the provisions of this part, a designated contract market must submit for Commission approval under the procedures of § 40.5, prior to its implementation, any rule or dormant rule that, for a delivery month having open interest, would materially change a term or condition, as defined in § 40.1(i), of a contract for future delivery in an agricultural commodity enumerated in Section 1a(4) of the Act, or of an option on such a contract or commodity.
(b)* * *
(2)For each delivery location, changes in lists of approved delivery facilities and delivery service providers, including weighmasters and inspectors, pursuant to previously set standards or criteria; 8. In § 40.5, revise paragraphs
(a)introductory text and
(c)introductory text to read as follows: § 40.5 Voluntary submission of rules for Commission review and approval.
(a)*Request for approval of rules.* Pursuant to Section 5c(c) of the Act and §§ 37.7, 38.4 and 39.4 of this chapter, a registered entity may request that the Commission approve a new or dormant rule prior to implementation, or if initially submitted under §§ 40.2 or 40.6 of this chapter, subsequent to implementation. A submission requesting approval shall:
(c)*Commencement and extension of time for review.* The Commission shall commence the review period in paragraph
(b)of this section ten business days after receipt of a compliant submission under § 40.4(b)(9) and further may extend the review period in paragraph
(b)of this section for: 9. Amend § 40.6 as follows: A. Remove the term “designated contract market or registered derivatives clearing organization” and add in its place the term “registered entity” in paragraphs (a)(2), (c)(1), and (c)(3)(i); B. Remove the term “designated contract market or a registered derivatives clearing organization” and add in its place the term “registered entity” in paragraph
(c)introductory text; C. Remove the term “designated contract markets and registered derivatives clearing organizations” and add in its place the term “registered entities” in paragraph (c)(3) introductory text; D. Remove the term “contract market or a derivatives clearing organization's” and add in its place the term “registered entity's” in paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(B); and E. In addition, revise the heading and paragraphs (a), (c)(2)(iii), and (c)(2)(iv), and add paragraphs (c)(2)(vii) through (c)(2)(ix), (c)(3)(ii)(G) and (c)(3)(ii)(H) to read as follows: § 40.6 Self-certification of rules.
(a)*Required certification.* Unless permitted otherwise by § 37.7 of this chapter, a registered entity must comply with the following conditions prior to the implementation of any rule that has not obtained Commission approval under § 40.5 of this chapter or that remains dormant subsequent to being submitted under this section or approved under § 40.5 of this chapter:
(1)* * *
(2)The registered entity has filed its submission electronically with the Secretary of the Commission at *submissions@cftc.gov,* the Division of Market Oversight at *DMOSubmissions@cftc.gov,* and the relevant branch chief at the regional office having local jurisdiction over the registered entity, in a format specified by the Secretary of the Commission, and the Commission has received the submission at its headquarters by the open of business on the business day preceding implementation of the rule; *provided, however* , rules or rule amendments implemented under procedures of the governing board to respond to an emergency as defined in § 40.1, shall, if practicable, be filed with the Commission prior to the implementation or, if not practicable, be filed with the Commission at the earliest possible time after implementation, but in no event more than twenty-four hours after implementation; and
(c)* * *
(2)* * *
(iii)*Index products.* Routine changes in the composition, computation, or method of selection of component entities of an index (other than routine changes to securities indexes to the extent that such changes are not described in paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(F) of this section) referenced and defined in the product's terms, that do not affect the pricing basis of the index, which are made by an independent third party whose business relates to the collection or dissemination of price information and which was not formed solely for the purpose of compiling an index for use in connection with a futures or option product;
(iv)*Option contract terms.* Changes to option contract rules, which may qualify for implementation without notice pursuant to section (c)(3)(ii)(G) of this section, relating to the strike price listing procedures, strike price intervals, and the listing of strike prices on a discretionary basis;
(v)* * *
(vii)*Approved brands.* Changes in lists of approved brands or markings pursuant to previously certified or Commission approved standards or criteria;
(viii)*Delivery facilities and delivery service providers.* Changes in lists of approved delivery facilities and delivery service providers, including weighmasters, assayers, and inspectors, pursuant to previously certified or Commission approved standards or criteria; or
(ix)*Trading Months.* Changes to the listing of trading months, which may qualify for implementation without notice pursuant to section (c)(3)(ii)(H), within the currently established cycle of trading months which do not have open interest.
(3)* * *
(ii)* * *
(G)*Option contract terms.* For registered entities that are in compliance with the daily reporting requirements of § 16.01(b) of this chapter, changes to option contract rules relating to the strike price listing procedures, strike price intervals, and the listing of strike prices on a discretionary basis.
(H)*Trading Months.* For registered entities that are in compliance with the daily reporting requirements of § 16.01(a) of this chapter, changes to the listing of trading months which are within the currently established cycle of trading months and which do not have open interest. Issued in Washington, DC, on August 1, 2007 by the Commission. Eileen A. Donovan, Acting Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. E7-15370 Filed 8-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6351-01-P SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 20 CFR Part 411 [Docket No. SSA-2006-0084] RIN 0960-AG44 Improvements to the Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency Program AGENCY: Social Security Administration. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: We are proposing to revise our regulations for the Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency Program (Ticket to Work program), authorized by the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999. The Ticket to Work program provides beneficiaries with disabilities expanded options for access to employment, vocational rehabilitation, and other support services. The program is an important part of the comprehensive SSA work opportunity initiative which is focused on helping beneficiaries with disabilities who want to work to do so. We are proposing revisions to our current Ticket to Work program rules to simplify and improve the definition of “using a ticket” and our related requirements for measuring “timely progress toward self-supporting employment.” DATES: To be sure your comments are considered, we must receive them by October 12, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may give us your comments by: using the Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* ; e-mail to *regulations@ssa.gov* ; FAX to
(410)966-2830; or letter to the Commissioner of Social Security, P.O. Box 17703, Baltimore, MD 21235-7703. You may also deliver them to the Office of Regulations, Social Security Administration, 107 Altmeyer Building, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. on regular business days. You may also inspect the comments on regular business days by making arrangements with the contact person shown in the preamble. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan O'Brien, Office of Employment Support Programs, Social Security Administration, 107 Altmeyer Building, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, e-mail to *regulations@ssa.gov* , or telephone
(410)597-1632 or TTY
(410)966-5609 for information about these rules. For information on eligibility or filing for benefits, call our national toll-free number 1-800-772-1213 or TTY 1-800-325-0778, or visit our Internet site, Social Security Online, *http://www.socialsecurity.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic Version The electronic file of this document is available on the date of publication in the **Federal Register** at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html* . Background The Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999 Public Law 106-170 was enacted on December 17, 1999. This law added section 1148 of the Social Security Act (Act), which directs the Commissioner of Social Security to establish the Ticket to Work program. Congress provided for the establishment of the Ticket to Work program to provide beneficiaries with a “real choice in obtaining the services and technology they need to find, enter, and maintain employment” in order to “greatly improve their short and long-term financial independence and personal well-being” (section 2(a)(10) of Pub. L. No. 106-170, 113 Stat. 1860, 1863). These proposed revisions to our regulations are based on our experience implementing the existing rules and comments made in response to our request for comment in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM)that we published on September 30, 2005 (70 FR 57222, 57227). In that NPRM, we asked for comment on, among other things, whether and how we should simplify the definition of “using a ticket” and on how we might revise the timely progress requirements set forth in our current rules. As part of the Ticket to Work program, the Commissioner of Social Security (the Commissioner) issues a “ticket” to eligible Social Security disability beneficiaries and to eligible disabled or blind Supplemental Security Income
(SSI)beneficiaries for participation in the program. In this voluntary program, each beneficiary receiving a ticket has the option of using that ticket to obtain services from a provider known as an employment network
(EN)or from a State vocational rehabilitation
(VR)agency. ENs may also choose to whom they provide services. If the beneficiary and an EN or State VR agency agree to work together, the beneficiary and the EN or State VR agency will develop either an individual work plan
(IWP)or an individualized plan for employment
(IPE)which outlines any employment services, vocational rehabilitation services, and other support services necessary to assist the beneficiary to obtain and ultimately maintain self-supporting employment. The EN or State VR agency will provide, without charge to the beneficiary, the services outlined in the IWP or IPE. If the beneficiary achieves certain work outcomes, we will pay the EN or State VR agency for those outcomes based on an established payment schedule. Issues Addressed in These Proposed Rules These proposed changes to our rules on “using a ticket” and the related timely progress requirements are integral to the operation of the Ticket to Work program and are essential to the overall changes we proposed for the program in the September 30, 2005 NPRM. We anticipate issuing one comprehensive final regulation covering the matters addressed in the 2005 NPRM and in this NPRM. In this NPRM, we are proposing changes to our rules for the Ticket to Work program in areas that were not addressed in the September 2005 NPRM. We describe the main changes we are proposing below: • So that the program will be more accessible to beneficiaries who require additional training to return to work, we propose to add requirements for educational or technical training to supplement the work requirements under the timely progress guidelines for beneficiaries; • We propose to revise the work requirements under the timely progress guidelines and the documentation and other requirements for progress reviews to simplify and streamline the process for determining whether a beneficiary is making timely progress toward self-supporting employment; • We propose to eliminate the current “initial 24-month period” after ticket assignment during which a beneficiary is considered to be making timely progress if actively participating in his or her employment plan; • We propose to replace this 24-month period with two successive 12-month progress certification periods during each of which the beneficiary must complete either a work requirement of an educational or technical training requirement in order to be considered to be making timely progress until the next scheduled progress review; and • We propose to recognize one-stop delivery systems established under the program of the U.S. Department of Labor under subtitle B of title I of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 as qualified ENs. ”Using a Ticket” and Related Timely Progress Rules Section 1148(i) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320b-19(i)) provides that “[d]uring any period for which an individual is using * * * a ticket to work and self-sufficiency issued under this section, the Commissioner (and any applicable State agency) may not initiate a continuing disability review * * *.” Section 1148(i) also directs the Commissioner to define the term “using a ticket” for this purpose. Our current rules (§ 411.170) provide that “[t]he period of using a ticket begins on the effective date of the assignment of your ticket to an EN or State VR agency under § 411.140.” They provide in § 411.171 that the period of using a ticket will end with the “day before the effective date of a decision * * * that you are no longer making timely progress toward self-supporting employment.” The period of using a ticket may end earlier, if certain other events occur. The current rules further provide in § 411.180(a) that “[w]e consider you to be making timely progress toward self-supporting employment when you show an increasing ability to work at levels which will reduce or eliminate your dependence on these [disability or blindness] benefits.” Section 411.180(c) of our current rules explains the guidelines we use to determine whether timely progress toward self-supporting employment is being made. Among other things, these guidelines include a goal of three months of work during the 12-month period that begins after the 24th month following the assignment of a ticket to an EN or State VR agency, as described in § 411.140. For subsequent 12-month periods, the current rules require work (as defined in § 411.185) for at least six of the 12 months. We sought to balance two important objectives in establishing the current rules on using a ticket and related timely progress guidelines. First, we sought to define “using a ticket” in a way that should reduce a barrier to beneficiary participation in the program that arises from fear that a return to work would cause benefits to be terminated in a continuing disability review. Second, we sought to maintain the integrity of the disability programs by providing that beneficiaries who have medically improved do not continue to receive disability benefits for an undue length of time. Properly balancing these objectives remains our goal. During the comment period we provided in the September 30, 2005 NPRM, we received numerous comments that educational programs should be equated with work for the purposes of determining timely progress under the Ticket to Work program. We agree with commenters who suggested that disruption of the pursuit of an education program, as our current requirements have the potential to do, is a counterproductive policy. Therefore, in this NPRM, we propose adding an educational and technical training requirement to supplement the work requirement, so that the program will be more accessible to beneficiaries who require additional training to return to work. We are also proposing to eliminate the current “initial 24-month period” during which a beneficiary is considered to be making timely progress toward self-supporting employment if actively participating in his or her employment plan. We propose to eliminate this provision which requires only active participation in the plan for the beneficiary to be considered “using a ticket,” and therefore protected from initiation of a medical continuing disability review (CDR), during the first two years of participation in the program. We also propose to eliminate the current 24-month progress review, which a beneficiary must successfully complete in order to continue to be considered making timely progress and receive CDR protection during the third year of participation. For CDR protection to continue, the program manager must determine in this review that the beneficiary is actively participating in the employment plan; that the plan has a work goal meeting the work requirement for the third year of participation; and that, given the beneficiary's current progress in the plan, he or she can reasonably be expected to reach this goal by the end of the third year of participation. We are also proposing to eliminate the second step of the current 12-month progress reviews, which requires an expectation by both the beneficiary and the EN or State VR agency that the beneficiary will work at the level required during the next 12-month progress review period. We are proposing to replace the “initial 24-month period” with two successive 12-month progress certification periods during each of which the beneficiary must complete either a work requirement or an educational or technical training requirement in order to be considered to be making timely progress until the next scheduled progress review. Thus, while our current rules require a specified level of work beginning with the third year of participation, these proposed rules would require a specified level of work activity (or coursework in an educational or technical training program) beginning with the first year of participation in the Ticket to Work program. The table below summarizes the basic changes we are proposing to make to the definition of “using a ticket” and “timely progress” for purposes of maintaining CDR protection. In the table below, we use the term “SSDI” to refer to all categories of Social Security disability benefits under title II, and the term “SSI” to refer to Supplemental Security Income payments under title XVI based on disability or blindness. Existing regulations Proposed changes 1. Ticket first assigned to an EN or State VR agency. 2A. Timely progress defined for current period: • First 2 years: active participation in plan. 2B. Timely progress defined for purposes of maintaining CDR protection until next scheduled review. • At the end of 2 years: successful completion of 24-month progress review. • 3rd year: 3 months substantial gainful activity (SGA). 1 • 4th year: 6 months SGA. 1 • 5th year and beyond: 6 months of work at level precluding payment of SSDI and Federal SSI benefits. 1 1. Ticket first assigned to an EN or State VR agency acting as an EN, or otherwise in use with State VR agency choosing cost reimbursement. 2. Timely progress defined for purposes of maintaining CDR protection until next scheduled review. • 1st year: 3 months of work at trial work level
(TWL)or 24 post-secondary credit hours or 50% vocational training program. • 2nd year: 6 months of work at TWL or 50 post-secondary credit hours or 100% vocational training program. • 3rd year: 9 months SGA or 70 post-secondary credit hours. • 4th year: 9 months SGA or 100 post-secondary credit hours. • 5th year: 6 months of work at level precluding payment of SSDI and Federal SSI benefits or earned a 4 year degree. • 6th year and beyond: 6 months of work at level precluding payment of SSDI and Federal SSI benefits. 1 Also both beneficiary and EN or State VR agency must expect beneficiary will meet work requirement for next 12-month progress review period. In addition, these proposed rules address concerns expressed by ENs and State VR agencies that the current rules are unnecessarily burdensome. Comments received from some State VR agencies noted that the request for information received from the program manager
(PM)in connection with a 12-month progress review under the timely progress guidelines required the State VR agency to submit evidence of a beneficiary's earnings. The commenters expressed the view that this represented a huge and largely unnecessary administrative burden for State VR agencies. Based on the comments from the State VR agencies and ENs, we propose to change the timely progress requirements to simplify reporting of information for the progress reviews. These proposed rules would generally define “timely progress” based on the achievement of milestones and outcomes under the EN payment systems proposed in the September 30, 2005 NPRM. The comments we received on the proposed expansion of the milestones were generally positive. We did not receive any negative comments that would cause us to change the proposed number of milestones or the periods and levels of work required for the milestones when developing final rules. The level of work and earnings required for outcome payments is mandated by the statute. In that NPRM, we proposed a two-phased milestone system. Phase 1 milestones would be based on the beneficiary working specified periods of time at the trial work period level. For example, the second Phase 1 milestone would be achieved when a beneficiary works three months and has earnings in each of those months at the level for a trial work service month. This is the same standard which we propose for the work requirement during the first 12-month progress certification period in these proposed rules. We also propose to use the trial work earnings level for the six months of work which would be required during the second 12-month progress certification period. A Phase 2 milestone would be achieved when a beneficiary works in a month and has gross earnings above the SGA threshold amount. We are proposing to use this same level of monthly earnings for the proposed nine months of work which would be required during the third and fourth 12-month progress certification periods. The level of earnings for the six months of work which would be required during the fifth and subsequent 12-month progress certification periods would be based on the earnings criteria for an outcome payment month under the EN payment systems. An outcome payment month occurs when a beneficiary's work or earnings are sufficient to preclude payment of Social Security disability benefits and Federal SSI cash benefits. These proposed changes to the work requirements under the timely progress guidelines would allow us to determine administratively, without unnecessarily burdening the beneficiary or EN or State VR agency with requests for information, whether a beneficiary is making timely progress based on information in our EN/State VR agency payment records or our records of the beneficiary's earnings. These proposed rules incorporate certain aspects of the proposed rules in the September 2005 NPRM, which would provide that a beneficiary who has a ticket otherwise available for assignment and who is receiving services under an IPE from a State VR agency which has chosen to be paid under the cost reimbursement payment system will be considered to be “using a ticket,” provided that the beneficiary is making timely progress toward self-supporting employment. The September 2005 NPRM also proposed that:
(1)The ticket of a beneficiary in this situation would not be assigned to the State VR agency;
(2)the beneficiary may assign his or her ticket after State VR services end; and
(3)the period of using a ticket for such a beneficiary would end 90 days after State VR services end. In these proposed rules, we are proposing to change the duration of the “extension period” described in §§ 411.166 and 411.220 from three months to 90 days. We are proposing this change to conform to the proposed 90-day period included in the September 2005 NPRM during which the ticket of a beneficiary in the situation described above may be considered “in use” after State VR services end. In proposed § 411.226, we explain how we will apply the new timely progress provisions to a beneficiary who assigned his or her ticket prior to the effective date of the new rules. Beneficiaries already using a ticket assigned to a State VR agency that chose to be paid under the cost reimbursement payment system, may continue using a ticket under the new rules in subpart C. The new rules include provisions for transitioning to the revised timely progress guidelines. However, the beneficiary's ticket will no longer be considered assigned to that State VR agency beginning on the effective date of the final regulations. We also explain that the beneficiary may assign his or her ticket after the State VR agency has closed his or her case. Participation of One-Stop Delivery Systems as Employment Networks Section 1148(f)(1)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320b-19(f)(1)(B)) provides that an employment network serving under the Ticket to Work program “may consist of a one-stop delivery system established under subtitle B of title I of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998.” Our regulation at 20 CFR 411.305(c) states the same proposition. We are proposing to amend subpart E, §§ 411.310 and 411.315, to further state that one-stop delivery systems under subtitle B of title I of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 may participate in the Ticket to Work program as ENs without responding to our request for proposal (RFP). In light of the nature of the one-stop systems and the statutory reference to them, we are simplifying the approval process for one-stop systems. We have consulted with the Department of Labor, the Federal agency responsible for oversight of the program for the one-stop delivery systems, regarding the entities that comprise one-stop systems and, based on those consultations, we have determined they meet our EN requirements. A one-stop delivery system still must enter into an agreement with us to serve as an EN under the Ticket to Work program and must maintain compliance with the rules that apply to ENs. We will seek to work with the appropriate entities that can enter into EN agreements with us. We believe this change, which would eliminate the RFP process for one-stop systems, will provide our beneficiaries with more choices because it would greatly expand the number of ENs for ticket holders living in all areas of the United States, particularly in counties where no ENs are currently qualified. Issues Addressed in September 2005 Proposed Rules and Why This Second NPRM Is Necessary On September 30, 2005, we published an NPRM (70 FR 57222) proposing some important changes to the existing Ticket to Work program rules. In that NPRM, we proposed changes to the EN payment systems to provide greater incentives for EN participation; to eliminate the requirement for assignment of a beneficiary's ticket to a State VR agency which chooses the cost reimbursement payment system; and to include a rule providing that the ticket of such a beneficiary would be assignable after State VR services end. We also proposed in that NPRM that, for a beneficiary who has a ticket which would otherwise be available for assignment and who is receiving services under an IPE from a State VR agency which has chosen the cost reimbursement payment system, the beneficiary will be considered to be “using a ticket” until 90 days after VR services end, provided the beneficiary is making timely progress toward self-supporting employment. In the September 2005 NPRM, we invited comments from the public on four additional matters. Two of these matters addressed specific changes in our rules proposed in the NPRM. One matter addressed in the NPRM concerned evidence requirements for EN payment; the other matter addressed payment of Phase 1 milestones after State VR services have been completed. We received public comments on both of these subjects, and will address these comments in our final Ticket to Work program rules. The other two matters outlined in the September 2005 NPRM for which we invited public comments did not involve specific proposed changes to our current rules. (70 FR at 57227.) Rather, we requested comments on questions which we presented concerning whether and how we should proceed to develop specific proposed changes. The first of these questions is whether a beneficiary should be eligible for more than one ticket in a single period of entitlement to title II or title XVI benefits. Our current rules provide for only one ticket for each period of entitlement. A number of comments that we received in response to this request pointed out that, in order to sustain gainful employment, many beneficiaries require ongoing support services beyond the period of time over which Milestone or Outcome payments are made. For example, beneficiaries with physical disabilities may require specialized transportation services over an indefinite period to get to and from the worksite, and, thus, may require a longer period of employment support in order to sustain employment. We recognize the concern expressed by the commenters that beneficiaries in some cases may need ongoing supports to sustain employment beyond the period of time over which Milestone or Outcome payments are made. However, we have decided not to propose any changes to our rules in this area at this time. The second question on which we invited comment was whether and how we should simplify the definition of “using a ticket” under the Ticket to Work program and how we might best revise the timely progress requirements consistent with the intent of the legislation. It is primarily this question which we are addressing in this NPRM. As described earlier, this NPRM sets forth proposed changes in our rules to simplify the definition of “using a ticket” and to improve the related timely progress requirements. We believe that these proposed changes will provide greater opportunities for beneficiaries to participate in the Ticket to Work program and enhance their potential for a successful outcome. Since these proposed changes are integral to the overall operation of the Ticket to Work program, we believe that it would be unwise to make final changes in the areas addressed by the September 30, 2005 NPRM before we make final changes in areas addressed by this NPRM. Issuing two separate final rules might both confuse our beneficiaries and impose a significant administrative burden on ENs and State VR agencies, which would be required to make two sets of operational changes based on two separate final rules. Accordingly, we intend to issue one comprehensive final rule on the Ticket to Work program in response to both the September 2005 NPRM and this NPRM. Regulatory Procedures Clarity of These Proposed Rules Executive Order 12866, as amended, requires each agency to write all rules in plain language. In addition to your substantive comments on these proposed rules, we invite your comments on how to make these proposed rules easier to understand. For example: • Have we organized the material to suit your needs? • Are the requirements in the rules clearly stated? • Do the rules contain technical language or jargon that is not clear? • Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) make the rules easier to understand? • Would more (but shorter) sections be better? • Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams? • What else could we do to make the rules easier to understand? Executive Order 12866 We have consulted with the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)and determined that these proposed rules are subject to OMB review because they meet the criteria for a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, as amended. The Office of the Chief Actuary estimates that these proposed rules, if finalized in conjunction with the other provisions of expected final rules for the Ticket to Work program resulting from the NPRM published September 30, 2005 (70 FR 57222), would reduce the total cost of the combined final rules. Specifically, that Office estimates that the projected increased program outlays which would result from the adoption of the rules proposed in the September 2005 NPRM, which are described in that NPRM in the section “Executive Order 12866” (70 FR at 57228), would be reduced by the following amounts ($ in millions) if the rules we are now proposing and the September 2005 proposed rules were adopted in a combined final rule. The main reason for this reduction in cost relative to the September 2005 proposed rules is that the current proposed rule would make changes to the timely progress specifications that are used to determine whether a ticket is in use and thus subject to certain protections against the possibility of benefit termination through a medical continuing disability review (CDR). The net effect of these changes is to shorten the duration of the CDR protection by about 24 months on average. Fiscal year SSDI SSI Total 2008 $<1 $<1 2009 −1 −1 2010 −8 $<1 −8 2011 −27 −1 −27 2012 −50 −3 −53 2013 −59 −4 −63 2014 −65 −3 −68 2015 −69 −3 −72 2016 −72 −3 −75 2017 −73 −8 −82 Totals: 2008-12 −85 −5 −90 2008-17 −423 −26 −449 (Totals may not equal the sum of components due to rounding.) Regulatory Flexibility Act We certify that these proposed rules would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they would primarily affect only individuals and those entities that voluntarily enter into a contractual agreement with us. Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis as provided in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, is not required. Federalism We have reviewed these proposed rules under the threshold criteria of Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” and determined that they do not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. These proposed rules will complement and enhance the existing State vocational rehabilitation program. Paperwork Reduction Act We are proposing to amend our regulations for the Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency Program, authorized under section 1148 of the Social Security Act. The Ticket to Work program provides beneficiaries with disabilities expanded options for access to employment, vocational rehabilitation, and other support services. We are proposing changes to our current Ticket to Work program rules to simplify and improve the definition of “using a ticket” and our related requirements for measuring “timely progress toward self-supporting employment.” As outlined in the table below, proposed §§ 411.192(b) and
(c)and 411.210(b) require beneficiaries to submit a written request to the Program Manager
(PM)to place a ticket in inactive status, reactivate a ticket, or be reinstated to in-use status. In addition, proposed § 411.200(b) requires beneficiaries, ENs and State VR agencies, when requested by the PM, to submit information the PM requires to determine if the beneficiary has met the timely progress guidelines. The requirement for beneficiaries to make a written request to change the status of their ticket, and the requirement for beneficiaries, ENs and State VR agencies to submit information requested by the PM, are public paperwork reporting burdens that require OMB clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Respondents to these collections are Social Security disability beneficiaries, disabled or blind supplemental security income beneficiaries, and ENs and State VR agencies working with these beneficiaries. These burdens are a result of the agency's consideration of public comments received from the September 30, 2005, Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency Program NPRM. Title/section & collection description Annual number of respondents Frequency of response Average burden per response (minutes) Estimated annual burden (hours) Ticket to Work program § 411.192(b) and
(c)What choices do I have if I am temporarily unable to make timely progress toward self-supporting employment? 1,000 One time 30 500 Ticket to Work program § 411.200(b) How will the PM conduct my progress reviews? 27,000 One time 15 6,750 Ticket to Work program § 411.210(b) What happens if I do not make timely progress toward self-supporting employment? 3,145 One time 30 1,573 Total 31,145 8,823 An Information Collection Request has been submitted to OMB for clearance. We are soliciting comments on the burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility and clarity; and on ways to minimize the burden on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments should be sent to OMB by fax or by e-mail to: Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for SSA, *Fax Number:* 202-395-6974, *E-mail address:* *OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov.* Comments on the paperwork burdens associated with this rule will be accepted for up to 60 days after publication of this notice and will be most useful if received within 30 days of publication. Our suggestion of early comments does not affect the deadline for the public to submit comments to SSA on the proposed regulations. These information collection requirements will not become effective until approved by OMB. When OMB has approved these information collection requirements, SSA will publish a notice in the **Federal Register** . To receive a copy of the OMB clearance package, you may call the SSA Reports Clearance Officer on 410-965-0454. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 96.001, Social Security—Disability Insurance; 96.002, Social Security—Retirement Insurance; 96.004, Social Security—Survivors Insurance; and 96.006, Supplemental Security Income) List of Subjects in 20 CFR Part 411 Administrative practice and procedure, Blind, Disability benefits, Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Social Security, Supplemental security income, Public assistance programs, Vocational rehabilitation. Dated: August 3, 2007. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security. For the reasons set out in the preamble, we are proposing to amend subparts C and E of part 411 of chapter III of title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below: PART 411—THE TICKET TO WORK AND SELF-SUFFICIENCY PROGRAM 1. Revise the authority citation for part 411 to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 702(a)(5) and 1148 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5) and 1320b-19); sec. 101(b)-(e), Pub. L. 106-170, 113 Stat. 1860, 1873 (42 U.S.C. 1320b-19 note). Subpart C—[Amended] 2. Revise § 411.166 to read as follows: § 411.166 Glossary of terms used in this subpart.
(a)*Using a ticket* means you have assigned a ticket to an Employment Network
(EN)or a State VR agency that has elected to serve you as an EN, and you are making timely progress toward self-supporting employment as defined in § 411.180; or you have a ticket that would otherwise be available for assignment and are receiving VR services pursuant to an individualized plan for employment
(IPE)and the State VR agency has chosen to be paid for these services under the cost reimbursement payment system, and you are making timely progress toward self-supporting employment as defined in § 411.180. (See § 411.171 for when the period of using a ticket ends.)
(b)Timely progress toward self-supporting employment means you have completed the specified goals of work and earnings, completed post-secondary education credits at an educational institution (see § 411.167) in pursuit of a degree or certificate, or completed course requirements for a vocational or technical training program at an educational institution consisting of a technical, trade or vocational school (see § 411.167), in the applicable progress certification period as described in § 411.180.
(c)Timely progress guidelines mean the guidelines we use to determine if you are making timely progress toward self-supporting employment (see § 411.180).
(d)Progress certification period means any 12-month progress certification period described in § 411.180(b).
(e)Progress review means the reviews the PM conducts to determine if you are meeting the timely progress guidelines described in § 411.180. We explain the method for conducting progress reviews in § 411.200.
(f)Extension period is a period of up to 90 days during which you may reassign a ticket without being subject to continuing disability reviews. You may be eligible for an extension period if the ticket is in use and no longer assigned to an EN or State VR agency acting as an EN (see § 411.220).
(g)Inactive status is a status in which you may place your ticket if you are temporarily unable to make timely progress toward self-supporting employment during a progress certification period. See § 411.192 for the rules on placing your ticket in inactive status and on reactivating your ticket. 3. Add § 411.167 to read as follows: § 411.167 What is an educational institution or a technical, trade or vocational school?
(a)Educational institution means a school (including a technical, trade, or vocational school), junior college, college or university that is: operated or directly supported by the United States; operated or directly supported by any State or local government or by a political subdivision of any State or local government; or approved by a State agency or subdivision of the State, or accredited by a State-recognized or nationally recognized accrediting body.
(b)Technical, trade or vocational school is an educational institution that is approved by a State agency or subdivision of the State or accredited by a State-recognized or nationally recognized accrediting body to provide technical, trade or vocational training.
(c)State-recognized accrediting body means an entity designated or recognized by a State as the proper authority for accrediting schools, colleges or universities.
(d)Nationally recognized accrediting body means an entity determined to be such by the U.S. Department of Education.
(e)Approval by a State agency or subdivision of the State includes approval of a school, college or university as an educational institution, or approval of one or more of the courses offered by a school, college or university. 4. Revise paragraph
(b)of § 411.171 to read as follows: § 411.171 When does the period of using a ticket end?
(b)The day before the effective date of a decision under § 411.200 or § 411.205 that you are no longer making timely progress toward self-supporting employment; 5. Revise § 411.180 to read as follows: § 411.180 What is timely progress toward self-supporting employment?
(a)*General.* We consider you to be making timely progress toward self-supporting employment when you show progress toward the ability to work at levels which will reduce your dependence on Social Security disability benefits or SSI benefits. We will also consider you to be making timely progress if you show progress toward obtaining an educational degree or certificate, or vocational or technical training that will enhance your ability to return to work.
(b)*12-month progress certification periods.* The first 12-month progress certification period begins with the month following the month in which you first assigned your ticket, or the month after you have a ticket that would otherwise be available for assignment and are receiving VR services under an IPE from a State VR agency which has chosen to be paid under the cost reimbursement payment system. Any subsequent 12-month progress certification period will begin with the month following the end of the previous 12-month progress certification period. In computing any 12-month progress certification period, we do not count any month during which— (1)(i) Your ticket is not assigned; and
(ii)You have a ticket available for assignment and are not receiving services under an IPE from a State VR agency which chose the cost reimbursement payment system; or
(2)Your ticket is in inactive status (see § 411.192).
(c)We will determine if you are making timely progress toward self-supporting employment by using the following guidelines:
(1)During the first 12-month progress certification period, you must be making timely progress as follows:
(i)You must have worked in at least three months within this 12-month period and have earnings in each of those three months that are equal to or greater than the amount representing a trial work service month (see § 404.1592(b) of this chapter); or
(ii)You must have been enrolled in a four-year degree or certification program at an educational institution and have completed at least 24 post-secondary credit hours, or the equivalent of one academic year of full-time study, in the program by the end of this 12-month period; or
(iii)You must have been enrolled in a vocational or technical training program at an educational institution consisting of a technical, trade or vocational school and have completed at least 50 percent of the course requirements of the program by the end of this 12-month period.
(2)During the second 12-month progress certification period, at the conclusion of 24 months of ticket use, you must be making timely progress as follows:
(i)You must have worked in at least six months within this 12-month period and have earnings in each of those six months that are equal to or greater than the amount representing a trial work service month (see § 404.1592(b) of this chapter); or
(ii)You must have been enrolled in a four-year degree or certification program at an educational institution and completed a cumulative total of 50 post-secondary credit hours, or the equivalent of two academic years of full-time study, in the program by the end of this 12-month period; or
(iii)You must have been enrolled in a vocational or technical training program at an educational institution consisting of a technical, trade or vocational school and have completed the course requirements of the program by the end of this 12-month period.
(3)During the third 12-month progress certification period, at the conclusion of 36 months of ticket use, you must be making timely progress as follows:
(i)You must have worked in at least nine months within this 12-month period and have gross earnings from employment (or net earnings from self-employment as defined in § 404.1080 of this chapter) in each of those nine months that are more than the SGA threshold amount specified in § 404.1574(b)(2) of this chapter; or
(ii)You must have been enrolled in a four-year degree or certification program at an educational institution and completed a cumulative total of 70 post-secondary credit hours, or the equivalent of three academic years of full-time study, in the program by the end of this 12-month period.
(4)During the fourth 12-month progress certification period, at the conclusion of 48 months of ticket use, you must be making timely progress as follows:
(i)You must have worked in at least nine months within this 12-month period and have gross earnings from employment (or net earnings from self-employment as defined in § 404.1080 of this chapter) in each of those nine months that are more than the SGA threshold amount specified in § 404.1574(b)(2) of this chapter; or
(ii)You must have been enrolled in a four-year degree or certification program at an educational institution and completed a cumulative total of 100 post-secondary credit hours, or the equivalent of four academic years of full-time study, in the program by the end of this 12-month period.
(5)During the fifth 12-month progress certification period, at the conclusion of 60 months of ticket use, you must be making timely progress as follows:
(i)You must have worked in at least six months within this 12-month period and have earnings in each of those six months that preclude payment of Social Security disability benefits and Federal SSI cash benefits; or
(ii)You must have completed the course work and earned a degree or certificate from a four-year degree or certification program at an educational institution by the end of this 12-month period.
(6)During all subsequent 12-month progress certification periods, you must have worked in at least six months within the 12-month period and have earnings in each of those six months that preclude payment of Social Security disability benefits and Federal SSI cash benefits. § 411.185 [Removed] 6. Remove § 411.185. § 411.190 [Removed] 7. Remove § 411.190. 8. Add § 411.192 to read as follows: § 411.192 What choices do I have if I am temporarily unable to make timely progress toward self-supporting employment?
(a)If you report to the PM that you are temporarily unable to make timely progress toward self-supporting employment during a progress certification period, the PM will give you the choice of placing your ticket in inactive status or, if applicable, taking your ticket out of assignment.
(b)You may place your ticket in inactive status at any time by submitting a written request to the PM asking that your ticket be placed in inactive status. Your ticket will be placed in inactive status beginning with the first day of the month following the month in which you make your request. You are not considered to be using a ticket during months in which your ticket is in inactive status, thus you will be subject to continuing disability reviews during those months. The months in which your ticket is in inactive status do not count toward the time limitations for making timely progress toward self-supporting employment.
(c)You may reactivate your ticket and return to in-use status if your ticket is still assigned to an EN or State VR agency acting as an EN. You may also reactivate your ticket and return to in-use status if you have a ticket which would otherwise be available for assignment, you were receiving services under an IPE from a State VR agency which chose the cost reimbursement payment system and your VR case has not been closed by the State VR agency. You may reactivate your ticket by submitting a written request to the PM. Your ticket will be reactivated beginning with the first day of the month following the month in which the PM receives your request. The progress certification period will resume counting from the last month of in-use status, and the next progress review will be due when the progress certification period has been completed. Earnings from work, or completion of post-secondary education credits in a four-year degree or certification program or course requirements in a vocational or technical training program, as described in § 411.180, during the period your ticket is in inactive status may be counted toward meeting the requirements for the next progress review.
(d)You may take your ticket out of assignment under § 411.145(a) at any time. § 411.195 [Removed] 9. Remove § 411.195. 10. Revise § 411.200 to read as follows: § 411.200 How will the PM conduct my progress reviews? The PM will conduct a progress review at the end of each 12-month progress certification period.
(a)The PM will first review the available administrative records to determine if you completed the work requirements as specified in § 411.180 in the applicable progress certification period.
(b)If the administrative records do not indicate that you met the work requirements, the PM will contact either you or your EN or State VR agency to request additional information to determine if you completed the work requirements or have met the educational or training requirements as specified in § 411.180 in the applicable progress certification period.
(c)If the PM finds that you completed the work requirements or met the educational or training requirements as specified in § 411.180 in the applicable progress certification period, the PM will find that you are making timely progress toward self-supporting employment. On the basis of that finding, we will consider you to be making timely progress toward self-supporting employment until your next scheduled progress review.
(d)If the PM finds that you did not complete the work requirements or meet the educational or training requirements as specified in § 411.180 in the applicable progress certification period, the PM will find that you are not making timely progress toward self-supporting employment. If the PM makes such a finding, the PM will send a written notice of the decision to you at your last known address. This notice will explain the reasons for the decision and inform you of the right to ask us to review the decision. This decision will be effective 30 days after the date on which the PM sends the notice of the decision to you, unless you request that we review the decision under § 411.205. 11. In § 411.210, revise paragraph (b), the heading of paragraph (c), and the fourth sentences of both paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) to read as follows: § 411.210 What happens if I do not make timely progress toward self-supporting employment?
(b)*Re-entering in-use status.* If you failed to meet the timely progress guidelines for a 12-month progress certification period and you believe that you have now met the applicable requirements for that progress certification period as described in § 411.180, you may request that you be reinstated to in-use status. In order to do so, you must submit a written request to the PM asking that you be reinstated to in-use status and you must provide evidence showing that you have met the applicable requirements for the progress certification period. The PM will decide whether you have satisfied the applicable requirements for the progress certification period and may be reinstated to in-use status. If the PM determines you have met the applicable requirements for the progress certification period, you will be reinstated to in-use status, provided that your ticket is assigned to an EN or State VR agency acting as an EN, or you have a ticket which would otherwise be available for assignment and you are receiving services under an IPE from a State VR agency which has chosen the cost reimbursement payment system. See paragraph
(c)of this section for when your reinstatement to in-use status will be effective. After you are reinstated to in-use status, your next 12-month progress certification period will begin.
(c)*Decisions on re-entering in-use status.*
(1)* * * If the PM decides that you have satisfied the requirements for re-entering in-use status (including the requirement that your ticket be assigned to an EN or State VR agency acting as an EN, or that you have a ticket which would otherwise be available for assignment and are receiving services under an IPE from a State VR agency that has chosen the cost reimbursement payment system), you will be reinstated to in-use status effective with the date on which the PM sends the notice of the decision to you. * * *
(2)* * * If we decide that you have satisfied the requirements for re-entering in-use status (including the requirement that your ticket be assigned to an EN or State VR agency acting as an EN, or that you have a ticket which would otherwise be available for assignment and are receiving services under an IPE from a State VR agency that has chosen the cost reimbursement payment system), you will be reinstated to in-use status effective with the date on which we send the notice of the decision to you. 12. In § 411.220, revise the first sentence of paragraph (a), revise paragraph (d)(2), remove paragraph (e), and redesignate paragraph
(f)as paragraph
(e)to read as follows: § 411.220 What if my ticket is no longer assigned to an EN or State VR agency?
(a)If your ticket was once assigned to an EN or State VR agency acting as an EN and is no longer assigned, you are eligible for an extension period of up to 90 days to reassign your ticket. * * *
(d)* * *
(2)Ends 90 days after it begins or when you assign your ticket to a new EN or State VR agency, whichever is sooner. 13. In § 411.225, revise paragraphs
(b)and (c), and remove paragraph
(d)to read as follows: § 411.225 What if I reassign my ticket after the end of the extension period?
(b)*Time limitations for the timely progress guidelines.* Any month during which your ticket is not assigned and you have a ticket available for assignment and are not receiving services under an IPE from a State VR agency which chose the cost reimbursement payment system, either during or after the extension period, will not count toward the time limitations for the timely progress guidelines.
(c)*If you reassign your ticket after the end of the extension period.* If you reassign your ticket after the end of the extension period, the period comprising the remaining months in the applicable 12-month progress certification period will begin with the first month beginning after the day on which the reassignment of your ticket is effective under § 411.150(c). 14. Add § 411.226 to read as follows: § 411.226 How will SSA determine if I am meeting the timely progress guidelines if I assign my ticket prior to [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL REGULATIONS]?
(a)If you assigned your ticket to an EN or State VR agency prior to [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL REGULATIONS], we will use the guidelines in § 411.180(c) to determine whether you are making timely progress toward self-supporting employment on or after that date. We will consider you to be in the first or a subsequent 12-month progress certification period under § 411.180 as of that date. We will determine your applicable 12-month progress certification period and the number of months remaining in that period as of that date by counting all months during which your ticket was assigned and in use during the period—
(1)Beginning with the month following the month in which you first assigned your ticket under the rules in effect prior to that date; and
(2)Ending with the close of the month immediately before that date.
(b)Subsequent 12-month progress certification periods will follow the rules in § 411.180.
(c)If, on [DATE ONE DAY BEFORE EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL REGULATIONS], your ticket is in use and assigned to a State VR agency which chose to be paid for services it provides to you under the cost reimbursement payment system, your period of using a ticket may continue under the rules in this subpart, including the rules in paragraphs
(a)and
(b)of this section. However, your ticket will no longer be considered assigned to that State VR agency effective [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL REGULATIONS]. You may assign your ticket after the State VR agency has closed your case. Subpart E—[Amended] 15. Add paragraph
(d)to § 411.310 to read as follows: § 411.310 How does an entity other than a State VR agency apply to be an EN and who will determine whether an entity qualifies as an EN?
(d)One-stop delivery systems established under subtitle B of title I of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2811 *et seq.* ) may participate in the Ticket to Work program as ENs and do not need to respond to the RFP. However, in order to participate in the Ticket to Work program, the one-stop delivery system must enter into an agreement with the Commissioner to be an EN and must maintain compliance with general and specific selection criteria as described in § 411.315 in order to remain an EN. 16. Add paragraph
(e)to § 411.315 to read as follows: § 411.315 What are the minimum qualifications necessary to be an EN?
(e)One-stop delivery systems established under subtitle B of title I of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2811 *et seq.* ) are qualified to be ENs. A one-stop delivery system must enter into an agreement with the Commissioner to be an EN and must maintain compliance with general and specific selection criteria of this section and § 411.305 in order to remain an EN. [FR Doc. E7-15715 Filed 8-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4191-02-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [REG-138707-06] RIN 1545-BF90 Exclusions From Gross Income of Foreign Corporations; Correction AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Correction to notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations. SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations (REG-138707-06) that were published in the **Federal Register** on Monday, June 25, 2007 (72 FR 34650) modifying final regulations issued under section 883(a) and
(c)of the Internal Revenue Code, relating to income derived by foreign corporations from the international operation of ships or aircraft. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia A. Bray,
(202)622-3880 (not a toll-free number). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations that are the subject of this correction are under section 883(a) and
(c)of the Internal Revenue Code. Need for Correction As published, notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations (REG-138707-06) contains errors that may prove to be misleading and are in need of clarification. Correction of Publication Accordingly, the publication of the proposed regulations (REG-138707-06), which was the subject of FR Doc. E7-12037, is corrected as follows: 1. On page 34650, column 2, in the preamble, under the paragraph heading “ *Paperwork Reduction Act* ”, line 1 of the fourth paragraph, the language “Whether the proposed collection of” is corrected to read “Whether the proposed collections of”. 2. On page 34650, column 2, in the preamble, under the paragraph heading “ *Paperwork Reduction Act* ”, line 2 of the fifth paragraph, the language “associated with the proposed collection” is corrected to read “associated with the proposed collections”. 3. On page 34651, column 1, in the preamble, under the paragraph heading “ *Comments and Public Hearing* ”, line 7, the language “and Treasury Department specifically” is corrected to read “and the Treasury Department specifically”. 4. On page 34651, column 2, in the preamble, under the paragraph heading “ *Drafting Information* ”, line 5, the language “personnel from the IRS and Treasury” is corrected to read “personnel from the IRS and the Treasury”. LaNita Van Dyke, Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration). [FR Doc. E7-15273 Filed 8-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD 36 CFR Part 1196 [Docket No. 2007-03] RIN 3014-AA22 Passenger Vessel Emergency Alarms Advisory Committee AGENCY: Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board. ACTION: Notice of establishment; appointment of members; date of first meeting. SUMMARY: The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) has decided to establish an advisory committee to make recommendations on issues related to the effectiveness of emergency alarm systems for individuals with hearing loss or deafness on passenger vessels. This notice also announces the time and place of the first Committee meeting. DATES: The first meeting of the Committee is scheduled for September 19 and 20, 2007 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on both days. Decisions with respect to future meetings will be made at the first meeting and from time to time thereafter. Notices of future meetings will be published in the **Federal Register** . ADDRESSES: The first meeting of the Committee will be held at the Access Board's offices, 1331 F Street, NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Beatty, Office of Technical and Information Services, Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, 1331 F Street, NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 2004-1111. Telephone number
(202)272-0012 (Voice);
(202)272-0082 (TTY). These are not toll-free numbers. E-mail address: *pvag@access-board.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 25, 2007, the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) published a notice of intent to establish an advisory committee to make recommendations on issues related to the effectiveness of emergency alarm systems for individuals with hearing loss or deafness on passenger vessels. (72 FR 34653; June 25, 2007). The notice identified the interests that are likely to be significantly affected by this rulemaking: • Individuals with hearing loss or deafness, and other individuals with disabilities concerned about emergency alarm systems on passenger vessels; • Passenger vessel operators; • Manufacturers and designers of emergency alarm systems on passenger vessels; and • Voluntary codes and standards groups which address emergency alarms on passenger vessels. For the reasons stated in the notice of intent, the Access Board has determined that establishing the Passenger Vessel Emergency Alarms Advisory Committee (Committee) is necessary and in the public interest. The Access Board has appointed the following organizations as members to the Committee: • Community Emergency Preparedness Information Network. • Cruise Lines International Association. • Epilepsy Foundation. • Gallaudet University. • Hearing Access Program. • Hearing Loss Association of America. • National Association of the Deaf. • National Fire Protection Association. • Passenger Vessel Association. • Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers. Committee meetings will be open to the public and interested persons can attend the meetings and communicate their views. Members of the public will have opportunities to address the Committee on issues of interest to them and the Committee. Members of groups or individuals who are not members of the Committee may also have the opportunity to participate with subcommittees of the Committee. The Access Board believes that participation of this kind can be very valuable for the advisory committee process. Additionally, all interested persons will have the opportunity to comment when proposed rules regarding passenger vessel accessibility are issued in the **Federal Register** by the Access Board. The meeting site is accessible to individuals with disabilities. Sign language interpreters, an assistive listening system, and computer assisted real-time transcription
(CART)will be provided. Persons attending the meeting are requested to refrain from using perfume, cologne, and other fragrances for the comfort of other participants. Tricia Mason, Chair, Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board. [FR Doc. 07-3934 Filed 8-10-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 48
Traces to 48 documents
register
U.S. Code
- Federal Aviation Administration§ 106
- Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings§ 552
- EXPEDITED PROCESSING OF REQUESTS FOR JAPANESE IMPERIAL GOVERNMENT RECORDS.§ 804
- Definitions; generally§ 321
- New animal drugs§ 360b
- Rules and regulations§ 7805
- Rule making§ 553
- Avoidance of duplicative or unnecessary analyses§ 605
- Establishment, functions, and activities§ 272
- Transferred§ 1226
- Transferred§ 191
- Definitions§ 601
- Purposes§ 3501
- SHORT TITLE.§ 801
- Congressional findings and declaration of purpose§ 7401
- Passenger motor vehicle information§ 32302
- Transferred§ 450
- Additional inspection services§ 136
- SHORT TITLE.§ 9701
- Domestic distribution§ 2111
- Establishment and transfers§ 5841
- Authority and functions of Director§ 3504
- Jurisdiction of Commission; liability of principal for act of agent; Commodity Futures Trading Commission; transaction in interstate commerce§ 2
- Common provisions applicable to registered entities§ 7a–2
- Definitions§ 1a
- The Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency Program§ 1320b–19
- Commissioner; Deputy Commissioner; other officers§ 902
- Repealed. Pub. L. 113–128, title V, § 511(a), July 22, 2014, 128 Stat. 1705§ 2811
CFR
- May I address the unsafe condition in a way other than that set out in the airworthiness directive?§ 39.19
- Names, addresses, and drug labeler codes of sponsors of approved applications.§ 510.600
- Confidentiality of data and information in a new animal drug application file.§ 514.11
- Animal drugs.§ 25.33
- Ampicillin injectable dosage forms.§ 522.90
- Delegation of rulemaking authority.§ 1.05-1
- Security Zones; Port of Palm Beach, Port Everglades, and Port of Miami, Florida.§ 165.760
- Definitions.§ 40.1
- Prohibited use of data collected for regulatory purposes.§ 37.7
- Self-certification of rules.§ 40.6
- Amendments to terms or conditions of enumerated agricultural products.§ 40.4
- Definitions.§ 1.3
- Publication of market data on futures, swaps and options thereon: trading volume, open contracts, prices, and critical dates.§ 16.01
- Who is eligible to be an EN?§ 411.305
55 references not yet in our index
- 14 CFR 39
- 1 CFR 51
- 14 CFR 73
- 21 CFR 20
- 5 USC 801-808
- 21 CFR 510
- 21 CFR 529
- 21 CFR 522
- 26 CFR 1
- T.D. 9332
- 118 Stat. 1418
- 33 CFR 165
- 5 USC 601-612
- Pub. L. 104-121
- 44 USC 3501-3520
- 2 USC 1531-1538
- 42 USC 4321-4370f
- Pub. L. 107-295
- 40 CFR 52
- 40 CFR 63
- 40 CFR 51
- Pub. L. 104-4
- 40 CFR 50
- 472 F.3d 882
- 40 CFR 93
- 40 CFR 81
- 49 CFR 575
- 119 Stat. 1144
- 15 USC 1231-1233
- 49 CFR 567.7
- 49 CFR 567
- Pub. L. 104-414
- 114 Stat. 1800
- Pub. L. 109-59
- 49 CFR 1.50
- 9 CFR 94
- 9 CFR 94.6
- 9 CFR 93
- 7 CFR 2.22
- 10 CFR 32
+ 15 more
Citation graph
cites case law
Rules and Regulations
Final rule; request for comments
F. App'x472 F.3d 882
Cite14 CFR 39
Cite1 CFR 51
Cites 103 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources