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

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2007-08-20 · Office of the Secretary, DoD · Rules and Regulations

Rules and Regulations. Interim final rule with comment period

58,754 words·~267 min read·/register/2007/08/20/07-4051

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

BILLING CODE 4810-35-M DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary 32 CFR Part 199 [DOD-2006-HA-0207] RIN 0720-AB15 Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS); TRICARE Reserve Select for Members of the Selected Reserve AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DoD. ACTION: Interim final rule with comment period. SUMMARY: This interim final rule revises requirements and procedures for TRICARE Reserve Select and restructures eligibility to include all Selected Reservists, except for those individuals either enrolled or eligible to enroll in a health benefit plan under Chapter 89 of Title 5, United States Code.
The rule is being published as an interim final rule with comment period in order to comply with statutory effective dates. DATES: *Effective Date:* This rule is effective October 1, 2007. Submit comments on or before September 19, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number and or RIN number and title, by any of the following methods: Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Mail: Federal Docket Management System Office, 1160 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1160.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number or Regulatory Information Number
(RIN)for this **Federal Register** document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at *http://regulations.gov* as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jody Donehoo, TRICARE Management Activity, TRICARE Operations, telephone
(703)681-0039. Questions regarding payment of specific claims under the TRICARE allowable charge method should be addressed to the appropriate TRICARE contractor. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction and Background A previous interim final rule was published in the **Federal Register** on March 16, 2005, (70 FR 12798-12805) that established requirements and procedures to implement TRICARE Reserve Select under section 701 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (NDAA-05) (Pub. L. 108-375). Section 701 of NDAA-05 authorized premium-based medical coverage for certain members of the Selected Reserve and their family members. By April 2005, Selected Reserve members who served on active duty in support of a contingency operation and fulfilled other statutory qualifications could purchase TRICARE Reserve Select coverage for periods proportional to their period of active duty. A second interim final rule was published in the **Federal Register** on June 21, 2006, (71 FR 35527-35537). That interim final rule revised requirements and procedures for TRICARE Reserve Select pursuant to sections 701 and 702 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (NDAA-06) (Pub. L. 109-163). Section 701 enhanced the existing TRICARE Reserve Select program. Section 702 added two new tiers of premium sharing by the government (50 percent and 85 percent member portion) to the existing premium tier (28 percent member portion), making TRICARE Reserve Select available to all Selected Reservists. Before a final rule could be issued subsequent to the interim final rule published in the **Federal Register** on June 21, 2006, (71 FR 35527-35537) for the TRICARE Reserve Select program, Section 706 of the NDAA-07 amended the statutory provisions in sections 701 and 702 of the NDAA-06 which were implemented in the interim final rule. Therefore, this interim rule addresses provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (NDAA-07) (Pub. L. 109-364). First, section 706 of the NDAA-07 expands the availability of the 28 percent premium tier to all Selected Reservists with one exception. Those individuals either enrolled or eligible to enroll in a health benefit plan under Chapter 89 of Title 5, United States Code are specifically excepted from eligibility under this legislation. Second, this section eliminates fixed length periods of coverage. Third, this section eliminates the 50 percent and 85 percent premium tiers to reflect the repeal of Section 1076b of Title 10, United States Code, in its entirety. The law authorizing the TRICARE Reserve Select program uses the term “eligibility” to identify conditions under which a Reserve component member may purchase coverage. For purposes of program administration, the terms “qualifying” or “qualified” shall generally be used in lieu of such terms as “eligibility” or “eligible” to refer to a Reserve component member who meets the program requirements allowing purchase of TRICARE Reserve Select coverage. The latter interim rule (June 21, 2006) introduced certain terminology for TRICARE Reserve Select intended to reflect critical elements that distinguish it from other long-established TRICARE health programs. For instance, the effective date of eligibility for TRICARE has long been understood to mean that the eligible individual may obtain care under the military health system as of that date. However, that is not what it means in the context of TRICARE Reserve Select. To avoid the inevitable misunderstanding, this rule uses the term “qualify” to mean that the member has satisfied all the “qualifications” that must be met before the member is authorized to purchase coverage. Only then may the member purchase coverage by submitting a completed request in the appropriate format along with payment of the applicable one month premium. The term “coverage” indicates the benefit of TRICARE covering claims submitted by TRICARE authorized providers, hospitals, and suppliers for payment of covered services, supplies, and equipment. II. TRICARE Reserve Select Program A. *Establishment of the TRICARE Reserve Select Program* (paragraph 199.24(a)). This paragraph describes the nature, purpose, statutory basis, scope, and major features of TRICARE Reserve Select, a premium-based medical coverage program that was made available worldwide to certain members of the Selected Reserve and their family members. TRICARE Reserve Select is authorized by 10 U.S.C. 1076d. The major features of the program include the following. TRICARE Reserve Select coverage is available for purchase by any Selected Reserve member if the member fulfills all of the statutory qualifications. The amount of the premium that members pay is prescribed by the Secretary of Defense as one premium for member-only coverage and a second premium for member and family coverage. The statute eliminates the former tiered premium rate structure of TRICARE Reserve Select. Additionally, TRICARE rules apply unless otherwise specified; certain special TRICARE programs are not part of TRICARE Reserve Select, including the Extended Care Health Option
(ECHO)program, the Special Supplemental Food Program (also known as the Women, Infants, and Children—Overseas Program), and the Supplemental Health Care Program, except when referred by a Military Treatment Facility
(MTF)provider for incidental consults and the MTF provider maintains clinical control over the episode of care. The TRICARE Dental Program is already available under 10 U.S.C. 1076a to all members of the Selected Reserve and their family members whether or not they purchase TRICARE Reserve Select coverage. Under TRICARE Reserve Select, Selected Reserve members who fulfill all of the statutory qualifications may purchase either the member-only type of coverage or the member and family type of coverage by submitting a completed request in the appropriate format along with payment of the applicable monthly premium at the time of enrollment. When their coverage becomes effective, TRICARE Reserve Select beneficiaries receive the TRICARE Standard (and Extra) benefit. TRICARE Reserve Select features the deductible and cost share provisions of the TRICARE Standard (and Extra) plan for active duty family members
(ADFM)for both the member and covered family members. B. *TRICARE Reserve Select premiums* (paragraph 199.24(b)). Members are charged premiums for coverage under TRICARE Reserve Select that represent 28 percent of the total annual premium amount that the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Health Affairs (ASD(HA)) determines on an appropriate actuarial basis as being appropriate for coverage under the TRICARE Standard (and Extra) benefit for the TRICARE Reserve Select eligible population. Premiums are to be paid monthly, except as otherwise established as part of the administrative implementation of TRICARE Reserve Select. Annual rates for the first year TRICARE Reserve Select was offered
(2005)were based on the calendar year annual premiums for the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Standard Service Benefit Plan under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, a nationwide plan closely resembling TRICARE Standard (and Extra) coverage, with an adjustment based on estimated differences in covered populations, as determined by the ASD(HA). Based on an analysis of demographic differences between Blue Cross and Blue Shield members and beneficiaries eligible for TRICARE Reserve Select, the adjustment amount in calendar year 2005 represented a 32 percent reduction from the Blue Cross and Blue Shield annual premium for member-only coverage and represented an 8 percent reduction from the Blue Cross and Blue Shield annual premium for member and family coverage. (The difference in the percentage reductions between member-only and member and family premiums is due to the disproportionately high number of high cost, single, elderly retiree federal employees covered by Blue Cross and Blue Shield member-only coverage). TRICARE Reserve Select monthly premium rates are established and updated annually, on a calendar year basis, to maintain an appropriate relationship with the annual changes in Blue Cross and Blue Shield premiums, or by other adjustment methodology determined to be appropriate by the ASD(HA) for each of the two types of coverage, member-only coverage and member and family coverage, on a calendar year basis. The monthly rate for each month of a calendar year is one-twelfth of the annual rate for that calendar year. In addition to these annual premium changes, premium adjustments may also be made prospectively for any calendar year to reflect any significant program changes or any actual experience in the costs of administering the TRICARE Reserve Select Program. A surviving family member of a Reserve Component service member who qualified for TRICARE Reserve Select coverage as described in paragraph (c)(3) of this section will pay premium rates as follows. The premium amount shall be at the member-only rate if there is only one surviving family member to be covered by TRICARE Reserve Select and at the member and family rate if there are two or more survivors to be covered. C. *Eligibility for qualifying to purchase TRICARE Reserve Select coverage* (paragraph 199.24(c)). This paragraph defines the statutory conditions under which members of a Reserve component may qualify to purchase TRICARE Reserve Select coverage. Section 706 of NDAA-07 restructures the availability of the 28 percent premium tier by requiring only two qualifying conditions. The qualifying condition to be “a member of the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve of a reserve component of the armed forces,” remains in force while all of the other former qualifying conditions are eliminated. The member's Service personnel office is responsible for keeping the Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS) current with eligibility data. One exclusionary qualifying condition is added that excludes “a member who is enrolled, or is eligible to enroll, in a health benefits plan under chapter 89 of title 5 U.S.C,” from purchasing TRICARE Reserve Select coverage. If a member of the Selected Reserve dies while in a period of TRICARE Reserve Select coverage, the family member(s) may purchase new or continue existing TRICARE Reserve Select coverage for up to six months beyond the date of the member's death upon payment of monthly premiums. D. *Procedures* (paragraph 199.24(d)). — *Purchasing Coverage.* A qualified member, including surviving family members, may purchase one of two types of coverage: member-only coverage or member and family coverage. Immediate family members of the Reserve component member, as defined in section 199.3(b)(2)(i) (except former spouses) and 199.3 (b)(2)(ii) of this Part, may be included in such family coverage. To purchase either type of TRICARE Reserve Select coverage for effective dates of coverage described below, Reserve component members qualified under paragraph 199.24(c) must complete and submit a request in the appropriate format, along with an initial payment of the monthly premium share required under paragraph 199.24(b), to the appropriate TRICARE contractor in accordance with deadlines and other procedures established by the ASD(HA). — *Continuation Coverage.* Deadlines and other procedures may be established for a qualified member to purchase TRICARE Reserve Select coverage with an effective date immediately following the date of termination of coverage under another TRICARE program in which the member is the sponsor. — *Qualifying Life Event.* Deadlines and other procedures may be established for a qualified member to purchase TRICARE Reserve Select coverage on the occasion of a qualifying life event that changes the immediate family composition (e.g., birth, adoption, divorce, etc.) that is eligible for coverage under TRICARE Reserve Select. The effective date for TRICARE Reserve Select coverage will be the date of the qualifying life event. It is the responsibility of the member to provide his or her personnel office with the necessary evidence required to substantiate the change in immediate family composition. Personnel officials will update DEERS in the usual manner. The appropriate TRICARE contractor will then take appropriate action upon receipt of the completed request in the appropriate format along with payment of the applicable monthly premium. — *Open Enrollment.* Deadlines and other procedures may be established for a qualified member to purchase TRICARE Reserve Select coverage at any time. The effective date of coverage will coincide with the first day of a month. — *Survivor coverage under TRICARE Reserve Select.* Deadlines and other procedures may be established for a surviving family member of a Reserve Component service member who qualified for TRICARE Reserve Select coverage as described in paragraph (c)(3) of this section to purchase new TRICARE Reserve Select coverage or continue existing TRICARE Reserve Select coverage for up to six months beyond the date of the member's death. The effective date of coverage will be the day following the date of the member's death. — *Changing type of coverage.* TRICARE Reserve Select members may request to change type of coverage during open enrollment or on the occasion of a qualifying life event that changes immediate family composition as described above by submitting a completed request in the appropriate format. — *Termination.* Termination of coverage for the member will result in termination of coverage for the member's family members in TRICARE Reserve Select, except for qualified survivors of Reserve component members covered by TRICARE Reserve Select at the time of death. —Coverage will terminate whenever a member ceases to meet the qualifications for the program or a request for termination in the appropriate format is received in accordance with established procedures. —Coverage may terminate for members who gain coverage under another TRICARE program in which the member is the sponsor. —Failure to make a premium payment in a timely manner may result in termination of coverage for the member and any covered family members and will result in denial of claims for services received after the effective date of termination. —The member may request termination of coverage at any time by submitting a completed request in the appropriate format in accordance with established deadlines and procedures. Members whose coverage under TRICARE Reserve Select terminates upon their request or for failure to pay premiums will not be allowed to purchase coverage again under TRICARE Reserve Select for a period of one year following the effective date of termination. —Coverage for survivors as described herein shall terminate six months after the date of death of the covered Reserve component member. — *Processing.* Upon receipt of a completed request in the appropriate format the appropriate TRICARE contractor will process enrollment actions into DEERS in accordance with deadlines and other procedures established by the ASD(HA). — *Periodic revision.* Periodically, certain features, rules or procedures of TRICARE Reserve Select may be revised. If such revisions will have a significant effect on members' costs or access to care, members may be given the opportunity to change their type of coverage. E. *Relationship to Continued Health Care Benefits Program (CHCBP)* (paragraph 199.24(e)). This paragraph addresses the relationship between TRICARE Reserve Select and the CHCBP. CHCBP is a program that (among other things) allows members released from active duty to purchase continued health care coverage through TRICARE. Coverage under TRICARE Reserve Select counts as coverage under a health benefit plan for purposes of individuals qualifying for the Continued Health Care Benefits Program (CHCBP) under section 199.20(d)(1)(ii)(B) or section 199.20(d)(1)(iii)(B) of this Part. Some members and family members will be eligible for TRICARE Reserve Select, and may also be eligible for CHCBP at the time of release from active duty. This paragraph of the regulation provides that if a member purchases TRICARE Reserve Select coverage that is later terminated, the member or the covered family members may then purchase CHCBP coverage for whatever period is remaining of the original 18-month eligibility. For example, in the case that TRICARE Reserve Select coverage that is terminated because of transfer or discharge of a member from the Selected Reserve (such as through a reduction in force or base closure) is within 18 months of release from active duty, the member could choose to continue health care coverage under CHCBP for the remainder of the period at the applicable CHCBP premiums. F. *Preemption of State laws* (paragraph 199.24(f)). This paragraph explains that the preemptions of State and local laws established for the TRICARE program also apply to TRICARE Reserve Select. Any State or local law or regulation pertaining to health insurance, prepaid health plans, or other health care delivery, administration, and financing methods is preempted and does not apply in connection with TRICARE Reserve Select. This includes State and local laws imposing premium taxes on health insurance carriers, underwriters or other plan managers, or similar taxes on such entities. Preemption does not apply to taxes, fees, or other payments on net income or profit realized by such entities in the conduct of business relating to DoD health services contracts, if those taxes, fees or other payments are applicable to a broad range of business activity. For the purposes of assessing the effect of Federal preemption of State and local taxes and fees in connection with DoD health services contracts, interpretations shall be consistent with those applicable to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program under 5 U.S.C. 8909(f). G. *Administration* (paragraph 199.24(g)). This paragraph provides that the ASD(HA) may establish other rules and procedures necessary for the effective administration of TRICARE Reserve Select. III. Regulatory Procedures Executive Order 12866 requires certain regulatory assessments for any significant regulatory action that would result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or have other substantial impacts. The Congressional Review Act establishes certain procedures for major rules, defined as those with similar major impacts. The Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA)requires that each Federal agency prepare, and make available for public comment, a regulatory flexibility analysis when the agency issues a regulation that would have significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This interim final rule is not subject to any of those requirements because it would not have any of these substantial impacts. Any substantial impacts associated with implementation of TRICARE Reserve Select are already determined by statute and are outside any discretionary action of DoD or effect of this regulation. This rule, however, does address novel policy issues relating to implementation of a new medical benefits program for members of the armed forces. Thus, this rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866. This rule will not impose additional information collection requirements on the public under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3511). We have examined the impact(s) of the interim final rule under Executive Order 13132 and it does not have policies that have federalism implications that would 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, therefore, consultation with State and local officials is not required. This rule is being published as an interim final rule with comment period contrary to the normal procedure of soliciting public comment under a proposed rule first, in order to comply with the requirements of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, Public Law 109-364, section 706, which was enacted on January 6, 2007. This section provides in pertinent part that “The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that health care under TRICARE Standard is provided under section 1076d of title 10, United States Code, as amended by this section beginning not later than October 1, 2007.” In order to comply with the statutorily mandated start date, this rule is being published as an interim final rule, with an effective date of October, 1, 2007. Public comments are welcome and will be considered before publication of the final rule. List of Subjects in 32 CFR part 199 Claims, handicapped, health insurance, and military personnel. Accordingly, 32 CFR part 199 is amended as follows: PART 199—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 199 continues to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 10 U.S.C. chapter 55. 2. Section 199.2(b) is amended by revising the definition of “TRICARE Reserve Select” to read as follows: § 199.2 Definitions.
(b)* * * *TRICARE Reserve Select.* The program established under 10 U.S.C. 1076d and § 199.24 of this Part. 3. Section 199.24 is revised to read as follows: § 199.24 TRICARE Reserve Select.
(a)*Establishment.* TRICARE Reserve Select is established for the purpose of offering TRICARE Standard and Extra health coverage to qualified members of the Selected Reserve and their immediate family members.
(1)*Purpose.* TRICARE Reserve Select is a premium-based health plan that is available for purchase by members of the Selected Reserve and certain survivors of Selected Reserve members as specified in paragraph
(c)of this section.
(2)*Statutory Authority.* TRICARE Reserve Select is authorized by 10 U.S.C. 1076d.
(3)*Scope of the Program.* TRICARE Reserve Select is applicable in the 50 United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and, to the extent practicable, other areas where members of the Selected Reserve serve. In locations other than the 50 states of the United States and the District of Columbia, the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) may authorize modifications to the program rules and procedures as may be appropriate to the area involved.
(4)*Terminology.* Certain terminology is introduced for TRICARE Reserve Select intended to reflect critical elements that distinguish it from other long-established TRICARE health programs. For instance, the effective date of eligibility for TRICARE has long been understood to mean that the eligible individual may obtain care under the military health system as of that date. However, that is not what it means in the context of TRICARE Reserve Select. To avoid the inevitable misunderstanding, this regulation uses the term “qualify” to mean that the member has satisfied all the “qualifications” that must be met before the member is authorized to purchase coverage. Only then may the member purchase coverage by submitting a completed request in the appropriate format along with payment of the applicable one month premium. The term “coverage” indicates the benefit of TRICARE Standard or Extra covering claims submitted for payment of covered services, supplies, and equipment furnished by TRICARE authorized providers, hospitals, and suppliers.
(5)*Major Features of TRICARE Reserve Select.* The major features of the program include the following:
(i)*TRICARE rules applicable.*
(A)Unless specified in this section or otherwise prescribed by the ASD(HA), provisions of 32 CFR Part 199 apply to TRICARE Reserve Select.
(B)Certain special programs established in 32 CFR Part 199 are not available to members covered under TRICARE Reserve Select. These include the Extended Care Health Option Program (see § 199.5), the Special Supplemental Food Program (see § 199.23), and the Supplemental Health Care Program (see § 199.16) except when referred by a Military Treatment Facility
(MTF)provider for incidental consults and the MTF provider maintains clinical control over the episode of care. The TRICARE Dental Program (see § 199.13) is independent of this program and is otherwise available to all members of the Selected Reserve and their eligible family members whether or not they purchase TRICARE Reserve Select coverage.
(ii)*Premiums.* TRICARE Reserve Select coverage is available for purchase by any Selected Reserve member if the member fulfills all of the statutory qualifications. A member of the Selected Reserve covered under TRICARE Reserve Select shall pay 28 percent of the total amount that the ASD(HA) determines on an appropriate actuarial basis as being appropriate for that coverage. There is one premium rate for member-only coverage and one premium rate for member and family coverage.
(iii)*Procedures.* Under TRICARE Reserve Select, Reserve component members who fulfilled all of the statutory qualifications may purchase either the member-only type of coverage or the member and family type of coverage by submitting a completed request in the appropriate format along with payment of the applicable one month premium. Rules and procedures for purchasing coverage and paying applicable premiums are prescribed in this section.
(iv)*Benefits.* When their coverage becomes effective, TRICARE Reserve Select beneficiaries receive the TRICARE Standard (and Extra) benefit including access to military treatment facility services and pharmacies, as described in § 199.17 of this Part. TRICARE Reserve Select coverage features the deductible and cost share provisions of the TRICARE Standard (and Extra) plan for active duty family members for both the member and the member's covered family members. The TRICARE Standard (and Extra) plan is described in § 199.17 of this Part.
(b)*TRICARE Reserve Select premiums.* Members are charged premiums for coverage under TRICARE Reserve Select that represent 28 percent of the total annual premium amount that the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Health Affairs (ASD(HA)) determines on an appropriate actuarial basis as being appropriate for coverage under the TRICARE Standard (and Extra) benefit for the TRICARE Reserve Select eligible population. Premiums are to be paid monthly, except as otherwise provided through administrative implementation, pursuant to procedures established by the ASD(HA).
(1)*Annual establishment of rates.*
(i)TRICARE Reserve Select monthly premium rates shall be established and updated annually on a calendar year basis to maintain an appropriate relationship with the annual changes in premiums for the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Standard Service Benefit Plan under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, a nationwide plan closely resembling TRICARE Standard (and Extra) coverage, or by other adjustment methodology determined to be appropriate by the ASD(HA) for each of the two types of coverage, member-only and member and family as described in paragraphs (d)(2) of this section.
(ii)Annual rates for the first year TRICARE Reserve Select was offered (calendar year 2005) were based on the Federal Blue Cross and Blue Shield annual premiums, with adjustments based on estimated differences in covered populations, as determined by the ASD(HA).
(2)*Premium adjustments.* In addition to the determinations described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, premium adjustments may be made prospectively for any calendar year to reflect any significant program changes or any actual experience in the costs of administering the TRICARE Reserve Select Program.
(3)*Survivor coverage under TRICARE Reserve Select.* A surviving family member of a Reserve Component service member who qualified for TRICARE Reserve Select coverage as described in paragraph (c)(3) of this section will pay premium rates as follows. The premium amount shall be at the member-only rate if there is only one surviving family member to be covered by TRICARE Reserve Select and at the member and family rate if there are two or more survivors to be covered.
(c)*Eligibility for (qualifying to purchase) TRICARE Reserve Select coverage* —(1) *General.* The law authorizing the TRICARE Reserve Select program uses the term “eligibility” to identify conditions under which a Reserve component member may purchase coverage. For purposes of program administration, the terms “qualifying” or “qualified” shall generally be used in lieu of such terms as “eligibility” or “eligible” to refer to a Reserve component member who meets the program requirements allowing purchase of TRICARE Reserve Select coverage. The member's Service personnel office is responsible for keeping DEERS current with eligibility data.
(2)*Member Purchase.* A member who is a member of a Reserve component of the Armed Forces qualifies to purchase TRICARE Reserve Select coverage if the member meets both the following conditions:
(i)Is a member of the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve.
(ii)Is not enrolled in, or eligible to enroll in, a health benefits plan under Chapter 89 of Title 5, U.S.C.
(3)*Survivor coverage under TRICARE Reserve Select.* If a member of the Selected Reserve dies while in a period of TRICARE Reserve Select coverage, the family member(s) may purchase new or continue existing TRICARE Reserve Select coverage for up to six months beyond the date of the member's death.
(d)*Procedures* —(1) *Purchasing Coverage.* A qualified member may purchase one of two types of coverage: member-only coverage or member and family coverage. Immediate family members of the Reserve component member, as defined in § 199.3(b)(2)(i) (except former spouses) and § 199.3 (b)(2)(ii) of this Part, may be included in such family coverage. To purchase either type of TRICARE Reserve Select coverage for effective dates of coverage described below, Reserve component members qualified under § 199.24(c) must submit a request in the appropriate format, along with an initial payment of the applicable monthly premium required by paragraph
(b)of this section to the appropriate TRICARE contractor in accordance with deadlines and other procedures established by the ASD(HA).
(i)*Continuation Coverage.* Deadlines and other procedures may be established for a qualified member to purchase TRICARE Reserve Select coverage with an effective date immediately following the date of termination of coverage under another TRICARE program in which the member is the sponsor.
(ii)*Qualifying Life Event.* Deadlines and other procedures may be established for a qualified member to purchase TRICARE Reserve Select coverage on the occasion of a qualifying life event that changes the immediate family composition (e.g., birth, adoption, divorce, etc.) that is eligible for coverage under TRICARE Reserve Select. The effective date for TRICARE Reserve Select coverage will be the date of the qualifying life event. It is the responsibility of the member to provide his or her personnel office with the necessary evidence required to substantiate the change in immediate family composition. Personnel officials will update DEERS in the usual manner. The appropriate TRICARE contractor will then take appropriate action upon receipt of the completed request in the appropriate format along with payment of the applicable one month premium.
(iii)*Open Enrollment.* Deadlines and other procedures may be established for a qualified member to purchase TRICARE Reserve Select coverage at any time. The effective date of coverage will coincide with the first day of a month.
(iv)*Survivor coverage under TRICARE Reserve Select.* Deadlines and other procedures may be established for a surviving family member of a Reserve Component service member who qualified for TRICARE Reserve Select coverage as described in paragraph (c)(3) of this section to purchase new TRICARE Reserve Select coverage or continue existing TRICARE Reserve Select coverage for up to six months beyond the date of the member's death. The effective date of coverage will be the day following the date of the member's death.
(2)*Changing type of coverage.* TRICARE Reserve Select members may request to change type of coverage during open enrollment or on the occasion of a qualifying life event that changes immediate family composition as described in paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section by submitting a completed request in the appropriate format.
(3)*Termination.* Termination of coverage for the member will result in termination of coverage for the member's family members in TRICARE Reserve Select, except as described in paragraphs (d)(1)(iv) of this section. The termination will become effective in accordance with procedures established by the ASD(HA). Members whose coverage under TRICARE Reserve Select terminates under paragraph (d)(3)(iii) or
(iv)of this section will not be allowed to purchase coverage again under TRICARE Reserve Select for a period of one year following the effective the date of termination.
(i)Coverage shall terminate for members who no longer qualify for TRICARE Reserve Select as specified in paragraph
(c)of this section, including when the member's service in the Selected Reserve terminates.
(ii)Coverage may terminate for members who gain coverage under another TRICARE program in which the member is the sponsor.
(iii)Coverage may terminate for members who fail to make a premium payment in accordance with procedures established by the ASD(HA).
(iv)Members may request termination of coverage at any time by submitting a completed request in the appropriate format in accordance with established deadlines and procedures.
(v)Coverage for survivors as described in paragraph (d)(1)(iv) of this section shall terminate six months after the date of death of the covered Reserve component member.
(4)*Processing.* Upon receipt of a completed request in the appropriate format, the appropriate TRICARE contractor will process enrollment actions into DEERS in accordance with deadlines and other procedures established by the ASD(HA).
(5)*Periodic revision.* Periodically, certain features, rules or procedures of TRICARE Reserve Select may be revised. If such revisions will have a significant effect on members' costs or access to care, members may be given the opportunity to change their type of coverage or terminate coverage coincident with the revisions.
(e)*Relationship to Continued Health Care Benefits Program.* Coverage under TRICARE Reserve Select counts as coverage under a health benefit plan for purposes of individuals qualifying for the Continued Health Care Benefits Program (CHCBP) under section 199.20(d)(1)(ii)(B) or section 199.20(d)(1)(iii)(B) of this Part. If at the time a member who qualifies under paragraph
(c)of this section purchases coverage in TRICARE Reserve Select, and the member was also eligible to enroll in the Continued Health Care Benefits Program (CHCBP) under section 199.20(d)(1)(i) of this Part (except to the extent eligibility in CHCBP was affected by enrollment in TRICARE Reserve Select), enrollment in TRICARE Reserve Select will be deemed to also constitute preliminary enrollment in CHCBP. If for any reason the member's coverage under TRICARE Reserve Select terminates before the date that is 18 months after discharge or release from the most recent period of active duty upon which CHCBP eligibility was based, the member or the member's family members eligible to be included in CHCBP coverage may, within 30 days of the effective date of the termination of TRICARE Reserve Select coverage, begin CHCBP coverage by following the applicable procedures to purchase CHCBP coverage. The period of coverage will be as provided in § 199.20(d)(6) of this Part.
(f)*Preemption of State laws.*
(1)Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 1103, the Department of Defense has determined that in the administration of chapter 55 of title 10, U.S. Code, preemption of State and local laws relating to health insurance, prepaid health plans, or other health care delivery or financing methods is necessary to achieve important Federal interests, including but not limited to the assurance of uniform national health programs for military families and the operation of such programs, at the lowest possible cost to the Department of Defense, that have a direct and substantial effect on the conduct of military affairs and national security policy of the United States. This determination is applicable to contracts that implement this section.
(2)Based on the determination set forth in paragraph (f)(1) of this section, any State or local law or regulation pertaining to health insurance, prepaid health plans, or other health care delivery, administration, and financing methods is preempted and does not apply in connection with TRICARE Reserve Select. Any such law, or regulation pursuant to such law, is without any force or effect, and State or local governments have no legal authority to enforce them in relation to TRICARE Reserve Select. (However, the Department of Defense may, by contract, establish legal obligations on the part of DoD contractors to conform with requirements similar to or identical to requirements of State or local laws or regulations with respect to TRICARE Reserve Select).
(3)The preemption of State and local laws set forth in paragraph (f)(2) of this section includes State and local laws imposing premium taxes on health insurance carriers or underwriters or other plan managers, or similar taxes on such entities. Such laws are laws relating to health insurance, prepaid health plans, or other health care delivery or financing methods, within the meaning of 10 U.S.C. 1103. Preemption, however, does not apply to taxes, fees, or other payments on net income or profit realized by such entities in the conduct of business relating to DoD health services contracts, if those taxes, fees or other payments are applicable to a broad range of business activity. For the purposes of assessing the effect of Federal preemption of State and local taxes and fees in connection with DoD health services contracts, interpretations shall be consistent with those applicable to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program under 5 U.S.C. 8909(f).
(g)*Administration.* The ASD(HA) may establish other rules and procedures for the effective administration of TRICARE Reserve Select, and may authorize exceptions to requirements of this section, if permitted by law, based on extraordinary circumstances. Dated: August 14, 2007. L.M. Bynum, OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. [FR Doc. E7-16300 Filed 8-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket No. CGD05-07-063] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Spa Creek and Severn River, Annapolis, MD AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing temporary special local regulations during the “Annapolis Triathlon”, an event to be held September 9, 2007 on the waters of Spa Creek and the Severn River at Annapolis, MD. These special local regulations are necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during the event. This action is intended to temporarily restrict vessel traffic in a portion of the Severn River and Spa Creek during the Annapolis Triathlon swimming event. DATES: This rule is effective from 6 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. on September 9, 2007. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket CGD05-07-063 and are available for inspection or copying at Commander (dpi), Fifth Coast Guard District, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, Virginia 23704-5004 between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ronald Houck, Marine Event Coordinator, Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, at
(410)576-2674 or e-mail at *Ronald.L.Houck@uscg.mil.* 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 publishing of an NPRM would be impracticable and contrary to public interest since immediate action is needed to minimize potential danger to the participants and the public during the event. The necessary information to determine whether the marine event poses a threat to persons and vessels was not provided with sufficient time to publish an NPRM. The danger posed by the large volume of marine traffic in the Annapolis harbor area makes special local regulations necessary to provide for the safety of swimmers, event support vessels, spectator craft and other vessels transiting the event area. For the safety concerns noted, it is in the public interest to have these regulations in effect during the event. The Coast Guard will issue broadcast notice to mariners to advise vessel operators of navigational restrictions. On-scene Coast Guard and local law enforcement vessels will also provide actual notice to mariners. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . Delaying the effective date would be contrary to the public interest, since immediate action is needed to ensure the safety of the event participants, support vessels, spectator craft and other vessels transiting the event area. However advance notification will be made to users of Annapolis harbor via marine information broadcasts, local notice to mariners, commercial radio stations and area newspapers. Background and Purpose On September 9, 2007, the City of Annapolis and the Annapolis Triathlon Club will sponsor the “Annapolis Triathlon”. The swimming segment of the event will consist of approximately 1500 swimmers competing across a one mile course located within Annapolis Harbor, at the entrance of Spa Creek and extending outward to the Severn River. The competition will begin at the Annapolis City dock. The participants will swim along an oval shaped course and across to the finish line located at the Annapolis City dock, swimming approximately one-mile, contained within the inner Annapolis Harbor area. Approximately 30 support vessels will accompany the swimmers. Due to the need for vessel control during the swimming event, the Coast Guard will temporarily restrict vessel traffic in the event area to provide for the safety of participants, support craft and other transiting vessels. Discussion of Rule The Coast Guard is establishing temporary special local regulations on specified waters of the Severn River and Spa Creek at Annapolis, Maryland. The temporary special local regulations will be in effect from 6 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. on September 9, 2007. The effect will be to restrict general navigation in the regulated area during the event. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area. Vessel traffic may be allowed to transit the regulated area at slow speed as the swim progresses, when the Coast Guard Patrol Commander determines it is safe to do so. The Patrol Commander will notify the public of specific enforcement times by Marine Radio Safety Broadcast. These regulations are needed to control vessel traffic during the event to enhance the safety of participants, spectators and transiting vessels. Regulatory Evaluation This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. Although this regulation restricts vessel traffic from transiting a portion of the Severn River and Spa Creek during the event, the effect of this regulation will not be significant due to the limited duration that the regulated area will be in effect and the extensive advance notifications that will be made to the maritime community via marine information broadcasts, area newspapers and radio stations so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit this section of the Severn River and or Spa Creek during the event. This rule 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 a short period, from 6 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. on September 9, 2007. Vessels desiring to transit the event area will be able to transit the regulated area at slow speed as the swim progresses, when the Coast Guard Patrol Commander determines it is safe to do so. Before the enforcement period, we will issue maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we will assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the Fifth Coast Guard District at the address listed under ADDRESSES . 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. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( *e.g.* , specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. We have made a determination that this action is not likely to have a significant effect on the human environment. The proposed marine event consisting of approximately 1500 participants swimming along a one-mile oval race course within Annapolis Harbor does not introduce any significant environmental impacts in the area of the event and or adjacent waterways. A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” will be available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100 Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows: PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS 1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233. 2. Add temporary § 100.35-T05-063 to read as follows: § 100.35-T05-063, Spa Creek, Severn River, Annapolis, MD.
(a)*Regulated area.* The regulated area is established for waters within Annapolis Harbor including the Severn River and Spa Creek from shoreline to shoreline, bounded on the east by a line drawn at longitude 076°2833 W, and bounded on the west by the Spa Creek—Annapolis Bascule Bridge. All coordinates reference Datum NAD 1983.
(b)*Definitions.*
(1)*Coast Guard Patrol Commander* means a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the Coast Guard who has been designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector Baltimore to act on his behalf.
(2)*Official Patrol* means any vessel assigned or approved by Commander, Coast Guard Sector Baltimore with a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer on board and displaying a Coast Guard ensign.
(3)*Participant* includes all swimmers and support vessels participating in the Annapolis Triathlon under the auspices of the marine event permit issued to the event sponsor and approved by Commander, Coast Guard Sector Baltimore.
(c)*Special local regulations.*
(1)Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area.
(2)The operator of any vessel in the regulated area shall:
(i)Stop the vessel immediately when directed to do so by any Official Patrol.
(ii)Proceed as directed by any Official Patrol.
(iii)When authorized to transit the regulated area, all vessels shall proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course that minimizes wake near the Annapolis Triathlon swim course.
(d)*Enforcement period.* This section will be enforced from 6 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. on September 9, 2007. Dated: August 11, 2007. Neil O. Buschman, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District Acting. [FR Doc. E7-16263 Filed 8-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 97 [EPA-R04-OAR-2007-0229-200713(a); FRL 8453-6] Approval of Implementation Plans of Tennessee: Clean Air Interstate Rule AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is approving revisions to the Tennessee State Implementation Plan
(SIP)submitted on September 8, 2006. This revision incorporates provisions related to the implementation of EPA's Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), promulgated on May 12, 2005, and subsequently revised on April 28, 2006, and December 13, 2006, and the CAIR Federal Implementation Plan
(FIP)concerning Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ), Nitrogen Oxides (NO X ) annual, and NO X ozone season emissions for the State of Tennessee, promulgated on April 28, 2006, and subsequently revised December 13, 2006. On February 8, 2007, Tennessee requested that EPA only act on a portion of the September 8, 2006 submittal as an abbreviated SIP. Consequently, EPA is approving an abbreviated SIP revision that addresses the methodology to be used to allocate annual and ozone season NO X allowances under the CAIR FIPs and opt-in provisions for the SO 2 , NO X annual, and NO X ozone season trading programs. EPA is not making any changes to the CAIR FIP, but is amending, to the extent EPA approves Tennessee's SIP revision, the appropriate appendices in the CAIR FIP trading rules simply to note that approval. DATES: This direct final rule is effective October 19, 2007 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by September 19, 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 No. EPA-R04-OAR-2007-0229, by one of the following methods: 1. *http://www.regulations.gov* : Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. *E-mail: hou.james@epa.gov* . 3. *Fax:*
(404)562-9019. 4. *Mail:* EPA-R04-OAR-2007-0229, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. 5. *Hand Delivery or Courier:* James Hou, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding federal holidays. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2007-0229. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The *http://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 *http://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 and any form of encryption and should be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm* . *Docket:* All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the *http://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 *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Hou, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is
(404)562-8965. Mr. Hou can also be reached via electronic mail at *hou.james@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. What Action Is EPA Taking? II. What Is the Regulatory History of CAIR and the CAIR FIPs? III. What are the General Requirements of CAIR and the CAIR FIPs? IV. What are the Types of CAIR SIP Submittals? V. Analysis of Tennessee's CAIR SIP Submittal A. State Budgets for Allowance Allocations B. CAIR Cap-and-Trade Programs C. Applicability Provisions for non-EGUs NO X SIP Call sources D. NO X Allowance Allocations E. Allocation of NO <sup>X</sup> Allowances from the Compliance Supplement Pool F. Individual Opt-in Units VI. Final Action VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What Action Is EPA Taking? CAIR SIP Approval EPA is approving a revision to Tennessee's SIP, submitted on September 8, 2006, that would modify the application of certain provisions of the CAIR FIP concerning SO 2 , NO X annual, and NO X ozone season emissions. (As discussed below, this less comprehensive CAIR SIP is termed an abbreviated SIP.) Tennessee is subject to the CAIR FIPs that implement the CAIR requirements by requiring certain electric generating units
(EGUs)to participate in the EPA-administered Federal CAIR SO 2 , NO X annual, and NO X ozone season cap-and-trade programs. The SIP revision provides a methodology for allocating NO X allowances for the NO X annual and NO X ozone season trading programs. The CAIR FIPs provide that this methodology, if approved, will be used to allocate NO X allowances to sources in Tennessee, instead of the federal allocation methodology otherwise provided in the FIP. The SIP revision also provides for individual units not otherwise subject to the CAIR trading programs to opt into such trading programs. EPA is approving
(1)Tennessee's methodology for allocating allowances to units subject to the CAIR trading programs under the current applicability provisions in the CAIR FIP NO X annual and ozone season trading rules and
(2)the opt-in unit provisions adopted by Tennessee for the CAIR FIP NO X annual, SO 2 , and NO X ozone season trading programs. Consistent with the flexibility provided in the FIPs, these provisions will also be used to replace or supplement, as appropriate, the corresponding provisions in the CAIR FIPs for Tennessee. EPA is not making any changes to the CAIR FIP, but is amending, to the extent EPA approves Tennessee's SIP revision, the appropriate appendices in the CAIR FIP trading rules simply to note that approval. II. What is the Regulatory History of the CAIR and the CAIR FIPs? The CAIR was published by EPA on May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162). In this rule, EPA determined that 28 States and the District of Columbia contribute significantly to nonattainment and interfere with maintenance of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for fine particulates (PM 2.5 ) and/or 8-hour ozone in downwind States in the eastern part of the country. As a result, EPA required those upwind States to revise their SIPs to include control measures that reduce emissions of SO 2 , which is a precursor to PM 2.5 formation, and/or NO X , which is a precursor to both ozone and PM 2.5 formation. For jurisdictions that contribute significantly to downwind PM 2.5 nonattainment, CAIR sets annual State-wide emission reduction requirements (i.e., budgets) for SO 2 and annual State-wide emission reduction requirements for NO X . Similarly, for jurisdictions that contribute significantly to 8-hour ozone nonattainment, CAIR sets State-wide emission reduction requirements for NO X for the ozone season (May 1st to September 30th). Under CAIR, States may implement these emission budgets by participating in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs or by adopting any other control measures. CAIR explains to subject States what must be included in SIPs to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA)with regard to interstate transport with respect to the 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS. EPA made national findings, effective May 25, 2005, that the States had failed to submit SIPs meeting the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D). The SIPs were due in July 2000, 3 years after the promulgation of the 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS. These findings started a 2-year clock for EPA to promulgate a FIP to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D). Under CAA section 110(c)(1), EPA may issue a FIP anytime after such findings are made and must do so within two years, unless a SIP revision correcting the deficiency is approved by EPA before the FIP is promulgated. On April 28, 2006, EPA promulgated FIPs for all States covered by CAIR in order to ensure the emissions reductions required by CAIR are achieved on schedule. Each CAIR State is subject to the FIPs until the State fully adopts, and EPA approves, a SIP revision meeting the requirements of CAIR. The CAIR FIPs require certain EGUs to participate in the EPA-administered CAIR SO 2 , NO X annual, and NO X ozone-season model trading programs, as appropriate. The CAIR FIP SO 2 , NO X annual, and NO X ozone season trading programs impose essentially the same requirements as, and are integrated with, the respective CAIR SIP trading programs. The integration of the CAIR FIP and SIP trading programs means that these trading programs will work together to create effectively a single trading program for each regulated pollutant (SO 2 , NO X annual, and NO X ozone season) in all States covered by CAIR FIP or SIP trading program for that pollutant. The CAIR FIPs also allow States to submit abbreviated SIP revisions that, if approved by EPA, will automatically replace or supplement the corresponding CAIR FIP provisions (e.g., the methodology for allocating NO X allowances to sources in the state), while the CAIR FIP remains in place for all other provisions. On April 28, 2006, EPA published two more CAIR-related final rules that added the States of Delaware and New Jersey to the list of States subject to CAIR for PM 2.5 and announced EPA's final decisions on reconsideration of five issues without making any substantive changes to the CAIR requirements. III. What are the General Requirements of CAIR and the CAIR FIPs? CAIR establishes State-wide emission budgets for SO <sup>2</sup> and NO <sup>X</sup> and is to be implemented in two phases. The first phase of NO X reductions starts in 2009 and continues through 2014, while the first phase of SO <sup>2</sup> reductions starts in 2010 and continues through 2014. The second phase of reductions for both NO <sup>X</sup> and SO <sup>2</sup> starts in 2015 and continues thereafter. CAIR requires States to implement the budgets by either:
(1)Requiring EGUs to participate in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs; or,
(2)adopting other control measures of the State's choosing and demonstrating that such control measures will result in compliance with the applicable State SO <sup>2</sup> and NO <sup>X</sup> budgets. The May 12, 2005, and April 28, 2006, CAIR rules provide model rules that States must adopt (with certain limited changes, if desired) if they want to participate in the EPA-administered trading programs. With two exceptions, only States that choose to meet the requirements of CAIR through methods that exclusively regulate EGUs are allowed to participate in the EPA-administered trading programs. One exception is for States that adopt the opt-in provisions of the model rules to allow non-EGUs individually to opt into the EPA-administered trading programs. The other exception is for States that include all non-EGUs from their NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call trading programs in their CAIR NO <sup>X</sup> ozone season trading programs. IV. What are the Types of CAIR SIP Submittals? States have the flexibility to choose the type of control measures they will use to meet the requirements of CAIR. EPA anticipates that most States will choose to meet the CAIR requirements by selecting an option that requires EGUs to participate in the EPA-administered CAIR cap-and-trade programs. For such States, EPA has provided two approaches for submitting and obtaining approval for CAIR SIP revisions. States may submit full SIP revisions that adopt the model CAIR cap-and-trade rules. If approved, these SIP revisions will fully replace the CAIR FIPs. Alternatively, States may submit abbreviated SIP revisions. These SIP revisions will not replace the CAIR FIPs; however, the CAIR FIPs provide that, when approved, the provisions in these abbreviated SIP revisions will be used instead of or in conjunction with, as appropriate, the corresponding provisions of the CAIR FIPs (e.g., the NO <sup>X</sup> allowance allocation methodology). A State submitting an abbreviated SIP revision may submit limited SIP revisions to tailor the CAIR FIP cap-and-trade programs to the state submitting the revision. Specifically, an abbreviated SIP revision may establish certain applicability and allowance allocation provisions that, the CAIR FIPs provide, will be used instead of or in conjunction with the corresponding provisions in the CAIR FIP rules in that State. Specifically, the abbreviated SIP revisions may: 1. Include NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call trading sources that are not EGUs under CAIR in the CAIR FIP NO <sup>X</sup> ozone season trading program; 2. Provide for allocation of NO <sup>X</sup> annual or ozone season allowances by the State, rather than the Administrator of the EPA or the Administrator's duly authorized representative (Administrator), and using a methodology chosen by the State; 3. Provide for allocation of NO <sup>X</sup> annual allowances from the Compliance Supplement Pool
(CSP)by the State, rather than by the Administrator, and using the State's choice of allowed, alternative methodologies; or 4. Allow units that are not otherwise CAIR units to opt individually into the CAIR FIP cap-and-trade programs under the opt-in provisions in the CAIR FIP rules. With approval of an abbreviated SIP revision, the CAIR FIP remains in place, as tailored to sources in the State by that approved SIP revision. Abbreviated SIP revisions can be submitted in lieu of, or as part of, CAIR full SIP revisions. States may want to designate part of their full SIP as an abbreviated SIP for EPA to act on first when the timing of the State's submission might not provide EPA with sufficient time to approve the full SIP prior to the deadline for recording NO <sup>X</sup> allocations. This will help ensure that the elements of the trading programs where flexibility is allowed are implemented according to the State's decisions. Submission of an abbreviated SIP revision does not preclude future submission of a CAIR full SIP revision. In this case, the September 8, 2006 submittal from Tennessee has been submitted as an abbreviated SIP revision. V. Analysis of Tennessee's CAIR SIP Submittal A. State Budgets for Allowance Allocations The CAIR NO <sup>X</sup> annual and ozone season budgets were developed from historical heat input data for EGUs. Using these data, EPA calculated annual and ozone season regional heat input values, which were multiplied by 0.15 pounds per million British thermal units (lb/mmBtu), for phase 1, and 0.125 lb/mmBtu, for phase 2, to obtain regional NO <sup>X</sup> budgets for 2009-2014 and for 2015 and thereafter, respectively. EPA derived the State NO <sup>X</sup> annual and ozone season budgets from the regional budgets using State heat input data adjusted by fuel factors. The CAIR State SO <sup>2</sup> budgets were derived by discounting the tonnage of emissions authorized by annual allowance allocations under the Acid Rain Program under title IV of the CAA. Under CAIR, each allowance allocated under the Acid Rain Program for the years in phase 1 of CAIR (2010 through 2014) authorizes 0.50 ton of SO <sup>2</sup> emissions in the CAIR trading program, and each Acid Rain Program allowance allocated for the years in phase 2 of CAIR (2015 and thereafter) authorizes 0.35 ton of SO <sup>2</sup> emissions in the CAIR trading program. The CAIR FIPs established the budgets for Tennessee as 50,973 (2009-2014) and 42,478 (2015-thereafter) tons for NO <sup>X</sup> annual emissions, 22,842 (2009-2014) and 19,035 (2015-thereafter) tons for NO <sup>X</sup> ozone season emissions, and 137,216 (2010-2014) and 96,051 (2015-thereafter) tons for SO <sup>2</sup> emissions. Tennessee's SIP revision, being approved in this action, does not affect these budgets, which are total amounts of allowances available for allocation for each year under the EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs under the CAIR FIPs. In short, the abbreviated SIP revision only affects allocations of allowances under the established budgets. B. CAIR Cap-and-Trade Programs The CAIR NO <sup>X</sup> annual and ozone-season FIPs both largely mirror the structure of the NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call model trading rule in 40 CFR part 96, subparts A through I. While the provisions of the NO <sup>X</sup> annual and ozone-season FIPs are similar, there are some differences. For example, the NO <sup>X</sup> annual FIP (but not the NO <sup>X</sup> ozone season FIP) provides for a CSP, which is discussed below and under which allowances may be awarded for early reductions of NO <sup>X</sup> annual emissions. As a further example, the NO <sup>X</sup> ozone season FIP reflects the fact that the CAIR NO <sup>X</sup> ozone season trading program replaces the NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call trading program after the 2008 ozone season and is coordinated with the NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call program. The NO <sup>X</sup> ozone season FIP provides incentives for early emissions reductions by allowing banked, pre-2009 NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call allowances to be used for compliance in the CAIR NO <sup>X</sup> ozone-season trading program. In addition, States have the option of continuing to meet their NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call requirement by participating in the CAIR NO <sup>X</sup> ozone season trading program and including all their NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call trading sources in that program. The provisions of the CAIR SO <sup>2</sup> FIP are also similar to the provisions of the NO <sup>X</sup> annual and ozone season FIPs. However, the SO <sup>2</sup> FIP is coordinated with the ongoing Acid Rain SO <sup>2</sup> cap-and-trade program under CAA title IV. The SO <sup>2</sup> FIP uses the title IV allowances for compliance, with each allowance allocated for 2010-2014 authorizing only 0.50 ton of emissions and each allowance allocated for 2015 and thereafter authorizing only 0.35 ton of emissions. Banked title IV allowances allocated for years before 2010 can be used at any time in the CAIR SO <sup>2</sup> cap-and-trade program, with each such allowance authorizing 1 ton of emissions. Title IV allowances are to be freely transferable among sources covered by the Acid Rain Program and sources covered by the CAIR SO <sup>2</sup> cap-and-trade program. EPA used the CAIR model trading rules as the basis for the trading programs in the CAIR FIPs. The CAIR FIP trading rules are virtually identical to the CAIR model trading rules, with changes made to account for federal rather than state implementation. The CAIR model SO <sup>2</sup> , NO <sup>X</sup> annual, and NO <sup>X</sup> ozone season trading rules and the respective CAIR FIP trading rules are designed to work together as integrated SO <sup>2</sup> , NO <sup>X</sup> annual, and NO <sup>X</sup> ozone season trading programs. Tennessee is subject to the CAIR FIPs for ozone and PM <sup>2.5</sup> and the CAIR FIP trading programs for SO <sup>2</sup> , NO <sup>X</sup> annual, and NO <sup>X</sup> ozone season apply to sources in Tennessee. Consistent with the flexibility it gives to States, the CAIR FIPs provide that States may submit abbreviated SIP revisions that will replace or supplement, as appropriate, certain provisions of the CAIR FIP trading programs. The September 8, 2006, submission of Tennessee is such an abbreviated SIP revision. C. Applicability Provisions for Non-EGU NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call Sources In general, the CAIR FIP trading programs apply to any stationary, fossil-fuel-fired boiler or stationary, fossil-fuel-fired combustion turbine serving at any time, since the later of November 15, 1990, or the start-up of the unit's combustion chamber, a generator with nameplate capacity of more than 25 megawatt electrical
(MWe)producing electricity for sale. States have the option of bringing in, for the CAIR NO <sup>X</sup> ozone season program only, those units in the State's NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call trading program that are not EGUs as defined under CAIR. EPA advises States exercising this option to use provisions for applicability that are substantively identical to the provisions in 40 CFR 96.304 and add the applicability provisions in the State's NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call trading rule for non-EGUs to the applicability provisions in 40 CFR 96.304 in order to include in the CAIR NO <sup>X</sup> ozone season trading program all units required to be in the State's NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call trading program that are not already included under 40 CFR 96.304. Under this option, the CAIR NO <sup>X</sup> ozone season program must cover all large industrial boilers and combustion turbines, as well as any small EGUs (i.e. units serving a generator with a nameplate capacity of 25 MWe or less), that the State currently requires to be in the NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call trading program. Consistent with the flexibility given to States in the CAIR FIP, Tennessee has not chosen to expand the applicability provisions of the CAIR NOX ozone season trading program to include all non-EGUs in the State's NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call trading program. D. NO <sup>X</sup> Allowance Allocations Under the NO <sup>X</sup> allowance allocation methodology in the CAIR model trading rules and in the CAIR FIP, NO <sup>X</sup> annual and ozone season allowances are allocated to units that have operated for five years, based on heat input data from a three-year period that are adjusted for fuel type by using fuel factors of 1.0 for coal, 0.6 for oil, and 0.4 for other fuels. The CAIR model trading rules and the CAIR FIP also provide a new unit set-aside from which units without five years of operation are allocated allowances based on the units' prior year emissions. The CAIR FIP provides States the flexibility to establish a different NO <sup>X</sup> allowance allocation methodology that will be used to allocate allowances to sources in the States, if certain requirements are met concerning the timing of submission of units' allocations to the Administrator for recordation and the total amount of allowances allocated for each control period. In adopting alternative NO <sup>X</sup> allowance allocation methodologies, States have flexibility with regard to: 1. The cost to recipients of the allowances, which may be distributed for free or auctioned; 2. The frequency of allocations; 3. The basis for allocating allowances, which may be distributed, for example, based on historical heat input or electric and thermal output; and 4. The use of allowance set-asides and, if used, their size. Consistent with the flexibility given to States in the CAIR FIPs, Tennessee has chosen to replace the provisions of the CAIR NO <sup>X</sup> annual FIP concerning the allocation of NO <sup>X</sup> annual allowances, with its own methodology. Tennessee has chosen to distribute NO <sup>X</sup> annual allowances, by adopting by reference the CAIR NO <sup>X</sup> annual trading program model rule at 40 CFR 96.142. EPA is proposing to approve Tennessee's allocation provisions, i.e., parts 1200-3-27.10(1) and
(2)(section 96.142) of Tennessee's CAIR NO <sup>X</sup> annual trading program. Consistent with the flexibility given to States in the CAIR FIPs, Tennessee has chosen to replace the provisions of the CAIR NO <sup>X</sup> ozone season FIP concerning allowance allocations with its own methodology. Tennessee has chosen to distribute NO <sup>X</sup> ozone season allowances by adopting, with certain revisions, the CAIR NO <sup>X</sup> ozone season trading program model rule at 40 CFR 96.342 for units subject to the CAIR trading program under the CAIR FIP NO <sup>X</sup> ozone season applicability provisions. EPA is approving these Tennessee allocation provisions, *i.e.* , parts 1200-3-27-.11(2)(c)1.(i) through
(iv)of Tennessee's CAIR NO <sup>X</sup> ozone season trading program. Tennessee has indicated that it may subsequently seek approval to exercise the option under CAIR of expanding the current applicability provisions in the CAIR NO <sup>X</sup> ozone season trading program to include units that are not otherwise subject to the trading program but are subject to Tennessee's NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call trading program. However, under today's approval, only the allocation methodology for units covered by the current CAIR FIP NO <sup>X</sup> ozone season provisions is being approved, and only CAIR NO <sup>X</sup> ozone season allowance allocations submitted by Tennessee for those units will be recorded by EPA. In addition, EPA notes that Tennessee's allocation provisions in the abbreviated SIP reference certain applicability provisions in Tennessee's rule that have not been submitted as part of the abbreviated SIP. Because Tennessee's purpose in submitting these allocation provisions is for them to be used, in lieu of the CAIR FIP allocation provisions, to allocate allowances to units that are CAIR NO <sup>X</sup> ozone season units under the CAIR FIP trading program, EPA interprets the references ( *i.e.* , “parts [1200-3-27-.11](2)(a)1. and (2)(a)2.”) as referring to 40 CFR 97.304(a) and (b), which are the applicability provisions of the CAIR FIP NO <sup>X</sup> ozone season rules. E. Allocation of NO <sup>X</sup> Allowances From the Compliance Supplement Pool The CSP provides an incentive for early reductions in NO <sup>X</sup> annual emissions. The CSP consists of 200,000 CAIR NO <sup>X</sup> annual allowances of vintage 2009 for the entire CAIR region, and a State's share of the CSP is based upon the State's share of the projected emission reductions under CAIR. States may distribute CSP allowances, one allowance for each ton of early reduction, to sources that make NO <sup>X</sup> reductions during 2007 or 2008 beyond what is required by any applicable State or Federal emission limitation. States also may distribute CSP allowances based upon a demonstration of need for an extension of the 2009 deadline for implementing emission controls. The CAIR NO <sup>X</sup> annual FIP establishes specific methodologies for allocations of CSP allowances. States may choose an allowed, alternative CSP allocation methodology to be used to allocate CSP allowances to sources in those States. Consistent with the flexibility given to States in the FIP, Tennessee has not chosen to modify the provisions of the CAIR NO <sup>X</sup> annual FIP concerning the allocation of allowances from the CSP. F. Individual Opt-in Units The opt-in provisions allow for certain non-EGUs (i.e., boilers, combustion turbines, and other stationary fossil-fuel-fired devices) that do not meet the applicability criteria for a CAIR trading program to participate voluntarily in (i.e., opt into) the CAIR trading program. A non-EGU may opt into one or more of the CAIR trading programs. In order to qualify to opt into a CAIR trading program, a unit must vent all emissions through a stack and be able to meet monitoring, recordkeeping, and recording requirements of 40 CFR part 75. The owners and operators seeking to opt a unit into a CAIR trading program must apply for a CAIR opt-in permit. If the unit is issued a CAIR opt-in permit, the unit becomes a CAIR unit, is allocated allowances, and must meet the same allowance-holding and emissions monitoring and reporting requirements as other units subject to the CAIR trading program. The opt-in provisions provide for two methodologies for allocating allowances for opt-in units, one methodology that applies to opt-in units in general and a second methodology that allocates allowances only to opt-in units that the owners and operators intend to repower before January 1, 2015. States have several options concerning the opt-in provisions. The rules for each of the CAIR FIP trading programs include opt-in provisions that are essentially the same as those in the respective CAIR SIP model rules, except that the CAIR FIP opt-in provisions become effective in a State only if the State's abbreviated SIP revision adopts the opt-in provisions. The State may adopt the opt-in provisions entirely or may adopt them but exclude one of the allowance allocation methodologies. The State also has the option of not adopting any opt-in provisions in the abbreviated SIP revision and thereby providing for the CAIR FIP trading program to be implemented in the State without the ability for units to opt into the program. Consistent with the flexibility given to States in the FIPs, Tennessee has chosen to allow non-EGUs meeting certain requirements to participate in the CAIR NO <sup>X</sup> annual trading program by adopting by reference EPA's model rule provisions for opt-in units in 40 CFR part 96, subpart II of the CAIR NO <sup>X</sup> annual trading program. Consistent with the flexibility given to States in the FIPs, Tennessee has chosen to permit non-EGUs meeting certain requirements to participate in the CAIR NO <sup>X</sup> ozone season trading program by adopting by reference EPA's model rule provisions for opt-in units in 40 CFR part 96, subpart IIII of the CAIR NO <sup>X</sup> ozone season trading program. Consistent with the flexibility given to States in the FIPs, Tennessee has chosen to allow certain non-EGUs to opt into the CAIR SO <sup>2</sup> trading program by adopting by reference EPA's model rule provisions for opt-in units in 40 CFR part 96, subpart III of the CAIR SO <sup>2</sup> trading program. In adopting by reference the CAIR opt-in provisions, Tennessee has included in its rule a full written version of those provisions, which contains some technical errors in the language, and does not specifically reference the CAIR model rule provisions related to opt-in units in other subparts of the CAIR model trading rules. Because Tennessee clearly intends to adopt entirely the CAIR model rule opt-in provisions and because Tennessee has indicated that it will correct the relatively minor errors in the rule text, EPA interprets the Tennessee provisions as substantively identical to the CAIR model rule opt-in provisions and is therefore approving Tennessee's allowing of opt-in units in the CAIR FIP NO <sup>X</sup> annual, NO <sup>X</sup> ozone season, and SO <sup>2</sup> trading programs. Under the approval, the opt-in provisions in these CAIR FIP trading programs will apply to units in Tennessee. VI. Final Action EPA is approving Tennessee's abbreviated CAIR SIP revision submitted on September 8, 2006. Tennessee is covered by the CAIR FIPs, which requires participation in the EPA-administered CAIR FIP cap-and-trade programs for SO <sup>2</sup> , NO <sup>X</sup> annual, and NO <sup>X</sup> ozone season emissions. Under this abbreviated SIP revision and consistent with the flexibility given to States in the FIPs, Tennessee adopts provisions for allocating allowances under the CAIR FIP NO <sup>X</sup> annual and ozone season trading programs. EPA is approving Tennessee's CAIR NO <sup>X</sup> annual and ozone season allocation provisions (interpreted as discussed above) for units subject to the CAIR trading programs under the current CAIR FIP NO <sup>X</sup> annual and ozone season applicability provisions. In addition, Tennessee adopts in the abbreviated SIP revision provisions that allow for individual non-EGUs to opt into the CAIR FIP SO <sup>2</sup> , NO <sup>X</sup> annual, and NO <sup>X</sup> ozone season cap-and-trade programs. EPA is approving Tennessee's allowing for opt-in units (consistent with the above-discussed interpretation) and therefore the application of the opt-in provisions in these CAIR FIP trading programs to units in Tennessee. As provided for in the CAIR FIPs, these provisions in the abbreviated SIP revision will replace or supplement the corresponding provisions of the CAIR FIPs in Tennessee. The abbreviated SIP revision meets the applicable requirements in 40 CFR 51.123(p) and (ee), with regard to NO <sup>X</sup> annual and NO <sup>X</sup> ozone season emissions, and 40 CFR 51.124(r), with regard to SO <sup>2</sup> emissions. EPA is not making any changes to the CAIR FIP, but is amending, to the extent EPA approves Tennessee's SIP revision, the appropriate appendices in the CAIR FIP trading rules simply to note that approval. EPA is approving the aforementioned changes to the SIP. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this **Federal Register** publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective October 19, 2007 without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by September 19, 2007. If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on October 19, 2007 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule. VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 19, 2007. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Electric utilities, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide. 40 CFR Part 97 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Electric utilities, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide. Dated: July 31, 2007. J.I. Palmer Jr., Regional Administrator, Region 4. 40 CFR parts 52 and 97 are 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 (RR)—(Tennessee) 2. In (52.2220(c) Table 1 is amended as follows: a. Under Chapter 1200-3-14 by adding entry for “Section 1200-3-14.04” in numerical order, b. Under Chapter 1200-3-27 by adding entries for “Section 1200-3-27.10” and “Section 1200-3-27.11” in numerical order. § 52.2220 Identification of plan.
(c)* * * Table 1.—EPA Approved Tennessee Regulations State citation Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Explanation * * * * * * * Chapter 1200-3-14 Control of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions * * * * * * * Section 1200-3-14.04 CAIR SO <sup>2</sup> Annual Trading Program 11/06/06 8/20/07 [Insert citation of publication] * * * * * * * Chapter 1200-3-27 Nitrogen Oxides * * * * * * * Section 1200-3-27.10 CAIR NO <sup>X</sup> Annual Trading Program 11/06/06 8/20/07 [Insert citation of publication] Section 1200-3-27.11 CAIR NO <sup>X</sup> Ozone Season Trading Program 11/06/06 8/20/07 [Insert citation of publication] * * * * * * * PART 97—[AMENDED] 3. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7403, 7410, 7426, 7601, and 7651, *et seq.* 4. Appendix A to Subpart EE is amended by adding in alphabetical order the entry “Tennessee” under paragraph 1. to read as follows: Appendix A to Subpart EE of Part 97—States With Approved State Implementation Plan Revisions Concerning Allocations: 1. * * * Tennessee 5. Appendix A to Subpart II of Part 97 is amended by adding in alphabetical order the entry “Tennessee” under paragraphs 1. and 2. to read as follows: Appendix A to Subpart II of Part 97—States With Approved State Implementation Plan Revisions Concerning CAIR NO <sup>X</sup> Opt-In Units 1. * * * Tennessee 2. * * * Tennessee 6. Appendix A to Subpart III of Part 97 is amended by adding in alphabetical order the entry “Tennessee” under paragraphs 1. and 2. to read as follows: Appendix A to Subpart III of Part 97—States With Approved State Implementation Plan Revisions Concerning CAIR SO <sup>2</sup> Opt-In Units 1. * * * Tennessee 2. * * * Tennessee 7. Appendix A to Subpart EEEE of Part 97 is amended by adding in alphabetical order the entry “Tennessee” under the introductory text to read as follows: Appendix A to Subpart EEEE of Part 97—States With Approved State Implementation Plan Revisions Concerning Allocations Tennessee 8. Appendix A to Subpart IIII of Part 97 is amended by adding in alphabetical order the entry “Tennessee” under paragraphs 1. and 2. to read as follows: Appendix A to Subpart IIII of Part 97-States With Approved State Implementation Plan Revisions Concerning CAIR NO <sup>X</sup> Ozone Season Opt-in Units 1. * * * Tennessee 2. * * * Tennessee [FR Doc. E7-15782 Filed 8-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 64 [Docket No. FEMA-7987] Suspension of Community Eligibility AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This rule identifies communities, where the sale of flood insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), that are scheduled for suspension on the effective dates listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA)receives documentation that the community has adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in the **Federal Register** on a subsequent date. DATES: *Effective Dates:* The effective date of each community's scheduled suspension is the third date (“Susp.”) listed in the third column of the following tables. ADDRESSES: If you want to determine whether a particular community was suspended on the suspension date, contact the appropriate FEMA Regional Office. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Stearrett, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202)646-2953. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP enables property owners to purchase flood insurance which is generally not otherwise available. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage as authorized under the NFIP, 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.* ; unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the community. However, some of these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities will not be suspended and will continue their eligibility for the sale of insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of the communities will be published in the **Federal Register** . In addition, FEMA has identified the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities by publishing a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may legally be provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than a year, on FEMA's initial flood insurance map of the community as having flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and unnecessary because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately notified. Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less than 30 days. *National Environmental Policy Act.* This rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Considerations. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared. *Regulatory Flexibility Act.* The Administrator has determined that this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no longer comply with the statutory requirements, and after the effective date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the communities unless remedial action takes place. *Regulatory Classification.* This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735. *Executive Order 13132, Federalism.* This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. *Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform.* This rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988. *Paperwork Reduction Act.* This rule does not involve any collection of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64 Flood insurance, Floodplains. Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows: PART 64—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 64 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.* ; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp.; p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp.; p. 376. § 64.6 [Amended] 2. The tables published under the authority of § 64.6 are amended as follows: State and location Community No. Effective date authorization/cancellation of sale of flood insurance in community Current effective map date Date certain Federal assistance no longer available in SFHAs Region IV Alabama: Clayhatchee, Town of, Dale County 010415 January 6, 1995, Emerg;—, Reg; August 18, 2007, Susp 08/16/2007 08/16/2007. Dale County, Unincorporated Areas 010060 September 10, 1975, Emerg; July 4, 1989, Reg; August 18, 2007, Susp ......do* Do. Kentucky: Elizabeth, City of, Hardin County 210095 May 23, 1975, Emerg; December 2, 1980, Reg; August 18, 2007, Susp ......do Do. Hardin County, Unincorporated Areas 210094 February 1, 1979, Emerg; November 4, 1988, Reg; August 18, 2007, Susp ......do Do. Vine Grove, City of, Hardin County 210096 July 18, 1995, Emerg; July 18, 1995, Reg; August 18, 2007, Susp ......do Do. North Carolina: Durham, City of, Durham County 370086 July 13, 1973, Emerg; January 17, 1979, Reg; August 2, 2007, Susp 08/02/2007 08/02/2007. Durham County, Unincorporated Areas 370085 March 16, 1973, Emerg; February 15, 1979, Reg; August 2, 2007, Susp ......do* Do. Lincoln County, Unincorporated Areas 370146 January 27, 1976, Emerg; December 1, 1981, Reg; August 18, 2007, Susp 08/16/2007 08/16/2007. Lincolnton, City of, Lincoln County 370147 November 3, 1975, Emerg; December 1, 1981, Reg; August 18, 2007, Susp ......do* Do. Region VI Louisiana: Ascension Parish, Unincorporated Areas 220013 April 26, 1973, Emerg; September 2, 1981, Reg; August 18, 2007, Susp ......do Do. Donaldsonville, City of, Ascension County 220014 April 25, 1973, Emerg; May 15, 1980, Reg; August 18, 2007, Susp ......do Do. Sorrento, Town of, Ascension County 220016 April 30, 1973, Emerg; June 1,1978, Reg; August 18, 2007, Susp ......do Do. *Do = Ditto. Code for reading third column: Emerg.—Emergency; Reg.—Regular; Susp.—Suspension. Dated: August 13, 2007. David I. Maurstad, Assistant Administrator Mitigation, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E7-16279 Filed 8-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 65 [Docket No. FEMA-B-7730 and B-7729] Changes in Flood Elevation Determinations AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Interim rule. SUMMARY: This interim rule lists communities where modification of the Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations
(BFEs)is appropriate because of new scientific or technical data. New flood insurance premium rates will be calculated from the modified BFEs for new buildings and their contents. DATES: These modified BFEs are currently in effect on the dates listed in the table below and revise the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) in effect prior to this determination for the listed communities. From the date of the second publication of these changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has ninety
(90)days in which to request through the community that the Mitigation Assistant Administrator of FEMA reconsider the changes. The modified BFEs may be changed during the 90-day period. ADDRESSES: The modified BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William R. Blanton, Jr., Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202)646-3151. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The modified BFEs are not listed for each community in this interim rule. However, the address of the Chief Executive Officer of the community where the modified BFE determinations are available for inspection is provided. Any request for reconsideration must be based on knowledge of changed conditions or new scientific or technical data. The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.* , and with 44 CFR part 65. For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals. The modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required to either adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). These modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established by the other Federal, State, or regional entities. The changes BFEs are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4. *National Environmental Policy Act.* This interim rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not been prepared. *Regulatory Flexibility Act.* As flood elevation determinations are not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. *Regulatory Classification.* This interim rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735. *Executive Order 13132, Federalism.* This interim rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132, Federalism. *Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform.* This interim rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988. List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 65 Flood insurance, Floodplains, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, 44 CFR part 65 is amended to read as follows: PART 65—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 65 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.* ; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. § 65.4 [Amended] 2. The tables published under the authority of § 65.4 are amended as follows: California: Ventura City of Simi Valley, (06-09-B562P) March 22, 2007; March 29, 2007; *Ventura County Star* The Honorable Paul Miller, Mayor, City of Simi Valley, 2929 Tapo Canyon Road, Simi Valley, CA 93063 June 28, 2007 060421 Ohio: Hamilton Village of Fairfax, (07-05-0437P) February 7, 2007; February 14, 2007; *The Community Press* The Honorable Theodore Shannon, Mayor, Village of Fairfax, 5903 Hawthorne Avenue, Fairfax, OH 45227 February 22, 2007 390215 Hamilton City of Cincinnati, (07-05-0437P) February 7, 2007; February 14, 2007; *The Community Press* The Honorable Mark Mallory, Mayor, City of Cincinnati, 801 Plum Street, Room 150, Cincinnati, OH 45202 February 22, 2007 390210 Wisconsin: Iowa Unincorporated areas of Iowa County, (07-05-0219P) January 18, 2007; January 25, 2007; *The Dodgeville Chronicle* The Honorable Mark Masters, Chairman, Iowa County Board, 222 North Iowa Street, Dodgeville, WI 53533 December 20, 2006 550522 (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: August 9, 2007. David I. Maurstad, Federal Insurance Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E7-16286 Filed 8-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 65 Changes in Flood Elevation Determinations AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: Modified Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations
(BFEs)are finalized for the communities listed below. These modified BFEs will be used to calculate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and their contents. DATES: The effective dates for these modified BFEs are indicated on the following table and revise the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) in effect for the listed communities prior to this date. ADDRESSES: The modified BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William R. Blanton, Jr., Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202)646-3151. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA)makes the final determinations listed below of the modified BFEs for each community listed. These modified BFEs have been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety
(90)days have elapsed since that publication. The Mitigation Division Director of FEMA resolved any appeals resulting from this notification. The modified BFEs are not listed for each community in this notice. However, this final rule includes the address of the Chief Executive Officer of the community where the modified BFEs determinations are available for inspection. The modified BFEs are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.* , and with 44 CFR part 65. For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals. The modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required to either adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). These modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These modified BFEs are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are also used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final, and for the contents in these buildings. The changes in BFEs are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4. *National Environmental Policy Act.* This final rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not been prepared. *Regulatory Flexibility Act.* As flood elevation determinations are not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. *Regulatory Classification.* This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735. *Executive Order 13132, Federalism.* This final rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132, Federalism. *Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform.* This final rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988. List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 65 Flood insurance, Floodplains, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, 44 CFR part 65 is amended to read as follows: PART 65—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 65 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.* ; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR,1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. § 65.4 [Amended] 2. The tables published under the authority of § 65.4 are amended as follows: State and county Location and case No. Date and name of newspaper where notice was published Chief executive officer of community Effective date of modification Community No. Alabama: Tuscaloosa (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) City of Northport (06-04-C176P) February 14, 2007; February 21, 2007; *The Northport Gazette* The Honorable Harvey Fretwell, Mayor, City of Newport, Northport City Hall, 3500 McFarland Boulevard, Northport, AL 35476 March 1, 2007 010202 Alaska: Anchorage (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) Municipality of Anchorage (06-10-B606P) December 21, 2006; December 28, 2006; *Anchorage Daily News* The Honorable Mark Begich, Mayor, Municipality of Anchorage, P.O. Box 196650, Anchorage, AK 99519-6650 November 29, 2006 020005 Arizona: Coconino (FEMA Docket No: B-7717) City of Williams (07-09-0126P) February 22, 2007; March 1, 2007; *Arizona Daily Sun* The Honorable Ken Edes, Mayor, City of Williams, 113 South First Street, Williams, AZ 86046 May 31, 2007 040027 Coconino (FEMA Docket No: B-7717) Unincorporated areas of Coconino County (07-09-0126P) February 22, 2007; March 1, 2007; *Arizona Daily Sun* The Honorable Matt Ryan, Chairman, Coconino County, Board of Supervisors, 219 East Cherry Avenue, Flagstaff, AZ 86001 May 31, 2007 040019 Maricopa (FEMA Docket No: B-7717) Town of Buckeye (07-09-0135P) March 22, 2007; March 29, 2007; *Arizona Business Gazette* The Honorable Bobby Bryant, Mayor, Town of Buckeye, 100 North Apache Road, Suite A, Goodyear, AZ 85326 June 28, 2007 040039 Maricopa (FEMA Docket No: B-7717) Unincorporated areas of Maricopa County (07-09-0135P) March 22, 2007; March 29, 2007; *Arizona Business Gazette* The Honorable Max Wilson, Chairman, Maricopa County, Board of Supervisors, 301 West Jefferson, 10th Floor, Phoenix, AZ 85003 June 28, 2007 040037 Pima (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) City of Tucson (06-09-BA36P) February 15, 2007; February 22, 2007; *The Daily Territorial* The Honorable Bob Walkup, Mayor, City of Tucson, P.O. Box 27210, Tucson, AZ 85726 January 26, 2007 040076 Pima (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) City of Tucson (06-09-BG63P) December 14, 2006; December 21, 2006; *The Daily Territorial* The Honorable Bob Walkup, Mayor, City of Tucson, P.O. Box 27210, Tucson, AZ 85726 November 22, 2006 040076 Yavapai (FEMA Docket No: B-7717) City of Chino Valley (07-09-0415P) March 15, 2007; March 22, 2007; *Prescott Daily Courier* The Honorable Karen Fann, Mayor, Town of Chino Valley, P.O. Box 406, Chino Valley, AZ 86323 February 27, 2007 040094 Arkansas: Benton (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) City of Bentonville (07-06-0537P) February 9, 2007; February 15, 2007; *Arkansas Democrat Gazette* The Honorable Terry L. Coberly, Mayor, City of Bentonville, 117 West Central Avenue, Bentonville, AR 72712 May 17, 2007 050012 Pulaski (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) Unincorporated areas of Pulaski County (06-06-BF55P) February 8, 2007; February 15, 2007; *Arkansas Democrat Gazette* The Honorable Floyd G. Villines, County Judge, Pulaski County Courthouse, 201 South Broadway, Little Rock, AR 72201 May 17, 2007 050179 Sebastian (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) City of Fort Smith (05-06-1080P) February 8, 2007; February 15, 2007; *Times Record* The Honorable C. Ray Baker, Jr., Mayor, City of Fort Smith, P.O. Box 1908, Fort Smith, AR 72902 March 8, 2007 055013 Sebastian (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) City of Fort Smith (05-06-1081P) February 9, 2007; February 16, 2007; *Times Record* The Honorable C. Ray Baker, Jr., Mayor, City of Fort Smith, 623 Garrison Avenue, Fort Smith, AR 72901 March 8, 2007 055013 California: Orange (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) City of Orange (07-09-0201P) February 22, 2007; March 1, 2007; *The Orange County Register* The Honorable Carolyn V. Cavecche, Mayor, City of Orange, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, CA 92866 May 31, 2007 060228 Orange (FEMA Docket No: B-7474) City of San Juan Capistrano (05-09-0793P) September 21, 2006; September 28, 2006; *The Orange County Register* The Honorable David M. Swerdlin, Mayor, City of San Juan Capistrano, City Hall, 32400 Paseo Adelanto, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 August 31, 2006 060231 Orange (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) City of Tustin (07-09-0201P) February 22, 2007; March 1, 2007; *The Orange County Register* The Honorable Lou Bone, Mayor, City of Tustin, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780, May 31, 2007 060235 Orange (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) Unincorporated areas of Orange County (07-09-0201P) February 22, 2007; March 1, 2007; *The Orange County Register* The Honorable Chris Norby, Chairman, Orange County Board of Supervisors, 333 West Santa Ana Boulevard, Santa Ana, CA 92701 May 31, 2007 060212 Riverside (FEMA Docket No: B-7717) City of Corona (06-09-BB68P) February 15, 2007; February 22, 2007; *The Press-Enterprise* The Honorable Eugene Montenez, Mayor, City of Corona, 400 South Vicentia Avenue, Corona, CA 92882 January 30, 2007 060250 Riverside (FEMA Docket No: B-7717) Unincorporated areas of Riverside County (06-09-BD43P) January 11, 2007; January 18, 2007; *The Press-Enterprise* The Honorable Bob Buster, Chairman, Riverside County, Board of Supervisors, 4080 Lemon Street, Fifth Floor, Riverside, CA 92501 April 19, 2007 060245 San Diego (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) City of Poway (06-09-BE88P) January 11, 2007; January 18, 2007; *San Diego Transcript* The Honorable Robert C. Emergy, Mayor, City of Poway, P.O. Box 789, Poway, CA 92074-0789 April 19, 2007 060702 San Diego (FEMA Docket No: B-7717) City of San Marcos (06-09-BE72P) March 8, 2007; March 15, 2007; *San Diego Transcript* The Honorable James Desmond, Mayor, City of San Marcos, One Civic Center Drive, San Marcos, CA 92069 February 23, 2007 060296 Yuba (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) Unincorporated areas of Yuba County (06-09-B119P) January 18, 2007; January 25, 2007; *The Appeal-Democrat* Mr. Robert Bendorf, Yuba County Administrator, 915 Eighth Street, Suite 115, Marysville, CA 95901 January 29, 2007 060427 Colorado: El Paso (FEMA Docket No: B-7719) City of Colorado Springs (06-08-A647P) December 27, 2006; January 3, 2007; *El Paso County Advertiser and News* The Honorable Lionel Rivera, Mayor, City of Colorado Springs, P.O. Box 1575, Colorado Springs, CO 80901 April 4, 2007 080060 El Paso (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) City of Fountain (06-08-B110P) January 3, 2007; January 10, 2007; *El Paso County Advertiser and News* The Honorable Jeri Howells, Mayor, City of Fountain, 116 South Main Street, Fountain, CO 80817 January 18, 2007 080061 El Paso (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) Unincorporated areas of El Paso County (06-08-B110P) January 3, 2007; January 10, 2007; *El Paso County Advertiser and News* The Honorable Sallie Clark, Chair, El Paso County Board of Commissioners, 27 East Vermijo Avenue, Colorado Springs, CO 80903 January 18, 2007 080059 Jefferson (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) City of Lakewood (06-08-B627P) January 4, 2007; January 11, 2007; *The Golden Transcript* The Honorable Steve Burkholder, Mayor, City of Lakewood, Lakewood Civic Center South, 480 South Allison Parkway, Lakewood, CO 80226 December 11, 2006 085075 Larimer (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) City of Fort Collins (06-08-B336P) January 18, 2007; January 25, 2007; *Fort Collins Coloradoan* The Honorable Doug Hutchinson, Mayor, City of Fort Collins, P.O. Box 580, Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 April 19, 2007 080102 Larimer (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) Unincorporated areas of Larimer County (06-08-B336P) January 18, 2007; January 25, 2007; *Fort Collins Coloradoan* The Honorable Glenn Gibson, Chairman, Larimer County Board of Commissioners, P.O. Box 1190, Fort Collins, CO 80522-1190 April 19, 2007 080101 Florida: Charlotte (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) City of Punta Gorda (07-04-1137P) February 22, 2007; March 1, 2007; *Charlotte Sun* The Honorable Larry Friedman, Mayor, City of Punta Gorda, 326 West Marion Avenue, Punta Gorda, FL 33950 January 29, 2007 120062 Collier (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) City of Naples (06-04-BH21P) February 8, 2007; February 15, 2007; *Naples Daily News* The Honorable Bill Barnett, Mayor, City of Naples, 735 Eight Street South, Naples, FL 34102 January 16, 2007 125130 Martin (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) Unincorporated areas of Martin County (06-04-C015P) February 22, 2007; March 1, 2007; *The Stuart News* Mr. Duncan Ballantyne, County Administrator, Martin County, 2401 Southeast Monterey Road, Stuart, FL 34996 May 31, 2007 120161 Pasco (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) Unincorporated areas of Pasco County (05-04-0987P) February 8, 2007; February 15, 2007; *Pasco Times* The Honorable Ann Hildebrand, Chairman, Pasco County, Board of Commissioners, 7530 Little Road, New Port Richey, FL 34654 May 17, 2007 120230 Polk (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) City of Haines City (06-04-BI19P) February 1, 2007; February 8, 2007; *The Polk County Democrat* The Honorable Horace West, Mayor, City of Haines City, P.O. Box 1507, Haines City, FL 33845 January 22, 2007 120266 Walton (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) City of Freeport (06-04-BC49P) January 30, 2007; February 7, 2007; *Northwest Florida Daily News* The Honorable J. M. Marse, Mayor, City of Freeport, P.O. Box 339, Freeport, FL 32439 December 20, 2006 120319 Georgia: Columbia (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) Unincorporated areas of Columbia County (06-04-B133P) February 21, 2007; February 28, 2007; *Columbia County News-Times* The Honorable Ron C. Cross, Chairman, Columbia County Board of Commissioners, P.O. Box 498, Evans, GA 30809 May 30, 2007 130059 Fulton (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) City of Atlanta (06-04-C646P) February 22, 2007; March 1, 2007; *Fulton County Daily Report* The Honorable Shirley Franklin, Mayor, City of Atlanta, 55 Trinity Avenue, Atlanta, GA 30303 January 31, 2007 135157 Fulton (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) City of East Point (06-04-C646P) February 22, 2007; March 1, 2007; *Fulton County Daily Report* The Honorable Joseph L. Macon, Mayor, City of East Point, 2777 East Point Street, East Point, GA 30344 January 31, 2007 130087 Gwinnett (FEMA Docket No: B-7717) City of Duluth (06-04-BO22P) March 22, 2007; March 29, 2007; *Gwinnett Daily Post* The Honorable Shirley Fanning-Lasseter, Mayor, City of Duluth, 3578 West Lawrenceville Street, Duluth, GA 30096 February 28, 2007 130098 Lamar (FEMA Docket No: B-7717) City of Barnesville (06-04-BZ31P) January 16, 2007; January 23, 2007; *The Herald-Gazette* The Honorable Dewaine T. Bell, Mayor, City of Barnesville, 109 Forsyth Street, Barnesville, GA 30204 April 24, 2007 130207 Hawaii: Maui (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) Unincorporated areas of Maui County (05-09-A226P) February 15, 2007; February 22, 2007; *Maui News* The Honorable Charmaine Tavares, Mayor, Maui County, 200 South High Street, Ninth Floor, Wailuku, Maui, HI 96793 May 24, 2007 150003 Iowa: Bremer (FEMA Docket No: B-7717) City of Denver (06-07-B991P) February 22, 2007; March 1, 2007; *The Waverly Democrat* The Honorable Mike Isaacson, Mayor, City of Denver, 100 Washington Street, Denver, IA 50622 May 31, 2007 190026 Bremer (FEMA Docket No: B-7717) Unincorporated areas of Bremer County, (06-07-B991P) February 22, 2007; March 1, 2007, *The Waverly Democrat* The Honorable Steven Reuter Head, Bremer County Board of Supervisors, 415 East Bremer Avenue, Waverly, IA 50677 May 31, 2007 190847 Illinois: Cook (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) Village of South Barrington, (06-05-BT49P) March 1, 2007; March 8, 2007, *Daily Herald* Mr. Frank J Munao, Jr., President, Village of South Barrington, Village Hall, 30 South Barrington Road, Barrington, IL 60010 June 7, 2007 170161 Kankakee (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) Village of Bradley (06-05-BJ19P) January 18, 2007; January 25, 2007, *Kankakee Daily Journal* The Honorable Gael K. Kent, Mayor, Village of Bradley, 147 South Michigan, Bradley, IL 60915 December 22, 2006 170338 Kankakee (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) Unincorporated areas of Kankakee County (06-05-BJ19P) January 18, 2007; January 25, 2007, *Kankakee Daily Journal* The Honorable Karl Kruse, Chairman, Kankakee County Board, 189 East Court Street, Fifth Floor, Kankakee, IL 60901 December 22, 2006 170336 Lake (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) Village of Lake Villa (06-05-BU68P) February 22, 2007; March 1, 2007, *The News Sun* The Honorable Frank M. Loffredo, Mayor, Village of Lake Villa, P.O. Box 519, Lake Villa, IL 60046 May 31, 2007 170375 Kansas: Sedgwick (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) City of Wichita (06-07-B210P) February 15, 2007; February 22, 2007, *The Wichita Eagle* The Honorable Carlos Mayans, Mayor, City of Wichita, City Hall, 455 North Main Street, Wichita, KS 67202 May 24, 2007 200328 Maryland: Carroll (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) Unincorporated areas of Carroll County (06-03-B843P) March 1, 2007; March 8, 2007, *Carroll County Times* The Honorable Julia W. Gouge, President, Carroll County, Board of Commissioners, 225 North Center Street, Room 300, Westminster, MD 21157 March 15, 2007 240015 Michigan: Washtenaw (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) City of Ann Arbor (07-05-0217P) February 22, 2007; March 1, 2007, *The Ann Arbor News* The Honorable John Hieftje, Mayor, City of Ann Arbor, 100 North 5th Avenue, Ann Arbor, MI 48104 January 23, 2007 260213 Minnesota: Anoka (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) City of Blaine (06-05-BY83P) February 23, 2007; March 2, 2007, *Blaine/Spring Lake Park Life* The Honorable Thomas Ryan, Mayor, City of Blaine, 10801 Town Square Drive NE, Blaine, MN 55449 January 31, 2007 270007 Olmsted (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) City of Rochester (06-05-B433P) March 8, 2007; March 15, 2007, *Post-Bulletin* The Honorable Ardell F. Brede, Mayor, City of Rochester, City Hall, 201 Fourth Street, Southeast, Room 281, Rochester, MN 55904 February 14, 2007 275246 Olmsted (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) Unincorporated areas of Olmsted County (06-05-B433P) March 8, 2007; March 15, 2007, *Post-Bulletin* The Honorable Ken Brown, Commissioner, District 2, Olmsted County Board of Commissioners, 151 Fourth Street, Southeast Rochester, MN 55904 February 14, 2007 270626 Polk (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) City of Crookston (07-05-1774P) February 15, 2007; February 22, 2007, *The Crookston Daily Times* The Honorable Dave Genereaux, Mayor, City Of Crookston, 124 North Broadway, Crookston, MN 56716 February 26, 2007 270364 Missouri: Greene (FEMA Docket No: B-7717) City of Springfield (05-07-0451P) February 15, 2007; February 22, 2007, *Springfield News-Leader* The Honorable Thomas J. Carlson, Mayor, City of Springfield, 840 Boonville Avenue, Springfield, MO 65802 May 24, 2007 290149 Greene (FEMA Docket No: B-7717) Unincorporated areas of Greene County (05-07-0451P) February 15, 2007; February 22, 2007, *Springfield News-Leader* The Honorable David Coonrod, Presiding Commissioner, Greene County Commission, 933 North Robberson, Springfield, MO 65802 May 24, 2007 290782 Nevada: Clark (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) City of North Las Vegas (06-09-BD79P) December 21, 2006; December 28, 2006, *Las Vegas Review-Journal* The Honorable Michael L. Montandon, Mayor, City of North Las Vegas, 2200 Civic Center Drive, North Las Vegas, NV 89030 November 30, 2006 320007 New Jersey: Bergen (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) Borough of Allendale (07-02-0297P) February 23, 2007; March 2, 2007, *The Record* The Honorable Vince Barra, Mayor, Borough of Allendale, 500 West Crescent Avenue, Allendale, NJ 07401 February 26, 2007 340019 New York: Westchester (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) City of New Rochelle (06-02-B832P) January 25, 2007; February 1, 2007, *The Journal News* The Honorable Noam Bramson, Mayor, City of New Rochelle, 515 North Avenue, New Rochelle, NY 10801 July 5, 2007 360922 Ohio: Butler (FEMA Docket No: B-7717) Unincorporated areas of Butler County (06-05-B014P) January 11, 2007; January 18, 2007, *The Middletown Journal* The Honorable Gregory V. Jolivette, President, Butler County, Board of Commissioners, 315 High Street, Sixth Floor, Hamilton, OH 45011 April 19, 2007 390037 Cuyahoga (FEMA Docket No: B-7717) City of Shaker Heights (05-05-A485P) March 1, 2007; March 8, 2007, *Bedford Times* The Honorable Judith H. Rawson, Mayor, City of Shaker Heights, 3400 Lee Road, Shaker Heights, OH 44120 June 7, 2007 390129 Greene (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) Unincorporated areas of Greene County (06-05-BJ18P) December 30, 2006; January 6, 2007, *Xenia Daily Gazette* The Honorable Ralph Harper, President, Greene County Board of Commissioners, 35 Greene Street, Xenia, OH 45385 April 9, 2007 390193 Montgomery (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) City of Kettering (06-05-BJ18P) December 30, 2006; January 6, 2007, *Kettering-Oakwood Times* The Honorable Don Patterson, Mayor, City of Kettering, 3600 Shroyer Road, Kettering, OH 45429 April 9, 2007 390412 Oklahoma: Rogers (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) Unincorporated areas of Rogers County (06-06-BD69P) February 15, 2007; February 22, 2007; *Claremore Daily Progress* The Honorable Kenneth Crutchfield, County Commissioner, Rogers County 219 South Missouri, Claremore, OK 74017 May 24, 2007 405379 Tulsa (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) City of Tulsa (06-06-BH35P) February 8, 2007; February 15, 2007; *Tulsa World* The Honorable Kathy Taylor, Mayor, City of Tulsa 200 Civic Center, 11th Floor, Tulsa, OK 74103 May 17, 2007 405381 Washington (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) Unincorporated areas of Washington County (06-06-BD69P) February 15, 2007; February 22, 2007; *Claremore Daily Progress* The Honorable Linda D. Herndon, County Commissioner, Washington County, Washington County Administration Office 400 South Johnstone, Room 201, Bartlesville, OK 74003. May 24, 2007 400459 Oregon: Multnomah (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) City of Fairview (06-10-B082P) December 20, 2006; December 27, 2006; *The Gresham Outlook* The Honorable Mike Weatherby, Mayor, City of Fairview 1300 Northeast Village Street, Fairview, OR 97024. March 28, 2007 410180 Puerto Rico: Puerto Rico (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (07-02-0109P) March 1, 2007; March 8, 2007; *El San Juan Star* The Honorable Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Governor of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, P.O. Box 82, La Fortaleza, San Juan, PR 00901 June 7, 2007 720000 South Carolina: Charleston (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) Town of Mount Pleasant (07-04-0382P) February 14, 2007; February 21, 2007; *Moultrie News* The Honorable Harry M. Hallman, Jr., Mayor, Town of Mount Pleasant, Post Office Box 745, Mount Pleasant, SC 29465 January 29, 2007 455417 Horry (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) Unincorporated areas of Horry County (06-04-B279P) January 18, 2007; January 25, 2007; *Horry Independent* The Honorable Elizabeth Gilland, Chairmain, Board of Commissioners, Horry County 1511 Elm Street, Conway, SC 29526 April 26, 2007 450104 Lexington (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) Unincorporated areas of Lexington County (06-04-BI42P) February 22, 2007; March 1, 2007; *The Lexington County Chronicle* The Honorable M. Todd Cullum, Chairman, Lexington County Council, 212 South Lake Drive, Lexington, SC 29072 January 31, 2007 450129 South Dakota: Lawrence (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) City of Spearfish (06-08-B498P) February 15, 2007; February 22, 2007; *Black Hills Pioneer* The Honorable Jerry Krambech, Mayor, City of Spearfish 223 Vermont Street, Spearfish, SD 57783 January 25, 2007 460046 Pennington (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) Unincorporated areas of Pennington County (06-08-B381P) January 18, 2007; January 25, 2007; *Rapid City Journal* The Honorable Ken Davis, Chairman, Pennington County Board of Commissioners, 315 Saint Joseph Street, Suite 156, Rapid City, SD 57701 January 22, 2007 460064 Tennessee: Shelby (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) Unincorporated areas of Shelby County (04-04-A415P) January 11, 2007; January 18, 2007; *The Daily News* The Honorable A. C. Wharton, Jr., Mayor, Shelby County 160 North Main Street, Suite 850, Memphis, TN 38103 April 19, 2007 470214 Texas: Collin (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) Town of Fairview (06-06-B959P) January 11, 2007; January 18, 2007; *McKinney Courier Gazette* The Honorable Sim Israeloff, Mayor, Town of Fairview 500 South Highway 5, Fairview, TX 75069 April 19, 2007 481069 Collin (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) Unincorporated areas of Collin County (06-06-B959P) January 11, 2007; January 18, 2007; *McKinney Courier Gazette* The Honorable Ron Harris, Collin County Judge, 210 South McDonald Street, Suite 626, McKinney, TX 75069 April 19, 2007 480130 Dallas (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) City of Irving (06-06-BD58P) March 8, 2007; March 15, 2007; *Dallas Morning News* The Honorable Herbert A. Gears, Mayor, City of Irving, 825 W. Irving Blvd., Irving, TX 75060 June 14, 2007 480180 Denton (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) City of Denton (06-06-BH76P) March 15, 2007; March 22, 2007; *Denton Record-Chronicle* The Honorable Perry McNeill, Mayor, City of Denton 215 East McKinney Street, Denton, TX 76201 February 27, 2007 480194 Denton (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) City of Denton (06-06-BJ01P) February 15, 2007; February 22, 2007; *Denton Record-Chronicle* The Honorable Perry McNeill, Mayor, City of Denton, 215 East McKinney Street, Denton, TX 76201 January 26, 2007 480194 Denton (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) Town of Shady Shores (06-06-BJ01P) February 15, 2007; February 22, 2007; *Denton Record-Chronicle* The Honorable Olive Stephens, Mayor, Town of Shady Shores, P.O. Box 362, Lake Dallas, TX 75065 January 26, 2007 481135 Erath (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) City of Stephenville (07-06-0505P) January 25, 2007; February 1, 2007; *Stephenville Empire-Tribune* The Honorable Rusty Jergins, Mayor, City of Stephenville 298 West Washington Street, Stephenville, TX 76401 May 3, 2007 480220 Fort Bend, Harris and Waller (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) City of Katy (06-06-B244P) February 15, 2007; February 22, 2007; *Fort Bend Herald* The Honorable Doyle G. Callender, Mayor, City of Katy, P.O. Box 617, Katy, TX 77492 February 26, 2007 480301 Fort Bend (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) Village of Pleak (06-06-BG61P) February 22, 2007; March 1, 2007; *Fort Bend Herald* The Honorable Margie Krenek, Mayor, Village of Pleak 6621 FM 2218 South, Richmond, TX 77469 May 31, 2007 481615 Fort Bend (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) City of Rosenberg (06-06-BG61P) February 22, 2007; March 1, 2007; *Fort Bend Herald* The Honorable Joe M. Gurecky, Mayor, City of Rosenberg, P.O. Box 32, Rosenberg, TX 77471 May 31, 2007 480232 Fort Bend (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) Unincorporated areas of Fort Bend County (06-06-B244P) February 15, 2007; February 22, 2007; *Fort Bend Herald* The Honorable Robert E. Hebert, Ph.D., Fort Bend County Judge, 301 Jackson Street, Richmond, TX 77469 February 26, 2007 480228 Fort Bend (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) Unincorporated areas of Fort Bend County (06-06-BG61P) February 22, 2007; March 1, 2007; *Fort Bend Herald* The Honorable Robert E. Hebert, Ph.D., Fort Bend County Judge, 301 Jackson Street, Richmond, TX 77469 May 31, 2007 480228 Harris (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) City of Houston (06-06-BJ02P) February 15, 2007; February 22, 2007; *Houston Chronicle* The Honorable Bill White, Mayor, City of Houston, P.O. Box 1562, Houston, TX 77251 January 25, 2007 480296 Harris (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) Unincorporated areas of Harris County (06-06-BJ02P) February 15, 2007; February 22, 2007; *Houston Chronicle* The Honorable Robert Eckels, Harris County Judge, 1001 Preston, Suite 911, Houston, TX 77002 January 25, 2007 480287 Johnson (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) City of Burleson 05-06-0645P) January 10, 2007; January 17, 2007; *Burleson Star* The Honorable Kenneth Shetter, Mayor, City of Burleson, 141 West Renfro Street, Burleson, TX 76028 January 19, 2007 485459 Jones and Taylor (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) City of Abilene (06-06-BD70P) January 18, 2007; January 25, 2007; *Abilene Reporter-News* The Honorable Norm Archibald, Mayor, City of Abilene, 717 Byrd Drive, Abilene, TX 79601 April 19, 2007 485450 Kendall (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) Unincorporated areas of Kendall County (06-06-B858P) January 19, 2007; January 26, 2007; *The Boerne Star* The Honorable Eddie John Vogt, Kendall County Judge, Kendall County Courthouse, 201 East San Antonio Street, Boerne, TX 78006 April 27, 2007 480417 Lubbock (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) City of Lubbock (06-06-BD46P) March 8, 2007; March 15, 2007; *Lubbock Avalanche-Journal* The Honorable David Miller, Mayor, City of Lubbock, P.O. Box 2000, Lubbock, TX 79457 June 14, 2007 480452 Tarrant (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) City of Fort Worth (06-06-B718P) November 30, 2006; December 7, 2006; *Fort Worth Star-Telegram* The Honorable Michael J Moncrief, Mayor, City of Forth Worth, 1000 Throckmorton Street, Fort Worth, TX 76102 March 8, 2007 480596 Tarrant (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) City of Fort Worth (06-06-BH34P) February 8, 2007; February 15, 2007; *Denton Record-Chronicle* The Honorable Michael J. Moncrief, Mayor, City of Fort Worth, 1000 Throckmorton Street, Fort Worth, TX 76102 May 17, 2007 480596 Tarrant (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) City of Fort Worth (06-06-BK38P) March 1, 2007; March 8, 2007; *Fort Worth Star-Telegram* The Honorable Mike J. Moncrief, Mayor, City of Fort Worth, 1000 Throckmorton Street, Fort Worth, TX 76102 June 7, 2007 480596 Tarrant (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) Unincorporated areas of Tarrant County (06-06-B718P) November 30, 2006; December 7, 2006; *Fort Worth Star-Telegram* The Honorable Tom Vandergriff, County Judge, Tarrant County, 100 East Weatherford Street, Suite 502A, Fort Worth, TX 76196 March 8, 2007 480582 Tarrant (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) City of Fort Worth (07-06-0103P) November 30, 2006; December 7, 2006; *Fort Worth Star-Telegram* The Honorable Michael J. Moncrief, Mayor, City of Fort Worth, 1000 Throckmorton Street, Fort Worth, TX 76102 March 8, 2007 480596 Travis (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) City of Austin (06-06-B467P) January 18, 2007; January 25, 2007; *Austin American-Statesman* The Honorable Will Wynn, Mayor, City of Austin, P.O. Box 1088, Austin, TX 78767 December 29, 2006 480264 Williamson (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) City of Cedar Park (06-06-BI70P) February 21, 2007; February 28, 2007; *Hill County News* The Honorable Bob Lemon, Mayor, City of Cedar Park, City Hall, 600 North Bell Boulevard, Cedar Park, TX 78613 May 30, 2007 481282 Virginia: Fauquier (FEMA Docket No: B-7717) Unincorporated areas of Fauquier County (06-03-B867P) February 28, 2007; March 7, 2007; *Fauquier Times-Democrat* The Honorable Ray Graham, Chairman, Fauquier County, Board of Supervisors, Warren Green Building, 10 Hotel Street, Suite 208 Warrenton, VA 20186 June 6, 2007 510055 Fauquier (FEMA Docket No: B-7716) Unincorporated areas of Fauquier County (06-03-B895P) February 7, 2007; February 14, 2007; *Fauquier Times* The Honorable Ray Graham, Chairman, Fauquier County, Board of Supervisors, Warren Green Building, 10 Hotel Street, Suite 208, Warrenton, VA 20186 January 18, 2007 510055 Washington: King (FEMA Docket No: B-7717) City of Issaquah (06-10-B001P) March 7, 2007; March 14, 2007; *The Issaquah Press* The Honorable Ava Frisinger, Mayor, City of Issaquah, P.O. Box 1307, Issaquah, WA 98027 June 13, 2007 530079 (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: August 10, 2007. David I. Maurstad, Federal Insurance Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E7-16280 Filed 8-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Parts 20 and 21 RIN 1018-AV15 Migratory Bird Permits; Regulations for Managing Resident Canada Goose Populations AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: On August 10, 2006, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or “we”) published a final rule on resident Canada goose management. This final rule clarifies and slightly modifies several program requirements regarding eligibility, definitions, methodologies, and dates. DATES: This final rule becomes effective on August 20, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may inspect comments received on the proposed rule during normal business hours in Room 4107, 4501 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia. You may obtain copies of the FEIS from the above address or from the Division of Migratory Bird Management Web site at *http://fws.gov/migratorybirds/issues/cangeese/finaleis.htm.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Blohm, Chief, Division of Migratory Bird Management, or Ron Kokel
(703)358-1714 (see ADDRESSES ). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority and Responsibility Migratory birds are protected under four bilateral migratory bird treaties the United States entered into with Great Britain (for Canada in 1916 as amended in 1999), the United Mexican States (1936 as amended in 1972 and 1999), Japan (1972 as amended in 1974), and the Soviet Union (1978). Regulations allowing the take of migratory birds are authorized by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-711), and the Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 712). The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (Act), which implements the above-mentioned treaties, provides that, subject to and to carry out the purposes of the treaties, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized and directed to determine when, to what extent, and by what means allowing hunting, killing, and other forms of taking of migratory birds, their nests, and eggs is compatible with the conventions. The Act requires the Secretary to implement a determination by adopting regulations permitting and governing those activities. Canada geese are Federally protected by the Act by reason of the fact that they are listed as migratory birds in all four treaties. Because Canada geese are covered by all four treaties, regulations must meet the requirements of the most restrictive of the four. For Canada geese, this is the treaty with Canada. All regulations concerning resident Canada geese are compatible with its terms, with particular reference to Articles VII, V, and II. Each treaty not only permits sport hunting, but permits the take of migratory birds for other reasons, including scientific, educational, propagative, or other specific purposes consistent with the conservation principles of the various Conventions. More specifically, Article VII, Article II (paragraph 3), and Article V of “The Protocol Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Canada Amending the 1916 Convention between the United Kingdom and the United States of America for the Protection of Migratory Birds in Canada and the United States” provides specific limitations on allowing the take of migratory birds for reasons other than sport hunting. Article VII authorizes the take, kill, etc., of migratory birds that, under extraordinary conditions, become seriously injurious to agricultural or other interests. Article V relates to the taking of nests and eggs, and Article II, paragraph 3, states that, in order to ensure the long-term conservation of migratory birds, migratory bird populations shall be managed in accord with listed conservation principles. The other treaties are less restrictive. The treaties with both Japan (Article III, paragraph 1, subparagraph (b)) and the Soviet Union (Article II, paragraph 1, subparagraph (d)) provide specific exceptions to migratory bird take prohibitions for the purpose of protecting persons and property. The treaty with Mexico requires, with regard to migratory game birds, only that there be a “closed season” on hunting and that hunting be limited to 4 months in each year. Regulations governing the issuance of permits to take, capture, kill, possess, and transport migratory birds are promulgated in title 50, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), parts 13 and 21, and issued by the Service. The Service annually promulgates regulations governing the take, possession, and transportation of migratory birds under sport hunting seasons in 50 CFR part 20. Background On August 10, 2006, we published in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 45964), a final rule establishing regulations in 50 CFR parts 20 and 21 authorizing State wildlife agencies, private landowners, and airports to conduct (or allow) indirect and/or direct population control management activities, including the take of birds, on resident Canada goose populations. Since publication of the August 10 rule, several questions and issues have been raised by the public regarding various restrictions and requirements of the new regulations. On March 22, 2007, we published in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 13459) a proposed rule to clarify and slightly modify several program requirements regarding eligibility, definitions, methodologies, and dates. This final rule addresses comments we received on the March 22 proposed rule and modifies regulations contained in 50 CFR parts 20 and 21 pertaining to several program requirements regarding eligibility, definitions, methodologies, and dates. Public Comments and Responses We received public comments on the March 22 proposed rule from four State wildlife resource agencies: The Missouri Department of Conservation (Missouri), the New York Division of Fish, Wildlife, and Marine Resources (New York), the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (Wisconsin), and the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (Wyoming). We considered all comments. In general, New York and Wyoming supported all of the proposed changes and clarifications, and Wisconsin supported the clarification of methods for nest and egg destruction and the inclusion of local units of government in the nest and egg depredation order. Other, more specific comments are described, and responded to, below:
(1)New York sees no biological reason to limit the definition of “resident Canada geese” to Canada geese nesting within the lower 48 States or District of Columbia during the months of March, April, May, or June. New York recommends expanding the definition to resident Canada geese to include those geese that nest in those areas at any time. Such an expansion would allow the take of nests and eggs at any time in the lower 48 States. While we agree with New York that the removal of any Canada goose nests in either February or July would have no biological impact on resident Canada goose populations, we also believe that the current definition of resident Canada geese allows the take of resident Canada goose nests and eggs in 98 percent of all such circumstances. Further, any goose nest discovered in February would likely be available for nest destruction activities in March. Thus, we see no need to significantly alter the existing definition. However, if future data demonstrate that expanding the current definition would further assist in dealing with the conflicts and problems caused by resident Canada geese, we would reexamine the issue.
(2)Wyoming expressed concern that the public may not be aware that any particular State wildlife agency could have additional or stricter requirements than those contained in the Federal regulations. Wyoming encouraged the Service to include cautionary statements in the text of each control and depredation order. We have consistently stated that States and Tribes may always be more restrictive than Federal regulations. All of the regulations authorizing the specific control and depredation orders have explicit language stating that “Nothing in this section authorizes the destruction of resident Canada goose nests or the take of resident Canada goose eggs contrary to the laws or regulations of any State or Tribe, and none of the privileges of this section may be exercised unless the landowner is authorized to operate under the program and possesses the appropriate State or Tribal permits, when required. Moreover, this section does not authorize the killing of any migratory bird species or destruction of their nest or eggs other than resident Canada geese [§ 21.50(d)(7)],” or similar language [see § 21.49(d)(6); § 21.51(d)(9); and § 21.52(d)(7)]. Further, we have added specific State-supplied information on our Resident Canada Goose Nest and Egg Registration Web site ( *https://epermits.fws.gov/eRCGR* ) informing the public about State participation and any additional State requirements.
(3)Wisconsin does not support the use of expanded hunting methods and opportunities during September 16-30 and Missouri does not support the use of any expanded hunting methods and opportunities at any time during September. Missouri further believed that
(a)the expanded hunting methods would have a minimal impact on resident Canada geese;
(b)a September 16 regular goose season framework opening date and additional regular season days could be more effective for increasing harvest of resident Canada goose populations; and
(c)population estimates for resident Canada geese in the Mississippi Flyway appear to have stabilized during the last 5 years. Traditionally we have used special Canada goose seasons in September to specifically target resident goose populations and address some of the conflicts and problems caused by overabundant resident Canada geese. The objectives identified in the November 2005 Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS)(notices of availability published November 18, 2005, at 70 FR 69966 and 70 FR 69985) include reducing the resident Canada goose population to levels more inline with the Flyway Councils' established goals and objectives. To accomplish these objectives requires extraordinary measures. Currently available harvest and population data clearly indicate that current harvest is not able to significantly impact resident Canada goose population growth rates on other than a local scale. We estimated that the additional use of these methods during the September special seasons could increase harvest by at least 25 percent, or an additional 140,000 geese annually. As we stated in the FEIS and the August 10 final rule, we believe that implementation of these new hunting methods will help contribute to the overall program's objective of stabilizing and reducing resident Canada goose populations. At the same time we realize that there are those who believe that we have unnecessarily liberalized the allowable hunting methods; and, therefore, sacrificed hunting ethics in our perceived shortsightedness. However, given the extraordinary circumstances of these populations, the many challenges of reducing the populations on a national scale, and the Flyways' and our long-range population goals, we expanded the allowable hunting methods to the extent we believe necessary to help assist in reducing resident Canada goose populations. Once we have attained these objectives, we will initiate action to rescind these liberalizations. When we ultimately decided to authorize these expanded hunting methods in September Canada goose seasons, we also decided to restrict any management-take type action to the month of August. We made this decision with the full knowledge that extending such an action into September would likely result in the take of some migrant geese. In particular, areas in the upper midwest (Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Montana) would have some level of migrant geese taken. Since the management take component, as with the entire scope of the EIS, is specifically directed at resident Canada geese, we could not reliably extend the management take component into September. Thus, to proceed cautiously and to ensure that other migratory game bird populations were not impacted by such measures, we eliminated the management take component from any portion of the open Treaty period (after August 31) and limited the use of expanded hunting methods to September 1 to 15. Based on data from the numerous experimental September Canada goose seasons conducted in the early implementation of these seasons, we know that the period after September 15 is highly temporally and spatially variable on whether or not a specific area contains migrant geese (either appreciable numbers or an appreciable percentage). Because of the potential for these expanded methods to significantly affect harvest, we stated that the use of these methods of take (i.e., electronic calls, unplugged shotguns, and the allowance of shooting hours to one-half hour after sunset) should be limited to the extent possible to those areas that are relatively “free” of migrant geese. Thus, initially, we decided to restrict the use of these new methods to the September 1 to 15 period and review their use after September 15 on a case-by-case basis. While we stand by this previous decision, we remain open to discussion in the future, especially if any new data is presented. Further, as always, Flyway Councils may be more restrictive in their recommendations to member States, and States may be more restrictive in their implementation decisions. Regarding Missouri's comment that a September 16 regular goose season framework opening date and additional regular season days could be more effective for increasing harvest of resident Canada goose populations, this issue presents a number of biological and administrative issues. While we agree that such actions could increase harvest pressure on resident Canada geese, a September 16 framework opening date throughout not only the Mississippi Flyway, but also the Atlantic and Central Flyways, would require establishing the regular season during the early-season regulations process, which presents a number of administrative problems and has nationwide implications.
(4)Missouri recommends a July 15 (or July 30) reporting deadline for nest and egg destruction information. Missouri is concerned that the quality of reported information could suffer with a June 30 deadline for nest and egg destruction activities and an October 31 deadline for reporting information. While we encourage registrants to report nest destruction information in a timely manner, our established reporting deadline is consistent with other reporting deadlines for migratory bird permits. However, if future data demonstrate that the current October 31 reporting deadline could be contributing to reporting data of a less than desired quality, we will reexamine the issue. Regulatory Changes and Modifications Definition of Resident Canada Geese The current definition of resident Canada geese contained in § 20.11 and § 21.3 states that “Canada geese that nest within the lower 48 States in the months of March, April, May, or June, or reside within the lower 48 States and the District of Columbia in the months of April, May, June, July, or August” are considered resident Canada geese. We have modified the first portion of this definition by inserting “and the District of Columbia” following the word “States” to clarify that those Canada geese that nest within the District of Columbia in the months of March, April, May, or June, are included. It was not our original intention to exclude the District of Columbia from the definition. Expanded Hunting Methods During September Special Seasons One of the components in the resident Canada goose management program is to provide expanded hunting methods and opportunities to increase the sport harvest of resident Canada geese above that which results from existing September special Canada goose seasons. The regulatory changes in § 20.21(b) and
(g)codified in the August 10 final rule provide State wildlife management agencies and Tribal entities the option of authorizing the use of electronic calls and unplugged shotguns during the first portion of existing, operational September Canada goose seasons (i.e., September 1-15). The August 10 final rule also stated that utilization of these additional hunting methods during any new special seasons or other existing, operational special seasons (i.e., September 16-30) could be approved by the Service and would require demonstration of a minimal impact to migrant Canada goose populations. Further, these seasons would be authorized on a case-by-case basis through the normal migratory bird hunting regulatory process. All of these expanded hunting methods and opportunities must be conducted outside of any other open waterfowl season (i.e., when all other waterfowl and crane hunting seasons were closed). However, the regulatory changes codified in the August 10, 2006, final rule did not allow for utilization of these additional hunting methods outside of the September 1-15 period, although this was clearly our intent. We have modified § 20.21(b) and
(g)to allow State selection of these expanded hunting methods during the September 16-30 period, when approved in the annual regulatory schedule in subpart K of part 20. Clarification of Airports’ Radius Since publication of the August 10 final rule we have received questions regarding interpretation of the 3-mile radius restriction on resident Canada goose activities at airports and military airfields. We have clarified this restriction by specifically including areas within the airport, and the military base on which a military airfield is located, and inserting the term “outer boundary.” Thus, resident Canada goose management activities at airports and military airfields would be restricted to areas within the airport, or the military base on which a military airfield is located, and within a 3-mile radius of the outer boundaries of such a facility. Eligibility and Participation in the Nest and Egg Depredation Order Currently, § 21.50 authorizes private landowners and managers of public lands to destroy resident Canada goose nests and eggs on property under their jurisdiction when necessary to resolve or prevent injury to people, property, agricultural crops, or other interests. We have modified this eligibility to also include homeowners' associations and village, town, municipal, and county governments (collectively termed local governments). Homeowners' associations and local governments would be allowed to register under the nest and egg depredation order and conduct nest and egg destruction anywhere within their jurisdiction, provided that they have landowner permission to conduct such activities. Our modification is based on several factors. First, we currently issue individual depredation permits allowing resident Canada goose nest and egg destruction to these groups, particularly in the northeastern United States. We believe the extension of eligibility to these groups to operate under the nest and egg depredation order is not outside the intent of the depredation order, is formalization of an already established practice under our permit system, and is simply an administrative modification. Second, since the publication of the August 10 rule, we have received numerous public comments requesting this modification. Modification of this requirement will help ensure public satisfaction and satisfy our original objective of providing affected States and the public with flexibility sufficient to deal with the problems caused by resident Canada geese. Lastly, since local governments are in an obvious position of local authority and jurisdiction, we believe they are a logical extension of our existing landowner definition. The changes include referring to these persons and entities collectively as “registrants.” Necessary conforming changes in a number of subsections were also made. Nest and Egg Destruction Methodologies Under § 21.50 We modified the approved methodologies for nest and egg destruction under the depredation order for resident Canada geese nests and eggs in § 21.50(d)(3). Currently, the regulations state that eggs may be oiled or eggs and nest material may be removed and disposed of. All of the other depredation and control orders pertaining to resident Canada geese (§§ 21.49, 21.51, and 21.52) allow egg oiling and egg and nest destruction. We believe the latter language is more comprehensive and includes such methodologies as egg addling (egg shaking), puncturing, and egg replacement. It was not our intent to be more restrictive regarding nest and egg destruction methodologies under the nest and egg depredation order than the other resident Canada goose depredation and control orders or what we currently allow on permits allowing nest and egg destruction. We believe this modification is minor in nature, satisfies numerous public requests for clarification and alignment, simplifies restrictions, and maintains the original intent of the regulation. Web Address Under § 21.50 We modified the web address for registering and submitting annual reports of the take of nests and eggs under the depredation order for resident Canada geese nests and eggs in § 21.50(d)(1) and (6). Applicable Dates of § 21.61 Population Control We corrected § 21.61(d)(2) to read “August 31” rather than “August 30.” This was strictly an oversight. Effective Date Under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(d)), we waive the 30-day period before the rule becomes effective and find that “good cause” exists, within the terms of 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) of the APA, and so this rule will take effect immediately upon publication. It is not in the public interest to delay the effective date of this rule. In many parts of the country, especially the northeastern and midwestern States, special September hunting seasons for resident Canada geese will take place. Any delay in the effective date of this rule could impact States' ability to implement expanded hunting methods and opportunities this September. It is in the best interest of the States and the public to clarify and slightly modify several program requirements regarding eligibility, definitions, methodologies, and dates to allow State wildlife agencies and affected publics the ability to reduce the number and frequency of injurious resident Canada geese. NEPA Considerations In compliance with the requirements of section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(C)), and the Council on Environmental Quality's regulation for implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508), we published the availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS)on March 7, 2002 (67 FR 10431), followed by a 91-day comment period. We subsequently reopened the comment period for 60 additional days (68 FR 50546, August 21, 2003). On November 18, 2005, both the Service and the Environmental Protection Agency published notices of availability for the Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS)in the **Federal Register** (70 FR 69966 and 70 FR 69985). On August 10, 2006, we published our Record of Decision
(ROD)in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 45964). The FEIS is available to the public (see ADDRESSES ). These changes to the resident Canada goose regulations fall within the scope of the FEIS. Endangered Species Act Consideration Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; 87 Stat. 884) provides that “Each Federal agency shall, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary, insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out * * * is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of [critical] habitat * * *.” We completed a biological evaluation and informal consultation (both available upon request; see ADDRESSES ) under Section 7 of the ESA for the action described in the August 10 final rule. In the letter of concurrence between the Division of Migratory Bird Management and the Division of Endangered Species, we concluded that the inclusion of specific conservation measures in the final rule satisfied concerns about certain species and that the action was not likely to adversely affect any threatened, endangered, or candidate species. Prior to issuance of this final rule on these modifications, in a memo of concurrence between the Division of Migratory Bird Management and the Division of Endangered Species, we concluded that the proposed modifications and clarifications are not likely to adversely affect any species designated as endangered or threatened or modify or destroy its critical habitat and is consistent with conservation programs for those species (available upon request; see ADDRESSES ). Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ) requires the preparation of flexibility analyses for actions that will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, which includes small businesses, organizations, or governmental jurisdictions. We discussed these impacts in the August 10 final rule. For the reasons detailed in that rule, we have determined that a Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis is not required. Executive Order 12866 In accordance with the criteria in Executive Order 12866, this action is not a significant regulatory action subject to Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)review. This rule will not have an annual economic effect of $100 million or adversely affect any economic sector, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, or other units of government. Therefore, a cost-benefit economic analysis is not required. This action will not create inconsistencies with other agencies' actions or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency. The Federal agency most interested in this action is Wildlife Services of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. The action is consistent with the policies and guidelines of other Department of the Interior bureaus. This action will not materially affect entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients. This action will not raise novel legal or policy issues because we have previously managed resident Canada geese under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. It will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; nor will it cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions. It will not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. Paperwork Reduction Act and Information Collection This rule does not contain any new information collection or recordkeeping requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)). OMB has approved and assigned control number 1018-0133, which expires on 08/31/2009, to the regulations concerning the control and management of resident Canada geese. We may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires agencies to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. The purpose of the act is to strengthen the partnership between the Federal Government and State, local, and tribal governments and to end the imposition, in the absence of full consideration by Congress, of Federal mandates on these governments without adequate Federal funding, in a manner that may displace other essential governmental priorities. We have determined, in compliance with the requirements of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 *et seq.* , that this action will not “significantly or uniquely” affect small governments, and will not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or more in any given year on local or State government or private entities. Therefore, this action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Civil Justice Reform—Executive Order 12988 We have determined that these regulations meet the applicable standards provided in Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988. Specifically, this rule has been reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity, has been written to minimize litigation, provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct, and specifies in clear language the effect on existing Federal law or regulation. We do not anticipate that this rule will require any additional involvement of the justice system beyond enforcement of provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 that have already been implemented through previous rulemakings. Takings Implication Assessment In accordance with Executive Order 12630, this action, authorized by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, does not have significant takings implications and does not affect any constitutionally protected property rights. This action will not result in the physical occupancy of property, the physical invasion of property, or the regulatory taking of any property. In fact, this action will help alleviate private and public property damage and concerns related to public health and safety and allow the exercise of otherwise unavailable privileges. Federalism Effects Due to the migratory nature of certain species of birds, the Federal Government has been given statutory responsibility over these species by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. While legally this responsibility rests solely with the Federal Government, it is in the best interest of the migratory bird resource for us to work cooperatively with the Flyway Councils and States to develop and implement the various migratory bird management plans and strategies. The August 10 final rule and this rule were developed following extensive input from the Flyway Councils, States, and Wildlife Services. Individual Flyway management plans were developed and approved by the four Flyway Councils, and States actively participated in the scoping process for the DEIS. This rule does not have a substantial direct effect on fiscal capacity, change the roles or responsibilities of Federal or State governments, or intrude on State policy or administration. The rule allows States the latitude to develop and implement their own resident Canada goose management action plan within the frameworks of the selected alternative. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have significant federalism effects and does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and 512 DM 2, we have determined that this rule has no effects on Federally-recognized Indian tribes. Energy Effects—Executive Order 13211 On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and is not expected to adversely affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action and no Statement of Energy Effects is required. List of Subjects in 50 CFR Parts 20 and 21 Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife. For the reasons stated in the preamble, we hereby amend parts 20 and 21 of subchapter B, chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below: PART 20—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 20 continues to read as follows: Authority: Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 40 Stat. 755 (16 U.S.C. 703-712; Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, 16 U.S.C. 742a-j; Pub. L. 106-108, 113 Stat. 1491, Note Following 16 U.S.C. 703. 2. Amend § 20.11 by revising paragraph
(n)to read as follows: § 20.11 What terms do I need to understand?
(n)*Resident Canada geese* means Canada geese that nest within the lower 48 States and the District of Columbia in the months of March, April, May, or June, or reside within the lower 48 States and the District of Columbia in the months of April, May, June, July, or August. 3. Revise paragraphs
(b)and
(g)of § 20.21 to read as follows: § 20.21 What hunting methods are illegal?
(b)With a shotgun of any description capable of holding more than three shells, unless it is plugged with a one-piece filler, incapable of removal without disassembling the gun, so its total capacity does not exceed three shells. However, this restriction does not apply during:
(1)A light-goose-only season (greater and lesser snow geese and Ross' geese) when all other waterfowl and crane hunting seasons, excluding falconry, are closed while hunting light geese in Central and Mississippi Flyway portions of Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
(2)A Canada goose only season when all other waterfowl and crane hunting seasons, excluding falconry, are closed in the Atlantic, Central, and Mississippi Flyway portions of Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming, as set forth below:
(i)During the period of September 1 to September 15; and
(ii)During the period of September 16 to September 30, when approved in the annual regulatory schedule in subpart K of this part.
(g)By the use or aid of recorded or electrically amplified bird calls or sounds, or recorded or electrically amplified imitations of bird calls or sounds. However, this restriction does not apply during:
(1)A light-goose-only season (greater and lesser snow geese and Ross' geese) when all other waterfowl and crane hunting seasons, excluding falconry, are closed while hunting light geese in Central and Mississippi Flyway portions of Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
(2)A Canada goose only season when all other waterfowl and crane hunting seasons, excluding falconry, are closed in the Atlantic, Central, and Mississippi Flyway portions of Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming, as set forth below:
(i)During the period of September 1 to September 15; and
(ii)During the period of September 16 to September 30, when approved in the annual regulatory schedule in subpart K of this part. PART 21—[AMENDED] 4. The authority citation for part 21 continues to read as follows: Authority: Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 40 Stat. 755 (16 U.S.C. 703); Pub. L. 95-616, 92 Stat. 3112 (16 U.S.C. 712(2)); Pub. L. 106-108, 113 Stat. 1491, Note Following 16 U.S.C. 703. 5. In subpart A, amend § 21.3 by revising the definition for “Resident Canada geese” to read as follows: § 21.3 Definitions. *Resident Canada geese* means Canada geese that nest within the lower 48 States and the District of Columbia in the months of March, April, May, or June, or reside within the lower 48 States and the District of Columbia in the months of April, May, June, July, or August. 6. In subpart D, amend § 21.49 by revising paragraph (d)(5) to read as follows: § 21.49 Control order for resident Canada geese at airports and military airfields.
(d)* * *
(5)Resident Canada geese may be taken only within the airport, or the military base on which a military airfield is located, or within a 3-mile radius of the outer boundary of such a facility. Airports and military airfields or their agents must first obtain all necessary authorizations from landowners for all management activities conducted outside the airport or military airfield's boundaries and be in compliance with all State and local laws and regulations. 7. In subpart D, amend § 21.50 by revising paragraphs (b), (c), (d)(1) through (d)(7), the introductory text of (d)(8), and
(e)to read as follows: § 21.50 Depredation order for resident Canada geese nests and eggs.
(b)*What is the depredation order for resident Canada geese nests and eggs, and what is its purpose?* The nest and egg depredation order for resident Canada geese authorizes private landowners and managers of public lands (landowners); homeowners' associations; and village, town, municipality, and county governments (local governments); and the employees or agents of any of these persons or entities to destroy resident Canada goose nests and eggs on property under their jurisdiction when necessary to resolve or prevent injury to people, property, agricultural crops, or other interests.
(c)*Who may participate in the depredation order?* Only landowners, homeowners' associations, and local governments (and their employees or their agents) in the lower 48 States and the District of Columbia are eligible to implement the resident Canada goose nest and egg depredation order.
(d)* * *
(1)Before any management actions can be taken, landowners, homeowners' associations, and local governments must register with the Service at *https://epermits.fws.gov/eRCGR.* Landowners, homeowners' associations, and local governments (collectively termed “registrants”) must also register each employee or agent working on their behalf. Once registered, registrants and agents will be authorized to act under the depredation order.
(2)Registrants authorized to operate under the depredation order must use nonlethal goose management techniques to the extent they deem appropriate in an effort to minimize take.
(3)Methods of nest and egg destruction or take are at the registrant's discretion from among the following:
(i)Egg oiling, using 100 percent corn oil, a substance exempted from regulation by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, and
(ii)Egg and nest destruction, including but not limited to the removal and disposal of eggs and nest material.
(4)Registrants may conduct resident Canada goose nest and egg destruction activities between March 1 and June 30. Homeowners' associations and local governments or their agents must obtain landowner consent prior to destroying nests and eggs on private property within the homeowners' association or local government's jurisdiction and be in compliance with all State and local laws and regulations.
(5)Registrants authorized to operate under the depredation order may possess, transport, and dispose of resident Canada goose nests and eggs taken under this section. Registrants authorized to operate under the program may not sell, offer for sale, barter, or ship for the purpose of sale or barter any resident Canada goose nest or egg taken under this section.
(6)Registrants exercising the privileges granted by this section must submit an annual report summarizing activities, including the date, numbers, and location of nests and eggs taken by October 31 of each year at *https://epermits.fws.gov/eRCGR* before any subsequent registration for the following year.
(7)Nothing in this section authorizes the destruction of resident Canada goose nests or the take of resident Canada goose eggs contrary to the laws or regulations of any State or Tribe, and none of the privileges of this section may be exercised unless the registrant is authorized to operate under the program and possesses the appropriate State or Tribal permits, when required. Moreover, this section does not authorize the killing of any migratory bird species or destruction of their nest or eggs other than resident Canada geese.
(8)Registrants may not undertake any actions under this section if the activities adversely affect species designated as endangered or threatened under the authority of the Endangered Species Act. Persons operating under this order must immediately report the take of any species protected under the Endangered Species Act to the Service. Further, to protect certain species from being adversely affected by management actions, registrants must:
(e)*Can the depredation order be suspended?* We reserve the right to suspend or revoke this authorization for a particular landowner, homeowners' association, or local government if we find that the registrant has not adhered to the terms and conditions specified in the depredation order. Final decisions to revoke authority will be made by the appropriate Regional Director. The criteria and procedures for suspension, revocation, reconsideration, and appeal are outlined in §§ 13.27 through 13.29 of this subchapter. For the purposes of this section, “issuing officer” means the Regional Director and “permit” means the authority to act under this depredation order. For purposes of § 13.29(e), appeals must be made to the Director. Additionally, at such time that we determine that resident Canada goose populations no longer need to be reduced in order to resolve or prevent injury to people, property, agricultural crops, or other interests, we may choose to terminate part or all of the depredation order by subsequent regulation. In all cases, we will annually review the necessity and effectiveness of the depredation order. 8. In subpart E, amend § 21.61 by revising paragraph (d)(2) to read as follows: § 21.61 Population control of resident Canada geese.
(d)* * *
(2)Control activities may be conducted under this section only between August 1 and August 31. Dated: August 10, 2007. David M. Verhey, Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. [FR Doc. E7-16306 Filed 8-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P 72 160 Monday, August 20, 2007 Proposed Rules OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 5 CFR Parts 315 and 316 RIN 3206-AL29 Disabled Veterans Documentation AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel Management
(OPM)proposes to revise its regulation regarding documentation required for noncompetitive temporary and term appointments, and conversion of 30 percent or more disabled veterans from nonpermanent appointments. The intended purpose of this change is to provide consistency with the policy of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). DATES: We will consider comments received on or before October 19, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at: *http://www.regulations.gov* . All submissions received through the Portal must include the agency name and docket number or Regulation Identifier Number
(RIN)for this rulemaking. You may also send or deliver written comments to Deputy Associate Director for Talent and Capacity Policy, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Room 6551, 1900 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 20415-9700;
(202)606-2329. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Darlene Phelps by telephone at
(202)606-0830; by TTY at
(202)606-3134; by fax at
(202)606-0390; or by e-mail at *Darlene.Phelps@opm.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA)considers any VA disability letter issued in 1991 or later as proof of a permanent disability, unless the letter specifically states otherwise. We are modifying sections 316.302(b)(4) and 316.402(b)(4), and 315.707(a)(2)(ii) and
(iii)to be consistent with VA's policy. These modifications will clarify that a 30 percent or more disabled veteran, who has proof of disability from the VA dated 1991 or later is eligible for a noncompetitive temporary or term appointment. The employee may be noncompetitively converted to the competitive service at any time during such an appointment. In addition, we are adding a reference to section 315.707(a)(2)(ii) and
(iii)to include disability determinations from a branch of the Armed Forces, as these entities may also certify the existence of 30 percent or more disability. E.O. 12866, Regulatory Review This rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with Executive Order 12866. Regulatory Flexibility Act I certify that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it would apply only to Federal agencies and employees. Paperwork Reduction Act The information collection requirements contained in this proposed rule are currently approved by OMB under 3206-0001. This proposed regulation does not seek to modify this approved collection. List of Subjects in 5 CFR Parts 315 and 316 Government employees. U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Linda M. Springer, Director. Accordingly, OPM proposes to amend 5 CFR parts 315 and 316 as follows: PART 315—CAREER AND CAREER CONDITIONAL EMPLOYMENT 1. The authority citation for part 315 continues to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 1302, 3301, and 3302; E.O. 10577, 3 CFR, 1954-1958 Comp., p. 218, unless otherwise noted; and E.O. 13162; sections 315.601 and 315.609 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 8151. Section 315.605 also issued under E.O. 12034, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 111. Section 315.606 also issued under E.O. 11219, 3 CFR, 1964-1965 Comp., p. 303. Sec 315.607 also issued under 22 U.S.C. 2506. Section 315.608 also issued under E.O. 12721, 3 CFR, 1990 Comp., p. 293. Section 315.610 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 3304(d). Section 315.611 also issued under Section 511, Pub. L. 106-117, 113 Stat. 1575-76 Section 315.708 also issued under E.O. 13318. Section 315.710 also issued under E.O. 12596, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 229. Subpart I also issued under 5 U.S.C. 3321, E.O. 12107, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 264. Subpart G—Conversion to Career or Career-Conditional Employment From Other Types of Employment 2. In § 315.707 revise paragraphs (a)(2)(ii) and
(iii)to read as follows: § 315.707 Disabled veterans.
(a)* * *
(2)* * *
(ii)Have been rated by the Department of Veterans Affairs since 1991 or later, or by a branch of the Armed Forces at any time, as having a compensable service-connected disability of 30 percent or more; or
(iii)Have been rated by the Department of Veterans Affairs at the time of a qualifying temporary appointment effected within the year immediately preceding, or a term appointment effected within four years immediately preceding the conversion. PART 316—TEMPORARY AND TERM EMPLOYMENT 3. The authority citation for part 316 continues to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 3301, 3302; E.O. 10577, 3 CFR, 1954-1958 Comp., p. 218. Subpart C—Term Employment 4. In § 316.302 revise paragraph (b)(4) to read as follows: § 316.302 Selection of term employees.
(b)* * *
(4)Appointment under 5 U.S.C. 3112 (veterans with compensable service-connected disability of 30 percent or more). The disability must be documented by a notice of retirement of discharge due to service-connected disability from active military service dated at any time, or by a notice of compensable disability rating from the Department of Veterans Affairs, dated 1991 or later; Subpart D—Temporary Limited Employment 5. In § 316.402 revise paragraph (b)(4) to read as follows: § 316.402 Procedures for making temporary appointments.
(b)* * *
(4)Appointment under 5 U.S.C. 3112 (veterans with compensable service-connected disability of 30 percent or more). The disability must be documented by a notice of retirement of discharge due to service-connected disability from active military service dated at any time, or by a notice of compensable disability rating from the Department of Veterans Affairs, dated 1991 or later; [FR Doc. E7-16285 Filed 8-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6325-39-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28843; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-065-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Model DG-500MB Gliders AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: In some cases the electric motor of the spindle drive detached itself from the spindle drive, causing the powerplant to retract itself after engine shutdown. In another case the attachment fork on the spindle drive failed with the same consequences. 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 19, 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:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at 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: Greg Davison, Glider Program Manager, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:
(816)329-4130; 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-2007-28843; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-065-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 The Luftfahrt-Bundesamt (LBA), which is the aviation authority for the Federal Republic of Germany, has issued AD D-2006-060, dated March 6, 2006 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: In some cases the electric motor of the spindle drive detached itself from the spindle drive, causing the powerplant to retract itself after engine shutdown. In another case the attachment fork on the spindle drive failed with the same consequences. The MCAI requires you to modify the affected parts and exchange pages in the flight, maintenance, and repair manuals. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information DG Flugzeugbau GmbH has issued Technical Note No. 843-24, dated January 31, 2006; Working instruction No. 1, dated January 23, 2006; Working instruction No. 2, dated January 30, 2006; Drawing 5M210, Spindle drive Stross BSA 10 assembly, issued: January 22, 2003, revised: May 19, 2006; and Drawing 5M211, Spindle drive Stross BSA 10 assembly with strengthened fork 8M233“f”, issued: January 23, 2006. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of 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. 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 5 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 5 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $422 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $4,110, or $822 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: **DG Flugzeugbau GmbH:** Docket No. FAA-2007-28843; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-065-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments by September 19, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Model DG-500MB gliders, all serial numbers, certificated in any category. Subject
(d)*Air Transport Association of America
(ATA)Code 24:* Electric Power. Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: “In some cases the electric motor of the spindle drive detached itself from the spindle drive, causing the powerplant to retract itself after engine shutdown. In another case the attachment fork on the spindle drive failed with the same consequences.” The MCAI requires you to modify the affected parts and exchange pages in the flight, maintenance, and repair manuals. Actions and Compliance
(f)Unless already done, do the following actions:
(1)Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD:
(i)Secure the connection between the spindle drive “Stross BSA10” and the spindle drive motor following DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Working instruction No. 1, dated January 23, 2006, as referenced in DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Technical Note No. 843-24, dated January 31, 2006.
(ii)Replace the fork 8M233/1 from the spindle drive with the strengthened fork 8M233“f”; replace the bearing support with the modified support 8M229“e”; and secure the spindle drive fork between the spindle drive “Stross BSA10” and the spindle drive motor following DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Working instruction No. 2, dated January 30, 2006, as referenced in DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Technical Note No. 843-24, dated January 31, 2006; DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Drawing 5M210, Spindle drive Stross BSA 10 assembly, issued: January 22, 2003, revised: May 19, 2006; and DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Drawing 5M211, Spindle drive Stross BSA 10 assembly with strengthened fork 8M233“f”, issued: January 23, 2006.
(2)Before further flight after completing the actions required by paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (f)(1)(ii) of this AD, insert the new Flight Manual pages 0.1, 0.3, 0.4, 2.8, 3.7, 3.8, 4.1, 4.25, and 4.26; the new Maintenance Manual pages 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 42, 49, 68, 89, 89a, 93; the new Repair Manual pages 1, 2, 7, and 8; and Enclosure 1 into your maintenance program (maintenance manual), following DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Technical Note No. 843-24, dated January 31, 2006. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: The MCAI requires inspection of the fork and the bearing support with replacement if cracks are found. The MCAI does not require repetitive inspection of the parts. This AD requires mandatory replacement of these parts with redesigned parts. The FAA believes mandatory replacement rather than inspection will prevent failure of these parts 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: Greg Davison, Glider Program Manager, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:
(816)329-4130; 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 Federal Republic of Germany Luftfahrt-Bundesamt AD D-2006-060, dated March 6, 2006; DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Technical Note No. 843-24, dated January 31, 2006; DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Working instruction No. 1, dated January 23, 2006; DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Working instruction No. 2, dated January 30, 2006; DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Drawing 5M210, Spindle drive Stross BSA 10 assembly, issued: January 22, 2003, revised May 19, 2006; and DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Drawing 5M211, Spindle drive Stross BSA 10 assembly with strengthened fork 8M233“f”, dated January 23, 2006, for related information. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on August 14, 2007. Terry L. Chasteen, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-16302 Filed 8-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 18 CFR Part 40 [Docket No. RM07-3-000] Facilities Design, Connections and Maintenance Reliability Standards August 13, 2007. AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), the Commission is proposing to approve three Reliability Standards developed by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), which the Commission has certified as the Electric Reliability Organization responsible for developing and enforcing mandatory Reliability Standards. The three new Reliability Standards, designated by NERC as FAC-010-1, FAC-011-1 and FAC-014-1, set requirements for the development of system operating limits of the Bulk-Power System for use in the planning and operation horizons. DATES: Comments are due September 19, 2007. ADDRESSES: Comments and reply comments may be filed electronically via the eFiling link on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Documents created electronically using word processing software should be filed in the native application or print-to-PDF format and not in a scanned format. This will enhance document retrieval for both the Commission and the public. The Commission accepts most standard word processing formats and commenters may attach additional files with supporting information in certain other file formats. Attachments that exist only in paper form may be scanned. Commenters filing electronically should not make a paper filing. Service of rulemaking comments is not required. Commenters that are not able to file electronically must send an original and 14 copies of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christy Walsh (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,
(202)502-6523. Robert Snow (Technical Information), Office of Energy Markets and Reliability, Division of Reliability, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,
(202)502-6716. Kumar Agarwal (Technical Information), Office of Energy Markets and Reliability, Division of Reliability, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,
(202)502-8923. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 1. Pursuant to section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), the Commission is proposing to approve three Reliability Standards developed by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), which the Commission has certified as the Electric Reliability Organization responsible for developing and enforcing mandatory Reliability Standards. The three new Reliability Standards, designated by NERC as FAC-010-1, FAC-011-1 and FAC-014-1, set requirements for the development of system operating limits of the Bulk-Power System for use in the planning and operation horizons. 1 1 The Commission is not proposing any new or modified text to its regulations. Rather, as set forth in 18 CFR part 40, a proposed Reliability Standard will not become effective until approved by the Commission, and the ERO must post on its Web site each effective Reliability Standard. I. Background A. EPAct 2005 and Mandatory Reliability Standards 2. On August 8, 2005, the Electricity Modernization Act of 2005, which is Title XII, Subtitle A, of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005), was enacted into law. 2 EPAct 2005 adds a new section 215 to the FPA, which requires a Commission-certified ERO to develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards, which are subject to Commission review and approval. Once approved, the Reliability Standards may be enforced by the ERO, subject to Commission oversight or the Commission can independently enforce Reliability Standards. 3 2 Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. 109-58, Title XII, Subtitle A, 119 Stat. 594, 941 (2005), to be codified at 16 U.S.C. 824o. 3 16 U.S.C. 824o(e)(3). 3. On February 3, 2006, the Commission issued Order No. 672, implementing section 215 of the FPA. 4 Pursuant to Order No. 672, the Commission certified one organization, NERC, as the ERO. 5 The ERO is required to develop Reliability Standards, which are subject to Commission review and approval. The Reliability Standards will apply to users, owners and operators of the Bulk-Power System, as set forth in each Reliability Standard. 4 *Rules Concerning Certification of the Electric Reliability Organization; Procedures for the Establishment, Approval and Enforcement of Electric Reliability Standards,* Order No. 672, 71 FR 8662 (February 17, 2006), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,204 (2006), *order on reh'g,* Order No. 672-A, 71 FR 19814 (April 18, 2006), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,212 (2006). 5 *North American Electric Reliability Corp.,* 116 FERC ¶ 61,062 ( *ERO Certification Order), order on reh'g & compliance,* 117 FERC ¶ 61,126 ( *ERO Rehearing Order* ) (2006), *order on compliance,* 118 FERC ¶ 61,030
(2007)( *January 2007 Compliance Order* ). B. NERC's Proposed New Reliability Standards 4. On November 15, 2006, NERC filed 20 revised Reliability Standards and three new Reliability Standards for Commission approval. The Commission addressed the 20 revised Reliability Standards in Order No. 693. 6 The three new Reliability Standards were designated by NERC as follows: 6 On March 16, 2007, the Commission approved 83 of the 107 standards initially filed by NERC. *See Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System,* Order No. 693, 72 FR, 16,416 (April 4, 2007), FERC Statutes and Regulations ¶ 31,242 (2007), *order on reh'g* Order No. 693-A, 120 FERC ¶ 61,053 (2007). FAC-010-1 (System Operating Limits Methodology for the Planning Horizon); FAC-011-1 (System Operating Limits Methodology for the Operations Horizon); and FAC-014-1 (Establish and Communicate System Operating Limits). These three Reliability Standards were assigned to a new rulemaking proceeding, Docket No. RM07-3-000, and are the subject of the current Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR). 7 7 The three Reliability Standards are not attached to this NOPR but are available on the Commission's eLibrary document retrieval system in Docket No. RM07-3-000 and on NERC's Web site, *http://www.nerc.com/~filez/nerc_filings_ferc.html.* 5. In addition, NERC proposes the addition or revision of the following terms in the NERC Glossary of Terms Used in Reliability Standards (NERC glossary): “cascading outages,” “delayed fault clearing,” “Interconnection Reliability Operating Limit (IROL),” and “Interconnection Reliability Operating Limit T v (IROL T v ).” 8 8 In Order No. 693, at P 1893-98, the Commission approved the NERC glossary and directed specific modifications to the document. 6. NERC states that the three new Reliability Standards ensure that system operating limits and interconnection reliability operating limits are developed using consistent methods and that those methods contain certain essential elements. 9 NERC requests an effective date of July 1, 2007 for Reliability Standards FAC-010-1, October 1, 2007 for FAC-011-1, and January 1, 2008 for FAC-014-1. NERC explains that it has proposed a phased schedule for implementing these Reliability Standards so that each responsible entity has sufficient time to develop the methodology for determining stability limits associated with a list of multiple contingencies, to update the system operating limits as needed to comply with the new requirements, to communicate the limits to others, and to prepare the documentation necessary to demonstrate compliance. 9 NERC filing at 20. Section 39.5(a) of the Commission's regulations, 18 CFR 39.5 (2007), provides that the ERO's submission of a new or modified Reliability Standard must include, *inter alia,* a concise statement of the basis and purpose of the proposed Reliability Standard and a demonstration that the proposal is just, reasonable not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest. We note that NERC's filing, at 20, includes a single paragraph describing the purpose of the proposed Reliability Standards. Future Reliability Standard filings may be subject to a deficiency letter if they fail to satisfy the filing requirements set forth in our regulations. 7. NERC states that the original balloting for FAC-010-1 and FAC-011-1 took place in March 2006, but failed to reach a quorum. 10 These Reliability Standards were revised and posted for comment during June and July 2006. 10 *Id.* at 21. 8. NERC states that the revised Reliability Standards were balloted in September 2006 and were approved by a weighted average of 74.5 percent with 81.6 percent of the ballot pool voting. However, because negative comments were received, a need for recirculation of the ballot was triggered. The recirculation ballot was conducted in October 2006 and was approved by a weighted average of 71.66 percent with 84.93 percent of the ballot pool voting. II. Discussion A. FAC-010-1 (System Operating Limits Methodology for the Planning Horizon) 1. Description of the Reliability Standard 9. The stated Purpose of the Reliability Standard is to “ensure that System Operating Limits
(SOLs)used in the reliable planning of the Bulk Electric System
(BES)are determined based on an established methodology or methodologies.” 11 FAC-010-1 applies to “planning authorities” and requires each planning authority to document its methods for determining system operating limits and to share the calculated limits with reliability entities. 12 11 The NERC glossary defines system operating limit or SOL as “the value * * * that satisfies the most limiting of the prescribed operating criteria for a specified system configuration to ensure operation within acceptable reliability criteria.* * *” 12 The NERC glossary defines “planning authority” as “the responsible entity that coordinates and integrates transmission facility and service plans, resource plans, and protection systems.” We note that Version 2 of NERC's Reliability Functional Model, adopted by the NERC Board of Trustees on February 10, 2004, at 14-16, discusses the role of the planning authority. However, Version 3 of NERC's Reliability Functional Model, adopted by the NERC Board of Trustees on February 13, 2007, at 13-15, appears to have replaced “planning authority” with the new term “planning coordinator.” 10. Requirement R1 of the Reliability Standard provides that the Planning Authority shall have a documented SOL methodology within its planning area that is applicable to the planning time horizon, does not exceed facility ratings, and includes a description of how to identify the subset of SOLs that qualify as interconnection reliability operating limits (IROLs). 13 13 As discussed later, NERC has proposed the following definition of IROL, “a System Operating Limit that, if violated, could lead to instability, uncontrolled separation, or Cascading Outages that adversely impact the reliability of the Bulk Electric System.” 11. Requirement R2 of the Reliability Standard identifies specific considerations that must be included in the methodology. For example, Requirement R2.1 provides that the methodology must include a requirement that SOLs provide bulk electric system performance so that, in the pre-contingency state and with all facilities in service, the bulk electric system shall demonstrate transient, dynamic and voltage stability and all facilities shall be within their facility ratings. Requirement R2.2 provides that, following specified single contingencies, the system shall demonstrate transient, dynamic and voltage stability, all facilities shall be within their facility ratings, and cascading outages or uncontrolled separation shall not occur. Requirement R2.3 states that, starting with all facilities in service, the system's response to a single contingency may include any of the following: R2.3.1—Planned or uncontrolled interruption of electric supply to radial customers or some local network customers connected to or supplied by the Faulted Facility or by the affected area. R2.3.2—System reconfiguration through manual or automatic control or protection actions. R2.3.3—To prepare for the next Contingency, system adjustments may be made, including changes to generation, uses of the transmission system and the transmission system topology. 12. Requirement R2.4 provides that, starting with all facilities in service and following any of the multiple contingencies identified in Reliability Standard TPL-003, 14 the system shall demonstrate transient, dynamic and voltage stability, all facilities shall be within their facility ratings, and cascading outages or uncontrolled separation shall not occur. Requirement R2.5 states that, in determining the response to any of the multiple contingencies identified in TPL-003, in addition to the actions identified in R2.3.1 and R2.3.2, “the following shall be acceptable: planned or controlled interruption of electric supply to customers (load shedding), the planned removal from service of certain generators, and/or the curtailment of contracted Firm (non-recallable reserved) electric power Transfers.” 14 In Order No. 693, the Commission approved TPL-003-0. In addition, the Commission directed the ERO to develop specific modifications to TPL-003-0. *See* Order No. 693 at P 1816-25. 13. Further, FAC-010-1 includes an Interconnection-wide regional difference applicable to the Western Interconnection. The regional difference provides a different, more detailed methodology for the evaluation of multiple contingencies when establishing SOLs. It also provides that “the Western Interconnection may make changes (performance category adjustments) to the Contingencies required to be studied and/or the required responses to Contingencies for specific facilities based on actual system performance and robust design.” 14. Reliability Standard FAC-010-1 identifies data retention requirements and two sets of Levels of Non-Compliance, one of general applicability and one for the Western Interconnection. FAC-010-1 includes Measures corresponding to each Requirement. It identifies the regional reliability organization as the entity responsible for compliance monitoring. 2. Commission Proposal 15. The Commission proposes to approve Reliability Standard FAC-010-1 as a mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standard. 15 In addition, the Commission seeks ERO clarification and public comment on several matters discussed below. 15 The Commission expects that the reference to the regional reliability organization as the compliance monitor should be replaced with the term Regional Entity. Order No. 693 at P 157. a. Consistency With Order No. 890 16. In Order No. 890, the Commission amended the *pro forma* open access transmission tariff
(OATT)to ensure that it achieves its original purpose of remedying undue discrimination, provide greater specificity to reduce opportunities for undue discrimination, and increase transparency in the rules applicable to planning and use of the transmission system. 16 Order No. 890 requires the consistent use of assumptions underlying operational planning for short-term available transmission capability
(ATC)calculations and expansion planning for long-term ATC calculations. 17 16 *Preventing Undue Discrimination and Preference in Transmission Service,* Order No. 890, 72 FR 12266 (March 15, 2007), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,241 (2007), *reh'g pending.* 17 *Id.* P 290-95. 17. As explained above, FAC-010-1 requires each planning authority to document its methods for determining system operating limits or SOLs for the planning horizon. SOLs often control or define ATC by determining the outer limit of the operational capability between any two areas or across a transmission path or interface. The Commission seeks comment on whether the development of a methodology for calculation of SOLs for the planning horizon pursuant to proposed Reliability Standard FAC-010-1 and the calculation of ATC for the long-term pursuant to NERC's Modeling, Data, and Analysis
(MOD)Reliability Standards results in the consistent use of assumptions as required by Order No. 890. In particular, the Commission has the following concerns:
(1)For a given set of conditions, the IROL and SOL values will change with the additional contingencies that are studied. Application of additional first contingencies and multiple contingencies will, in general, result in lower SOL limits as compared to those calculated with either the existing operational or planning contingencies. Is there a potential for the exercise of undue discrimination against transmission customers where, for example, a planning authority's SOL methodology calls for the application of a single contingency in determining SOLs pursuant to FAC-010-1 and the reliability coordinator and planning authority calculate ATC for the long-term using the assumption of multiple contingencies? Do the Order No. 890 transparency requirements mitigate any potential for the exercise of undue discrimination in this respect?
(2)In Order No. 693, the Commission required that total transfer capability
(TTC)be addressed under the Reliability Standard that deals with transfer capability such as FAC-012-1, rather than MOD-001-0. 18 The Commission disagreed with commenters suggesting that transfer capabilities addressed by FAC-012-1 are necessarily different from TTC used for ATC calculation. In a similar vein, the Commission seeks comment on whether the SOLs developed pursuant to FAC-010-1 are essentially the same as TTC used for ATC calculation. If so, should NERC address SOLs, transfer capability and TTC in a coordinated and consistent manner? 18 *See* Order No. 693 at P 1050-52. b. Western Interconnection Regional Difference 18. Order No. 672 explains that “uniformity of Reliability Standards should be the goal and the practice, the rule rather than the exception.” 19 Moreover, the Commission has stated that, as a general matter, regional differences are permissible if they are either more stringent than the continent-wide Reliability Standard, or if they are necessitated by a physical difference in the Bulk-Power System. 20 Regional differences must still be just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential and in the public interest. 21 19 Order No. 672 at P 290. 20 *Id.* P 291. 21 *Id.* 19. The WECC regional difference in FAC-010-1 identifies a different list of multiple contingencies from those in Category C of Table 1 in the TPL Reliability Standard series. The detailed list of considerations in the regional difference that would apply to the Western Interconnection adds additional contingencies and appears to be more stringent. Thus, we also propose to approve the regional difference that would apply to the Western Interconnection regarding the methodology for establishing SOLs. 20. However, the Commission also has the following concern regarding the proposed regional difference. As noted above, the regional difference provides that the Western Interconnection may make changes to the contingencies required to be studied or required responses to contingencies based on actual system performance. Presumably, such changes would be developed by WECC. However, the Reliability Standard does not identify any process for making such changes or indicate whether the requirements for reasonable notice and opportunity for public comment, due process, openness and balance of interests will be met in making such changes. 22 Accordingly, we propose that WECC should identify the process that it will use to make changes to the currently listed contingencies required to be studied or required responses to contingencies. Further, the Commission seeks comment on whether the regional difference should be modified to explicitly include the process that WECC will use to make changes to the currently listed contingencies. 22 *See* 16 U.S.C. 824o(c)(2)(D). c. Other Matters 21. The Commission seeks the following clarification from the ERO regarding the language of FAC-010-1. As mentioned above, Requirement R2.3 provides that the system's response to a single contingency may include, *inter alia,* “planned or controlled interruption of electric supply to radial customers or some local network customers connected to or supplied by the Faulted Facility or by the affected area.” The Commission seeks clarification whether this provision is limited to the loss of load that is a direct result of the contingency, i.e., consequential load, or whether this provision allows firm load shedding and firm transmission curtailment following a single contingency. In Order No. 693, the Commission determined that the single contingency provision should allow only the interruption of consequential load 23 and seeks confirmation from the ERO that this proposed Reliability Standard conforms to this determination. 23 Order No. 693 at P 1791-94 (discussing TPL-002-0). 22. Further, as noted above, while the Reliability Standard identifies the “planning authority” as the applicable entities, the most recent iteration of the Functional Model has eliminated the term and now refers to “planning coordinator.” The ERO should explain its plans to make FAC-010-1 consistent with the most recent iteration of the Functional Model, and how this may affect the applicability of the Reliability Standard to individual entities. 24 Finally, NERC must remove references to the regional reliability organization as the entity responsible for compliance monitoring and replace it with either the Regional Entity or ERO. 25 24 NERC's Statement of Compliance Registry Criteria (Version 3), approved by the Commission in Order No. 693, sets out criteria that will be used by NERC and the Regional Entities for identifying users, owners and operators of the Bulk-Power System that are candidates for registration for compliance with mandatory Reliability Standards. Order No. 693 at P 92-96. NERC's registry criteria provide that NERC will register entities that perform a “planning authority” function. Thus, it appears that the criteria used by NERC and the Regional Entities to register entities are consistent with the terms of FAC-010-1. 25 *See* Order No. 693 at P 157. 23. Finally, Requirement R2.2 of FAC-010-1 requires a planning authority to consider various single contingencies including the loss of a shunt device. While the transmission planning
(TPL)Reliability Standards implicitly require the consideration of the loss of a shunt device, they do not require this explicitly. Should the Commission clarify the TPL Reliability Standards by requiring the ERO to modify them to explicitly require the consideration of a shunt device, consistent with FAC-010-1? B. FAC-011-1 (System Operating Limits Methodology for the Operations Horizon) 1. Description of the Reliability Standard 24. Proposed Reliability Standard FAC-011-1 requires each reliability coordinator to develop a SOL methodology for determining which of the stability limits associated with the list of multiple contingencies are applicable for use in the operating horizon based on actual or expected system conditions. 25. Requirement R2 of FAC-011-1 identifies specific considerations that must be included in the methodology in a pre-contingency state and following one or multiple contingencies. The provisions of Requirement R2 of FAC-011-1 are the same as those in Requirement R2 of FAC-010-1, except for Requirement R2.3.2 of FAC-011-1, which provides as follows: In determining the system's response to a single Contingency, the following shall be acceptable. * * * [i]nterruption of other network customers, only if the system has already been adjusted, or is being adjusted, following at least one prior outage, or, if the real-time operating conditions are more adverse than anticipated in the corresponding studies, e.g., load greater than studied. 26. FAC-011-1 includes an Interconnection-wide regional difference applicable to the Western Interconnection, which repeats the language of the regional difference in FAC-010-1. Again, the regional difference provides a different, more detailed methodology for the evaluation of multiple contingencies when establishing SOLs. It also provides that the “Western Interconnection may make changes” to the contingencies required to be studied and/or the required responses to contingencies for specific facilities. 27. Reliability Standard FAC-011-1 identifies data retention requirements and two sets of Levels of Non-Compliance, one of general applicability and one for the Western Interconnection. It includes Measures corresponding to each Requirement and identifies the regional reliability organization as the entity responsible for compliance monitoring. 2. Commission Proposal 28. The Commission proposes to approve Reliability Standard FAC-011-1 as a mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standard. In addition, the Commission seeks ERO clarification and public comment on several matters discussed below. a. Consistency With Order No. 890 29. Similar to our concerns discussed above regarding FAC-010-1, the Commission has the following concerns:
(1)Is there a potential for the exercise of undue discrimination against transmission customers where, for example, a reliability coordinator's SOL methodology calls for the application of a single contingency in determining SOLs pursuant to FAC-011-1 and the reliability coordinator and planning authority calculate ATC for the short-term using the assumption of multiple contingencies? Do the Order No. 890 transparency requirements mitigate any potential for the exercise of undue discrimination in this respect?
(2)In Order No. 693, the Commission required that TTC be addressed under the Reliability Standard that deals with transfer capability such as FAC-012-1, rather than MOD-001-0. 26 The Commission disagreed with commenters suggesting that transfer capabilities addressed by FAC-012-1 are necessarily different from TTC used for ATC calculation. In a similar vein, the Commission seeks comment on whether the SOLs developed pursuant to FAC-011-1 are essentially the same as TTC used for ATC calculation. If so, should NERC address SOLs, transfer capability and TTC in a coordinated and consistent manner? 26 *See* Order No. 693 at P 1050-52. b. Western Interconnection Regional Difference 30. The detailed list of considerations in the regional difference that would apply to the Western Interconnection appears to be more stringent and detailed than the set of contingencies provided in Requirement R2 of FAC-011-1. Thus, we also propose to approve the regional difference that would apply to the Western Interconnection regarding the methodology for the evaluation of multiple facility contingencies when establishing SOLs. 31. Similar to our discussion regarding FAC-010-1, the Commission is concerned that the regional difference provides that the Western Interconnection may make changes to the contingencies required to be studied or required responses to contingencies based on actual system performance. Presumably, such change would be developed by WECC. However, the Reliability Standard does not identify any process for making such changes or indicate whether the requirements for reasonable notice and opportunity for public comment, due process, openness and balance of interests will be met in making such changes. 27 Accordingly, we propose that WECC should identify the process that it will use to make changes to the currently listed contingencies required to be studied or required responses to contingencies. Further, the Commission seeks comment on whether the regional difference should be modified to explicitly include the process that WECC will use to make changes to the currently listed contingencies. 27 *See* 16 U.S.C. 824o(c)(2)(D). c. Other Matters 32. As mentioned above, Requirement R2.3.2 provides that the system's response to a single contingency may include, *inter alia* , “[i]nterruption of other network customers, only if the system has already been adjusted, or is being adjusted, following at least one prior outage, or, if the real-time operating conditions are more adverse than anticipated in the corresponding studies, *e.g.* , load greater than studied.” The Commission seeks clarification from the ERO regarding the meaning of the phrase “if the real-time operating conditions are more adverse than anticipated in the corresponding studies, *e.g.* , load greater than studied.” In particular, the Commission is concerned whether this provision treats load forecast error as a contingency and as such would allow an interruption due to an inaccurate weather forecast. Finally, NERC must remove references to the regional reliability organization as the entity responsible for compliance monitoring and replace it with either the Regional Entity or ERO. 28 28 *See* Order No. 693 at P 157. 33. Requirement R2.2 of FAC-011-1 requires a reliability coordinator to consider various single contingencies including the loss of a shunt device. While the TPL Reliability Standards implicitly require the consideration of the loss of a shunt device, they do not require this explicitly. Should the TPL Reliability Standards be modified to explicitly require the consideration of a shunt device, consistent with FAC-011-1? C. FAC-014-1 (Establish and Communicate System Operating Limits) 1. Description of the Reliability Standard 34. Proposed Reliability Standard FAC-014-1 requires each reliability coordinator, planning authority, transmission planner and transmission operator to develop and communicate SOL limits in accordance with the methodologies developed pursuant to FAC-010-1 and FAC-011-1. 35. Requirement R1 requires the reliability coordinator to ensure that SOLs are established for its “reliability coordinator area” and that the SOLs are consistent with its SOL methodology. Requirement R2 requires the transmission operator to establish SOLs as directed by its reliability coordinator that are consistent with the reliability coordinator's methodology. Likewise, Requirements R3 and R4 require the planning authority and transmission planner, respectively, to establish SOLs consistent with the planning authority's SOL methodology. Requirement R5 requires the reliability coordinator, planning authority and transmission planner to provide its SOLs to those entities that have a reliability-related need. Finally, Requirement R6 requires the planning authority to identify the subset of multiple contingencies, if any, from Reliability Standard TPL-003 which result in stability limits and to provide this list and associated stability limits to the relevant reliability coordinator. 36. Reliability Standard FAC-014-1 includes data retention requirements, Levels of Non-Compliance, and Measures corresponding to each Requirement. It identifies the regional reliability organization as the entity responsible for compliance monitoring. 2. Commission Proposal 37. The Commission proposes to approve Reliability Standard FAC-014-1 as a mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standard. The Reliability Standard fulfills an important reliability goal in the development and communication of SOL limits in accordance with consistent methodologies. However, NERC must remove references to the regional reliability organization as the entity responsible for compliance monitoring and replace it with either the Regional Entity or ERO. 29 29 *See* Order No. 693 at P 157. D. Proposed Definitions 38. NERC proposes the addition or revision of the following four terms in the NERC glossary: *Cascading Outages:* The uncontrolled successive loss of bulk electric system facilities triggered by an incident (or condition) at any location resulting in the interruption of electric service that cannot be restrained from spreading beyond a pre-determined area. *Delayed Fault Clearing:* Fault clearing consistent with correct operation of a breaker failure protection system and its associated breakers, or of a backup protection system with an intentional time delay. *Interconnection Reliability Operating Limit (IROL):* A system operating limit that, if violated, could lead to instability, uncontrolled separation, or cascading outages that adversely impact the reliability of the bulk electric system. *Interconnection Reliability Operating Limit T* <sup>v</sup> ( *IROL T* <sup>v</sup> ): The maximum time that an Interconnection Reliability Operating Limit can be violated before the risk to the interconnection or other Reliability Coordinator Area(s) becomes greater than acceptable. Each Interconnection Reliability Operating Limit's T <sup>v</sup> shall be less than or equal to 30 minutes. 39. The Commission believes that there could be multiple interpretations of some of these terms. As such, the Commission proposes to provide its clarification of Cascading Outages, Interconnection Reliability Operating Limit, and Interconnection Reliability Operating Limit T <sup>V</sup> to be consistent with directives in Order No. 693. 40. The current definition of Cascading Outages in the approved NERC glossary is “The uncontrolled successive loss of system elements triggered by an incident at any location. Cascading results in widespread electric service interruption that cannot be restrained from sequentially spreading beyond an area predetermined by studies.” 30 The ambiguity in the term relates to the last phrase in the definition which identifies the extent of an outage that would be considered a cascade. The revised definition uses the similar phrase “a predetermined area” which may lead to different interpretations. The Commission understands that this phrase has been interpreted as being as small as the elements that would be removed from service by local protective relays to as large as the entire balancing authority. Simply put, some applications of Cascading Outage could allow the loss of an entire balancing authority and not consider that loss to be a Cascading Outage. The Commission disagrees with such a liberal application. For purposes of compliance, the Commission proposes to direct NERC to consider the loss of facilities in the bulk electric systems that are beyond those that would be removed from service by primary or backup protective relaying associated with the initiating event to be a Cascading Outage. With this understanding of the phrase, the Commission proposes to accept the definition in FAC-014. 30 NERC April 4, 2006 Request for Approval of Reliability Standards, Glossary of Terms Used in Reliability Standards at 2. 41. With respect to NERC's proposed definition of IROL, the Commission identified in Order No. 693 that the statutory definition of Reliable Operation is to assure that the system is operated within thermal, voltage and stability limits such that instability, uncontrolled separation, or cascading failures will not occur. IROLs are a specific subset of the operating limits at which instability, uncontrolled separation, or cascading failures may occur. All IROL violations will have an adverse impact on the reliability of the bulk electric system. 42. The definition of IROL in the approved NERC glossary is “The value (such as MW, MVar, Amperes, Frequency or Volts) derived from, or a subset of the System Operating Limits, which if exceeded, could expose a widespread area of the Bulk Electric System to instability, uncontrolled separation(s) or cascading outages.” 31 The revised definition is consistent with the intent of the statute with the exception of the phrase “that adversely impacts the reliability of the bulk electric system.” This may give the impression that violation of some IROLs that do not adversely impact the reliability of the bulk electric system are acceptable. The Commission proposes to accept the definition in FAC-014 with the understanding that all IROLs impact bulk electric system reliability. 31 *Id.* at 7. 43. In Order No. 693, the Commission identified two interpretations of when an entity exceeds an IROL. 32 The definition of IROL T <sup>v</sup> does not distinguish between those two interpretations. The Commission proposes to accept the definition in FAC-014 with the understanding that the only time it is acceptable to violate an IROL is in the limited time after a contingency has occurred and the operators are taking action to eliminate the violation. 32 *See* Order No. 693 at P 946 & n.303. E. Violation Risk Factors 44. As part of its compliance and enforcement program, NERC plans to assign a low, medium or high Violation Risk Factor to each requirement of each mandatory Reliability Standard to associate a violation of the requirement with its potential impact on the reliability of the Bulk-Power System. The categories are based on the following definitions: *High Risk Requirement:*
(a)Is a requirement that, if violated, could directly cause or contribute to Bulk-Power System instability, separation, or a cascading sequence of failures, or could place the Bulk-Power System at an unacceptable risk of instability, separation, or cascading failures; or
(b)is a requirement in a planning time-frame that, if violated, could, under emergency, abnormal, or restorative conditions anticipated by the preparations, directly cause or contribute to Bulk-Power System instability, separation, or a cascading sequence of failures, or could place the Bulk-Power System at an unacceptable risk of instability, separation, or cascading failures, or could hinder restoration to a normal condition. *Medium Risk Requirement:*
(a)Is a requirement that, if violated, could directly affect the electrical state or the capability of the Bulk-Power System, or the ability to effectively monitor and control the Bulk-Power System, but is unlikely to lead to Bulk-Power System instability, separation, or cascading failures; or
(b)is a requirement in a planning time frame that, if violated, could, under emergency, abnormal, or restorative conditions anticipated by the preparations, directly affect the electrical state or capability of the Bulk-Power System, or the ability to effectively monitor, control, or restore the Bulk-Power System, but is unlikely, under emergency, abnormal, or restoration conditions anticipated by the preparations, to lead to Bulk-Power System instability, separation, or cascading failures, nor to hinder restoration to a normal condition. *Lower Risk Requirement:* Is administrative in nature and
(a)is a requirement that, if violated, would not be expected to affect the electrical state or capability of the Bulk-Power System, or the ability to effectively monitor and control the Bulk-Power System; or
(b)is a requirement in a planning time frame that, if violated, would not, under the emergency, abnormal, or restorative conditions anticipated by the preparations, be expected to affect the electrical state or capability of the Bulk-Power System, or the ability to effectively monitor, control, or restore the Bulk-Power System. 33 33 *North American Electric Reliability Corp.* , 119 FERC ¶ 61,145 at P 9
(2007)( *Violation Risk Factor Order* ). 45. In a separate filing, NERC identified Violation Risk Factors for each Requirement of proposed Reliability Standards FAC-010-1, FAC-011-1 and FAC-014-1. 34 NERC requested that the Commission approve the Violation Risk Factors when it takes action on the associated Reliability Standards. 34 *See* NERC March 23, 2007 Request for Approval of Violation Risk Factors for Version 1 Reliability Standards, Docket No. RR07-10-000, Exh. A, Violation Risk Factors for Facility Ratings Standards FAC-008-1 through FAC-014-1. The Commission addressed only those Violation Risk Factors pertaining to the 83 Reliability Standards approved in Order No. 693. *Violation Risk Factor Order* , 119 FERC ¶ 61,145 (2007). 46. In the *Violation Risk Factor Order* , the Commission addressed Violation Risk Factors filed by NERC for Version 0 and Version 1 Reliability Standards. In that order, the Commission used five guidelines for evaluating the validity of each Violation Risk Factor assignment:
(1)Consistency with the conclusions of the Final Report on the August 14, 2003 blackout in the United States and Canada, 35
(2)consistency within a Reliability Standard,
(3)consistency among Reliability Standards with similar Requirements,
(4)consistency with NERC's proposed definition of the Violation Risk Factor level, and
(5)assignment of Violation Risk Factor levels to those Requirements in certain Reliability Standards that co-mingle a higher risk reliability objective and a lower risk reliability objective. 36 35 U.S.-Canada Power System Outage Task Force (Task Force), Final Report on the August 14, 2003 Blackout in the United States and Canada: Causes and Recommendations (April 2004) (Final Blackout Report). The Final Blackout Report is available on the Internet at *http://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indus-act/blackout.asp.* 36 For a complete discussion of each factor, see the *Violation Risk Factor Order* at P 19-36. 47. The Commission proposes to approve most of the Violation Risk Factors for Reliability Standards FAC-010-1, FAC-011-1 and FAC-014-1 that NERC identified in its March 23, 2007 filing. However, several of the Violation Risk Factors submitted for Reliability Standards FAC-010-1, FAC-011-1 and FAC-014-1 raise concerns. First, the Commission notes that there are no Violation Risk Factors applicable to the WECC regional differences and that certain portions of the WECC regional differences lack levels of non-compliance. The Commission requests comment on whether it should require WECC to develop Violation Risk Factors and the levels of non-compliance for the regional differences. If so, we request comment on how WECC should assess penalties in the interim. 48. In FAC-010-1, the Commission proposes to direct NERC to modify the lower Violation Risk Factor assigned to Requirement R2 and the medium Violation Risk Factor assigned to sub-Requirements R2.1-R2.2.3 based on guideline (4), which was developed to evaluate whether the assignment of a particular Violation Risk Factor level conforms to NERC's definition of that risk level. 49. FAC-010-1 Requirement R2 requires the Planning Authority's SOL methodology to include a requirement that SOLs provide bulk electric system performance consistent with a stable pre-contingency (sub-Requirement R2.1) and post-contingency (sub-Requirements R2.2-R2.2.3) bulk electric system using an accurate system topology with all facilities operating within their ratings and without post-contingency cascading outages or uncontrolled separation. 50. NERC has assigned a lower Violation Risk Factor to Requirement R2.1, which requires the bulk electric system in a pre-contingency state and with all facilities in service to demonstrate transient, dynamic and voltage stability. The Commission believes that the lower assignment is inappropriate. A violation of a lower Violation Risk Factor, by definition, is generally considered administrative in nature and would not be expected to affect the electrical state or capability of the Bulk-Power System, or the ability to effectively monitor, control or restore the Bulk-Power System. 37 The Commission believes that the lower Violation Risk Factor NERC proposes for this Requirement is not consistent with the “lower” definition, but consistent with the definition of “high.” The Commission believes that a violation of Requirement R2.1 could directly cause or contribute to Bulk-Power System instability, separation or cascading failures since a violation of R2.1 means that the system is in an unreliable state even before the system is subject to respond to a contingency. Therefore, we propose to require NERC to change the Violation Risk Factor of R.2.1 to high. 37 *See id.* 51. Similarly, NERC assigns a medium violation Risk Factor to FAC-010-1 R2.2, which would be appropriate if a violation is unlikely to lead to Bulk-Power System instability, separation or cascading failures. 38 However, Requirement R2.2 specifically states that with regard to post-contingency bulk electric system performance, “[c]ascading outages or uncontrolled separation shall not occur.” Therefore, if Requirement R2.2 is violated for any one of the specific contingencies as described in Requirements R2.2.1- R2.2.3, cascading outages or uncontrolled separation of the Bulk-Power System may occur. The potential risk a violation of R2.2 poses to the Bulk-Power System is not consistent with the definition of a medium Violation Risk Factor. Instead, the risk a violation of R2.2 presents to the Bulk-Power System is consistent with the definition of a high Violation Risk Factor. 39 Therefore, we propose to require NERC to change the Violation Risk Factor of R.2.2 to high. 38 *See Violation Risk Factor Order* , 119 FERC ¶ 61,145 at P 9. 39 *See id.* 52. As stated in the *Violation Risk Factor Order* , the Commission expects a rational connection between the sub-Requirement Violation Risk Factor assignments and the main Requirement Violation Risk Factor assignment. 40 Because the Commission proposes to require NERC to modify the Violation Risk Factors for the sub-requirements of R2, to have a rational connection between the Violation Risk Factors assigned to sub-Requirements and Violation Risk Factors assigned to the main Requirement, we are also proposing to require NERC to change the Violation Risk Factor for R2 to high. 40 *Id.* P 22. 53. Similarly, the Commission has the same concern and proposal to reassign NERC's Violation Risk Factors for FAC-011-1 Requirement R2 and sub-Requirements R2.1-R2.2.3, which contain similar language as the corresponding Requirements in FAC-010-1. 54. With regard to FAC-014-1, our concerns are with NERC's proposed Violation Risk Factor assignment of medium to Requirement R5 and sub-Requirements R5.1-R5.1.4. Requirement R5 requires that the reliability coordinator, planning authority and transmission planner each provide its SOLs and IROLs to those entities that have a reliability-related need for those limits and provide a written request that includes a schedule for delivery of those limits. Sub-Requirements R5.1-R5.1.4 comprise the list of supporting information to be provided. The Commission has concerns with NERC's proposed assignment based on its lack of consistency with the Final Blackout Report. 55. The Commission believes that it is important to ensure that critical areas identified as causes of the August 2003 and other previous major blackouts are appropriately assigned as potential risks to the reliability of the Bulk-Power System. 41 For example, the Final Blackout Report identified ineffective communications as one common factor of the August 2003 blackout and other previous major blackouts. 42 The Final Blackout Report explained that, “[u]nder normal conditions, parties with reliability responsibility need to communicate important and prioritized information to each other in a timely way, to help preserve the integrity of the grid.” 43 41 *Id.* P 19-21. 42 Final Blackout Report at 107. 43 *Id.* at 109. 56. The Commission believes that NERC's proposed Violation Risk Factor assignment of medium for the subject Requirements is not consistent with the findings of the Final Blackout Report. By definition, a “medium” Violation Risk Factor designation means that a violation of the requirement is unlikely to lead to Bulk-Power System instability, separation or cascading failures. 44 Findings of the Final Blackout Report, as well as reports on other previous major blackouts, have determined otherwise in that the timely communication of important and prioritized information, in this case, SOLs and IROLs, to entities that have a reliability-related need for those limits are crucial in maintaining the reliability of the Bulk-Power System. 44 *Violation Risk Factor Order,* P 9. 57. As a result, we propose to require NERC to assign FAC-014-1 Requirement R5, as well as sub-Requirements R5.1-R5.1.4, a high Violation Risk Factor to accurately reflect the potential risk a violation of the subject requirements presents to the Bulk-Power System. III. Information Collection Statement 58. The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)regulations require approval of certain information collection requirements imposed by agency rules. 45 Upon approval of a collection(s) of information, OMB will assign an OMB control number and an expiration date. Respondents subject to the filing requirements of this rule will not be penalized for failing to respond to these collections of information unless the collections of information display a valid OMB control number. The Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)46 requires each federal agency to seek and obtain OMB approval before undertaking a collection of information directed to ten or more persons, or continuing a collection for which OMB approval and validity of the control number are about to expire. 47 The PRA defines the phrase “collection of information” to be the “obtaining, causing to be obtained, soliciting, or requiring the disclosure to third parties or the public, of facts or opinions by or for an agency, regardless of form or format, calling for either— 45 5 CFR 1320.13 (2007). 46 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. 47 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A)(i), 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(3).
(i)Answers to identical questions posed to, or identical reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed on ten or more persons, other than agencies, instrumentalities, or employees of the United States; or
(ii)answers to questions posed to agencies, instrumentalities, or employees of the United States which are to be used for general statistical purposes.” 48 48 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). 59. This NOPR proposes to approve three new Reliability Standards developed by NERC as the ERO. Section 215 of the FPA authorizes the ERO to develop Reliability Standards to provide for the operation of the Bulk-Power System. Pursuant to the statute, the ERO must submit each Reliability Standard that it proposes to be made effective to the Commission for approval. 49 49 *See* 16 U.S.C. 824o(d). 60. The three proposed Reliability Standards do not require responsible entities to file information with the Commission. Nor, with the exception of a three year self-certification of compliance, do the Reliability Standards require responsible entities to file information with the ERO or Regional Entities. However, the Reliability Standards do require responsible entities to develop and maintain certain information for a specified period of time, subject to inspection by the ERO or Regional Entities. Reliability Standard FAC-010-1 requires the planning authority to have a documented methodology for use in developing system operating limits or SOLs and must retain evidence that it issued its SOL methodology to relevant reliability coordinators, transmission operators and adjacent planning authorities. Likewise, the planning authority must respond to technical comments on the methodology within 45 days of receipt. Further, each planning authority must self-certify its compliance to the compliance monitor once every three years. Reliability Standard FAC-011-1 requires similar documentation by the reliability coordinator. 61. Reliability Standard FAC-014-1 requires the reliability coordinator, planning authority, transmission operator, and transmission planner to verify compliance through self-certification submitted to the compliance monitor annually. These entities must also document that they have developed SOLs consistent with the applicable SOL methodology and that they have provided SOLs to entities identified in Requirement 5 of the Reliability Standard. Further, the planning authority must maintain a list of multiple contingencies and their associated stability limits. 62. The Commission is submitting these reporting and recordkeeping requirements to OMB for its review and approval under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act. Comments are solicited on the Commission's need for this information, whether the information will have practical utility, the accuracy of provided burden estimates, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and any suggested methods for minimizing the respondent's burden, including the use of automated information techniques. 63. Our Estimates below regarding the number of respondents is based on the NERC compliance registry as of April 2007. NERC and the Regional Entities have identified approximately 170 Investor Owned Utilities, and 80 Large Municipals and Cooperatives. NERC's compliance registry indicates that there is a significant amount of overlap among the entities that perform these functions. In some instances, a single entity may be registered under all four of these functions. Thus, the Commission estimates that the total number of entities required to comply with the information “reporting” or development requirements of the proposed Reliability Standards is approximately 250 entities. About two-thirds of these entities are investor-owned utilities and one-third is a combination of municipal and cooperative organizations. 64. *Burden Estimate:* The Public Reporting burden for the requirements contained in the NOPR is as follows: Data collection Number of respondents Number of responses Hours per respondent Total annual hours FERC-725D Investor-Owned Utilities 170 1 Reporting: 90 Reporting: 15,300. Recordkeeping: 210 Recordkeeping: 35,700. Large Municipals and Cooperatives 80 1 Reporting: 90 Reporting: 7,200. Recordkeeping: 210 Recordkeeping: 16,800. Total 250 75,000. Total Hours: (Reporting 22,500 hours + Recordkeeping 52,500 hours) = 75,000 hours. ( *FTE=Full Time Equivalent or 2,080 hours* ) *Total Annual hours for Collection: (Reporting + recordkeeping)* = 75,000 hours. *Information Collection Costs:* The Commission seeks comments on the costs to comply with these requirements. It has projected the average annualized cost to be the total annual hours (reporting) 22,500 times $120 = $2,700,000. Recordkeeping = 52,500 @ $40/hour = $2,100,000. Labor (file/record clerk @ $17 an hour + supervisory @23 an hour). Storage 1,800 sq. ft. × $925 (off site storage) = $1,665,000. Total costs = $6,465,000. The Commission believes that this estimate may be conservative because most if not all of the applicable entities currently perform SOL calculations and the proposed Reliability Standards will provide a common methodology for those calculations. *Title:* FERC-725D Facilities Design, Connections and Maintenance Reliability Standards. *Action:* Proposed Collection of Information. *OMB Control No.:* To be determined. *Respondents:* Business or other for profit, and/or not for profit institutions. *Frequency of Responses:* One time to initially comply with the rule, and then on occasion as needed to revise or modify. In addition, annual and three-year self-certification requirements will apply. *Necessity of the Information:* The three Reliability Standards, if adopted, would implement the Congressional mandate of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards to better ensure the reliability of the nation's Bulk-Power System. Specifically, the three proposed Reliability Standards would ensure that system operating limits or SOLs used in the reliability planning and operation of the Bulk-Power System are determined based on an established methodology. *Internal review:* The Commission has reviewed the requirements pertaining to mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System and determined the proposed requirements are necessary to meet the statutory provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. These requirements conform to the Commission's plan for efficient information collection, communication and management within the energy industry. The Commission has assured itself, by means of internal review, that there is specific, objective support for the burden estimates associated with the information requirements. 65. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting requirements by contacting: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Michael Miller, Office of the Executive Director, Phone:
(202)502-8415, fax:
(202)273-0873, e-mail: *michael.miller@ferc.gov* ]. Comments on the requirements of the proposed rule may also be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503 [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission], e-mail: *oira_submission@omb.eop.gov* . IV. Environmental Analysis 66. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment. 50 The Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from this requirement as not having a significant effect on the human environment. The actions proposed here fall within the categorical exclusion in the Commission's regulations for rules that are clarifying, corrective or procedural, for information gathering, analysis, and dissemination. 51 Accordingly, neither an environmental impact statement nor environmental assessment is required. 50 Order No. 486, *Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act* , 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. & Regs. Regulations Preambles 1986-1990 ¶ 30,783 (1987). 51 18 CFR 380.4(a)(5) (2007). V. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification 67. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
(RFA)52 generally requires a description and analysis of final rules that will have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Most of the entities, *i.e.* , planning authorities, reliability coordinators, transmission planners and transmission operators, to which the requirements of this rule would apply do not fall within the definition of small entities. 53 52 5 U.S.C. 601-612. 53 The RFA definition of “small entity” refers to the definition provided in the Small Business Act, which defines a “small business concern” as a business that is independently owned and operated and that is not dominant in its field of operation. *See* 15 U.S.C. 632 (2000). According to the SBA, a small electric utility is defined as one that has a total electric output of less than four million MWh in the preceding year. 68. As indicated above, based on available information regarding NERC's compliance registry, approximately 250 entities will be responsible for compliance with the three new Reliability Standards. It is estimated that one-third of the responsible entities, about 80 entities, would be municipal and cooperative organizations. The proposed Reliability Standards would apply to planning authorities, transmission planners, transmission operators and reliability coordinators, which tend to be larger entities. Thus, the Commission believes that only a portion, approximately 30 to 40 of the municipal and cooperative organizations to which the proposed Reliability Standards would apply, qualify as small entities. 54 The Commission does not consider this a substantial number. Moreover, as discussed above, the proposed Reliability Standards will not be a burden on the industry since most if not all of the applicable entities currently perform SOL calculations and the proposed Reliability Standards will simply provide a common methodology for those calculations. Accordingly, the Commission certifies that the proposed Reliability Standards will not have a significant adverse impact on a substantial number of small entities. 54 According to the DOE's Energy Information Administration (EIA), there were 3,284 electric utility companies in the United States in 2005, and 3,029 of these electric utilities qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. Among these 3,284 electric utility companies are:
(1)883 cooperatives of which 852 are small entity cooperatives;
(2)1,862 municipal utilities, of which 1842 are small entity municipal utilities;
(3)127 political subdivisions, of which 114 are small entity political subdivisions; and
(4)219 privately owned utilities, of which 104 could be considered small entity private utilities. *See* Energy Information Administration Database, Form EIA-861, Dept. of Energy (2005), *available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia861.html.* 69. Based on this understanding, the Commission certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required. VI. Comment Procedures 70. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on the matters and issues proposed in this notice to be adopted, including any related matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish to discuss. Comments are due September 19, 2007. Comments must refer to Docket No. RM07-3-000, and must include the commenter's name, the organization they represent, if applicable, and their address in their comments. Comments may be filed either in electronic or paper format. 71. Comments may be filed electronically via the eFiling link on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov.* The Commission accepts most standard word processing formats and commenters may attach additional files with supporting information in certain other file formats. Commenters filing electronically do not need to make a paper filing. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically must send an original and 14 copies of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. 72. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters. VII. Document Availability 73. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the **Federal Register** , the Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the Internet through FERC's Home Page ( *http://www.ferc.gov* ) and in FERC's Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426. 74. From FERC's Home Page on the Internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field. 75. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC's Web site during normal business hours from our Help line at
(202)502-8222 or the Public Reference Room at
(202)502-8371 Press 0, TTY
(202)502-8659. E-Mail the Public Reference Room at *public.referenceroom@ferc.gov.* By direction of the Commission. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-16253 Filed 8-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [REG-148393-06] RIN 1545-BG12 Medical and Accident Insurance Benefits Under Qualified Plans AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing. SUMMARY: This document contains proposed regulations under section 402(a) of the Internal Revenue Code
(Code)regarding the tax treatment of payments by qualified plans for medical or accident insurance. These regulations would affect administrators of, participants in, and beneficiaries of qualified retirement plans. This document also provides notice of a public hearing on these proposed regulations. DATES: Written or electronic comments must be received by November 19, 2007. Outlines of topics to be discussed at the public hearing scheduled for December 6, 2007, at 10 a.m., must be received by November 15, 2007. ADDRESSES: Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-148393-06), room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-148393-06), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, or send electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at *http://www.regulations.gov* (IRS REG-148393-06). The public hearing will be held in the IRS Auditorium, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Concerning the proposed regulations, Pamela R. Kinard
(202)622-6060; concerning submissions of comments, the hearing, and/or to be placed on the building access list to attend the hearing, Kelly Banks,
(202)622-7180 (not toll-free numbers). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background This document contains proposed amendments to 26 CFR part 1 under section 402(a) of the Code, as well as conforming amendments under sections 72, 105, 106, 401, 402(c), 403(a), and 403(b). Section 104(a)(3) provides, in general, that gross income does not include amounts received through accident or health insurance (or through an arrangement having the effect of accident or health insurance) for personal injuries or sickness. This exclusion does not apply to amounts attributable to (and not in excess of) deductions allowed under section 213 for any prior taxable year, or to other amounts received by an employee to the extent such amounts either are attributable to contributions by the employer that were not includible in the gross income of the employee or are paid by the employer. Section 105(a) provides that, except as otherwise provided, amounts received by an employee through accident or health insurance for personal injuries or sickness are included in gross income to the extent such amounts
(1)are attributable to contributions by the employer which were not includible in the gross income of the employee or
(2)are paid by the employer. Section 105(b) generally provides that, except in the case of amounts attributable to deductions allowed under section 213 for any prior taxable year, gross income does not include amounts referred to in section 105(a) if such amounts are paid, directly or indirectly, to the taxpayer to reimburse the taxpayer for expenses incurred by the taxpayer for the medical care of the taxpayer and his or her spouse or dependents. Section 106 provides that the gross income of an employee does not include employer-provided coverage under an accident or health plan. Section 1.106-1 provides that the gross income of an employee does not include contributions that the employer makes to an accident or health plan for compensation (through insurance or a separate trust or fund) for personal injuries or sickness to the employee or the employee's spouse or dependents. Section 7702B(a)(1) provides that, for purposes of the Code, a qualified long-term care insurance contract is treated as an accident and health insurance contract. Section 213 generally allows a deduction for expenses paid during the taxable year, not compensated for by insurance or otherwise, for medical care of the taxpayer, his or her spouse, and dependents, to the extent that the expenses exceed 7.5 percent of the taxpayer's adjusted gross income. Section 213(d)(1) provides that the term “medical care” includes amounts paid for insurance covering medical care (including eligible long-term care premiums with respect to qualified long-term care insurance contracts). Section 401(a) sets forth requirements for a trust forming part of a pension, profit-sharing, or stock bonus plan to be qualified under section 401(a). Section 401(h) provides that a pension or annuity plan may provide for the payment of benefits for sickness, accident, hospitalization, and medical expenses of retired employees, their spouses and their dependents only if certain enumerated conditions are met. Those conditions include:
(1)The aggregate actual contributions for medical benefits (when added to actual contributions for life insurance protection under the plan) may not exceed 25 percent of the total actual contributions to the plan (other than contributions to fund past service credits) after the date on which the account is established;
(2)a separate account must be established and maintained for such benefits;
(3)the employer's contributions to the separate account must be reasonable and ascertainable;
(4)it must be impossible, at any time prior to the satisfaction of all liabilities under the plan to provide such benefits, for any part of the corpus or income of such separate account to be (within the taxable year or thereafter) used for, or diverted to, any purpose other than the providing of such benefits;
(5)any amount remaining after satisfaction of all liabilities must, under the terms of the plan, be returned to the employer; and
(6)special limitations for the accounts of key employees must be satisfied. Section 402(a) provides, in general, that any amount actually distributed by a qualified plan is taxable under section 72 in the taxable year in which distributed. Section 72(a) provides that, except as otherwise provided, gross income includes any amount received as an annuity (whether for a period certain or during one or more lives) under an annuity, endowment, or life insurance contract. Sections 72(d) and
(e)provide rules for determining the portion of any distribution that is not includable in gross income as a recovery of a participant's investment in the contract (generally the amount of the unrecovered after-tax employee contributions) under a qualified employer retirement plan. Section 402(l), added by section 845(a) of the Pension Protection Act of 2006, Public Law 109-280 (120 Stat. 780) (PPA '06), provides a limited exclusion from gross income for distributions from an eligible retirement plan used to pay health or long-term care insurance premiums of an eligible retired public safety officer to the extent that the aggregate amount of the distributions for the taxable year is not in excess of the qualified health insurance premiums of the retired public safety officer and his or her spouse or dependents. The total amount excluded from gross income pursuant to section 402(l) shall not exceed $3,000. Section 1.72-15 provides rules relating to the tax treatment of amounts paid from an employer-established plan to which section 72 applies and which provides for distributions of accident or health benefits. With respect to benefits that are attributable to employer contributions, § 1.72-15(d) provides that any amount received as an accident or health benefit is includible in gross income, except to the extent excludable from gross income under section 105(b) (relating to reimbursements of medical care expenses as defined in section 213(d)). 1 Section 1.72-15(e) provides that the taxability of benefits that are not accident or health benefits is determined under section 72 without regard to any exclusion under section 104 or 105. 1 Section 1.72-15(d) also refers to benefits excludible under section 105(c) (relating to certain payments unrelated to absence from work) or 105(d), which was repealed in 1983 (and which related to certain disability payments). Section 1.401-1(b)(1)(i) provides that a plan is not a pension plan within the meaning of section 401(a) if it provides for the payment of benefits not customarily included in a pension plan such as layoff benefits or benefits for sickness, accident, hospitalization, or medical expenses (except for medical benefits described in section 401(h)). See § 1.401(a)-1(b)(1)(ii). Section 1.401-1(b)(1)(ii) provides that a profit-sharing plan within the meaning of section 401(a) is primarily a plan of deferred compensation, but that amounts allocated to the account of a participant may be used to provide incidental life or accident or health insurance for the participant and the participant's family. Section 1.401-1(b)(1)(iii) provides that a stock bonus plan is a plan established and maintained by the employer to provide benefits similar to those of a profit-sharing plan. Rev. Rul. 61-164 (1961-2 CB 99), see § 601.601(d)(2) of this chapter, holds that a profit-sharing plan does not violate the incidental benefit rule in § 1.401-1(b)(1)(ii) merely because, in accordance with the terms of the plan, each participant's account under the plan is charged with the cost of health insurance for the participant under group hospitalization insurance for the employer's employees, provided that the total amount used for life or accident or health insurance for the employee and the employee's family is incidental. The ruling concludes that such insurance is treated as incidental if the amount expended does not exceed 25 percent of the funds allocated to a participant's account that have not been accumulated for the period prescribed by the plan for the deferment of distributions. The ruling also concludes that the use of profit-sharing plan funds to pay for medical insurance for a participant and his or her beneficiary is a distribution within the meaning of section 402. Rev. Rul. 73-501 (1973-2 CB 127), see § 601.601(d)(2) of this chapter, applies the incidental benefit rule to the purchase of life insurance by a profit-sharing plan. The ruling states that “[u]nder a qualified profit-sharing plan, the use of trust funds to pay the cost of life, accident, or health insurance for an employee is a distribution within the purview of section 402 of the Code.” Rev. Rul. 2003-62 (2003-1 CB 1034), see § 601.601(d)(2) of this chapter, concludes that amounts distributed from a qualified retirement plan that the distributee elects to have applied to pay health insurance premiums under a cafeteria plan are includible in the distributee's gross income. The ruling also holds that the same conclusion applies where amounts distributed from the plan are applied directly to reimburse medical care expenses incurred by a participant. Rev. Rul. 2005-55 (2005-2 CB 284), see § 601.601(d)(2) of this chapter, holds that a profit-sharing plan that provides a sub-account which permits distributions only for the purpose of reimbursing the participant for substantiated medical expenses imposes conditions on the entitlement of the participant to amounts held in the sub-account and, as a result of the conditions, does not meet the nonforfeitability requirements of section 411. Explanation of Provisions The proposed regulations would clarify that a payment from a qualified plan for an accident or health insurance premium generally constitutes a distribution under section 402(a) that is taxable to the distributee under section 72 in the taxable year in which the premium is paid. The taxable amount generally equals the amount of the premium charged against the participant's benefits under the plan. If a defined contribution plan pays these premiums from a current year contribution or forfeiture that has not been allocated to a participant's account, then the amount of the premium for each participant will be treated as first being allocated to the participant and then charged against the participant's benefits under the plan, so that the amount of the distribution is the same as determined under the preceding sentence. These regulations would also provide that a distribution for the payment of the premiums by a qualified plan generally is not excluded from gross income under section 104, 105, or 106, but such distribution would constitute an amount paid for accident or health insurance under section 213. Furthermore, to the extent that the payment of premiums for accident or health insurance has been treated as a distribution from a qualified plan, amounts received through the accident or health insurance for personal injuries or sickness are excludable from gross income under section 104(a)(3) and are not treated as distributions from the plan. A related issue is whether the purchase of accident and health insurance can be treated as if the trust merely purchased an investment under which an insurer's payments for medical expenses are made to the trust and then treated as a return on that investment. The proposed regulations would clarify that payments from accident or health insurance for medical expenses that are made to the trust (rather than made to the medical service provider or the participant as reimbursement for covered expenses) are treated as having been made to the participant and then contributed by the participant to the plan. Comments are requested on whether there should be limited exceptions to this general rule (such as an exception for a provision that has the effect of a waiver of premium in the case of disability). The proposed regulations would not alter the incidental benefit rule of § 1.401-1(b)(1)(ii) (which provides that a profit-sharing plan may provide incidental life or accident or health insurance for the participant and the participant's family) nor would they alter the tax treatment of the payment of life insurance. For the tax treatment of payments for life insurance, see section 72(m)(3) and § 1.72-16. The general rule that accident and health insurance premiums are taxable distributions would not apply to amounts held under a medical account that satisfies all the requirements of section 401(h). Accident or health insurance purchased through a section 401(h) account does not constitute a taxable distribution. See § 1.72-15(h), providing that employer contributions to provide medical benefits in section 401(h) under a qualified plan or annuity are not includible in the gross income of the employee on whose behalf contributions were made. 2 The result is the same if the section 401(h) account is funded with a transfer from a qualified pension plan in accordance with section 420. Similarly, section 402(l), as added by PPA '06, permits an exclusion from gross income, up to $3,000 annually, for distributions paid directly to an insurer to purchase accident or health insurance or qualified long-term care insurance for an eligible retired public safety officer and his or her spouse or dependents. The existence of narrow exceptions for retiree medical benefits under section 401(h) and for distributions for the payment of premiums on behalf of eligible retired public safety officers under section 402(l) is consistent with a general rule for inclusion in gross income of the payments of premiums for accident and health insurance. 2 See also H.R. Rep. No. 2317, 87th Cong., 2nd Sess. at 4 (1962), stating that no part of the contributions paid by the employer to a section 401(h) account will be taxed currently to the employee. Section 402(a) provides that amounts actually distributed from a qualified plan are generally taxable to the distributee in the year of the distribution. There is no general exception in section 402 for a distribution in the form of accident or health insurance. 3 Moreover, Congress has carefully prescribed and strictly limited the ability to pre-fund accident and health insurance benefits on a tax-favored basis. The rules specifically prescribed by Congress relating to the pre-funding of future health benefits on a tax-favored basis include the rules in section 223 (providing contribution limits and distribution rules for health savings accounts (HSAs)); sections 419 and 419A (limiting employer deductions for contributions to welfare benefit funds); section 501(c)(9) (providing requirements for tax-exempt Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Associations (VEBAs)); section 512 (providing for the taxation of a VEBA's unrelated business income); and by sections 401(h) and 420 (governing retiree health benefits provided through a separate health benefits account that is part of a pension or annuity plan). Therefore, because Congress specifically prescribed these limited provisions for favorable tax-treatment, a broad exclusion permitting tax-favored treatment of any distribution used to pay accident or health insurance premiums would be inconsistent with this intentional statutory scheme. 3 See, for example, the Joint Committee on Taxation's Technical Explanation, Technical Explanation of H.R. 4, the “Pension Protection Act of 2006” as passed by the House on July 28, 2006, and Considered by the Senate on August 3, 2006 (JCX-38-06), August 3, 2006, 109th Cong., 2nd Sess. 244 (2006), relating to the exception under section 402(l), which states that, under present law, distributions from a qualified plan are generally included in gross income (subject to exceptions for investment in the contract and qualified distributions from a designated Roth account). In addition, the existence of the incidental benefit rule in § 1.401-1(b)(1)(ii) is not an indication that distributions used to provide incidental life or accident or health insurance benefits are eligible for tax-favorable treatment because the incidental benefit rule relates solely to the qualification of a profit-sharing plan, not to the tax treatment of amounts used to provide medical or accident insurance benefits under such plan. The proposed regulations also contain conforming amendments to the Income Tax Regulations under sections 72, 105, 106, 401, and 402(c). These conforming amendments would remove obsolete provisions, as well as cite to the rules in these proposed regulations for determining the tax treatment of the payment of premiums for accident and health insurance from a qualified plan. Conforming amendments under sections 403(a) and 403(b) would also add a cross-reference to the regulations under section 403(a) and section 403(b) that would apply the rules in these proposed regulations to those arrangements. In addition, the proposed regulations would revise the first sentence of § 1.106-1 in order to update the definition of dependent in light of section 207 of the Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004, Public Lic 108-311 (118 Stat. 1166) and Notice 2004-79 (2004-2 CB 898), see § 601.601(d)(2). The proposed regulations would also amend § 1.402(c)-2, Q&A-4 to add distributions of premiums for accident or health insurance under § 1.402(a)-1(e)(1) to the list of items that are not eligible rollover contributions. Finally, these proposed regulations would also include a cross-reference to section 402(l), as added by PPA '06. For additional guidance on section 402(l), see Notice 2007-7 (2007-5 IRB 395), see § 601.601(d)(2). Proposed Effective Date It is expected that the regulations will apply for calendar years after the publication of final regulations in the **Federal Register** . However, no inference should be drawn that the payment of premiums from a qualified plan does not constitute a taxable distribution if made prior to the effective date of these regulations. Special Analyses It has been determined that this notice of proposed rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations, and because these regulations do not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, this proposed regulation has been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business. Comments and Public Hearing Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any written (a signed original and eight
(8)copies) or electronic comments that are submitted timely to the IRS. The Treasury Department and the IRS request comments on the clarity of the proposed rules and how they may be made easier to understand. All comments will be available for public inspection and copying. A public hearing has been scheduled for December 6, 2007, beginning at 10 a.m. in the Auditorium, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. Due to building security procedures, visitors must enter at the Constitution Avenue entrance. In addition, all visitors must present photo identification to enter the building. Because of access restrictions, visitors will not be admitted beyond the immediate entrance area more than 30 minutes before the hearing starts. For information about having your name placed on the building access list to attend the hearing, see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble. The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3) apply to the hearing. Persons who wish to present oral comments at the hearing must submit written or electronic comments by November 19, 2007 and an outline of the topics to be discussed and the amount of time to be devoted to each topic (a signed original and eight
(8)copies) by November 15, 2007. A period of 10 minutes will be allotted to each person for making comments. An agenda showing the scheduling of the speakers will be prepared after the deadline for receiving outlines has passed. Copies of the agenda will be available free of charge at the hearing. Drafting Information The principal authors of these regulations are Pamela R. Kinard and Michael P. Brewer, Office of Division Counsel/Associate Chief Counsel (Tax Exempt and Government Entities). However, other personnel from the IRS and the Treasury Department participated in their development. List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1 Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Proposed Amendments to the Regulations Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 1—INCOME TAXES **Paragraph 1.** The authority citation for part 1 continues to read in part as follows: Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *. **Par. 2.** Section 1.72-15 is amended by: 1. Revising paragraphs (d), (h), and (i). 2. Removing and reserving paragraph (f). The revisions read as follows: § 1.72-15 Applicability of section 72 to accident or health plans.
(d)*Accident or health benefits attributable to employer contributions* . Any amounts received as accident or health benefits and not attributable to contributions of the employee are includible in gross income except to the extent that such amounts are excludable from gross income under section 105(b) or
(c)and the regulations thereunder. See § 1.402(a)-1(e) for rules relating to the use of a qualified plan under section 401(a) to pay premiums for accident or health insurance.
(h)*Medical benefits for retired employees, etc* . See § 1.402(a)-1(e)(2) for rules relating to the payment of medical benefits described in section 401(h) under a qualified pension or annuity plan.
(i)*Special rules* —(1) *In general* . For purposes of section 72(b) and (d), and this section, the taxpayer shall maintain such records as are necessary to substantiate the amount treated as an investment in the taxpayer's annuity contract.
(2)*Delegation to Commissioner* . The Commissioner may prescribe a form and instructions with respect to the taxpayer's past and current treatment of amounts received under section 72 or 105, and the taxpayer's computation, or recomputation, of the taxpayer's investment in his or her annuity contract. This form may be required to be filed with the taxpayer's returns for years in which such amounts are excluded under section 72 or 105. § 1.105-4 [Removed] **Par. 3.** Section 1.105-4 is removed. § 1.105-6 [Removed] **Par. 4.** Section 1.105-6 is removed. **Par. 5.** Section 1.106-1 is amended by revising the first sentence and adding a new sentence at the end of the paragraph to read as follows: § 1.106-1 Contributions by employer to accident and health plans. The gross income of an employee does not include the contributions which the employer makes to an accident or health plan for compensation (through insurance or otherwise) to the employee for personal injuries or sickness incurred by the employee, the employee's spouse, or the employee's dependents (as defined in section 152 determined without regard to section 152(b)(1), (b)(2), or (d)(1)(B)). * * * For the treatment of the payment of premiums for accident or health insurance from a qualified trust under section 401(a), see §§ 1.72-15 and 1.402(a)-1(e). **Par. 6.** Section 1.401-1 is amended by adding a new sentence at the end of paragraph (b)(1)(ii) to read as follows: § 1.401-1 Qualified pension, profit-sharing, and stock bonus plans.
(b)* * * (1)(i) * * *
(ii)* * * See §§ 1.72-15, 1.72-16, and 1.402(a)-1(e) for rules regarding the tax treatment of incidental life or accident or health insurance. **Par. 7.** Section 1.402(a)-1 is amended by removing the last two sentences of paragraph (a)(1)(ii) and adding a new sentence in their place and by adding a new paragraph
(e)to read as follows: § 1.402(a)-1 Taxability of beneficiary under a trust which meets the requirements of section 401(a).
(a)* * *
(1)* * *
(i)* * *
(ii)* * * Paragraph
(e)of this section provides rules relating to use of a qualified pension, annuity, profit sharing, or stock bonus plan to provide accident or health benefits or coverage otherwise described in section 104, 105, or 106.
(e)*Medical, accident, etc. benefits paid from a qualified pension, annuity, profit sharing, or stock bonus plan* —(1) *Payment of premiums* —(i) *General rule.* The payment of premiums from a qualified trust for accident or health insurance, including a qualified long-term care insurance contract under section 7702B, constitutes a distribution under section 402(a) to the participant against whose benefit the premium is charged. The amount of the distribution equals the amount of the premium charged against the participant's benefits under the plan. If a defined contribution plan pays these premiums from a current year contribution or forfeiture that has not been allocated to a participant's account, then the amount of the premium for each participant will be treated as first being allocated to the participant and then charged against the participant's benefits under the plan, so that the amount of the distribution is treated in the same manner as determined under the preceding sentence. Except as described in paragraphs (e)(2) and
(3)of this section, a distribution described in this paragraph (e)(1) is not excludable from gross income.
(ii)*Treatment of amounts received through accident or health insurance.* To the extent that the premium for accident or health insurance constitutes a distribution under this paragraph (e)(1), amounts received through accident or health insurance are neither attributable to contributions by the employer which are not includible in the gross income of the employee nor are such amounts paid by the employer. Accordingly, amounts received through the accident or health insurance for personal injuries or sickness are excludable from gross income under section 104(a)(3) and are not treated as distributions from the plan. If amounts received through accident or health insurance are paid to the plan instead of the employee, these amounts are treated as having been paid to the employee and then contributed by the employee to the plan (and these amounts must satisfy the qualification requirements applicable to employee contributions).
(2)*Medical benefits for retired employees provided under an account described in section 401(h).* The payment of medical benefits described in section 401(h) under a pension or annuity plan is treated in the same manner as a payment of accident or health benefits attributable to employer contributions, or employer-provided coverage under an accident or health plan. See § 1.401-14(a) for the definition of medical benefits described in section 401(h). Accordingly, amounts applied for the payment of accident or health benefits, or for the payment of accident or health coverage, from a section 401(h) account are not includible in the gross income of the participant on whose behalf such contributions are made to the extent they are excludible from gross income under section 104, 105, or 106.
(3)*Distributions to eligible retired public safety officers.* See section 402(l) for a limited exclusion from gross income for distributions used to pay for certain accident or health premiums (including premiums for qualified long-term care insurance contracts). This limited exclusion applies to eligible retired public safety officers, as defined in section 402(l)(4)(B).
(4)*Effect of making a distribution of insurance premiums on qualification.* See § 1.401-1(b)(1) for rules concerning the types and amount of medical coverage and benefits that are permitted to be provided under a plan that is part of a trust described in section 401(a). For example, § 1.401-1(b)(1)(ii) provides that a profit-sharing plan is primarily a plan of deferred compensation, but the amounts allocated to the account of a participant may be used to provide incidental accident or health insurance for the participant and the participant's family. See also, section 401(k)(2)(B) for certain restrictions on the distribution of elective contributions.
(5)*Application of this paragraph (e).* This paragraph
(e)applies to the payment of premiums charged against the benefits of a beneficiary or an alternate payee in the same manner as the payment of premiums charged against the account of a participant.
(6)*Example.* The provisions of this paragraph
(e)are illustrated by the following example: *Example.*
(i)*Facts.* Employer sponsors a profit-sharing plan qualified under section 401(a). The plan provides solely for non-elective employer profit-sharing contributions. The plan's trustee enters into a contract with a third-party insurance carrier to provide health insurance for certain plan participants. The insurance policy provides for the payment of medical expenses incurred by those participants. The plan limits the amounts used to provide medical benefits with respect to a participant to 25 percent of the funds held in the participant's account. The trustee makes monthly payments of $1,000 to pay the premiums due for Participant A's health insurance. The trustee also reduces Participant A's account balance by $1,000 at the time of each premium payment. In June of a year, Participant A is admitted to the hospital for covered medical care, and in July of the same year, the health insurer pays the hospital $5,000 for the medical care provided to Participant A in June.
(ii)*Conclusion.* Under paragraph (e)(1) of this section, each of the trustee's payments of the $1,000 constitutes a distribution under section 402(a) to Participant A on the date of each payment. To the extent provided under section 213, the amount of these distributions constitutes payments for medical care. The $5,000 payment to the hospital is excludable from Participant A's gross income under section 104(a)(3) and is not treated as a distribution from the plan. **Par. 8.** Section 1.402(c)-2 is amended by redesignating paragraph A-4(h) as paragraph A-4(i) and adding a new paragraph A-4(h) to read as follows: § 1.402(c)-2 Eligible rollover contributions; questions and answers. A-4: * * *
(h)Distributions of premiums for accident or health insurance under § 1.402(a)-1(e). **Par. 9.** Section 1.403(a)-1 is amended by revising paragraph
(g)to read as follows: § 1.403(a)-1 Taxability of beneficiary under a qualified annuity plan.
(g)The rules of § 1.402(a)-1(e) apply for purposes of determining the treatment of amounts paid to provide accident and health insurance benefits. **Par. 10.** Section 1.403(b)-6 is amended by adding a sentence following the first sentence of paragraph
(g)to read as follows: § 1.403(b)-6 Timing of distributions and benefits.
(g)*Death benefits and other incidental benefits.* * * * The rules of § 1.402(a)-1(e) apply for purposes of determining when incidental benefits are treated as distributed and included in gross income. See §§ 1.72-15 and 1.72-16. * * * Linda E. Stiff, Acting Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement. [FR Doc. E7-16084 Filed 8-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service 36 CFR Part 5 Office of the Secretary 43 CFR Part 5 Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 27 RIN 1024-AD30 Making Motion Pictures, Television Productions, Soundtracks or Taking Still Photographs on Certain Areas Under the Jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior AGENCY: National Park Service, Office of the Secretary, Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Department of the Interior
(DOI)proposes to revise its filming regulations to implement legislation that directs establishment of reasonable fees for commercial filming activities or similar projects, such as still photography, and to respond to applicants for commercial filming or still photography permits in a timely manner. DATES: Written comments will be accepted through October 19, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by the number 1024-AD30, by any of the following methods: —Federal rulemaking portal: *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. —Mail: Lee Dickinson, Special Park Uses Program Manager, National Park Service, 1849 C Street, NW., ORG CODE 2460, Washington, DC 20240. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lee Dickinson, Special Park Uses Program Manager, National Park Service, 1849 C Street, NW., ORG CODE 2460, Washington, DC 20240, telephone: 202-513-7092, or e-mail: *Lee_Dickinson@nps.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Law 106-206 (codified at 16 U.S.C. 460 *l* -6d) directs the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to establish a reasonable fee system (location fees) for commercial filming and still photography activities on lands under the Secretaries' jurisdiction. The law necessitates that the Department of the Interior
(DOI)revise the existing regulations at 43 CFR part 5 prohibiting the National Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service from collecting fees for commercial film productions. When finalized, this proposed regulation will be the primary regulation governing commercial filming and still photography activities for the following DOI agencies: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the National Park Service (NPS). While 16 U.S.C. 460 *l* -6d authorizes agencies of the DOI to collect location fees, to date only the BLM, FWS, and NPS have decided to proceed with regulations allowing the agencies to collect and retain location fees. If in the future additional DOI agencies decide to collect location fees, then this regulation may be adopted by those agencies without significant modification. Background Lands of the United States were set aside by Congress and Executive order or otherwise acquired to conserve and protect areas of untold beauty and grandeur, historical importance, and uniqueness for future generations. Often it is the uniqueness of the land that attracts filmmakers. This tradition started with explorers who traveled with paint and canvas or primitive photo apparatus before the areas were designated as a national park, refuge, or forest. Generally, land management agencies allow commercial filming and still photography when it is consistent with their mission and will not harm the resource or interfere with the visitor experience. While many commercial filming and still photography permits issued by the land management agencies are for small productions involving educational material or commercial advertising, a significant number of commercial filming permits have been issued to makers of major motion pictures. Public Law 106-206 augments previous statutes authorizing commercial filming and still photography permits and establishes limitations for filming activities. While commercial filming and still photography are activities generally allowed on Federal lands, in many circumstances it is in the Government's interest to manage the activity through a permitting process to minimize the possibility of damage to the cultural or natural resources or interference with other visitors to the area. This regulation standardizes the collection of location fees by DOI agencies. Currently, while NPS and FWS do not collect location fees for commercial filming or still photography, BLM collects and retains location fees for the use of their lands (43 CFR 2920.8). This proposed regulation allows DOI agencies to collect a location fee and to retain and use the money collected in accordance with the formula and purposes established for the Department's Recreational Fee Demonstration Program (Pub. L. 104-134). The formula currently provides that at least 80 percent of the fee collected remains in the unit where it was collected. This regulation lays out the criteria for establishing location fees, including the number of people on site, duration (number of days) of the permitted activity, and amount and type of equipment present, as specified in statute. Actual fee amounts will be determined separately under a location fee schedule to be developed later by the DOI agencies covered by this regulation and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). This schedule will be based on the current schedules used by BLM and USFS, public comments a draft location fee schedule previously proposed by NPS, and conversations with State and local film commissioners and industry representatives. Revised location fee schedules will be published in the **Federal Register** for public comment. Once we have analyzed comments on the revised location fee schedules, we will publish a notice of final location fee schedules in the **Federal Register** . These schedules will then be available for use by other DOI bureaus and Federal agencies, should they choose to do so. The schedules will be reevaluated periodically on a timetable to be set by the agencies using the schedule. The expanded guidance provided in Public Law 106-206 is now proposed as subpart A of 43 CFR part 5, with the section governing areas administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, currently designated as § 5.2, now proposed as subpart B. The unnumbered paragraphs of § 5.2 have been numbered in the proposed subpart to allow for easier reference. In addition, a technical correction was made changing 25 CFR part 131 to 25 CFR part 162. We have also revised the NPS regulations in 36 CFR 5.5, and amended the current reference in the FWS regulations in Title 50 to conform to the proposed regulations in 43 CFR part 5. Key Issues Due to differences in regulations and policy, the three DOI land management agencies each have different approaches to managing commercial filming and still photography activities on their land. The types of commercial filming and still photography activities currently needing a permit vary from agency to agency, and only one DOI agency collects a location fee. The BLM currently charges a location fee for some commercial filming, but the NPS and FWS are currently prohibited by 43 CFR 5.1(b) from charging a location fee. The NPS and BLM recover the costs associated with issuing the permit from the permit holder. In addition, BLM state offices determine the location fee schedules for that State. This lack of consistency between the agencies creates confusion on the part of the filming and photography industry. This proposed regulation defines commercial filming and still photography (Section 5.2) and explains which activities require a permit (Section 5.3), thereby ensuring consistency among DOI agencies. The proposed regulation identifies circumstances when an agency may not issue a permit, with six factors that agencies must take into account when evaluating an application for a permit (Section 5.4). This proposed regulation also allows each of the DOI agencies to impose reasonable permit conditions to mitigate the impact of the activity on the resource and visitor use and enjoyment (Section 5.5). A violation of a permit condition would allow the issuing agency to revoke the permit. This proposed regulation also explains the financial responsibilities of the permit holder, including payment of the location fee, reimbursement of any costs incurred by the agency due to the processing of the application and monitoring of the permitted activity, and the necessary liability insurance and surety bonds (Section 5.6). Section-by-Section Analysis of Proposed 43 CFR Part 5 The following organizational summary has been prepared to assist in the location and analysis of the proposed revisions. Numbering of Proposed 43 CFR Part 5 Existing 43 CFR Part 5 Proposed 43 CFR Part 5 5.1(a) 5.3 Permit. 5.1(b) 5.6 Liability/Bonding. 5.1(c) 5.5 Permit Conditions. 5.1(d) Deleted. New Sections: 5.1 Scope. 5.2 Terms. 5.4 No Permit. 5.7 Costs. 5.8 Process Time. Section 5.1 What does this subpart cover? This subpart contains the regulations for issuing permits for commercial filming and still photography in units of the NPS, FWS, and BLM in the DOI. It is possible that additional agencies of the DOI will adopt this regulation should the agency decide to collect location fees and cost recovery as authorized by Public Law 106-206. The only modification needed for additional agencies to adopt this regulation would be to modify the definition of “agency.” Section 5.2 How are the terms defined in this subpart? This section provides the definitions needed to understand the regulation, including definitions for agency, commercial filming, cost recovery, location fee, and still photography. Section 5.3 When do I need a permit for commercial filming or still photography? Public Law 106-206 augments previous statutes for authorizing commercial filming and still photography activities and provides protections for the affected Federal lands. The law clarifies the requirements for commercial filming and still photography permits and establishes limitations for filming activities. While commercial filming and still photography are activities generally allowed on Federal lands, in many circumstances it is in the Government's interest to manage the activity through a permitting process to minimize the possibility of damage to the cultural or natural resources or interference with other visitors to the area. A person seeking a permit should contact the manager of the site for which the permit is sought to learn how and where to apply. All commercial filming on lands under DOI jurisdiction requires a permit. This section details those instances and lists specific criteria that trigger the need for a still photography permit, such as the use of models, sets, or props or requesting access to an area to photograph which is, at that time, not open to the general public. While filming and still photography activities by visitors (as opposed to commercial filmmakers or commercial photographers) generally do not require a permit, this section details those instances and lists specific criteria that trigger the need for a filming or still photography permit. These criteria include the use of models, sets, or props or requesting access to an area to film or photograph which is, at that time, not open to the general public. News coverage also does not need a permit, but is subject to time, place, and manner restriction, if warranted, to maintain order and ensure the safety of the public and the media, and protect natural and cultural resources. Section 5.4 Under what circumstances will an agency not issue a permit for commercial filming or still photography? The DOI agencies covered under this regulation will issue a permit, except when there is the likelihood that the activity will
(1)Damage the resource,
(2)cause unreasonable disruption or conflict with the public's use and enjoyment of the site,
(3)pose public health or safety risks,
(4)impair park resources or values,
(5)be inappropriate or incompatible with the purpose of the refuge, or
(6)violate other applicable laws or regulations. In some cases, a permit could be issued after terms and conditions are added to the permit to mitigate negative impacts. Section 5.5 What type of permit conditions will the agency impose? One important aspect of a commercial filming or still photography permit is the inclusion of terms and conditions that will protect the natural and cultural resources, ensure that visitor use and enjoyment is not affected, and protect public health and safety. Permit terms and conditions will be included to mitigate any possible damage to the resources and to guarantee the restoration of Federal lands should that be necessary. The permit is a legal agreement between the Federal agency and the permit holder, who is legally bound to adhere to the terms and conditions of the permit. The permit may be revoked if the permit terms or conditions are violated. Section 5.6 What are my liability and bonding requirements? The permit holder is required to acquire appropriate insurance, including property and personal and public liability insurance. Permit holders must fully indemnify and hold harmless the United States for any damage or injury incurred in connection with the permitted activity. Permit holders are also responsible for restoring and repairing the area used for the permitted activity and providing security in the form of a bond or other instrument that would guarantee restoration and repair. Section 5.7 What expenses will I incur? Fees are divided into two categories: a fee for commercial filming activities, similar projects or still photography (location fee) and cost recovery. The location fee is basically rent; i.e., a payment for the use of the land. Cost recovery reimburses the agency for all costs incurred in the receiving of the application, processing the request, and monitoring the permitted activity. The cost of location fees will depend upon the number of people on site, duration (number of days) of the permitted activity, and amount and type of equipment present, as specified in statute. Actual fee amounts will be determined separately under a location fee schedule to be developed later by the DOI agencies (and possibly USDA's Forest Service) covered by this regulation. This schedule will be based on schedules currently being used by BLM and the U.S. Forest Service and public comments previously received by NPS on a draft location fee schedule, On December 14, 2000 (65 FR 78186), the NPS published a “Notice of Availability of Draft Fee Schedules and Guidance for Commercial Filming in Compliance with Public Law 106-206 To Apply in All Units of the National Park Service.” We received 34 comments from the public as well as 9 comments from NPS personnel. Subsequently, additional conversations were held with managers of non-federally managed sites, both cultural and natural, as well as conversations with State and local film commissioners and industry representatives. Public Law 106-206 directed the agencies to recover any costs incurred by the agency as a result of the permitting of commercial filming or still photography activities, including, but not limited to, administrative and personnel costs. Recovery of costs is in addition to any location fees that might be charged. We will recover costs any time an application is submitted, and the amount should cover all costs of processing the request and monitoring the permitted activities. Cost recovery will be charged for processing a request even if the request is denied, since the agency incurred costs in processing the application and reaching a decision. Section 5.8 How long will it take to process my request? Under Public Law 106-206, Federal agencies are required to establish a process to ensure that permit applications are processed in a timely manner. Each DOI agency will develop a written checklist of the application and review process which will include a timeline to be followed by that agency. While processing times may vary significantly based on the complexity of the commercial filming or still photography request, a checklist will ensure that similar application and processing procedures are used throughout each agency on similar requests and that the application is efficiently processed to minimize the time it takes to consider a request. Early consultation with the appropriate agency on the part of a potential applicant will also aid in processing the application in a timely manner once it is submitted. The process used and the appropriate application forms will be available on request at all field offices and on the Internet. Sections 5.15 Through 5.18 These sections apply only to the Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA)and are currently paragraphs
(a)through
(d)of § 5.2. While we propose no substantive changes to any of these sections, we have:
(1)Made each paragraph into a section;
(2)Given each section a heading in the form of a question;
(3)Updated a reference to 25 CFR part 131 to refer the reader to 25 CFR part 162; and
(4)Made a few additional minor formatting and wording changes. Compliance with Laws, Executive Orders, and Department Policy Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Order 12866) This document is a significant rule and has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)under Executive Order 12866.
(1)This rule will not have an effect of $100 million or more on the economy. It will not adversely affect in a material way the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities.
(2)This rule will not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency.
(3)This rule does not alter the budgetary effects of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights or obligations of their recipients.
(4)This rule is following the direction of Congress by implementing the provisions of Public Law 106-206. OMB has determined that this rule raises novel legal or policy issues. The rule proposes to institute a new schedule of fees for private industry for commercial filming and still photography activities that receive permits for the use of Federal lands managed by several DOI agencies. The potential number of areas and businesses affected by this proposed regulation could generate a number of comments. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Department of the Interior certifies that this document will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). This certification is based on information contained in the report titled, “Benefit-Cost/Unfunded Mandates Act Analysis Small Business and Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis” (U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Policy Analysis, Office of the Secretary). This report is available from the NPS by writing to Lee Dickinson at the addresses listed in the section above under ADDRESSES . Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule: a. Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. b. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions. c. Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. Takings (Executive Order 12630) In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the rule does not have significant takings implications. Federalism (Executive Order 13132) In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment. Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order 12988) In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has determined that this rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the order. Paperwork Reduction Act This proposed regulation requires individuals and companies wishing to do commercial filming and still photography on public lands to obtain a permit from the agency managing the public land. The permit holder is also responsible for reimbursing the agency for costs incurred and to pay a land use fee. The mechanics of applying for the permit and the forms involved are not addressed in this proposed regulation, but are addressed in existing agency regulations and internal guidance. The NPS uses application forms NPS 10-931 (Film—Short Form) and NPS 10-932 (Film—Long Form). Both forms are assigned OMB Control Number 1024-0026 and expire March 31, 2010. The BLM uses OMB-approved BLM Form 2920-1 (Land Use Application and Permit), which is assigned OMB Control Number 1004-0009 and expires December 31, 2007. The FWS National Wildlife Refuge System currently uses two forms for special use permits on refuges: FWS Form 3-1383 (Special Use Permit Application on National Wildlife Refuges Outside Alaska), for which the OMB Control Number is 1018-0102 and the OMB approval expires January 31, 2008, and FWS Form 3-2001 (Special Use Permit Application on National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska), for which the OMB Control Number is 1018-0014 and the OMB approval expires September 30, 2006. Therefore, these regulations do not contain information collection requirements that the OMB must approve under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* National Environmental Policy Act This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, health, and safety because it is not expected to:
(a)Increase public use to the extent of compromising the nature and character of the area or causing physical damage to it;
(b)Introduce non-compatible uses that might compromise the nature and characteristics of the area, or cause physical damage to it;
(c)Conflict with adjacent ownerships or land uses; or
(d)Cause a nuisance to adjacent owners or occupants. Based on this determination, the regulation is categorically excluded from the procedural requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)by Departmental guidelines in 516 DM 6, (49 FR 21438). Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement has been prepared. The location fee authorized by Public Law 106-206 and governed by this proposed regulation is a fee collected when a permit is issued by the responsible agency for a commercial filming or still photography activity. Any analysis required by the NEPA, as well as the National Historic Preservation Act, would be conducted in conjunction with the permitting process and would evaluate the impact of the requested activity on the resource. Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes In accordance with Executive Order 13175 “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249), the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22961), and 512 DM 2, we have evaluated potential effects on federally recognized Indian tribes and have determined that there are no potential effects. Clarity of This Regulation Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to make this rule easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the following:
(1)Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
(2)Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that interferes with its clarity?
(3)Does the format of the rule (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its clarity?
(4)Would the rule be easier to understand if it were divided into more (but shorter) sections? (A “section” appears in bold type and is preceded by the symbol “§ ” and a numbered heading; for example § 14.10 Purpose).
(5)Is the description of the rule in the “Supplementary Information” section of the preamble helpful in understanding the proposed rule? What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand? Send a copy of any comments that concern how we could make this rule easier to understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs, DOI, Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240. You may also e-mail the comments to this address: *Exsec@ios.doi.gov.* *Drafting Information:* The primary authors of this regulation are Lee Dickinson, Special Park Uses Program Manager, Jerry Case, Regulations Program Manager, National Park Service, Washington DC; Vanessa Engle, Program Lead Commercial Filming and Still Photography, Bureau of Land Management, Washington DC; and Rebecca Halbe, National Fee Program Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington DC. Public Participation You may submit comments, identified by the number RIN 1024-AD30, by any of the following methods: — *Federal rulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting electronic comments. — *You may mail or hand deliver comments to National Park Service, Attn:* Lee Dickinson, Special Park Uses Program Manager, 1849 C Street, NW., ORG CODE 2460, Washington, DC 20240. Our practice is to make comments, including names and addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials or organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety. List of Subjects 36 CFR Part 5 Alcohol and alcoholic beverages, Business and industry, Civil rights, Equal employment opportunity, National parks, Transportation, Motion pictures. 43 CFR Part 5 Motion pictures, Recordings, Television. 50 CFR Part 27 Wildlife refuges. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, we propose to amend part 5 of title 36, part 5 of title 43, and part 27 of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows: Title 36—Parks, Forests, and Public Property CHAPTER I—NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DOI PART 5—COMMERCIAL AND PRIVATE OPERATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 5 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1, 3, 9a, 17j-2, 462. 2. Section 5.5 is revised to read as follows: § 5.5 Commercial filming and still photography. Commercial filming and still photography are subject to the provisions of the special regulations contained in part 5, subpart A, title 43 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Title 43—Public Lands: Interior Subtitle A—Office of the Secretary of the Interior 3. Part 5 is revised to read as follows: PART 5—MAKING MOTION PICTURES, TELEVISION PRODUCTIONS, OR SOUNDTRACKS OR TAKING STILL PHOTOGRAPHS ON CERTAIN AREAS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Subpart A—Areas Administered by the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Land Management Sec. 5.1 What does this subpart cover? 5.2 How are terms defined in this subpart? 5.3 When do I need a permit for commercial filming or still photography? 5.4 Under what circumstances will an agency not issue a permit for commercial filming or still photography? 5.5 What type of permit conditions will the agency impose? 5.6 What are my liability and bonding requirements? 5.7 What expenses will I incur? 5.8 How long will it take to process my request? Subpart B—Areas Administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs 5.15 When must I ask permission from individual Indians to conduct filming and photography? 5.16 When must I ask permission from Indian groups and communities? 5.17 When must I get a lease or permit? 5.18 What wages must I pay to Indian employees? Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 16 U.S.C. 1-3, 3a, 668dd-ee, 715i, 460 *l* -6d; 25 U.S.C. 2; 43 U.S.C. 1701, 1732-1734, 1740. Subpart A—Areas Administered by the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Land Management § 5.1 What does this subpart cover? This subpart covers commercial filming and still photography activities on the Federal lands and waters administered by the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. § 5.2 How are terms defined in this part? The following definitions apply to this part: *Agency, we, our, or us* means the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service office responsible for the administration of lands and waters that are under its respective jurisdiction. (This definition may be expanded as additional agencies in the DOI choose to collect location fees for commercial filming and still photography on the lands under their jurisdiction.) *Commercial filming* means the digital or film recording of a visual image or sound recording by a person, business, or other entity for a market audience, such as for a documentary, television or feature film, advertisement, or similar project. It does not include news coverage or visitor use. *Cost recovery* is the money that the agency collects as reimbursement for the costs incurred by the agency in accepting and processing an application and in monitoring the permitted commercial filming or still photography activity. *Location fee* means a land or facility use fee similar to rent that provides a fair return to the United States for the use of Federal lands or facilities when used for commercial filming activities or similar projects and still photography activities where a permit is required. *Permit* means a written authorization by us to engage in uses or activities that are otherwise prohibited or restricted. *Resource damage,* as applied to BLM lands, means harm to the land or its resources that cannot reasonably be mitigated or reclaimed. *Still photography* means the capturing of a still image on film or in a digital format. § 5.3 When do I need a permit for commercial filming or still photography?
(a)All commercial filming requires a permit.
(b)Still photography requires a permit if:
(1)It takes place at location(s) where or when members of the public are generally not allowed; or
(2)It uses model(s), sets(s), or prop(s) that are not a part of the location's natural or cultural resources or administrative facilities; or
(3)The agency would incur additional administrative costs to monitor the activity; or
(4)The agency would need to provide management and oversight to:
(i)Avoid impairment or incompatible use of the resources and values of the site; or
(ii)Limit resource damage; or
(iii)Minimize health or safety risks to the visiting public.
(c)News coverage does not require a permit, but is subject to time, place, and manner restrictions, if warranted, to maintain order and ensure the safety of the public and the media, and protect natural and cultural resources.
(d)Use of film, video, or still photography equipment by visitors does not require a permit as long as the activity occurs in areas designated for public use during public hours.
(e)For information on how to obtain a permit application and where and how to submit it, contact the site manager for the location at which you seek a permit to film. § 5.4 Under what circumstances will an agency not issue a permit for commercial filming or still photography?
(a)We will issue a permit authorizing commercial filming or still photography, EXCEPT if we determine that:
(1)There is the likelihood that resource damage would occur that cannot be mitigated or restored under the terms and conditions of a permit; or
(2)There is the likelihood of unreasonable disruption of or conflict with the public's use and enjoyment of the site; or
(3)There is the likelihood that the activity poses health or safety risks to the public; or
(4)There is the likelihood that the activity would result in the impairment of park resources or values;
(5)The activity is inappropriate or incompatible with the purpose of the refuge; or
(6)The requested activity will violate any other applicable Federal, State, or local law or regulation. *(b) [Reserved]* § 5.5 What type of permit conditions will the agency impose?
(a)We may impose permit conditions including, but not limited to, conditions intended to:
(1)Protect the site's values, purposes, and resources, and public health and safety; or
(2)Prevent unreasonable disruption of the public's use and enjoyment.
(b)We may revoke your permit if you violate a permit condition. § 5.6 What are my liability and bonding requirements?
(a)You are fully liable for any damage or injury incurred in connection with the activity, and you must fully indemnify and hold harmless the United States. You must obtain an appropriate property damage, personal injury, and public liability insurance policy sufficient to protect the United States Government from liability or other claims arising from activities under the permit. The insurance policy must name the United States as an additional insured.
(b)You are responsible for repair and restoration costs if your activity causes resource damage to an area. We may also require you to provide a bond or other security satisfactory to secure any other obligations you may have under the permit and applicable laws and regulations. The bond must be in an amount sufficient to provide full payment for the costs of restoration, reclamation, or rehabilitation of the lands in the event that your activity causes resource damage to an area. If the cost of the repairs exceeds the amount of your bond, you will also be responsible for the additional amount. § 5.7 What expenses will I incur?
(a)*Location fee.*
(1)For commercial filming and still photography permits, we will require a reasonable location fee that provides a fair return to the United States. The location fee will be based upon the following criteria:
(i)The number of days your activity takes place;
(ii)The size of the film crew;
(iii)The amount and type of equipment present; and
(iv)Comparable location fees charged by other Federal, State, and local government agencies and the private sector.
(2)The location fee charged is in lieu of any entrance or other special use fees. However, the location fee is in addition to any cost recovery amount assessed in paragraph
(b)of this section.
(3)We will assess location fees in accordance with a fee schedule, to be published in the **Federal Register** and made available on the Internet and at our field offices.
(b)*Cost recovery.* You must reimburse the agency for actual costs incurred in processing your request and administering your permit. Cost recovery will be based upon our direct and indirect expenses including, but not limited to, administrative and personnel costs for application processing, preproduction meetings and other activities, and on-site monitoring of permitted activities. § 5.8 How long will it take to process my request? The DOI is committed to ensuring that the agencies process permit applications for commercial filming and still photography permits in a timely manner. Each agency is responsible for developing its own system for administering the permit application process. For specific information on application procedures, contact the appropriate agency field office. Subpart B—Areas Administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs § 5.15 When must I ask permission from individual Indians to conduct filming and photography? Anyone who desires to go on to the land of an Indian to make pictures, television productions, or soundtracks is expected to observe the ordinary courtesy of first obtaining permission from the person(s) and of observing any conditions attached to this permission. § 5.16 When must I ask permission from Indian groups and communities? Anyone who desires to take pictures, including motion pictures, or to make a television production or a soundtrack of Indian communities, churches, kivas, plazas, or ceremonies performed in these places, must:
(a)Obtain prior permission from the proper officials of the place or community; and
(b)Scrupulously observe any limitations imposed by the officials who grant the permission. § 5.17 When must I get a lease or permit? If filming pictures or making a television production or a soundtrack requires the actual use of Indian lands, you must obtain a lease or permit under 25 CFR part 162. § 5.18 What wages must I pay to Indian employees? Any motion picture or television producer who obtains a lease or permit for the use of Indian land under 25 CFR part 162 must pay a fair and reasonable wage to any Indian employed in connection with the production. Title 50—Wildlife and Fisheries SUBCHAPTER C—THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM PART 27—PROHIBITED ACTS Subpart G—Disturbing Violations: Light and Sound Equipment 4. The authority citation for part 27 continues to read as follows: Authority: Sec. 2, 33 Stat. 614, as amended (16 U.S.C. 685); Sec. 5, 43 Stat. 651 (16 U.S.C. 725); Sec. 5, Stat. 449 (16 U.S.C. 690d); Sec. 10, 45 Stat. 1224 (16 U.S.C. 715i); Sec. 4, 48 Stat. 402, as amended (16 U.S.C. 664); Sec. 2, 48 Stat. 1270 (43 U.S.C. 315a); 49 Stat. 383 as amended; Sec. 4, 76 Stat. (16 U.S.C. 460k); Sec. 4, 80 Stat. 927 (16 U.S.C. 668dd) (5 U.S.C. 685, 752, 690d); 16 U.S.C. 715s). 5. Section 27.71 is revised to read as follows: § 27.71 Motion pictures, sound recordings, and still photography. The filming of any motion picture or taking of sound recordings or still photography on a national wildlife refuge for subsequent commercial use is prohibited except as may be authorized under the provisions of 43 CFR part 5. Dated: March 22, 2007. P. Lynn Scarlett, Deputy Secretary of the Interior. Editorial Note: The Office of the Federal Register received this document on August 8, 2007. [FR Doc. E7-15845 Filed 8-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-70-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 97 [EPA-R04-OAR-2007-0229-200713(b); FRL-8453-7] Approval of Implementation Plans of Tennessee: Clean Air Interstate Rule AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is approving revisions to the Tennessee State Implementation Plan
(SIP)submitted on September 8, 2006. This revision incorporates provisions related to the implementation of EPA's Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), promulgated on May 12, 2005, and subsequently revised on April 28, 2006, and December 13, 2006, and the CAIR Federal Implementation Plan
(FIP)concerning Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ), Nitrogen Oxides (NO X ) annual, and NO X ozone season emissions for the State of Tennessee, promulgated on April 28, 2006, and subsequently revised December 13, 2006. On February 8, 2007, Tennessee requested that EPA only act on a portion of the September 8, 2006 submittal as an abbreviated SIP. Consequently, EPA is approving an abbreviated SIP revision that addresses the methodology to be used to allocate annual and ozone season NO X allowances under the CAIR FIPs and opt-in provisions for the SO 2 , NO X annual, and NO X ozone season trading programs. EPA is not making any changes to the CAIR FIP, but is amending, to the extent EPA approves Tennessee's SIP revision, the appropriate appendices in the CAIR FIP trading rules simply to note that approval. In the Final Rules Section of this **Federal Register** , the EPA is approving the State's SIP revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this document. Any parties interested in commenting on this document should do so at this time. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 19, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2007-0229, by one of the following methods: 1. *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. *E-mail: hou.james@epa.gov.* 3. *Fax:*
(404)562-9019. 4. *Mail:* EPA-R04-OAR-2007-0229, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. 5. *Hand Delivery or Courier:* James Hou, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding federal holidays. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2007-0229. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The *http://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 *http://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 and any form of encryption and should be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.* *Docket:* All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the *http://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 *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Hou, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is
(404)562-8965. Mr. Hou can also be reached via electronic mail at *hou.james@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information see the direct final rule which is published in the Rules Section of this **Federal Register** . Dated: July 31, 2007. J.I. Palmer Jr., Regional Administrator, Region 4. [FR Doc. E7-15781 Filed 8-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 67 [Docket No. FEMA-D-7814] Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: Technical information or comments are requested on the proposed Base (1% annual chance) Flood Elevations
(BFEs)and proposed BFEs modifications for the communities listed below. The BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). DATES: The comment period is ninety
(90)days following the second publication of this proposed rule in a newspaper of local circulation in each community. ADDRESSES: The proposed BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William R. Blanton, Jr., Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202)646-3151. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA)proposes to make determinations of BFEs and modified BFEs for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a). These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State or regional entities. These proposed elevations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are also used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final, and for the contents in these buildings. *National Environmental Policy Act.* This proposed rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not been prepared. *Regulatory Flexibility Act.* As flood elevation determinations are not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. *Regulatory Classification.* This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735. *Executive Order 13132, Federalism.* This proposed rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. *Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform.* This proposed rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988. List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67 Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 67—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.* ; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. § 67.4 [Amended] 2. The tables published under the authority of § 67.4 are proposed to be amended as follows: Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation * Elevation in feet
(NGVD)+ Elevation in feet
(NAVD)# Depth in feet above ground Effective Modified Communities affected Rowan County, North Carolina and Incorporated Areas Grants Creek At the confluence with Yadkin River None +643 Rowan County (Unincorporated Areas), City of Salisbury, Town of China Grove, Town of Landis, Town of Spencer. Approximately 1,190 feet upstream of North Meriah Street +827 +835 Tributary 2 Approximately 1,000 feet upstream of the confluence with Grants Creek +674 +675 City of Salisbury. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of the confluence with Grants Creek None +688 Hopkins Street Branch At the confluence with Town Creek +707 +705 City of Salisbury. Approximately 250 feet upstream of the confluence with Town Creek +707 +705 Lomax Creek At the confluence with Grants Creek +637 +644 Town of Spencer. Approximately 750 feet upstream of the confluence with Grants Creek +641 +644 Mill Creek Approximately 250 feet downstream of the Rowan/Cabarrus County boundary None +713 Rowan County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 400 feet upstream of Smith Road (State Road 1361) None +799 Rocky Branch At the confluence with Grants Creek +641 +644 Town of Spencer. Approximately 1,200 feet upstream of the confluence with Grants Creek +641 +644 Rowan Avenue Park Stream At the confluence with Grants Creek +629 +644 Rowan County (Unincorporated Areas), Town of Spencer. Approximately 150 feet upstream of Charles Street +641 +644 Sixth Street Branch At the confluence with Grants Creek +641 +644 Town of Spencer. Approximately 700 feet upstream of the confluence with Grants Creek +641 +644 South Yadkin River At the confluence with Yadkin River None +648 Rowan County (Unincorporated Areas), City of Salisbury. At the Iredell/Davie/Rowan County boundary None +697 Third Street Creek At the confluence with Grants Creek +636 +644 Town of Spencer. Approximately 1,260 feet upstream of the confluence with Grants Creek +641 +644 Yadkin River Approximately 500 feet downstream of the Rowan/Davidson/Stanly/ Montgomery County boundary None +566 Rowan County (Unincorporated Areas), Town of Spencer. At the confluence of South Yadkin River None +648 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES City of Salisbury Maps are available for inspection at Salisbury City Hall, 217 South Main Street, Salisbury, North Carolina. Send comments to Mr. David Treme, Salisbury City Manager, P.O. Box 479, Salisbury, North Carolina 28145. Town of China Grove Maps are available for inspection at China Grove Town Hall, 205 Swink Street, China Grove, North Carolina. Send comments to The Honorable Don Bringle, Mayor of the Town of China Grove, 205 Swink Street, China Grove, North Carolina 28023. Town of Landis Maps are available for inspection at Landis Town Hall, 312 South Main Street, Landis, North Carolina. Send comments to The Honorable Mike Mahaley, Mayor of the Town of Landis, P.O. Box 8165, Landis, North Carolina 28088. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: August 9, 2007. David I. Maurstad, Federal Insurance Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E7-16270 Filed 8-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 67 [Docket No. FEMA-B-7731] Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: Technical information or comments are requested on the proposed Base (1% annual chance) Flood Elevations
(BFEs)and proposed BFEs modifications for the communities listed below. The BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). DATES: The comment period is ninety
(90)days following the second publication of this proposed rule in a newspaper of local circulation in each community. ADDRESSES: The proposed BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William R. Blanton, Jr., Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202)646-3151. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA)proposes to make determinations of BFEs and modified BFEs for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a). These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State or regional entities. These proposed elevations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are also used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final, and for the contents in these buildings. *National Environmental Policy Act.* This proposed rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not been prepared. *Regulatory Flexibility Act.* As flood elevation determinations are not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. *Regulatory Classification.* This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735. *Executive Order 13132, Federalism.* This proposed rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. *Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform* . This proposed rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988. List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67 Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 67—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.* ; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. § 67.4 [Amended] 2. The tables published under the authority of § 67.4 are proposed to be amended as follows: Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation * Elevation in feet
(NGVD)+ Elevation in feet
(NAVD)# Depth in feet above ground Effective Modified Communities affected Tulsa County, Oklahoma, and Incorporated Areas East Blackjack Creek Tributary Confluence with East Creek +620 +619 Unincorporated Areas of Tulsa County, City of Collinsville. Approximately 1590 ft downstream of N. 135th Ave E None +651 East Branch Haikey Creek Approximately 10 feet upstream of Date Ave +707 +706 City of Broken Arrow. Approximately 1050 feet upstream of S. Main St +719 +720 Floral Haven Creek Confluence with Haikey Creek +670 +674 City of Broken Arrow. Approximately 100 ft downstream of N. Aspen Ave +724 +726 Haikey Creek Intersection with W. Houston St +659 +661 City of Broken Arrow. Approximately 270 ft downstream of E. State Highway 51 +730 +727 Little Haikey Creek Confluence with Haikey Creek +623 +624 City of Broken Arrow. Approximately 30 ft. downstream of E. 76th St +724 +725 Middle Branch Haikey Creek Confluence with East Branch Haikey Creek +650 +651 City of Broken Arrow. Approximately 50 ft downstream of W. Kenosha St +712 +716 Olive Creek Confluence with Haikey Creek +656 +655 City of Broken Arrow. At intersection with Kenosha St None +700 Park Grove Creek Confluence with Middle Branch Haikey Creek +684 +685 City of Broken Arrow. Approximately 100 ft downstream of N. Elm Pl +718 +720 Turtle Creek Approximately 2000 Ft downstream of Aspen intersection +663 +666 City of Broken Arrow. Approximately 100 ft downstream of W. Houston St +706 +704 West Branch Haikey Creek Tributary Confluence with West Branch Haikey Creek +664 +667 City of Broken Arrow. Approximately 580 Ft downstream of W. Elgin St +670 +674 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES City of Broken Arrow Maps are available for inspection at 115 E. Commercial Street, Broken Arrow, OK 74013. Send comments to The Honorable Wade McCaleb, Mayor, City of Broken Arrow, PO Box 610, Broken Arrow, OK 74013. City of Collinsville Maps are available for inspection at 106 N. 12th St., Collinsville, OK 74021. Send comments to The Honorable Stan Sallee, Mayor, City of Collinsville, PO Box 730, Collinsville, OK 74021. Unincorporated Areas of Tulsa County Maps are available for inspection at 633 West 3rd, Room 140, Tulsa, OK 74127. Send comments to The Honorable Randi Miller, Commissioner Chairman, 500 South Denver, Tulsa, OK 74103. Unicoi County, Tennessee, and Incorporated Areas Nolichucky River Approximately 1,400 feet downstream of the confluence of South Indian Creek +1639 +1638 City of Erwin, Unincorporated Areas of Unicoi County. Approximately 2,280 feet upstream of the Chestoa Pike Bridge +1690 +1690 North Indian Creek Approximately 1,170 feet downstream of the Interstate 26 Bridge +1834 +1832 Town of Unicoi, Unincorporated Areas of Unicoi County. Approximately 100 feet downstream of the confluence of Scioto Creek +1924 +1920 South Indian Creek Approximately 440 feet upstream of the confluence with Nolichucky River +1643 +1641 Unincorporated Areas of Unicoi County, City of Erwin. Approximately 290 feet upstream of the Sandy Bottom Road Bridge +1681 +1680 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES City of Erwin Maps are available for inspection at Erwin Town Hall, 211 North Main Avenue, Erwin, TN 37650. Send comments to W. Don Lewis, Mayor, Post Office Box 59, Erwin, TN 37650-0059. Town of Unicoi Maps are available for inspection at Unicoi Town Hall, 3600 Unicoi Drive, Unicoi, TN 37692. Send comments to Johnny M. Lynch, Mayor, Post Office Box 39, Unicoi, TN 37692-0039. Unincorporated Areas of Unicoi County Maps are available for inspection at Post Office Box 169, Erwin, TN 37650-0169. Send comments to Larry Rose, Mayor, Post Office Box 169, Erwin, TN 37650-0169. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: August 9, 2007. David I. Maurstad, Federal Insurance Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E7-16277 Filed 8-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P 72 160 Monday, August 20, 2007 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Research Service Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive License AGENCY: Agricultural Research Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of intent. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, intends to grant to Epic Gardens of Richmond, Virginia, an exclusive license to the varieties of edamame soybeans described in Plant Variety Protection Certificate Number 200300169, “Moon Cake”, issued on December 15, 2003, Plant Variety Protection Certificate Number 200300208, “Asmara”, issued on April 27, 2004, Plant Variety Protection Certificate Number 200300241, “Randolf”, issued on April 27, 2004, and Plant Variety Protection Certificate Number 200300250, “Owens”, issued on April 27, 2004. DATES: Comments must be received within thirty
(30)days of the date of publication of this Notice in the **Federal Register** . ADDRESSES: Send comments to: USDA, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Rm. 4-1174, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-5131. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: June Blalock of the Office of Technology Transfer at the Beltsville address given above; telephone: 301-504-5989. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Government's rights in these plant varieties are assigned to the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. It is in the public interest to so license these varieties as Epic Gardens of Richmond, Virginia has submitted a complete and sufficient application for a license. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within thirty
(30)days from the date of this published Notice, the Agricultural Research Service receives written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. Richard J. Brenner, Assistant Administrator. [FR Doc. E7-16241 Filed 8-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-03-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Notice of Resource Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY: Modoc County Resource Advisory Committee, Alturas, CA 96101, USDA Forest Service. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: Pursuant to the authorities in the Federal Advisory Committees Act (Pub. L. 92-463) and under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-393) the Modoc National Forest's Modoc County Resource Advisory Committee will meet Monday, August 27, 2007 in Alturas, California 96101, for a business meeting. The meetings are open to the public. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The business meeting on August 27, 2007, will begin at 6 p.m., at the Modoc National Forest Office, Conference Room, 800 West 12th St., Alturas, California 96101. Agenda topics will include presentations and discussions of projects to be funded in 2008 that meet the intent of Public Law 106-393. Time will also be set aside for public comments at the beginning of the meeting. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Contact Stan Sylva, Forest Supervisor and Designated Federal Officer, at
(530)233-8700; or Rural Development and Partnership Specialist Dina McElwain at
(530)233-8723. Stanley G. Sylva, Forest Supervisor. [FR Doc. E7-16291 Filed 8-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration Solicitation of Nominations for Members of the Grain Inspection Advisory Committee AGENCY: Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA. ACTION: Notice to solicit nominees. SUMMARY: We are seeking nominations for people to serve on GIPSA's Grain Inspection Advisory Committee. The Grain Inspection Advisory Committee meets twice annually to advise GIPSA on the programs and services we deliver under the U.S. Grain Standards Act. Recommendations by the committee help us to better meet the needs of our customers who operate in a dynamic and changing marketplace. DATES: We will consider nominations (Form AD-755) we receive by October 19, 2007. ADDRESSES: We invite you to submit nominations for the Grain Inspection Advisory Committee. You may submit nominations (completed AD-755) by any of the following methods: • E-Mail: Send Form AD-755 via electronic mail to *Terri.L.Henry@usda.gov.* • Mail: Send hardcopy of Form AD-755 to Terri Henry, GIPSA, USDA, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Room 1633-S, Stop 3642, Washington, DC 20250-3642. • Fax: Send Form AD-755 by facsimile transmission to:
(202)690-2173. • Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver Form AD-755 to: Terri Henry, GIPSA, USDA, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Room 1633-S, Stop 3642, Washington, DC 20250-3642. • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to *http://www.regulation.gov.* Follow the on-line instruction for submitting comments. You may send a completed AD-755 through this Web site. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terri L. Henry,
(202)205-8281 or by e-mail at *Terri.L.Henry@usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As required by section 21 of the United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA) as amended, (7 U.S.C. 87j) the Secretary of Agriculture established the Grain Inspection Advisory Committee (Advisory Committee) on September 29, 1981, to provide advice to the Administrator on implementation of USGSA. Currently, the authority for the Advisory Committee expires on September 30, 2015. As specified in USGSA, each member's term is 3 years and no member may serve successive terms. As required by USGSA, the Advisory Committee presently consists of 15 members, appointed by the Secretary, who represent the interests of grain producers, processors, handlers, merchandisers, consumers, and exporters, including scientists with expertise in research related to the policies in section 2 of USGSA (7 U.S.C. 74). Members of the Advisory Committee serve without compensation. USDA may reimburse members for travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, for travel away from their homes or regular places of business in performance of Advisory Committee service, (see 5 U.S.C. 5703). A list of current Advisory Committee members and other relevant information are available on the GIPSA Web site. Go to *http://www.gipsa.usda.gov* and under the section I Want To . . . click on Learn about the Advisory Committee. We are seeking nominations for people to serve on the Advisory Committee to replace the five members and the five alternate members whose terms will expire in March 2008. If you are interested in serving on the Advisory Committee or nominating someone else to serve, contact: GIPSA, by telephone (tel: 202-205-8281), fax (fax: 202-690-2173), or electronic mail (e-mail: *Terri.L.Henry@usda.gov* ) and request Form AD-755. Form AD-755 may also be obtained via the Internet on GIPSA's Web site. Go to *http://www.gipsa.usda.gov* and under the section I Want To . . . click on Learn about the Advisory Committee then click on Form AD-755. Nominations are open to all individuals without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, mental or physical handicap, marital status, or sexual orientation. To ensure that recommendations of the Committee take into account the needs of the diverse groups served by the Department, membership shall include, to the extent practicable, individuals with demonstrated ability to represent minorities, women, and persons with disabilities. The final selection of Advisory Committee members and alternates will be made by the Secretary. James E. Link, Administrator, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration. [FR Doc. E7-16294 Filed 8-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-KD-P ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD Meeting AGENCY: Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) has scheduled its regular business meetings to take place in Washington, DC, Wednesday through Friday, September 5-7, 2007, at the times and location noted below. DATES: The schedule of events is as follows: Wednesday, September 5, 2007 10-Noon—Airport Ad Hoc Committee 1:30-3 p.m.—Technical Programs Committee 3-4—Transportation Vehicle Guidelines Ad Hoc Committee (Closed) 4-5—Passenger Vessels Guidelines Ad Hoc Committee (Closed) Thursday, September 6, 2007 9-10 a.m.—Planning and Evaluation Committee 10-11—Accessible Design in Education Ad Hoc Committee 11-Noon—Ethics Briefing 2 p.m.-5—Public Hearing on Outdoor Developed Areas Proposed Rule Friday, September 7, 2007 9-10:30 a.m.—Budget Committee 10:30-Noon—Executive Committee Noon-2—Electronic and Information Technology Ad Hoc Committee 2:30-3:30 p.m.—Board Meeting ADDRESSES: All meetings will be held at The Madison Hotel, 1177 15th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information regarding the meetings, please contact Lawrence W. Roffee, Executive Director,
(202)272-0001 (voice) and
(202)272-0082 (TTY). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: At the Board meeting, the Access Board will consider the following agenda items: • Approval of the May 2007 draft Board Meeting Minutes. • Airport Ad Hoc Committee Report. • Transportation Vehicle Guidelines Ad Hoc Committee Report. • Passenger Vessels Guidelines Committee Report. • Accessible Design in Education Ad Hoc Committee Report. • Electronic and Information Technology Ad Hoc Committee Report. • Election Assistance Committee Report. • Technical Programs Committee Report. • Planning and Evaluation Committee Report. • Budget Committee Report. • Executive Committee Report. All meetings are accessible to persons with disabilities. An assistive listening system, computer assisted real-time transcription (CART), and sign language interpreters will be available at the Board meetings. Persons attending Board meetings are requested to refrain from using perfume, cologne, and other fragrances for the comfort of other participants. Persons wishing to testify at the public hearing on the Board's Outdoor Developed Areas Proposed Rule should register in advance by contacting Kathy Johnson at 202.272.0041 (voice), or *Johnson@access-board.gov* (e-mail). Additional information regarding the proposed rule is available on the Board's Web site at the following address: *http://www.access-board.gov/news/outdoor-nprm.htm.* James J. Raggio, General Counsel. [FR Doc. E7-16355 Filed 8-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8150-01-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-912] Notice of Correction of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain New Pneumatic Off-The-Road Tires From the People's Republic of China AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: August 20, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurel LaCivita or Charles Riggle, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-4243 or
(202)482-0650, respectively. Correction: On August 6, 2007, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published the notice of initiation of the antidumping duty investigation of certain new pneumatic off-the-road tires from the People's Republic of China. *See Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the People's Republic of China* , 72 FR 43591 (August 6, 2007) (“ *Initiation Notice* ”). Subsequent to the signature of the *Initiation Notice* , we identified an inadvertent error in the above-referenced notice. Specifically, the due date for the submission of the separate-rate application was inadvertently identified as August 20, 2007, in the *Initiation Notice* . The correct due date is September 28, 2007. Conclusion: This notice serves solely to correct the due date for the separate rate-application as it appeared in the *Initiation Notice* . The Department's findings in the *Initiation Notice* remain unchanged. This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. Dated: August 13, 2007. Gary Taverman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-16326 Filed 8-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-201-817] Oil Country Tubular Goods From Mexico: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to requests from Hylsa S.A. de C.V (“Hylsa”), a Mexican manufacturer of oil country tubular goods (“OCTG”), and United States Steel Corporation (“petitioner”), the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on OCTG from Mexico. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 71 FR 57465 (September 29, 2006). This administrative review covered the period August 1, 2005, through July 31, 2006. We are now rescinding this review due to requests by parties to withdraw from the review. EFFECTIVE DATE: August 20, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Drury or Angelica Mendoza, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14 th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Room 7866, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-0195 or
(202)482-3019, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Department published an antidumping duty order on OCTG from Mexico on August 11, 1995. *See Antidumping Duty Order: Oil Country Tubular Goods from Mexico* , 60 FR 41056 (August 11, 1995). The Department published a notice of “Opportunity to Request an Administrative Review” of the antidumping duty order for the period August 1, 2005, through July 31, 2006, on August 1, 2006. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review* , 71 FR 43441 (August 1, 2006). Hylsa requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of its sales subject to the antidumping duty order on OCTG from Mexico on August 31, 2006. In addition, petitioner United States Steel Corporation (“U.S. Steel”) requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of sales of merchandise covered by the order by Hylsa and Tubos de Acero de Mexico, S.A. (“TAMSA”) on August 31, 2006. In response to the requests from Hylsa and U.S. Steel, the Department published the initiation of the antidumping duty administrative review on OCTG from Mexico on September 29, 2006. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 71 FR 57465 (September 29, 2006). The Department issued questionnaires to both Hylsa and TAMSA on October 11, 2006. The Department received responses from Hylsa on November 21, 2006, and December 20, 2007. The Department issued a supplemental questionnaire on February 16, 2007. Hylsa submitted the supplemental response on March 16, 2007. On November 1, 2006, TAMSA submitted a letter to the Department stating that it had no shipments of OCTG to the United States during the period of review. The Department issued a “No Shipment Inquiry” to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) on February 5, 2007, to confirm that there were no shipments or entries of OCTG from Mexico exported by TAMSA during the period of review (“POR”) of the instant administrative review. The Department requested further information from CBP on February 28, 2007, to which CBP responded on April 5, 2007. The Department placed this information on the record of this proceeding on May 15, 2007. *See* Memorandum to the File from John Drury, Senior Case Analyst - Receipt of Documents from Customs and Border Protection Regarding Entries of Oil Country Tubular Goods from Mexico. The Department extended the time limits for the preliminary results of this review on May 3, 2007. *See Oil Country Tubular Goods from Mexico: Extension of Time Limits for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 24562 (May 3, 2007). On June 22, 2007, the Department revoked the antidumping duty order on OCTG from Mexico. *See Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina, Italy, Japan, Korea, and Mexico; Revocation of Antidumping Duty Orders Pursuant to Second Five-year (Sunset) Reviews* , 72 FR 34442 (June 22, 2007). U.S. Steel withdrew its request for review with respect to Hylsa on July 13, 2007, and withdrew its request for review with respect to TAMSA on July 24, 2007. Hylsa withdrew its request for review on July 31, 2007. Rescission of the Administrative Review Pursuant to 19 CFR § 351.213(d)(3), the Secretary may rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the Secretary concludes that there were no entries, exports, or sales of the subject merchandise, as the case may be, during the period covered by the review. Also, pursuant to 19 CFR § 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary will rescind an administrative review under this section, in whole or in part, if a party that requested a review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review. The Secretary may extend this time limit if the Secretary decides that it is reasonable to do so. *See* 19 CFR § 351.213(d)(1). U.S. Steel's and Hylsa's requests are past the 90-day time limit; however, we find that it is reasonable to extend this deadline for the following reasons:
(1)the Department has revoked this antidumping duty order, and
(2)all parties that requested reviews have withdrawn their requests and no party has objected to the termination of the review. Therefore, the Department determines that the continuation of the administrative review is not necessary. Therefore, in response to U.S. Steel's and Hylsa's withdrawals of their requests for administrative reviews as well as the fact that there is no evidence that TAMSA had any shipments of subject merchandise during the POR pursuant to 19 CFR § 351.213(d)(1) and (d)(3), the Department hereby rescinds the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on OCTG from Mexico for the period August 1, 2005, through July 31, 2006. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 41 days after the date of publication of this rescission of administrative review. *See* section 356.8(a) of the Department's regulations. This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR § 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR § 351.213(d)(4). Dated: August 13, 2007. Gary Taverman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-16325 Filed 8-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Availability of Seats for the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council AGENCY: National Marine Sanctuary Program (NMSP), National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC). ACTION: Notice and request for applications. SUMMARY: The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS) is seeking applications for the following vacant seats on its Sanctuary Advisory Council (council): Boating Industry (alternate), Citizen at Large—Lower Keys (member), Citizen at Large—Lower Keys (alternate), Conservation and Environment [1 of 2] (member), Conservation and Environment [2 of 2] (alternate), Diving—Lower Keys (member), Diving—Lower Keys (alternate), Diving—Upper Keys (member), Education and Outreach (member), Fishing—Charter Fishing Flats Guide (member), Fishing—Charter Fishing Flats Guide (alternate), Fishing—Commercial—Marine/Tropical (member), Fishing—Commercial—Shell/Scale (alternate), Research and Monitoring (member), Submerged Cultural Resources (alternate), Tourism—Lower Keys (member), Tourism—Lower Keys (alternate), Tourism—Upper Keys (member), and Tourism—Upper Keys (alternate). Applicants are chosen based upon their particular expertise and experience in relation to the seat for which they are applying; community and professional affiliations; residency in the Sanctuary area; and philosophy regarding the protection and management of marine resources. Applicants who are chosen for seats normally serve three-year terms, pursuant to the Council's charter. DATES: Applications are due by September 21, 2007. ADDRESSES: Application packages may be obtained from the Sanctuary Advisory Council and Volunteer Coordinator at *Lilli.Ferguson@noaa.gov* , from the Web site at *www.floridakeys.noaa.gov* , by telephone at
(305)292-0311 x245 or in writing at Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, 33 East Quay Rd., Key West, FL 33040. Completed applications should be sent to the same address listed above. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lilli Ferguson at the above address, e-mail or telephone number. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Information concerning the council, including past meeting minutes and member contact information can be found at the sanctuary Web site. Authority: 16 U.S.C. Sections 1431, *et seq* . (Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog Number 11.429 Marine Sanctuary Program) Dated: August 9, 2007. Daniel J. Basta, Director, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. [FR Doc. 07-4051 Filed 8-17-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 73
Traces to 73 documents
U.S. Code
CFR
71 references not yet in our index
  • 32 CFR 199
  • Pub. L. 108-375
  • Pub. L. 109-163
  • Pub. L. 109-364
  • 44 USC 3501-3511
  • 33 CFR 100
  • 5 USC 601-612
  • Pub. L. 104-121
  • 44 USC 3501-3520
  • 2 USC 1531-1538
  • 42 USC 4321-4370f
  • 33 USC 1233
  • 40 CFR 96
  • 40 CFR 96.304
  • 40 CFR 96.142
  • 40 CFR 96.342
  • 40 CFR 97.304(a)
  • 40 CFR 75
  • Pub. L. 104-4
  • 40 CFR 52
  • 40 CFR 97
  • 44 CFR 64
  • 44 CFR 59
  • 44 CFR 10
  • 44 CFR 65
  • 44 CFR 60.3
  • 44 CFR 65.4
  • 16 USC 703-711
  • 50 CFR 20
  • 40 CFR 1500
  • 16 USC 1531-1543
  • 16 USC 703-712
  • Pub. L. 106-108
  • 113 Stat. 1491
  • Pub. L. 95-616
  • 92 Stat. 3112
  • Pub. L. 106-117
  • 113 Stat. 1575
  • 14 CFR 39
  • 18 CFR 40
+ 31 more
Citation graph
cites case law
Rules and Regulations
Interim final rule with comment period
U.S.C.§ 1076d
U.S.C.§ 1076a
U.S.C.§ 8909
Fed. Reg.Notices
Fed. Reg.Proposed Rules
U.S.C.§ 301
U.S.C.§ 1103
U.S.C.§ 553
U.S.C.§ 605
Cite32 CFR 199
Pub. L.Pub. L. 108-375
Pub. L.Pub. L. 109-163
Cites 144 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

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

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