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 · 2007-09-27 · Unknown

Unknown. Interim rule; correction

81,639 words·~371 min read·/register/2007/09/27/07-4747

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

--- schema: federal-register doc_type: fedreg source_file: FR-2007-09-27.xml --- 72 187 Thursday, September 27, 2007 Contents Editorial Note: In the printed version of the **Federal Register** for Thursday, September 27, 2007, a technical error resulted in an incomplete listing of documents in the Table of Contents. A corrected Table of Contents appears as follows: Agriculture Agriculture Department See Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service See Food and Nutrition Service See Forest Service NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 54889 E7-19070 Air Force Air Force Department NOTICES Meetings:
Air Force Academy Board of Visitors, 54903 E7-19074 Animal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 54889-54891 E7-19069 E7-19090 Pest risk assessments: Lemons from— Argentina, 54891-54892 E7-19089 Arts Arts and Humanities, National Foundation See National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Census Census Bureau NOTICES Meetings: Census Advisory Committees, 54896 E7-19082 Centers Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 54915-54916 E7-19073 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge operations:
Connecticut, 54835-54837 E7-19109 Ports and waterways safety; regulated navigation areas, safety zones, security zones, etc.: Detroit River, Detroit, MI, 54839-54841 E7-19059 St. Clair River, Marine City, MI, 54837-54839 E7-19061 Regattas and marine parades: Lake Michigan Captain of Port zone marine events, 54832-54835 E7-18933 Commerce Commerce Department See Census Bureau See International Trade Administration See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 54894-54896 E7-19036 E7-19038 E7-19039 E7-19041 Commodity Commodity Futures Trading Commission NOTICES Commodity Exchange Act:
Futures Commission Merchants registration requirements; exemptive relief petitions— Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Inc., 54902 E7-19222 Consumer Consumer Product Safety Commission RULES Consumer Product Safety Act: Automatic residential garage door operators; safety standard, 54816-54818 E7-18846 Defense Defense Department See Air Force Department NOTICES Meetings: Historical Advisory Committee, 54902 07-4754 Reserve Forces Policy Board, 54902-54903 07-4753 Drug Drug Enforcement Administration RULES Privacy Act; implementation, 54825-54826 E7-19129 NOTICES Registration revocations, restrictions, denials, reinstatements:
Garces-Mejias, Kamir, M.D., 54931-54936 E7-19042 Wood, David L., M.D., 54936-54937 E7-19044 *Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:* Cedarburg Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 54929-54930 E7-19099 Chattem Chemicals, Inc., 54930 E7-19100 ISP Freetown Fine Chemicals, 54930 E7-19131 Varian, Inc., 54931 E7-19106 Employment Employment and Training Administration NOTICES Adjustment assistance; applications, determinations, etc.: Gilmour Manufacturing Co., 54937 E7-19028 ITT Marine & Leisure, 54938 E7-19024 Kester, 54938 E7-19029 Loxcreen Company, Inc. et al., 54938-54940 E7-19026 Neilsen Manufacturing Inc., 54940 E7-19031 R&S Vinyl Products Group LLC, 54940-54941 E7-19027 Risdon International, Inc., et al., 54941-54942 E7-19032 E7-19033 Southern Council of Industrial Workers et al., 54942-54943 E7-19025 Tubafor Mill, Inc. et al., 54943 E7-19030 Grants and cooperative agreement awards:
Rural Industrialization Loan and Grant Program; compliance certification requests, 54943 E7-19045 Energy Energy Department See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission EPA Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air quality implementation plans; approval and promulgation; various States: Ohio, 54844-54847 E7-18894 PROPOSED RULES Air pollutants, hazardous; national emission standards: Hazardous waste combustors Legal analysis, 54875-54888 E7-19097 Air programs; approval and promulgation;
State plans for designated facilities and pollutants: Missouri, 54872-54875 E7-19120 Air quality implementation plans; approval and promulgation; various States: Ohio, 54872 E7-18895 NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 54903-54907 E7-19124 E7-19126 Air pollution control: Acid Rain Program— Excess emission penalty; annual adjustment factors, 54908 E7-19142 Meetings: Human Studies Review Board, 54908-54910 E7-19125 Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.:
Carcinogenicity; determining mutagenic mode of action; comment request, 54910-54911 E7-19119 Executive Executive Office of the President See Trade Representative, Office of United States FAA Federal Aviation Administration RULES Air carrier certification and operations: Commuter operations and general certification and operations requirements; maintenance director qualifications for Part 135 operations; technical amendment, 54815-54816 E7-19056 Class E airspace, 54815 E7-18930 NOTICES Airports:
Denver International Airport, CO; Lynx Aviation, Inc. operations; air quality general conformity determination, 54967-54968 07-4763 Airworthiness standards: BA609 Tiltrotor; acceptance under special class rule, 54968 E7-19053 Meetings: RTCA Government/Industry Air Traffic Management Advisory Committee, 54968-54969 07-4762 FCC Federal Communications Commission RULES Common carrier services: Wireless telecommunications services— 800 MHz band; rebanding by National Public Safety Planning Advisory Committee licensees; supplemental procedures and guidance, 54847 E7-18868 NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 54911 E7-19037 Television broadcasting:
Video programming distributors; closed captioning requirements; effective date reminder, 54913-54914 E7-18862 *Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:* Kintzel, Kurtis J., et al., 54911-54913 E7-19020 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency NOTICES Meetings: National Advisory Council, 54917-54918 E7-19063 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission RULES Natural gas companies (Natural Gas Act): Blanket certification and rates clarification; revisions, 54818-54820 E7-18904 PROPOSED RULES Natural gas companies (Natural Gas Act):
Forms, statements, and reporting requirements, 54860-54872 E7-19015 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 54969-54970 E7-19127 Federal agency actions on proposed highways; judicial review claims: Wake County, NC; Western Wake Freeway Project, 54970-54971 E7-19098 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Motor carrier safety standards: Driver qualifications; vision requirement exemptions, 54971-54974 E7-19108 E7-19112 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System RULES Extensions of credit by Federal Reserve Banks (Regulation A):
Primary and secondary credit; rates decrease, 54813-54815 E7-19062 NOTICES Banks and bank holding companies: Change in bank control, 54914 E7-19094 Formations, acquisitions, and mergers, 54914 E7-19095 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service RULES Endangered and threatened species: Critical habitat designations— Vail Lake ceanothus and Mexican flannelbush, 54984-55010 07-4723 NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 54918-54921 E7-19132 E7-19144 Comprehensive conservation plans; availability, etc.:
Togiak National Wildlife Refuge, AK, 54921-54922 E7-19086 Environmental statements; notice of intent: Virgin River, Clark County, NV; meetings, 54922-54923 07-4781 Food Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Committees; establishment, renewal, termination, etc.: Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee, 54916-54917 E7-19130 Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: Toxicity grading scale for healthy adult and adolescent volunteers enrolled in preventive vaccine clinical trials; industry guidance, 54917 E7-19155 Food Food and Nutrition Service NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 54892-54893 E7-19050 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Environmental statements; notice of intent:
Green Mountain National Forest, VT; Deerfield Wind Project, 54893 07-4747 Health Health and Human Services Department See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention See Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Committees; establishment, renewal, termination, etc.: Minority Health Advisory Committee, 54914-54915 E7-19084 Meetings: HIV/AIDS Presidential Advisory Council, 54915 E7-19083 Homeland Homeland Security Department See Coast Guard See Federal Emergency Management Agency RULES Immigration:
Criminal activity victims; “U” nonimmigrant classification Correction, 54813 E7-19085 Indian Indian Affairs Bureau NOTICES Land acquisitions into trust: Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux, 54923-54924 E7-19139 Inter-American Inter-American Foundation NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 54918 07-4804 Interior Interior Department See Fish and Wildlife Service See Indian Affairs Bureau See National Park Service See Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office IRS Internal Revenue Service RULES Income taxes, etc.:
Passive foreign investment company purging elections; guidance, 54820-54825 E7-18988 International International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping: Fresh garlic from— China, 54896-54899 E7-19128 Preserved mushrooms from— China, 54899-54900 E7-19107 E7-19135 International International Trade Commission NOTICES Import investigations: Industrial biotechnology: development and adoption by the U.S. chemical and biofuel industries, 54924-54925 E7-19067 Lighting control devices, including dimmer switches and/or switches and parts, 54925-54926 E7-19068 Lightweight thermal paper from— Various countries, 54926-54927 E7-19066 Justice Justice Department See Drug Enforcement Administration NOTICES Meetings:
Heavy Duty Diesel Engine Consent Decrees; teleconference, 54927 07-4744 Pollution control; consent judgments: Asarco LLC, 54927-54928 07-4742 B & D Electric Co., Inc., et al., 54928-54929 07-4740 07-4741 Darcars of New Carrollton, Inc., 54929 07-4745 NextiraOne, LLC, et al., 54929 07-4743 Labor Labor Department See Employment and Training Administration See Occupational Safety and Health Administration National Foundation National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 54943-54944 E7-19060 National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration RULES Motor vehicle safety standards:
Nonconforming vehicles; importation eligibility determinations, 54847-54859 E7-19118 NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 54974-54975 E7-19122 Motor vehicle safety standards: Nonconforming vehicles; importation eligibility determinations, 54975-54977 E7-19114 NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 54900 E7-19046 Coastal zone management programs and estuarine sanctuaries:
Elkhorn Slough, California National Estuarine Research Reserve, CA; management plan, 54901 E7-19052 Marine mammal permit applications, determinations, etc., 54901 E7-19145 Meetings: Hydrographic Services Review Panel, 54901-54902 07-4749 National Park National Park Service RULES Special regulations: National Capital region; parking violations, 54841-54843 E7-18940 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 54944-54945 E7-19058 Nuclear Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Environmental statements; availability, etc.:
Army Department, Soldier Center Facility, MA, 54949-54951 E7-19077 Franklin and Marshall College, PA, 54945-54947 E7-19078 Environmental statements; notice of intent: Uranium milling facilities; meetings, 54947-54949 E7-19081 *Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:* Indiana Michigan Power Co., 54945 E7-19075 Occupational Occupational Safety and Health Administration NOTICES Construction safety and health standards: Lead; regulatory review, 54826-54830 E7-19096 Trade Office of United States Trade Representative See Trade Representative, Office of United States Rural Utilities Rural Utilities Service NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 54893-54894 E7-19055 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Self-regulatory organizations; proposed rule changes:
Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 54952-54956 E7-19079 Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., 54957-54959 E7-19091 Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, 54959-54960 E7-19023 Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc., 54960 E7-19022 Sentencing Sentencing Commission, United States See United States Sentencing Commission State State Department NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 54961-54962 E7-19101 Committees; establishment, renewal, termination, etc.:
International Postal and Delivery Services Advisory Committee, 54962 E7-19105 Culturally significant objects imported for exhibition: Antonio Mancini (1852-1930) and the Vance Jordan Collection, 54962 E7-19102 Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.: EducationUSA Advising Services in Eurasia and Central Asia, 54962-54967 E7-19104 Surface Mining Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office NOTICES Permanent program and abandoned mine land reclamation plan submissions:
Mississippi, 54830-54832 E7-19147 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Railroad services abandonment: CSX Transportation, 54977-54978 E7-18827 Union Pacific Railroad, Co., 54978 E7-18832 Tennessee Tennessee Valley Authority NOTICES Meetings: Regional Resource Stewardship Council, 54967 E7-19088 Thrift Thrift Supervision Office NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 54979 E7-19143 Trade Trade Representative, Office of United States NOTICES African Growth and Opportunity Act; implementation:
Sub-Saharan African countries; benefits eligibility; annual review, 54951-54952 E7-19054 Transportation Transportation Department See Federal Aviation Administration See Federal Highway Administration See Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration See National Highway Traffic Safety Administration See Surface Transportation Treasury Treasury Department See Internal Revenue Service See Thrift Supervision Office NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 54978-54979 E7-19040 U.S.
Sentencing United States Sentencing Commission NOTICES Sentencing guidelines and policy statements for Federal courts, 54960-54961 E7-19117 Veterans Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 54979-54982 E7-19006 E7-19010 E7-19018 E7-19021 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Interior Department, Fish and Wildlife Service, 54984-55010 07-4723 Reader Aids Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions. 72 187 Thursday, September 27, 2007 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 8 CFR Parts 103 and 214 [CIS No. 2424-07; DHS Docket No. USCIS-2007-0052] RIN 1615-AB63 New Classification for Victims of Criminal Activity;
Eligibility for “U” Nonimmigrant Status; Correction AGENCY: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, DHS. ACTION: Interim rule; correction. SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to the interim rule published in the **Federal Register** on September 17, 2007. The rule established the requirements and procedures for aliens seeking U nonimmigrant status. A review of the interim rule after publication identified erroneous references to filing fees for Form I-918, “Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status,” and Form I-918, Supplement A.
DATES: Effective Date: October 17, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Dawkins, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Room 2304, Washington, DC 20529, telephone:
(202)272-8350. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Need for Correction On September 17, 2007, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) published an interim rule at 72 FR 53014 establishing the requirements and procedures for aliens seeking U nonimmigrant status. The SUMMARY and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION sections of the interim rule made contradictory statements regarding whether there is a filing fee for Form I-918, “Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status,” and Form I-918, Supplement A. The regulation text itself contained an amendment to 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1) and language in new 8 CFR 214.14(c) reflecting that USCIS would charge a filing fee for Form I-918 and Form I-918, Supplement A. As correctly stated in the Supplementary Information (page 53031, third column, paragraph D.), USCIS will charge no fee for Forms I-918 and I-918, Supplement A, but will charge the established fee for biometric services for each person ages 14 through 79 inclusive with each U nonimmigrant status petition. Correction of Publication Accordingly, the publication on September 17, 2007 (72 FR 53014) of the interim rule that was the subject of FR Doc. E7-17807 is corrected as follows: PART 103—POWERS AND DUTIES; AVAILABILITY OF RECORDS § 103.7 [Corrected] 1. On page 53035, in the first column, remove the part heading “PART 103—POWERS AND DUTIES; AVAILABILITY OF RECORDS”. 2. On page 53035, in the first column, remove the regulatory changes to part 103, by removing amendments 1 and 2. PART 214—NONIMMIGRANT CLASSES § 214.14 [Corrected] 3. On page 53037, in the second column, in paragraph (c)(1) introductory text, in the eighth line, the phrase “applicable fees” should read “applicable biometric fee”. Dated: September 24, 2007. Richard Sloan, Chief, Regulatory Management Division, Office of the Executive Secretariat, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. [FR Doc. E7-19085 Filed 9-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-10-P FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 12 CFR Part 201 [Regulation A] Extensions of Credit by Federal Reserve Banks AGENCY: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) has adopted final amendments to its Regulation A to reflect the Board's approval of a decrease in the primary credit rate at each Federal Reserve Bank. The secondary credit rate at each Reserve Bank automatically decreased by formula as a result of the Board's primary credit rate action. DATES: The amendments to part 201 (Regulation A) are effective September 27, 2007. The rate changes for primary and secondary credit were effective on the dates specified in 12 CFR 201.51, as amended. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer J. Johnson, Secretary of the Board (202/452-3259); for users of Telecommunication Devices for the Deaf
(TDD)only, contact 202/263-4869. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Reserve Banks make primary and secondary credit available to depository institutions as a backup source of funding on a short-term basis, usually overnight. The primary and secondary credit rates are the interest rates that the twelve Federal Reserve Banks charge for extensions of credit under these programs. In accordance with the Federal Reserve Act, the primary and secondary credit rates are established by the boards of directors of the Federal Reserve Banks, subject to the review and determination of the Board. The Board approved requests by the Reserve Banks to decrease by 50 basis points the primary credit rate in effect at each of the twelve Federal Reserve Banks, thereby decreasing from 5.75 percent to 5.25 percent the rate that each Reserve Bank charges for extensions of primary credit. As a result of the Board's action on the primary credit rate, the rate that each Reserve Bank charges for extensions of secondary credit automatically decreased from 6.25 percent to 5.75 percent under the secondary credit rate formula. The final amendments to Regulation A reflect these rate changes. The 50-basis-point decrease in the primary credit rate was associated with a similar decrease in the target for the federal funds rate (from 5.25 percent to 4.75 percent) approved by the Federal Open Market Committee (Committee) and announced at the same time. A press release announcing these actions indicated that: Economic growth was moderate during the first half of the year, but the tightening of credit conditions has the potential to intensify the housing correction and to restrain economic growth more generally. Today's action is intended to help forestall some of the adverse effects on the broader economy that might otherwise arise from the disruptions in financial markets and to promote moderate growth over time. Readings on core inflation have improved modestly this year. However, the Committee judges that some inflation risks remain, and it will continue to monitor inflation developments carefully. Developments in financial markets since the Committee's last regular meeting have increased the uncertainty surrounding the economic outlook. The Committee will continue to assess the effects of these and other developments on economic prospects and will act as needed to foster price stability and sustainable economic growth. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Board certifies that the new primary and secondary credit rates will not have a significantly adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the final rule does not impose any additional requirements on entities affected by the regulation. Administrative Procedure Act The Board did not follow the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(b) relating to notice and public participation in connection with the adoption of these amendments because the Board for good cause determined that delaying implementation of the new primary and secondary credit rates in order to allow notice and public comment would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest in fostering price stability and sustainable economic growth. For these same reasons, the Board also has not provided 30 days prior notice of the effective date of the rule under section 553(d). 12 CFR Chapter II List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 201 Banks, Banking, Federal Reserve System, Reporting and recordkeeping. Authority and Issuance For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Board is amending 12 CFR Chapter II to read as follows: PART 201—EXTENSIONS OF CREDIT BY FEDERAL RESERVE BANKS (REGULATION A) 1. The authority citation for part 201 continues to read as follows: Authority: 12 U.S.C. 248(i)-(j), 343 *et seq.* , 347a, 347b, 347c, 348 *et seq.* , 357, 374, 374a, and 461. 2. In § 201.51, paragraphs
(a)and
(b)are revised to read as follows: § 201.51 Interest rates applicable to credit extended by a Federal Reserve Bank. 1 1 The primary, secondary, and seasonal credit rates described in this section apply to both advances and discounts made under the primary, secondary, and seasonal credit programs, respectively.
(a)*Primary credit.* The interest rates for primary credit provided to depository institutions under § 201.4(a) are: Federal Reserve Bank Rate Effective Boston 5.25 September 18, 2007. New York 5.25 September 18, 2007. Philadelphia 5.25 September 20, 2007. Cleveland 5.25 September 18, 2007. Richmond 5.25 September 19, 2007. Atlanta 5.25 September 19, 2007. Chicago 5.25 September 20, 2007. St. Louis 5.25 September 19, 2007. Minneapolis 5.25 September 18, 2007. Kansas City 5.25 September 18, 2007. Dallas 5.25 September 19, 2007. San Francisco 5.25 September 18, 2007.
(b)*Secondary credit.* The interest rates for secondary credit provided to depository institutions under 201.4(b) are: Federal Reserve Bank Rate Effective Boston 5.75 September 18, 2007. New York 5.75 September 18, 2007. Philadelphia 5.75 September 20, 2007. Cleveland 5.75 September 18, 2007. Richmond 5.75 September 19, 2007. Atlanta 5.75 September 19, 2007. Chicago 5.75 September 20, 2007. St. Louis 5.75 September 19, 2007. Minneapolis 5.75 September 18, 2007. Kansas City 5.75 September 18, 2007. Dallas 6.75 September 19, 2007. San Francisco 6.75 September 18, 2007. By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 21, 2007. Robert deV. Frierson, Deputy Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc. E7-19062 Filed 9-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28235; Airspace Docket No. 07-ANM-9] Establishment of Class E Airspace; Hulett, WY AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This action will establish Class E airspace at Hulett, WY. Additional Class E airspace is necessary to accommodate aircraft using a new Area Navigation
(RNAV)Global Positioning System
(GPS)Instrument Approach Procedure
(IAP)at Hulett Municipal Airport. This will improve the safety of Instrument Flight Rules
(IFR)aircraft executing the new RNAV GPS IAP at Hulett Municipal Airport, Hulett, WY. Also, this action makes a minor correction to the airport description. DATES: *Effective Date:* 0901 UTC, December 20, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation Administration, System Support Group, Western Service Area, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone
(425)917-6726. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: History On July 3, 2007, the FAA published in the **Federal Register** a notice of proposed rulemaking to establish Class E airspace at Hulett, WY, (72 FR 36397). This action would improve the safety of IFR aircraft executing this new RNAV GPS IAP at Hulett Municipal Airport, Hulett, WY. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9R dated August 15, 2007, and effective September 15, 2007, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in that Order. The Rule This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by establishing Class E airspace at Hulett, WY. Additional controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate IFR aircraft executing a new RNAV
(GPS)IAP at Hulett Municipal Airport, Hulett, WY. The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation:
(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2)is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and
(3)does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes additional controlled airspace at Hulett Municipal Airport, Hulett, WY. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air). Adoption of the Amendment In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows: PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E. O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389. § 71.1 [Amended] 2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1 of the Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.9R, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 15, 2007, and effective September 15, 2007, is amended as follows: *Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth.* ANM WY, E5 Hulett, WY [New] Hulett Municipal Airport, WY (Lat. 44°39′46″ N., long. 104°34′04″ W.) Newcastle VOR, WY (Lat. 43°52′52″ N., long. 104°18′28″ W.) That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within 8.0-mile radius of Hulett Municipal Airport that airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface beginning at Lat. 44°50′00″ N., long. 105°00′00″ W.; thence to Lat. 44°50′00″ N., long. 104°00′00″ W.; thence south along long. 104°00′00″ W., to V-536; thence west along V-536 to Newcastle VOR; thence west on V-536 to Lat. 44°09′00″ N., long. 105°00′00″ W.; thence to beginning. Issued in Seattle, Washington, on August 30, 2007. Clark Desing, Manager, System Support Group, Western Service Center. [FR Doc. E7-18930 Filed 9-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 119 [Docket No. FAA-2007-29313 (formerly 28154); Amendment No. 119-12] RIN 2120-AF62 Commuter Operations and General Certification and Operations Requirements; Qualifications for Director of Maintenance for Part 135 Operations AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT. ACTION: Final rule; technical amendment. SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)is making a minor technical change to a final rule, Commuter Operations and General Certification and Operations Requirements. This final rule established the requirements for certain management officials for certificate holders. In the final rule the FAA unintentionally included an incorrect experience requirement for the Director of Maintenance for commuter and on-demand operators. This amendment corrects that experience requirement. DATES: Effective on September 27, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim A. Barnette, Flight Standards Service (AFS-350), Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC; phone
(202)493-4922; e-mail *Kim.A.Barnette@faa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 20, 1995 (60 FR 65832), the FAA published a final rule in the **Federal Register** , better known as “the commuter rule”, that established the requirements for certain management officials in parts 121 and 135. Although the FAA clearly stated in the preamble to this final rule that “In addition to other requirements, these candidates will have to have three years of experience (within their respective fields) within the past six years to be eligible for a Director position,” the specific years of experience in the rule language in part 135 was incorrect. The part 121 experience requirement of § 119.67 correctly states this “3 years within 6 years” experience requirement; however the part 135 requirement in § 119.71 was incorrectly stated as “3 years within 3 years.” By petition for rulemaking dated September 5, 2007, the Regional Air Cargo Carriers Association (RACCA) asked the FAA to correct this technical error. The RACCA correctly pointed out that it makes no sense to have an experience requirement in part 135 that is more stringent than the same requirement in part 121. Technical Amendment This technical amendment will correct an unintentional error in the years of experience requirement in § 119.71 to make it consistent with § 119.67. Justification for Immediate Adoption Because this action corrects an unintentional error in rule language for § 119.71, the FAA finds that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for making this rule effective upon publication. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 119 Administrative practice and procedure, Air carriers, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Charter flights, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. The Amendment In consideration of the foregoing, the FAA amends 14 CFR chapter I as follows: PART 119—CERTIFICATION: AIR CARRIERS AND COMMERCIAL OPERATORS 1. The authority citation for part 119 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 1153, 40101, 40102, 40103, 40113, 44105, 44106, 44111, 44701-44717, 44722, 44901, 44903, 44904, 44906, 44912, 44914, 44936, 44938, 46103, 46105. 2. Amend § 119.71 by revising paragraphs (e)(1) and
(2)to read as follows: § 119.71 Management personnel: Qualifications for operations conducted under part 135 of this chapter.
(e)* * *
(1)Have 3 years of experience within the past 6 years maintaining aircraft as a certificated mechanic, including, at the time of appointment as Director of Maintenance, experience in maintaining the same category and class of aircraft as the certificate holder uses; or
(2)Have 3 years of experience within the past 6 years repairing aircraft in a certificated airframe repair station, including 1 year in the capacity of approving aircraft for return to service. Issued in Washington, DC, on September 19, 2007. Pamela Hamilton-Powell, Director, Office of Rulemaking. [FR Doc. E7-19056 Filed 9-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION 16 CFR Part 1211 Safety Standard for Automatic Residential Garage Door Operators AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety Commission is amending 16 CFR part 1211, Safety Standard for Automatic Residential Garage Door Operators, to reflect changes made by Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. in its standard UL 325. DATES: This rule is effective on February 21, 2008, except for § 1211.14(b)(2) which is effective September 27, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Renae Rauchschwalbe, Office of Compliance and Field Operations, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland, 20814-4408, telephone 301-504-7664 or e-mail: *rrauchschwalbe@cpsc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission is amending its garage door operator standard, 16 CFR part 1211, to incorporate changes made to Underwriter Laboratories, Inc. (“UL”) standard UL 325, third edition, “Door, Drapery, Louver and Window Operators and Systems.” In 1991, Congress mandated the entrapment protection provisions of the UL 325 standard as a consumer product safety standard. Sec 203 of Public Law 101-608. Congress also required the Commission to incorporate into part 1211 any revisions that UL proposed to the entrapment protection requirements of UL 325, unless the Commission notified UL that the revision does not carry out the purposes of Public Law 101-608. Recently, UL revised some provisions of UL 325 to address the hazard of children becoming entrapped if a child becomes stuck under a partially open door and the door moves down when a bystander presses the wall control button. The Commission determined that the entrapment related revisions incorporated into the UL standard do carry out the purposes of Public Law 101-608. On January 18, 2007, the Commission issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NPR”) to revise part 1211 to reflect the changes UL made to UL 325. 72 FR 2217. The Commission received no comments on the proposal and is now making the revisions final. UL set an effective date of February 21, 2008 for the changes to the entrapment protection requirements in the UL standard. The Commission is specifying the same effective date for these provisions in the CPSC standard. UL also added to its standard a requirement that the statement “Never go under a stopped partially open door” be added to garage door operator instruction manuals. The Commission is making this change in the CPSC standard as well. UL set an effective date of September 14, 2004 for this provision in UL 325. The instruction manual provision in the CPSC standard would become effective when published as a final rule in the **Federal Register** . Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), in the NPR the Commission certified that this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Commission also certified in the NPR that this rule will have no environmental impact. Public Law 101-608 contains a preemption provision. It states: “those provisions of laws of States or political subdivisions which relate to the labeling of automatic residential garage door openers and those provisions which do not provide at least the equivalent degree of protection from the risk of injury associated with automatic residential garage door openers as the consumer product safety rule” are subject to preemption under 15 U.S.C. 2075. Public Law 101-608, section 203(f). List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1211 Consumer protection, Imports, Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, 16 CFR part 1211 is amended as follows: PART 1211—SAFETY STANDARDS FOR AUTOMATIC RESIDENTIAL GARAGE DOOR OPERATORS 1. The authority citation for part 1211 continues to read as follows: Authority: Sec. 203 of Pub. L. 101-608, 104 Stat. 3110; 15 U.S.C. 2063 and 2065. 2. Section 1211.7 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b),
(f)and
(g)to read as follows: § 1211.7 Inherent entrapment protection requirements. (a)(1) Other than for the first 1 foot (305mm) of door travel from the full upmost position both with and without any external entrapment protection device functional, the operator of a downward moving residential garage door shall initiate reversal of the door within 2 seconds of contact with the obstruction as specified in paragraph
(b)of this section. After reversing the door, the operator shall return the door to, and stop at, the full upmost position. Compliance shall be determined in accordance with paragraphs
(b)through
(i)of this section.
(2)The door operator is not required to return the door to, and stop the door at, the full upmost position when the operator senses a second obstruction during the upward travel.
(3)The door operator is not required to return the door to, and stop the door at, the full upmost position when a control is actuated to stop the door during the upward travel—but the door can not be moved downward until the operator reverses the door a minimum of 2 inches (50.8 mm). (b)(1) A solid object is to be placed on the floor of the test installation and at various heights under the edge of the door and located in line with the driving point of the operator. When tested on the floor, the object shall be 1 inch (25.4 mm) high. In the test installation, the bottom edge of the door under the driving force of the operator is to be against the floor when the door is fully closed.
(2)For operators other than those attached to the door, a solid object is not required to be located in line with the driving point of the operator. The solid object is to be located at points at the center, and within 1 foot of each end of the door.
(3)To test operators for compliance with requirements in paragraphs (a)(3), (f)(3), and (g)(3) of this section, § 1211.10(a)(6)(iii), and § 1211.13(c), a solid rectangular object measuring 4 inches (102 mm) high by 6 inches (152 mm) wide by a minimum of 6 inches (152 mm)long is to be placed on the floor of the test installation to provide a 4-inch (102 mm) high obstruction when operated from a partially open position. (f)(1) An operator, using an inherent entrapment protection system that monitors the actual position of the door, shall initiate reversal of the door and shall return the door to, and stop the door at, the full upmost position in the event the inherent door operating “profile” of the door differs from the originally set parameters. The entrapment protection system shall monitor the position of the door at increments not greater than 1 inch (25.4 mm).
(2)The door operator is not required to return the door to, and stop the door at, the full upmost position when an inherent entrapment circuit senses an obstruction during the upward travel.
(3)The door operator is not required to return the door to, and stop the door at, the full upmost position when a control is actuated to stop the door during the upward travel—but the door can not be moved downward until the operator reverses the door a minimum of 2 inches (50.8 mm). (g)(1) An operator, using an inherent entrapment protection system that does not monitor the actual position of the door, shall initiate reversal of the door and shall return the door to and stop the door at the full upmost position, when the lower limiting device is not actuated in 30 seconds or less following the initiation of the close cycle.
(2)The door operator is not required to return the door to, and stop the door at, the full upmost position when an inherent entrapment circuit senses an obstruction during the upward travel. When the door is stopped manually during its descent, the 30 seconds shall be measured from the resumption of the close cycle.
(3)The door operator is not required to return the door to, and stop the door at, the full upmost position when a control is actuated to stop the door during the upward travel—but the door can not be moved downward until the operator reverses the door a minimum of 2 inches (50.8 mm). When the door is stopped manually during its descent, the 30 seconds shall be measured from the resumption of the close cycle. 3. Section 1211.10 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1) and adding a new paragraph (a)(6) to read as follows: § 1211.10 Requirements for all entrapment protection devices.
(a)General requirements.
(1)An external entrapment protection device shall perform its intended function when tested in accordance with paragraphs (a)(2) through
(4)and
(6)of this section. (6)(i) An operator using an external entrapment protection device, upon detecting a fault or an obstruction in the path of a downward moving door, shall initiate reversal and shall return the door to, and stop the door at, the full upmost position.
(ii)The door operator is not required to return the door to, and stop the door at, the full upmost position when an inherent entrapment circuit senses an obstruction during the upward travel.
(iii)The door operator is not required to return the door to, and stop the door at, the full upmost position when a control is actuated to stop the door during the upward travel—but the door can not be moved downward until the operator has reversed the door a minimum of 2 inches (50.8 mm). 4. Section 1211.13 is amended by adding a new paragraph
(c)to read as follows: § 1211.13 Inherent force activated secondary door sensors.
(a)* * *
(b)* * *
(c)Obstruction test. For a door traveling in the downward direction, when an inherent secondary entrapment protection device senses an obstruction and initiates a reversal, a control activation shall not move the door downward until the operator reverses the door a minimum of 2 inches (50.8 mm). The test is to be performed as described in § 1211.7(b)(3). § 1211.14 [Amended] 5. Section 1211.14 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows:
(a)* * *
(b)Specific required instructions.
(1)* * *
(2)The User Instructions shall include the following instructions: Important Safety Instructions Warning—To reduce the risk of severe injury or death: 1. Read and follow all instructions. 2. Never let children operate, or play with door controls. Keep the remote control away from children. 3. Always keep the moving door in sight and away from people and objects until it is completely closed. No one should cross the path of the moving door. 4. NEVER GO UNDER A STOPPED PARTIALLY OPEN DOOR. 5. Test door opener monthly. The garage door MUST reverse on contact with a 1 1/2 inch object (or a 2 by 4 board laid flat) on the floor. After adjusting either the force or the limit of travel, retest the door opener. Failure to adjust the opener properly may cause severe injury or death. 6. For products requiring an emergency release, if possible, use the emergency release only when the door is closed. Use caution when using this release with the door open. Weak or broken springs may allow the door to fall rapidly, causing injury or death. 7. Keep garage door properly balanced. See owner's manual. An improperly balanced door could cause severe injury or death. Have a qualified service person make repairs to cables, spring assemblies and other hardware. 8. Save these Instructions. Dated: September 18, 2007. Todd A. Stevenson, Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission. [FR Doc. E7-18846 Filed 9-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6335-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 18 CFR Part 157 [Docket No. RM06-7-002; Order No. 686-B] Revisions to the Blanket Certificate Regulations and Clarification Regarding Rates Issued September 20, 2007. AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy. ACTION: Final rule; order on rehearing. SUMMARY: On June 22, 2007, the Commission issued an Order on Rehearing and Clarification in response to motions seeking rehearing and clarification of an October 19, 2006 Final Rule. The Final Rule expanded the scope and scale of activities that may be undertaken pursuant to blanket certificate authority and clarified Commission rate policy. The revised regulations allow interstate natural gas pipelines to employ the streamlined blanket certificate procedures for larger projects and for a wider variety of projects, thereby increasing efficiencies, and decreasing the time and cost associated with the construction and maintenance of the nation's natural gas infrastructure. This order grants a request for rehearing of the June 22, 2007 Order. DATES: *Effective Date:* This final rule will become effective October 29, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gordon Wagner, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, *gordon.wagner@ferc.gov,*
(202)502-8947. Michael McGehee, Office of Energy Projects, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, *michael.mcgehee@ferc.gov,*
(202)502-8962. Lonnie Lister, Office of Energy Projects, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, *lonnie.lister@ferc.gov,* 202-502-8587. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Before Commissioners: Joseph T. Kelliher, Chairman; Suedeen G. Kelly, Marc Spitzer, Philip D. Moeller, and Jon Wellinghoff. Revisions to the Blanket Certificate Regulations and Clarification Regarding Rates; Order on Rehearing I. Introduction 1. On October 19, 2006, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) issued a Final Rule in Order No. 686 1 amending Part 157, Subpart F, of its regulations to expand the scope and scale of activities that may be undertaken pursuant to blanket certificate authority by
(1)Broadening the types of natural gas projects permitted under blanket certificate authority to include certain mainline, storage, and liquefied natural gas
(LNG)and synthetic gas pipeline facilities, and
(2)increasing the blanket certificate project cost limits from $8,200,000 to $9,600,000 for automatic authorization projects and from $22,700,000 to $27,400,000 for prior notice projects. 2 In addition, Order No. 686 clarified that a natural gas company is not necessarily engaged in an unduly discriminatory practice if it charges different customers different rates for the same service when those customers commit to service on different dates. The revised blanket certificate regulations are intended to allow interstate natural gas companies to employ the streamlined blanket certificate procedures for larger projects and additional types of projects, thereby increasing efficiencies and decreasing the time and cost associated with the construction and maintenance of the nation's natural gas infrastructure. On June 22, 2007, the Commission issued an order in response to motions seeking rehearing and clarification of the October 2006 Final Rule. 3 In this order, for the reasons discussed below, the Commission grants a request for rehearing of the June 2007 Order. 1 Order No. 686, *Revisions to the Blanket Certificate Regulations and Clarification Regarding Rates,* 71 FR 63680 (October 31, 2006), FERC Stats & Regs ¶ 31,231 (2006). This rulemaking proceeding was initiated in response to a petition submitted under 18 CFR 385.207(a)
(2007)of the Commission's regulations by the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America jointly with the Natural Gas Supply Association. 2 These cost limits now stand at $9,900,000 for an automatic authorization project and $28,200,000 for a prior notice project. *See Natural Gas Pipelines; Project Cost and Annual Limits,* 72 FR 5614 (Feb. 7, 2007). 3 Order No. 686-A, *Order on Rehearing and Clarification,* 72 FR 37431 (July 10, 2007), FERC Statutes and Regulations ¶ 31,249
(2007)(June 2007 Order). II. Request for Rehearing 2. New § 157.210 permits companies to rely on blanket certificate authority to “acquire, construct, modify, replace, and operate natural gas mainline facilities, including compression and looping.” Revised § 157.216(b)(2) provides for the abandonment of such facilities. The Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) asked the Commission to clarify whether the Final Rule's revised § 157.216(b)(2) abandonment provisions would apply exclusively to mainline facilities put in place under the new § 157.210 or would also apply to mainline facilities already in place. 3. In its June 2007 Order, the Commission stated that facilities which were constructed under case-specific certificate authorization, but which would have met the criteria for construction under the current blanket certificate program, may be abandoned pursuant to the provisions § 157.216(b). The Commission stated that in considering whether existing facilities would have met the criteria for blanket certificate authorization, “the facilities must have been installed subsequent to the Commission's implementation of the blanket certificate program and the facilities' original cost must have met the § 157.208 project cost cap in effect at the time of their construction.” 4. INGAA requests rehearing of the June 2007 Order to ask the Commission to remove this qualification because it precludes § 157.216 abandonment of facilities put in place prior to 1982, *i.e.* , the year the blanket certificate program was initiated. INGAA notes that the Commission did not impose the qualification that the project cost not exceed the blanket certificate cost cap in effect at the time of construction with respect to its 1999 expansion of the blanket certificate abandonment provisions to cover gas supply facilities and services. 4 INGAA contends rather than comparing the per project cost cap in effect at the time a facility was constructed with the facility's actual original cost, to determine whether the blanket certificate abandonment provisions might apply to an existing facility, the Commission should compare the per project cost cap currently in effect with the estimated cost to duplicate the facility today. INGAA states this approach will permit facilities put in place prior to the 1982 initiation of the blanket certificate program to qualify for abandonment under the blanket program. 4 *See* Order No. 603, *Revision of Existing Regulations under the Natural Gas Act,* 64 FR 26572 (May 14, 1999), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,073 (1999); Order No. 603-A, 64 FR 54522 at 54532-34 (Oct. 7, 1999), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,081 at 30,936 (1999), adopting a similar approach with respect to automatic abandonments under 18 CFR 157.216(a) (2007). 5. The Commission will grant INGAA's request for rehearing. Instead of restricting § 157.216 abandonments to facilities put in place after the effective date of the blanket certificate program and comparing a facility's original cost to the cost cap in effect at the time the facility was placed in service, companies will be required to compare the estimated current cost to replicate an existing facility to the current § 157.208(d) per project cost cap. This will permit companies to employ blanket certificate authority to abandon a facility put in place under case-specific authority, provided the existing facility could qualify for authorization under the current blanket program 6. To effect this expansion of abandonment authority, the Commission will revise § 157.216(c)(1) and (d)(1) to specify that a company seeking to rely on its blanket certificate to abandon a facility which was not initially constructed or acquired under blanket certificate authority must estimate the current cost to replicate the facility. Provided the estimated current cost to replicate the facility would not exceed the currently-effective § 157.208(d) project cost cap, and provided the existing facility would qualify for authorization under the currently-effective blanket regulations, the company may rely on abandonment authority under § 157.216. Note that in calculating an estimated cost, the Commission anticipates a company will account for the current values of a facility's various component costs, such as land acquisition, public outreach, agency involvement, materials, labor, and environmental mitigation and remediation. 5 In addition, the Commission will revise § 157.216(a)(2) and (b)(2) to clarify that any existing facility that could be constructed or acquired under the currently-effective blanket certificate program criteria can be abandoned under blanket certificate authority, provided that, as is currently the case, the blanket certificate holder obtains the written consent of each customer served using the facility during the past 12 months. 5 See, *e.g.* , the reporting requirements for describing a project's costs in 18 CFR 157.208(e)(3) (2007). The Commission suggests a blanket certificate holder contemplating action under 18 CFR 157.216 review the record in this proceeding, which includes comments on past and present project cost comparisons. 7. In view of the above described revisions to the June 2007 order and blanket certificate abandonment regulations, INGAA's request for rehearing is granted. III. Information Collection Statement 8. The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)regulations require that OMB approve certain information collection requirements imposed by an agency. 6 The Final Rule's revisions to the information collection requirements for blanket certificate projects were approved under OMB Control Nos. 1902-0128 and 1902-0060. While this order on rehearing clarifies aspects of the existing information collection requirements for the blanket certificate program, it does not add to these requirements. Accordingly, a copy of this order will be sent to OMB for informational purposes only. 6 5 CFR 1320.11 (2007). IV. Document Availability 9. 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 print the contents of this document via the Internet through FERC's Web site ( *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. User assistance is available for FERC's Web site during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern time, Monday to Friday) from FERC's Online Support at 202-502-6652, toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or by e-mail at *ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov* , and from the Public Reference Room at 202-502-8371, TTY at 202-502-8659, or by e-mail at *public.referenceroom@ferc.gov* . V. Effective Date and Congressional Notification 10. The modifications made in this request for rehearing will become effective October 29, 2007. The provisions of 5 U.S.C. 801 regarding Congressional review of rulemaking do not apply to this order on rehearing, since it clarifies agency procedure and practice. List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 157 Administrative practice and procedure, Natural gas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. By the Commission. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends part 157, Chapter I, Title 18, *Code of Federal Regulations* , as follows: PART 157—APPLICATIONS FOR CERTIFICATES OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY AND FOR ORDERS PERMITTING AND APPROVING ABANDONMENT UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE NATURAL GAS ACT 1. The authority citation for part 157 continues to read as follows: Authority: 15 U.S.C. 717-717w. 2. In § 157.216, paragraphs (a)(2), (b)(2), (c)(1), and (d)(1) are revised to read as follows: § 157.216 Abandonment.
(a)* * *
(2)A facility that did or could now qualify for automatic authorization as described in § 157.203(b), provided the certificate holder obtains the written consent of each customer served using the facility during the past 12 months.
(b)* * *
(2)Any other facility that did or could now qualify for prior notice authorization as described in § 157.203(c), provided the certificate holder obtains the written consent of each customer served using the facility during the past 12 months.
(c)* * *
(1)The location, type, size, and length of the subject facilities. For facilities not constructed or acquired under blanket certificate authority, an estimate of the current cost to replicate such facilities;
(d)* * *
(1)A description of the facilities abandoned under this section. For facilities not constructed or acquired under blanket certificate authority, an estimate of the current cost to replicate such facilities; [FR Doc. E7-18904 Filed 9-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Parts 1 and 602 [TD 9360] RIN 1545-BC37 Guidance on Passive Foreign Investment Company
(PFIC)Purging Elections AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Final regulations and removal of the temporary regulations. SUMMARY: This document contains final regulations that provide certain elections for taxpayers that continue to be subject to the PFIC excess distribution regime of section 1291 of the Internal Revenue Code even though the foreign corporation in which they own stock is no longer treated as a PFIC under section 1297(a) or
(e)of the Code. The regulations are necessary to provide guidance about purging the PFIC taint for such foreign corporations. The regulations will affect U.S. persons that hold stock in a PFIC. DATES: *Effective Date:* These regulations are effective on September 27, 2007. *Applicability Date:* For dates of applicability, see §§ 1.1291-9(k), 1.1297-3(f), 1.1298-3(f). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul J. Carlino at
(202)622-3840 (not a toll-free number). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Paperwork Reduction Act The collection of information contained in these final regulations has been reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) under control number 1545-1965. The collection of information in these final regulations is in § 1.1297-3(c)(5)(ii). This information is required to enable the IRS to verify that a taxpayer is reporting the correct amount of income or gain or is claiming the correct amount of losses, deductions or credits from that taxpayer's interest in the foreign corporation. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents might become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103. Background On December 8, 2005, the IRS and the Treasury Department published final regulations under section 1298(b)(1) and removal of temporary regulations (TD 9231) in the **Federal Register** (70 FR 72914). The final regulations provided rules for a shareholder of a former PFIC (as defined in § 1.1291-9(j)(2)(iv)) to make a deemed dividend or deemed sale election to purge the PFIC taint of the stock of the foreign corporation (that is, to end treatment of the stock of the foreign corporation as PFIC stock with respect to the shareholder). On December 8, 2005, the Internal Revenue Service and the Treasury Department also published temporary regulations (TD 9232) under sections 1291(d)(2), 1297(e) and 1298(b)(1) in the **Federal Register** (70 FR 72908). A notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-133446-03) cross-referencing the temporary regulations was published in the **Federal Register** for the same day (70 FR 72952). The temporary and proposed regulations provided guidance to shareholders of section 1297(e) PFICs (as defined in § 1.1291-9(j)(2)(v)) on making a deemed sale or deemed dividend election to purge the PFIC taint of the stock of the foreign corporation. The temporary and proposed regulations also provided guidance to shareholders of section 1297(e) PFICs and shareholders of former PFICs on making late purging elections (provided certain requirements are met). No public hearing was requested or held. A comment responding to the notice of proposed rulemaking was received. After consideration of the comment, the proposed regulations are adopted as amended by this Treasury decision, and the corresponding temporary regulations are removed. The comment and revision is discussed in this preamble. Summary of Comments and Explanation of Revisions 1. Multiple Purging Elections Sections 1.1297-3 and 1.1298-3 provide guidance for a shareholder of a section 1297(e) PFIC and a shareholder of a former PFIC, respectively, to make a deemed sale or a deemed dividend election to purge the PFIC taint of the stock of the foreign corporation. A *section 1297(e) PFIC* is a foreign corporation that qualifies as a PFIC under section 1297(a) on the first day of the qualified portion of the shareholder's holding period under section 1297(e), and is treated as a PFIC with respect to the shareholder under section 1298(b)(1) because at any time during the shareholder's holding period of the stock, other than the qualified portion, the foreign corporation was a PFIC that was not a qualified electing fund
(QEF)under section 1295. (The “qualified portion” is the portion of the shareholder's holding period which is after December 31, 1997, and during which the shareholder is a U.S. shareholder (as defined in section 951(b)) and the foreign corporation is a controlled foreign corporation.) A *former PFIC* is a foreign corporation that satisfies neither the income nor the asset test of section 1297(a), but whose stock held by a shareholder is treated as stock of a PFIC, pursuant to section 1298(b)(1), because the corporation was a PFIC that was not a QEF at some time during the shareholder's holding period of the stock. Sections 1.1297-3(e) and 1.1298-3(e) provide rules for making late purging elections when the time prescribed for making timely purging elections under §§ 1.1297-3(b)(3) or (c)(4) and 1.1298-3(b)(3) or (c)(4) has elapsed. One commentator requested that the final regulations clarify whether multiple late purging elections can be made under §§ 1.1297-3(e) and 1.1298-3(e). The IRS and the Treasury Department believe that multiple late purging elections should be allowed to the same extent such multiple purging elections could have been made if filed timely. The final regulations are amended to clarify this rule. Special Analyses It has been determined that this Treasury decision is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It is hereby certified that these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This certification is based upon the fact that these regulations affect only U.S. persons with stock ownership in a PFIC. There are not a substantial number of U.S. persons that are small entities that own stock in a PFIC. Further, the economic costs necessary to comply with the rule for the small entities that may be impacted are not significant. Therefore, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) is not required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, the notice of proposed rulemaking preceding this final regulation was submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business. Drafting Information The principal author of these regulations is Paul J. Carlino of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (International). However, other personnel from the IRS and Treasury Department participated in their development. List of Subjects 26 CFR Part 1 Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 26 CFR Part 602 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Adoption of Amendments to the Regulations Accordingly, 26 CFR parts 1 and 602 are amended as follows: PART 1—INCOME TAXES **Paragraph 1** . The authority citation for part 1 continues to read in part as follows: Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * **Par. 2** . Section 1.1291-9 is amended by revising paragraphs (i), (j)(2)(v) and
(k)to read as follows: § 1.1291-9 Deemed dividend election.
(i)*Election inapplicable to shareholder of a former PFIC or of a section 1297(e) PFIC.* A shareholder may not make the section 1295 and deemed dividend elections if the foreign corporation is a former PFIC (as defined in paragraph (j)(2)(iv) of this section) or a section 1297(e) PFIC (as defined in paragraph (j)(2)(v) of this section) with respect to the shareholder. For the rules regarding the election by a shareholder of a former PFIC, see § 1.1298-3. For the rules regarding the election by a shareholder of a section 1297(e) PFIC, see § 1.1297-3.
(j)* * *
(2)* * *
(v)*Section 1297(e) PFIC.* A foreign corporation is a section 1297(e) PFIC with respect to a shareholder (as defined in paragraph (j)(3) of this section) if—
(A)The foreign corporation qualifies as a PFIC under section 1297(a) on the first day on which the qualified portion of the shareholder's holding period in the foreign corporation begins, as determined under section 1297(e)(2); and
(B)The stock of the foreign corporation held by the shareholder is treated as stock of a PFIC, pursuant to section 1298(b)(1), because, at any time during the shareholder's holding period of the stock, other than the qualified portion, the corporation was a PFIC that was not a QEF.
(k)*Effective/applicability date.*
(1)The rules of this section, except for paragraph (j)(2)(v) of this section, are applicable as of April 1, 1995.
(2)The rules of paragraph (j)(2)(v) of this section are applicable as of December 8, 2005. § 1.1291-9T [Removed] **Par. 3** . Section 1.1291-9T is removed. **Par. 4** . Section 1.1297-0 is revised to read as follows: § 1.1297-0 Table of contents. This section contains a listing of the headings for § 1.1297-3. *§ 1.1297-3 Deemed sale or deemed dividend election by a U.S. person that is a shareholder of a section 1297(e) PFIC.*
(a)In general.
(b)Application of deemed sale election rules.
(1)Eligibility to make the deemed sale election.
(2)Effect of the deemed sale election.
(3)Time for making the deemed sale election.
(4)Manner of making the deemed sale election.
(5)Adjustments to basis.
(6)Treatment of holding period.
(c)Application of deemed dividend election rules.
(1)Eligibility to make the deemed dividend election.
(2)Effect of the deemed dividend election.
(3)Post-1986 earnings and profits defined.
(4)Time for making the deemed dividend election.
(5)Manner of making the deemed dividend election.
(6)Adjustments to basis.
(7)Treatment of holding period.
(8)Coordination with section 959(e).
(d)CFC qualification date.
(e)Late purging elections requiring special consent.
(1)In general.
(2)Prejudice to the interests of the U.S. government.
(3)Procedural requirements.
(4)Time and manner of making late election.
(5)Multiple late elections.
(f)Effective/applicability date. § 1.1297-0T [Removed] **Par. 5** . Section 1.1297-0T is removed. **Par. 6** . Section 1.1297-3 is added to read as follows: § 1.1297-3 Deemed sale or deemed dividend election by a U.S. person that is a shareholder of a section 1297(e) PFIC.
(a)*In general.* A shareholder (as defined in § 1.1291-9(j)(3)) of a foreign corporation that is a section 1297(e) passive foreign investment company
(PFIC)(as defined in § 1.1291-9(j)(2)(v)) with respect to such shareholder, shall be treated for tax purposes as holding stock in a PFIC and therefore continues to be subject to taxation under section 1291 unless the shareholder makes a purging election under section 1298(b)(1). A purging election under section 1298(b)(1) is made under rules similar to the rules of section 1291(d)(2). Section 1291(d)(2) allows a shareholder to purge the continuing PFIC taint by either making a deemed sale election or a deemed dividend election.
(b)*Application of deemed sale election rules* —(1) *Eligibility to make the deemed sale election* . A shareholder of a foreign corporation that is a section 1297(e) PFIC with respect to such shareholder may make a deemed sale election under section 1298(b)(1) by applying the rules of this paragraph (b).
(2)*Effect of the deemed sale election* . A shareholder making the deemed sale election with respect to a section 1297(e) PFIC shall be treated as having sold all of its stock in the section 1297(e) PFIC for its fair market value on the controlled foreign corporation
(CFC)qualification date, as defined in paragraph
(d)of this section. A deemed sale under this section is treated as a disposition subject to taxation under section 1291. Thus, the gain from the deemed sale is taxed as an excess distribution received on the CFC qualification date. In the case of an election made by an indirect shareholder, the amount of gain to be recognized and taxed as an excess distribution is the amount of gain that the direct owner of the stock of the PFIC would have realized on an actual sale or disposition of the stock of the PFIC indirectly owned by the shareholder. Any loss realized on the deemed sale is not recognized. After the deemed sale election, the shareholder's stock with respect to which the election was made under this paragraph
(b)shall not be treated as stock in a PFIC and the shareholder shall not be subject to taxation under section 1291 with respect to such stock unless the qualified portion of the shareholder's holding period ends, as determined under section 1297(e)(2), and the foreign corporation thereafter qualifies as a PFIC under section 1297(a).
(3)*Time for making the deemed sale election* . Except as provided in paragraph
(e)of this section, a shareholder shall make the deemed sale election under this paragraph
(b)and section 1298(b)(1) in the shareholder's original or amended return for the taxable year that includes the CFC qualification date (election year). If the deemed sale election is made in an amended return, the return must be filed by a date that is within three years of the due date, as extended under section 6081, of the original return for the election year.
(4)*Manner of making the deemed sale election* . A shareholder makes the deemed sale election under this paragraph
(b)by filing Form 8621, “Return by a Shareholder of a Passive Foreign Investment Company or Qualified Electing Fund”, with the return of the shareholder for the election year, reporting the gain as an excess distribution pursuant to section 1291(a) as if such sale occurred under section 1291(d)(2), and paying the tax and interest due on the excess distribution. A shareholder that makes the deemed sale election after the due date of the return (determined without regard to extensions) for the election year must pay additional interest, pursuant to section 6601, on the amount of underpayment of tax for that year. An electing shareholder that realizes a loss shall report the loss on Form 8621, but shall not recognize the loss.
(5)*Adjustments to basis* . A shareholder that makes the deemed sale election increases its adjusted basis of the PFIC stock owned directly by the amount of gain recognized on the deemed sale. If the shareholder makes the deemed sale election with respect to a PFIC of which it is an indirect shareholder, the shareholder's adjusted basis of the stock or other property owned directly by the shareholder, through which ownership of the PFIC is attributed to the shareholder, is increased by the amount of gain recognized by the shareholder. In addition, solely for purposes of determining the subsequent treatment under the Internal Revenue Code
(Code)and regulations of a shareholder of the stock of the PFIC, the adjusted basis of the direct owner of the stock of the PFIC is increased by the amount of gain recognized on the deemed sale. A shareholder shall not adjust the basis of any stock with respect to which the shareholder realized a loss on the deemed sale, which loss is not recognized under paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(6)*Treatment of holding period* . If a shareholder of a foreign corporation has made a deemed sale election, then, for purposes of applying sections 1291 through 1298 to such shareholder after the deemed sale, the shareholder's holding period in the stock of the foreign corporation begins on the CFC qualification date, without regard to whether the shareholder recognized gain on the deemed sale. For other purposes of the Code and regulations, this holding period rule does not apply.
(c)*Application of deemed dividend election rules* —(1) *Eligibility to make the deemed dividend election* . A shareholder of a foreign corporation that is a section 1297(e) PFIC with respect to such shareholder may make the deemed dividend election under the rules of this paragraph (c). A deemed dividend election may be made by a shareholder whose pro rata share of the post-1986 earnings and profits of the PFIC attributable to the PFIC stock held on the CFC qualification date is zero.
(2)*Effect of the deemed dividend election* . A shareholder making the deemed dividend election with respect to a section 1297(e) PFIC shall include in income as a dividend its pro rata share of the post-1986 earnings and profits of the PFIC attributable to all of the stock it held, directly or indirectly on the CFC qualification date, as defined in paragraph
(d)of this section. The deemed dividend is taxed under section 1291 as an excess distribution received on the CFC qualification date. The excess distribution determined under this paragraph
(c)is allocated under section 1291(a)(1)(A) only to each day of the shareholder's holding period of the stock during which the foreign corporation qualified as a PFIC. For purposes of the preceding sentence, the shareholder's holding period of the PFIC stock ends on the day before the CFC qualification date. After the deemed dividend election, the shareholder's stock with respect to which the election was made under this paragraph
(c)shall not be treated as stock in a PFIC and the shareholder shall not be subject to taxation under section 1291 with respect to such stock unless the qualified portion of the shareholder's holding period ends, as determined under section 1297(e)(2), and the foreign corporation thereafter qualifies as a PFIC under section 1297(a).
(3)*Post-1986 earnings and profits defined* —(i) *In general* —(A) *General rule* . For purposes of this section, the term post-1986 earnings and profits means the post-1986 undistributed earnings, within the meaning of section 902(c)(1) (determined without regard to section 902(c)(3)), as of the day before the CFC qualification date, that were accumulated and not distributed in taxable years of the PFIC beginning after 1986 and during which it was a PFIC, without regard to whether the earnings related to a period during which the PFIC was a CFC.
(B)*Special rule* . If the CFC qualification date is a day that is after the first day of the taxable year, the term post-1986 earnings and profits means the post-1986 undistributed earnings, within the meaning of section 902(c)(1) (determined without regard to section 902(c)(3)), as of the close of the taxable year that includes the CFC qualification date. For purposes of this computation, only earnings and profits accumulated in taxable years during which the foreign corporation was a PFIC shall be taken into account, but without regard to whether the earnings related to a period during which the PFIC was a CFC.
(ii)*Pro rata share of post-1986 earnings and profits attributable to shareholder's stock* —(A) *In general.* A shareholder's pro rata share of the post-1986 earnings and profits of the PFIC attributable to the stock held by the shareholder on the CFC qualification date is the amount of post-1986 earnings and profits of the PFIC accumulated during any portion of the shareholder's holding period ending at the close of the day before the CFC qualification date and attributable, under the principles of section 1248 and the regulations under that section, to the PFIC stock held on the CFC qualification date.
(B)*Reduction for previously taxed amounts.* A shareholder's pro rata share of the post-1986 earnings and profits of the PFIC does not include any amount that the shareholder demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Commissioner (in the manner provided in paragraph (c)(5)(ii) of this section) was, pursuant to another provision of the law, previously included in the income of the shareholder, or of another U.S. person if the shareholder's holding period of the PFIC stock includes the period during which the stock was held by that other U.S. person.
(4)*Time for making the deemed dividend election.* Except as provided in paragraph
(e)of this section, the shareholder shall make the deemed dividend election under this paragraph
(c)and section 1298(b)(1) in the shareholder's original or amended return for the taxable year that includes the CFC qualification date (election year). If the deemed dividend election is made in an amended return, the return must be filed by a date that is within three years of the due date, as extended under section 6081, of the original return for the election year.
(5)*Manner of making the deemed dividend election* —(i) *In general.* A shareholder makes the deemed dividend election by filing Form 8621 and the attachment to Form 8621 described in paragraph (c)(5)(ii) of this section with the return of the shareholder for the election year, reporting the deemed dividend as an excess distribution pursuant to section 1291(a)(1), and paying the tax and interest due on the excess distribution. A shareholder that makes the deemed dividend election after the due date of the return (determined without regard to extensions) for the election year must pay additional interest, pursuant to section 6601, on the amount of underpayment of tax for that year.
(ii)*Attachment to Form 8621.* The shareholder must attach a schedule to Form 8621 that demonstrates the calculation of the shareholder's pro rata share of the post-1986 earnings and profits of the PFIC that is treated as distributed to the shareholder on the CFC qualification date, pursuant to this paragraph (c). If the shareholder is claiming an exclusion from its pro rata share of the post-1986 earnings and profits for an amount previously included in its income or the income of another U.S. person, the shareholder must include the following information:
(A)The name, address and taxpayer identification number of each U.S. person that previously included an amount in income, the amount previously included in income by each such U.S. person, the provision of law, pursuant to which the amount was previously included in income, and the taxable year or years of inclusion of each amount.
(B)A description of the transaction pursuant to which the shareholder acquired, directly or indirectly, the stock of the PFIC from another U.S. person, and the provision of law pursuant to which the shareholder's holding period includes the period the other U.S. person held the CFC stock.
(6)*Adjustments to basis.* A shareholder that makes the deemed dividend election increases its adjusted basis of the stock of the PFIC owned directly by the shareholder by the amount of the deemed dividend. If the shareholder makes the deemed dividend election with respect to a PFIC of which it is an indirect shareholder, the shareholder's adjusted basis of the stock or other property owned directly by the shareholder, through which ownership of the PFIC is attributed to the shareholder, is increased by the amount of the deemed dividend. In addition, solely for purposes of determining the subsequent treatment under the Code and regulations of a shareholder of the stock of the PFIC, the adjusted basis of the direct owner of the stock of the PFIC is increased by the amount of the deemed dividend.
(7)*Treatment of holding period.* If the shareholder of a foreign corporation has made a deemed dividend election, then, for purposes of applying sections 1291 through 1298 to such shareholder after the deemed dividend, the shareholder's holding period of the stock of the foreign corporation begins on the CFC qualification date. For other purposes of the Code and regulations, this holding period rule does not apply.
(8)*Coordination with section 959(e).* For purposes of section 959(e), the entire deemed dividend is treated as having been included in gross income under section 1248(a).
(d)*CFC qualification date.* For purposes of this section, the CFC qualification date is the first day on which the qualified portion of the shareholder's holding period in the section 1297(e) PFIC begins, as determined under section 1297(e).
(e)*Late purging elections requiring special consent* —(1) *In general.* This section prescribes the exclusive rules under which a shareholder of a section 1297(e) PFIC may make a section 1298(b)(1) election after the time prescribed in paragraph (b)(3) or (c)(4) of this section for making a deemed sale or a deemed dividend election has elapsed (late purging election). Therefore, a shareholder may not seek such relief under any other provisions of the law, including § 301.9100-3 of this chapter. A shareholder may request the consent of the Commissioner to make a late deemed sale or deemed dividend election for the taxable year of the shareholder that includes the CFC qualification date provided the shareholder satisfies the requirements set forth in this paragraph (e). The Commissioner may, in his discretion, grant relief under this paragraph
(e)only if—
(i)In a case where the shareholder is requesting consent under this paragraph
(e)after December 31, 2005, the shareholder requests such consent before a representative of the Internal Revenue Service
(IRS)raises upon audit the PFIC status of the foreign corporation for any taxable year of the shareholder;
(ii)The shareholder has agreed in a closing agreement with the Commissioner, described in paragraph (e)(3) of this section, to eliminate any prejudice to the interests of the U.S. government, as determined under paragraph (e)(2) of this section, as a consequence of the shareholder's inability to file amended returns for its taxable year in which the CFC qualification date falls or an earlier closed taxable year in which the shareholder has taken a position that is inconsistent with the treatment of the foreign corporation as a PFIC; and
(iii)The shareholder satisfies the procedural requirements set forth in paragraph (e)(3) of this section.
(2)*Prejudice to the interests of the U.S. government.* The interests of the U.S. government are prejudiced if granting relief would result in the shareholder having a lower tax liability (other than by a de minimis amount), taking into account applicable interest charges, for the taxable year that includes the CFC qualification date (or a prior taxable year in which the taxpayer took a position on a return that was inconsistent with the treatment of the foreign corporation as a PFIC) than the shareholder would have had if the shareholder had properly made the section 1298(b)(1) election in the time prescribed in paragraph (b)(2) or (c)(3) of this section (or had not taken a position in a return for an earlier year that was inconsistent with the status of the foreign corporation as a PFIC). The time value of money is taken into account for purposes of this computation.
(3)*Procedural requirements* —(i) *In general.* The amount due with respect to a late purging election is determined in the same manner as if the purging election had been timely filed. However, the shareholder is also liable for interest on the amount due, pursuant to section 6601, determined for the period beginning on the due date (without extensions) for the taxpayer's income tax return for the year in which the CFC qualification date falls and ending on the date the late purging election is filed with the IRS.
(ii)*Filing instructions.* A late purging election is made by filing a completed Form 8621-A, “Return by a Shareholder Making Certain Late Elections to End Treatment as a Passive Foreign Investment Company.”
(4)*Time and manner of making late election* —(i) *Time for making a late purging election* . A shareholder may make a late purging election in the manner provided in paragraph (e)(4)(ii) of this section at any time. The date the election is filed with the IRS will determine the amount of interest due under paragraph (e)(3) of this section.
(ii)*Manner of making a late purging election* . A shareholder makes a late purging election by completing Form 8621-A in the manner required by that form and this section and filing that form with the Internal Revenue Service, DP 8621-A, Ogden, UT 84201.
(5)*Multiple late elections* —(i) *General rule* . A shareholder of a foreign corporation may make multiple late purging elections under the rules of this paragraph
(e)or § 1.1298-3(e) to the same extent such multiple purging elections could have been made if those purging elections had been filed within the time prescribed under paragraph (b)(3) or (c)(4) of this section or § 1.1298-3(b)(3) or (c)(4).
(ii)*Example* . The rule of this paragraph (e)(5) is illustrated by the following example: Example.
(i)In 1991, X, a U.S. person, acquired a five percent interest in the stock of FC, a controlled foreign corporation, as defined in section 957(a). In years 1991, 1992, 1995, 1996 and 1997, FC satisfied either the income test or the asset test of section 1297(a). X did not make a QEF election with regard to FC. In years 1993 and 1994, FC did not satisfy either the income or the asset test of section 1291(a). In 1998, X acquired additional stock in FC such that X was a U.S. shareholder (as defined in section 951(b)) of FC.
(ii)Because FC qualified as a PFIC in 1991, FC will be treated as a PFIC with respect to all of the stock held by X, under the “once a PFIC always a PFIC” rule of section 1298(b)(1), unless X makes an election to purge the PFIC taint. Because X ceased to satisfy either the income or asset test in 1993, X could have made an election under § 1.1298-3 to purge the PFIC taint of FC for that year if X had filed such an election within the time prescribed under § 1.1298-3(b)(3) or (c)(4). If X had done so, the stock X held in FC would not be treated as stock in a PFIC for the years 1993 and 1994. Because X became a U.S. shareholder of FC in 1998, X then could have made a deemed sale or deemed dividend election under this section to purge the PFIC taint of FC for the years 1995 through 1997 if X had filed within the time prescribed under paragraph (b)(3) or (c)(4) of this section. Accordingly, X may make a late purging election to purge the PFIC taint of FC for the years 1991 and 1992 under the rules of § 1.1298-3(e) and may also make a late purging election to purge the PFIC taint of FC for the years 1995 through 1997 under the rules of this paragraph (e).
(f)*Effective/applicability date* . The rules of this section are applicable as of December 8, 2005. § 1.1297-3T [Removed] **Par. 7** . Section 1.1297-3T is removed. **Par. 8** . Section 1.1298-0 is revised to read as follows: § 1.1298-0 Table of contents. This section contains a listing of the paragraph headings for § 1.1298-3. *§ 1.1298-3 Deemed sale or deemed dividend election by a U.S. person that is a shareholder of a former PFIC.*
(a)In general.
(b)Application of deemed sale election rules.
(1)Eligibility to make the deemed sale election.
(2)Effect of the deemed sale election.
(3)Time for making the deemed sale election.
(4)Manner of making the deemed sale election.
(5)Adjustments to basis.
(6)Treatment of holding period.
(c)Application of deemed dividend election rules.
(1)Eligibility to make the deemed dividend election.
(2)Effect of the deemed dividend election.
(3)Post-1986 earnings and profits defined.
(4)Time for making the deemed dividend election.
(5)Manner of making the deemed dividend election.
(6)Adjustments to basis.
(7)Treatment of holding period.
(8)Coordination with section 959(e).
(d)Termination date.
(e)Late purging elections requiring special consent.
(1)In general.
(2)Prejudice to the interests of the U.S. government.
(3)Procedural requirements.
(4)Time and manner of making late election.
(5)Multiple late elections.
(f)Effective/applicability date. § 1.1298-0T [Removed] **Par. 9** . Section 1.1298-0T is removed. **Par. 10** . Section 1.1298-3 is amended by revising paragraphs
(e)and
(f)to read as follows: § 1.1298-3 Deemed sale or deemed dividend election by a U.S. person that is a shareholder of a former PFIC.
(e)*Late purging elections requiring special consent* —(1) *In general* . This section prescribes the exclusive rules under which a shareholder of a former PFIC may make a section 1298(b)(1) election after the time prescribed in paragraph (b)(3) or (c)(4) of this section for making a deemed sale or a deemed dividend election has elapsed (late purging election). Therefore, a shareholder may not seek such relief under any other provisions of the law, including § 301.9100-3 of this chapter. A shareholder may request the consent of the Commissioner to make a late purging election for the taxable year of the shareholder that includes the termination date provided the shareholder satisfies the requirements set forth in this paragraph (e). The Commissioner may, in his discretion, grant relief under this paragraph
(e)only if—
(i)In a case where the shareholder is requesting consent under this paragraph
(e)after December 31, 2005, the shareholder requests such consent before a representative of the Internal Revenue Service raises upon audit the PFIC status of the foreign corporation for any taxable year of the shareholder;
(ii)The shareholder has agreed in a closing agreement with the Commissioner, described in paragraph (e)(3) of this section, to eliminate any prejudice to the interests of the U.S. government, as determined under paragraph (e)(2) of this section, as a consequence of the shareholder's inability to file amended returns for its taxable year in which the termination date falls or an earlier closed taxable year in which the shareholder has taken a position that is inconsistent with the treatment of the foreign corporation as a PFIC; and
(iii)The shareholder satisfies the procedural requirements set forth in paragraph (e)(3) of this section.
(2)*Prejudice to the interests of the U.S. government* . The interests of the U.S. government are prejudiced if granting relief would result in the shareholder having a lower tax liability (other than by a *de minimis* amount), taking into account applicable interest charges, for the taxable year that includes the termination date (or a prior taxable year in which the taxpayer took a position on a return that was inconsistent with the treatment of the foreign corporation as a PFIC) than the shareholder would have had if the shareholder had properly made the section 1298(b)(1) election in the time prescribed in paragraph (b)(2) or (c)(3) of this section (or had not taken a position in a return for an earlier year that was inconsistent with the status of the foreign corporation as a PFIC). The time value of money is taken into account for purposes of this computation.
(3)*Procedural requirements* —(i) *In general* . The amount due with respect to a late purging election is determined in the same manner as if the purging election had been timely filed. However, the shareholder is also liable for interest on the amount due, pursuant to section 6601, determined for the period beginning on the due date (without extensions) for the taxpayer's income tax return for the year in which the termination date falls and ending on the date the late purging election is filed with the IRS.
(ii)*Filing instructions* . A late purging election is made by filing a completed Form 8621-A, “Return by a Shareholder Making Certain Late Elections to End Treatment as a Passive Foreign Investment Company.”
(4)*Time and manner of making late election* —(i) *Time for making a late purging election* . A shareholder may make a late purging election in the manner provided in paragraph (e)(4)(ii) of this section at any time. The date the election is filed with the IRS will determine the amount of interest due under paragraph (e)(3) of this section.
(ii)*Manner of making a late purging election* . A shareholder makes a late purging election by completing Form 8621-A in the manner required by that form and this section and filing that form with the Internal Revenue Service, DP 8621-A, Ogden, UT 84201.
(5)*Multiple late elections* . For rules regarding the circumstances under which a shareholder of a foreign corporation may make multiple late purging elections under this paragraph
(e)or § 1.1297-3(e), see § 1.1297-3(e)(5).
(f)*Effective/applicability date* . The rules of this section are applicable as of December 8, 2005. § 1.1298-3T [Removed] **Par. 11** . Section 1.1298-3T is removed. PART 602—OMB CONTROL NUMBERS UNDER THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT **Par. 12** . The authority citation of part 602 continues to read as follows: Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805. **Par. 13** . In § 602.101, paragraph
(b)is amended by removing the entry for “1.1297-3T” from the table. Kevin M. Brown, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement. Approved: September 17, 2007. Eric Solomon, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (Tax Policy). [FR Doc. E7-18988 Filed 9-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration 28 CFR PART 16 [AAG/A Order No. 032-2007] Privacy Act of 1974: Implementation AGENCY: Drug Enforcement Administration, DOJ. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Department of Justice (DOJ), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), is exempting a Privacy Act system of records from the following subsections of the Privacy Act: (c)(3) and (4), (d)(1), (2), (3), and (4); (e)(1), (2), (3), (5), and (8); and (g), pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a
(j)and (k). The Privacy Act system of records is the “El Paso Intelligence Center
(EPIC)Seizure System, (JUSTICE/DEA-022).” The exemptions are necessary to prevent the compromise of ongoing investigative efforts, to help ensure the integrity of law enforcement and investigatory information, to ensure third party privacy, and to protect the physical safety of sources of information and law enforcement personnel. DATES: *Effective Date:* This final rule is effective September 27, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joo Chung, Counsel, Privacy and Civil Liberties Office, 202-514-4921. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 26, 2006 (71 FR 36294), a proposed rule was published in the **Federal Register** with an invitation to comment. No comments were received. This final rule contains corrections to typographic errors appearing in the proposed rule and a revised justification for the exemption claimed from subsection (e)(3), found at (h)(6). The revised justification more specifically addresses the Privacy Act's notice requirement of subsection (e)(3) and, therefore increases the accuracy and clarity of the final rule. This rule relates to individuals rather than to small business entities. Nevertheless, pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 16 Administrative Practices and Procedure, Freedom of Information Act, Government in the Sunshine Act, and Privacy Act. Pursuant to the authority vested in the Attorney General by 5 U.S.C. 552a and delegated to me by Attorney General Order No. 793-78, 28 CFR part 16 is amended as follows: PART 16—PRODUCTION OR DISCLOSURE OF MATERIAL OR INFORMATION 1. The authority citation for part 16 continues to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552a, 552b(g) and 553; 18 U.S.C. 4203(a)(1); 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, 534; 31 U.S.C. 3717 and 9701. 2. Section 16.98 is amended by adding paragraphs
(g)and
(h)to read as follows: § 16.98 Exemption of Drug Enforcement Administration Systems—limited access.
(g)The following system of records is exempt from 5 U.S.C. 552a (c)(3) and (4); (d)(1), (2), (3), and (4); (e)(1), (2), (3), (5), and (8); and (g): El Paso Intelligence Center
(EPIC)Seizure System
(ESS)(JUSTICE/DEA-022). These exemptions apply only to the extent that information in this system is subject to exemption pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a (j)(2), (k)(1), and (k)(2). Where compliance would not appear to interfere with or adversely affect the law enforcement and counter-drug purposes of this system, and the overall law enforcement process, the applicable exemption may be waived by the DEA in its sole discretion.
(h)Exemptions from the particular subsections are justified for the following reasons:
(1)From subsection (c)(3) because making available to a record subject the accounting of disclosures from records concerning him/her would potentially reveal any investigative interest in the individual. Revealing this information would permit the subject of an investigation of an actual or potential criminal, civil, or regulatory violation to determine whether he is the subject of investigation, or to obtain valuable information concerning the nature of that investigation, and the information obtained, or the identity of witnesses and informants. Similarly, disclosing this information could reasonably be expected to compromise ongoing investigatory efforts by notifying the record subject that he/she is under investigation. This information could also permit the record subject to take measures to impede the investigation, e.g., destroy evidence, intimidate potential witnesses, or flee the area to avoid or impede the investigation.
(2)From subsection (c)(4) because this system is exempt from the access and amendment provisions of subsection (d).
(3)From subsections (d)(1), (2), (3), and
(4)because these provisions concern individual access to and amendment of records contained in this system, which consists of counter-drug and criminal investigatory records. Compliance with these provisions could alert the subject of an investigation of an actual or potential criminal, civil, or regulatory violation of the existence of that investigation, of the nature and scope of the information and evidence obtained as to his activities, of the identity of witnesses and informants, or would provide information that could enable the subject to avoid detection or apprehension. These factors would present a serious impediment to effective law enforcement because they could prevent the successful completion of the investigation; endanger the physical safety of witnesses or informants; or lead to the improper influencing of witnesses, the destruction of evidence, or the fabrication of testimony.
(4)From subsection (e)(1) because it is not always possible to know in advance what information is relevant and necessary to complete an identity comparison between the individual being screened and a known or suspected criminal or terrorist. Also, it may not always be known what information will be relevant to law enforcement for the purpose of conducting an operational response or on-going investigation.
(5)From subsection (e)(2) because application of this provision could present a serious impediment to law enforcement and counter-drug efforts in that it would put the subject of an investigation, study or analysis on notice of that fact, thereby permitting the subject to engage in conduct designed to frustrate or impede that activity. The nature of counter-drug investigations is such that vital information about an individual frequently can be obtained only from other persons who are familiar with such individual and his/her activities. In such investigations it is not feasible to rely upon information furnished by the individual concerning his own activities.
(6)From subsection (e)(3) because the requirements thereof would constitute a serious impediment to law enforcement in that they could compromise the existence of an actual or potential confidential investigation and/or permit the record subject to speculate on the identity of a potential confidential source, and endanger the life, health or physical safety of either actual or potential confidential informants and witnesses, and of investigators/law enforcement personnel. In addition, the notification requirement of subsection (e)(3) could impede collection of that information from the record subject, making it necessary to collect the information solely from third party sources and thereby inhibiting law enforcement efforts.
(7)From subsection (e)(5) because many of the records in this system are derived from other domestic record systems and therefore it is not possible for the DEA and EPIC to vouch for their compliance with this provision. In addition, EPIC supports but does not conduct investigations; therefore, it must be able to collect information related to illegal drug and other criminal activities and encounters for distribution to law enforcement and intelligence agencies that do conduct counter-drug investigations. In the collection of information for law enforcement and counter-drug purposes, it is impossible to determine in advance what information is accurate, relevant, timely, and complete. With the passage of time, seemingly irrelevant or untimely information may acquire new significance as further investigation brings new details to light. The restrictions imposed by (e)(5) would limit the ability of those agencies' trained investigators and intelligence analysts to exercise their judgment in conducting investigations and impede the development of intelligence necessary for effective law enforcement and counterterrorism efforts. EPIC has, however, implemented internal quality assurance procedures to ensure that ESS data is as thorough, accurate, and current as possible. ESS is also exempt from the requirements of subsection (e)(5) in order to prevent the use of a challenge under subsection (e)(5) as a collateral means to obtain access to records in the ESS. ESS records are exempt from the access and amendment requirements of subsection
(d)of the Privacy Act in order to protect the integrity of investigations. Exempting ESS from subsection (e)(5) serves to prevent the assertion of challenges to a record's accuracy, timeliness, completeness, and/or relevance under subsection (e)(5) to circumvent the exemption claimed from subsection (d).
(8)From subsection (e)(8) because to require individual notice of disclosure of information due to compulsory legal process would pose an impossible administrative burden on the DEA and EPIC and could alert the subjects of counter-drug, counterterrorism, law enforcement, or intelligence investigations to the fact of those investigations when not previously known. Additionally, compliance could present a serious impediment to law enforcement as this could interfere with the ability to issue warrants or subpoenas and could reveal investigative techniques, procedures, or evidence.
(9)From subsection
(g)to the extent that the system is exempt from other specific subsections of the Privacy Act. Dated: September 20, 2007. Lee J. Lofthus, Assistant Attorney General for Administration. [FR Doc. E7-19129 Filed 9-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration 29 CFR Part 1926 [Docket No. OSHA-2007-0068] RIN 1218-AC18 Notice of Availability of the Regulatory Flexibility Act Review of the Occupational Safety Standard for Lead in Construction AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Department of Labor. ACTION: Notice of availability. SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA)has completed a review of its Lead in Construction Standard pursuant to section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and Section 5 of Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review. OSHA issued its Lead in Construction Standard in 1993 pursuant to a statutory directive to protect construction workers from lead related diseases such as neurological and kidney disease and negative cardiovascular effects. The review found that the standard has reduced blood lead levels in construction workers thereby reducing lead-related disease. It also found that the standard has not had a negative economic impact on business, including small businesses in virtually all sectors affected, is not overly complex and does not conflict with other regulations. OSHA concludes it is necessary to retain the standard but will consider improving outreach materials and increasing their dissemination, and will consult with HUD and EPA about developing a unified training curriculum and further integrate initial assessment interpretations to reduce cost and simplify requirements for small businesses. ADDRESSES: Copies of the entire report may be obtained from the OSHA Publication Office, Room N-3101, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone
(202)693-1888: Fax
(202)693-2498. The full report, comments, and referenced documents are available for review at the OSHA Docket Office, New Docket No. OSHA-2007-0068, Old Docket No. H-023 Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210: telephone
(202)693-2350 (OSHA's TTY number is
(877)889-5627). OSHA's Docket Office hours of operation are 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., EST. The main text of the report, this **Federal Register** Notice and any news release will become available on the OSHA Web page at *http://www.OSHA.gov.* Electronic copies of this **Federal Register** Document, the full text of the report, comments and referenced documents are or will become available at *http://www.regulations.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: General Information: Joanna Dizikes Friedrich, OSHA Directorate of Evaluation and Analysis, Room N-36412, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone
(202)693-1939. Technical inquiries about the Lead in Construction Standard: Maureen Ruskin, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Room N-3718, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210: telephone
(202)693-1955. Press inquiries: Kevin Ropp, OSHA Office of Communications, N-3637, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20210; telephone
(202)693-1999. SUMMARY: In 1993, in response to a statutory mandate (Sections 1031 and 1032 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, Pub. L. 102-550), OSHA promulgated the Lead in Construction standard (29 CFR 1926.62) as an interim final rule. Elevated blood lead levels
(BLLs)can produce irreversible adverse health effects, and studies had shown lead disease in construction employees. The goal of the standard is to protect construction employees from lead-related diseases, which can result from exposure to lead dust or fumes. Construction employees are exposed to lead primarily when they remove lead-based paint
(LBP)from structural steel bridges or buildings, engage in demolition of structures with LBP, engage in the removal of lead from buildings, or prepare some old residential units for painting or remodeling these units. A relatively small number of construction employees are exposed to lead when using molten lead to seal cables, lead-containing mortar, lead sheeting, repairing old plumbing, and performing work on older structures, as well as on shielding for ionizing radiation, radioactive materials, and X-rays. In 1978, LBP was banned for use on residences or other buildings where consumers could be exposed; industrial use of LBP was phased out in the same period. Lead solder for water pipes was banned in 1988. The statute very specifically mandated the provisions in the standard. OSHA recognized, as it had when it adopted the general industry lead standard, that exposure patterns would vary widely among the different types of construction employees. Since the interim final rule was published, a number of studies have been conducted that document exposure levels and blood lead levels among construction employees. Based on the availability of more data and public recommendations, OSHA decided to conduct a review of 29 CFR 1926.62 to determine whether the standard should continue unchanged or whether it is possible to revise the standard to reduce the burden without reducing employee protection. The risks posed by exposure to lead are well documented. The 2005 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ASTDR) Draft Toxicological Profile for Lead adds to the wealth of information by confirming the known health effects of lead and documenting new research, such as on the effects of lead when in combination with other metals and other toxic substances. Other research, such as the NIOSH studies of exposure pathways that can be as significant as inhalation thereby furthering employee exposures, indicate that we are continuing to uncover evidence that employees need protection from exposure to lead. Similarly, the comments identified a number of studies of exposure of employees in a variety of workplaces demonstrating the continuing need for the protection that the Lead in Construction standard provides. Based on the findings in this report and the evidence produced during this review process, OSHA concludes that for the hazards associated with lead in the construction industry, a mandatory standard remains necessary to adequately protect employees. During this study, no evidence has been presented to OSHA suggesting that employers are having difficulty or are not capable of complying with the Lead in Construction standard during most operations most of the time. Technologies needed to comply with the standard are readily and widely available. This look back study also concludes that the Lead in Construction standard has not had a negative economic impact on business, including small businesses, in virtually all sectors affected. The construction sector overall is growing in terms of profits, revenues and employment. OSHA finds that the Lead in Construction standard remains economically feasible. This regulatory review of the Lead in Construction standard meets the requirements of both Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and Section 5 of Executive Order
(EO)12866. Under Section 610, this review examines whether the standard should be continued without change, rescinded, or amended to minimize any significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, taking into consideration the continued need for the rule, comments and complaints received regarding the rule, the complexity of the rule, whether the rule is duplicative and changes in technology and economic conditions since the issuance of the rule. Under Section 5 of EO 12866, this review examines whether the standard has become unjustified or unnecessary as a result of changed circumstances, and whether the standard is compatible with other regulations or is duplicative or inappropriately burdensome in the aggregate. This review also ensures that the regulation is consistent with the priorities and the principles set forth in EO 12866 within applicable law, and examines whether the effectiveness of the standard can be improved. To assist OSHA in this review, OSHA requested public comments on these issues on June 6, 2005 (70 FR 32739). Please note this report uses the phrase “industrial construction,” “industrial painting,” and similar terminology. These phrases refer to construction work at industrial facilities and other non-building construction, such as bridges, pipelines, tunnels, tanks, etc. The phrases do not include employees in general industry, who are not covered by the Lead in Construction standard. This review of the Lead in Construction standard under Regulatory Flexibility Act section 610 finds the following: In 1993, OSHA estimated that 937,000 employees were exposed to lead in the construction industry. That included employees exposed below levels that would trigger the standard. OSHA estimates that, as of 2003, there were 649,000 employees exposed at levels that may trigger application of the standard. OSHA regularly enforces the lead standard in the construction industry. Between 1993 and 2003, Federal OSHA and State-Plan States made a total of 4,384 inspections in construction that covered lead exposure and issued 12,556 citations. Less than 25 percent of housing units have lead paint on any element. This represents about 20 million housing units. It is not known how many commercial and industrial buildings have lead paint, but the age distribution of those buildings is similar to that of residential buildings. There are about 225,000 structural steel highway and railroad bridges in the U.S., and it is estimated that 90,000 have lead paint. Other industrial structures, such as tanks, may have lead paint. Older plumbing may use lead pipes or lead solder. Lead solder still has some uses; lead containing mortar is used in tanks containing acid; lead is used for some electric cable splicing, radiation shields, and for some other purposes. Construction employees may be exposed to lead in these areas. There is a continued need for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA)Lead in Construction standard. This standard, mandated by statute, remains both justified and necessary to implement the statute's intent; that is, to reduce both lead exposures in construction employees and disease resulting from these lead exposures. The standard has reduced blood lead levels
(BLLs)of exposed employees. Retention of the standard is necessary to continue to achieve that goal because the study revealed that certain construction jobs still have high airborne lead exposures, and compliance data indicate that there are still instances of non-compliance with the standard. Studies continue to show that elevated BLLs are associated with neurological effects, including reduced intelligence, changes in brain function, fatigue, impotence, and reductions in nerve conductivity. There are also systemic effects from lead exposures, such as changes in the level of circulating thyroid hormones and changes in immune system parameters. Other effects from lead exposures include reduced kidney function, increased blood pressure, gastrointestinal effects, cardiovascular effects, and anemia. There is evidence that lead is a reproductive toxin. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
(DHHS)has determined that lead and lead compounds are reasonably anticipated to be human carcinogens, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)has determined that lead is a probable human carcinogen. Furthermore, a recently published study of the general, U.S. adult population reports increases in both cardiovascular deaths and deaths from all causes at BLLs substantially lower than previously reported [i.e., an increase in mortality at BLLs >0.10 μimo1/L (≥2μg/dL)]. A number of jobs in the construction industry create high airborne levels of lead. These include bridge repainting and repair, lead remediation, remodeling and renovation of older housing and commercial buildings, preparation for repainting of residences and other structures, repairs of older plumbing, and other jobs. Exposures to employees in bridge repainting can be in the 1000's of μg/m, 3 of lead, and paint preparation exposures can be in the 100's of μg/m, 3 of lead. National Adult Blood Lead Epidemiology and Surveillance (ABLES) data and other studies show that some construction employees still have relatively high blood lead levels which may be indicative of disease. These data show that the standard has resulted in lower blood lead levels for construction employees. Although one study indicates that high airborne exposures did not lead to high blood lead levels for a group of residential painters, other studies indicate high blood lead levels in residential painters. No studies contradict Congress' conclusion that this standard is needed to protect construction employees. The evidence indicates that the Lead in Construction standard has not had a negative economic impact on business, including small businesses, in virtually all sectors affected. The construction sector overall is growing in terms of profits, revenues and employment. Small businesses are retaining their share of the business. Bridge painting is generally paid for by governmental entities that usually require bidders to meet the OSHA standard. Larger projects need to meet EPA requirements requiring experienced contractors who follow OSHA requirements. Lead remediation projects follow HUD requirements which require compliance with the OSHA requirements. Renovation and remodeling of older buildings containing lead are usually big enough jobs so that the costs of following the OSHA standard are relatively small in comparison to total costs. In addition to potential exposure to lead in bridge painting projects, lead paint is still used in some municipalities for traffic paints. However, studies have shown that exposures are minimal because of the nature of the equipment used. Substitutes are available and widely used through the United States; in fact, several jurisdictions prohibit the use of lead chromate paint. Therefore, OSHA expects the economic impact to be negligible. Residential repainting presents a more complex picture. Lead paint was banned after 1978; therefore, the standard has no impact on painting new units or repainting units built after 1978. There is relatively little lead paint on units built from 1941 to 1978; for most repainting jobs on units built between 1941 and 1978, an initial assessment that lead exposures are low is all that would be required, and therefore, the costs are manageable for small painting contractors. For some units built before 1941 and a few built from 1941 to 1978 lead exposure levels were high during preparation for repainting. In these cases, the standard would impose costs to reduce the hazards to which the painters and their families were exposed. For larger and better quality jobs, the costs to comply with the standard are manageable for small painting contractors. However, for smaller, low quality jobs, a self-employed painter not covered by the standard could underbid a contractor who followed the standard, and for this limited category of jobs, there could be a negative economic impact. On Jan. 10, 2006, EPA proposed regulations for all rental properties and owner-occupied housing containing children under 6 to protect the residents from lead exposure. The practical effect of those regulations will be to encourage the hiring of painting contractors who obey the OSHA standard, and therefore, those small painting contractors who comply with the OSHA Standard will then be more likely to be hired. Steps OSHA will be taking to further reduce economic impacts are discussed below. The standard is not overly complex. It follows the format and principles of other OSHA health standards. However, OSHA will review its compliance assistance and guidance materials to determine the need for enhancements. OSHA also will review the adequacy of how these materials are disseminated and additional means for reaching affected populations. The OSHA Lead in Construction standard does not conflict with other regulations. Both EPA and HUD have major regulations regarding lead, the EPA to reduce lead in the environment and HUD to reduce lead exposure in residences, especially to children. The OSHA and HUD regulations tend to be complementary. Following OSHA regulations will reduce lead dust in residences which both protects the painter or remodeller and the children who live in that unit. The relationship with EPA regulations is more complex. For example, EPA requires the use of enclosures on bridge painting to prevent the spread of lead to the environment. This tends to increase airborne exposures in the employee's breathing zone, making rigorous adherence to the OSHA standard crucial for protecting the employee. Though the HUD and EPA regulations do not conflict with OSHA's standard, commenters made two suggestions which OSHA will seriously consider and discuss with EPA, HUD, and NIOSH. First, many of the commenters suggested that the agencies develop a joint training program which would cover the requirements of each of the agencies. Second, some commenters suggested that OSHA consider modifying its initial assessment monitoring to be more integrated with HUD and EPA approaches. Several technological changes will make it easier to comply with the standard. The reduced use of lead in paint, piping, solder and elsewhere will in the long term reduce employee exposure to lead. Low-volume/high-velocity exhaust systems adapted to portable hand tools can increase their effectiveness and reduce their cost of operation. Small volumes of air at relatively high velocities are used to control dust. Portable trailers with showers and clean change facilities have become more available and cheaper to rent, reducing the likelihood that employees will contaminate “clean areas” of the project (including non-lead areas, and sanitary/eating/drinking facilities), themselves, and other employees, and reducing the chance that lead would be tracked home. OSHA received a number of extensive comments which are summarized in Chapter 8. Commenters representing NIOSH, HUD, state EPAs, the Building and Construction Trades Division of the AFL-CIO, the New York State Occupational Health Clinic Network, and a number of public interest and environmental protection professional groups stressed the need for the standard, the studies demonstrating the negative health effects of lead, and the high levels that construction employees can be exposed to if they are not properly protected. They suggested ways that the standard should be strengthened and expressed how important it is that the OSHA, HUD, and EPA regulations all work together. The National Association of Home Builders, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and U.S. Small Business Administration suggested that OSHA have a rulemaking to reconsider the data and make the standard more cost-effective. Congress not only directed OSHA to issue the Lead in Construction standard, it also specified in considerable detail what should be included in this standard in response to lead poisoning of construction employees. Congress did not specifically direct OSHA to engage in further rulemaking like it did when it directed OSHA to issue the Hazardous Waste standard. The health studies and exposure information since the standard was issued do not indicate any less need for the standard, and the standard is consistent with other health standards. Therefore, a very large-scale, OSHA resource-intensive rulemaking for lead in construction, which would most likely result in a rule very similar to the rule we have now, does not appear to be a wise use of OSHA's limited rulemaking resources. Many commenters made suggestions intended to make the standard more effective in protecting employees and more cost-effective. These include: issuing more extensive outreach and guidance materials, including materials in Spanish and other relevant languages; developing a joint training curriculum covering OSHA, HUD, and EPA requirements; developing a clearer initial assessment approach, to be better integrated with HUD and EPA requirements; reducing any duplication between regulations; and making the standard more cost-effective for small businesses, by encouraging the development of less costly ways to meet industrial hygiene requirements, so that lead will not contaminate the employees, clean areas of the project (including, for example, non-lead areas, sanitary/eating/drinking facilities, etc.) and reducing the chance that lead would be tracked home. OSHA will review these suggestions for possible implementation. The Executive Order 12866 review of the Lead in Construction standard indicates that: The Lead in Construction standard, mandated by statute, remains both justified and necessary to implement the statute's intent; that is, to reduce both lead exposures in construction employees and disease resulting from these lead exposures. The standard has reduced blood lead levels of exposed employees. Its retention is necessary to continue to achieve that goal because construction jobs still have high airborne lead exposures, and compliance data indicate that there are continuing violations of the standard. Therefore, the standard is consistent with EO 12866. The standard is consistent with other OSHA standards. Also, it is not in conflict with and is generally consistent with EPA regulations to reduce environmental exposures and with HUD regulations to reduce lead exposures in children. Indeed, the OSHA standard is often complementary to those regulations. As discussed, OSHA will review initial assessment requirements to see if a more unified and cost-effective approach can be developed. The standard is not inappropriately burdensome in the aggregate. The one narrow area discussed above where there may be some burden (i.e., house painters exposed to lead while performing small jobs) will be ameliorated by better outreach materials, better guidance on initial assessment, and the finalization of new EPA regulations. The effectiveness of the Standard could be improved by making outreach materials available in Spanish and other relevant languages. Also, after consultation with EPA and HUD, OSHA will consider the development of unified training materials and exploring a more unified approach to initial assessment. Conclusions and Recommendations Conclusions OSHA concludes that the Lead in Construction standard is necessary to protect construction employees from lead disease. Studies continue to demonstrate that elevated lead exposures result in disease and that some construction jobs involve high airborne lead exposures. The standard has resulted in reduced blood lead levels for construction employees. The Lead in Construction standard is also consistent with the Presidential priority “to eliminate childhood lead poisoning in the United States as a major public health problem by the year 2010,” because the standard “also benefits the children of those workers who may have been placed at risk via take-home exposures (such as lead dust on work clothing).” Recommendations As a result of this look back review and the comments received from participants, OSHA is considering the following actions to improve the effectiveness of the standard and make it more cost-effective: OSHA will review its compliance assistance materials to determine the need for updates. OSHA also will review the adequacy of how these materials are disseminated and additional means for reaching affected populations. OSHA will consult with EPA and HUD to determine the value of a unified training curriculum and whether a course can be developed to meet the requirements of all three agencies. OSHA also will attempt to develop interpretations for its initial assessment requirements [29 CFR 1926.62(d)], in order to integrate them better with HUD and EPA requirements, reduce duplication, and make better use of historical data; these interpretations should help reduce costs and simplify the standard's requirements for small businesses. Signed at Washington, DC, this 24th day of September, 2007. Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health. [FR Doc. E7-19096 Filed 9-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-26-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 30 CFR Part 924 [Docket No. MS-021-FOR] Mississippi Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Plan AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior. ACTION: Final rule; approval of abandoned mine land reclamation plan. SUMMARY: We, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), are approving Mississippi's abandoned mine land reclamation plan (Mississippi Plan) submitted to us under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act). The purpose of the plan is to demonstrate the State's intent and capability to assume responsibility for administering the abandoned mine land reclamation
(AML)program established by Title IV of SMCRA. As part of the plan, Mississippi submitted policies and procedures to be followed in conducting reclamation of abandoned coal mine lands in Mississippi. These policies and procedures, along with the State's AML statutes that we approved on August 25, 2006, constitute the complete Mississippi plan. DATES: *Effective Date:* September 27, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sherry Wilson, Director, Birmingham Field Office. Telephone:
(205)290-7282. E-mail: *swilson@osmre.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background on the AML Program and Mississippi's Plan II. Submission of the Mississippi Plan Policies and Procedures III. OSM's Findings IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments V. OSM's Decision VI. Procedural Determinations I. Background on the AML Program and Mississippi's Plan The AML Program was established by Title IV of the Act (30 U.S.C. 1201 *et seq.* ) in response to concerns over extensive environmental damage caused by past coal mining activities. The program is funded by a reclamation fee collected on each ton of coal that is produced. The money collected is used to finance the reclamation of abandoned coal mines and for other authorized activities. Section 405 of the Act allows States and Indian Tribes to assume exclusive responsibility for reclamation activity within the State or on Indian lands. In order to assume this responsibility, the States or Indian Tribes must develop and submit to the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) for approval, a program (often referred to as a plan) for the reclamation of abandoned coal mines. The Federal regulations at 30 CFR part 884 specify the content requirements of the State reclamation plan and the criteria for plan approval. Under these regulations, the Director of the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement is required to review the plan and solicit and consider comments of other Federal agencies and the public. If the State plan is not approved, the State may submit a revised reclamation plan at any time. If the Secretary determines that a State has developed and submitted a program for the reclamation of abandoned mine lands and has the ability and necessary State legislation to implement the provisions of Title IV, the Secretary may approve the State program and grant to the State exclusive authority to implement the provisions of the approved program. The Mississippi Plan can be approved if: 1. The public has been given adequate notice and opportunity to comment and the record does not reflect major unresolved controversies. 2. The views of other Federal agencies have been solicited and considered. 3. The State has the legal authority, policies, and administrative structure to carry out the plan. 4. The plan meets all the requirements of our AML program provisions. 5. The State has an approved regulatory program. 6. The plan is in compliance with all applicable State and Federal laws and regulations. Upon approval of the State reclamation plan, the State may submit to us on an annual basis an application for funds to be expended in that State on specific reclamation projects which are necessary to implement the State's reclamation plan as approved. Such annual requests are reviewed and approved by us in compliance with the requirements of 30 CFR Part 886. By letter dated April 5, 2006 (Administrative Record No. MS-0402), Mississippi sent us its AML plan statutes. Mississippi revised and added statutes to the Mississippi Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Law at Sections 53-9-3, 53-9-7, 53-9-89, 53-9-89(1)(c), 53-9-89(1)(c)(i) through (v), 53-9-101, 53-9-103, 53-9-105, 53-9-107, 53-9-109, 53-9-111, 53-9-113, 53-9-115, 53-9-117, 53-9-119, 53-9-121, 53-9-123. We approved Mississippi's revised and added statutes on August 25, 2006, thereby, granting partial approval of its AML plan (71 FR 50339). Mississippi's current AML plan submission addresses the policies and procedures the State will follow in administering the Mississippi Plan. II. Submission of the Mississippi Plan Policies and Procedures By letter dated June 11, 2007 (Administrative Record Nos. MS-0417-01 through MS-0417-06), and at its own initiative, Mississippi sent us the proposed policies and procedures of the Mississippi Plan under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 *et seq.* ). We announced receipt of the submission in the July 24, 2007, **Federal Register** (72 FR 40266). In the same document, we opened the public comment period and provided an opportunity for a public hearing or meeting on the adequacy of the plan. The public comment period closed on August 23, 2007. Because no one requested a public hearing or meeting, we did not hold one. We received comments from one Federal and one State agency. III. OSM's Findings 1. In accordance with section 405 of SMCRA and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 884.14, we find that Mississippi has submitted a plan for reclamation of abandoned mine lands and we have determined that:
(a)The public has been given adequate notice and opportunity to comment and the record does not reflect any unresolved controversies.
(b)The views of other Federal agencies having an interest in the plan have been solicited and considered. These agencies include the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and Wild Life Services, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the Mine Safety and Health Administration.
(c)The Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, Office of Geology has the legal authority, policies, and administrative structure to implement the plan.
(d)The Mississippi Plan meets all the requirements of 30 CFR Chapter VII, Subchapter R.
(e)Mississippi has an approved State regulatory program under Title V of SMCRA.
(g)The Mississippi Plan is in compliance with all applicable State and Federal laws and regulations. IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments Public Comments We asked for public comments on the Mississippi Plan, but did not receive any. Federal Agency Comments On July 6, 2007, under 30 CFR 884.14(a)(2), we requested comments from various Federal agencies with an actual or potential interest in the Mississippi Plan (Administrative Record No. MS-0417-10). We received a comment from the U.S. Forest Service stating that it had no comments (Administrative Record No. MS-0417-16). We also received a comment from the Mississippi Department of Archives and History stating that Mississippi's proposed reclamation plan will have no effect on cultural resources (Administrative Record No. MS-0417-17). V. OSM's Decision Based on the above findings, we approve the Mississippi Plan policies and procedures sent to us on June 11, 2007, and as revised on July 31, 2007. Furthermore, this approval, together with our approval of Mississippi's AML statutes on August 25, 2006 (71 FR 50339), constitute the final and full approval of the Mississippi Plan. To implement this decision, we are amending the Federal regulations at 30 CFR part 924, which codify decisions concerning the Mississippi program. We find that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make this final rule effective immediately. Section 503(a) of SMCRA requires that the State's program demonstrate that the State has the capability of carrying out the provisions of the Act and meeting its purposes. Making this rule effective immediately will expedite that process. SMCRA requires consistency of State and Federal standards. VI. Procedural Determinations Executive Order 12630—Takings This rule does not have takings implications. This determination is based on the analysis performed for the counterpart Federal regulations. Executive Order 12866—Regulatory Planning and Review This rule is exempted from review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)under Executive Order 12866. Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice Reform The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 and has determined that this rule meets the applicable standards of subsections
(a)and
(b)of that section. However, these standards are not applicable to the actual language of State regulatory programs and program amendments because each program is drafted and promulgated by a specific State, not by OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10), decisions on proposed State regulatory programs and program amendments submitted by the States must be based solely on a determination of whether the submittal is consistent with SMCRA and its implementing Federal regulations and whether the other requirements of 30 CFR parts 730, 731, and 732 have been met. Executive Order 13132—Federalism This rule does not have Federalism implications. SMCRA delineates the roles of the Federal and State governments with regard to the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations. One of the purposes of SMCRA is to “establish a nationwide program to protect society and the environment from the adverse effects of surface coal mining operations.” Section 503(a)(1) of SMCRA requires that State laws regulating surface coal mining and reclamation operations be “in accordance with” the requirements of SMCRA, and section 503(a)(7) requires that State programs contain rules and regulations “consistent with” regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to SMCRA. Executive Order 13175—Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments In accordance with Executive Order 13175, we have evaluated the potential effects of this rule on Federally-recognized Indian tribes and have determined that the rule does not have substantial direct effects 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. This determination is based on the fact that the Mississippi program does not regulate coal exploration and surface coal mining and reclamation operations on Indian lands. Therefore, the Mississippi program has no effect on Federally-recognized Indian tribes. Executive Order 13211—Regulations That Significantly Affect the Supply, Distribution, or Use of Energy On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 which requires agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for a rule that is
(1)Considered significant under Executive Order 12866, and
(2)likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Because this rule is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866 and is not expected to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required. National Environmental Policy Act This rule does not require an environmental impact statement because section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that agency decisions on proposed State regulatory program provisions do not constitute major Federal actions within the meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). Paperwork Reduction Act This rule does not contain information collection requirements that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507 *et seq.* ). Regulatory Flexibility Act The Department of the Interior 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.* ). The State submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an economic analysis was prepared and certification made that such regulations would not have a significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small entities. In making the determination as to whether this rule would have a significant economic impact, the Department relied upon the data and assumptions for the counterpart Federal regulations. 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. This rule:
(a)Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million;
(b)Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; and
(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. This determination is based upon the fact that the State submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an analysis was prepared and a determination made that the Federal regulation was not considered a major rule. Unfunded Mandates This rule will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any given year. This determination is based upon the fact that the State submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an analysis was prepared and a determination made that the Federal regulations did not impose an unfunded mandate. List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 924 Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining. Dated: September 18, 2007. Brent Wahlquist, Director, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. For the reasons set out in the preamble, 30 CFR part 924 is amended as set forth below: PART 924—MISSISSIPPI 1. The authority citation for part 924 continues to read as follows: Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 *et seq.* 2. Section 924.20 is revised to read as follows: § 924.20 Approval of Mississippi abandoned mine land reclamation plans. The Mississippi abandoned mine land reclamation plan as submitted on April 5, 2006, and June 11, 2007, and as revised is approved. Copies of the approved plan are available at: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Birmingham Field Office, 135 Gemini Circle, Suite 215, Homewood, Alabama 35209 Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, Office of Geology, 2380 Highway 80 West, Jackson, Mississippi 39289-1307 [FR Doc. E7-19147 Filed 9-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-05-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [USCG-2007-27373] RIN 1625-AA08 Regattas and Marine Parades; Great Lake Annual Marine Events. AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is amending special local regulations for annual regattas and marine parades in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan zone. This rule is intended to ensure safety of life on the navigable waters immediately prior to, during, and immediately after regattas or marine parades. This rule will establish restrictions upon, and control the movement of, vessels in a specified area immediately prior to, during, and immediately after regattas or marine parades. DATES: This rule is effective October 29, 2007. ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket USCG-2007-27373 and are available for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility at the U.S. Department of Transportation:
(1)*Web Site:* *http://dms.dot.gov* .
(2)*Mail:* Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
(3)*Fax:*
(202)493-2251.
(4)*Delivery:* Room W12-140 on the Ground Floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is
(202)366-9329.
(5)*Federal eRulemaking Portal:* *http://www.regulations.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: CWO Brad Hinken, Prevention Department, Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan, Milwaukee, WI;
(414)747-7154. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, at
(202)366-9826. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information On April 6, 2007, we published a notice of proposed rule making
(NPRM)entitled Regattas and Marine Parades; Great Lake Annual Marine Events in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 17062). We received no letters commenting on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held. Background and Purpose This rule will remove the specific entries from table 1 found in 33 CFR 100.901, Great Lakes annual marine events that apply to regattas and marines parades in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan zone and list each regatta or marine parade as a subpart. This rule will also add several regattas and marine parades not previously listed in 33 CFR Part 100 and remove several events that no longer occur annually or are not regattas or marine parades. This rule is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and spectators from hazards associated with regattas and marine parades. Based on accidents that have occurred in other Captain of the Port zones, the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan has determined that regattas and marine parades pose a significant risk to public safety and property. The likely combination of large numbers of recreation vessels, congested waterways, and alcohol use could easily result in serious injuries or fatalities. Restricting and controlling vessel movement around the regattas and marine parades will help ensure the safety of persons and property at these events, and help minimize the associated risks. Discussion of Comments and Changes No comments were received regarding this rule. Regulatory Evaluation This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed this rule under that Order. The Coast Guard's use of these special local regulations will be periodic, of short duration, and designed to minimize the impact on navigable waters. These special local regulations will only be enforced immediately before, during, and immediately after the time the marine events occur. Furthermore, these special local regulations have been designed to allow vessels to transit unrestricted to portions of the waterways not affected by the special local regulations. The Coast Guard expects insignificant adverse impact to mariners from the activation of these special local regulations. 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 would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in the areas designated in special local regulations in this rule during the dates and times the special local regulations are being enforced. These special local regulations would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. The special local regulations in this rule would be in effect for short periods of time and only once per year. The special local regulations have been designed to allow traffic to pass safely around the zone whenever possible, and vessels will be allowed to pass through the zones with the permission of the Captain of the Port. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule will not 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 The Coast Guard recognizes the treaty rights of Native American Tribes. Moreover, the Coast Guard is committed to working with Tribal Governments to implement local policies and to mitigate tribal concerns. We have determined that these regulations and fishing rights protection need not be incompatible. We have also determined that this Rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Nevertheless, Indian Tribes that have questions concerning the provisions of this Rule or options for compliance are encouraged to contact the point of contact listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling 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. This rule establishes a special local regulation issued in conjunction with a regatta or marine parade regulated, and as such is covered by this paragraph. A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 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. § 100.901 [Amended] 2. Amend § 100.901 Table 1 as follows: a. Under entry for “Sector Sault Ste. Marie, MI” remove the entries: National Cherry Festival Blue Angels Air Demonstration and Venetian Festival Yacht Parade; b. Remove the entry for “Field Office Grand Haven, MI”; and c. Remove the entry “Group Sector Lake Michigan, WI”. 3. Add § 100.903 to read as follows: § 100.903 Harborfest Dragon Boat Race; South Haven, MI.
(a)Regulated Area. A regulated area is established to include all waters of the Black River from approximately 250 yards upriver to 200 yards downriver of the entrance to the South Haven Municipal Marina within the following coordinates starting at 42°24′13.6″ N, 086°16′41″ W; then southeast 42°24′12.6″ N, 086°16′40″ W; then northeast to 42°24′19.2″ N, 086°16′26.5″ W; then northwest to 42°24′20.22″ N, 086°16′27.4″ W; then back to point of origin. (DATUM: NAD 83).
(b)Special Local Regulations. The regulations of § 100.901 apply. No vessel may enter, transit through, or anchor within the regulated area without the permission of the Coast Guard Patrol Commander.
(c)Effective Date. These regulations are effective annually on the third Saturday of June, from 7 a.m. until 7 p.m. 4. Add § 100.904 to read as follows: § 100.904 Celebrate Americafest, Green Bay, WI.
(a)Regulated Area. A regulated area is established to include all waters of the Fox River located between the Main Street Bridge at position 44°31′06″ N, 088°0′56″ W and the Walnut Street Bridge at position 44°30′25″ N, 088°01′06″ W. (DATUM: NAD 83).
(b)Special Local Regulations. The regulations of § 100.901 apply. No vessel may enter, transit through, or anchor within the regulated area without the permission of the Coast Guard Patrol Commander.
(c)Effective Date. These regulations are effective annually on the first weekend of July; 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. 5. Add § 100.905 to read as follows: § 100.905 Door County Triathlon; Door County, WI.
(a)Regulated Area. A regulated area is established to include all waters of Green Bay within a 2000-yard radius from the northwestern point of Horseshoe Point near Frank E. Murphy County Park in position 45°00′46″ N, 087°20′30″ W. (DATUM: NAD 83).
(b)Special Local Regulations. The regulations of § 100.901 apply. No vessel may enter, transit through, or anchor within the regulated area without the permission of the Coast Guard Patrol Commander.
(c)Effective Date. These regulations are effective July 22, 2007, July 26 and 27, 2008, July 25 and 26, 2009, July 24 and 25, 2010, July 23 and 24, 2011; from 7 a.m. to 10 a.m. 6. Add § 100.906 to read as follows: § 100.906 Grand Haven Coast Guard Festival Waterski Show, Grand Haven, MI.
(a)Regulated Area. All waters of the Grand River at Waterfront Stadium from approximately 350 yards upriver to 150 yards downriver of Grand River Lighted Buoy 3A (Lightlist number 19000) within the following coordinates: 43°04′ N, 086°14′12″ W; then east to 43°03′56″ N, 086°14′4″ W; then south to 43°03′45″ N, 086°14′10″ W; then west to 43°03′48″ N, 086°14′17″ W; then back to the point of origin. (DATUM: NAD 83).
(b)Special Local Regulations. The regulations of § 100.901 apply. No vessel may enter, transit through, or anchor within the regulated area without the permission of the Coast Guard Patrol Commander.
(c)Effective Date. These regulations are effective annually August 1st; 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. 7. Add § 100.907 to read as follows: § 100.907 Milwaukee River Challenge; Milwaukee, WI.
(a)Regulated Area. All waters of the Milwaukee River from the junction with the Menomonee River at position 43°01′55″ N, 087°54′40″ W to the Humboldt Avenue Bridge at position 43°03′25″ N, 087°53′53″ W. (DATUM: NAD 83).
(b)Special Local Regulations. The regulations of § 100.901 apply. No vessel may enter, transit through, or anchor within the regulated area without the permission of the Coast Guard Patrol Commander.
(c)Effective Date. These regulations are effective annually on the third or fourth Saturday of September; from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. A Local Notice to Mariners will be published and a Broadcast Notice to Mariners will announce which date is being enforced. 8. Add § 100.908 to read as follows: § 100.908 Charlevoix Venetian Night Boat Parade; Charlevoix, MI.
(a)Regulated Area. All waters of Round Lake, Charlevoix, MI.
(b)Special Local Regulations. The regulations of § 100.901 apply. No vessel may enter, transit through, or anchor within the regulated area without the permission of the Coast Guard Patrol Commander.
(c)Effective Date. These regulations are effective annually on the fourth Saturday of July; from 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. 9. Add § 100.909 to read as follows: § 100.909 Chinatown Chamber of Commerce Dragon Boat Race; Chicago, IL.
(a)Regulated Area. All waters of the South Branch of the Chicago River from the 18th Street Bridge at position 41°51′28″ N, 087°38′06″ W to the Amtrak Bridge at position 41°51′20″ N, 087°38′13″ W. (DATUM: NAD 83).
(b)Special Local Regulations. The regulations of § 100.901 apply. No vessel may enter, transit through, or anchor within the regulated area without the permission of the Coast Guard Patrol Commander.
(c)Effective Date. These regulations are effective annually on the third Friday of July from 11:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. and on the third Saturday of July from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Dated: September 10, 2007. John E. Crowley, Jr., Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E7-18933 Filed 9-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [CGD01-07-091] RIN 1625-AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Quinnipiac River, New Haven, CT AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has temporarily changed the drawbridge operating regulations governing the operation of the Ferry Street Bridge, across the Quinnipiac River, mile 0.7, at New Haven, Connecticut. This temporary final rule allows the bridge owner to keep one of the two moveable bascule spans in the closed position at all times from September 28, 2007 through April 30, 2008. This rule is necessary to facilitate scheduled bridge maintenance. DATES: This temporary rule is effective from September 28, 2007 through April 30, 2008. ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket (CGD01-07-091) and are available for inspection or copying at the First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch Office, 408 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02110, between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Judy Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District,
(212)668-7195. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information On August 21, 2007, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)entitled “Drawbridge Operation Regulations”; Quinnipiac River, Connecticut, in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 46586). We received no comments in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking. No public hearing was requested and none was held. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . The bridge repairs scheduled to begin on September 28, 2007, are necessary repairs that must be performed with all due speed to assure the continued safe and reliable operation of the bridge. Any delay in making this rule effective would not be in the best interest of public safety and the marine interests that use the Quinnipiac River. The recreational vessels that normally use this waterway are small enough in size that they can either pass under the spans without a bridge opening or safely pass through the bridge with a single span opening. Background and Purpose The Street Bridge, across the Quinnipiac River, mile 0.7, at New Haven, Connecticut, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 25 feet at mean high water and 31 feet at mean low water. The existing regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.213. In early 2007, the Connecticut Department of Transportation requested a temporary deviation to facilitate scheduled structural repairs and bridge painting at the Ferry Street Bridge at New Haven, Connecticut. In order to perform the structural repairs, one bascule bridge span had to remain in the closed position while the other span could remain in the full open position at all times for the passage of vessel traffic. As a result of the above request, the Coast Guard published a temporary deviation from the drawbridge operation regulations in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 18884), on April 16, 2007, in effect from April 16, 2007 through September 27, 2007. On June 22, 2007, the Coast Guard was notified that the scheduled repairs authorized under the temporary deviation listed above would not be completed by the end of the effective period scheduled to end on September 27, 2007. As a result of the above information, Connecticut Department of Transportation requested a temporary regulation to allow the repair work to continue at the bridge through April 30, 2008, in order to complete the remaining work. Under this temporary final rule, in effect from September 28, 2007 through April 30, 2008, the Ferry Street Bridge across the Quinnipiac River, mile 0.7, at New Haven, Connecticut, will keep one of the two bascule bridge spans in the closed position at all times while keeping the second bascule span in the fully open position for the passage of vessel traffic at all times. Discussion of Comments and Changes The Coast Guard received no comments in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking and as a result, no changes have been made to this temporary final rule. Regulatory Evaluation This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3), of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. This conclusion is based on the fact that the bridge will continue to open for vessel traffic with a single moveable span which is sufficient for the present needs of navigation. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations 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 conclusion is based on the fact that the bridge will continue to open for vessel traffic with a single moveable span which is sufficient for the present needs of navigation. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. No small entities requested Coast Guard assistance and none was given. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This final rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( *e.g.* , specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guides 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 (32)(e), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation considering that it relates to the promulgation of operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the instruction, an “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are not required for this rule. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 Bridges. For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows: PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. From September 28, 2007 through April 30, 2008, § 117.213 is amended by suspending paragraph
(a)and adding a temporary paragraph
(g)to read as follows: § 117.213 Connecticut River.
(g)The draws shall open on signal; except as follows:
(1)From 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m., noon to 12:15 p.m., 12:45 p.m. to 1 p.m., and 4:45 p.m. to 5:45 p.m., the draws need not be opened.
(2)The draw of the Ferry Street Bridge, mile 0.7, at New Haven, shall maintain one of the two moveable bascule bridge spans in the full open position at all times for the passage of vessel traffic. The second moveable bascule bridge span may remain in the closed position at all times.
(3)From 11 p.m. to 7 a.m., the draw of the Grand Avenue Bridge, Quinnipiac River, shall open on signal if at least one hour notice is given to the tender at the Ferry Street Bridge. In the event that the tender is at the Chapel Street Bridge, a delay of up to an additional hour may be expected.
(4)From 9 p.m. to 5 a.m., the draw of the Chapel Street Bridge, Mill River, shall open on signal if at least one hour notice is given to the tender at Ferry Street Bridge. In the event the tender is at the Grand Avenue Bridge, a delay of up to an additional hour may be expected. Dated: September 21, 2007. Timothy V. Skuby, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commander, First Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E7-19109 Filed 9-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [CGD09-07-016] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Marine City Maritime Festival Fireworks, St. Clair River, Marine City, MI AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the St. Clair River, Marine City, Michigan. This safety zone is intended to restrict vessels from portions of the St. Clair River during the Marine City Maritime Festival Fireworks Display. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with fireworks displays. DATES: This rule is effective from 9:30 p.m. on September 22, 2007 to 11:30 p.m. on September 23, 2007. ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket CGD09-07-016 and are available for inspection or copying at: U.S. Coast Guard Sector Detroit, 110 Mt. Elliot Ave., Detroit, MI 48207 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LT Jeff Ahlgren, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Detroit, 110 Mount Elliot Ave., Detroit, MI 48207;
(313)568-9580. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information On June 15, 2007, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)entitled Safety Zone; Marine City Maritime Festival Fireworks, St. Clair River, Marine City, MI, in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 33184) and received no comments on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . Delaying this rule would be contrary to the public interest of ensuring the safety of spectators and vessels during this event and immediate action is necessary to prevent possible loss of life or property. Background and Purpose This temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and spectators from hazards associated with a fireworks display. Based on accidents that have occurred in other Captain of the Port zones and the explosive hazards of fireworks, the Captain of the Port Detroit has determined fireworks launches in close proximity to watercraft pose significant risk to public safety and property. The likely combination of large numbers of recreation vessels, congested waterways, darkness punctuated by bright flashes of light, alcohol use, and debris falling into the water could easily result in serious injuries or fatalities. Establishing a safety zone to control vessel movement around the location of the launch platform will help ensure the safety of persons and property at these events and help minimize the associated risks. Discussion of Comments There were no comments received with regards to this rule. Discussion of Rule A temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of spectators and vessels during the setup, loading and launching of a fireworks display in conjunction with the Marine City Maritime Festival Fireworks display. The fireworks display will occur between 9:30 p.m. and 11:30 p.m., September 22, 2007. If this event does not take place at the scheduled time and date due to adverse weather, the fireworks display will occur between 9:30 p.m. and 11:30 p.m., September 23, 2007. The safety zone for the fireworks will encompass all waters of the St. Clair River enclosed by a line connecting the following points: 42-42-51.5N/082-29-13.97W; 42-43-07.55N/082-29-08.12W; 42-43-04.93N/082-28-54.11W; 42-42-48.58N/082-29-00.81W. This safety zone is located in the St. Clair River, east of the lighthouse in Marine City, MI, near the center of the river. (DATUM: NAD 83). All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the on-scene representative. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Detroit or his on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Regulatory Evaluation This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). This determination is based on the minimal time that vessels will be restricted from the safety zone and the safety zone is an area where the Coast Guard expects insignificant adverse impact to mariners from the safety zone's activation. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of the St. Clair River from 9:30 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. on September 22, 2007. If this event does not take place at the scheduled time and date due to adverse weather, this rule will affect the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of the St. Clair River from 9:30 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. on September 23, 2007. This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This rule will be in effect for only 2 hours; vessel traffic can pass safely around the safety zone; and in the event that this temporary safety zone affects shipping, commercial vessels may request permission from the Captain of the Port Detroit to transit through the safety zone. The Coast Guard will give notice to the public via a Broadcast Notice to Mariners that the regulation is in effect. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has 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. There were no comments received for this section. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. There were no comments received for this section. 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. There were no comments received for this section. 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. There were no comments received for this section. 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. There were no comments received for this section. Indian Tribal Governments The Coast Guard recognizes the treaty rights of Native American Tribes. Moreover, the Coast Guard is committed to working with Tribal Governments to implement local policies and to mitigate tribal concerns. We have determined that these special local regulations and fishing rights protection need not be incompatible. We have also determined that this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Nevertheless, Indian Tribes that have questions concerning the provisions of this rule or options for compliance are encourage to contact the point of contact listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . There were no comments received for this section. 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. There were no comments received for this section. 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. There were no comments received for this section. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Add § 165.T09-016 to read as follows: § 165.T09-016 Safety Zone; Marine City Maritime Festival Fireworks, St. Clair River, Marine City, MI.
(a)*Location* . The following area is a temporary safety zone: All waters of the St. Clair River, off of Marine City, MI, bounded by straight lines connecting the following points: 42-42-51.5N/082-29-13.97W; 42-43-07.55N/082-29-08.12W; 42-43-04.93N/082-28-54.11W; 42-42-48.58N/082-29-00.81W (NAD 83). This safety zone is located in the St. Clair River, east of the lighthouse in Marine City, MI, near the center of the river and encompasses an 840-foot diameter around the fireworks barge location.
(b)*Enforcement Period* . This rule will be enforced from 9:30 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. on September 22, 2007. In the event that the fireworks are cancelled due to inclement weather on September 22, then the rule will be enforced from 9:30 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. on September 23, 2007.
(c)*Regulations* .
(1)In accordance with the general regulations in section 165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Detroit, or his on-scene representative.
(2)This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Detroit or his on-scene representative.
(3)The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port to act on his behalf. The on-scene representative of the Captain of the Port will be aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel.
(4)Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Detroit or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.
(5)Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port or his on-scene representative. Dated: September 5, 2007. P.W. Brennan, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Coast Guard Sector Detroit. [FR Doc. E7-19061 Filed 9-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [CGD09-07-119] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Schoenith Family Foundation Fireworks, Detroit River, Detroit, MI AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the Detroit River, Detroit, MI. This safety zone is intended to restrict vessels from a portion of the Detroit River during the September 23, 2007 Schoenith Family Foundation Fireworks display. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with fireworks displays. DATES: This rule is effective from 7:30 p.m. to 9 p.m. on September 23, 2007. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are parts of docket CGD09-07-119 and are available for inspection or copying at U.S. Coast Guard Sector Detroit, 110 Mt. Elliot Ave., Detroit, MI 48207 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LT Jeff Ahlgren, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Detroit, 110 Mount Elliot Ave., Detroit MI 48207; (313)-568-9580. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. The permit application was not received in time to publish an NPRM followed by a final rule before the effective date. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective fewer than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . Delaying this rule would be contrary to the public interest of ensuring the safety of spectators and vessels during this event and immediate action is necessary to prevent possible loss of life or property. This temporary safety zone should have minimal negative impact on the public and navigation because it will be enforced for only a one and one half hour period on one day. In addition, the area restricted by the safety zone is minimal, allowing vessels to transit around the safety zone to pass. Background and Purpose This temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and spectators from hazards associated with a fireworks display. Based on accidents that have occurred in other Captain of the Port zones, and the explosive hazards of fireworks, the Captain of the Port Detroit has determined that fireworks launches proximate to watercraft pose a significant risk to public safety and property. The likely combination of large numbers of recreation vessels, congested waterways, darkness punctuated by bright flashes of light, alcohol use, and debris falling into the water could easily result in serious injuries or fatalities. Establishing a safety zone to control vessel movement around the location of the launch platform will help ensure the safety of persons and property at these events and help minimize the associated risks. Discussion of Rule A temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of spectators and vessels during the setup, loading and launching of a fireworks display in conjunction with the Schoenith Family Foundation Fireworks. The fireworks display will occur between 8 p.m. and 8:30 p.m. on September 23, 2007. The safety zone for the fireworks will encompass all waters of the Detroit River within a 210' radius of the fireworks launch site located at position 42°21.2′ N; 82°58.4′ W. (DATUM: NAD 83). All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the on-scene representative. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Detroit or his on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Regulatory Evaluation This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. This determination is based on the minimal time that vessels will be restricted from the zone and the zone is an area where the Coast Guard expects insignificant adverse impact to mariners from the zones' activation. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners and operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of the Detroit River near Detroit, MI between 7:30 p.m. and 9 p.m. on September 23, 2007. This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This rule will be in effect for only one and one half hours for one event; vessel traffic can safely pass outside the safety zone during the event; and in the event that this temporary safety zone affects shipping, commercial vessels may request permission from the Captain of the Port Detroit to transit through the safety zone. The Coast Guard will give notice to the public via a Broadcast to Mariners that the regulation is in effect. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule would not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments The Coast Guard recognizes the treaty rights of Native American Tribes. Moreover, the Coast Guard is committed to working with Tribal Governments to implement local policies and to mitigate tribal concerns. We have determined that these regulations and fishing rights protection need not be incompatible. We have also determined that this Rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Nevertheless, Indian Tribes that have questions concerning the provisions of this rule or options for compliance are encouraged to contact the point of contact listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedure; and related management system practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. A new temporary § 165.T09-119 is added as follows: § 165.T09-119 Safety zone; Schoenith Family Foundation Fireworks, Detroit River, Detroit, MI.
(a)*Location.* The following area is a temporary safety zone: All waters of the Detroit River, Detroit, MI, within a two hundred ten foot radius of the fireworks launch site located at position 42°21.2′ N; 82°58.4′ W. (DATUM: NAD 83). This position is located in the Detroit River directly in front of the Roostertail restaurant at 100 Marquette in Detroit, MI.
(b)*Enforcement period.* This regulation will be enforced from 7:30 p.m. to 9 p.m. on September 23, 2007.
(c)*Regulations.*
(1)In accordance with the general regulations in section 165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Detroit or his on-scene representative.
(2)This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Detroit or his on-scene representative.
(3)The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port to act on his behalf. The on-scene representative of the Captain of the Port will be aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel.
(4)Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Detroit or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.
(5)Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Detroit or his on-scene representative. Dated: September 5, 2007. P.W. Brennan, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Detroit. [FR Doc. E7-19059 Filed 9-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service 36 CFR Part 7 RIN 1024-AD40 Special Regulations; Areas of the National Park System, National Capital Region AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The National Park Service
(NPS)is adding a regulation governing parking violations. The addition is needed to address situations in which the vehicle's operator is absent when the vehicle is illegally parked. The amendment provides that a parking citation is subject to fine, allows the citation to name the registered owner if the operator is not present, and creates a rebuttable prima facie presumption that the registered owner of the illegally parked vehicle was the person who committed the violation. This rule is similar to provisions in the parking laws of the District of Columbia, Virginia, and Maryland. DATES: This regulation becomes effective October 29, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Lee, Special Assistant, 1849 C. St., NW., Room 3319, Washington, DC 20240, *jennifer_lee@nps.gov* , 202-219-1689. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Parking violations on Federal parkland administered by the NPS in the National Capital Region are regulated by 36 CFR 4.12 (traffic control devices). This section provides that “Failure to comply with the directions of a traffic control device is prohibited unless otherwise directed by the superintendent.” Prohibitions included within 36 CFR 4.12 are violations of handicapped parking signs, no parking, parking times limitations, and parking outside of marked parking spaces. This regulation is routinely used by United States Park Police officers and National Park Service law enforcement commissioned rangers. When a citation is issued and the operator is not identified on the notice, it results in the violation being dismissed if the registered owner fails to appear at trial and the court declines to proceed. Parking spaces on parkland are limited in number and are intended to provide visitors with safe, convenient, and legal areas to park while they visit the parks. In urbanized areas of parks in the National Capital Region, violation notices have been dismissed because the operator has not been identified. This is a concern as the U.S. Park Police have documented instances of operators repeatedly parking illegally without consequence, which denies others the ability to legally use the parking places. Description of Rulemaking In response to this problem, the National Park Service is amending the National Capital Region special regulations to establish an enforcement process for parking violation notices issued under 36 CFR 4.12. The rule: 1. Provides that a parking violation notice is subject only to a fine; 2. Provides that the violation notice will name the registered owner if the operator is not present; and 3. Creates a prima facie presumption that the registered owner of the illegally parked vehicle was the person who committed the violation. The prima facie presumption, however, remains rebuttable if the owner comes forward with evidence that someone else was operating the vehicle. This rule is similar to provisions that already exist in the parking laws of many jurisdictions, including the District of Columbia, Virginia, and Maryland (DC Code Ann. § 50-2303.03(c)(2004); Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-1220 (2004); Md. Trans. Code Ann. § 26-302(b)(2002)). Prima facie presumption is a reasonable and standard provision found in parking codes of many jurisdictions. The connection between the registered owner of an automobile and its operation is a natural one. Indeed, courts have noted, not only the practical impossibility of a police agency to keep a watch over all parked vehicles to ascertain who in fact operates them, but that a traffic regulation's prima facie presumption of responsibility on the registered owner is reasonable, and places neither too great an inconvenience nor an unreasonable hardship if the owner desires to make an explanation. This presumption has been generally upheld by the courts if, as the Park Service proposes here, it also allows the owner to come forward with evidence that someone else was operating the vehicle in order to rebut the inference that the registered owner was responsible. Such parking regulation presumptions have also been upheld as consistent with due process. The National Park Service is amending 36 CFR 7.96 by adding a new paragraph (f)(5), that provides that a violation of a traffic control device regulating parking under 36 CFR 4.12 is punishable by a fine. Proof that the described vehicle was parked in violation, together with proof that the defendant was at the time the registered owner of the vehicle, shall constitute a prima facie presumption that the registered owner of the vehicle was the person who committed the violation. This presumption allows the owner to come forward with evidence that someone else was operating the vehicle in order to rebut the presumption that the registered owner was responsible. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking On March 21, 2007 the National Park Service published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM)governing parking violations in the National Capital Region (72 FR 13224). The comment period was open for 60 days. No public comments were received. Compliance With Other Laws Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Order 12866) In accordance with the criteria in Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget makes the final determination as to the significance of this regulatory action and it has determined that this document is not a significant rule and is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.
(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. This rule will only affect those drivers who park illegally in areas administered by the National Park Service in the National Capital Region, and are issued a citation as a result. Based upon the number of parking violation citations currently being issued, and the nominal fine associated with a citation, there will not be an annual economic effect of $100 million or more. This rule will not adversely affect an economic sector, productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of government since the rule will have no impact at all for those drivers parking legally in these areas.
(2)This rule will not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency. This rule will result in establishing consistency with other agencies' actions, since it is similar to provisions already existing in the parking laws of many jurisdictions, including District of Columbia, Virginia, and Maryland law.
(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. This rule has no effect on entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients.
(4)This rule does not raise novel legal or policy issues. The rule provides that a parking citation is subject only to a fine, that the citation will name the registered owner if the operator is not present, as well as create a prima facie presumption that the registered owner of the illegally parked vehicle was the person who committed the violation. The prima facie presumption, however, remains rebuttable if the owner comes forward with evidence that someone else was operating the vehicle. Since the prima facie presumption is both a reasonable and standard provision found in the parking codes of many jurisdictions, this rule will not raise novel legal or policy issues. 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* .). The primary purpose of this rule is to establish consistency between the parking laws already existing in the local jurisdictions, and the parking laws in adjoining parklands administered by the National Park Service in the National Capital Region. There will not be a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities, since the rule will only affect those drivers who park illegally in areas administered by the National Park Service in the National Capital Region, and are issued a citation as a result. All parties have the ability to completely avoid any economic effect simply by parking legally in these areas. 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. This rule will only affect those drivers who park illegally in areas administered by the National Park Service in the National Capital Region, and are issued a violation notice as a result. Based upon the number of parking violation notices currently being issued, and the nominal fine associated with a violation, there will not be 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. No costs will be incurred by any parties unless a parking violation is issued for parking illegally in areas administered by the National Park Service in the National Capital Region. All parties have the ability to completely avoid any increase in cost simply by parking legally in these areas. 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. The primary purpose of this rule is to establish consistency between the parking laws already existing in the local jurisdictions, and the parking laws in adjoining parklands administered by the National Park Service in the National Capital Region. This rule will not change the ability of United States based enterprises to compete in any way. 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. This rule does not impose any unfunded mandate on industry, state, local or tribal governments, or the private sector. This rule applies only to Federal parkland administered by the National Park Service in the National Capital Region, and no costs will be incurred by any parties unless a parking violation notice is issued for parking illegally in these areas. This rule will establish consistency between the parking laws already existing in the local jurisdictions, and the parking laws in adjoining lands administered by the National Park Service in the National Capital Region. As a result, there will not be any “significant or unique” affect 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. Since this rule does not apply to private property, or cause a compensable taking, there are no 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. The provisions of this rule apply to land under the jurisdiction of the United States. This rule does not relate to the structure and role of the States, nor will it have direct, substantial, and significant effects on States. This rule imposes no requirements on any governmental entity other than the National Park Service. 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 regulation does not require an information collection from 10 or more parties and a submission under the Paperwork Reduction Act is not required. An OMB form 83-I is not required. National Environmental Policy Act We have analyzed the rule in accordance with the criteria of the National Environmental Policy Act and 516 DM. It does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, and can be Categorically Excluded under NPS exclusion 3.4 A
(8)“Modifications or revisions to existing regulations, or the promulgation of new regulations for NPS-administered areas, provided the modifications, revisions, or new regulations do not:
(a)Increase public use to the extent of compromising the nature and character of the area or cause 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.
(d)Cause a nuisance to adjacent owners or occupants.” 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) and 512 DM 2: We have evaluated potential effects on federally recognized Indian tribes and have determined that there are no potential effects. As this rule only applies to parkland administered by the National Park Service in the National Capital Region, there will not be any effect on Federally recognized Indian tribes. Clarity of Rule 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 read if it were divided into more, but shorter sections?
(5)Is the description of the rule in the “Supplementary Information” section of the preamble helpful in understanding the 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, Department of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240. *Drafting Information:* The primary authors of this regulation were Sean Doyle, Park Ranger, National Park Service, National Capital Region, and Jerry Case and Jennifer Lee, Regulations Program, WASO. List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 7 District of Columbia, National parks. For reasons stated in the preamble, the National Park Service amends 36 CFR part 7 as follows: PART 7—SPECIAL REGULATIONS, AREAS OF THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM 1. The authority citation for part 7 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1, 3, 9a, 460(q), 462(k); Sec. 7.96 also issued under D.C. Code 8-137(1981) and D.C. Code 40-721 (1981). 2. Add new paragraph (f)(5) to § 7.96 to read as follows: § 7.96 National Capital Region.
(f)* * *
(5)*Parking.* Violation of a traffic control device regulating parking is punishable by fine. In any violation of a traffic control device regulating parking, proof that the described vehicle was parked in violation, together with proof that the defendant was at the time the registered owner of the vehicle, shall constitute a prima facie presumption that the registered owner of the vehicle was the person who committed the violation. Dated: September 7, 2007. David M. Verhey, Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. [FR Doc. E7-18940 Filed 9-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-JK-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0544; FRL-8470-7] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Ohio AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is approving a request from Ohio to amend its State Implementation Plan
(SIP)emission statement reporting regulation. The request to revise Ohio's SIP was submitted by the Division of Air Pollution Control on May 1, 2006, and supplemented on May 22, 2007. Ohio held a public hearing on these revisions on September 8, 2005. The SIP revision concurrently rescinds and revises portions of Ohio Administrative Code Chapter 3745-24 to be consistent with the Clean Air Act
(CAA)emission statement program reporting requirements for stationary sources. The revision makes the rule more general to apply to all counties designated nonattainment for ozone, and not to a specific list of counties. The rationale for approval and other information are provided in this rulemaking action. DATES: This direct final rule will be effective November 26, 2007, unless EPA receives adverse comments by October 29, 2007. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the **Federal Register** informing the public that the rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0544, by one of the following methods: 1. *www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. * E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov.* 3. *Fax:*
(312)886-5824. 4. *Mail:* John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 5. *Hand Delivery:* John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office 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-R05-OAR-2006-0544. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *www.regulations.gov* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the *www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Charles Hatten, Environmental Engineer, at
(312)886-6031 before visiting the Region 5 office. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Hatten, Environmental Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,
(312)886-6031, *Hatten.Charles@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows: I. General Information II. What Is Required by the Clean Air Act and How Does It Apply to Ohio? III. What Change Is Ohio Requesting? IV. What Action Is EPA Taking? V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. General Information A. Does This Action Apply to Me? This action applies to all stationary sources located in areas designated nonattainment for ozone. II. What Is Required by the Clean Air Act and How Does It Apply to Ohio? Emission Statements (Annual Reporting) Section 182(a)(3)(B) of the CAA requires each state to submit revisions to its SIP to require that the owner or operator of each stationary source of volatile organic compounds
(VOCs)and oxides of nitrogen (NO <sup>X</sup> ), in areas designated nonattainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone, prepare and submit emission statements each year showing actual emissions of those pollutants. This requirement applies to all ozone nonattainment areas covered under subpart 2 of part D of Title I of the Act, regardless of classification (marginal, moderate, etc.) In such nonattainment areas, facilities which emit VOCs or NO <sup>X</sup> (on a plant-wide basis) in amounts of 25 tons per year or more into the ambient air must submit an emission statement to the State. On April 30, 2004, EPA published its Phase 1 rule to implement the 8-hour ozone NAAQS (69 FR 23951). On this same date, EPA set forth nonattainment and attainment designations for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS (69 FR 23858). EPA has determined that the emission statement program requirements previously applicable for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS apply in the same manner for the 8-hour NAAQS. See May 3, 2006, memorandum from Thomas C. Curran, Director, Air Quality Assessment Division, to Regional Air Division Directors, entitled “Emission Statement Requirement Under 8-hour Ozone NAAQS implementation.” Thus, the requirement for emission statements under section 182(a)(3)(B) applies to newly-designated subpart 2 nonattainment areas. Also, those areas designated nonattainment for ozone under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and then designated nonattainment under the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, regardless of classification under subpart 2 of part D of Title I of the Act, remain subject to the emission statement requirement of section 182(a)(3)(B). Ohio's Current SIP On October 13, 1994, EPA approved several rules in Chapter 3745-24 of the Ohio Administrative Code
(OAC)as meeting the “Emission Statement” program requirements of section 182(a)(3)(B) of the CAA. Chapter 3745-24 of the OAC included rules 3745-24-01 to 3745-24-04. Rule 3745-24-01 (Definitions) The first section of the rule, 3745-24-01, is entitled “Definitions.” Unless otherwise provided in this rule, definitions in rule 3745-24-01 apply. Rule 3745-24-02 (Applicability) The second section of the rule, 3745-24-02, which is entitled “Applicability,” states that the requirements of this chapter apply to stationary sources, specifically, located in the Cincinnati-Hamilton (Butler, Clermont, Hamilton and Warren Counties) area designated ozone nonattainment. Facilities emitting 25 tons per year VOCs or NO <sup>X</sup> (on a plant-wide basis) during any calendar year are required to submit an emission statement. This requirement started with calendar year 1992. Sources in counties redesignated to attainment for ozone are exempt from reporting. Under 3745-24-02, stationary sources located in a total of 24 counties designated nonattainment for ozone covered under subpart 2 of part D of Title I of the Act were required to submit emission statements. See 59 FR 51863. Subsequently, EPA redesignated a number of counties subject to the emission statement program to attainment for the 1-hour ozone standard. See, e.g., 60 FR 22289 (Dayton-Springfield Area), 60 FR 39115 (Toledo Area), 61 FR 3319 (Canton, and Youngstown-Warren-Sharon Areas), 61 FR 3591, and 61 FR 20458 (Cleveland-Akron-Lorain Area). On March 23, 1998, EPA approved a revision to rule 3745-24-02 to reflect these changes. See 63 FR 13787. As a result, the emission statement program requirements applied to stationary sources only in the Cincinnati-Hamilton (Butler, Clermont, Hamilton and Warren Counties) ozone nonattainment area. Rule 3745-24-03 (Deadlines for the Submission of the Emissions Statements) Section 3745-24-03, which is entitled “Deadlines for the submission of the emissions statements,” requires that the 1992 emissions statements be submitted by July 1, 1994. For calendar year 1993 and beyond, emission statements are due by November 15th of the following calendar year. *Rule 3745-24-04 (Emission Statement Requirements)* Rule 3745-24-04, entitled “Emission statement requirements,” requires affected owners that meet the applicability requirements specified in rule 3745-24-02 to submit emissions statements to Ohio EPA by the required deadline specified in rule 3745-24-03, and certification of accuracy of the statement. The certification of accuracy of the information must be submitted by an appropriate facility official. III. What Change Is Ohio Requesting? Ohio is requesting that EPA approve several revisions to its existing emission reporting rules contained in Chapter 3745-24 of the OAC to be consistent with the emission statement program requirements for stationary sources in section 182(a)(3)(B) of the CAA. Because the revisions to OAC 3745-24 are necessary, and change or eliminate over half of each rule, to satisfy the requirements of section 119.032 of the Ohio Revised Code (5-Year Rule Review), Ohio EPA rescinded OAC rule 3745-24-01 (Definitions), 3745-24-02 (Applicability), and 3745-24-03 (Deadline for the submission of the emission statements), and promulgated them as new rules. The rule revisions are as follows: *3745-24-01 (Definitions)* In section 3745-24-01 (Definitions), Ohio EPA is requesting approval of the removal of several definitions. Certain definitions are provided in the instructions accompanying the emission statement form to be filed as prescribed by the Director of Ohio EPA. Thus, the revision to this rule would allow enough flexibility for the emission statement form to change so long as the data needed is collected. The emission statement requirements are outlined in OAC rule 3745-24-04. *3745-24-02 (Applicability)* In section 3745-24-02 (Applicability), Ohio EPA is requesting approval to make the applicability of the rule more general, rather than area specific, to include any county designated nonattainment of the NAAQS for ozone. Currently, the rule specifies that the emission statement requirements apply to stationary sources located in the Cincinnati-Hamilton (Butler, Clermont, Hamilton and Warren Counties) ozone nonattainment area. The revision would provide Ohio EPA more flexibility to apply the emission statement program to develop a complete and accurate emission inventory for air quality planning purposes at the State, and also meet EPA's emission reporting requirements for all counties designated nonattainment of the NAAQS for ozone. *3745-24-03 (Deadlines for the Submission of the Emissions Statements)* In section 3745-24-03 (Deadlines for the submission of the emissions statements), Ohio EPA is requesting approval to change the due date for the emission statements to be the same as for Ohio's emission fee report, April 15, following the year covered by the reporting period. Thus, to align the reporting due dates for both the emission statement and fee emission, the rule revision would streamline reporting of emissions and provide more timely reporting than the previous SIP-approved rules. IV. What Action Is EPA Taking? EPA is approving the State's request that concurrently rescinds and revises portions of the Ohio Administrative Code Chapter 3745-24 [rule 3745-24-01 (Definitions), 3745-24-02 (Applicability), and 3745-24-03 (Deadline for the submission of the emission statements)] to be consistent with the CAA emission statement program reporting requirements for stationary sources. EPA has determined that the Ohio emission statement program contains the necessary applicability, and reporting provisions to meet the requirements for an emission statement program as part of the SIP. The revision makes the rule more general to apply to all counties designated nonattainment for ozone, and not to a specific list of counties. We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this **Federal Register** publication, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the state plan if relevant adverse written comments are filed. This rule will be effective November 26, 2007 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written comments by October 29, 2007. If we receive such comments, we will withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed action. The EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. If we do not receive any comments, this action will be effective November 26, 2007. V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use Because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 or a “significant energy action,” this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). Regulatory Flexibility Act This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under State law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by State law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000). Executive Order 13132: Federalism This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. Paperwork Reduction Act This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 26, 2007. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and Volatile organic compounds. Dated: September 4, 2007. Bharat Mathur, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 52, chapter I, of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart KK—Ohio 2. Section 52.1870 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(139) to read as follows: § 52.1870 Identification of plan.
(c)* * *
(139)On May 1, 2006, and supplemented on May 22, 2007, Ohio submitted final adopted state implementation plan revisions which concurrently rescinds and revises portions of the Ohio Administrative Code Chapter 3745-24 to be consistent with the Clean Air Act emission statement program reporting requirements for stationary sources. This revision includes amendments to the emission reporting regulation approved on October 13, 1994, and March 23, 1998, codified in paragraphs (c)(100) and (c)(117) of this section. The revision makes the rule more general to apply to all counties designated nonattainment for ozone, and not to a specific list of counties.
(i)*Incorporation by reference.* The following sections of the Ohio Administrative Code
(OAC)are incorporated by reference.
(A)OAC Rule Chapter 3745-24-01: “Definitions”, effective on December 16, 2005.
(B)OAC Rule Chapter 3745-24-02: “Applicability”, effective on December 16, 2005.
(C)OAC Rule Chapter 3745-24-03: “Deadlines for the submission of the emission statements”, effective on December 16, 2005. [FR Doc. E7-18894 Filed 9-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Parts 0 and 90 [WT Docket No. 02-55, ET Docket No. 00-258; ET Docket No. 95-18; RM-9498; RM-10024—FCC 07-102] Improving Public Safety Communications in the 800 MHz Band, et al. AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Final rule; correction. SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission published in the **Federal Register** of July 20, 2007 (72 FR 39756), a summary of the Commission's Second Memorandum Opinion and Order resolving various petitions for reconsideration in the 800 MHz rebanding proceeding, WT Docket 02-55. The summary contained inconsistent language concerning the deadline for the submission of the proposed Puerto Rico band plan that the 800 MHz Transition Administrator must file with the Commission. This document corrects that inconsistency. DATES: Effective on August 20, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Evanoff, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau,
(202)418-0848, or via the Internet at *John.Evanoff@fcc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission published a document in the **Federal Register** of July 20, 2007, (72 FR 39756). That document summarized the Second Memorandum Opinion and Order in WT Docket No. 02-55, adopted on May 24, 2007, and released on May 30, 2007. The Second Memorandum Opinion and Order included inconsistent language regarding the deadline for the submission of the Puerto Rico band plan that the 800 MHz Transition Administrator must file with the Commission. This inconsistency was reflected in the summary of the order published in the **Federal Register** on July 20, 2007. On July 26, 2007, the Commission published an erratum correcting the inconsistency, and confirming that the deadline for submission of the Puerto Rico band plan is 60 days from the effective date of the Second Memorandum Opinion and Order. Today's document corrects the inconsistency contained in the **Federal Register** summary of the Second Memorandum Opinion and Order published on July 20, 2007. In rule FR Doc. E7-14099 published on July 20, 2007 (72 FR 39756) make the following correction on page 39758, in the first column paragraph number 8, fifth sentence correct to read as follows: Accordingly we provide the 800 MHz Transition Administrator
(TA)with specific criteria and direct the TA to propose an alternative band plan within 60 days of the effective date of this order, including, if necessary, a pro rata distribution of ESMR spectrum. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-18868 Filed 9-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 593 [Docket No. NHTSA-2007-29271] List of Nonconforming Vehicles Decided To Be Eligible for Importation AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This document revises the list of vehicles not originally manufactured to conform to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) that NHTSA has decided to be eligible for importation. This list is contained in an appendix to the agency's regulations that prescribe procedures for import eligibility decisions. The list has been revised to add all vehicles that NHTSA has decided to be eligible for importation since October 1, 2006, and to remove all previously listed vehicles that are now more than 25 years old and need no longer comply with all applicable FMVSS to be lawfully imported. NHTSA is required by statute to publish this list annually in the **Federal Register** . DATES: The revised list of import eligible vehicles is effective on September 27, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Coleman Sachs, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA,
(202)366-3151. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a motor vehicle that was not originally manufactured to conform to all applicable FMVSS shall be refused admission into the United States unless NHTSA has decided that the motor vehicle is substantially similar to a motor vehicle originally manufactured for importation into and sale in the United States, certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115, and of the same model year as the model of the motor vehicle to be compared, and is capable of being readily altered to conform to all applicable FMVSS. Where there is no substantially similar U.S.-certified motor vehicle, 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(B) permits a nonconforming motor vehicle to be admitted into the United States if its safety features comply with, or are capable of being altered to comply with, all applicable FMVSS based on destructive test data or such other evidence as the Secretary of Transportation decides to be adequate. Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1), import eligibility decisions may be made “on the initiative of the Secretary of Transportation or on petition of a manufacturer or importer registered under [49 U.S.C. 30141(c)].” The Secretary's authority to make these decisions has been delegated to NHTSA. The agency publishes notice of eligibility decisions as they are made. Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(b)(2), a list of all vehicles for which import eligibility decisions have been made must be published annually in the **Federal Register** . On October 1, 1996, NHTSA added the list as an appendix to 49 CFR Part 593, the regulations that establish procedures for import eligibility decisions (61 FR 51242). As described in the notice, NHTSA took that action to ensure that the list is more widely disseminated to government personnel who oversee vehicle imports and to interested members of the public. See 61 FR 51242-43. In the notice, NHTSA expressed its intention to annually revise the list as published in the appendix to include any additional vehicles decided by the agency to be eligible for importation since the list was last published. See 61 FR 51243. The agency stated that issuance of the document announcing these revisions will fulfill the annual publication requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30141(b)(2). *Ibid* . Regulatory Analyses and Notices A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations about whether a regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)review and to the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines a “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1)Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities;
(2)Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3)Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4)Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. This rule will not have any of these effects and was not reviewed under Executive Order 12866. It is not significant within the meaning of the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The effect of this rule is not to impose new requirements but to provide a summary compilation of decisions on import eligibility that have already been made and does not involve new decisions. This rule will not impose any additional burden on any person. The agency believes that this impact is minimal and does not warrant the preparation of a regulatory evaluation. B. Environmental Impacts We have not conducted an evaluation of the impacts of this rule under the National Environmental Policy Act. This rule does not impose any change that would result in any impacts to the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, no environmental assessment is required. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we have considered the impacts of this rule on small entities (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). I certify that this rule will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities within the context of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The following is our statement providing the factual basis for the certification (5 U.S.C. 605(b)). This rule will not have any significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses because the rule merely furnishes information by revising the list in the Code of Federal Regulations of vehicles for which import eligibility decisions have previously been made. Accordingly, we have not prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. D. Executive Order 13132, Federalism E.O. 13132 requires NHTSA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” E.O. 13132 defines the term “Policies that have federalism implications” to include regulations that 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.” Under E.O. 13132, NHTSA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or NHTSA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the regulation. This rule will have no 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 as specified in E.O. 13132. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule. E. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually. This rule will not result in additional expenditures by State, local or tribal governments or by any members of the private sector. Therefore, the agency has not prepared an economic assessment pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. F. Paperwork Reduction Act Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), a person is not required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. This rule does not impose any new collection of information requirements for which a 5 CFR Part 1320 clearance must be obtained. DOT previously submitted to OMB and OMB approved the collection of information associated with the vehicle importation program in OMB Clearance No. 2127-0002. G. Civil Justice Reform Pursuant to Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” we have considered whether this rule has any retroactive effect. We conclude that it will not have such an effect. H. Plain Language Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in plain language. Application of the principles of plain language includes consideration of the following questions: —Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs? —Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated? —Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is not clear? —Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand? —Would more (but shorter) sections be better? —Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams? —What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand? If you wish to do so, please comment on the extent to which this final rule effectively uses plain language principles. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113), “all Federal agencies and departments shall use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies and departments.” This rule does not require the use of any technical standards. J. Privacy Act Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* K. Executive Order 13045, Economically Significant Rules Disproportionately Affecting Children This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it is not “economically significant” as defined under E.O. 12866, and does not concern an environmental, health, or safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. L. Notice and Comment NHTSA finds that prior notice and opportunity for comment are unnecessary under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) because this action does not impose any regulatory requirements. This rule merely revises the list of vehicles not originally manufactured to conform to the FMVSS that NHTSA has decided to be eligible for importation into the United States since the last list was published in September, 2006. In addition, so that the list of vehicles for which import eligibility decisions have been made may be included in the next edition of 49 CFR Parts 400 to 599, which is due for revision on October 1, 2007, good cause exists to dispense with the requirement in 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for the effective date of the rule to be delayed for at least 30 days following its publication. List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 593 Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles. In consideration of the foregoing, Part 593 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, *Determinations that a vehicle not originally manufactured to conform to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards is eligible for importation,* is amended as follows: PART 593—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 593 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322 and 30141(b); delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50. 2. Appendix A to part 593 is revised to read as follows: Appendix A to Part 593—List of Vehicles Determined to be Eligible for Importation.
(a)Each vehicle on the following list is preceded by a vehicle eligibility number. The importer of a vehicle admissible under any eligibility decision must enter that number on the HS-7 Declaration Form accompanying entry to indicate that the vehicle is eligible for importation.
(1)“VSA” eligibility numbers are assigned to all vehicles that are decided to be eligible for importation on the initiative of the Administrator under Sec. 593.8.
(2)“VSP” eligibility numbers are assigned to vehicles that are decided to be eligible under Sec. 593.7(f), based on a petition from a manufacturer or registered importer submitted under Sec. 593.5(a)(1), which establishes that a substantially similar U.S.-certified vehicle exists.
(3)“VCP” eligibility numbers are assigned to vehicles that are decided to be eligible under Sec. 593.7(f), based on a petition from a manufacturer or registered importer submitted under Sec. 593.5(a)(2), which establishes that the vehicle has safety features that comply with, or are capable of being altered to comply with, all applicable FMVSS.
(b)Vehicles for which eligibility decisions have been made are listed alphabetically, first by make and then by model.
(c)All hyphens used in the Model Year column mean “through” (for example, “1982-1989” means “1982 through 1989”).
(d)The initials “MC” used in the Manufacturer column mean “Motorcycle.”
(e)The initials “SWB” used in the Model Type column mean “Short Wheel Base.”
(f)The initials “LWB” used in the Model Type column mean “Long Wheel Base.”
(g)For vehicles with a European country of origin, the term “Model Year” ordinarily means calendar year in which the vehicle was produced.
(h)All vehicles are left-hand-drive
(LHD)vehicles unless noted as RHD. The initials “RHD” used in the Model Type column mean “Right-Hand-Drive.” Vehicles Certified by Their Original Manufacturer as Complying With All Applicable Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standards VSA-80
(a)All passenger cars less than 25 years old that were manufactured before September 1, 1989;
(b)All passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989, and before September 1, 1996, that, as originally manufactured, are equipped with an automatic restraint system that complies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208;
(c)All passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1996, and before September 1, 2002, that, as originally manufactured, are equipped with an automatic restraint system that complies with FMVSS No. 208, and that comply with FMVSS No. 214;
(d)All passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 2002, and before September 1, 2007, that, as originally manufactured, are equipped with an automatic restraint system that complies with FMVSS No. 208, and that comply with FMVSS Nos. 201, 214, 225, and 401;
(e)All passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 2007, and before September 1, 2008, that, as originally manufactured, comply with FMVSS Nos. 110, 118, 138, 201, 208, 213, 214, 225, and 401;
(f)All passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 2008 and before September 1, 2011 that, as originally manufactured, comply with FMVSS Nos. 110, 118, 138, 201, 202a, 206, 208, 213, 214, 225, and 401;
(g)All passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 2011 and before September 1, 2012 that, as originally manufactured, comply with FMVSS Nos. 110, 118, 126, 138, 201, 202a, 206, 208, 213, 214, 225, and 401. VSA-81
(a)All multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less that are less than 25 years old and that were manufactured before September 1, 1991;
(b)All multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less that were manufactured on and after September 1, 1991, and before September 1, 1993 and that, as originally manufactured, comply with FMVSS Nos. 202 and 208;
(c)All multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less that were manufactured on or after September 1, 1993, and before September 1, 1998, and that, as originally manufactured, comply with FMVSS Nos. 202, 208, and 216;
(d)All multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less that were manufactured on or after September 1, 1998, and before September 1, 2002, and that, as originally manufactured, comply with FMVSS Nos. 202, 208, 214, and 216;
(e)All multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less that were manufactured on or after September 1, 2002, and before September 1, 2007, and that, as originally manufactured, comply with FMVSS Nos. 201, 202, 208, 214, and 216, and, insofar as it is applicable, with FMVSS No. 225;
(f)All multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less manufactured on or after September 1, 2007 and before September 1, 2008, that, as originally manufactured, comply with FMVSS Nos. 110, 118, 201, 202, 208, 213, 214, and 216, and insofar as they are applicable, with FMVSS Nos. 138 and 225;
(g)All multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less manufactured on or after September 1, 2008 and before September 1, 2011, that, as originally manufactured, comply with FMVSS Nos. 110, 118, 201, 202a, 206, 208, 213, 214, and 216, and insofar as they are applicable, with FMVSS Nos. 138 and 225;
(h)All multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less manufactured on or after September 1, 2011 and before September 1, 2012, that, as originally manufactured, comply with FMVSS Nos. 110, 118, 126, 201, 202a, 206, 208, 213, 214, and 216, and insofar as they are applicable, with FMVSS Nos. 138 and 225. VSA-82 All multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with a GVWR greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) that are less than 25 years old. VSA-83 All trailers and motorcycles less than 25 years old. Vehicles Manufactured for Other Than the Canadian Market Manufacturer Model type(s) Body Model year(s) VSP VSA VCP Acura Legend 1988 51 Acura Legend 1989 77 Acura Legend 1990-1992 305 Alfa Romeo 164 1989 196 Alfa Romeo 164 1991 76 Alfa Romeo 164 1994 156 Alfa Romeo GTV 1985 124 Alfa Romeo Spider 1987 70 Aston Martin Vanquish 2002-2004 430 Audi 80 1988-1989 223 Audi 100 1989 93 Audi 100 1993 244 Audi 100 1990-1992 317 Audi 200 Quattro 1985 160 Audi A4 1996-2000 352 Audi A4, RS4, S4 8D 2000-2001 400 Audi A6 1998-1999 332 Audi A8 2000 424 Audi A8 1997-2000 337 Audi A8 Avant Quattro 1996 238 Audi RS6 & RS Avant 2003 443 Audi S6 1996 428 Audi S8 2000 424 Audi TT 2000-2001 364 Bentley Arnage (manufactured 1/1/01-12/31/01) 2001 473 Bentley Azure (LHD & RHD) 1998 485 Bimota
(MC)DB4 2000 397 Bimota
(MC)SB8 1999-2000 397 BMW 316 1986 25 BMW 316 1982 66 BMW 3 Series 1998 462 BMW 3 Series 1999 379 BMW 3 Series 2000 356 BMW 3 Series 2001 379 BMW 3 Series 1995-1997 248 BMW 3 Series 2003-2004 487 BMW 318i, 318iA 1983 23 BMW 318i, 318iA 1986 23 BMW 318i, 318iA 1982 23 BMW 318i, 318iA 1984-1985 23 BMW 318i, 318iA 1987-1989 23 BMW 320, 320i, 320iA 1984-1985 16 BMW 320i 1990-1991 283 BMW 320i & 320iA 1982-1983 16 BMW 323i 1982-1985 67 BMW 325, 325i, 325iA, 325E 1985-1986 30 BMW 325e, 325eA 1984-1987 24 BMW 325i 1991 96 BMW 325i 1992-1996 197 BMW 325i, 325iA 1987-1989 30 BMW 325iS, 325iSA 1987-1989 31 BMW 325iX 1990 205 BMW 325iX, 325iXA 1988-1989 33 BMW 5 Series 2000 345 BMW 5 Series 1990-1995 194 BMW 5 Series 1995-1997 249 BMW 5 Series 1998-1999 314 BMW 5 Series 2000-2002 414 BMW 5 Series 2003-2004 450 BMW 518i 1986 4 BMW 520, 520i 1982-1983 68 BMW 520iA 1989 9 BMW 524tdA 1985-1986 26 BMW 525, 525i 1982 69 BMW 525i 1989 5 BMW 528e, 528eA 1982-1988 21 BMW 528i, 528iA 1982-1984 20 BMW 533i, 533iA 1983-1984 22 BMW 535i, 535iA 1985-1989 25 BMW 633CSi, 630CSiA 1982-1984 18 BMW 635, 635CSi, 635CSiA 1982-1984 27 BMW 635CSi, 635CSiA 1985-1989 27 BMW 7 Series 1992 232 BMW 7 Series 1990-1991 299 BMW 7 Series 1993-1994 299 BMW 7 Series 1995-1999 313 BMW 7 Series 1999-2001 366 BMW 728, 728i 1982-1985 70 BMW 728i 1986 14 BMW 730iA 1988 6 BMW 732i 1982-1984 72 BMW 733i, 733iA 1982-1984 19 BMW 735, 735i, 735iA 1982-1984 28 BMW 735i, 735iA 1985-1989 28 BMW 745i 1982-1986 73 BMW 8 Series 1991-1995 361 BMW 850 Series 1997 396 BMW 850i 1990 10 BMW All other passenger car models except those in the M1 and Z1 series 1982-1989 78 BMW L7 1986-1987 29 BMW M3 1988-1989 35 BMW M5 1988 34 BMW M6 1987-1988 32 BMW X5 (manufactured 1/1/03-12/31/04) 2003-2004 459 BMW Z3 1996-1998 260 BMW Z3 (European market) 1999 483 BMW Z8 2002 406 BMW Z8 2000-2001 350 BMW
(MC)K1 1990-1993 228 BMW
(MC)K100 1984-1992 285 BMW
(MC)K1100, K1200 1993-1998 303 BMW
(MC)K75 1996 36 BMW
(MC)K75S 1987-1995 229 BMW
(MC)R1100 1994-1997 231 BMW
(MC)R1100 1998-2001 368 BMW
(MC)R1100RS 1994 177 BMW
(MC)R1150GS 2000 453 BMW
(MC)R1200C 1998-2001 359 BMW
(MC)R80, R100 1986-1995 295 Buell
(MC)All Models 1995-2002 399 Cadillac DeVille 1994-1999 300 Cadillac DeVille (manufactured 8/1/99-12/31/00) 2000 448 Cadillac Seville 1991 375 Cagiva Gran Canyon 900 motorcycle 1999 444 Carrocerias Cimarron trailer 2006-2007 37 Chevrolet 400SS 1995 150 Chevrolet Astro Van 1997 298 Chevrolet Blazer 1986 405 Chevrolet Blazer (plant code of “K” or “2” in the 11th position of the VIN) 1997 349 Chevrolet Blazer (plant code of “K” or “2” in the 11th position of the VIN) 2001 461 Chevrolet Camaro 1999 435 Chevrolet Cavalier 1997 369 Chevrolet Corvette 1992 365 Chevrolet Corvette Coupe 1999 419 Chevrolet Suburban 1989-1991 242 Chrysler Daytona 1992 344 Chrysler Grand Voyager 1998 373 Chrysler LHS (Mexican market) 1996 276 Chrysler Shadow (Middle Eastern market) 1989 216 Chrysler Town and Country 1993 273 Citroen XM 1990-1992 1 Daimler Limousine (LHD & RHD) 1985 12 Dodge Ram 1994-1995 135 Ducati
(MC)748 1999-2003 421 Ducati
(MC)900 2001 452 Ducati
(MC)916 1999-2003 421 Ducati
(MC)600SS 1992-1996 241 Ducati
(MC)748 Biposto 1996-1997 220 Ducati
(MC)900SS 1991-1996 201 Ducati
(MC)996 Biposto 1999-2001 475 Ducati
(MC)996R 2001-2002 398 Ducati
(MC)Monster 600 2001 407 Ducati
(MC)ST4S 1999-2005 474 Eagle Vision 1994 323 Ferrari 360 2001 376 Ferrari 456 1995 256 Ferrari 550 2001 377 Ferrari 575 2002-2003 415 Ferrari 208, 208 Turbo (all models) 1982-1988 76 Ferrari 308 (all models) 1982-1985 36 Ferrari 328 (all models) 1985 37 Ferrari 328 (all models) 1988-1989 37 Ferrari 328 GTS 1986-1987 37 Ferrari 348 TB 1992 86 Ferrari 348 TS 1992 161 Ferrari 360 (manufactured after 9/31/02) 2002 433 Ferrari 360 (manufactured before 9/1/02) 2002 402 Ferrari 360 Modena 1999-2000 327 Ferrari 360 Series 2004 446 Ferrari 360 Spider & Coupe 2003 410 Ferrari 456 GT & GTA 1999 445 Ferrari 456 GT & GTA 1997-1998 408 Ferrari 512 TR 1993 173 Ferrari 550 Marinello 1997-1999 292 Ferrari Enzo 2003-2004 436 Ferrari F355 1995 259 Ferrari F355 1999 391 Ferrari F355 1996-1998 355 Ferrari F430 (manufactured prior to 9/1/06) 2005-2006 479 Ferrari F50 1995 226 Ferrari GTO 1985 38 Ferrari Mondial (all models) 1982-1989 74 Ferrari Testarossa 1989 39 Ferrari Testarossa 1987-1988 39 Ford Bronco (manufactured in Venezuela) 1995-1996 265 Ford Escort (Nicaraguan market) 1996 322 Ford Escort RS Cosworth 1994-1995 9 Ford Explorer (manufactured in Venezuela) 1991-1998 268 Ford F150 2000 425 Ford Mustang 1993 367 Ford Mustang 1997 471 Ford Windstar 1995-1998 250 Freightliner FLD12064ST 1991-1996 179 Freightliner FTLD112064SD 1991-1996 178 GMC Suburban 1992-1994 134 Harley Davidson
(MC)FX, FL & XL 2006 491 Harley Davidson
(MC)FX, FL, XL Series 1998 253 Harley Davidson
(MC)FX, FL, XL Series 1999 281 Harley Davidson
(MC)FX, FL, XL Series 2000 321 Harley Davidson
(MC)FX, FL, XL Series 2001 362 Harley Davidson
(MC)FX, FL, XL Series 2002 372 Harley Davidson
(MC)FX, FL, XL Series 2003 393 Harley Davidson
(MC)FX, FL, XL Series 2004 422 Harley Davidson
(MC)FX, FL, XL Series 2005 472 Harley Davidson
(MC)FX, FL, XL Series 1982-1997 202 Harley Davidson
(MC)VRSCA 2002 374 Harley Davidson
(MC)VRSCA 2003 394 Harley Davidson
(MC)VRSCA 2004 422 Hatty 45 ft double axle trailer 1999-2000 38 Heku 750 KG boat trailer 2005 33 Hobby Exclusive 650 KMFE Trailer 2002-2003 29 Hobson Horse Trailer 1985 8 Honda Accord 1991 280 Honda Accord 1992-1999 319 Honda Accord (sedan & wagon (RHD)) 1994-1997 451 Honda Civic DX Hatchback 1989 128 Honda CRV 2002 447 Honda CR-V 2005 489 Honda Prelude 1989 191 Honda Prelude 1994-1997 309 Honda
(MC)CB 750 (CB750F2T) 1996 440 Honda
(MC)CB1000F 1988 106 Honda
(MC)CBR 250 1989-1994 22 Honda
(MC)CMX250C 1982-1987 348 Honda
(MC)CP450SC 1986 174 Honda
(MC)RVF 400 1994-2000 358 Honda
(MC)VF750 1994-1998 290 Honda
(MC)VFR 400 1994-2000 358 Honda
(MC)VFR 400, RVF 400 1989-1993 24 Honda
(MC)VFR750 1990 34 Honda
(MC)VFR750 1991-1997 315 Honda
(MC)VFR800 1998-1999 315 Honda
(MC)VT600 1991-1998 294 Hyundai Elantra 1992-1995 269 Hyundai XG350 2004 494 Jaguar Sovereign 1993 78 Jaguar S-Type 2000-2002 411 Jaguar XJ6 1984 41 Jaguar XJ6 1987 47 Jaguar XJ6 1982-1983 41 Jaguar XJ6 1985-1986 41 Jaguar XJ6 Sovereign 1988 215 Jaguar XJS 1991 175 Jaguar XJS 1992 129 Jaguar XJS 1982-1985 40 Jaguar XJS 1986-1987 40 Jaguar XJS 1994-1996 195 Jaguar XJS, XJ6 1988-1990 336 Jaguar XK-8 1998 330 Jeep Cherokee 1993 254 Jeep Cherokee (European market) 1991 211 Jeep Cherokee (LHD & RHD) 1994 493 Jeep Cherokee (LHD & RHD) 1995 180 Jeep Cherokee (LHD & RHD) 1996 493 Jeep Cherokee (Venezuelan market) 1992 164 Jeep Grand Cherokee 1994 404 Jeep Grand Cherokee 1997 431 Jeep Grand Cherokee 2001 382 Jeep Grand Cherokee (LHD—Japanese market) 1997 389 Jeep Liberty 2002 466 Jeep Liberty (Mexican market) 2004 457 Jeep Wrangler 1993 217 Jeep Wrangler 1995 255 Jeep Wrangler 1998 341 Kawasaki
(MC)EL250 1992-1994 233 Kawasaki
(MC)KZ550B 1982 190 Kawasaki
(MC)VN1500-P1/P2 series 2003 492 Kawasaki
(MC)ZX1000-B1 1988 182 Kawasaki
(MC)ZX400 1987-1997 222 Kawasaki
(MC)ZX6, ZX7, ZX9, ZX10, ZX11 1987-1999 312 Kawasaki
(MC)ZX600 1985-1998 288 Kawasaki
(MC)ZZR1100 1993-1998 247 Ken-Mex T800 1990-1996 187 Kenworth T800 1992 115 Komet Standard, Classic & Eurolite trailer 2000-2005 477 KTM
(MC)Duke II 1995-2000 363 Lamborghini Diablo (except 1997 coupe) 1996-1997 416 Lamborghini Diablo Coupe 1997 26 Lamborghini Gallardo (manufactured 1/1/04-12/31/04) 2004 458 Lamborghini Murcielago Roadster 2005 476 Land Rover Defender 110 1993 212 Land Rover Defender 90 (manufactured before 9/1/97) VIN “SALDV224*VA” or “SALDV324*VA” 1997 432 Land Rover Discovery 1994-1998 338 Land Rover Discovery
(II)2000 437 Lexus GS300 1998 460 Lexus GS300 1993-1996 293 Lexus RX300 1998-1999 307 Lexus SC300 1991-1996 225 Lexus SC400 1991-1996 225 Lincoln Mark VII 1992 144 Magni
(MC)Australia, Sfida 1996-1999 264 Maserati Bi-Turbo 1985 155 Mazda MPV 2000 413 Mazda MX-5 Miata 1990-1993 184 Mazda RX-7 1986 199 Mazda RX-7 1987-1995 279 Mazda Xedos 9 1995-2000 351 Mercedes Benz 190 201.022 1984 54 Mercedes Benz 200 124.020 1985 55 Mercedes Benz 200 123.220 1982-1985 52 Mercedes Benz 230 123.023 1982-1985 52 Mercedes Benz 250 123.026 1982-1983 52 Mercedes Benz 250 123.026 1984-1985 52 Mercedes Benz 280 123.030 1982-1985 52 Mercedes Benz 190 D 201.126 1984-1989 54 Mercedes Benz 190 D (2.2) 201.122 1984-1989 54 Mercedes Benz 190 E 201.024 1983 54 Mercedes Benz 190 E 201.029 1986 54 Mercedes Benz 190 E 201.024 1990 22 Mercedes Benz 190 E 201.024 1991 45 Mercedes Benz 190 E 201.028 1992 71 Mercedes Benz 190 E 201.018 1992 126 Mercedes Benz 190 E 1993 454 Mercedes Benz 190 E 201.034 1984-1985 54 Mercedes Benz 190 E 201.028 1986-1989 54 Mercedes Benz 190 E (2.3) 201.024 1984-1989 54 Mercedes Benz 190 E (2.6) 201.029 1987-1989 54 Mercedes Benz 190 E (2.6) 16 201.034 1986-1989 54 Mercedes Benz 200 D 124.120 1986 17 Mercedes Benz 200 D 123.120 1982 52 Mercedes Benz 200 E 124.021 1989 11 Mercedes Benz 200 E 124.012 1991 109 Mercedes Benz 200 E 124.019 1993 75 Mercedes Benz 200 TE 124.081 1989 3 Mercedes Benz 220 E 1993 168 Mercedes Benz 220 TE Station Wagon 1993-1996 167 Mercedes Benz 230 CE 124.043 1991 84 Mercedes Benz 230 CE 123.043 1992 203 Mercedes Benz 230 CE 123.243 1982-1984 52 Mercedes Benz 230 E 124.023 1988 1 Mercedes Benz 230 E 124.023 1989 20 Mercedes Benz 230 E 124.023 1990 19 Mercedes Benz 230 E 124.023 1991 74 Mercedes Benz 230 E 124.023 1993 127 Mercedes Benz 230 E 123.223 1982-1985 52 Mercedes Benz 230 E 124.023 1985-1987 55 Mercedes Benz 230 T 123.083 1982-1985 52 Mercedes Benz 230 TE 124.083 1985 55 Mercedes Benz 230 TE 124.083 1989 2 Mercedes Benz 230 TE 123.283 1982-1985 52 Mercedes Benz 240 D 123.123 1982-1985 52 Mercedes Benz 240 TD 123.183 1982-1985 52 Mercedes Benz 250 D 1992 172 Mercedes Benz 250 E 1990-1993 245 Mercedes Benz 260 E 124.026 1985 55 Mercedes Benz 260 E 124.026 1986 55 Mercedes Benz 260 E 124.026 1992 105 Mercedes Benz 260 E 124.026 1987-1989 55 Mercedes Benz 260 SE 126.020 1986 18 Mercedes Benz 260 SE 126.020 1989 28 Mercedes Benz 280 CE 123.053 1982-1985 52 Mercedes Benz 280 E 1993 166 Mercedes Benz 280 E 123.033 1982-1985 52 Mercedes Benz 280 S 126.021 1982-1983 53 Mercedes Benz 280 SE 126.022 1982-1985 53 Mercedes Benz 280 SE 116.024 1982-1988 51 Mercedes Benz 280 SEL 126.023 1982-1985 53 Mercedes Benz 280 SL 107.042 1982-1985 44 Mercedes Benz 280 TE 123.093 1982-1985 52 Mercedes Benz 300 CD 123.150 1982-1985 52 Mercedes Benz 300 CD 123.153 1982-1985 52 Mercedes Benz 300 CE 124.051 1990 64 Mercedes Benz 300 CE 124.051 1991 83 Mercedes Benz 300 CE 124.050 1992 117 Mercedes Benz 300 CE 124.061 1993 94 Mercedes Benz 300 CE 124.050 1988-1989 55 Mercedes Benz 300 D 123.133 1982-1985 52 Mercedes Benz 300 D 123.130 1982-1985 52 Mercedes Benz 300 D 124.130 1985-1986 55 Mercedes Benz 300 D Turbo 124.133 1985 55 Mercedes Benz 300 D Turbo 124.193 1986 55 Mercedes Benz 300 D Turbo 124.193 1987-1989 55 Mercedes Benz 300 DT 124.133 1986-1989 55 Mercedes Benz 300 E 124.030 1985 55 Mercedes Benz 300 E 124.031 1992 114 Mercedes Benz 300 E 124.030 1986-1989 55 Mercedes Benz 300 E 4-Matic 1990-1993 192 Mercedes Benz 300 SD 126.120 1982-1989 53 Mercedes Benz 300 SE 126.024 1985 53 Mercedes Benz 300 SE 126.024 1990 68 Mercedes Benz 300 SE 126.024 1986-1987 53 Mercedes Benz 300 SE 126.024 1988-1989 53 Mercedes Benz 300 SEL 126.025 1986 53 Mercedes Benz 300 SEL 126.025 1987 53 Mercedes Benz 300 SEL 126.025 1990 21 Mercedes Benz 300 SEL 126.025 1988-1989 53 Mercedes Benz 300 SL 107.041 1989 7 Mercedes Benz 300 SL 129.006 1992 54 Mercedes Benz 300 SL 107.041 1986-1988 44 Mercedes Benz 300 TD 123.190 1982-1985 52 Mercedes Benz 300 TD 123.193 1982-1985 52 Mercedes Benz 300 TE 124.090 1990 40 Mercedes Benz 300 TE 1992 193 Mercedes Benz 300 TE 124.090 1986-1989 55 Mercedes Benz 320 CE 1993 310 Mercedes Benz 320 SL 1992-1993 142 Mercedes Benz 380 SE 126.032 1982-1983 53 Mercedes Benz 380 SE 126.043 1982-1989 53 Mercedes Benz 380 SE 126.032 1984-1989 53 Mercedes Benz 380 SEL 126.033 1982-1989 53 Mercedes Benz 380 SL 107.045 1982-1989 44 Mercedes Benz 380 SLC 107.025 1982-1989 44 Mercedes Benz 400 SE 1992-1994 296 Mercedes Benz 420 E 1993 169 Mercedes Benz 420 SE 126.034 1985 53 Mercedes Benz 420 SE 126.034 1986 53 Mercedes Benz 420 SE 126.034 1987-1989 53 Mercedes Benz 420 SE 1990-1991 230 Mercedes Benz 420 SEC 1990 209 Mercedes Benz 420 SEL 126.035 1990 48 Mercedes Benz 420 SEL 126.035 1986-1989 53 Mercedes Benz 420 SL 107.047 1986 44 Mercedes Benz 450 SEL 116.033 1982-1988 51 Mercedes Benz 450 SEL (6.9) 116.036 1982-1988 51 Mercedes Benz 450 SL 107.044 1982-1989 44 Mercedes Benz 450 SLC 107.024 1982-1989 44 Mercedes Benz 500 E 124.036 1991 56 Mercedes Benz 500 SE 126.036 1988 35 Mercedes Benz 500 SE 1990 154 Mercedes Benz 500 SE 140.050 1991 26 Mercedes Benz 500 SE 126.036 1982-1986 53 Mercedes Benz 500 SEC 126.044 1990 66 Mercedes Benz 500 SEC 126.044 1982-1983 53 Mercedes Benz 500 SEC 126.044 1984-1989 53 Mercedes Benz 500 SEL 1990 153 Mercedes Benz 500 SEL 126.037 1991 63 Mercedes Benz 500 SEL 126.037 1982-1983 53 Mercedes Benz 500 SEL 126.037 1984-1989 53 Mercedes Benz 500 SL 107.046 1982 44 Mercedes Benz 500 SL 107.046 1983 44 Mercedes Benz 500 SL 129.066 1989 23 Mercedes Benz 500 SL 126.066 1991 33 Mercedes Benz 500 SL 129.006 1992 60 Mercedes Benz 500 SL 107.046 1984-1985 44 Mercedes Benz 500 SL 107.046 1986-1989 44 Mercedes Benz 560 SEC 126.045 1990 141 Mercedes Benz 560 SEC 1991 333 Mercedes Benz 560 SEC 126.045 1986-1989 53 Mercedes Benz 560 SEL 126.039 1990 89 Mercedes Benz 560 SEL 140 1991 469 Mercedes Benz 560 SEL 126.039 1986-1989 53 Mercedes Benz 560 SL 107.048 1986-1989 44 Mercedes Benz 600 SEC Coupe 1993 185 Mercedes Benz 600 SEL 140.057 1993-1998 271 Mercedes Benz 600 SL 129.076 1992 121 Mercedes Benz All other passenger car models except Model ID 114 and 115 with sales designations “long,” “station wagon,” or “ambulance” 1982-1989 77 Mercedes Benz C 320 203 2001-2002 441 Mercedes Benz C Class 1994-1999 331 Mercedes Benz C Class 203 2000-2001 456 Mercedes Benz CL 500 1998 277 Mercedes Benz CL 500 1999-2001 370 Mercedes Benz CL 600 1999-2001 370 Mercedes Benz CLK 320 1998 357 Mercedes Benz CLK Class 1999-2001 380 Mercedes Benz CLK Class 209 2002-2005 478 Mercedes Benz E 200 1994 207 Mercedes Benz E 200 1995-1998 278 Mercedes Benz E 220 1994-1996 168 Mercedes Benz E 250 1994-1995 245 Mercedes Benz E 280 1994-1996 166 Mercedes Benz E 320 1994-1998 240 Mercedes Benz E 320 211 2002-2003 418 Mercedes Benz E 320 Station Wagon 1994-1999 318 Mercedes Benz E 420 1994-1996 169 Mercedes Benz E 500 1994 163 Mercedes Benz E 500 1995-1997 304 Mercedes Benz E Class W210 1996-2002 401 Mercedes Benz E Class 211 2003-2004 429 Mercedes Benz E Series 1991-1995 354 Mercedes Benz G-Wagon 463 1996 11 Mercedes Benz G-Wagon 463 1997 15 Mercedes Benz G-Wagon 463 1998 16 Mercedes Benz G-Wagon 463 1999-2000 18 Mercedes Benz G-Wagon 300 463.228 1993 3 Mercedes Benz G-Wagon 300 463.228 1994 5 Mercedes Benz G-Wagon 300 463.228 1990-1992 5 Mercedes Benz G-Wagon 320 LWB 463 1995 6 Mercedes Benz G-Wagon 5 DR LWB 463 2001 21 Mercedes Benz G-Wagon 5 DR LWB 463 2002 392 Mercedes Benz G-Wagon LWB V-8 463 1992-1996 13 Mercedes Benz G-Wagon SWB 463 2005 31 Mercedes Benz G-Wagon SWB 463 1990-1996 14 Mercedes Benz G-Wagon SWB Cabriolet & 3DR 463 2004 28 Mercedes Benz G-Wagon SWB Cabriolet & 3DR 463 2001-2003 25 Mercedes Benz G-Wagon SWB Cabriolet & 3DR (manufactured before 9/1/06) 463 2005 35 Mercedes Benz Maybach 2004 486 Mercedes Benz S 280 140.028 1994 85 Mercedes Benz S 320 1994-1998 236 Mercedes Benz S 420 1994-1997 267 Mercedes Benz S 500 1994-1997 235 Mercedes Benz S 500 2000-2001 371 Mercedes Benz S 600 1995-1999 297 Mercedes Benz S 600 2000-2001 371 Mercedes Benz S 600 Coupe 1994 185 Mercedes Benz S 600L 1994 214 Mercedes Benz S Class 1993 395 Mercedes Benz S Class 140 1991-1994 423 Mercedes Benz S Class 1995-1998 342 Mercedes Benz S Class 1998-1999 325 Mercedes Benz S Class W220 1999-2002 387 Mercedes Benz S Class 220 2002-2004 442 Mercedes Benz SE Class 1992-1994 343 Mercedes Benz SEL Class 140 1992-1994 343 Mercedes Benz SL Class 1993-1996 329 Mercedes Benz SL Class W129 1997-2000 386 Mercedes Benz SL Class R230 2001-2002 19 Mercedes Benz SL Class (European market) 230 2003-2005 470 Mercedes Benz SLK 1997-1998 257 Mercedes Benz SLK 2000-2001 381 Mercedes Benz (truck) Sprinter 2001-2005 468 Mini Cooper (European market) Convertible 2005 482 Mitsubishi Galant Super Salon 1989 13 Mitsubishi Galant VX 1988 8 Mitsubishi Pajero 1984 170 Moto Guzzi
(MC)California EV 2002 403 Moto Guzzi
(MC)Daytona 1993 118 Moto Guzzi
(MC)Daytona RS 1996-1999 264 MV Agusta
(MC)F4 2000 420 Nissan 240SX 1988 162 Nissan 300ZX 1984 198 Nissan GTS & GTR
(RHD)a.k.a. “Skyline” manufactured 1/96-6/98 R33 1996-1998 32 Nissan Maxima 1989 138 Nissan Pathfinder 2002 412 Nissan Pathfinder 1987-1995 316 Nissan Stanza 1987 139 Peugeot 405 1989 65 Plymouth Voyager 1996 353 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am 1995 481 Pontiac
(MPV)Trans Sport 1993 189 Porsche 911 1997-2000 346 Porsche 928 1991-1996 266 Porsche 928 1993-1998 272 Porsche 944 1982-1983 61 Porsche 911
(996)Carrera 2002-2004 439 Porsche 911
(996)GT3 2004 438 Porsche 911 C4 1990 29 Porsche 911 Cabriolet 1984-1989 56 Porsche 911 Carrera 1993 165 Porsche 911 Carrera 1994 103 Porsche 911 Carrera 1982-1989 56 Porsche 911 Carrera 1995-1996 165 Porsche 911 Carrera 2 & Carrera 4 1992 52 Porsche 911 Coupe 1982-1989 56 Porsche 911 Targa 1982-1989 56 Porsche 911 Turbo 1992 125 Porsche 911 Turbo 2001 347 Porsche 911 Turbo 1982-1989 56 Porsche 924 Coupe 1982-1989 59 Porsche 924 S 1987-1989 59 Porsche 924 Turbo Coupe 1982-1989 59 Porsche 928 Coupe 1982-1989 60 Porsche 928 GT 1982-1989 60 Porsche 928 S Coupe 1983-1989 60 Porsche 928 S4 1990 210 Porsche 928 S4 1982-1989 60 Porsche 944 Coupe 1984-1989 61 Porsche 944 S Cabriolet 1990 97 Porsche 944 S Coupe 1987-1989 61 Porsche 944 S2 (2-door Hatchback) 1990 152 Porsche 944 Turbo Coupe 1985-1989 61 Porsche 946 Turbo 1994 116 Porsche All other passenger car models except Model 959 1982-1989 79 Porsche Boxster 1997-2001 390 Porsche Boxster (manufactured before 9/1/02) 2002 390 Porsche Carrera GT 2004-2005 463 Porsche Cayenne 2003-2004 464 Porsche GT2 2001 20 Porsche GT2 2002 388 Rolls Royce Bentley 1987-1989 340 Rolls Royce Bentley Brooklands 1993 186 Rolls Royce Bentley Continental R 1990-1993 258 Rolls Royce Bentley Turbo 1986 53 Rolls Royce Bentley Turbo R 1995 243 Rolls Royce Bentley Turbo R 1992-1993 291 Rolls Royce Camargue 1984-1985 122 Rolls Royce Corniche 1982-1985 339 Rolls Royce Phantom 2004 455 Rolls Royce Silver Spur 1984 188 Saab 9.3 2003 426 Saab 900 1983 158 Saab 9000 1988 59 Saab 9000 1994 334 Saab 900 S 1987-1989 270 Saab 900 SE 1995 213 Saab 900 SE 1990-1994 219 Saab 900 SE 1996-1997 219 Smart Car Fortwo coupe & cabriolet (incl. trim levels passion, pulse, & pure) 2005 30 Smart Car Fortwo coupe & cabriolet (incl. trim levels passion, pulse, & pure) 2002-2004 27 Smart Car Fortwo coupe & cabriolet (incl. trim levels passion, pulse, & pure) manufactured before 9/1/06 2006 34 Smart Car Fortwo coupe & cabriolet (incl. trim levels passion, pulse, & pure) manufactured before 9/1/06 2007 39 Suzuki
(MC)GS 850 1985 111 Suzuki
(MC)GSF 750 1996-1998 287 Suzuki
(MC)GSX 750 1983 208 Suzuki
(MC)GSX1300R a.k.a. “Hayabusa” 1999-2006 484 Suzuki
(MC)GSX-R 1100 1986-1997 227 Suzuki
(MC)GSX-R 750 1986-1998 275 Suzuki
(MC)GSX-R 750 1999-2003 417 Toyota 4-Runner 1998 449 Toyota Avalon 1995-1998 308 Toyota Camry 1989 39 Toyota Camry 1987-1988 63 Toyota Celica 1987-1988 64 Toyota Corolla 1987-1988 65 Toyota Land Cruiser 1989 101 Toyota Land Cruiser 1982-1988 252 Toyota Land Cruiser 1990-1996 218 Toyota MR2 1990-1991 324 Toyota Previa 1991-1992 326 Toyota Previa 1993-1997 302 Toyota RAV4 1996 328 Toyota RAV4 2005 480 Toyota Van 1987-1988 200 Triumph
(MC)Thunderbird 1995-1999 311 Triumph
(MC)TSS 1982 409 Vespa
(MC)ET2, ET4 2001-2002 378 Volkswagen Eurovan 1993-1994 306 Volkswagen Golf 1987 159 Volkswagen Golf 1988 80 Volkswagen Golf III 1993 92 Volkswagen Golf Rallye 1988 73 Volkswagen Golf Rallye 1989 467 Volkswagen GTI (Canadian market) 1991 149 Volkswagen Jetta 1994-1996 274 Volkswagen Passat Wagon & Sedan 1982 488 Volkswagen Passat 4-door Sedan 1992 148 Volkswagen Scirocco 1986 42 Volkswagen Transporter 1990 251 Volkswagen Transporter 1986-1987 490 Volkswagen Transporter 1988-1989 284 Volvo 740 GL 1992 137 Volvo 740 Sedan 1988 87 Volvo 850 Turbo 1995-1998 286 Volvo 940 GL 1992 137 Volvo 940 GL 1993 95 Volvo 945 GL Wagon 1994 132 Volvo 960 Sedan & Wagon 1994 176 Volvo C70 2000 434 Volvo S70 1998-2000 335 Yamaha
(MC)FJ1200 (4 CR) 1991 113 Yamaha
(MC)FJR 1300 2002 23 Yamaha
(MC)R1 2000 360 Yamaha
(MC)RD-350 1983 171 Yamaha
(MC)Virago 1990-1998 301 Issued on: September 24, 2007. Ronald L. Medford, Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety. [FR Doc. E7-19118 Filed 9-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P 72 187 Thursday, September 27, 2007 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 18 CFR Parts 158 and 260 [Docket No. RM07-9-000] Revisions to Forms, Statements, and Reporting Requirements for Natural Gas Pipelines September 20, 2007. AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. SUMMARY: In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) proposes to amend its financial forms, statements, and reports for natural gas companies, contained in FERC Form Nos. 2, 2-A and 3-Q. The proposed revisions reflect the fact that in the present regulatory environment, where interstate natural gas pipelines are no longer required to file a triennial restatement of rates, and the number of filed rate cases has declined sharply, FERC Form Nos. 2, 2-A, and 3-Q need to be expanded and otherwise revised in order for the Commission and the public to have sufficient information to assess the justness and reasonableness of pipeline rates. The proposed changes will enhance the forms' usefulness by updating them to reflect current market and cost information relevant to interstate natural gas pipelines and their customers. In addition, the Commission proposes to eliminate FERC Form No. 11. DATES: Comments must be filed on or before November 13, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. RM07-9-000, by one of the following methods: • *Agency Web site: http://www.ferc.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments via the eFiling link found in the Comment Procedures Section of the preamble. • *Mail:* Commenters unable to file comments electronically must mail or hand deliver an original and 14 copies of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Please refer to the Comment Procedures Section of the preamble for additional information on how to file paper comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Veloso (Technical Information), Forms Administration and Data Branch, Division of Financial Regulation, Office of Enforcement, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, Telephone:
(202)502-8363, E-mail: *michelle.veloso@ferc.gov.* Scott Molony (Technical Information), Regulatory Accounting Branch, Division of Financial Regulation, Office of Enforcement, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, Telephone:
(202)502-8919, E-mail: *scott.molony@ferc.gov.* Jane E. Stelck (Legal Information), Office of Enforcement, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, Telephone:
(202)502-6648, E-mail: *jane.stelck@ferc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction 1. The Commission proposes to amend its forms, reports and statements for natural gas companies. 1 Specifically, the Commission proposes changes to FERC Form No. 2 (Form 2), Annual report for major natural gas companies, 2 FERC Form No. 2-A (Form 2-A), Annual report for nonmajor natural gas companies, 3 and FERC Form No. 3-Q (Form 3-Q), Quarterly financial report of electric utilities, licensees and natural gas companies. 4 The Commission is proposing the changes to improve the forms, reports and statements to provide, in greater detail, the information the Commission needs to carry out its responsibilities under the Natural Gas Act
(NGA)to ensure that rates are just and reasonable, and to provide pipeline customers, state commissions, and the public the information they need to assess the justness and reasonableness of pipeline rates. The proposed changes would require pipelines to provide additional information regarding their sources of revenue and amounts included in rate base, and identify costs related to affiliate transactions, incremental facilities, and discounted and negotiated rates. They would be effective January 1, 2008. Accordingly, companies subject to the new requirements would file their new Form 3-Q beginning with the first quarter of 2009 and their new Forms 2 and 2-A in 2009 for calendar year 2008. Finally, the Commission proposes to eliminate the requirement to file FERC Form No. 11 (Form 11) and to extend the period of time to May 18 of the year following the submittal of annual and quarterly forms to file the Report of Certification. 5 1 Section 10 of the NGA, 15 U.S.C. 717g (1988), authorizes the Commission to prescribe rules and regulations concerning annual and other periodic or special reports, as necessary or appropriate for purposes of administering the NGA. The Commission may prescribe the manner and form in which such reports are to be made, and require from natural gas companies specific answers to all questions on which the Commission may need information. 2 18 CFR 260.1. 3 18 CFR 260.2. 4 18 CFR 260.300. 5 *See* 18 CFR 158.11. The Commission is concurrently issuing a Notice of Inquiry
(NOI)in Docket No. RM07-20-000, titled Fuel Retention Practices of Natural Gas Pipelines, seeking comments on several specific proposals for natural gas pipeline rate recovery of fuel and lost and unaccounted-for gas. The NOI addresses Commission policy regarding the method of cost recovery used by pipelines and seeks comments on whether that policy should be changed. While the instant proposed rulemaking in Docket RM07-9-000 addresses changes to the Commission's financial forms, the NOI addresses the method of recovery of fuel and seeks comments on whether it should change the current policy and prescribe a uniform recovery method for all pipelines. Therefore, there is no conflict between the two proposals. II. Background A. General 2. The Commission strives to ensure that its reporting requirements keep pace with the evolution of the natural gas industry. Before the advent of Order No. 636 and its progeny, interstate natural gas pipeline companies provided both sales and transportation services. 6 Gas costs were entered into a purchased gas adjustment
(PGA)account and were periodically adjusted and passed through to customers. The quid pro quo for the ability to recover the gas costs through a PGA tracker was the requirement that the pipelines file to restate their rates every three years. The PGA regulations, and the triennial filing requirement therein, were eliminated when the Commission issued a Final Rule that changed pipeline filing and reporting requirements in the post-Order No. 636 environment. 7 6 *See Pipeline Service Obligations and Revisions to Regulations Governing Self-Implementing Transportation; and Regulation of Natural Gas Pipelines After Partial Wellhead Decontrol,* Order No. 636, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,939, *order on reh'g,* Order No. 636-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,950, *order on reh'g,* Order No. 636-B, 61 FERC ¶ 61,272 (1992), *order on reh'g,* 62 FERC ¶ 61,007 (1993), *aff'd in part and remanded in part sub nom.* *United Distribution Cos.* v. *FERC,* 88 F.3d 1105 (D.C. Cir. 1996), *order on remand,* Order No. 636-C, 78 FERC ¶ 61,186 (1997). 7 *Filing and Reporting Requirements for Interstate Natural Gas Company Rate Schedules and Tariffs,* FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,025 (1995). 3. In Order No. 636, the Commission restructured pipeline services and required pipelines to unbundle their sales and transportation services. Accordingly, shippers were able to buy gas at the wellhead or from gas marketers, and purchase pipeline capacity from other shippers in the secondary market, as well as from the pipeline. Order No. 636 authorized pipelines to make unbundled commodity sales at market-based rates at the wellhead because it concluded that, after unbundling, sellers of short-term or long-term gas supplies (whether pipelines or other sellers) would not have market power over the sale of natural gas. 4. In 1995, in Order No. 581, the Commission issued a Final Rule revising the filing and reporting requirements for interstate natural gas pipeline companies to reflect the changed regulatory environment of unbundled pipeline sales for resale at market-based prices and open-access transportation of natural gas. 8 The Commission eliminated outdated reporting requirements but revised Forms 2 and 2-A to provide financial, rate, and statistical information on transactions that it deemed more useful in monitoring the restructured industry. 9 8 *Revisions to Uniform System of Accounts, Forms, Statements, and Reporting Requirements for Natural Gas Companies,* Order No. 581, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,026 (1995), *order on reh'g,* Order No. 581-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,032 (1996). 9 *Id.* 5. In 2000, in Order No. 637, the Commission again amended its regulations in response to the growing development of more competitive markets for natural gas and the transportation of natural gas. 10 The rule revised the Commission's regulatory approach to pipeline pricing by permitting pipelines to propose peak/off-peak and term differentiated rate structures. Although the rule did not change the financial forms, it required pipelines to provide additional data on their Web sites, including:
(1)Information regarding the pipeline's capacity and released capacity transactions, including names of parties to the contract, rate charged, and receipt and delivery points; and,
(2)information concerning market affiliates, including an organizational chart showing the structure of the parent corporation and the position within that structure of all affiliates. These additional reporting requirements were designed to provide more transparent pricing information and to permit more effective monitoring for the exercise of market power and undue discrimination. 11 10 *Regulation of Short-Term Natural Gas Transportation Services, and Regulation of Interstate Natural Gas Transportation Services,* Order No. 637, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,091, clarified, Order No. 637-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,099, *reh'g denied,* Order No. 637-B, 92 FERC ¶ 61,062 (2000), *aff'd in part and remanded in part sub nom. Interstate Natural Gas Ass'n of America* v. *FERC,* 285 F.3d 18 (D.C. Cir. 2002), *order on remand,* 101 FERC ¶ 61,127 (2002), order on reh'g, 106 FERC ¶ 61,088 (2004), *aff'd sub nom. American Gas Ass'n* v. *FERC,* 428 F.3d 255 (D.C. Cir. 2005). 11 *Id. See also* 18 CFR 284.13. 6. Since the Commission eliminated the triennial restatement of rates filing requirement in Order No. 636, there has been a decline in filings under NGA section 4. 12 Of course, the Commission may, on its own motion, institute an investigation under NGA section 5 to determine if pipeline rates are just and reasonable. 13 The Commission relies also on section 5 complaints, which may be filed by state public utility commissions or pipeline customers, to review gas rates outside of a section 4 rate proceeding. In a section 5 proceeding, the complainant has the burden of proof and must have access to the information needed to meet that burden. A section 5 complaint may rely on Forms 2, 2-A, and 3-Q financial data and that data must be sufficient to support a complaint. 12 15 U.S.C. 717c. 13 15 U.S.C. 717d. 7. Within the past year, two section 5 complaints were filed with the Commission, both relying on data provided in Forms 2 and 2-A to argue that the pipelines' rates were unjust and unreasonable. 14 In *National Fuel,* the complainants contended that it had been 11 years since the Commission had reviewed National Fuel's rates and that during that time the rates had become unjust and unreasonable. 15 Relying upon Forms 2 and 3-Q data, the complainants prepared an analysis for the most recent three-year period, which allegedly demonstrated significant excess revenue and an equity return near 20 percent. 16 National Fuel argued in response to the complaint that the Form 2 data relied upon by the complainants was not sufficient and that only a detailed cost and revenue study could provide justification for an investigation into a pipeline's rates under NGA section 5. Complainants acknowledged that the lack of certain data in Form 2 hindered the performance of a full rate analysis, but argued that the complaint, nonetheless, presented evidence sufficient to initiate an investigation of National Fuel's rates. 17 14 *Public Service Commission of New York, Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission and Pennsylvania Office of Consumer Advocate* v. *National Fuel Gas Supply Corp.,* 115 FERC ¶ 61,299
(2006)(National Fuel), *order approving uncontested settlement,* 118 FERC ¶ 61,091 (2007); *Panhandle Complainants* v. *Southwest Gas Storage Co.,* 117 FERC ¶ 61,318
(2006)(Southwest Gas). 15 *National Fuel* at P 7. 16 *Id.* 17 Motion for Leave to Answer and Answer of the Joint State Agencies to National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation's Answer to Complaint at 6. 8. In its order setting the case for hearing, the Commission found that the complainants had raised serious questions as to whether the rates established in 1995 settlements allowed National Fuel to recover revenue substantially in excess of its costs. 18 The Commission rejected National Fuel's contention that a detailed cost and revenue study is the sole means of justifying an investigation into a pipeline's rates under section 5, and that Form 2 data could provide the starting point for such an investigation. 19 However, the Commission denied complainants' request for summary disposition, noting that data extrapolated from Form 2 was, in some cases, unclear and not adequate to support a summary disposition. 20 18 *National Fuel* at P 37. 19 *Id.* 20 *Id.* at P 42. 9. On December 21, 2006, the Commission set for hearing another complaint filed by a group of customers that contended that Southwest Gas' rates had not been reviewed in 17 years and that during that time, the rates had become unjust and unreasonable. 21 Complainants submitted a cost and revenue study using information from Southwest Gas' Form 2-A, which allegedly demonstrated that the pipeline was earning a return on equity as high as 32 percent. 22 The complainants sought an immediate rate reduction and a hearing. The Commission found that the complainants' rate study did not support an immediate rate reduction, but set the matter for hearing. 23 21 *See Southwest Gas,* 117 FERC at P 1. 22 *Id.* 23 *Id.* at P 19. 10. Against this backdrop, Commission staff initiated a review of Forms 1, 1-F, 2, 2-A, and 3-Q data in the fall of 2006. As part of this review, staff met with both filers and users of annual and quarterly reports for the purpose of reexamining the breadth of data collected by the forms and to determine the need for additional information, deletions, or other clarifications. Thereafter, on February 15, 2007, the Commission issued a Notice of Inquiry (NOI). 24 24 *Assessment of Information Requirements for FERC Financial Forms, Notice of Inquiry,* 72 FR 8316 (February 26, 2007), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 35,554 (2007). While the outreach meetings addressed only Forms 1 and 2, the NOI invited comments from filers and users of Form 6 and 6-Q as well. B. Notice of Inquiry 11. In the NOI, the Commission sought comment on the need for changes or additions to the financial information reported in the Commission's quarterly and annual financial reports, FERC Form Nos. 1, 1-F, 2, 2-A, 3-Q, 6 and 6-Q applicable to the electric utility, natural gas, and oil pipeline industries. Specifically, the Commission asked commenters to address the question of whether the Commission's financial reports provide sufficient information to the public to permit an evaluation of the filers' jurisdictional rates, and whether these forms should otherwise be modified. The NOI posed 12 general questions and also invited commenters to raise other questions or issues that might aid the Commission's assessment of the forms. 25 The 12 questions are listed in Appendix B to this order. 25 NOI at P 16. 12. On March 28, 2007, the Commission received 35 comments from FERC Form Nos. 1, 1-F, 2, 2-A, 3-Q, 6 and 6-Q users and jurisdictional entities that file the reports. 26 On April 27, 2007, 15 reply comments were filed. After reviewing the comments, the Commission has determined that each of the forms merits its own separate review. Addressing changes or amendments to all of the forms that serve the electric, gas, and oil pipeline industries in a single proceeding, would be an unwieldy task with the potential to cause confusion among the industries, which could delay the Commission's action. Accordingly, this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NOPR)addresses changes, additions, and amendments to the forms applicable to natural gas companies—Forms 2, 2-A, and 3-Q. Potential changes or amendments to the annual and quarterly forms applicable to electric utilities and oil pipelines, Forms 1, 1-F, 6 and 6-Q will be addressed in future orders. 26 Parties who filed comments and reply comments are listed on Appendix C. C. Comments to Notice of Inquiry 13. As noted, the Commission received 35 comments and 15 reply comments in response to the NOI. Eleven initial comments and two reply comments specifically address Forms 2, 2-A, and 3-Q data. 27 Not surprisingly, as a general matter, pipeline customers and state commissions support revising the forms and pipelines oppose revisions that would require filing additional information. The Industry Coalition urges the Commission to revise Form 2 to require additional detail which, in their view, would permit a proper evaluation of pipelines' cost-based rates and ensure that those rates are just and reasonable. 28 The Industry Coalition asks the Commission to require greater detail in several areas:
(1)Capital structure;
(2)deferred taxes;
(3)gas purchases and sales;
(4)state income tax rates;
(5)miscellaneous assets;
(6)corporate overhead costs;
(7)volumes and revenues associated with discounted and negotiated rate services;
(8)revenues and costs associated with at-risk facilities; and
(9)calculation of the rate of return. 29 27 In some instances, comments were filed which addressed more than one financial form. 28 Initial Comments of the Industry Coalition at 4. The Industry Coalition is comprised of the American Public Gas Association, the Independent Petroleum Association of America, the Natural Gas Supply Association, and the Process Gas Consumers Group. 29 *See* Industry Coalition Comments at 5-6. 14. In addition, the Industry Coalition states that it has attempted to quantify the burdens and benefits associated with each proposal and estimates that the burden associated with providing the additional material would be low to moderate. The Industry Coalition also asks the Commission to require types of information contained in Form 2 to be replicated in the quarterly Form 3-Q, to the extent possible. In addition, the Coalition suggests changes specific to Form 3-Q, including
(1)a separate report of fuel used for operation and maintenance; and
(2)information that is consistent with page 520 of Form 2 related to fuel use. 15. Several state agencies, including the New York State Public Service Commission (NYPSC), the Kansas Corporation Commission (KCC), the Missouri Public Service Commission (MoPSC), and the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO), filed comments recommending changes to the forms. The KCC claims that current Form 2 data is inadequate and advocates the reinstatement of a periodic rate refiling requirement in the three to five year range. 30 In the absence of such a requirement, the KCC suggests specific changes to Form 2 which are similar, in part, to the changes recommended by the Industry Coalition. KCC's proposals include the following:
(1)Calculation of the pipeline's rate of return;
(2)identification of which components of deferred tax and regulatory asset and liability balances are included in rate base;
(3)detail on miscellaneous current and accrued assets;
(4)detail concerning gas purchase and sales accounts;
(5)detail concerning corporate administrative costs;
(6)identification of revenues associated with negotiated rate contracts and with at-risk facilities; and
(7)information concerning the pipeline's capital structure. 31 PUCO requests that debt accounts balances for Form 2 be shown separately for each debt issuance and asks the Commission to make the data available in electronic format that can be compared and analyzed electronically. 32 30 KCC Comments at 4. For purposes of this NOPR, the term “at-risk” facilities has the same meaning as “incremental” facilities. 31 *Id.* at 7. 32 PUCO Comments at 3. 16. The NYPSC asserts that currently the forms contain no information related to affiliate transactions and recommends that utilities be required to describe and quantify each type of affiliate transaction, similar to the requirements adopted in Form 60 for service companies and recommends that a schedule, modeled on Schedule XVI, be added to Form 2. 33 The NYPSC also recommends that each company report its contributions to other post-employment benefits and pension funds. 34 As an alternative to a cost and revenue study, the NYPSC recommends that the Commission require pipelines to provide a more detailed breakdown of Accounts 480-484 Sales, according to revenues and quantities of gas that comprise each sale. 35 The NYPSC also asks that pipelines provide additional detailed information, such as billing determinants for each rate schedule, the separate identification of revenues and costs associated with trackers or special surcharges, and the amount of deferred taxes included in rate base for cost-of-service purposes. 36 33 NYPSC Comments at 6. 34 *Id.* at 7. 35 *Id.* at 9. 36 *Id.* at 10-11. 17. MoPSC suggests that several accounts in Form 2, not currently required for Form 2-A filers, be added to Form 2-A, including detail of miscellaneous current accrued liabilities; detail of revenues from gathering, transmission, and storage; miscellaneous general expense; and charges for outside consultative services. 37 For all of these accounts, the Form 2 has a threshold reporting requirement of $250,000. MoPSC requests that the schedules be included in Form 2-A and that the threshold for reporting be lowered to $50,000 or $100,000. 38 37 Comments of MoPSC at 5-8. 38 Comments of MoPSC at 7-8. 18. Comments opposing revisions, in part or in whole, to the annual and quarterly financial reports were filed by the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA), the American Gas Association (AGA), Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, L.P. (Boardwalk), Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co. (Williston), and Washington Gas Light Company (Washington Gas). INGAA urges the Commission to balance the amount of information it needs in periodic reports for the purpose of administering section 5 against the burden it places on the pipelines. INGAA contends that the information now provided in both Forms 2 and 2-A is sufficient for the Commission's responsibilities under the NGA. INGAA notes that in two recent decisions, the Commission relied on Forms 2 and 2-A data to initiate an investigation of pipeline rates under section 5. 39 In addition, INGAA asserts that pipelines file other reports or postings that provide information supplemental to Form 2, including posting an index of customers and identifying contracts with negotiated rates. INGAA also contends that pipeline Web sites provide information on pipeline capacity and discounts awarded. 40 INGAA states that the Commission should be careful that an expanded Form 2 does not blur the distinction between sections 4 and 5, thus shifting the burden of proof established under section 5. 41 Finally, INGAA suggests that the Commission should be wary of converting Form 2 from a financial reporting document to the equivalent of an annual cost and revenue study. 42 INGAA states that any proposal that would require additional information not collected in accord with the Uniform System of Accounts, or reported in a different format, will result in additional regulatory burdens. 39 INGAA Initial Comments at 5; *National Fuel,* 115 FERC ¶ 61,299, *on reconsideration,* 115 FERC ¶ 61,368
(2006)and *Southwest Gas,* 117 FERC ¶ 61,318 (2006). 40 *Id.* at 6. 41 *Id.* at 6-7, (citing *Public Service Comm'n* v. *FERC,* 866 F.2d 487, 490-91 (D.C. Cir. 1989)). 42 *Id.* at 7. 19. Williston Basin, Boardwalk Pipeline, AGA, and Washington Gas concur with INGAA that Form 2 data, as now filed, provides sufficient information to allow users to evaluate pipeline rates. The commenters echo INGAA's concern that the current Form 2 not be transformed into a cost and revenue study, and that pipelines not be required to file an annual mini-rate case, thereby reversing the statutory burden of proof for section 5. 43 Williston Basin suggests several technical revisions and requests that the Commission discontinue the Form 11 and incorporate that information in the Form 3-Q. 44 Washington Gas states that Form 2 should remain as it is, and that if the Commission determines that more information is needed to monitor rates, a new form for reporting this ratemaking information should be created. 45 43 Boardwalk Pipeline Comments at 5. 44 Williston Basin Comments at 6-7. 45 Washington Gas Comments at 3. 20. Only INGAA and Williston Basin filed reply comments. Both commenters reiterate the assertion that the information contained in Forms 2 and 3-Q is sufficient to allow the Commission and other users to adequately evaluate pipeline rates. 46 In response to the KCC's complaint that pipeline rate filings have declined since the end of the triennial rate review, INGAA asserts that pipeline rate filings continue to be made. 47 INGAA further asserts that the elimination of triennial rate review has had beneficial effects:
(1)Customer settlements now dictate the timing of pipeline rate cases;
(2)repeal of the triennial rate review is an incentive for controlling and reducing pipeline costs;
(3)pipeline rates have remained stable for the last decade and have actually gone down in real (inflation adjusted) dollars; and
(4)the quality of pipeline service has improved due to the increased flexibility provided by Order No. 637. 48 46 Williston Basin Reply Comments at 2; INGAA Reply Comments at 2. 47 *Id.* at 7. 48 *Id.* at 8-9. 21. INGAA's reply comments also address specific proposals or requests for information made by the Industry Coalition, the NYPSC, the KCC, and MoPSC. 49 INGAA argues that: 49 *Id.* at 9. • Some requests, *e.g.* , more detailed information on deferred taxes and identification of the appropriate capital structure, would require filers to make the sort of subjective judgment that is involved in a litigated rate case, 50 50 *Id.* at 10. • The forms are currently designed to report what has actually occurred, and not to make projections based on the data, 51 51 *Id.* at 1. • Requiring a rate of return calculation and the detail requested on gas purchases would turn Form 2 into a mini-rate case, • Other sources of information are available to the public, *e.g.* , pipelines' operational sales and purchase reports and fuel tracker filings, 52 52 *Id.* at 4-5. • If the Commission needs additional information from time to time, that need can be met through the Commission's audit authority on a case-by-case basis, 53 53 *Id.* at 3. • Commenters may review pipelines' operational sales and purchase reports, cashout reconciliation reports and fuel tracker filings, all of which are routinely filed by pipelines, 54 54 *Id.* at 13-14. • Pipelines already provide details of their effective income tax rate, and such details are disclosed in the Notes to Financial Statements and include the total dollar amount for taxes broken down between current and deferred taxes, and • Other items, such as the calculation of the income tax of a particular state changing from a tax based on net income to a tax based on gross receipts are burdensome to calculate and subjective. 55 55 *Id.* at 15-16. 22. INGAA states that its members have no objection to identifying the entity whose capital structure is now reported on page 218a of Form 2, which provides a computation of the allowance for funds used during construction (AFUDC), but requiring the pipeline to state whether it believes this number is appropriate for a rate case would require the pipeline to speculate on a potentially contentious issue in a fully litigated rate case. 56 Generally, INGAA contends that the information provided in all of the areas identified by the Industry Coalition and others is already burdensome, and that the information sought is, in many instances, available elsewhere, *e.g.* , in the pipelines' index of customers and other information posted on pipelines' Web sites. 57 INGAA further argues that the proposal to require pipelines to identify costs and revenues associated with at-risk facilities could essentially impose a cost and revenue study obligation for these facilities and should not be required outside of a section 4 or 5 proceeding. 58 Similarly, INGAA contends that a requirement to include billing determinants for each rate schedule would impose a substantial burden because it would effectively require the preparation of a schedule equivalent to a Schedule G, required for a section 4 filing. 59 56 *Id.* at 11-12. 57 *Id.* at 20. 58 *Id.* at 22. 59 *Id.* at 24-25. 23. Finally, INGAA suggests that certain items required by Form 2 be deleted as burdensome or of limited usefulness, including:
(1)Pages 508-509, Compressor Stations;
(2)page 357, Charges for Outside Professional and Other Consultative Services; and
(3)page 261, Reconciliation of Reported Net Income with Taxable Income for Federal Income Taxes. III. Discussion A. General 24. The steady decline of section 4 rate filings, the concerns regarding the adequacy of data in Forms 2 and 2-A expressed in both the *National Fuel* and *Southwest Gas* complaints, and the comments received in response to the NOI indicate a need to update and supplement Forms 2, 2-A, and 3-Q. While a hiatus in section 4 rate case filings does not, in every instance, support a conclusion that the pipeline is earning excess revenues, some pipelines have not filed a section 4 rate case in more than a decade, and their costs of service and revenues have gone unreviewed as a consequence. 60 If shippers cannot readily access the data they need to make informed assessments regarding the propriety of the rates charged, they are left without any plausible means of assessing the justness and reasonableness of those rates and are forced to accept the information provided at face value or attempt to initiate expensive and time-consuming section 5 proceedings to obtain the data. 60 The records indicate that as many as 15 major and 20 nonmajor gas pipelines have not filed a section 4 rate case in more than a decade. Also, although INGAA contends that pipeline rate cases are quite common, a review of the cases cited by INGAA reveals that most were filed because prior settlement agreements required the filing. 25. The proposed additions or changes to Forms 2, 2-A and 3-Q require a pipeline to provide additional, detailed information regarding the pipeline's costs and revenues, including a reconciliation of gas supplied by shippers for compressor fuel and gas losses; disaggregation of certain cost data; provision of additional information related to affiliate transactions; and the distinction between services provided at discounted or negotiated rates and costs recovered through incremental, as opposed to rolled-in, rates. As noted above, we believe that all of the proposed changes will better facilitate the forms users' ability to make a meaningful assessment of the pipeline's cost of service and current rates. We have endeavored, however, to achieve a balance between the benefits these changes will facilitate and the imposition of any additional burden on the pipelines. Most of the information requested is data that is maintained by the pipeline and can be transferred to existing and new schedules. In addition, as discussed below, we are proposing the elimination of Form 11, which would lessen pipelines' filing requirements. 26. Several schedules are being added to Form 2-A as well as to Form 2. The Commission regulates 44 pipelines that are classified as “nonmajor” and required to file Form 2-A. It is no less important that customers of pipelines classified as nonmajor be provided with the information we propose to add to Form 2. Form 2-A filers now provide less data than do Form 2 filers. As with Form 2, the information we are adding to Form 2-A is information we deem necessary to enable customers, state commissions, and the Commission to assess existing pipeline rates. Complaints regarding the dearth of data have been made by customers of both major and nonmajor pipelines and we believe all are entitled to the same information. 61 61 *See* , *e.g.* , *Southwest Gas* , 117 FERC at P 4 (complaint filed by Form 2-A users). 27. We have not adopted many of the commenters' proposals. For example, we reject the KCC's request that we resurrect the triennial rate restatement requirement for all pipelines and AGA's alternative suggestion that we create a new form to supplement Form 2. 62 We reject as burdensome the Industry Coalition's and the MoPSC's requests that pipelines not using the rate of return on equity approved in the pipeline's last rate case provide the calculation and derivation of the return used at present. We reject also the Industry Coalition's request that pipelines provide additional information on capital structure used for ratemaking purposes since it would require the pipeline to speculate on the pipeline's preferred capital structure. 62 *See* , *e.g.* , *Public Service Commission of New York* v. *FERC* , 866 F.2d 487 (D.C. Cir. 1989); *see also United Distribution Companies* v. *FERC* , 88 F.3d 1105, 1175-6 (D.C. Cir. 1996). 28. We acknowledge INGAA's concern that an expanded Form 2 could blur the distinction between sections 4 and 5, and shift the burden of proof established under section 5, and we invite commenters to address this issue. However, the changes proposed herein do not affect existing rates nor change any rates on file. The requested data is designed to provide the Commission and pipeline customers with information that will aid their ability to make a reasonable assessment of a pipeline's cost of service. Along the same lines, the requested data is not the functional equivalent of a cost and revenue study. Therefore, the revised Form 2 will not be used to limit an entity's rights under the NGA and our regulations. Nor will the revised Form 2 change our obligation to rule on complaints, petitions, or other requests for relief based on a full record and substantial evidence. 29. At the same time, we find no merit in INGAA's argument that much of the data sought by Form 2 users is available elsewhere, in forms and filings made before state agencies, the Commission, other federal agencies, or in the pipeline's tariff. We do not believe that users should have to piece together and interpret from myriad sources information that is readily available to the pipeline and can, without a substantial increase in burden, be incorporated into Forms 2 and 2-A. Also, much of the information cited by INGAA is not coterminous with Form 2 data and cannot be used for purposes of comparison. 30. Additionally, as discussed below, INGAA has requested that the Commission eliminate three schedules from Form 2. As discussed below, we reject INGAA's request to eliminate information now reported in Form 2. INGAA first requests that the Commission delete pages 508-509 of Form 2 which provide details on compressor stations. The schedule shows plant, expenses, amount of gas and usage in total hours intended to assist Form 2 users in calculating a depreciation analysis of remaining life for compressor plant. In addition, some compressor stations are built as part of expansion projects with incremental rates. The separation of costs by compressor station is a key element to assist in determining the appropriate allocations of costs to generate incremental rates. In addition, in order to provide more clarity regarding fuel use for compressor stations, we propose to revise pages 508-509 of Form 2 to require pipelines to provide both the amounts used and expenditures made for gas and electric power. 31. INGAA asks that the Commission eliminate Page 357, Charges for Outside Professional and Other Consultative Services. As discussed below, the Commission is adding a new Page 358 to Forms 2 and 2-A where information currently provided on Page 357 would be reported. INGAA asserts that the schedule has no value for ratemaking purposes. The information required for Page 357, now proposed to be substituted by a new page 358, allows Form 2 users to identify the annual charges for outside consulting activities and the identification of associated company charges. The Commission believes this information is of value to forms users and the reporting requirement will be retained. 32. Finally, we reject INGAA's request to eliminate page 261, Reconciliation of Reported Net Income With Taxable Income for Federal Income Taxes. The Commission believes page 261 should be retained because it can provide information as to book and tax timing differences, thereby indicating if costs are included in the revenue requirement which may not be deductible for tax purposes. The reconciliation reflects revenues reported for book purposes which are not included for income tax purposes. In other words, for example, AFUDC equity is isolated and can be used as a means of checking the reasonableness of the AFUDC included in the tax calculation. B. Overview of FERC Forms 2, 2-A, 3-Q, and 11. 33. Before describing the proposed changes, the Commission believes that an overview of Forms 2, 2-A, and 3-Q, as well as a related form (Form 11) would be helpful. As discussed above, these forms are the vehicles the Commission uses to obtain financial and certain operational information from interstate natural gas companies. The forms provide information concerning a company's past performance and its future prospects, information compiled using a standard chart of accounts contained in the Commission's Uniform System of Accounts (USofA). 63 The forms contain schedules which include a basic set of financial statements: Comparative Balance Sheet, Statement of Income and Retained Earnings, Statement of Cash Flows, and the Statement of Comprehensive Income and Hedging Activities. Supporting schedules containing supplementary information are filed, including revenues and the related quantities of products sold or transported; account balances for various operating and maintenance expenses; selected plant cost data; and other information. 63 *See* 18 CFR part 201. 34. Currently, there are 74 Form 2 filers, 44 Form 2-A filers and 118 Form 3-Q filers. The Form 2 is an annual reporting requirement for “major” natural gas pipeline companies, *i.e.* , natural gas companies that transport or store gas in excess of 50 million Dth in each of the three previous calendar years. The Form 2-A is an abbreviated version of the Form 2 for “non-major” natural gas pipeline companies, *i.e.* , natural gas companies that do not meet the filing threshold for Form 2 but have total gas sales or volume transactions exceeding 200,000 Dth in each of the three previous calendar years. Form 3-Q is a quarterly filing requirement for filers of Forms 2 and 2-A, which requires gas companies to file certain Form 2 and 2-A information on a quarterly basis. The increased frequency of information provided in Form 3-Q allows for more timely evaluations of the adequacy of existing cost-based rates and improves the transparency of financial information submitted to the Commission. Finally, Form 11 is a quarterly filing made by natural gas companies that transport or store gas in excess of 50 million Dth in each of the three previous years. Filers must report quantities shipped or stored and revenues received under each rate schedule for each month of the quarter. C. Proposed Adjustments to the Annual and Quarterly Reports 35. The proposed revisions fall into three categories of information. The first group, “Acquisition and Disposition of Gas,” covers revenue data that is not now included in the forms, in particular, reporting revenue from shipper-supplied gas. The second group, “New Rate Policies and Affiliate Transactions,” pertains to pipelines’ affiliate transactions, discounted or negotiated rates, and incremental facilities. The third group, “Rate Base and Other Key Cost-of-Service Components,” involves information regarding deferred income tax expense, state income tax, wages and salaries, and pensions. All of the proposed changes are reflected in the attached schedules, Appendix D. 1. Acquisition and Disposition of Gas a. Shipper-Supplied Gas 36. As an initial matter, as noted, the issue of the appropriate rate methodology used by natural gas pipelines for compressor fuel and lost and unaccounted-for gas is before the Commission in Docket No. RM07-2-000, Notice of Inquiry, Fuel Retention Practices of Natural Gas Companies, seeking comments on whether the Commission should prescribe a uniform method for all pipelines to use in recovering these costs. 64 In this NOPR, the Commission is not proposing a change to the pipelines' recovery methods; rather, it simply is proposing that pipelines provide forms users with detailed financial data of how each pipeline accounts for these costs. Therefore, there should be no conflict between what is proposed here with whatever is proposed in the RM07-2-000 proceeding. 64 *See Fuel Retention Practices of Natural Gas Companies* , Notice of Inquiry, Docket No. RM07-20-000, 120 FERC ¶ 61,255 (2007). 37. The Commission's USofA requires that pipelines electing to recognize shipper-provided gas as revenue must also recognize an equal amount of purchased gas expense. Pipelines must credit the appropriate transportation revenue account (Accounts 489.1 through 489.4) and record an equal amount in Account 805, Other Gas Purchases. The USofA also requires that all gas consumed in compressor stations or used for other operational purposes be recognized in the appropriate expense accounts in accordance with the existing USofA requirements. Finally, for those pipelines not electing to recognize all shipper provided gas as revenue, the Commission requires that the value of gas received from shippers under tariff allowances that is not consumed in operations nor returnable to customers through rate tracking mechanisms be credited to Account 495, Other Gas Revenues, and charged to Account 805. Despite these accounting and reporting requirements for gas used in operations, gas lost, and gas sold, Forms 2 and 2-A users cannot readily determine the disposition and value of any shipper-supplied gas that exceeds the pipelines' operational needs or the source and cost of any gas acquired to meet deficiencies in shipper-supplied gas. 38. The Industry Coalition, NYPSC, and the KCC all request that pipelines be required to provide details of gas purchases and sales, including an accounting of gas that pipelines retain from shippers. 65 The Commission agrees that forms users should have access to this information in order to assess the sources of revenue recorded for gas sales by pipelines. With escalating gas prices and a declining number of full section 4 rate reviews, the disposition of this gas has become an important item in the pipeline's cost of transportation. 66 65 *See* Industry Coalition comments at 5; NYPSC Comments at 10; KCC Comments at 7. 66 *See National Fuel,* 115 FERC at P 21. 39. The Commission is proposing to add a new schedule entitled “Shipper-Supplied Gas for the Current Quarter” (pages 521-A and 521-B) to Forms 2, 2-A, and 3-Q, which would require the pipeline to report:
(1)The difference between the volume of gas received from shippers and the volume of gas consumed in pipeline operations each month;
(2)the disposition of any excess and the accounting recognition given to such disposition including the basis of valuing the gas and the specific accounts charged or credited; and
(3)the source of gas used to meet any deficiency and the accounting recognition given to the gas used to meet the deficiency, including the accounting basis of the gas and the specific account(s) charged or credited. The Commission also proposes to add page 520 to Form 3-Q in order to provide more timely reporting of this information. In addition, in order to provide more clarity for gas purchase activity, we are proposing to require pipelines to provide in a footnote to page 520, the volumes of gas purchased applicable to each of the gas purchase expense accounts. 67 Currently, pipelines must report the dollar amount of gas purchases by type of purchase on the Gas Operation and Maintenance Expenses schedule on page 319 of Forms 2 and 2-A, and they are required to report the related volumes only in the aggregate on the Gas Account—Natural Gas schedule on page 520. 67 18 CFR part 201, Account Nos. 800-805. b. Other Gas Dispositions 40. The Commission collects information concerning different types of gas operating revenue on the schedule entitled Gas Operating Revenue, pages 300-301 of Forms 2 and 2-A. This schedule currently combines on one line sales data related to residential, commercial and industrial, other sales to public authorities, sales for resale and interdepartmental sales. The Industry Coalition and the KCC request that pipelines provide greater detail concerning these accounts and be required to separately identify these costs and provide an accounting for each. 68 The Commission agrees that detail concerning these accounts would provide important data that would enable users to identify the dispositions of gas acquired by or tendered to the pipeline and how those transactions may affect the pipeline's cost of service. Accordingly, the Commission proposes to expand the detail provided on pages 300-301 of Forms 2 and 2-A to require filers to report sales amounts reported in Accounts 480 (Residential Sales); 481 (Commercial and Industrial Sales); Account 482 (Other Sales to Public Authorities); Account 483 (Sales for Resale); and 484 (Interdepartmental Sales). 68 Industry Coalition Comments at 5; KCC Comments at 7. 41. Both the Industry Coalition and the KCC seek detail concerning the types of revenues recorded in Account 495, Other Gas Revenues. Under the Commission's USofA, pipelines record in Account 495 miscellaneous revenues derived from gas operations not includible in any of the other gas revenue accounts. Additionally, pipelines are required to report these revenues on the schedule entitled Other Revenues (Account 495) on page 308 of Form 2. The descriptions and aggregations of amounts reported by pipelines on this schedule, however, do not allow users of the data to obtain a meaningful understanding of the nature of the business activities from which the revenues are derived. It is important for users of the data to understand which customer classes or groups may be affected by the miscellaneous revenues. 42. In order to provide additional information, the Commission proposes to modify the schedule for Account 495, Other Gas Revenues, on page 308 of Form 2 and add a new schedule to Form 2-A to specify that the following types of revenues must be separately reported on the schedule:
(a)Commissions on sale or distribution of gas of others;
(b)compensation for minor or incidental services provided for others;
(c)profit or loss on sale of material and supplies not ordinarily purchased for resale;
(d)sales of steam, water, or electricity, including sales or transfers to other departments;
(e)miscellaneous royalties;
(f)revenues from dehydration and other processing of gas of others except as provided for in the instructions to Account 495;
(g)revenues for rights and/or benefits received from others which are realized through research, development, and demonstration ventures;
(h)gains on settlements of imbalances receivables and payables;
(i)revenues from penalties earned pursuant to tariff provisions, including penalties associated with cash-out settlements, and
(j)revenues from shipper-supplied gas. 2. New Rate Policies and Affiliate Transactions a. Affiliate Transactions 43. Forms 2 and 2-A filers are required to disclose information regarding any significant financial changes, including information regarding sales, transfers or mergers of affiliates in the Notes to Financial Statements schedule page 122.1. However, forms filers are not required to provide detailed information regarding affiliate transactions. The absence of affiliate information makes it impossible for forms users to determine the type and extent of all affiliate transactions. In this regard, the NYPSC points out that at present, Form 2 does not require any reporting related to affiliate transactions. 69 NYPSC believes that additional controls and disclosures of affiliate transactions are needed, not only to ensure that costs are just and reasonable, but to prevent cross-subsidization between regulated and unregulated companies. 70 The Commission agrees that information concerning the nature and extent of affiliate transactions is important because these transactions are not conducted at arms' length and could provide opportunities for inappropriate cross-subsidization. 69 NYPSC's Comments at 6. 70 *Id.* at 6. 44. To ensure that forms users have access to more detailed information regarding affiliate transactions, the Commission proposes several revisions. First, the Commission proposes to add a new Schedule, page 358, “Transactions with Associated (Affiliated) Companies” that would require filers to report associated (affiliated) transactions, which include administrative and general costs billed from the parent. The Commission believes this proposed new schedule would provide the transparency necessary to improve the detection of cross-subsidization. Second, on page 358, we propose to add the requirement that filers report the following:
(1)A description of the good or service transacted;
(2)the name of the Associated (Affiliated) Company;
(3)the FERC account charged or credited; and
(4)the amount charged or credited. We propose that where amounts billed to or from affiliates are based on an allocation process, filers be required to explain the basis of the allocation in a footnote. This would be a new schedule for both Forms 2 and 2-A. Finally, we propose to amend the instructions for page 357, Charges for Outside Professional and Other Consultative Services, to exclude associated (affiliated) transactions, and remove the $250,000 threshold for reporting services. This schedule is already in existence in Form 2, but will be a new addition to Form 2-A. b. Incremental Pricing Policy 45. Construction of the interstate natural gas pipeline system began in earnest in the 1940's. As consumption increased, pipelines expanded their facilities to meet the growing demand. The majority of these early expansions involved adding facilities that were integrated into the pipeline's mainline system and provided benefits to all customers using the system. For this reason, the cost of those facilities was considered to be a part of the pipeline's cost of serving all customers. This “rolled-in” approach remained the predominant rate methodology for new additions to existing pipeline systems through the early 1990s. Under a predominantly rolled-in rate regime, financial information reported in Forms 2 and 2-A on an aggregate company-wide basis was sufficient for Commission oversight of pipeline rates. The Commission's pricing policy for pipeline capacity expansions has evolved, due in part to changes in the industry brought about by Order No. 636, and its predecessor, Order No. 436. 71 Current Commission policy requires that a pipeline be prepared to financially support expansion projects without relying on subsidization from existing customers. 72 71 *Regulation of Natural Gas Pipelines After Partial Wellhead Decontrol,* Order No. 436, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,665 (1985), *vacated and remanded, Associated Gas Distributors* v. *FERC,* 824 F.2d 981 (D.C. Cir. 1987), *cert. denied,* 485 U.S. 1006 (1998), *readopted on an interim basis,* Order No. 500, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,761 (1987), *remanded, American Gas Ass'n* v. *FERC,* 888 F.2d 136 (D.C. Cir. 1989), *readopted on an interim basis,* Order No. 500-H, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶30,867 (1989), *aff'd in part and remanded in part, American Gas Ass'n* v. *FERC,* 912 F.2d 1496 (D.C. Cir. 1990), *cert. denied,* 498 U.S. 1084 (1991). 72 *See Certification of New Interstate Natural Gas Pipeline Facilities, Statement of Policy,* 88 FERC ¶ 61,227 (1999), *order clarifying policy,* 90 FERC ¶61,128 (2000), *order clarifying policy,* 92 FERC ¶ 61,094
(2000)(Certificate Policy Statement). 46. In concert with this changing pricing policy, the Commission has granted an increasing number of companies incremental and other rate treatments for facility expansions. 73 Under these more recent pricing methods, new and existing customers pay different rates based on the cost of the different facilities that provide service to them. In the individual cases where incremental rates have been approved, the Commission has required the pipelines to maintain their accounting records so as to be able to readily identify the facilities and related costs used to provide service to the customers that pay the incremental rates. 74 Until now, the Commission has not required the disaggregation of costs and revenues associated with incremental rate treatment in Forms 2 and 2-A. The Industry Coalition believes that a proper assessment of rates requires that these facilities be considered separately. 75 Without this information, they claim that pipeline customers cannot evaluate the reasonableness of different rates that are determined from distinct and separate facilities. 76 73 *See, e.g., Questar Pipeline Co.,* 93 FERC ¶ 61,279 (2000); *Independence Pipeline, et. al.,* 89 FERC ¶ 61,283 (1999); and *Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Corp.,* 76 FERC ¶ 61,318 (1996). 74 *See* 18 CFR 154.309. 75 Industry Coalition Comments at 6. 76 *Id.* 47. The Commission agrees with the Industry Coalition, and proposes to add a new schedule to Forms 2 and 2-A which would provide information regarding a company's individual rate treatments for services. The proposed new schedule at page 217, entitled “Non-Traditional Rate Treatment Afforded New Projects,” would report:
(1)The name of the facility;
(2)docket number under which the facility was approved;
(3)the type of rate treatment ( *e.g.* , incremental or another rate treatment);
(4)the amount of plant in service;
(5)the amount of accumulated depreciation;
(6)amount of accumulated deferred income taxes;
(7)amount of operating expenses;
(8)the amount of maintenance expenses;
(9)the amount of depreciation expense;
(10)incremental revenues; and
(11)other expenses. Because the Commission already requires the companies to separately account for each rate treatment, the Commission believes the burden for the company to identify each facility and the associated costs would be minimal. c. Discounted Rate Services and Negotiated Rate Services 48. At present, certain pages in Form 2 require filers to report the dollar amounts and volumes associated with each type of transportation service provided. These are pages 300-301, Gas Operating Revenue; pages 302-303, Revenues from Gas Transportation of Others Through Gathering Facilities; pages 304-305, Revenues from Gas Transportation of Others Through Transmission Facilities; 306-307, Revenues from Storing Gas of Others; and page 308, Other Gas Revenues, which require filers to report the dollar amounts and volumes associated with each type of transportation service provided. Form 2 does not, however, require filers to identify the volumes and revenues applicable to discounted, negotiated, or recourse rates. Both the Industry Coalition and the KCC believe that this information is invaluable to shippers because it would allow for the proper assessment and analysis of adequacy of rates. 77 77 Industry Coalition comments at 6; *see also* KCC Comments at 7. 49. The Commission permits pipelines to negotiate individualized rates 78 which, unlike discounted rates, 79 are not constrained by the maximum and minimum rates in the pipeline's tariff. 80 However, pipelines must permit shippers the option of paying the traditional cost-of-service recourse rates in their tariffs, instead of requiring them to negotiate rates for any particular service. 81 The Commission relies on the availability of recourse rates to prevent pipelines from exercising market power by assuring that the customer can revert to the just and reasonable tariff rate if the pipeline unilaterally demands excessive prices or withholds service. 82 At present, individual pipelines may provide services from the same facilities using different rates—negotiated, discounted, or recourse rates. In these circumstances, the Commission agrees with the Industry Coalition and the KCC that it is important for the customer and the Commission to know the level of services provided under each rate structure in order to protect against cross-subsidization and to ensure that the rate for recourse service remains just and reasonable. Therefore, we propose to add a new schedule, page 313, Discounted Services and Negotiated Services, which would require pipeline filers to report the revenues and volumes applicable to discount and negotiated rate services provided during the period. 78 *Alternatives to Traditional Cost of Service Ratemaking for Natural Gas Pipelines,* 74 FERC ¶ 61,076, *reh'g denied,* 75 FERC ¶ 61,024 (1996), *petitions for review denied sub nom. Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Co.* v. *FERC,* 172 F.3d 918 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (Alternative Rate Policy Statement); *Natural Gas Pipelines Negotiated Rate Policies and Practices; Modification of Negotiated Rate Policy,* 104 FERC ¶ 61,134 (2003), *order on reh'g and clarification,* 114 FERC ¶ 61,042 (2006), *dismissing reh'g and denying clarification,* 114 FERC ¶ 61,304 (2006). 79 *See* 18 CFR 284.10(c)(5). 80 *See Northern Natural Gas Co.,* 105 FERC ¶ 61,299
(2003)(clarifying the distinction between discounted and negotiated rates). 81 A recourse rate is a cost of service based rate for natural gas pipeline service that is on file in a pipeline's tariff and available to customers who do not negotiate a rate with the pipeline company. 82 Negotiated Rate Policy Statement at 61,238-42. 3. Rate Base and Other Key Cost-of-Service Components a. Deferred Income Taxes 50. The Industry Coalition and the KCC request that the Commission require pipelines to identify the components of deferred taxes that are included in the pipeline's rate base. 83 Both suggest that the information would provide Form 2 users with an essential element needed to calculate the pipeline's current rates. At present, Form 2 filers are required to report only a single line of data for the total deferred income tax balances related to gas operations on the schedules titled Accumulated Deferred Income Taxes (Account 190) pages 234-235, Accumulated Deferred Income Taxes—Other Property (Account 282) pages 274-275, and Accumulated Deferred Income Taxes—Other (Account 283) pages 276-277. Although Form 2 filers also must identify and report on these pages the deferred income taxes related to other income and deductions as well as classification of the total deferred income tax amounts between federal, state and local income tax, this information does not provide any significant insight into the source of the deferred income taxes related to gas operations. Form 2-A filers report even less information concerning their deferred income tax amounts. Form 2-A filers report only the total amount of deferred income taxes (by applicable deferred income tax account) on their balance sheet and income statement. Unlike Form 2, no additional supporting information for these amounts is presently required in Form 2-A. 83 Industry Coalition Comments at 4; KCC Comments at 7. 51. The Commission agrees that deferred income tax balances are an important factor in determining rate base and evaluating a pipeline's earned rate of return. Customers need to know the amount of deferred tax balances related to gas operations that would be included in the pipeline's cost of service in order to assess the reasonableness of the rates currently paid. At present, the level of detail required for deferred income taxes related to gas operations in both Forms 2 and 2-A does not provide this information. 84 Accordingly, the Commission is proposing to add an instruction to each of the deferred income tax schedules noted above to require pipelines to provide, in a footnote to those schedules, a summary of the type and amount of deferred income taxes reported in the beginning-of-year and end-of-year balances for deferred income taxes used to develop jurisdictional recourse rates. These revisions meet the concerns of the Industry Coalition that users be provided additional information to enable them to calculate the pipeline's rate base and evaluate the pipeline's current rates. 84 In contrast to the single line reported in Form 2, the deferred income balances are comprised of numerous book and income tax timing differences, many of which are not used in formulating jurisdictional rates. *See, e.g.* , Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation's general section 4 rate filing in Docket No. RP06-569-000, Schedule B-1, pages 1-16 (reflecting approximately 120 timing differences generating deferred income taxes, with only approximately 15 used in the rate base calculation). 52. The Commission also proposes to add those deferred tax reporting schedules to Form 2-A so that all pipeline customers, not just those of larger pipelines, would have this key piece of information which the Commission believes is essential to an assessment of the reasonableness of the rates for pipeline service. Also, we propose a technical correction to each of the deferred income tax reporting schedules to delete one of the lines for reporting “other” deferred income taxes. This will eliminate the confusion caused by providing two lines for reporting this information. b. State Income Tax Expense 53. The KCC and MoPSC ask that filers be required to provide the pipeline's current effective overall state income tax rate. 85 Both argue that the information now provided in Forms 2 and 2-A is inadequate. Currently, in Form 2, the amount of state income tax paid or payable for the current year is reported by state on the schedule titled Taxes Accrued, Prepaid and Charged During Year, Distribution of Taxes Charged, pages 262-3. The aggregate state deferred income tax for the entire reporting entity is reported in Form 2 schedules for accumulated deferred income taxes, as noted above. However, this information does not readily permit the Commission or the pipeline's customers to determine the amount of state income tax expense (both current and deferred) that should be associated with the before-tax net income generated from the sales of transportation services under more than one rate structure ( *e.g.,* where the pipeline provides transportation services for some customers on a rolled-in basis and others on an incremental basis). Since state income taxes are a valid component of the cost of providing service, the Commission and the pipeline's customers must be able to determine the amount of state income tax expense applicable to each of these rate structures in order to evaluate the reasonableness of the return earned from providing the disparate services on an after-tax basis. For that purpose, we propose to add a column Q to the Taxes Accrued, Prepaid and Charged During Year, Distribution of Taxes Charged schedule on pages 262-3 of Form 2 and to add the same schedule to Form 2-A to require pipelines to report state and local income tax rates. 85 KCC Comments at 7; MoPSC Comments at 4. c. Regulatory Assets and Liabilities 54. The KCC requests that pipelines identify regulatory asset and liability balances included in rate base. 86 Currently, Forms 2 and 2-A filers are required to report a break-out of regulatory assets and liabilities on page 232, Other Regulatory Assets, and page 278, Other Regulatory Liabilities. Commission regulations require companies to establish regulatory assets and liabilities where future recovery from rate payers or refund to rate payers is probable. However, during a rate case the validity of any regulatory asset or regulatory liability can be challenged. In order to enable Form 2 and 2-A users to determine which regulatory assets are recovered and which regulatory liabilities are refunded, the Commission proposes to revise the regulatory asset schedule by adding footnote citations for each regulatory asset to identify the regulatory approval to record the item and adding a column to identify amounts written off during the period as non-recoverable. In addition, we propose to revise the regulatory liability schedule by adding footnote citations for each regulatory liability to identify the regulatory approval to refund the item and adding a column to identify amounts written off during the period as non-refundable. 86 KCC Comments at 7. d. Distribution of Salaries and Wages 55. The Distribution of Salaries and Wages schedule of Form 2, pages 354-355, requires natural gas companies to report the distribution of total salaries and wages for the year, segregated according to particular operating functions of the company. The schedule allows users of the forms to review and analyze the payroll distribution of the company. However, the schedule does not provide for the recording of payroll costs billed to the company by affiliated companies. Both the KCC and the Industry Coalition request that the Commission require pipeline companies to provide more information on pipeline overhead and shared service costs. 87 Based on our experience in section 4 rate cases, natural gas company affiliates have become a larger cost of operations for many natural gas companies as these affiliated companies are increasingly providing the workforce for the natural gas company's operations. The salary and wage expenses that affiliated companies charge to the natural gas companies are not currently reported in the Distribution of Salaries and Wages schedule by all filers of Form 2. As a consequence, an important tool used for evaluating the reasonableness of the level of salaries and wages charged to pipeline operations, and thus included in the cost of service, is compromised. 87 Industry Coalition Comments at 6; KCC Comments at 7. 56. To enhance the usability of the Distribution of Salaries and Wages schedule, the Commission proposes to add an instruction and a new column that would require all filers of Form 2 to report salaries and wages billed by affiliates or affiliated service companies separately from other salary and wage distributions. The new column to pages 354-355 would be titled “Payroll Billed by Affiliated Companies.” Requiring natural gas companies to file this payroll distribution information would allow the forms user to determine the level of salaries and wages included in the natural gas company's operations and maintenance expenses, make valid comparisons of the amounts between entities and periods, and better assess the reasonableness of the levels for cost of service purposes. e. Employee Pensions and Benefits 57. NYPSC requests that pipelines be required to report information concerning pension and other post-employment benefits. 88 NYPSC states that presently, Form 2 does not require any reporting related to these expenses, and believes that these expense components are material to a rate assessment. 89 Presently, the USofA requires pipelines to record the cost of pension and other employee benefits in Account 926, Employee Pensions and Benefits. Instruction 3 to page 122.1, Notes to Financial Statements, requires filers to furnish details on their pension plans, post-retirement benefits other than pensions (PBOPS), and post-employment benefit plans, including the current year's cash contribution to each plan. Despite these accounting and disclosure requirements, information about the costs of the various employee benefit plans charged to expense each period is not readily available in Forms 2 and 2-A. This is due to the complexity of the disclosure requirements for defined PBOP's, the participation by pipelines in multi-employer benefits plans in which they are assigned a portion of the cost of the total plan, and the flexibility in how information is displayed and described in a footnote disclosure. 88 NYPSC Comments at 7. 89 *Id* . 58. We agree that it is important that forms users be able to identify the types and costs of employee benefits. Therefore, we propose to amend Instruction 3 to page 122.1 to require filers that participate in multi-employer post-retirement benefit plans to disclose the amount of cost recognized in the filer's financial statements for each plan for the period presented and the basis for determining the filer's share of the total plan costs. In addition, we are proposing to add a schedule entitled Employee Pensions and Benefits, page 352, to both Forms 2 and 2-A, to provide additional details about the types and costs of benefits provided to employees. The Commission believes that requiring pipelines to provide this level of detail would permit forms users to assess the cost of employee benefits and better compare this information between periods and entities. f. Asset Retirement Obligation
(ARO)59. The Commission amended its regulations in Order No. 631 to update the accounting and financial reporting requirements for asset retirement obligations
(ARO)under its USofA for public utilities and licensees, natural gas and oil pipeline companies. 90 An asset retirement obligation is a liability resulting from a legal obligation to retire or decommission a plant asset. Recently, some pipelines have sought to recover ARO costs in their overall cost of service. 91 As a result of this increasing trend, the Commission believes that it has become increasingly important to make the accounting for AROs more transparent to the users of the financial statements as the statements currently do not provide the level of detail required to perform a thorough analysis of a company's asset retirement obligations. 90 *Accounting, Financial Reporting, and Rate Filing Requirements for Asset Retirement Obligations* , Order No. 631, 68 FR 19610 (April 21, 2003), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,142, *order on reh'g* , Order No. 631-A, 104 FERC ¶ 61,183 (2003). 91 *See, e.g., Transcontinental Pipe Line Corporation* , 116 FERC ¶ 61,314 (2006); *Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP* , 116 FERC ¶ 61,110 (2006). 60. The Commission is proposing to add a new instruction to the Notes to the Financial Statements schedule, page 122.1. The new instruction would require natural gas companies to disclose:
(1)Details on the initial accounting for asset retirement obligations;
(2)any subsequent changes in the measurement or method of accounting for the obligations; and
(3)the final accounting for the settlement of the obligations, including recognition of any gains or losses on the settlement. In addition, it would require identification of ARO costs that are recovered through rates and placed into funding mechanisms or deposit accounts, ( *e.g.* , trust funds, insurance policies, surety bonds). 61. Account No. 824 of the USofA requires pipelines to maintain records of costs incurred in operating underground storage plant and other underground storage expenses, not includable in other accounts, including research and development expenses. Account No. 859 requires that pipelines maintain records of the costs of labor, material used and expenses incurred in operating transmission system equipment and transmission system expenses not includable in other accounts, including research and development expenses. This information is currently not provided in Form 2. We invite comments on whether research and development expenditures included in Account Nos. 824 and 859 should be reported in Form 2. D. Proposed Elimination of Form 11 62. Williston Basin suggested that Form 11, Natural Gas Pipeline Company Quarterly Statement of Monthly Data be eliminated and that the information required by Form 11 be reported in Form 3-Q. 92 Form 11 is a quarterly filing made by natural gas companies whose gas transported or stored for a fee exceeded 50 million Dth in each of the three previous years. 93 The form collects information concerning selected revenues and associated quantities for each month by applicable rate schedule. The data is submitted electronically on a quarterly basis. The Commission requests that Form 11 users advise whether the information reported in the form is relied upon by pipeline shippers, and, specifically, how the data is used. In addition, both filers and users of Form 11 are asked to respond whether the information reported in Form 11 could, alternatively, be incorporated into Form 3-Q. 92 Williston Basin Comments at 7. 93 *See* 18 CFR 260.3. E. Proposed Adjustments to the CPA Certification Statement 63. Each natural gas company not classified as Class C or D prior to January 1, 1984, is required to file with the Commission a letter or report of an independent accountant certifying approval, together with the filing of the applicable Form 2 or 2-A. 94 The Commission's regulations require that an independent certified public accountant test for compliance in all material respects with the USofA and published accounting releases for those schedules listed in the General Instructions of the applicable Form 2 or 2-A. 95 Natural gas companies that file a Form 2 or 2-A are required to file the Certified Public Accountant's
(CPA)Certification Statement on April 18 of the following calendar year. 94 *See* 18 CFR 158.11. The C and D classifications refer to pipelines now defined as Nonmajor. *See* 18 CFR part 201 General Instructions. 95 *See* 18 CFR 158.10. 64. The Commission proposes to extend the filing date for the CPA Certification Statement until May 18 of the following calendar year for natural gas companies. This proposal would reduce the filing and administrative burden by allowing more time for the company and the certified public accountant to identify and resolve issues that may arise during the course of the examination. F. Miscellaneous Issues 65. The NOPR posed two questions that are not directly related to the forms. The first is whether interstate pipelines should be required to notify the Commission when their total sales or transactions fall below the minimum thresholds established in the Commission's regulations such that the pipeline believes that it is no longer subject to the filing requirements. 96 The KCC and MoPSC responded that the Commission should require such notification. 97 MoPSC observes that this requirement would allow the Commission and the public to determine if a report is late or no longer required. 98 INGAA and Williston Basin stated that they did not object to this requirement. The Commission agrees that notification of non-filing status would be helpful to the Commission and users of Forms 2 and 2-A. Accordingly, at such time as a pipeline now subject to the reporting requirements in either Form 2 or 2-A has, in three consecutive years, experienced volumes and transactions below the threshold levels specified in the Commission's regulations and believes that they are no longer required to file a Form 2 or 2-A, must notify the Commission of this change. The pipeline must file the notification on the date that the form would otherwise be due. 96 *See* 18 CFR 260.1 and 260.2. 97 KCC Comments at 8; MoPSC Comments at 10. 98 MoPSC Comments at 10. 66. The Commission also asked commenters whether the Commission should require a showing of good cause before granting an extension of time in which to file the required reports. Both MoPSC and the KCC support such a requirement. 99 The Commission agrees that any request for an extension of time in which to comply with Commission regulations or a Commission order must show good cause. Without such a showing, the request may not be granted. The Commission staff is monitoring filers' timely compliance with the reporting requirements and will continue to do so. 99 *Id. See* KCC Comments at 8. IV. Information Collection Statement 67. The following collections of information contained in this proposed rule have been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review under Section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 100 The Commission solicits comments on the Commission's need for this information, whether the information will have practical utility, the accuracy of the burden estimates, ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected or retained, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondents' burden, including the use of automated information techniques. 100 44 U.S.C. 3507(d). *Estimated Annual Burden:* The Commission estimates that on average it will take respondents from fifty-nine to one hundred and fifty-six hours to comply with the proposed requirements. Most of the additional information required to be reported is already compiled and maintained by the pipelines, and will not substantially increase the existing reporting burden. This will result in total hours for the following collections of information: Data collection form Number of respondents Change in the number of hours per respondent Filing periods Change in the total annual hours
(d)(e)=(b)×(c)×(d) FERC Form 2 74 50 1 3700 FERC Form 2-A 44 135 1 5940 FERC Form 3-Q 118 (74 <sup>m</sup> ,44 <sup>nm</sup> ) 7 3 2478 (1554 <sup>m</sup> ,924 <sup>nm</sup> ) FERC Form 11 74 −3 4 (−888) Relevant Totals 59 <sup>m</sup> ,156 <sup>nm</sup> 11,230 (4366 <sup>m</sup> ,6864 <sup>nm</sup> ) nm=nonmajor company. m=major company. *Information Collection Costs:* The Commission seeks comments on the costs to comply with these requirements. As most of the required data is already maintained by the pipelines, the Commission estimates that the collection costs will not be overly burdensome. *Title:* FERC Form No. 2, “Annual Report of Major Natural Gas Companies”; FERC Form No. 2-A, “Annual report for Nonmajor public utilities and licensees”; FERC Form No. 3-Q, “Quarterly financial report of electric utilities, licensees, and natural gas companies.” *Action:* Proposed information collection. *OMB Control Nos.* 1902-0028 (Form 2); 1902-0030 (Form 2-A); 1902-0205 (Form 3-Q), and 1902-0032 (Form 11). *Respondents:* Businesses or other for profit. *Frequency of responses:* Annually and quarterly. *Necessity of the information:* The information maintained and collected under the requirements of Part 141 is essential to the Commission's oversight duties. The data now reported in the forms does not provide sufficient information to the Commission and the public to permit an evaluation of the filers' jurisdictional rates. Since the triennial restatement of rates requirement was abolished and pipelines are no longer required to submit this information, the need for current and relevant data is greater than in the past. The information collection proposed in the NOPR will increase the forms' usefulness to both the public and the Commission. Without this information, it is difficult for the Commission and the public to perform an assessment of pipeline costs, and thereby help to ensure that rates are just and reasonable. *Internal Review:* The Commission has reviewed the proposed changes and has determined that the changes are necessary. These requirements conform to the Commission's need 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 associated with the information requirements. 68. 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 Chief Information Officer, phone
(202)502-8415, fax:
(202)273-0873, e-mail: *Michael.miller@ferc.gov* ] V. Environmental Analysis 69. 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. 101 No environmental consideration is necessary for the promulgation of a rule that addresses information gathering, analysis, and dissemination, 102 and, also, addresses accounting. 103 No environmental consideration is raised by the promulgation of a rule that is procedural or does not substantially change the effect if legislation or regulations being amended, and therefore, fall under these exclusions. 104 These proposed rules, if finalized, involve information gathering, analysis, and dissemination. Consequently, neither an Environmental Impact Statement nor an Environmental Assessment is required. 101 *See* Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act, Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987) FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶30,783 (1987). 102 *See* 18 CFR 380.4(a)(5). 103 *See* 18 CFR 380.4(a)(16). 104 *See* 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii). VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act 70. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
(RFA)105 requires rulemakings to contain either a description and analysis that the rule will have on small entities or a certification that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 106 Under the industry standards used for purposes of the RFA, a natural gas company qualifies as a “small entity” if it has annual revenues of $6.5 million or less. Most companies regulated by the Commission do not fall within the RFA's definition of a small entity. 107 Thus, most interstate natural gas companies to which the rules proposed herein, if finalized, would not fall within the RFA's definition of small entities. Consequently, the rules proposed herein, if finalized, will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. 105 5 U.S.C. 601-612. 106 *Id.* 107 5 U.S.C. 601(3). VII. Comment Procedures 71. 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 on or before November 13, 2007. Comments must refer to Docket No. RM07-9-000 , and must include the commenter's name, the organization he or she represents, if applicable, and his or her address. 72. The Commission encourages comments to 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. 73. Commenters who 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. 74. 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 notice of proposed rulemaking are not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters. VIII. Document Availability 75. 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 the Commission's home page ( *http://www.ferc.gov* ) and in the Commission'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. 76. From the Commission's home page on the Internet, this information is available in the Commission's document management system, 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. 77. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's Web site during normal business hours. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at 1-866-208-3676 (toll free) or 202-502-6652 or e-mail at *ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov* , or the Public Reference Room at
(202)502-8371, TTY
(202)502-8659. E-mail at *public.referencerom@ferc.gov* . List of Subjects 18 CFR Part 158 Natural gas, Reporting requirements. 18 CFR Part 260 Natural gas, Reporting requirements. By direction of the Commission. Commissioner Wellinghoff concurring with a separate statement attached. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission proposes to amend parts 158 and 260 of Title 18 of the *Code of Federal Regulations* , as set forth below: PART 158—ACCOUNTS, RECORDS, MEMORANDA AND DISPOSITION OF CONTESTED AUDIT FINDINGS AND PROPOSED REMEDIES 1. The authority citation for part 158 continues to read as follows: Authority: 15 U.S.C. 717-717w, 3301-3432; 42 U.S.C. 7102-7352. 2. Section 158.11 is revised to read as follows: § 158.11 Report of certification. Each natural gas company not classified as Class C or Class D prior to January 1, 1984 shall file with the Commission by May 18 of the following calendar year, a letter or report of the independent accountant certifying approval, covering the subjects and in the format prescribed in the General Instructions of the applicable Form No. 2 or Form No. 2-A. The letter or report shall also set forth which, if any, of the examined schedules do not conform to the Commission's requirements and shall describe the discrepancies that exist. The Commission shall not be bound by the certification of compliance made by an independent accountant pursuant to this paragraph. PART 260—STATEMENTS AND REPORTS (SCHEDULES) 1. The authority citation for part 260 continues to read as follows: Authority: 15 U.S.C. 717-717w, 3301-3432; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352. § 260.3 [Removed] 2. Section 260.3 is removed. WELLINGHOFF, Commissioner, *concurring:* The adequacy of data reported in Forms 2, 2-A and 3-Q has been questioned for years. Based on the comments received in response to the NOI in this proceeding, the need to update and supplement these forms is clear. Today, we propose modifications that should correct many deficiencies in these forms. We have endeavored to make the changes necessary to provide the data needed by the Commission to carry out our responsibility, and for the form users to effectively exercise their rights, under NGA Section 5. Most of the information requested is data that is maintained by the pipeline and can readily be transferred to existing and new schedules. Conversely, I do not believe that we have blurred the distinction between NGA sections 4 and 5, a concern expressed by some commenters. I urge parties in their comments to focus on whether our proposed modifications have struck the proper balance. I also have a specific request for comment. As noted, these forms are the vehicles the Commission uses to obtain financial and certain operational information from pipelines. The forms provide information concerning a pipeline's past performance and its future prospects. For example, a pipeline is currently required to provide a statement and system map identifying and detailing all important changes in the facilities it operates. 108 I propose that pipelines submit an Energy Efficiency Statement as well. I believe advancement of energy efficient infrastructure is critical to help address the energy crisis our country faces. The Energy Efficiency Statement would describe how the pipeline has incorporated efficiency in the facility changes it reports. Such transparency will be useful in encouraging energy efficiency improvements by pipelines and more broadly disseminating the best practices throughout the industry. 108 General Corporate Information and Financial Statements, Important Changes during the Year and Gas Plant Statistical Data, System Map. For this reason, I respectfully concur. Jon Wellinghoff, *Commissioner.* [FR Doc. E7-19015 Filed 9-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0544; FRL-8470-8] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Ohio AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a request from Ohio to amend its State Implementation Plan
(SIP)emission statement reporting regulation. Ohio submitted the SIP revision requests to EPA on May 1, 2006, and supplemented on May 22, 2007. Ohio held a public hearing on the submittal on September 8, 2005. The SIP revision concurrently rescinds and revises portions of Ohio Administrative Code Chapter 3745-24 to be consistent with the Clean Air Act emission statement program reporting requirements for stationary sources. The revision makes the rule more general to apply to all counties designated nonattainment for ozone, and not to a specific list of counties. DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 29, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0544, by one of the following methods: 1. *www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. *E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov.* 3. *Fax:*
(312)886-5824. 4. *Mail:* John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 5. *Hand Delivery:* John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal holidays. Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this **Federal Register** for detailed instructions on how to submit comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Hatten, Environmental Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,
(312)886-6031, *Hatten.Charles@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Final Rules section of this **Federal Register** , EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no 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. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this **Federal Register** . Dated: September 4, 2007. Bharat Mathur, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. [FR Doc. E7-18895 Filed 9-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 62 [EPA-R07-OAR-2007-0943; FRL-8473-9] Approval and Promulgation of State Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants; Missouri; Clean Air Mercury Rule AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve the State Plan submitted by Missouri on May 18, 2007, and revisions submitted on September 6, 2007. The plan addresses the requirements of EPA's Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR), promulgated on May 18, 2005, and subsequently revised on June 9, 2006. EPA is proposing to determine that the submitted State Plan fully meets the CAMR requirements for Missouri. CAMR requires States to regulate emissions of mercury
(Hg)from large coal-fired electric generating units (EGUs). CAMR establishes State budgets for annual EGU Hg emissions and requires States to submit State Plans to ensure that annual EGU Hg emissions will not exceed the applicable State budget. States have the flexibility to choose which control measures to adopt to achieve the budgets, including participating in the EPA-administered CAMR cap-and-trade program. In the State Plan that EPA is proposing to approve Missouri would meet CAMR requirements by participating in the EPA trading program. DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 29, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2007-0943, by one of the following methods: 1. *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. *E-mail: jay.michael@epa.gov.* 3. *Mail:* Michael Jay, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. 4. *Hand Delivery or Courier:* Deliver your comments to: Michael Jay, Environmental Protection Agency, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. 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 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2007-0943. 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. *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 Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. 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 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Jay at
(913)551-7460 or by e-mail at *jay.michael@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. What Action Is EPA Proposing To Take? II. What Is the Regulatory History of CAMR? III. What Are the General Requirements of CAMR State Plans? IV. How Can States Comply With CAMR? V. Analysis of Missouri's CAMR State Plan Submittal A. State Budgets B. CAMR State Plan VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What Action Is EPA Proposing To Take? EPA is proposing to approve the State Plan submitted by Missouri on May 18, 2007, and revisions submitted on September 6, 2007. In its State Plan, Missouri would meet CAMR by requiring certain coal-fired EGUs to participate in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade program addressing Hg emissions. EPA is proposing to determine that the State Plan meets the applicable requirements of CAMR. II. What Is the Regulatory History of CAMR? CAMR was published by EPA on May 18, 2005 (70 FR 28606, “Standards of Performance for New and Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Steam Generating Units; Final Rule”). In this rule, acting pursuant to its authority under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7411(d), EPA required that all States and the District of Columbia (all of which are referred to herein as States) meet Statewide annual budgets limiting Hg emissions from coal-fired EGUs (as defined in 40 CFR 60.24(h)(8)) under CAA section 111(d). EPA required all States to submit State Plans with control measures that ensure that total, annual Hg emissions from the coal-fired EGUs located in the respective States do not exceed the applicable statewide annual EGU mercury budget. Under CAMR, States may implement and enforce these reduction requirements by participating in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade program or by adopting any other effective and enforceable control measures. CAA section 111(d) requires States, and along with CAA section 301(d) and the Tribal Air Rule (40 CFR part 49) allows Tribes granted treatment as States (TAS), to submit State Plans to EPA that implement and enforce the standards of performance. CAMR explains what must be included in State Plans to address the requirements of CAA section 111(d). The State Plans were due to EPA by November 17, 2006. Under 40 CFR 60.27(b), the Administrator will approve or disapprove the State Plans. III. What Are the General Requirements of CAMR State Plans? CAMR establishes Statewide annual EGU Hg emission budgets and is to be implemented in two phases. The first phase of reductions starts in 2010 and continues through 2017. The second phase of reductions starts in 2018 and continues thereafter. CAMR requires States to implement the budgets by either:
(1)Requiring coal-fired EGUs to participate in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade program; or
(2)adopting other coal-fired EGU control measures of the respective State's choosing and demonstrating that such control measures will result in compliance with the applicable State annual EGU Hg budget. Each State Plan must require coal-fired EGUs to comply with the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting provisions of 40 CFR part 75 concerning Hg mass emissions. Each State Plan must also show that the State has the legal authority to adopt emission standards and compliance schedules necessary for attainment and maintenance of the State's annual EGU Hg budget and to require the owners and operators of coal-fired EGUs in the State to meet the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of 40 CFR part 75. IV. How Can States Comply With CAMR? Each State Plan must impose control requirements that the State demonstrates will limit Statewide annual Hg emissions from new and existing coal-fired EGUs to the amount of the State's applicable annual EGU Hg budget. States have the flexibility to choose the type of EGU control measures they will use to meet the requirements of CAMR. EPA anticipates that many States will choose to meet the CAMR requirements by selecting an option that requires EGUs to participate in the EPA-administered CAMR cap-and-trade program. EPA also anticipates that many States may chose to control Statewide annual Hg emissions for new and existing coal-fired EGUs through an alternative mechanism other than the EPA-administered CAMR cap-and-trade program. Each State that chooses an alternative mechanism must include with its plan a demonstration that the State Plan will ensure that the State will meet its assigned State annual EGU Hg emission budget. A State submitting a State Plan that requires coal-fired EGUs to participate in the EPA-administered CAMR cap-and-trade program may either adopt regulations that are substantively identical to the EPA model Hg trading rule (40 CFR part 60, subpart HHHH) or incorporate by reference the model rule. CAMR provides that States may only make limited changes to the model rule if the States want to participate in the EPA-administered trading program. A State Plan may change the model rule only by altering the allowance allocation provisions to provide for State-specific allocation of Hg allowances using a methodology chosen by the State. A State's alternative allowance allocation provisions must meet certain allocation timing requirements and must ensure that total allocations for each calendar year will not exceed the State's annual EGU Hg budget for that year. V. Analysis of Missouri's CAMR State Plan Submittal A. State Budgets In this action, EPA is proposing to approve Missouri's State Plan that adopts the annual EGU Hg budgets established for the State in CAMR, i.e., 1.393 tons for EGU Hg emissions in 2010-2017 and 0.55 tons for EGU Hg emissions in 2018 and thereafter. Missouri's State Plan sets these budgets as the total amount of allowances available for allocation for each year under the EPA-administered CAMR cap-and-trade program. B. CAMR State Plan The Missouri State Plan requires coal-fired EGUs to participate in the EPA-administered CAMR cap-and-trade program. The State Plan incorporates by reference the EPA model Hg trading rule but has adopted an alternative allowance allocation methodology. Under the Hg allowance allocation methodology in the model rule, Hg allowances are allocated to units that have operated for 5 years, based on heat input data from a 3-year period that are adjusted for coal rank by using coal factors of 3.0 for the lignite combusted by the unit, 1.25 for the subbituminous combusted by the unit, and 1 for other coal ranks combusted by the unit. The model rule also provides a new unit set-aside from which units without 5 years of operation are allocated allowances based on the units' prior year emissions. States may establish in their State Plan submissions a different Hg 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 Hg 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. In Missouri's alternative allowance methodology, Missouri has chosen to distribute Hg allowances directly based upon Table I in 10 CFR 10-6.368. The table permanently allocates to designated units the entirety of Missouri's mercury allowances for both phases of the program. Accordingly, Missouri has not provided allowances for the establishment of set-aside accounts. Missouri's State Plan requires coal-fired EGUs to comply with the monitoring, record keeping, and reporting provisions of 40 CFR part 75 concerning Hg mass emissions. Missouri's State Plan also demonstrates that the State has the legal authority to adopt emission standards and compliance schedules necessary for attainment and maintenance of the State's annual EGU Hg budget and to require the owners and operators of coal-fired EGUs in the State to meet the monitoring, record keeping, and reporting requirements of 40 CFR part 75. Missouri cites Section 643.050 and 643.055 of the Missouri Air Conservation Law, as containing the legal authority for the Missouri Air Conservation Commission to adopt the State's rule that allows for Missouri's participation in the nationwide cap and trade program. VI. 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 proposes to approve State law as meeting Federal requirements and would impose no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule would 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 action proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under State law and would 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 proposal also does not have Tribal implications because it would 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 proposed action also does not have Federalism implications because it would not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely proposes to approve a State rule implementing a Federal standard. It does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it proposes to approve a State rule implementing a Federal standard. Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,” requires Federal agencies to consider the impact of programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations. EPA guidance 1 states that EPA is to assess whether minority or low-income populations face risk or a rate of exposure to hazards that is significant and that “appreciably exceed[s] or is likely to appreciably exceed the risk or rate to the general population or to the appropriate comparison group.” (EPA, 1998) Because this rule merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing the Federal standard established by CAMR, EPA lacks the discretionary authority to modify today's regulatory decision on the basis of environmental justice considerations. However, EPA has already considered the impact of CAMR, including this Federal standard, on minority and low-income populations. In the context of EPA's CAMR published in the **Federal Register** on May 18, 2005, in accordance with Executive Order 12898, the Agency has considered whether CAMR may have disproportionate negative impacts on minority or low income populations and determined it would not. 1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1998. Guidance for Incorporating Environmental Justice Concerns in EPA's NEPA Compliance Analyses. Office of Federal Activities, Washington, DC, April, 1998. In reviewing State Plan 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 State Plan for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a State Plan submission, to use VCS in place of a State Plan 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 proposed rule would not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). List of Subjects in Part 62 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Electric utilities, Intergovernmental relations, Mercury, Reporting and recordkeeping. Dated: September 19, 2007. John B. Askew, Regional Administrator, Region 7. [FR Doc. E7-19120 Filed 9-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0022; FRL-8474-2] RIN 2050-AG29 NESHAP: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Standards for Hazardous Waste Combustors AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Solicitation of comment on legal analysis. SUMMARY: On October 12, 2005, pursuant to section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act, EPA issued national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) emitted by various types of hazardous waste combusters. EPA subsequently granted reconsideration petitions relating to certain issues presented by the rules. 71 FR 14665, 52564, but has not yet issued a final determination on reconsideration. Following the close of the comment period on the proposed reconsideration rule, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has issued several opinions construing section 112
(d)of the Clean Air Act, and one of those opinions has called into question the legality of some of the standards for hazardous waste combusters. This notice discusses the standards that EPA promulgated in October 2005, and specifically identifies which standards EPA believes are consistent with the Act and caselaw, and which standards are not and need to be reexamined through a subsequent rulemaking. With respect to those standards EPA intends to retain, this notice indicates the portions of the rationale upon which EPA intends to rely, and which portions EPA would no longer rely upon as a justification for the October 2005 standards. EPA is seeking public comment on this analysis. EPA has also placed edited versions of various support documents in the public docket, edited to remove portions of the rationale on which EPA no longer plans to rely, and seeks public comment on these edits. DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 18, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0022, by one of the following methods: • *www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail:* *a-and-r-docket@epa.gov* . • *Fax:* 202-566-1741. • *Mail:* U.S. Postal Service, send comments to: Air and Radiation Docket (2822T), Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0022, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of two copies. • *Hand Delivery:* In person or by courier, deliver comments to: HQ EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. Please include a total of two copies. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0022. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *www.regulations.gov* , your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm* . *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the *www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, *e.g.* , CBI or other information the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the HQ EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is
(202)566-1744, and the telephone number for the HQ EPA Docket Center is
(202)566-1742. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For more information on this notice, contact Frank Behan at
(703)308-8476, or *behan.frank@epa.gov* , Office of Solid Waste (5302P), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Entities Potentially Affected by this Action.* Categories and entities potentially affected by this action include: Category NAICS code a Potentially affected entities Petroleum and coal products manufacturing 324 Any entity that combusts hazardous waste as defined in the final rule. Chemical manufacturing 325 Cement and concrete product manufacturing 3273 Other nonmetallic mineral product manufacturing 3279 Waste treatment and disposal 5622 Remediation and other waste management services 5629 a North American Industry Classification System. This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be impacted by this action. This table lists examples of the types of entities EPA is now aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not listed could also be affected. To determine whether your facility, company, business, organization, etc., is affected by this action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.1200. 1 If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 1 Unless otherwise noted, all regulatory references in this notice are to 40 CFR. *How Do I Obtain a Copy of this Document and Other Related Information?* In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of today's proposed rule will also be available on the World Wide Web (WWW). Following the Administrator's signature, a copy of this document may be posted on the WWW at *http://www.epa.gov/hwcmact* . This Web site also provides other information related to the NESHAP for hazardous waste combustors including the NESHAP issued on October 12, 2005 (70 FR 59402) and the two petition for reconsideration notices published on March 23, 2006 (71 FR 14665) and September 6, 2006 (71 FR 52624). *Preparation of Comments.* Do not submit this information to EPA through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. Send or deliver information identified as CBI to only the following address: Ms. LaShan Haynes, RCRA Document Control Officer, EPA (Mail Code 5305P), Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0022, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington DC, 20460. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. *Tips for Preparing Your Comments.* When submitting comments, remember to: • Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). • Follow directions—The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)part or section number. • Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. • Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. • If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow it to be reproduced. • Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives. • Explain your views as clearly as possible. • Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. *Organization of this Document.* The information presented in this notice is organized as follows: I. Background II. Consideration of Variability in Establishing MACT Floors III. Discussion of Individual Standards A. Standards for Particulate Matter 1. Standards for Incinerator, Cement Kilns, Lightweight Aggregate Kilns, and Solid Fuel Boilers 2. Standards for Liquid Fuel Boilers B. Standards for Semivolatile Metals and Low Volatility Metals 1. Methodology to Establish Floor Levels 2. Alternatives to the Particulate Matter Standard for Incinerators, Liquid Fuel Boilers, and Solid Fuel Boilers 3. Alternative Mercury, Semivolatile Metals, Low Volatile Metals, and Total Chlorine Standards for Cement Kilns and Lightweight Aggregate Kilns 4. Alternative Mercury Standards for Cement Kilns and Lightweight Aggregate Kilns Under the Interim Standards C. Standards for Total Chlorine 1. Incinerators 2. Cement Kilns 3. Lightweight Aggregate Kilns 4. Liquid Fuel Boilers 5. Solid Fuel Boilers 6. Hydrochloric Acid Production Furnaces D. Standards for Dioxins/Furans 1. Incinerators 2. Cement Kilns 3. Lightweight Aggregate Kilns 4. Liquid Fuel Boilers E. Non-Dioxin Organic HAP F. Mercury 1. Incinerators 2. Cement Kilns 3. Lightweight Aggregate Kilns 4. Liquid Fuel Boilers 5. Solid Fuel Boilers G. Normalization H. Potential Implications to the Compliance Date Provisions If Standards Are Remanded to EPA I. Background The Hazardous Waste Combustor
(HWC)Maximum Achievable Control Technology
(MACT)rule, 70 FR 59402 (October 12, 2005), adopts separate standards for six source categories, the common link being that sources in each category burn hazardous waste. These sources are incinerators, cement kilns, lightweight aggregate kilns, solid fuel boilers, liquid fuel boilers, and hydrochloric acid production furnaces. Liquid fuel boilers are further subcategorized into those burning higher heating value hazardous wastes and lower heating value hazardous wastes. The following hazardous air pollutants (“HAP”) are regulated for each of these source categories: dioxins and furans (“D/F”); semivolatile metals (lead and cadmium) (“SVM”); low volatile metals (arsenic, beryllium and chromium) (“LVM”); mercury, particulate matter (“PM”) (as a surrogate for the remaining HAP metals (antimony, cobalt, manganese, nickel, and selenium), and also to control HAP metals in all inputs to the units which are not hazardous waste); hydrogen chloride/chlorine (measured as total chlorine) (“TCl”); carbon monoxide/total hydrocarbons (“CO/HC”) (as surrogates for non-dioxin organic HAP (and in a few cases, dioxin as well); and destruction removal efficiency (“DRE”) (an aspect of control of non-dioxin organic HAP, and in a few cases, dioxin). On March 13, 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) issued its decision in *Sierra Club* v. *EPA,* 479 F.3d 875
(2007)(“ *Brick MACT* ”). EPA has reexamined the rule to determine if it is compliant with the statute with respect to the issues discussed in the Court's opinion, and specifically whether the MACT floors for each standard are compliant. For the most part, EPA believes that they are. The basic reason, for those standards EPA plans to retain, is that the rule identifies as best performers—the best performing 12 per cent or best performing five sources in smaller source categories for existing sources, and the best controlled single source for new sources—those sources which are likely to emit the least HAP over time, and reasonably estimates these sources' level of performance. Put another way, the rule identifies as best performers those emitting the least HAP considering variability (i.e., their performance over time), and accounts for that variability as much as possible in estimating these sources' level of performance. See 70 FR at 59346 (“best performers are those that perform best over time (i.e., day-in, day-out)”). The statute does not address the question of whether, in assessing which sources perform best or are best controlled, emission levels should be evaluated over time, or in a single test result. Nor does *Brick MACT,* which states at 479 F.3d 880 that “section [112(d)(3)] requires floors based on the emission level actually achieved by the best performers (those with the lowest emission levels)”, but does not refer to a time period for measurement. The following example shows why it is reasonable to determine which sources are the best performers by accounting in the first instance for what their emissions are over time. Assume that source A in a single test emitted 10 units of cadmium, and source B emitted 15 units. However, assume further that over time source A emits cadmium at a rate of 40 units and source B emits cadmium at a rate of 25 (the difference being that source B's performance is less variable). It is at the very least reasonable to view source B as the better performer; over time it emits less cadmium than source A. Indeed, given that the chief health risks of most HAP emitted by Hazardous Waste Combustors results from chronic rather than acute exposure (i.e., amount of repeated exposure over time as opposed to single exposure incidents), floor standards based on evaluation of sources' performance over time (i.e., standards which account for sources' variability) best address the sources' ultimate impacts on human health. See 70 FR at 59533-35 where EPA discusses human health benefits of the standards considering reductions in chronic exposure to HAP. II. Consideration of Variability in Establishing MACT Floors EPA may consider variability in identifying best performers and their level of performance. See 70 FR at 59436. See also *Brick MACT,* 479 F.3d at 881-82 (variability of best performing sources may be taken into account in establishing MACT floors). EPA in this rule identified two types of variability, run-to-run variability and test-to-test variability. Run-to-run variability “encompasses variability in individual runs comprising the compliance tests, and includes uncertainties in correlation of monitoring parameters and emissions, and imprecision of stack test methods and laboratory analyses.” 70 FR at 59437. A shorthand description is that this is within-test variability. EPA quantified run-to-run variability using the statistical methodology set forth in Technical Support Document (“TSD”) Vol. III section 7.2; 2 see also 70 FR at 59437/1-2, 59438, and 59439 explaining the reasonableness of this statistical approach. The chief element of this quantification is simply the standard deviation in the performance test data (standard deviation being the usual statistical measure for assessing variation within a data set by comparing a single result with the average of the data comprising the data set). The result is an estimate of the value which the source would achieve in 99 of 100 future tests if it replicated the operating conditions of the compliance test. 70 FR at 59437; 3 see also 69 FR at 21232 and n. 69 (April 20, 2004). 2 USEPA, “Technical Support Document for HWC MACT Standards, Volume III: Selection of MACT Standards,” (TSD Vol. III) September 2005. Unless otherwise specified, all TSD references in this notice are to this document, which is available in the docket to the rule. See docket items EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0022-0453, 0457, 0459, and 0460. 3 More precisely, this is a modified prediction limit that ensures at the 95% confidence level that the average of the best performing sources could achieve the emission level in 99 or 100 future test conditions based on a three-run average, assuming the best performers could initially replicate the compliance test conditions. TSD Vol. III at 7-7; 70 FR at 59437. Existence of run-to-run variability is confirmed most evidently by the wide variations within different runs of the best performers' performance tests. Moreover, simply averaging these different run results would lead to standards which not even the best of the best performers would achieve over time. TSD Vol. III section 16.4. Comparative test results of best performing sources (i.e., tests of the same source at a different time) strongly suggest that run-to-run variability can be appreciable (although not the only measure of variability), since these sources have been shown consistently to emit more than the averaged emissions from the performance test identifying the source as best performing. See TSD Vol. III Tables 16-4, 16-5, 17-1, 17-3. Failure to consider run-to-run variability could seriously underestimate a source's emissions over time. See TSD Vol. III section 17.3.3, showing that even the lowest emitting Straight Emission sources could have emissions higher than floor levels under a methodology that considers run-to-run variability. EPA has comparative data from a number of lowest emitting incinerators for PM in single test results. In other tests, these same sources were typically unable to achieve the same level of performance, sometimes emitting up to seven times more PM. 69 FR at 21232 and n. 69 (April 20, 2004). Test-to-test variability results from variability in pollution device control efficiencies over time (depending on multitudinous factors, including for fabric filters the point in the maintenance cycle at which the source is tested, and for electrostatic precipitators variations in combustion gas moisture and particle resistivity), as well as measurement variability resulting from different sampling crews under different meteorological conditions and different analytical laboratories. *Id.* and n. 63. A shorthand description is that this is long-term variability. EPA demonstrated generally that:
(a)Test-to-test variability exists;
(b)it is not encompassed in EPA's statistical quantification of run-to-run variability;
(c)the amount of test-to-test variability can be significant such that failing to account for it in some manner means that the sources' performance over time can be seriously underestimated (i.e., since their long-term variability would be ignored); and
(d)sources which are lowest emitting in single emission tests may not be the lowest emitters over time due to their test-to-test variability. 70 FR at 59437-438 and TSD Vol. III chapters 16 and 17; see also 70 FR at 59439 explaining why total variability is not accounted for by compliance test conditions. EPA was able to provide a quantitative estimate of test-to-test variability in only one instance—where fabric filters are used to capture particulate matter. See discussion of PM standards in section III.A. below. In other instances, EPA accounted for test-to-test (i.e., long-term) variability in one of two ways:
(a)Selecting as best performers those which minimized their long-term (i.e., test-to-test) variability by best controlling the aspects of performance (notably removal efficiency evaluated systemwide and hazardous waste HAP feedrate) within their control, or
(b)using a surrogate for the HAP where EPA could assess the long-term variability associated with emissions of that surrogate, but could not otherwise assess long-term variability. EPA also carefully assessed a floor methodology which simply assumed that the lowest emitters in individual performance tests were the best performers. The major problem with such a methodology is that it ignores the sources' performance over time, leading to situations where the sources' level of performance may be assessed improperly. See TSD Vol. III chapters 16 and 17; 70 FR at 59442-446 (explaining why lowest emitters in individual performance tests 4 are not always the best performers). EPA consequently used this methodology to identify best performers and their level of performance when it was not possible to assess sources' waste feedrate and systemwide removal efficiency. 4 The heading to this preamble section should have explicitly included the words “in individual performance tests” in the section title. III. Discussion of Individual Standards A. Standards for Particulate Matter 1. Standards for Incinerator, Cement Kilns, Lightweight Aggregate Kilns, and Solid Fuel Boilers EPA adopted standards for particulate matter (“PM”) for all of the hazardous waste combuster source categories except for hydrochloric acid production furnaces. 5 Particulate Matter is a surrogate for the HAP metals antimony, cobalt, manganese, nickel, and selenium, the HAP metals not covered by the standards for semi-volatile and low-volatile HAP metals (referred to as `nonenumerated metals' in this rulemaking). See section III.B. below. In addition, as explained in section III.B., the PM standard also controls all non-mercury HAP metals (i.e., semi-volatile, low volatility, and nonenumerated HAP metals) in all nonhazardous waste inputs to HWCs. 70 FR at 59459. Since the PM standards are measured by total end-of-stack output, these standards account for all HAP metal input to hazardous waste combustion devices (other than mercury). *Id.* 5 The alternative metal standards, in lieu of PM standards, for incinerators, and liquid and solid fuel boilers are discussed in section III.B discussing standards using the SRE Feed floor methodology. EPA used the Air Pollution Control Device methodology to establish floors for PM. Under this methodology, EPA determined as a matter of engineering judgment which devices best control PM emissions, ranked these means of control, and selected as the best performers those with the lowest PM emissions using the best control device. See TSD Vol. III section 7.4; see also *id.* at 16-2 ranking PM control devices from best to worst for each source category. The floor for each source category was then established based on the average of these lowest emitting sources' PM emissions (or the lowest emitter of these sources for the new source floor). In most instances, the lowest emitters in the performance test used for determining best performers were equipped with the best control device—some type of fabric filter (“FF”). Occasionally, a lower PM emitter in a single test was equipped with some other type of control device, or, in the case of three incinerators, no control device, but EPA ranked these sources as lower (i.e., worse) performing than FF-equipped sources. EPA reevaluated carefully whether the lower ranking of these sources, in some instances resulting in their omission from the pool of best performers, is consistent with the holding of *Brick MACT* , 479 F.3d at 882-83, as well as *Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition* v. *EPA* , 255 F.3d 855, 863-65 (D.C. Cir. 2001), that floors are not to be set only on performance of sources equipped with certain technology unless that is the only factor affecting emissions, and that EPA must consider all means of control when selecting best performers. EPA of course accepts these holdings, and believes its approach here is consistent with the statute and applicable case law. EPA selected as best performers (or as the best controlled source) those sources it estimated to have the lowest PM emissions over time. EPA's selection process has a reasoned basis. Sources equipped with control devices other than FFs are likely to emit more over time than they do in individual test conditions, even after adjusting test results to account for run-to-run variability. (Put another way, these sources' performance in individual test conditions are likely not representative of what they will emit over time.) This is because test-to-test variability, that is, long-term variability, has not been taken into account. Since these other control devices are known to be more variable and less efficient than FFs, TSD Vol. III pp. 16-3 to 4 and 11, failure to consider long-term variability (i.e., looking exclusively at results of single performance tests) results in these sources' performance not being fully characterized. Long-term variability exists due to, among other things, variation over time in control device performance and varying ash feed rates. 6 EPA confirmed in a series of analyses of HWCs that this test-to-test variability for non-FF equipped devices both exists and is appreciable. See TSD Vol. III section 16.5 showing among other things that ostensibly lowest emitting, non-FF equipped sources in other tests (i.e., other occasions when the same source was tested) were unable to duplicate (i.e., achieve):
(a)Their own level of performance (i.e., their performance in the other test),
(b)their own performance adjusted to account for run-to-run variability,
(c)floors based on the average of the lowest single test emitters' performance,
(d)design level of the floor actually adopted in the rule (i.e., the level sources would design to in order to comply with the rule), and, in one case,
(e)the floor level established in the rule (i.e., the floor reflecting application of the Air Pollution Control Device methodology). EPA further examined whether this difference in performance resulted from legitimate operating variability, rather than from differing ash feed rates, and in the instance where direct comparison was possible, determined that it did not. TSD Volume III pp. 16-15 through 17. 6 Ash content is an indicator of the noncombustible matter (i.e., inorganic content, including metals) in the feed to the source. In contrast, EPA was able to quantify the long-term performance (i.e., performance accounting for both run-to-run and test-to-test variability) of HWC sources equipped with FFs. This is the only type of air pollution control device for HWCs, and the only pollutant, for which such a calculation is possible. The reason this quantification is possible is that FFs are less variable than other control devices, and perform relatively constantly regardless of input loadings. 70 FR at 59449. EPA thus developed a so-called Universal Variability Factor algorithm for fabric filters, which is derived from the quantified measure of the total variability (i.e., both run-to-run and long-term test-to-test variability) of the FF-equipped hazardous waste combusters identified as best performers based on the historical test conditions for those sources. See TSD Vol. III section 5.3. As a result, for HWCs EPA has a considerably more reliable idea of what fabric filter-equipped sources' actual performance for PM is over time than for any other type of control device-equipped source (or for sources without air pollution control devices). Second, as just noted above, the record demonstrates that the performance data from sources that emitted less PM in individual performance tests but are not equipped with FFs significantly underestimates the amount of PM these sources emit over time (i.e., fails to account for their long-term variability). Third, over time, these emissions in some instances exceed (i.e., are higher than) the lowest emitting FF-equipped sources, even though emitting less in an individual performance test. 70 FR at 59448; TSD Vol. III section 16.5. Putting all this together, EPA selected the lowest emitting FF-equipped sources as the best performing. 70 FR at 59448. This approach is consistent with the statute and applicable case law. EPA selected as best performers (or best controlled sources) those sources it reasonably estimated to have the lowest PM emissions over time. Performance of units equipped with fabric filters can be reliably estimated over time—i.e., all of the variability can be quantified. Performance of other units over time cannot be estimated as reliably (the long-term variability cannot be quantified at all), but is known to be less efficient and more variable. Short-term performance tests thus demonstrably and dramatically understate the amount of PM (and HAP metal) these sources emit, so that these units could (and demonstrably do in some instances) emit more PM (and therefore more HAP metal) than the lowest emitting FF-equipped sources notwithstanding lower PM emissions in individual tests. The D.C. Circuit has held repeatedly that EPA may use reasonable means to estimate the performance of best performing sources, and may account for sources' variability in doing so. *CKRC* , 255 F.3d at 865-66; *Mossville,* 370 F.3d at 1240, 1242; *National Lime Ass'n* v. *EPA* , 627 F. 2d 416, 431 n. 46, 443 (D.C. Cir. 1980); see also *Brick MACT,* 479 F.3d at 881-82 (estimates of variability are to be for the variability of the best performing sources). EPA's approach here is consistent with these requirements. The D.C. Circuit has stressed in both *Brick MACT* and *CKRC* that factors such as low HAP feed that influence emissions cannot be ignored in assessing performance. 479 F.3d at 882-83; 255 F.3d at 864-65. EPA thus carefully reexamined those instances where low PM emitters in single tests were not equipped with any pollution control equipment so that their emission levels necessarily reflected low ash inputs. There are three incinerators that had lower PM emissions in single tests that were lower than the worst of the lowest-emitting FF-equipped incinerators on whose performance the floor standard is based. TSD Vol. III App. F at APCD-INC-PM. EPA continues to believe that it properly chose not to include these sources among the pool of best performers. First, even in single test conditions, these sources' emissions were not significantly lower (0.0018 to 0.0009 gr/dscf lower, that is, roughly a 7-14% difference) than the average of the best performing 12% of sources EPA identified as best performing using the Air Pollution Control methodology. *Id.* These sources also emit more PM than all but one of the best performing incinerators in EPA's pool of best performers, and the difference in performance between these uncontrolled sources and the last of the EPA pool is small, roughly a factor of 2. *Id.* Since these devices lack any pollution control equipment, their performance over time will be highly variable as ash feedrates vary and their emissions could 7 well exceed the emissions of the sources comprising EPA's pool of best performing incinerators. Second, and of at least equal importance, low ash feedrates are not a guarantee of low HAP metal emissions. Low PM emissions from uncontrolled sources could still reflect high metal HAP emissions since, if the ash has high metal content, all of it would be emitted. See 70 FR at 59449 (“ash feedrates are not reliable indicators of nonmercury metal HAP feed control levels and are therefore inappropriate parameters to assess in the MACT evaluation process. For example, a source could reduce its ash feed input by reducing the amount of silica in its feedstreams. This would not result in * * * emission reductions of metal HAP”). In contrast, “particulate matter emissions from baghouses [e.g., FF-equipped units] are not significantly affected by inlet particulate matter loadings”, *id.,* so that PM (and hence HAP metal emissions) from these units will remain best controlled regardless of relative amounts fed to the device. See also TSD Vol. III section 17.7 documenting that PM emissions from FF-equipped sources are not affected appreciably by inlet loadings. EPA is thus giving preference as best performers to those incinerators we know are effectively controlling non-mercury metal HAP because they are the lowest emitting of the most efficiently controlled sources. Moreover, although a severable part of the rationale, EPA believes it reasonable that most efficiently controlled sources can be viewed as “best performing” and “best controlled” under appropriate circumstances. See discussion in section B.1 below. 7 There are no comparative test data in the record for these sources. EPA does, however, believe that certain parts of the justification for the PM standards in the final rule are not proper after *Brick MACT,* and EPA is no longer relying on them and will revise the record accordingly. The principal revisions are to discussions relating to how EPA considered raw material inputs in assessing which sources are best performers. See *Brick MACT,* 479 F. 3d at 882-83. The specific alterations EPA is contemplating (generally excising existing language) are found in red line/strike out versions of the Preamble, Technical Support Documents, and Response to Comment Document which EPA has placed in the docket for this rule. 2. Standards for Liquid Fuel Boilers EPA's initial decision is not to defend the PM standard for liquid fuel boilers (LFBs), and we thus contemplate requesting the Court to remand the standard so that EPA can reexamine it. Most of the liquid fuel boilers with lowest PM emissions are uncontrolled units with extremely low ash feeds. TSD Vol. III App. F at APCD-LFB-PM. Unlike the situation with incinerators, the difference in PM emissions between these sources and those lowest-emitting LFBs equipped with FFs is great, ranging from a factor of 6 (comparing lowest emitting FF-equipped LFB with lowest emitting uncontrolled LFB) to over three orders magnitude (comparing worst of the lowest emitting FF-equipped LFB to lowest emitting uncontrolled LFB). *Id.* These uncontrolled sources' emissions are also roughly an order of magnitude lower than the promulgated floor based on performance of FF-equipped sources. *Id.* There are also ten uncontrolled LFBs in the data base with lower PM emissions than the lowest emitting FF-equipped LFB. *Id.* Under these circumstances, EPA is less certain that these LFBs could emit more PM over time than the FF-equipped sources EPA selected as best performers and therefore will reexamine the standard with a view to amending it. However, EPA notes further that this difference in emission levels between controlled and uncontrolled sources suggests that subcategorization may be appropriate. EPA intends to investigate that possibility in subsequent rulemaking. B. Standards for Semivolatile Metals and Low Volatility Metals 1. Methodology To Establish Floor Levels EPA used the so-called system removal efficiency/hazardous waste feed control (“SRE Feed”) methodology to establish floor levels for semivolatile metal HAP (“SVM”—lead and cadmium) and low volatile metal HAP (“LVM”—arsenic, beryllium, and chromium) for all source categories except hydrochloric acid production furnaces. Under this methodology, best performers are ranked by hazardous waste feed rate of metal HAP, and by system removal efficiency (the degree to which HAP are removed from stack emissions across the entire system, be it by an air pollution control device or by any other means). 70 FR at 59441. Best performers are those with the best combination of hazardous waste feed rate for the HAP at issue and system removal efficiency (i.e., lowest hazardous waste feed rate and best removal efficiency). EPA assessed SVM and LVM separately, so that there are separate pools of best performing sources for each of these HAP metal groups for each of the source categories. Once best sources are identified by this methodology, EPA calculated the floor (accounting for run-to-run variability) based on the averaged emission levels of SVM or LVM from these best performing sources (or for new sources, the SVM or LVM emission level of the single best performer). For source categories where SVM and LVM standards are normalized by hazardous waste heat input (cement kilns, lightweight aggregate kilns, and the higher heating value hazardous wastes subcategory for liquid fuel boiler), see 70 FR at 59451-53, the standard is expressed exclusively in terms of SVM or LVM attributable to hazardous waste inputs. For all source categories, total SVM and LVM emissions are addressed and controlled by the PM standard. The SRE Feed methodology does not always identify the lowest emitters of SVM or LVM in single tests as the best performers; it identifies the lowest emitters as the sources with the best combination of hazardous feed rate control and back end control (removal efficiency across the entire system). Some of these sources were also the lowest emitters in single test results, but were not in all cases. EPA selected this methodology, rather than the so-called Straight Emissions approach of simply identifying best performers as those with the lowest emissions after accounting for run-to-run variability, because the SRE Feed methodology better identifies who the lowest emitters will be over time, and better assesses their performance (i.e., how much SVM or LVM they will emit as they operate). 70 FR at 59441-442; TSD Vol. III at 17-1. SRE Feed best performers are likely to emit less of these metals over time than sources identified as best under the Straight Emissions methodology—averaged performance of lowest emitting sources in the most recent performance test accounting for run-to-run variability (see TSD Vol. III at section 7.2)—because the Straight Emissions methodology (even after accounting for run-to-run variability) ignores sources' long-term (test-to-test) variability, and so underestimates (indeed, ignores) their performance over time. The SRE Feed methodology accounts for test-to-test variability, albeit qualitatively. *Id* . 8 For the same reason, the SRE Feed methodology better estimates sources' performance over time since it accounts in some measure for their long-term variability instead of ignoring it. As discussed earlier, elements of long-term variability include such things as chlorine feed rates (since metals are more volatile in the chlorinated form), back-end control devices' controllable operating parameters (e.g. ESP power levels, pressure drop across baghouses, and other such operating parameters), the matrix in which the metal is fed (solid, liquid, pumpable) and the hazardous waste feedrate. TSD Vol. III at p. 17-5. SRE Feed best performers are those that best control these and other controllable parameters and therefore are less variable (i.e., are more efficient at controlling SVM and LVM emissions), and therefore likely to emit less SVM and LVM over time. *Id* . at p. 17-11. Put more broadly, the methodology best evaluates the two things sources can do to control SVM and LVM emissions: limit the feed rate of these HAP in hazardous waste (since hazardous waste feed rate is controlled under RCRA rules), and manage controllable parameters to limit emissions across the entire system (both through emission control device control and by any other means), the result being that these sources are likely to emit less SVM and LVM over time. 70 FR at 59441. 8 See TSD Vol. III at 17-1 to 4 explaining why long-term variability for SVM and LVM cannot be determined quantitatively, even for sources equipped with baghouses (FFs). Data confirm that lowest emitters in single tests (i.e., performers identified as best under the Straight Emissions methodology) can and do emit more SVM and LVM over time than the sources EPA identified as best performers using the SRE Feed methodology. See TSD Vol. III sections 17.2 and 17.3.1 and 17.3.2. Looking at all the data in the record where there were multiple test results (i.e., tests conducted at different times) from sources with the lowest SVM or LVM emissions in single tests, EPA found that a) three of four of these sources emitted more SVM or LVM in historical tests than allowed under the Straight Emissions floor (i.e., average emissions (not considering run-to-run variability) of SVM or LVM were higher than the average of the best performers using the Straight Emissions methodology (which considers run-to-run variability)) ( *id* . Table 17-1); 9
(b)5 of 15 of these sources were projected to emit more SVM or LVM than allowed under the SRE Feed floor using the reasonable assumption that these sources fed the same amount of LVM and SVM in hazardous waste as they did in the performance test identifying them as a best performer (lowest emitter) under the straight emission approach, but had the system removal efficiency demonstrated in their other tests. *Id* . at Tables 17-2 and 17-3; 10 and
(c)8 of 13 straight emission best performers would exceed the SRE Feed floor if their system removal efficiency from all tests (i.e., whether the system removal efficiency was higher or lower than that demonstrated in the single performance test identifying it as a best performer under the straight emissions methodology) were pooled and applied to the hazardous waste federate for LVM or SVM used in the single performance test identifying it as a best performer under the straight emissions methodology. *Id* . at 17.3.2 and Tables 17-6 and 7. In addition, most of the straight emissions best performers emitted more SVM and LVM in previous performance tests than they did in the single performance test identifying them as a straight emission best performer (or were projected to do so under the same reasonable assumptions), and often exceeded their earlier performance by wide margins (failing routinely, for example, to achieve their own performance test results adjusted upward to account for run-to-run variability, the Straight Emissions approach floor level (which also accounts for run-to-run variability), and the design level of the SRE Feed floor level). See TSD Vol. III sections 17.2 and 17.3.1 and 17.3.2. 9 It should be noted that source 3016 was feeding more LVM in this test than in its most recent performance test, although the source was operating within its permit limits, and so far as can be determined was also otherwise properly designed and operated in this test. 10 EPA also showed that these sources were operating properly in the tests where they removed SVM and LVM less efficiently. TSD Vol. III at 17-14 to 15 and Tables 17-4 and 5. EPA's approach is consistent with the statute and with applicable caselaw. EPA may consider variability in assessing sources' performance, and it did so here for the evident reason that variability is an aspect of a source's performance. *CKRC* , 255 F.3d at 865-66; *Mossville* , 370 F.3d at 1242. Here, short-term and long-term variability (i.e., run-to-run and test-to-test) in SVM and LVM performance demonstrably exists. The SRE Feed methodology accounts for both types of variability. The Straight Emissions methodology demonstrably does not. The Straight Emissions methodology thus not only consistently underestimates sources' performance, but identifies as best performers those which may emit more SVM and LVM over time. For these reasons we believe the record of this rulemaking demonstrates that the SRE Feed methodology better accounts for variability, and hence performance, than does the Straight Emissions approach (even with consideration of run-to-run variability), and consequently, the SRE Feed methodology more accurately identifies the best performing sources and their level of performance. It is also no answer to say that the Straight Emissions best performing sources could simply retrofit their devices to achieve over time what they were able to achieve in a single performance test. Section 112(d)(3) requires EPA to determine the best performers and their level of performance based on sources as they now exist, not how they might be retrofitted. Requiring even the pool of best performers (i.e., those whose performance was measured at below the average of the best performers) to retrofit to meet a floor level is a de facto beyond the floor standard and therefore impermissible unless costs and other factors under section (d)(2) factors are considered. 70 FR at 59445. Moreover, a source so retrofitted would not be an existing source as required by section 112(d)(3), but rather some hypothetical entity which does not even presently exist. See 71 FR 14665 (March 23, 2006). As noted above, the SVM and LVM standards which are normalized by hazardous waste thermal input apply only to SVM and LVM contributed by the hazardous waste. MACT standards must address all HAP emitted by a source, not just some portion of the HAP. *Brick MACT* , 479 F.3d at 882-83 (raw material input contributions to HAP emissions must be addressed by MACT floor). Although most SVM and LVM emitted by these sources comes from the hazardous waste, 11 hazardous waste is not the sole input of these metals. However, all SVM and LVM emissions from these sources is controlled by virtue of the PM standard. In addition, although the SVM and LVM floor standards for cement kilns and lightweight aggregate kilns are normalized by hazardous waste thermal input, EPA also capped these standards by the interim standards for SVM and LVM, which are standards that control all SVM and LVM emissions emitted from the combustor, not just emissions of SVM and LVM from hazardous waste. 12 Moreover, there is strong direct correlation between the control of total PM and control of metal HAP (including SVM and LVM), so that emission limits reflecting best PM control will also similarly control the total SVM and LVM. *Sierra Club* v. *EPA (“Primary Copper MACT”)* , 353 F.3d 976, 984-85 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (PM proper surrogate for HAP metals “even in light of the potential variability of impurities in copper ore”). Furthermore, as a cross-check, EPA determined that total SVM and LVM emissions from the sources EPA identified as the PM best performers from these source categories are generally comparable to (and often lower than) total SVM and LVM emissions from the sources identified as best performers under EPA's SRE Feed methodology. 13 Thus, on the facts here, the thermally normalized floors for SVM and LVM (i.e., the SVM and LVM standards for cement kilns, lightweight aggregate kilns, and the higher heating value hazardous wastes subcategory of liquid fuel boilers), in combination with the PM standards, provide control of SVM and LVM reflecting the average SVM and LVM emissions of the best performing sources. 11 See Source Data for Hazardous Waste Combustors, Source Category Summary Sheets, at *http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/combust/finalmact/source.htm* . 12 See 70 FR at 59457-458, § 63.1220(a)(3)(ii), (a)(4)(ii), (b)(3)(ii), and (b)(4)(ii), and § 63.1221(a)(3)(ii), (a)(4)(ii), (b)(3)(ii), and (b)(4)(ii). 13 See note from Bob Holloway, USEPA, to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0022 entitled “SVM/LVM Emissions from PM Best Performers Are Generally Comparable to SVM/LVM Emissions from SVM/LVM Best Performers,” dated August 23, 2007. EPA further justified its use of the SRE Feed methodology on two additional bases, both of which are severable from the analysis just presented. First, EPA appropriately utilized the SRE Feed methodology because the Straight Emissions approach would force some best-controlled commercial hazardous waste treatment units to stop burning hazardous waste (or to burn less waste), even though hazardous waste must be treated before it can be land disposed under sections 3004(d), (e), (g), and
(m)of RCRA and combustion is the only means of successfully treating the hazardous waste. 70 FR at 59442; TSD Vol. III section 17.4. EPA noted further that the Clean Air Act requires that EPA take into account RCRA requirements when issuing MACT standards for hazardous waste combustion units. 14 CAA section 112(n)(7). Although a severable part of EPA's rationale, 70 FR at 59447/3, EPA continues to believe that use of the Straight Emissions methodology is unreasonable here because it could have significant adverse cross-media environmental impacts by reducing the amount of needed, and statutorily mandated hazardous waste treatment capacity. See *id.* at 59442 (“EPA doubts that a standard which precludes effective treatment mandated by a sister environmental statute must be viewed as a type of best performance under section 112(d)”). EPA's concern here is not that certain sources are unable to achieve a floor standard. See *Brick MACT,* 479 F.3d at 881-82. Rather, the concern is the adverse cross-media environmental impact resulting from undermining “the heart of RCRA's hazardous waste management program”, the restrictions on land disposal of untreated hazardous waste. *Chemical Waste Management* v. *EPA,* 976 F.2d 2, 23 (D.C. Cir. 1992). Section 112(n)(7) of the Clean Air Act requires EPA to consider RCRA standards when adopting section 112(d) standards for RCRA sources, and EPA's consideration of the issue here reinforces the conclusion that the SRE Feed methodology is reasonable, and the proper means here of assessing which sources are best, and their level of performance, for SVM and LVM emissions. 14 EPA investigated the possibility of subcategorizing by commercial/non-commercial sources but found this undesirable because it would lead to anomalously high floors for some subcategories due to sparse available data. 70 FR at 59442 and n. 78. Second, as a legal matter, section 112(d)(3) does not specifically address the question of whether “best performing” sources are those with the lowest net emissions, or those which control HAP emissions the most efficiently. 70 FR at 59443. EPA posited the example of whether a source emitting 100 units of HAP and feeding 100 units of the HAP must be considered better performing than a source emitting 101 units of the HAP but feeding 10,000 units. *Id.* Indeed, floors for new sources are to be based on the performance of the “best controlled” similar source. Section 112(d)(3). In the example just given, a source with control efficiency of 99.9 per cent can naturally be viewed as better controlled than one with 0 per cent control efficiency. EPA's decision to incorporate control efficiency ( *i.e.* , system removal efficiency) into the SRE Feed methodology as one of the two factors used to identify best performing/best controlled sources reasonably reflects that the statute allows performance to be evaluated in terms of control efficiency. See further discussion of this issue in the analysis of the total chlorine emission standard for hydrochloric acid production furnaces. EPA does, however, realize that certain parts of the justification for the SVM and LVM standards in the final rule may not be consistent with *Brick MACT* , and EPA is no longer relying on them. These relate principally to how MACT standards reflect HAP metal inputs from variable raw materials. The specific alterations EPA is contemplating (generally excising existing language) are found in red line/strike out versions of the Preamble, Technical Support Documents, and Response to Comment Document which EPA has placed in the docket for this rule. 2. Alternatives to the Particulate Matter Standard for Incinerators, Liquid Fuel Boilers, and Solid Fuel Boilers EPA promulgated alternatives to the PM standard for incinerators, liquid fuel boilers, and solid fuel boilers. 15 In the case of liquid fuel boilers, separate alternatives to the PM standard were finalized for each subcategory: those burning higher heating value hazardous wastes and those burning lower heating value hazardous wastes. The alternative to the PM standard allows sources to comply with standards limiting emissions of all SVM and LVM metals, including the five nonenumerated metal HAP not covered by the standards for SVM and LVM, in lieu of complying with the PM standard. Under these alternatives, the numerical emission limits for SVM and LVM HAP are identical to the promulgated standards. However, for SVM, the alternative standard applies not only to the combined emissions of lead and cadmium, but also includes selenium, a semivolatile nonenumerated metal HAP; for LVM, the standard applies to the combined emissions of arsenic, beryllium, chromium, antimony, cobalt, manganese, and nickel, the latter four being low volatile nonenumerated metal HAP. 15 For incinerators, the alternative to the PM standard are promulgated §§ 63.1206(b)(14) and 63.1219(e). For the higher and lower heating value hazardous wastes subcategories for the liquid fuel boiler category, the alternatives are promulgated under § 63.1217(e)(2) and (e)(3). The alternative to the PM standard is under § 63.1216(e) for solid fuel boilers. As noted above, some SVM and LVM standards are normalized by hazardous waste thermal input and apply only to SVM and LVM contributed by the hazardous waste. For these standards, SVM and LVM emissions from nonhazardous waste inputs is controlled by the PM standard. However, if a source were to elect to comply with the alternative to the PM standard, then the nonhazardous waste inputs would not be controlled because, under the alternative, the source would not be required to comply with a PM standard. In such instances, the alternative to the PM standard would not address all HAP emitted by a source. This does not appear to be consistent with the holding of *Brick MACT* that the standard must apply to all HAP emitted. 479 F.3d at 882-83. Of the source categories for which EPA promulgated alternatives to the PM standard, the higher heating value hazardous wastes subcategory for liquid fuel boilers is the only category for which SVM and LVM standards normalized by hazardous waste thermal input were established. Therefore, EPA believes (subject to comment) that it must reassess the alternative to the PM standard for this subcategory (and intends to seek remand of this standard). See § 63.1217(e)(2)(ii) and (e)(3)(ii). 3. Alternative Mercury, Semivolatile Metals, Low Volatile Metals, and Total Chlorine Standards for Cement Kilns and Lightweight Aggregate Kilns EPA promulgated provisions that allow cement kilns and lightweight aggregate kilns to petition the Administrator for alternative mercury, semivolatile metals, low volatile metals, and total chlorine standards. 16 64 FR at 52962-967 and 70 FR at 59503-504. Under these provisions, the alternative standard was not prescribed, and could take the form of an operating requirement, such as a hazardous waste feedrate limitation of metals and chlorine or an emission limitation, subject to approval by the Administrator. The rule discusses two sets of circumstances under which a source could petition for such an alternative standard. One reason is that the source cannot achieve the standard due to contributions of metals and chlorine HAP in the raw materials. The second reason is limited to mercury, and applies in situations where a source cannot comply with the mercury standard when mercury is not present in the raw materials at detectable levels ( *e.g.* , the mercury emission standard could be exceeded by a source if it assumed mercury is present in the raw materials at the detection limit). These circumstances appear to be inappropriate bases for an alternative standard after *Brick MACT* . Accordingly, EPA currently intends to seek a remand of these alternative metals and total chlorine standards and remove these provisions in a subsequent rulemaking. 16 The alternative standard provisions are promulgated under § 63.1206(b)(9) for lightweight aggregate kilns and § 63.1206(b)(10) for cement kilns. 4. Alternative Mercury Standards for Cement Kilns and Lightweight Aggregate Kilns Under the Interim Standards EPA promulgated an alternative to the interim standards for mercury for cement and lightweight aggregate kilns in 2002. Section 63.1206(b)(15) and 67 FR 6792 (February 13, 2002). Under this alternative, sources are allowed to comply with a hazardous waste maximum theoretical emissions concentration of mercury. 17 This alternative mercury standard does not address all mercury emitted by a source, and, therefore, is not permissible in light of the holding of *Brick MACT* that the standard must apply to all HAP emitted. 479 F.3d at 882-83. Accordingly, EPA currently intends to seek a remand of these alternative standard provisions and remove them in a subsequent rulemaking. 17 Maximum theoretical emissions concentration
(MTEC)is a term to compare metals (and chlorine) feedrates across sources of different sizes. MTEC is defined as the metals (or chlorine) feedrate divided by the gas flow rate and is expressed in units of ug/dscm. C. Standards for Total Chlorine EPA established standards for total chlorine (TCl, which controls emissions of both hydrochloric acid and chlorine) for all of the source categories. For all of the source categories except HCl production furnaces, EPA established floors using the SRE Feed methodology described in the previous section. For HCl production furnaces, EPA selected sources with the best removal efficiency as the best performers. EPA believes that most of these standards are consistent with the statute and applicable caselaw, although certain of the standards probably are not. 1. Incinerators For hazardous waste incinerators, all of the best performers using the SRE Feed methodology were also the lowest emitters using the Straight Emissions methodology. Thus, choice of floor methodology is not at issue here. However, EPA found that the analytic method used to gather these data is biased below 20 ppmv. 70 FR at 59427-428. EPA's determination of how to estimate these best performers' level of performance is explained in detail in 71 FR at 52628-30 (Sept. 6, 2006). As there stated, this determination is consistent with *Brick MACT* and all other applicable statutory and caselaw. 2. Cement Kilns EPA used the SRE Feed methodology to establish floors for new and existing sources, but believed that the data did not fully reflect variability that best performing kilns experience due to fluctuating alkalinity levels within the kiln. Rather, the TCl emissions data reflect the alkalinity of the limestone raw material used at the time of performance tests. 70 FR at 59469-70, TSD Vol. III section 13.7.1. To account for this variability, EPA assumed a 90 per cent system removal efficiency for all cement kiln sources. The best performing sources then effectively become the lowest chlorine feeders. Although this assumed system removal efficiency has some factual basis, see Table 1 at 70 FR 59470 showing that the median of the best performing sources (Ash Grove) demonstrated removal efficiencies ranging from 85.1 to 98.8%, the standard reflects concerns relating to raw material variability, and also may reflect a level that is achievable (albeit by best performers) rather than actually achieved. Neither of these rationales is permissible after *Brick MACT,* 479 F.3d at 880-81, 882-83. Accordingly, subject to consideration of comments on this issue, EPA currently intends to seek a remand on this standard and reexamine it in a subsequent rulemaking. EPA notes further that the health-based compliance alternatives for total chlorine under § 63.1215 would not be affected by this reexamination and thus would provide an alternative means of demonstrating compliance. 3. Lightweight Aggregate Kilns Choice of a floor methodology for TCl is essentially academic for existing lightweight aggregate kilns, since both the SRE/Feed and Straight Thermal Emission (and Straight Mass Emission) methodologies yield floor levels higher than the interim standard for these devices, in which case the floor level is capped by the level of the interim standard. 70 FR at 59457; see TSD Vol. III appendices C, D, and E for data and calculations. The reason for this seeming anomaly in all the methodologies is that EPA has little data from this source category (and there are only a few sources to begin with), so that differences in individual performance runs are magnified when the standard is calculated. In addition, all of the data in the record came from tests conducted before EPA adopted the interim standards. This is especially relevant for this standard because the interim standard is a beyond-the-floor standard. See generally TSD Vol. III chapter 19. The interim standard thus remains the best measure of evaluating best performing sources. However, for new sources, EPA noted only that the new source floor calculated using the SRE Feed methodology would be less stringent than the interim standard but did not closely examine whether the methodology clearly identified the best controlled source. TSD Vol. III section 12.6.3. EPA therefore intends to reexamine this standard in a subsequent rulemaking, subject to consideration of comment (and to seek remand of the standard). 4. Liquid Fuel Boilers a. *Higher Heating Value Hazardous Wastes Subcategory.* EPA believes (subject to comment) that it must reassess this standard (for both new and existing sources) since the standard applies only to TCl attributable to hazardous waste inputs, and currently intends to seek remand of the standard. See § 63.1217(a)(6)(ii). This is not permissible in light of the holding of *Brick MACT* that the standard must apply to all HAP emitted, notwithstanding variable HAP levels in raw materials. 479 F.3d at 881-82. b. *Lower Heating Value Hazardous Wastes Subcategory.* The SRE Feed and Straight Emissions methodologies give the same floor value for this subcategory, and the standard applies to all TCl emissions from the boiler, not just those attributable to hazardous waste. See § 63.1217(a)(6)(i). The issue is how to account for analytical bias at levels below 20 ppmv, and EPA's resolution of the issue is explained at 71 FR at 52628-630. EPA does not believe this approach raises issues under the statue, or under *Brick MACT* or other applicable caselaw. 5. Solid Fuel Boilers The SRE Feed and Straight Emission methodologies give the same floor level for both existing and new solid fuel boilers, so the issue of appropriate floor methodology is academic. TSD Vol. III at App. E and C. 6. Hydrochloric Acid Production Furnaces The TCl standard for this source category controls TCl emissions and also serves as a surrogate for all metal HAP. TSD Vol. III sections 15.2 and 15.3. EPA selected as best performers sources with the best TCl system removal efficiency (or, for new sources, the single source with the best TCl system removal efficiency). The standard is then expressed as a required degree of control: 99.923 percent for existing sources (the average efficiency of the five best controlled sources), 99.987 percent for new sources (the control efficiency of the single best controlled source). *Id* . section 15.3. EPA continues to believe that this standard is consistent with the statute and applicable caselaw. First, the statutory language requiring floors to be based on “best controlled”
(new)/``best performing” (existing) does not specify whether “best” is to be measured on grounds of control efficiency or emission level. See *Sierra Club* v. *EPA,* 167 F.3d 658, 661 (`` `average emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of units' * * * on its own says nothing about how the performance of the best units is to be calculated”). The requirement that the new source floor reflect “emission control” achieved in practice reinforces that the standard can be determined and expressed in terms of control efficiency. Existing floors determined and expressed in terms of control efficiency are likewise consistent with the requirement that the floor for existing sources reflect “average emission limitation achieved”, since “emission limitation” includes standards which limit the “rate” of emissions on a continuous basis—exactly what the standards do here. CAA section 302(k). Moreover, where Congress wanted to express performance solely in terms of numerical limits, rather than performance efficiency, it said so explicitly. See CAA section 129(a)(4). The policy reason for EPA's interpretation here is that a standard limiting volumetric TCl emissions means that less product is produced, since these sources recover hydrogen chloride to produce hydrochloric acid. TSD Vol. III at 15-6; 70 FR at 59450. EPA does not believe that the MACT floor provisions should compel an otherwise best performing source to limit the amount of product it produces. See 2 *Legislative History* at 3352 (House Report) (“MACT is not intended to * * * drive sources to the brink of shutdown”). Moreover, all that is at issue here is how to express the performance of sources ranked as best performing under both EPA's methodology and under the Straight Emissions methodology. This is because, with one exception, the best performing sources are the same under EPA's methodology as those identified as best performing under the Straight Emissions methodology. TSD Vol. III App. C at E-HCLPF-CL and App. E at SO-HCLPF-CL. The one exception is where EPA chose a parallel test condition which exhibits more variability to characterize the source's performance (source 855 condition 11 rather than condition 13), and consequently resulted in this source not being selected as a best performer. Given this documented variability, this is a reasonable choice. Thus, EPA is selecting as best performers those with the lowest measured emissions of chlorine, but chose to express their performance in terms of system removal efficiency to avoid impacts on amount of product these best performing sources produce. EPA continues to regard this choice as reasonable. EPA has carefully reexamined this standard in light of *Brick MACT.* The opinion does not address the issue directly, since no standard there was determined or expressed in terms of control efficiency. Moreover, as noted above, unlike section 129, section 112 contains no directive to express standards as numerical limits (see section 129(a)(4)), further supporting EPA's view that it could reasonably choose to express this standard in per cent reduction terms. See also section 112(i)(5)(A), which allows sources that achieve early reductions based on measured rates of removal efficiency a reprieve from MACT, a provision reasonably read to allow section 112(d) performance to be expressed in terms of rate of removal efficiency. The opinion does hold, however, that different HAP levels in raw materials could not justify a conclusion that floor standards were unachievable, so that emissions attributable to raw material HAP had to be accounted for in the standard. 479 F.3d at 882-883. The TCl standard at issue here accounts for emissions from all HAP inputs, 70 FR at 59450, and so does not present this deficiency. Nor are the floor standards designed to be achieved by all sources with a specific emission control technology. 479 F.3d at 880-81. The removal efficiency standard is not based on performance of any particular technology, and simply is the averaged (or single best) efficiencies of the best performing sources (after accounting for run-to-run variability). EPA, however, does not (subject to comment) believe that the alternative standard of 150 ppmv by volume for existing sources (section 63.1218
(6)(i)) should be retained and EPA currently intends to seek remand of this alternative standard. The standard appears inconsistent with the SRE MACT standard, since it allows sources to operate with less efficient system removals. EPA also recognizes that certain parts of the rationale for the standard, generally related to whether standards are to reflect varying raw material HAP inputs, do not appear to be consistent with *Brick MACT.* EPA is making appropriate revisions to the key record documents, which are available in red line strike out versions in the administrative record. D. Standards for Dioxins/Furans Polychlorinated dioxins and furans (D/F, or ‘dioxins’) are typically not present in any of the inputs to hazardous waste combustion devices. Rather, they are formed post-combustion (often from some type of chlorinated precursor, which precursor is itself typically a product of incomplete combustion). 70 FR at 59461. As combustion efficiency increases, complex organic molecules which can be D/F precursors are oxidized to form carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide, helping to minimize D/F formation and emission. *Id.* Different levels of chlorine in waste or other inputs do not appreciably influence D/F emission rates. TSD Vol. IV 18 section 3.3 (documenting that D/F formation and emission is ordinarily not dependent on feed levels of chlorinated materials); TSD Vol. III at 10-6. Nor does burning hazardous waste generally have an appreciable impact on CDD formation and emissions, so that it is technically appropriate in some instances to consider D/F emission levels from sources which do not burn hazardous waste in evaluating emission potential from those that do. TSD Vol. III at 11-4 and n. 72. 18 USEPA, “Technical Support Document for HWC MACT Standards, Volume IV: Compliance with the HWC MACT Standards” (TSD Vol. IV), September 2005. See docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0022-0435. Precise formation and control mechanisms of D/Fs are thought to be fairly well understood for systems with dry air pollution control devices (or extensive ductwork containing particulates on surfaces, such as for certain lightweight aggregate kilns). For these systems, D/Fs are formed on particles entrained in the control device by surface-catalyzed reactions where entrained particulate matter provides the reaction surfaces. 19 D/F formation can increase exponentially as gas temperatures increase from 400 °F to 750 °F. 20 Formation mechanisms, or their degree, are less well understood for systems with wet air pollution control or no air pollution control systems, making it less certain how much D/F these sources may emit over time. TSD Vol. III pp. 10-5 to 6. 19 USEPA, “Draft Technical Support Document for HWC MACT Standards, Volume IV: Compliance with the HWC MACT Standards,” March 2004, Section 3.0. 20 To be clear, the dry air pollution control device does not control D/F emission (except insofar as some of the formed dioxins/furans adsorb to particulate which is collected). Rather, the inlet to these devices serves as an agent for the actual formation of the chemical, to the availability of a surface catalyzed reaction which occurs under these conditions. EPA used the Straight Emissions methodology rather than the SRE Feed methodology as the starting point for calculating floors for D/F because dioxins/furans do not come from inputs (but rather are formed post-combustion), so that it is not possible to calculate system removal efficiencies (which is calculated from inputs and outputs). However, for a number of the source categories where best performers do not have dry air pollution control devices, EPA's professional judgment was that this methodology did not give an accurate assessment of the best performing sources' performance over time (i.e., the best performers' variability). This is because there are myriad factors that can affect D/F emissions for these sources 21 and, unlike sources equipped with a dry emission control device where gas temperature at the inlet to the control device is generally the dominant factor affecting D/F emissions), 22 there is no generic, dominant factor affecting emissions. In these instances, EPA consequently selected as best performers those sources which best minimized the formation of dioxin precursors by maintaining the most efficient combustion conditions, as measured by carbon monoxide
(CO)or total hydrocarbon emissions (HC), as well as by destruction/removal of hardest-to-burn hazardous waste constituents at an efficiency of 99.99 percent. The floor standards for these sources consequently is either meeting a CO standard of 100 ppmv or an HC standard of 10 ppmv, plus demonstrating a destruction/removal efficiency
(DRE)of 99.99 percent on the hardest-to-combust hazardous constituents present in the hazardous waste. In instances where the interim standard applied to such sources, EPA used that standard as the measure of best performers' good combustion instead of quantified CO/HC and destruction/removal efficiency. 21 Factors that can affect D/F emissions from sources with a wet control device or no control device include: Soot buildup on boiler tubes and presence of metals in the feed that can catalyze D/F formation reactions. 70 FR at 59502. 22 For sources with dry emission control devices, D/F emissions during the compliance tests EPA used to characterize emissions would generally be at the upper end of the range of normal operations. Because an operating limit is established on gas temperature at the inlet to the control device based on levels achieved during the compliance test, operators had the incentive to maximize gas temperatures while still complying with the D/F emission standard under part 266, subpart H (§ 266.104(e)). Our assessment of these standards, subject to comment, is: 1. Incinerators a. *Dry Air Pollution Control Device Subcategory.* 23 EPA used the Straight Emissions approach to establish floor levels for existing and new sources for this subcategory. The existing source floor, calculated in this manner, was slightly higher than the interim standard, so the floor is capped at the level of the interim standard. TSD Vol. III p. 10-4. The standard for new sources is based on the performance of the single lowest emitting source. *Id.* at 10-11. EPA believes this standard to be consistent with the statute and all applicable caselaw. 23 EPA explained a number of times that it did not subcategorize incinerators by control device. Rather, the presence or absence of a dry air pollution device relates to differences in dioxin formation mechanisms and consequent dioxin emission levels. See e.g. 70 FR at 59467. b. *Incinerators with Wet Air Pollution Control Systems or No Air Pollution Control Systems.* For both new and existing sources, EPA selected the interim standard as the floor standard. *Id.* at 10-6 and 10-11. EPA considered basing the floor on the performance of lowest emitters in single tests, but these sources had strikingly varied results in other tests, with one ‘best’ performer (source 3016) having emissions over 1000 times greater than its previous test, and well in excess of the floor level established by EPA. TSD Vol. III at 10-6. 24 Under these circumstances, EPA was unable to conclude that single test results adequately represented the sources' performance over time (i.e., their long term variability). TSD Vol. III at 10-6 (lowest emitters in single tests would prove unable to duplicate their performance in other tests due to their variability). Without a means to assess long-term performance, EPA used the interim standard as the measure of best performers' performance over time. *Id.* EPA continues to believe that this is a reasonable estimate of best performance, and that the standards are consistent with the statute and applicable caselaw. 24 See also Note from Bob Holloway, USEPA, to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0022 entitled “Incinerators: Comparison of D/F Emissions Variability for Best Performers and Other Sources with Wet or No APCD,” dated April 5, 2007. 2. Cement Kilns The calculated floor for existing cement kilns using the straight emissions approach was slightly higher (less stringent) than the low end of the interim standard (0.28 as opposed to 0.20 ng TEQ/dscm). However, available historical D/F emissions data for cement kiln best performers (other test conditions conducted at different times from cement kiln sources identified as best performing, which test conditions reflect temperature optimization) show that these sources performance considering run-to-run variability exceeded both the floor level calculated using the Straight Emissions methodology and the interim standard. 25 In light of this documented variability, EPA considered the interim standard the more stringent and consequently used the interim standard (0.20 ng TEQ/dscm or 0.40 ng TEQ/dscm and a temperature of 400 °F or less at the inlet of the dry air pollution control device) as the floor. The calculated floor for new cement kilns using the straight emissions approach was slightly higher (less stringent) than one part of the interim standard for new cement kilns (0.21 ng TEQ/dscm as opposed to 0.20 ng TEQ/dscm), and in addition, the lowest emitter in a single test condition (source 323B3) exhibited enormous variability in other performance tests (see test condition 323C1; the other lowest emitters likewise showed significant variability in other tests ( *id.* )) so EPA adopted the level of the interim standard as the MACT floor for new sources. TSD Vol. III p. 11-7. EPA believes that these standards are consistent with the statute and applicable caselaw. 25 See data for test conditions 228C4, 403C4, and 404C3 in Note from Frank Behan, USEPA, to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0022 entitled “Comparative D/F Data for the Cement Kiln Best Performers,” dated August 23, 2007. 3. Lightweight Aggregate Kilns The calculated floors for existing and new lightweight aggregate kilns using the Straight Emissions approach were higher (less stringent) than the interim standard, so EPA adopted the level of the interim standard as the MACT floor for both existing and new sources. TSD Vol. III pp. 12-4 and 12-6. EPA continues to believe that this approach uses the best measure of evaluating the best sources and their level of performance, and that these standards are consistent with the statute and applicable caselaw. 4. Liquid Fuel Boilers a. *Sources with Dry Air Pollution Control Devices.* EPA used the Straight Emissions approach to establish a floor for existing liquid fuel boilers equipped with a dry air pollution control device, which yielded an extremely high standard of 3.3 ng TEQ/dscm. 26 TSD Vol. III p. 13-7. The floor standard also includes an alternative based on meeting temperature control of 400° F at the inlet to the dry air pollution control device. *Id.* EPA also adopted a beyond-the-floor standard for these sources which is (necessarily) more stringent than the level of the floor. *Id.* at 13-8. This beyond the floor standard would be ascertained identically whether or not the existing source floor included the temperature control alternative. EPA believes that this standard is consistent with section 112
(2)of the statute, and that the floor is also consistent with the statute, but not of direct relevance given that the actual standard is beyond-the-floor. 26 The basis for subcategorizing in this way is the same as for incinerators. For new sources, EPA adopted a floor standard of the lowest emitters' performance, or meeting temperature control of 400° F or less at the inlet to the dry air pollution control device. Subject to comment, EPA does not believe that this standard accounts for all the factors that could influence dioxin emissions from new sources, see *Brick* MACT, 479 F.3d at 881-82, and therefore intends to seek a remand of the standard and further examine it in a subsequent rulemaking. EPA also recognizes that not all of the rationale adopted for these standards is consistent with *Brick MACT,* particularly discussions relating to whether sources other than those in the best performing half of the MACT pool of best performers could replicate best performers' level of performance. EPA has made appropriate edits to the key support documents which are available for comment in red line strikeout form in the administrative record. b. *Sources with Wet or Without Air Pollution Control Equipment.* EPA has decided (subject to comment) not to defend most of the dioxin standards for sources with wet air pollution control equipment or without air pollution control equipment. 27 These include the standards for liquid fuel boilers with wet or no air pollution control systems and standards for hydrochloric acid production furnaces. EPA continues to adhere to its analysis that these sources experience enormous operating variability based on dioxin formation and control mechanisms which are uncertain and presently not quantifiable. However, based on the discussion at 70 FR 59202/2, EPA does not believe that it is certain that the promulgated standard based on quantified good combustion addresses all of the potential formation and control mechanisms for dioxins as required. See *Brick MACT,* 479 F.3d at 882-83; *CKRC,* 255 F.3d at 862-63. Moreover, the cited preamble discussion suggests that additional dioxin formation and control mechanisms can be quantified directionally, if not with exactitude. This again may not be consistent with *Brick MACT,* 479 F.3d at 883 (lack of data resulting in inability to quantify variability related to non-technology factors does not by itself justify by itself a less stringent floor standard). EPA intends to seek a remand (subject to consideration of public comment) and to investigate these issues further in subsequent rulemaking. 27 For the same reasons, we will not defend the dioxin standards for solid fuel boilers. E. Non-Dioxin Organic HAP Hazardous wastes contain non-dioxin organic HAP which are destroyed by effective combustion. Treatment of hazardous waste by destruction of organics is indeed the chief reason that there is a hazardous waste combustion industry. See 40 CFR 268.42. (RCRA treatment standards for organic hazardous wastes, reflecting application of Best Demonstrated Available Technology (see *Hazardous Waste Treatment Council* v. *EPA,* 886 F.2d 355, 363-64 (D.C. Cir. 1989)), are invariably based on performance of combustion technology.) EPA adopted standards quantifying good combustion conditions for non-dioxin organic HAP emitted by liquid fuel boilers, solid fuel boilers, and hydrochloric acid production furnaces. The floor standards for these sources is either meeting a CO standard of 100 ppmv or an HC standard of 10 ppmv, plus demonstrating a destruction/removal efficiency
(DRE)of 99.99 percent on the hardest-to-combust hazardous constituents present in the hazardous waste. In the event a source chooses to comply with the 100 ppmv CO standard, it must also demonstrate that it is achieving 10 ppmv HC standard in a single performance test, and establish continuously monitored parameters reflecting the conditions of that performance test (including operating temperature, maximum feed rates, minimum combustion zone residence time, and operating requirements on the hazardous waste firing system that optimize liquid waste atomization efficiency). Sections 63.1216(a)(5), 63.1217(a)(5), and 63.1218(a)(5). The basis for these standards is that good combustion, as measured by 100 ppmv CO or 10 ppmv HC, plus meeting 99.99 percent DRE, is the best measure of the performance over time of best performers. However, in contrast to dioxin, EPA has more knowledge of formation mechanisms and means of control over time. Non-dioxin organics (of which there are over 100 on the list of HAP) can be present in hazardous waste (or other inputs) or can be formed as products of incomplete combustion. Organics are destroyed when wastes are combusted, and best performers are those which destroy organics through the most efficient combustion. 70 FR at 59463; see also *Horsehead Resource Development* v. *Browner,* 16 F.3d 1246, 1265 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (“A kiln's utility as a means of destroying hazardous wastes turns on its ability to fully destroy them. In practice, destruction of hazardous wastes in the fuel is a function of the combustion efficiency of the kiln: Under poor conditions of efficiency, the principal organic hazardous constituents * * * of the toxic organic compounds contained in the hazardous waste fuel will be only partially broken down, thereby increasing the production of [products of incomplete combustion]”). Furthermore, 100 ppmv CO or 10 ppmv HC are long-recognized levels representing good combustion conditions. 70 FR 59463-464 (explaining further that lower levels are unlikely to be associated with good combustion and so no longer serve as a measure of organic destruction). EPA adopted these levels here as the best measure of the sources' long-term performance (and reiterates that finding here). *Id.* and TSD Vol. III at 13-35, 14-26, and 15-9. In addition to good combustion being the long-recognized metric for organic destruction and performance, EPA lacked any data on individual organic HAP emissions from these devices, so had no choice but to use some type of surrogate to evaluate sources' performance. EPA views these standards as consistent with the statute and applicable caselaw. Regarding use of the quantified good combustion surrogate, the D.C. Circuit has held repeatedly that EPA may select a surrogate for control of HAP in adopting section 112(d) standards. See, e.g. *National Lime Ass'n* v. *EPA,* 233 F.3d 625, 639 (D.C. Cir. 2000); *Sierra Club* v. *EPA (“Primary Copper MACT”)* , 353 F.3d 976, 984-85 (D.C. Cir. 2004). EPA has shown here a valid basis for choosing good combustion as a surrogate: There is a strong correlation between optimized combustion conditions and minimized organic emissions in that oxidation of heavier, more complex organic molecules will be maximized when combustion conditions are optimized, thus minimizing emission of organics. 70 FR at 59463; see also *id.* at 59461-62; see also *National Lime,* 233 F.3d at 639 (upholding EPA's selection of PM as a surrogate for HAP metals where EPA demonstrated a correlation between removal of PM and metal HAP, and further holding both that EPA need not quantify the precise amount of metal HAP removed, and that the amount of HAP metal removed may vary); *Primary Copper MACT,* 353 F.3d at 984. EPA has further demonstrated the reasonableness of 100 ppmv CO or 10 ppmv HC as measures of good combustion. *National Lime* further indicates (in dicta) that choice of a surrogate may not be valid if emissions of the HAP could increase by some mechanism for which the surrogate fails to account, specifically noting that if HAP metal feedrates decreased and PM emissions did not decrease proportionately, PM might not be a valid surrogate. 233 F.3d at 639. This discussion has no direct factual applicability here since organic emissions are not input dependent. See also *Primary Copper MACT,* 353 F.3d at 985 (rejecting argument that input variability made PM an arbitrary surrogate for metals). The situation here is similar to that in *Mossville,* where the court held that EPA could account for best performers' performance over time, and could estimate performance over time by some means other than emission levels. 370 F.3d at 1242. The difference here is that EPA is using a quantified surrogate to do so, but EPA believes this is a difference without legal significance given the reasonableness of the surrogate on the facts presented here. Indeed, EPA selected here an existing regulatory standard as a measure of best performers' performance over time (RCRA standards for CO/HC and DRE), just as in *Mossville* EPA selected the existing uniform vinyl chloride regulatory standard as that measure. 370 F.3d at 1240. 28 28 *Brick MACT* holds that EPA may not select floor standards to assure that all sources in the category will be able to meet the standards. 479 F.3d at 880-81. EPA did not do so here. The CO/HC and DRE standards are EPA's best estimate of best performers' performance over time. As in *Mossville,* EPA selected an existing regulatory limit not because all sources were (by definition) meeting that regulatory limit, but because no other means of accurately assessing variability were available. 370 F.3d at 1240. Moreover, sources will establish parametric monitoring conditions, which will vary by source, as part of the process of meeting the 10 ppmv HC standard, so the standards in fact are not uniform across the source category. One commenter maintained that CO/HC standards should be numerically lower to reflect lowest CO/HC emissions, and further maintained that CO and HC are not the sole measures of organic combustion efficiency, which, as EPA noted, can be influenced by such factors as inadequate time, temperature and turbulence within individual combustion zones, and, the argument goes, are therefore improper or inadequate surrogates. 70 FR at 59463/2; cf. *National Lime,* 233 F.3d at 639. EPA addressed these issues in the record. 70 FR at 59462-63. With respect to the level for CO/HC, extremely low CO floors are unlikely to be met at all times by best performers due to all the potential minor sources of variability. So the 100 ppmv standard—which must be met continuously (and is measured by a continuous emission monitor), is the best measure of best performers' variability and hence performance over time. TSD Vol. III at 13-35, 14-26 and 15-9 (best sources' inability to duplicate a lower level of performance at all times for these reasons); see also *Mossville,* 370 F.3d at 1242 (if floor standard must be met continuously, then the best performers' maximum variability must be reflected in that standard). Of equal importance, lower levels of either CO or HC are no longer likely to be associated with increased organic destruction efficiency. 70 FR at 59462-64 (CO itself is a conservative indicator of combustion efficiency because it is a thermally stable, refractory compound which is the final stage of the combustion process of an organic molecule, and levels lower than 100 ppmv are no longer reliably associated with levels of organic HAP). Finally, the factors mentioned by the commenter which can influence organic destruction are in fact encompassed within the CO and HC standards because, as EPA explained, sources must conduct a performance test for HC and DRE, and continuously monitored parameters, including minimum operating temperature, maximum feed rates, minimum combustion zone residence time, and operating requirements on hazardous waste firing systems (i.e., all of the factors mentioned by the commenter), are established based on the conditions established in that performance test. 70 FR at 59464/1. EPA consequently views all of these standards as consistent with *Brick MACT* and the statute. Edited versions of the key support documents for this standard, edited to reflect changes necessary in light of *Brick MACT,* are available in red line strike out format for comment in the administrative record. F. Mercury 1. Incinerators For existing incinerators, both the SRE/Feed methodologies and straight emissions methodologies (even without calculation of run-to-run variability) produced floors which were higher than the interim standard. TSD Vol. III appendices C and E, tables E-INC-HG CT and SF-INC-HG, respectively. EPA's decision to use the interim standard as the level of the floor consequently does not raise issues vis-á-vis *Brick MACT.* See also *Mossville,* 370 F.3d at 1241-42 (selection of regulatory standard as floor is a legitimate means of assessing best performers' variability when these performers demonstrably emit at a level close to that regulatory level). For new incinerators, EPA selected the emission level of the lowest emitting source since the same source was the lowest emitter under both the SRE methodology and the Straight Emissions methodology, TSD Vol. III appendices C and E, tables E-INC-HG CT and SF-INC-HG, respectively, again raising no issues vis-á-vis *Brick MACT.* 2. Cement Kilns For both new and existing cement kilns, the mercury floor standard appears inconsistent with the *Brick MACT* opinion and the statute because it is based in whole or in substantial part on emissions attributable exclusively to hazardous waste control. The standard thus does not result in control of all mercury which could be emitted by cement kilns (mercury in raw materials being the notable example), and so appears to require revision. 479 F.3d at 882-83. Subject to comment, it is thus EPA's intent to amend this standard and to seek remand of the standard. 3. Lightweight Aggregate Kilns The methodology for developing floor standards for mercury for lightweight aggregate kilns is essentially a Straight Emissions approach for mercury contributed by hazardous waste. 29 The floor calculated thereby produced existing and new source floors higher than the interim standard of 120 μg/dscm total mercury emissions (110 μg/dscm for new sources), which EPA therefore adopted as the floor standard. TSD Vol. III at 12-8 to 9, 12-12 and section 7.2.3.5. EPA continues to believe that the interim standard remains the best measure of best sources' performance given the available data. However, the interim standard contains a compliance option based solely upon mercury emissions attributable to hazardous waste. Section 63.1206(b)(15). Subject to comment, this alternative compliance mechanism appears to be inconsistent with *Brick MACT* since it would not control all mercury emitted by the kiln. 479 F.3d at 882-83; see also section III.B.3 above. Subject to consideration of public comment, EPA intends to seek a remand of this alternative standard and to consider this issue further in subsequent rulemaking. 29 EPA used the Straight Emissions approach here for data-specific reasons explained at section 7.5.3.2 of Volume III of the TSD. 4. Liquid Fuel Boilers a. *Higher Heating Value Hazardous Wastes Subcategory.* The mercury floor standard for this subcategory for both existing and new sources accounts only for mercury emissions from hazardous waste. TSD Vol. III pp. 13-14 and 13-16. These standards thus appear to require revision, and EPA accordingly currently expects to seek remand of this standard. *Brick MACT,* 479 F.3d at 882-83. b. *Lower Heating Value Hazardous Wastes Subcategory.* The mercury floor standard for this subcategory for both existing and new sources is based on the Straight Emissions methodology. TSD Vol. III at 13-16 and 13-18; see also 69 FR 21286-87 (because so many of the data measurements were non-detects, EPA was unable to calculate removal efficiencies, and so did not use the SRE Feed methodology). The standard also applies to all mercury emitted by the source, not just that attributable to hazardous waste. Section 63.1217(a)(2)(i). EPA does not believe that this approach creates any issues vis-á-vis *Brick MACT.* 5. Solid Fuel Boilers EPA used the SRE Feed methodology to identify best sources and their level of performance for both new and existing solid fuel boilers. TSD Vol. III at 14-7, 14-9. The floor standards are identical to those using the Straight Emissions methodology because the best performing sources (and single best performing source) are the same under either methodology. TSD Vol. III at App. C (E-SFB-HG-CT) and E (SF-SFB-HG). EPA does not believe that these standards pose issues vis-á-vis *Brick MACT.* G. Normalization A number of the standards are “normalized,” that is expressed as a given amount of pollutant per amount of some production related parameter such as air flow or thermal inputs. See generally 70 FR at 59451. Most technology-based standards are expressed in terms of some type of normalizing parameter in order to allow meaningful comparison between performance of different sources. *Weyerhaeuser* v. *Costle,* 590 F.2d 1011, 1059 (D.C. Cir. 1978). As EPA pointed out, comparing unnormalized performance is like asking which baseball pitcher is the better performer, the one who has given up 6 earned runs or the one who has given up 20. Unless and until the figure is normalized over 9 innings pitched, the question is meaningless. 70 FR at 59451 n. 101. EPA sees nothing in the statute which precludes use of normalization in determining who best performers are for purposes of MACT floor determinations. Section 112(d)(3) does not specifically address the issue (the terms “best performing” and “best controlled” being amenable to an interpretation allowing comparisons of normalized emissions to assess which source is “better” or “best”). The issue of normalization was not presented in *Brick MACT,* so that EPA likewise does not view the opinion as precluding the approach. H. Potential Implications to the Compliance Date Provisions if Standards Are Remanded to EPA The compliance date of the final rule is October 14, 2008. As discussed above, we are contemplating requesting the Court to remand several standards so that we can reexamine them in a future rulemaking, a process that likely would be concluded well after the compliance date of the rule. It is not our intent to ask the Court to vacate any standards, including those standards that may have to be revised in a future rulemaking. As a result, sources would need to comply with the standards promulgated in October 2005 according to the compliance date provisions codified under § 63.1206(a). See *NRDC* v. *EPA,* 489 F.3d 1364, 1373-74 (D.C. Cir. 2007). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: September 21, 2007. Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator. [FR Doc. E7-19097 Filed 9-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P 72 187 Thursday, September 27, 2007 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request September 24, 2007. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding
(a)Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), *OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV* or fax
(202)395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling
(202)720-8958. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Food and Nutrition Service *Title:* Food Stamp Forms: Applications, Periodic Reporting, Notices. *OMB Control Number:* 0584-0064. *Summary of Collection:* The Food Stamp Act of 1977 (the Act) establishes a program whereby needy households may apply for and receive food stamp benefits. The Act requires certain reporting and recordkeeping requirements in administering the program. The Act specifies national eligibility standards and imposes certain administrative requirements on State agencies in administering the program. Information must be collected from households to assure that they are eligible for the program and that they receive the correct amount of food stamp benefits. Information collected is limited to that necessary for the administration and enforcement of the Food Stamp Program. The Food and Nutrition Service
(FNS)will use an application to collect information. *Need and Use of the Information:* FNS will collect information to determine the eligibility of households for the food stamp program and to determine the correct benefit levels for eligible households. The social security number will be used to check the identity of household members, to prevent duplicate participation, to make mass food stamp changes, and to verify information. If information is not collected to certify households in accordance with the Act or changing the frequency of information or reporting requirements as they relate to the application, certification, and continue eligibility of households would result in a direct violation of the Act and its implementing regulations. Further, benefits could be overissued or underissued for a long period of time if necessary information is not collected or actions are not taken timely. *Description of Respondents:* State, Local, and Tribal Government; Individuals or household. *Number of Respondents:* 21,577,336. *Frequency of Responses:* Recordkeeping; reporting: On occasion; monthly; quarterly. *Total Burden Hours:* 24,017,997. Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E7-19070 Filed 9-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2007-0103] Notice of Request for Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Exotic Newcastle Disease in Birds and Poultry; Chlamydiosis in Poultry AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Extension of approval of an information collection; comment request. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request an extension of approval of an information collection associated with regulations to prevent the interstate spread of exotic Newcastle disease in birds and poultry and chlamydiosis in poultry. DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before November 26, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov,* select “Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service” from the agency drop-down menu, then click “Submit.” In the Docket ID column, select APHIS-2007-0103 to submit or view public comments and to view supporting and related materials available electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket after the close of the comment period, is available through the site's “User Tips” link. • *Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery:* Please send four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to Docket No. APHIS-2007-0103, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. APHIS-2007-0103. *Reading Room:* You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call
(202)690-2817 before coming. *Other Information:* Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the Internet at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on regulations to prevent the interstate spread of exotic Newcastle disease in birds and poultry and chlamydiosis in poultry, contact Dr. Glen Garris, Director, National Veterinary Stockpile, National Center for Animal Health Emergency Management, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 41, Riverdale, MD 20737;
(301)734-5875. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS's Information Collection Coordinator, at
(301)734-7477. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Exotic Newcastle Disease in Birds and Poultry; Chlamydiosis in Poultry. *OMB Number:* 0579-0116. *Type of Request:* Extension of approval of an information collection. *Abstract:* The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture regulates the importation and interstate movement of animals and animal products, and conducts various other activities to protect the health of our Nation's livestock and poultry. In connection with this mission, APHIS regulates the interstate movement of certain poultry, birds, and other items from premises and areas that may be quarantined because of exotic Newcastle disease
(END)and chlamydiosis. The regulations contained in 9 CFR part 82 restrict the interstate movement of poultry, birds, and other items (such as eggs, carcasses, vehicles, containers, and coops) to help prevent the spread of END and chlamydiosis and require the use of certain information collection activities, including the completion of applications (for a permit or special permit) with information on the health status of the birds or poultry being moved; the number and types of birds or poultry being moved in a particular shipment; the shipment's point of origin; the shipment's destination; the reason for the interstate movement; and items such as vehicles, cages, and equipment. Permit applicants are also required, under certain conditions, to notify a Federal or State representative of a bird's health status or to submit a declaration or affidavit to those representatives. The information collected by APHIS provides useful traceback information in the event infected birds or poultry are discovered and an investigation must be launched to determine where the birds or poultry originated. This information is critical to prevent the interstate spread of END and chlamydiosis, which are highly contagious and capable of causing significant economic harm to the U.S. poultry industry. We are asking the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)to approve our use of these information collection activities for an additional 3 years. The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1)Evaluate whether the information collection is necessary for the proper performance of our agency's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2)Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. *Estimate of burden:* The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response. *Respondents:* U.S. producers and shippers, and State animal health protection authorities. *Estimated annual number of respondents:* 2. *Estimated annual number of responses per respondent:* 3. *Estimated annual number of responses:* 6. *Estimated total annual burden on respondents:* 6 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.) All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record. Done in Washington, DC, this 21st day of September 2007. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E7-19069 Filed 9-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2007-0091] Notice of Request for Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy; Importation of Animals and Animal Products AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Extension of approval of an information collection; comment request. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request an extension of approval of an information collection associated with regulations for the importation of animals and animal products and byproducts to protect against the introduction of bovine spongiform encephalopathy into the United States. DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before November 26, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods: *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov,* select “Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service” from the agency drop-down menu, then click “Submit.” In the Docket ID column, select APHIS-2007-0091 to submit or view public comments and to view supporting and related materials available electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket after the close of the comment period, is available through the site's “User Tips” link. *Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery:* Please send four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to Docket No. APHIS-2007-0091, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. APHIS-2007-0091. *Reading Room:* You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call
(202)690-2817 before coming. *Other Information:* Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the Internet at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on regulations for the importation of animals and animal products and byproducts to prevent the introduction of bovine spongiform encephalopathy into the United States, contact Dr. Freeda Isaac, Assistant Director of Imports, National Center for Import and Export, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 39, Riverdale, MD 20737;
(301)734-6479. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at
(301)734-7477. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy; Importation of Animals and Animal Products. *OMB Number:* 0579-0234. *Type of Request:* Extension of approval of an information collection. *Abstract:* Under the Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8301 *et seq.* ), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture regulates the importation of animals and animal products into the United States to guard against the introduction of animal diseases. The regulations in 9 CFR parts 93, 94, 95, and 96 (referred to below as the regulations) govern the importation of certain animals, birds, poultry, meat, other animal products and byproducts, hay, and straw into the United States in order to prevent the introduction of various animal diseases, including bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), a chronic degenerative disease affecting the central nervous system of cattle. With some exceptions, APHIS' regulations prohibit or restrict the importation of live ruminants and certain ruminant products and byproducts from the following three categories of regions with regard to BSE:
(1)Those regions in which BSE is known to exist;
(2)those regions that present an undue risk of introducing BSE into the United States because their import requirements are less restrictive than those that would be acceptable for import into the United States and/or because the regions have inadequate surveillance; and
(3)those regions that present a minimal risk of introducing BSE into the United States via live ruminants and ruminant products and byproducts. To help ensure that BSE is not introduced into the United States, the regulations allow, under specified conditions, the importation of certain live ruminants and ruminant products and byproducts. These requirements necessitate the use of several information collection activities, including certification statements for the importation of ruminants and ruminant products, permits for animals destined for immediate slaughter or for movement to designated feedlots; the placing of seals on certain conveyances, the identification of individuals authorized to break the seals, and agreements entered into by slaughtering establishments or feedlots with APHIS; identification of animals; a certificate of processing from the government of the exporting region regarding the source of all raw material of animal origin in the imported products; and an APHIS Veterinary Services' veterinary import permit. We are asking the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)to approve our use of these information collection activities for an additional 3 years. The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1)Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2)Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. *Estimate of burden:* The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1.349469965 hours response. *Respondents:* U.S. importers; foreign exporters of animals and animal products and byproducts; full-time, salaried veterinary officials of exporting regions; herd owners; feedlot and slaughter facility personnel; APHIS accredited and State veterinary authorities. *Estimated annual number of respondents:* 9,800. *Estimated annual number of responses per respondent:* 17.32653061. *Estimated annual number of responses:* 169,800. *Estimated total annual burden on respondents:* 229,140 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record. Done in Washington, DC, this 21st day of September 2007 . Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E7-19090 Filed 9-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2007-0112] Availability of a Draft Pest Risk Assessment for Lemons From Argentina; Extension of Comment Period AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: We are extending the comment period for our notice of availability and request for comments regarding a draft pest risk assessment that has been prepared relative to our consideration of a request to allow the importation into the continental United States of fresh lemons from Argentina. This action will allow interested persons additional time to prepare and submit comments. DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before December 11, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov,* select “Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service” from the agency drop-down menu, then click “Submit.” In the Docket ID column, select APHIS-2007-0112 to submit or view public comments and to view supporting and related materials available electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket after the close of the comment period, is available through the site's “User Tips” link. • *Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery:* Please send four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to Docket No. APHIS-2007-0112, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. APHIS-2007-0112. *Reading Room:* You may read any comments that we receive on the draft pest risk assessment in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call
(202)690-2817 before coming. *Other Information:* Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the Internet at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Juan Roman, Import Specialist, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1237;
(301)734-8758. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 13, 2007, we published in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 45216-45217, Docket No. APHIS-2007-0112) a notice of availability and request for comments. That document notified the public that a draft pest risk assessment had been prepared by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service relative to our consideration of a request to allow the importation into the continental United States of fresh lemons from Argentina. The notice made the draft pest risk assessment available to the public for review and comment. Comments on the notice were required to be received on or before October 12, 2007. We are extending the comment period on Docket No. APHIS-2007-0112 for an additional 60 days. This action will allow interested persons additional time to prepare and submit comments. Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450, 7701-7772, and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. Done in Washington, DC, this 21st day of September 2007. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E7-19089 Filed 9-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food and Nutrition Service Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request—WIC National Universal Product Code
(NUPC)Database AGENCY: Food and Nutrition Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice invites the general public, and other public agencies to comment on a proposed information collection. This notice announces the Food and Nutrition Service's
(FNS)intention to request Office of Management and Budget approval of the voluntary information collection process to be used in the National Universal Product Code
(NUPC)database, an electronic national repository of Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children Program
(WIC)eligible foods that have been authorized or approved by WIC State agencies. Section 203(e)(12) of the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004 requires the Secretary to establish an NUPC database for use by State agencies in carrying out the program. DATES: Written comments on this notice must be received on or before November 26, 2007. ADDRESSES: Comments may be sent to Patricia N. Daniels, Director, Supplemental Food Programs Division, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302. Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), comments are invited on
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All written comments will be open for public inspection at the office of the Food and Nutrition Service during regular business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday) at 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, Virginia 22302, Room 520. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval, and will become a matter of public record. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of this information collection should be directed to Patty Davis,
(703)305-2746. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* The WIC National Universal Product Code
(NUPC)database. *OMB Number:* To be assigned. *Expiration Date:* To be determined. *Type of Request:* New information collection. *Abstract:* The mandated NUPC database will serve as a repository of Universal Product Codes pertaining to WIC Program foods. The database will be accessible on a voluntary basis to both food manufacturers and WIC Program State agencies. It will provide a standardized format for manufacturers to electronically submit product information for consideration for inclusion in WIC State agency authorized food lists. The system will automatically screen products entered by manufacturers for compliance with minimum Federal regulatory requirements. State agencies will be able to review and select for approval those products that have successfully been screened. Each WIC State agency's list of approved foods will be available via the NUPC database. The database will initially be populated with product information that is available from the WIC State agencies currently operating an Electronic Benefits Transfer system. We assume this will provide product information for the majority of foods that are currently authorized by WIC State agencies. Comments are being solicited on whether the NUPC will decrease the burden on WIC State agencies and manufacturers by providing a uniform data source for submitting products for WIC review and eligibility. The burden hours associated with this collection burden will be for updates to existing products and the addition of new products as they become available and authorized. We estimate that for this burden reporting period, 1,000 manufacturers will spend a total of 125 burden hours to report new product information and update existing product information when necessary; 20 State agencies (40 users) will spend a total of 5 burden hours to report new product information, update existing product information, and, upload/download products to their State agency approved list, and 2 Federal users will spend a total of 1/2 hour to report new infant formula product information and update formula product information when necessary. The total number of burden hours for this reporting period is 130.50 hours. *Affected Public:* Manufacturers, WIC State agencies, and Federal government. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 1,022. *Number of Responses per Respondent:* 2. *Estimated Total Annual Responses:* 2,044. *Hours per Response:* 0.063. *Estimated Total Annual Burden:* 131. Dated: September 12, 2007. Roberto Salazar, Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service. [FR Doc. E7-19050 Filed 9-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Green Mountain National Forest; Vermont; Deerfield Wind Project AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Revision, notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement. SUMMARY: The Forest Service is processing an application for a special use authorization from Deerfield Wind, LLC for the installation and operation of wind turbines on National Forest System
(NFS)lands managed by the Green Mountain National Forest (GMNF). This notice revises the “responsible official”, updates the expected dates for the release of the EIS, makes minor modifications to certain parts of the proposed action, and asks for comments on those modifications. DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis, specifically in regard to the modifications to the original proposed action, should be received by October 19, 2007. The draft environmental impact statement is now expected in January 2008 and the final environmental impact statement is expected in July 2008. ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Bob Bayer, Project Coordinator, Manchester Ranger District, USDA Forest Service, 2538 Depot Street, Manchester Center, VT 05255. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob Bayer, Project Coordinator, Manchester Ranger District, USDA Forest Service, 2538 Depot Street, Manchester Center, VT 05255; 802-362-2307 ext. 218; e-mail: *rbayer@fs.fed.us* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The original notice of intent to prepare the Deerfield Wind Project EIS was published in the **Federal Register** on July 15, 2005 (Vol. 70, No. 135, page 409750). Revisions are as noted here. The responsible official is now Meg Mitchell, Forest Supervisor, Green Mountain and Finger Lakes National Forest. The expected dates for the release of the EIS is as noted above. The proposed action has been clarified as follows. Modifications to the Proposed Action The Deerfield Wind Project is now proposed to consist of 17 wind turbines with a rotor size of 87 or 88 meters in diameter for a total turbine height from ground to the top of the blade tip at about 400 to 410 feet and a name plate power rating of 2.0 or 2.1 megawatts (MW), depending upon which model of turbine is selected. The original notice proposed 20 to 30 turbines approximating 340-370 feet in height with a power rating of between 1.5 to 2.0 MW per turbine. The site will now be capable of producing 34 or 35.7 MW whereas the original proposal called for a site capacity of 30 to 45 MW of electricity. Access to the western project area will be from the north along a private road known as the Putnam Road, and will extend westerly onto Forest Service land, rather than from the south end of the project site as originally proposed. A storage and maintenance building and a new substation will be sited along the northern access road. An alternative to connect to an existing Green Mountain Power Company substation on private land on the east side of Route 8 is no longer feasible due to capacity issues. Responsible Official Meg Mitchell, Forest Supervisor, Green Mountain and Finger Lakes National Forests, 231 North Main Street, Rutland, VT 05701-2417. Comments Requested This revised notice of intent continues the process of gathering comments which guides the development of the environmental impact statement. The primary purpose is to gather public comments, issues, and concerns regarding the proposed action. Comments, issues and concerns will be used to help formulate alternatives to the proposed action. Please make your written comments as specific as possible as they relate to the modifications of the proposed action. There is no need to re-submit comments or thoughts that you have already submitted during the formal scoping process held in July-August of 2005. Those people new to the process at this time may feel free to provide a broader range of comments. Include your name, address, and, if possible, telephone number and e-mail address. Comments received in response to this solicitation, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record and will be available for public inspection. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered. Additionally, pursuant to 7 CFR 127(d), any person may request that a submission be withheld from the public record by showing how the Freedom of Information Act permits such confidentiality. Persons requesting such confidentiality should be aware that confidentiality is granted in only very limited circumstances. The Forest Service will inform the requester of its decision regarding a request for confidentiality. Where the request is denied, the submission will be returned, and the requester notified that the comments may be resubmitted with or without name and address. Dated: September 20, 2007. Steve Roy, Acting Forest Supervisor. [FR Doc. 07-4747 Filed 9-26-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 69
Traces to 69 documents
CFR
U.S. Code
81 references not yet in our index
  • 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)
  • 8 CFR 214.14(c)
  • 12 CFR 201
  • 14 CFR 71
  • 1 CFR 51
  • 14 CFR 119
  • 16 CFR 1211
  • Pub. L. 101-608
  • 104 Stat. 3110
  • 18 CFR 157
  • 5 CFR 1320.11
  • 15 USC 717-717w
  • T.D. 9360
  • T.D. 9231
  • T.D. 9232
  • 26 CFR 1
  • 26 CFR 602
  • 28 CFR 16
  • 5 USC 601-612
  • 18 USC 4203(a)(1)
  • 29 CFR 1926
  • Pub. L. 102-550
  • 30 CFR 924
  • 30 CFR 884
  • 30 CFR 886
  • 33 CFR 100
  • Pub. L. 104-121
  • 44 USC 3501-3520
  • 2 USC 1531-1538
  • 42 USC 4321-4370f
  • 33 USC 1233
  • 33 CFR 117
  • 33 CFR 165
  • Pub. L. 107-295
  • 36 CFR 7
  • 40 CFR 52
  • Pub. L. 104-4
  • 49 CFR 593
  • 5 CFR 1320
  • Pub. L. 104-113
+ 41 more
Citation graph
cites case law
Unknown
Interim rule; correction
C.F.R.§ 201.51
U.S.C.§ 605
U.S.C.§ 553
U.S.C.§ 248
C.F.R.§ 71.1
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 106
U.S.C.§ 2075
U.S.C.§ 2063
F. App'x88 F.3d 1105
F. App'x285 F.3d 18
F. App'x428 F.3d 255
Cites 150 · 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.