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 · 2007-10-04 · Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT) · Proposed Rules

Proposed Rules. Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)

21,843 words·~99 min read·/register/2007/10/04/07-4949·

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

BILLING CODE 6210-01-P, 4811-42-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28980; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-071-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Aircraft Industries, a.s. (Type Certificate No. G24EU Formerly Held by LETECKÉ ZÁVODY a.s. and LET Aeronautical Works) Model L-13 Blanik Gliders AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: This Airworthiness Directive
(AD)is prompted by the discovery of cracks on L13 BLANIK sailplanes in zones where the forward and aft control sticks are attached to the connecting rod, designated as “control bridge” in the relevant Illustrated Parts Catalogues (IPC). If left uncorrected, cracks could propagate and lead to failure of the connecting rod with subsequent loss of control of the sailplane. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 5, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov;* or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg Davison, Glider Program Manager, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:
(816)329-4130; fax:
(816)329-4090. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2007-28980; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-071-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD No.: 2007-0212 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: This Airworthiness Directive
(AD)is prompted by the discovery of cracks on L13 BLANIK sailplanes in zones where the forward and aft control sticks are attached to the connecting rod, designated as “control bridge” in the relevant Illustrated Parts Catalogues (IPC). If left uncorrected, cracks could propagate and lead to failure of the connecting rod with subsequent loss of control of the sailplane. For the reasons described above, this AD requires an inspection of the control bridge to detect cracks and replacement, if necessary. In addition, this AD requires an update of the aircraft Maintenance Manual
(MM)to incorporate repetitive inspections of the control bridge. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information LET Aircraft Industries, a.s. has issued Mandatory Bulletin MB No.: L13/105a, dated May 22, 2007. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 190 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $30,400, or $160 per product. In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 7 work-hours and require parts costing $2,000, for a cost of $2,560 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **Aircraft Industries, a.s. (Type Certificate No. G24EU formerly held by LETECKÉ ZÁVODY a.s. and LET Aeronautical Works):** Docket No. FAA-2007-28980; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-071-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments by November 5, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Model L-13 Blanik gliders, all serial numbers, certificated in any category. Subject
(d)Air Transport Association of America
(ATA)Code 27: Flight Controls. Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: This Airworthiness Directive
(AD)is prompted by the discovery of cracks on L13 BLANIK sailplanes in zones where the forward and aft control sticks are attached to the connecting rod, designated as “control bridge” in the relevant Illustrated Parts Catalogues (IPC). If left uncorrected, cracks could propagate and lead to failure of the connecting rod with subsequent loss of control of the sailplane. For the reasons described above, this AD requires an inspection of the control bridge to detect cracks and replacement, if necessary. In addition, this AD requires an update of the aircraft Maintenance Manual
(MM)to incorporate repetitive inspections of the control bridge. Actions and Compliance
(f)Unless already done, do the following actions:
(1)Within the next 3 months after the effective date of this AD and repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed 12 months, inspect the control bridge for cracks. Follow the procedures in LET Aircraft Industries, a.s. Mandatory Bulletin MB No.: L13/105a, dated May 22, 2007, except use a 10× magnifier and do a dye penetrant inspection following the procedures in chapter 5, section 5, of FAA Advisory Circular AC 43.13-1B CHG 1, dated September 27, 2001.
(2)If cracks are found during any inspection in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, before further flight, install a new control bridge Dwg. No. (part number (P/N)) A740 370 N or Dwg. No. (P/N) A401 001N following the procedures in LET Aircraft Industries, a.s. Mandatory Bulletin MB No.: L13/105a, dated May 22, 2007. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows:
(1)The service information requires a visual inspection with a 6× magnifier. We are requiring a dye penetrant inspection and a 10× magnifier to detect cracks that could go undetected using only a 6× magnifier.
(2)The MCAI requires updating the maintenance manuals to add “type A based” repetitive inspections of the control bridge. Since the maintenance manual is only one way of establishing a maintenance program, the only way we can mandate these repetitive inspections is through an AD action. Other FAA AD Provisions
(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Greg Davison, Glider Program Manager, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:
(816)329-4130; fax:
(816)329-4090. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(2)*Airworthy Product:* For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information
(h)Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA)AD No. 2007-0212, dated August 7, 2007; and LET Aircraft Industries, a.s. Mandatory Bulletin MB No.: L13/105a, dated May 22, 2007, for related information. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on September 28, 2007. James E. Jackson, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-19619 Filed 10-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 870 [Docket No. 2007N-0308] Medical Devices; Cardiovascular Devices; Electrocardiograph Electrode; Designation of Special Controls AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration
(FDA)is proposing to amend the classification regulation for the electrocardiograph electrode device to establish special controls and to exempt the device from the premarket notification requirements of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act). The agency is taking this action on its own initiative. Elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** , FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance document that would serve as the special control for the device if the rule is finalized. The agency believes that special controls, when followed and combined with the general controls, will provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of these devices, if this proposal becomes final. DATES: Submit written or electronic comments by January 2, 2008. See section VI of this document for the proposed effective date of a final rule based on this proposed rule. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. 2007N-0308, by any of the following methods: *Electronic Submissions* Submit electronic comments in the following ways: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • Agency Web site: *http://www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the agency Web site. *Written Submissions* Submit written submissions in the following ways: • FAX: 301-827-6870. • Mail/Hand delivery/Courier [For paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions]: Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. To ensure more timely processing of comments, FDA is no longer accepting comments submitted to the agency by e-mail. FDA encourages you to continue to submit electronic comments by using the Federal eRulemaking Portal or the agency Web site, as described previously in the ADDRESSES portion of this paragraph under *Electronic Submissions* . *Instructions* : All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket No(s). and Regulatory Information Number
(RIN)(if a RIN number has been assigned) for this rulemaking. All comments received may be posted without change to *http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/default.htm* , including any personal information provided. For additional information on submitting comments, see the “Comments” heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. *Docket* : For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to *http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/default.htm* and insert the docket number(s), found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharon Lappalainen, Center for Devices and Radiological Health (HFZ-450), Food and Drug Administration, 9200 Corporate Blvd., Rockville, MD 20850, 240-276-4095, *Sharon.Lappalainen@fda.hhs.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background (Regulatory Authorities) The act (21 U.S.C. 301 *et seq.* ), as amended by the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 (the 1976 amendments) (Public Law 94-295), the Safe Medical Devices Act
(SMDA)(Public Law 101-629), and the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA) (Public Law 105-115), established a comprehensive system for the regulation of medical devices intended for human use. Section 513 of the act (21 U.S.C. 360c) established three categories (classes) of devices, depending on the regulatory controls needed to provide reasonable assurance of their safety and effectiveness. The three categories of devices are class I (general controls), class II (special controls), and class III (premarket approval). Under section 513 of the act, FDA refers to devices that were in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976 (the date of enactment of the 1976 amendments), as preamendments devices. Under the 1976 amendments, class II devices are identified as those devices in which general controls by themselves are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device, but for which there is sufficient information to establish a performance standard to provide such assurance. SMDA broadened the definition of class II devices to include those devices for which general controls would not provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, but for which there is sufficient information to establish special controls to provide such assurance. The special controls include performance standards, postmarket surveillance, patient registries, development and dissemination of guidelines, recommendations, and any other appropriate actions the agency deems necessary to provide such assurance. (See section 513(a)(1)(B) of the act.) FDAMA added, among other sections, section 510(m) to the act (21 U.S.C. 360(m)). Under section 510(m) of the act, FDA may exempt a class II device from premarket notification requirements (510(k)), if the agency determines that premarket notification is not necessary to assure the safety and effectiveness of the device. This section requires FDA to publish in the **Federal Register** a notice of intent to exempt a device and provide a comment period. II. Regulatory History of the Device In the **Federal Register** of February 5, 1980 (45 FR 7926), FDA issued a final rule classifying the electrocardiograph electrode into class II, under the 1976 amendments. An electrocardiograph electrode is the electrical conductor which is applied to the surface of the body to transmit the electrical signal at the body surface to a processor that produces an electrocardiogram or vectorcardiogram. III. Proposed Rule FDA is proposing to amend the classification regulation of the electrocardiograph electrode device in order to designate a special control for the device. The device was classified before the provisions of SMDA broadened the definition of class II devices to establish special controls beyond performance standards. Therefore, designating a special controls guidance document as a means to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device was not a regulatory option at the time of the original classification. Under the authority provided by SMDA, FDA is now able to propose the designation of a draft guidance document as a special control the agency believes will, together with the general controls, reasonably assure the safety and effectiveness of the device. FDA is identifying the draft guidance document entitled “Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Electrocardiograph Electrodes” as the proposed special control for the electrocardiograph electrode device. This draft guidance document describes means by which the device may comply with the requirement of special controls for class II devices. The draft guidance document identifies the issues associated with the device and recommends measures to address the issues. Under section 510(m)(2) of the act, FDA is proposing to exempt the device from premarket notification, subject to the limitations of § 870.9 (21 CFR 870.9), if the device addresses the issues identified in the special controls guidance by following the specific measures recommended in the special controls guidance. IV. Risks to Health FDA has identified the following risks to health associated with these devices: Adverse tissue reaction to the skin-contacting electrode materials and misdiagnosis. A. Adverse Tissue Reaction to the Skin-Contacting Electrode Materials Some of the skin contacting materials of the electrode may not be biocompatible. Inadequate biocompatibility may result in adverse tissue reactions such as redness, burning sensation, and rash. B. Misdiagnosis Inadequate electrical performance may result in poor signal measurement. Inadequate labeling regarding proper electrical performance may result in improper use and cause poor signal measurement. Poor signal measurement may result in misdiagnosis of cardiac conditions. V. Special Controls FDA believes that, in addition to general controls, the class II special controls draft guidance document entitled “Class II Special Controls Guidance: Electrocardiograph Electrodes” is an adequate special control to help address the risks to health described in section IV of this document. The class II special controls draft guidance document provides information on how to mitigate the risks to health of adverse tissue reaction to skin contacting electrode materials and misdiagnosis, by recommending testing and labeling. Several consensus standards describe electrical performance testing and properties to address the risk of misdiagnosis. Another consensus standard recommends biocompatibility testing, which can address the risk of adverse tissue reaction by ensuring that the device materials are sufficiently biocompatible for use on the skin. The labeling recommendations in the draft guidance document address the risk of improper use by recommending that manufacturers, consistent with the general labeling provisions of 21 CFR part 801, include the duration of application to the skin, instructions for skin preparation, and instructions for electrode preparation, cleaning, and maintenance in their labeling. Elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** , FDA is publishing a notice of availability of the draft guidance document that would serve as the special control for these devices. VI. Proposed Effective Date FDA proposes that any final rule that may issue based on this proposal become effective 30 days after its date of publication in the **Federal Register** . If finalized, following the effective date of a final rule, any firm intending to market the device will need to address the issues covered in the special controls guidance. The firm must show in its 510(k) that its device meets the requirements of 21 CFR 807.87 and complies with the special controls, either by following the recommendations of the special controls guidance or, in some other way, providing equivalent assurances of safety and effectiveness. Manufacturers who follow the specific measures recommended to address the issues identified in the special controls guidance will be able to market their devices without being subject to the premarket notification requirements of section 510(k) of the act, subject to the limitations of § 870.9. Manufacturers who choose alternative means to address one or more of the issues identified in the special controls guidance will remain subject to the premarket notification requirements of section 510(k) and must obtain marketing clearance for their device. VII. Environmental Impact The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. VIII. Analysis of Impacts FDA has examined the impacts of the proposed rule under Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). The agency believes that this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by the Executive order. The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to analyze regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule on small entities. Because FDA believes that manufacturers are already substantially in compliance with the recommendations in the draft guidance document and exemption from the premarket notification requirements for devices following the specific measures recommended in the special control will simplify the entry to market for other manufacturers, including small manufacturers, the agency certifies that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Section 202(a) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires that agencies prepare a written statement, which includes an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits, before proposing “any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year.” The current threshold after adjustment for inflation is $122 million, using the most current
(2005)Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. FDA does not expect this proposed rule to result in any 1-year expenditure that would meet or exceed this amount. IX. Federalism FDA has analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the principles set forth in Executive Order 13132. FDA has determined that the proposed rule, if finalized, would not contain policies that would have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Accordingly, the agency has tentatively concluded that the proposed rule does not contain policies that have federalism implications as defined in the Executive order and, consequently, a federalism summary impact statement has not been prepared. X. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 FDA tentatively concludes that this proposed rule contains no collections of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) is not required. FDA also tentatively concludes that the draft special control guidance document does not contain new information collection provisions that are subject to review and clearance by OMB under the PRA. Elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** , FDA is publishing a notice announcing the availability of the draft guidance document entitled “Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Electrocardiograph Electrodes;” the notice contains an analysis of the paperwork burden for the draft guidance. XI. Comments Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES ), written or electronic comments regarding this document. Submit a single copy of electronic comments or two paper copies of any mailed comments, except that individuals may submit one paper copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 870 Medical devices. Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, it is proposed that 21 CFR part 870 be amended as follows: PART 870—CARDIOVASCULAR DEVICES 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 870 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 371. 2. In § 870.2360, paragraph
(b)is revised to read as follows: § 870.2360 Electrocardiograph electrode.
(b)*Classification* . Class II (special controls). The special control for the device is FDA's guidance document entitled “Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Electrocardiograph Electrodes.” See § 870.1(e) for the availability of this guidance document. The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter, subject to the limitations in § 870.9, if it addresses the issues identified in the special controls guidance by following the specific measures recommended in the special controls guidance. Dated: September 26, 2007. Linda S. Kahan, Deputy Director, Center for Devices and Radiological Health. [FR Doc. E7-19580 Filed 10-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 301 [REG-149036-04] RIN 1545-BG75 Application of Section 6404(g) of the Internal Revenue Code Suspension Provisions; Hearing AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Cancellation of notice of public hearing on proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: This document cancels a public hearing on proposed regulations for the suspension of interest, penalties, additions to tax, or additional amounts under section 6404(g) of the Internal Revenue Code. The proposed regulations explain the general rules for suspension as well as exceptions to those general rules. DATES: The public hearing, originally scheduled for October 11, 2007, at 10 a.m., is cancelled. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard A. Hurst of the Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration), at *Richard.A.Hurst@irscounsel.treas.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A notice of public hearing that appeared in the **Federal Register** on Thursday, June 21, 2007 (72 FR 34199), announced that a public hearing was scheduled for October 11, 2007, at 10 a.m., in the IRS Auditorium, Internal Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The subject of the public hearing is under section 6404(g) of the Internal Revenue Code. The public comment period for these regulations expired on September 19, 2007. The notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing instructed those interested in testifying at the public hearing to submit a request to speak and an outline of the topics to be addressed. As of Friday, September 21, 2007, no one has requested to speak. Therefore, the public hearing scheduled for October 11, 2007, is cancelled. LaNita Van Dyke, Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration). [FR Doc. E7-19570 Filed 10-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 28 CFR Part 16 [AAG/A Order No. 034-2007] Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation AGENCY: Department of Justice. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), a component agency of the Department of Justice (DOJ), proposes to exempt a new Privacy Act system of records entitled Law Enforcement National Data Exchange (N-DEx) from certain provisions of the Privacy Act. As explained in the proposed rule, the exemption is necessary to avoid interference with the law enforcement functions and responsibilities of the FBI and the N-DEx system. Public comment is invited. DATES: Comments must be received by November 13, 2007. ADDRESSES: Address all comments to Joo Chung, Counsel, Privacy and Civil Liberties Office, Office of the Deputy Attorney General, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20530, or facsimile 202-616-9627. To ensure proper handling, please reference the AAG/A Order No. in your correspondence. You may review an electronic version of the proposed rule at *http://www.regulations.gov.* You may also comment via the Internet to the Privacy and Civil Liberties Office at *DOJPrivacy ACTProposedRegulations@usdoj.gov;* or by using the comment form for this regulation at *http://www.regulations.gov.* Please include the AAG/A Order No. in the subject box. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Withnell, Assistant General Counsel, Privacy and Civil Liberties Unit, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Bureau of Investigation,
(202)324-3396. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the notice section of today's **Federal Register** , the FBI proposes a new Privacy Act system of records, the “Law Enforcement National Data Exchange (N-DEx), FBI-020.” The N-DEx is a scalable information sharing system, operating under the aegis of the Criminal Justice Information Services
(CJIS)Division, which will provide the capability to make potential linkages between crime incidents, criminal investigations, arrests, bookings, incarcerations, and parole and/or probation in order to help solve, deter, and prevent crimes and, in the process, enhance homeland security. In this rulemaking, the FBI proposes to exempt this Privacy Act system of records from certain provisions of the Privacy Act because the system contains investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes. Regulatory Flexibility Act This proposed rule relates to individuals, as opposed to small business entities. Nevertheless, pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, the proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small Entity Inquiries The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., requires the FBI to comply with small entity requests for information and advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within FBI jurisdiction. Any small entity that has a question regarding this document may contact the person listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Persons can obtain further information regarding SBREFA on the Small Business Administration's Web page at *http://www.sba.gov/advo/laws/law_lib.html* . Paperwork Reduction Act The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), requires that the FBI consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. There are no current or new information collection requirements associated with this proposed rule. Analysis of Regulatory Impacts This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” within the meaning of Executive Order 12886. Because the economic impact should be minimal, further regulatory evaluation is not necessary. Moreover, the Attorney General certifies that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, because the reporting requirements themselves are not changed and because it applies only to information on individuals. Unfunded Mandates Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, 109 Stat. 48, requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of certain regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector. UMRA requires a written statement of economic and regulatory alternatives for proposed and final rules that contain Federal mandates. A “Federal mandate” is a new or additional enforceable duty, imposed on any State, local, or tribal government, or the private sector. If any Federal mandate causes those entities to spend, in aggregate, $100 million or more in any one year the UMRA analysis is required. This proposed rule would not impose Federal mandates on any State, local, or tribal government or the private sector. Executive Order 13132, Federalism The FBI has analyzed this rule under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, and therefore will not have federalism implications. Environmental Analysis The FBI has reviewed this action for purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, and has determined that this action will not have a significant effect on the human environment. Energy Impact The energy impact of this action has been assessed in accordance with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), Public Law 94-163, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6362. This rulemaking is not a major regulatory action under the provisions of the EPCA. List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 16 Administrative practices and procedures, Courts, Freedom of Information Act, Government in the Sunshine Act, and the 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 793-78, it is proposed to amend 28 CFR part 16 as follows: PART 16—[AMENDED] Subpart E—Exemption of Records Systems Under the Privacy Act 1. The authority citation for part 16 continues to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552a, 552b(g), 553; 18 U.S.C. 4203(a)(1); 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, 524; 31 U.S.C. 3717, 9701. 2. Section 16.96 is amended to add new paragraphs
(t)and
(u)as follows: § 16.96 Exemption of Federal Bureau of Investigation Systems—limited access.
(t)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)of the Privacy Act:
(1)Law Enforcement National Data Exchange (N-DEx), (JUSTICE/FBI-020).
(2)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). Where compliance would not appear to interfere with or adversely affect the law enforcement purposes of this system, or the overall law enforcement process, the applicable exemption may be waived by the FBI in its sole discretion.
(u)Exemptions from the particular subsections are justified for the following reasons:
(1)From subsection (c)(3) because this system is exempt from the access provisions of subsection (d). Also, because making available to a record subject the accounting of disclosures from records concerning him/her would specifically reveal any investigative interest in the individual. Revealing this information may thus compromise ongoing law enforcement efforts. Revealing this information may also permit the record subject to take measures to impede the investigation, such as destroying evidence, intimidating potential witnesses or fleeing the area to avoid 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 investigatory records, compliance with which could alert the subject of an investigation of the fact and nature of the investigation, and/or the investigative interest of the FBI and other law enforcement agencies; interfere with the overall law enforcement process by leading to the destruction of evidence, improper influencing of witnesses, fabrication of testimony, and/or flight of the subject; possibly identify a confidential source or disclose information which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of another's personal privacy; reveal a sensitive investigative or intelligence technique; or constitute a potential danger to the health or safety of law enforcement personnel, confidential informants, and witnesses. Amendment of these records would interfere with ongoing investigations and other law enforcement activities and impose an impossible administrative burden by requiring investigations, analyses, and reports to be continuously reinvestigated and revised.
(4)From subsection (e)(1) because it is not always possible to know in advance what information is relevant and necessary for law enforcement purposes and, in fact, a major tenet of the N-DEx information sharing system is that the relevance of certain information may not always be evident in the absence of the ability to correlate that information with other existing law enforcement data.
(5)From subsection (e)(2) because application of this provision could present a serious impediment to efforts to solve crimes and improve homeland security in that it would put the subject of an investigation on notice of that fact, thereby permitting the subject to engage in conduct intended to frustrate or impede that activity.
(6)From subsection (e)(3) because disclosure would put the subject of an investigation on notice of that fact and would permit the subject to engage in conduct intended to thwart that activity.
(i)From subsection (e)(5) because many of the records in this system are records contributed by other agencies and the restrictions imposed by (e)(5) would limit the utility of the N-DEx system. All data contributors are expected to ensure that information they share is relevant, timely, complete and accurate. In fact, rules for use of the N-DEx system will require that information be updated periodically and not be used as a basis for action or disseminated beyond the recipient without the recipient first obtaining permission from the record owner/contributor. These rules will be enforced through robust audit procedures. The existence of these rules should ameliorate any perceived concerns about the integrity of the information in the N-DEx system. Nevertheless, exemption from this provision is warranted in order to reduce the administrative burden on the FBI to vouch for compliance with the provision by all N-DEx data contributors and to encourage those contributors to share information the significance of which may only become apparent when combined with other information in the N-DEx system.
(ii)The FBI is also exempting the N-DEx from subsection (e)(5) in order to block the use of a challenge under subsection (e)(5) as a collateral means to obtain access to records in the N-DEx. The FBI has exempted these records from the access and amendment requirements of subsection
(d)of the Privacy Act in order to protect the integrity of law enforcement investigations. Exempting the N-DEx system from subsection (e)(5) complements this exemption and will provide the FBI with the ability 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 FBI and may alert the subjects of law enforcement investigations to the fact of those investigations, when not previously known.
(9)From subsection
(g)to the extent that the system is exempt from other specific subsections of the Privacy Act. Dated: September 25, 2007. Lee J. Lofthus, Assistant Attorney General for Administration. [FR Doc. E7-19458 Filed 10-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-02-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2007-0835-200740(b); FRL-8475-3] Approval of Implementation Plans of Kentucky: Clean Air Interstate Rule AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Kentucky State Implementation Plan
(SIP)submitted on July 19, 2007. This revision addresses the requirements of EPA's Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), promulgated on May 12, 2005, and subsequently revised on April 28, 2006, and December 13, 2006. EPA is proposing to determine that the SIP revision fully implements the CAIR requirements for Kentucky. Therefore, as a consequence of the SIP approval, EPA will also withdraw the CAIR Federal Implementation Plans
(FIPs)concerning sulfur dioxide (SO <sup>2</sup> ), nitrogen oxides (NO <sup>X</sup> ) annual, and NO <sup>X</sup> ozone season emissions for Kentucky. The CAIR FIPs for all States in the CAIR region were promulgated on April 28, 2006, and subsequently revised on December 13, 2006. CAIR requires States to reduce emissions of SO <sup>2</sup> and NO <sup>X</sup> that significantly contribute to, and interfere with maintenance of, the national ambient air quality standards for fine particulates and/or ozone in any downwind state. CAIR establishes State budgets for SO <sup>2</sup> and NO <sup>X</sup> and requires States to submit SIP revisions that implement these budgets in States that EPA concluded did contribute to nonattainment in downwind states. States have the flexibility to choose which control measures to adopt to achieve the budgets, including participating in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs. In the SIP revision that EPA is proposing to approve, Kentucky would meet CAIR requirements by participating in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs addressing SO <sup>2</sup> , NO <sup>X</sup> annual, and NO <sup>X</sup> ozone season emissions. In the Final Rules Section of this **Federal Register** , EPA is approving the Commonwealth's SIP revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this document. Any parties interested in commenting on this document should do so at this time. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before November 5, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2007-0835, by one of the following methods: 1. *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. *E-mail:* *LeSane.Heidi@epa.gov.* 3. *Fax:* 404-562-9019. 4. *Mail:* “EPA-R04-OAR-2007-0835”, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. 5. *Hand Delivery or Courier:* Heidi Lesane, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, 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: Heidi LeSane Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is
(404)562-9074. Mrs. LeSane can also be reached via electronic mail at *LeSane.Heidi@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information see the direct final rule which is published in the Rules Section of this **Federal Register** . Dated: September 21, 2007. J.I. Palmer, Jr., Regional Administrator, Region 4. [FR Doc. E7-19328 Filed 10-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0794; FRL-8478-8] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; Amendments to the Control of VOC Emissions From Consumer Products AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan
(SIP)revision submitted by the State of Maryland. This SIP revision pertains to the control of volatile organic compound
(VOC)emissions from consumer products. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA). DATES: Written comments must be received on or before November 5, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0794 by one of the following methods: A. *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. *B. E-mail:* *powers.marilyn@epa.gov.* C. *Mail:* EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0794, Marilyn Powers, Acting Chief, Air Quality Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. D. *Hand Delivery:* At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0794. 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 information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. 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, any form of encryption, and 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 during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the Maryland Department of the Environment, 1800 Washington Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, Maryland 21230. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose Quinto,
(215)814-2182, or by e-mail at *quinto.rose@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 18, 2007, the Maryland Department of Environment
(MDE)submitted a revision to its SIP. The SIP revision (Maryland SIP #07-08) includes amendments to the control of VOC emissions from consumer products (COMAR 26.11.32). I. Background Consumer and commercial products are defined as products sold to retail customers for personal, household, or automotive use, and products marketed by wholesale distributors for use by commercial or institutional organizations. VOC emissions from these products come from the evaporation of propellant and organic solvents during use. Consumer and commercial products comprise a variety of goods, including personal care products, household products, automotive aftermarket products, insecticides, coatings, and other miscellaneous products. Maryland adopted the consumer products regulation based on the 2001 Ozone Transport Commission
(OTC)model rule in 2003 that was based on the California Air Resources Board
(CARB)rule. EPA approved the Maryland consumer products regulation on December 9, 2003 (68 FR 68523). In July 2005, CARB amended the 2001 OTC model rule adding 14 new categories. In 2006, the OTC developed an updated model rule based on the 2005 CARB amendments. Maryland adopted the updated 2006 OTC model rule on June 8, 2007 with an effective date of June 18, 2007 to incorporate the changes in the 2005 CARB rule. II. Summary of SIP Revision Maryland's amended consumer products regulation incorporates the changes made by CARB. These amendments affect 18 categories of consumer products. Fourteen categories are new, including subcategories with new product category definitions and VOC limits; one previously regulated category with a more restrictive VOC limit, and two previously regulated categories with additional requirements. The compliance date for the new standards is January 1, 2009. *The new categories are the following:*
(1)Adhesive remover with four subcategories: Floor or wall covering, gasket or thread locking, general purpose, and specialty;
(2)anti-static product;
(3)electrical cleaner;
(4)electronic cleaner;
(6)fabric refresher;
(7)footwear or leather care product;
(8)hair styling product that will incorporate hair styling gel and include additional forms of hair styling products (i.e., liquid, semi-solid, and pump spray) but does not include hair spray product or hair mousse;
(9)graffiti remover;
(10)shaving gel;
(11)toilet/urinal care product; and
(12)wood cleaner. The previously regulated category with a more restrictive limit is contact adhesive that has been separated into 2 subcategories: general purpose and special purpose. The previously regulated categories with additional requirements are air fresheners and general purpose degreasers. III. Proposed Action EPA is proposing to approve the Maryland SIP revision for the control of VOC emissions from consumer products (COMAR 26.11.32) submitted on June 18, 2007. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)). This action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This proposed rule also does not have 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), nor will it 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), because it merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal requirement, and 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 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this proposed rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order. This proposed rule pertaining to the amendments of Maryland's consumer products regulation, does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Dated: September 25, 2007. Donald S. Welsh, Regional Administrator, Region III. [FR Doc. E7-19626 Filed 10-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 48 CFR Parts 1516, 1533, and 1552 [Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OARM-2003-0001; FRL-8477-9] RIN 2030-AA89 Acquisition Regulation: Guidance on Use of Award Term Incentives; Administrative Amendments AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)is proposing to amend the EPA Acquisition Regulation (EPAAR) to add policy, procedures, and contract clauses for the use of award term incentives. This rule makes two administrative changes to the EPAAR. One change is to reflect the General Services Board of Contract Appeals as EPA's new forum for appeals under the Contract Disputes Act of 1978. The other change corrects a numbering error in Subpart 1516.4. DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 3, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OARM-2003-0001 by one of the following methods: • *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: docket.oei@epa.gov* . • *Fax:*
(202)566-0224. • *Mail:* OEI Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of three
(3)copies. • *Hand Delivery:* EPA Docket Center-Attention OEI Docket, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave, 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. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OARM-2003-0001. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *www.regulations.gov* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm* . *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 OEI Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. 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 OEI Docket is
(202)566-1752. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marilyn E. Chambers, U.S. EPA, Office of Acquisition Management, Mail Code (3802R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:
(202)564-4398; fax number:
(202)565-2474; e-mail address: *chambers.marilyn@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information 1. *Submitting CBI* . Do not submit this information to EPA through 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. 2. *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 for it to be reproduced. • Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives. • Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. • Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. II. Background Award terms are a form of incentive, offering additional periods of performance rather than additional profit or fee as a reward for achieving prescribed performance measures. Award term incentives were introduced by the Department of the Air Force in 1997. While they have become increasingly popular, the Federal Acquisition Regulation
(FAR)has yet to provide any coverage on their use. Accordingly, in order to assist EPA contracting officers seeking to use award term incentives, it is necessary to amend the EPAAR to incorporate guidance on their use. The administrative amendments are necessary because of two matters. First, the numbering of the sections under Subpart 1516.4 of the EPAAR does not align with the corresponding sections in the FAR. Second, EPA has changed its forum for appeals under the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 from the Department of Interior Board of Contract Appeals to the General Services Board of Contract Appeals. However, the EPAAR still references the Department of Interior Board of Contract Appeals as this forum. III. Proposed Rule This proposed rule would amend the EPAAR to add coverage on the use of award term incentives, and to make the administrative changes discussed above. The award term incentives coverage consists of a clause prescription and three clauses, one of which includes an alternate. The first clause, entitled “Award Term Incentive,” sets forth the overall framework of the incentive including the incentive period(s) of performance for which a contractor may become eligible by achieving prescribed performance measures, e.g., acceptable quality levels. The second clause, entitled “Award Term Incentive Plan,” sets forth the performance criteria and evaluation periods which will serve as the basis for the Government's decision on whether the contractor is eligible for an award term incentive. An alternate to this clause is provided for contracting officers to use ratings entered into the National Institutes of Health Contractor Performance System for the contract at hand as the basis for a contractor's eligibility for an award term incentive. The last clause, entitled “Award Term Availability of Funds,” informs contractors that funds are not presently available for any award term, and that the Government's obligation under any award term is contingent upon the availability of appropriated funds from which payment can be made. The “Award Term Incentive” clause, and the “Award Term Incentive Plan” clause including its alternate, are prescribed for use on substantially the same basis. In preparing this guidance, EPA was concerned that some contractors may believe that their achievement of prescribed performance measures conferred an absolute entitlement to award term(s), notwithstanding the absence of need or funds for such term(s). Accordingly, the guidance provides that any award terms are contingent upon a need for the services and the availability of funds. The administrative amendments involve the renumbering of sections under Subpart 1516.4 of the EPAAR to be consistent with the numbering of their corresponding sections in the FAR, and a change to EPAAR 1533.2 to reflect the substitution of the General Services Board of Contract Appeals for the Department of the Interior Board of Contracts Appeals as EPA's forum for appeals under the Contract Disputes Act of 1978. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action for the purposes of Executive Order 12866; therefore, no review is required by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Paperwork Reduction Act The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because this rule does not contain information requirements that require the approval of OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impact of today's proposed rule on small entities, “small entity” is defined as:
(1)A small business that meets the definition of a small business found in the Small Business Act and codified at 13 CFR 121.201;
(2)a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and
(3)a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities, because the primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify and address regulatory alternatives “which minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.” 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on all of the small entities subject to the rule. Since award term incentives will be available equally to large and small entities, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on small entities. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments, and the private sector. This proposed rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in one year. Any private sector costs for this action relate to paperwork requirements and associated expenditures that are far below the level established for UMRA applicability. Thus, this proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that:
(1)Is determined to be economically significant as defined under Executive Order 12866, and
(2)concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not an economically significant rule as defined by Executive Order 12866, and because it does not involve decisions on environmental health or safety risks. Executive Order 13132: Federalism Executive Order 13132, entitled, “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA 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.” “Policies that have federalism implications” are defined in the Executive Order 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 section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA 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 EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law, unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will 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. This proposed rule would amend the EPAAR to provide guidance on the use of award term incentives and make other administrative changes. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this proposed rule. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” “Policies that have tribal implications” are defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.” This proposed rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 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 in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule. In the spirit of Executive Order 13175, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communication between EPA and tribal governments, EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from tribal officials. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities, unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law, or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This proposed rule does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering use of any voluntary consensus standards. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use” (66 FR 28335 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 1516, 1533 and 1552 Government procurement. Dated: September 27, 2007. Denise Benjamin Sirmons, Director, Office of Acquisition Management. Therefore, 48 CFR Chapter 15 is proposed to be amended as set forth below: PART 1516—TYPES OF CONTRACTS 1. The authority citation for part 1516 continues to read as follows: Authority: The provisions of this regulation are issued under 5 U.S.C. 301; Sec. 205(c), 63 Stat. 390, as amended, 40 U.S.C. 486(c); and 41 U.S.C. 418b. 2. Add section 1516.401-1 to read as follows: 1516.401-1 General. 3. Add section 1516.401-170 to read as follows: 1516.401-70 Award Term Incentives.
(a)Award term incentives enable a contractor to become eligible for additional periods of performance under a current contract by achieving prescribed performance measures under that contract.
(b)Award term incentives are designed to motivate contractors to superior performance. Accordingly, the prescribed performance measures, i.e., acceptable quality levels
(AQL)which must be achieved by a contractor to become eligible for an award term typically will be in excess of the AQLs necessary for Government acceptance of contract deliverables.
(c)The Award Term Incentive Plan sets forth the evaluation process, including the evaluation criteria and performance measures, and serves as the basis for award term decisions. The Award Term Incentive Plan may be unilaterally revised by the Government.
(d)Award term incentives may be used in conjunction with options. The Federal Acquisition Regulation does not prescribe a level of performance for the exercise of options, as contrasted with award term incentives, which should require superior performance as discussed in paragraph
(b)of this subsection. Award term incentive periods will follow any option periods.
(1)The Government has the unilateral right not to grant or to cancel award term incentive periods and the associated award term incentive plans if—
(i)The Contracting Officer has failed to initiate an award term incentive period, regardless of whether the contractor's performance permitted the Contracting Officer to consider initiating the award term incentive period; or
(ii)The contractor has failed to achieve the performance measures for the corresponding evaluation period, or
(iii)The Government notifies the contractor in writing it does not have funds available for the award term; or
(iv)The Government no longer has a need for the award term incentive period at or before the time an award term incentive period is to commence.
(2)When an award term incentive period is not granted or cancelled, any—
(i)Prior award term incentive periods for which the contractor remains otherwise eligible are unaffected.
(ii)Subsequent award term incentive periods are thereby also cancelled.
(f)Award term incentives may be appropriate for any type of service contract. 4. Add section 1516.401-270 to read as follows: 1516.401-270 Definition. *Acceptable quality level*
(AQL)as used in this subpart means the minimum percent of deliverables which are compliant with a given performance standard that would permit a contractor to become eligible for an award term incentive. Because the performance necessary for eligibility for the award term incentive may be in excess of that necessary for the Government acceptance of contract deliverables, the AQLs associated with the award term incentive may exceed the AQLs associated with the acceptance of contract deliverables. For example, under contract X, acceptable performance is 75 percent of reports submitted to the Government within five days. However, to be eligible for an award term incentive, 85 percent of reports must be submitted to the Government within five days. 1516.405 [Redesignated as 1516.406] 5. Redesignate section 1516.405 as section 1516.406. 1516.404-2 [Redesignated as 1516.405-2] 6. Redesignate section 1516.404-2 as section 1516.405-2. 1516.404-272 [Redesignated as 1516.405-270] 7. Redesignate section 1516.404-272 as section 1516.405-270. 1516.404-273 [Redesignated as 1516.405-271] 8. Redesignate section 1516.404-273 as section 1516.405-271. 1516.404-274 [Redesignated as 1516.405-272] 9. Redesignate section 1516.404-274 as section 1516.405-272. 10. Amend newly designated section 1516.406 to add new paragraphs
(c)and
(d)to read as follows: 1516.406 Contract clauses.
(c)The Contracting Officer shall insert the clauses at 1552.216-77, Award Term Incentive, 1552.216-78, Award Term Incentive Plan, and 1552.216-79 Award Term Availability of Funds in solicitations and contracts when award term incentives are contemplated. The clauses at 1552.216-77 and 1552.216-78 may be used on a substantially the same basis.
(d)If the Contracting Officer wishes to use the ratings set forth in the National Institutes of Health
(NIH)Contractor Performance System
(CPS)on the contract at hand as the basis for contractor eligibility for an award term incentive, the Contracting Officer shall insert the clause at 1552.216-78 with its Alternate I. PART 1533—PROTESTS, DISPUTES AND APPEALS 11. The authority citation for part 1533 continues to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; Sec. 205(c), 63 Stat. 390, as amended, 40 U.S.C. 486(c); and 41 U.S.C. 418b. 12. Revise section 1533.203 to read as follows: 1533.203 Applicability. Pursuant to an interagency agreement between the EPA and the General Services Board of Contract Appeals (GSBCA), the GSBCA will hear appeals from final decisions of EPA Contracting Officers issued pursuant to the Contracts Disputes Act. The rules and regulations of the GSBCA appear in 48 CFR Chapter 61. PART 1552—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES 13. The authority citation for part 1552 continues to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; Sec. 205(c), 63 Stat. 390, as amended, 40 U.S.C. 486(c); and 41 U.S.C. 418b. 14. Add section 1552.216-77 to read as follows: 1552.216-77 Award term incentive. As prescribed in 1515.406(c), insert a clause substantially the same as follows: AWARD TERM INCENTIVE (XXX 2007)
(a)*General.* This contract may be extended as set forth in paragraph
(b)based on overall contractor performance as evaluated in accordance with the Clause entitled “Award Term Incentive Plan,” provided the Agency has a need for the effort at or before the time an award term is to commence, and if the contractor receives notice of the availability of funding for an award term period pursuant to the “Award Term Availability of Funds” clause. The Contracting Officer is responsible for the overall award term evaluation and award term decision. The Contracting Officer will unilaterally decide whether or not the contractor is eligible for an award term extension, and in conjunction with the Contracting Officer's Representative, will determine the need for continued performance and funding availability.
(b)*Period of performance.* Provided the contractor has achieved the performance measures , e.g., acceptable quality levels, set forth in the clause “Award Term Incentive Plan,” the Contracting Officer may extend the contract by exercising ____[insert the total award term incentive periods] additional award term incentive period(s) of____[insert the award term incentive period] months each. The total maximum period of performance under this contract, if the Government exercises any option periods and all award term incentive periods is____ [ insert the total of the base period, option periods (if any), and award term incentive periods] years.
(c)*Right not to grant or cancel the award term incentive.*
(1)The Government has the unilateral right not to grant or to cancel award term incentive periods and the associated award term incentive plans if—
(i)The Contracting Officer has failed to initiate an award term incentive period, regardless of whether the contractor's performance permitted the Contracting Officer to consider initiating the award term incentive period; or
(ii)The contractor has failed to achieve the performance measures for the corresponding evaluation period, or
(iii)The Government notifies the contractor in writing it does not have funds available for the award term incentive periods; or
(iv)The Government no longer has a need for the award term incentive period at or before the time an award term incentive period is to commence.
(2)When an award term incentive period is not granted or cancelled, any—
(i)Prior award term incentive periods for which the contractor remains otherwise eligible are unaffected.
(ii)Subsequent award term incentive periods are thereby also cancelled.
(d)Cancellation of an award term incentive period that has not yet commenced for any of the reasons set forth in paragraph
(c)of this clause shall not be considered either a termination for convenience or termination for default, and shall not entitle the contractor to any termination settlement or any other compensation. If the award term incentive is cancelled, a unilateral modification will cite this clause as the authority.
(e)*Award term incentive administration.* The award term incentive evaluation(s) will be completed in accordance with the schedule in the Award Term Incentive Plan. The contractor will be notified of the results and their eligibility to be considered for the respective award term incentive no later than 120 days after an evaluation period.
(f)*Review process.* The contractor may request a review of an award term incentive evaluation which has resulted in the contractor being ineligible for the award term incentive. The request shall be submitted in writing to the Contracting Officer within 15 days after notification of the results of the evaluation. (end of clause) 15. Add section 1552.216-78 to read as follows: 1552.216-78 Award Term Incentive Plan. As prescribed in 1515.406(c), insert a clause substantially the same as follows: AWARD TERM INCENTIVE PLAN (XXX 2007)
(a)The Award Term Incentive Plan provides for the evaluation of performance, and, together with Agency need and availability of funding, serves as the basis for award term decisions. The Award Term Incentive Plan may be unilaterally revised by the Government. Any changes to the Award Term Incentive Plan will be made in writing and incorporated into the contract through a unilateral modification citing this clause. The Government will consult with the contractor prior to the issuance of a revised Award Term Incentive Plan, but is not required to obtain the contractor's consent to the revisions.
(b)[describe the evaluation periods and associated award term incentive periods, e.g., months 1-18 for award term incentive period I, and months 19-36 for award term incentive period II]
(c)[describe the evaluation schedule, e.g., 90 days after the end of the evaluation period]
(d)In order to be eligible for an award term incentive period the contractor must achieve all of the acceptable quality levels
(AQL)for the evaluated tasks, both individual and aggregate, for that evaluation period. Failure to achieve any AQL renders the contractor ineligible for the associated award term incentive period. [identify the most significant tasks. Describe the AQL for each task as well as an overall AQL for the associated evaluation periods, e.g., an AQL of 90% each for tasks 1 and 3, and an AQL of 85% for task 7, and an overall AQL of 90% for the months 1-18 evaluation period]
(e)[If the contract will contain a quality assurance surveillance plan (QASP), reference the QASP, e.g., attachment 2. Typically, the performance standards and AQLs will be defined in the QASP] (end of clause) *Alternate 1 (XXX 2007)* . As prescribed in 1516.406(d), substitute paragraphs substantially the same as following paragraphs
(b)through
(e)for paragraphs
(b)through
(e)in the basic clause:
(b)At the conclusion of each contract year, an average contract rating shall be determined by using the numerical ratings entered into the National Institutes of Health
(NIH)Contractor Performance System
(CPS)for this contract. The NIHCPS is an interactive database located on the Internet which EPA uses to record contractor performance evaluations.
(c)The contract year average rating shall be obtained by dividing the combined ratings by the number of ratings, for example: Criteria Rating Quality of Product or Service 5. Cost Control 4. Timeliness of Performance 4. Business Relations 5. 18 (combined rating). ÷ 4 (number of ratings). = 4.5 contract year average rating.
(d)The contractor shall be evaluated for performance from the start of the contract through Year ____[identify the evaluation period, e.g., year three]. The average rating for each contract year (as derived in paragraph
(c)above) will be combined and divided by [insert the number of evaluation periods] to obtain an overall average rating, for example: Evaluation period Average rating Year One 4.5. Year Two 4.75. Year Three *4.75* . 14 (combined average rating). ÷ 3 (number of evaluation periods). = 4.66 overall average rating.
(e)Based on the overall average rating as determined under paragraph (d), provided that no individual rating, i.e., *Quality of Product or Service, Cost Control, Timeliness of Performance, or Business Relations* is below a 3, the contractor shall be eligible for the following award term periods:
(1)Overall average rating of 4.6 to 5.0—Two award term incentive periods of ____[insert the number of months] months.
(2)Overall average rating of 4.0 to 4.6—One award term incentive period of ____[insert the number of months] months. 16. Add section 1552.216-79 to read as follows: 1552.216-79 Award Term Availability of Funds. As prescribed in 1515.406(c), insert the following clause: AWARD TERM AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS (XXX 2007) Funds are not presently available for any award term. The Government's obligation under any award term is contingent upon the availability of appropriated funds from which payment can be made. No legal liability on the part of the Government for any award term payment may arise until funds are made available to the Contracting Officer for an award term and until the Contractor receives notice of such availability, to be confirmed in writing by the Contracting Officer. (end of clause) [FR Doc. E7-19632 Filed 10-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 571 [Docket No. NHTSA-2007-29272] RIN 2127-AK04 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Controls, Telltales and Indicators AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: In an August 2005 final rule, we updated our standard regulating motor vehicle controls, telltales and indicators. The standard specifies requirements for the location, identification, and illumination of these items. In May 2006, we published a response to four petitions for reconsideration, including one asking us to reconsider a requirement for color contrast between identifiers and their backgrounds. We denied this petition for reconsideration. We received another petition for reconsideration from the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (the Alliance) of the color contrast requirement, specifically for the horn control identifier. In this document, we grant the Alliance's petition in part. We propose to amend the standard to provide that an identifier is not required if the horn control is placed in the middle of the steering wheel. If the horn control is placed elsewhere in the motor vehicle, the control would be required to be identified by the specified horn symbol in a color that stands out clearly against the background. DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that Docket Management receives them not later than December 3, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to the docket number identified in the heading of this document by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:* 1-202-493-2251. • *Mail:* Docket Operations, M-30, U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery or Courier:* Docket Operations, M-30, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. *Instructions:* All submissions must include the agency name and docket number or Regulatory Identification Number
(RIN)for this rulemaking. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public Comments heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to *http://www. regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading under Regulatory Notices. *Docket:* For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* at any time or to West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues you may call Ms. Gayle Dalrymple, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards at
(202)366-5559. Her FAX number is
(202)366-7002. For legal issues, you may call Ms. Dorothy Nakama, Office of the Chief Counsel at
(202)366-2992. Her FAX number is
(202)366-3820. You may send mail to both of these officials at National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background NHTSA issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 101, *Controls and Displays,* in 1967 (32 FR 2408) as one of the initial FMVSSs. The standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs), trucks, and buses. The purpose of FMVSS No. 101 is to assure the accessibility and visibility of motor vehicle controls and displays under daylight and nighttime conditions, in order to reduce the safety hazards caused by the diversion of the driver's attention from the driving task, and by mistakes in selecting controls. At present, FMVSS No. 101 specifies requirements for the location (S5.1), identification (S5.2), and illumination (S5.3) of various controls and displays. It specifies that those controls and displays must be accessible and visible to a driver properly seated wearing his or her safety belt. Table 1, “Controls, Telltales and Indicators with Illumination or Color Requirements,” and Table 2, “Identifiers for Controls, Telltales and Indicators with No Color or Illumination Requirements,” indicate which controls and displays are subject to the identification requirements, and how they are to be identified, colored, and illuminated. A. August 2005 Final Rule In a final rule published in the **Federal Register** (70 FR 48295) on August 17, 2005, NHTSA amended FMVSS No. 101 by extending the standard's telltale and indicator requirements to vehicles of Gross Vehicle Weight Rating
(GVWR)4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) and over, updating the standard's requirements for multi-function controls and multi-task displays to make the requirements appropriate for advanced systems, and reorganizing the standard to make it easier to read. Table 1 and Table 2 continue to include only those symbols and words previously specified in the controls and displays standard or in another applicable FMVSS. The final rule specified an effective date of February 13, 2006 for requirements applicable to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses under 4,536 kg GVWR (10,000 pounds). 1 1 The effective date was subsequently extended to September 1, 2006 (71 FR 3786, January 24, 2006). II. May 2006 Final Rule; Response to Petitions for Reconsideration NHTSA received petitions for reconsideration of the August 17, 2005 final rule, from the Truck Manufacturers Association (TMA), the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers
(AIAM)and the Alliance. In the August 17, 2005 final rule, the requirement that the identifier for each telltale must be in a color that stands out clearly against the background was extended to identifiers for controls and indicators (see S5.4.3). The Alliance asked for reconsideration of this requirement, stating that not all identifiers are in a color that stands out clearly against the background. The Alliance further stated that it is not needed, citing as an example the horn identifier. Most vehicle models use the horn symbol as the identifier, which is molded into the air bag cover, without a color “that stands out clearly against the background” filled in. The Alliance commented that: “The symbol is the same color as the background, but it can still be recognized because the embossment stands out against the background.” The Alliance petitioned for the regulatory text at S5.4.3 to be changed to: “The identification required by Table 1 or Table 2 for a telltale, control or indicator shall contrast with the background.” In the May 15, 2006 final rule, response to petitions for reconsideration (71 FR 27964), we noted that over the years, the agency had received numerous complaints regarding the inability to locate the horn control. NHTSA's Office of Defects Investigation's ARTEMIS database has recorded 120 complaints in the past ten years from consumers reporting trouble locating the horn control. Of these 120 complaints, consumers reported 12 crashes, nine near misses, and an allegation of a fatality. In the response, NHTSA explained that filling in the horn symbol with a color “that stands out clearly against the background” would make the horn control more visible and would help drivers to find the control more readily. For these reasons, we denied this part of the Alliance's petition. To minimize costs on industry resulting from this requirement, NHTSA delayed the compliance date to meet S5.4.3 for five years, to September 1, 2011 to “allow manufacturers to implement the necessary changes on most products during the planned product changes in normal product development cycles.” III. Petition for Reconsideration of the Color Contrast Requirement In a submission dated June 29, 2006, the Alliance petitioned for a reconsideration of the color contrast requirement for the horn symbol. This was the only issue raised in the petition. Again, the Alliance petitioned for the regulatory text at S5.4.3 to be changed to: “The identification required by Table 1 or Table 2 for a telltale, control or indicator shall contrast with the background.” In support of its petition, the Alliance stated that: • NHTSA denied the Alliance's previous petition based on a previously undisclosed analysis of complaints; • “[I]t is unclear and cannot be evaluated whether the complaints referred to by NHTSA were related to actual horn symbol identification,” • The complaint information should be submitted to the DOT Docket; • “[S]ignificant cost and investment will still be required across the industry,” to accomplish color contrast of the horn symbol on the background of the steering wheel, despite the fact that the Alliance agrees that the lead time afforded by the May 2006 final rule is adequate “for compliance with this section in order to minimize the associated financial impact * * *”; • A “significant concern” is the “compatibility of materials that may be used to assure long term symbol identification durability and contrast * * *” and that this new combination of materials may “adversely affect airbag cover performance, requiring further engineering development. Environmental and manufacturing issues related to providing horn symbol contrast cannot be assessed until the materials and processes are defined” and; • The UN working group considering a GTR 2 on controls and displays is the appropriate forum to understand and discuss horn identification problems. 2 The United States participates in the United Nations/Economic Commission for Europe World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (also known as Working Party 29 or WP.29) under a 1990 agreement known as the 1998 Global Agreement. The 1998 Global Agreement provides for the establishment of global technical regulations
(GTRs)regarding, among other things, the safety of motorized wheeled vehicles, equipment and parts. The Agreement contains procedures for establishing GTRs by either harmonizing existing regulations or developing new ones. Furthermore, on October 17, 2006, the Alliance presented a data analysis to NHSTA staff of complaints regarding horn control identification on various member companies' vehicles. (The presentation has been placed in The DOT Docket at NHTSA-2006-23651.) The analysis revealed that as manufacturers have adopted membrane switches in the center of the steering wheel to activate the horn, consumer complaints about horn identification have decreased substantially. IV. Grant of Petition for Reconsideration and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking NHTSA has been persuaded by the Alliance's petition and accompanying data, and grants its petition for reconsideration regarding S5.4.3. We believe the Alliance's analysis provided on October 17, 2006 has merit. Driver confusion as to the location of the horn control has decreased as the horn control is returned where drivers intuitively expect to find it to the center of the steering wheel hub on more vehicles. If the horn control is located where most drivers expect it, the agency believes there is little safety benefit from the presence of the horn identifier. In fact, requiring the identifier on or adjacent to the control, may contribute to driver confusion as manufacturers opt to place the identifier adjacent to the control, rather than too close to the large, multi-colored, company logo displayed on many vehicles at the center of the wheel. At present, S5. *Requirements* of FMVSS No. 101 states: “Each passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck and bus that is fitted with a control, a telltale or an indicator listed in Table 1 or Table 2 must meet the requirements of this standard for the location, identification, color, and illumination of the control, telltale, or indicator.” The horn control indicator is specified in Table 2. So that horn controls that are in the middle of the steering wheel would not have to meet S5., in this NPRM, we propose to amend S5.4.3 of FMVSS No. 101 to read: Each identifier used for the identification of a telltale, control or indicator must be in a color that stands out clearly against the background. However, no identifier is required for a horn control activated by the driver pressing on the center of the face plane of the steering wheel. For vehicles with a GVWR of under 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds), the compliance date for this provision is September 1, 2011. The word “symbol” is proposed to be changed to “identifier” to more accurately include words and abbreviations as identifiers which are required to contrast with their backgrounds, as was done in the previous final rules to other sections of the standard. This was pointed out by the Alliance in its current petition. We are not proposing the Alliance's suggested language (“The identification required by Table 1 or Table 2 for a telltale, control or indicator shall contrast with the background.”) because we believe it is too broad. It would allow non-contrasting identifiers for telltales, indicators and controls whenever they appear in the vehicle (such as the instrument panel). At present, S5.2.1 states in part: “* * * No identification is required for any horn (i.e. audible warning signal) that is activated by a lanyard or for a turn signal * * *” To make S5.2.1 consistent with the changes to S5.4.3, in this NPRM, we are proposing to revise the fourth sentence in S5.2.1 to state in part: “* * * No identification is required for any horn (i.e., audible warning signal) that is activated by a lanyard or by the driver pressing on the center of the face plane of the steering wheel * * *”. V. Proposed Leadtime We propose for vehicles under 10,000 pounds that the compliance date for S5.4.3 would continue to be September 1, 2011. The compliance date for the extension of the standard's control, indicator, and telltale requirements to vehicles with at GVWR of 4, 536 kg (10,000 pounds) or greater would continue to be September 1, 2013. If this NPRM is made final, optional early compliance would be permitted as of the date the final rule is published. VI. Public Comments How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments? Your comments must be written in English. To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket number of this document in your comments. Please submit two copies of your comments, including any attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under ADDRESSES . Comments may also be submitted to the docket electronically by logging onto the Dockets Management System Web site at *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. How Can I Be Sure That My Comments Were Received? If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by mail. Each electronic filer will receive electronic confirmation that his or her submission has been received. How Do I Submit Confidential Business Information? If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . In addition, you should submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information, to Docket Management at the address given above under ADDRESSES . When you send a comment containing information claimed to be confidential business information, you should include a cover letter delineating that information, as specified in our confidential business information regulation. (See 49 CFR Part 512). Will the Agency Consider Late Comments? We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES . To the extent possible, we will also consider comments that Docket Management receives after that date. If Docket Management receives a comment too late for us to consider it in developing a rule (assuming that one is issued), we will consider that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action. How Can I Read Comments Submitted By Other People? You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the address given above under ADDRESSES . The hours of the Docket are indicated above in the same location. You may also review filed public comments on the Internet. To read the comments on the Internet, go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets. Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes available. Furthermore, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material. VII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations 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 or 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. We have considered the impact of this rulemaking action under Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This rulemaking document was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review.” The rulemaking action is also not considered to be significant under the Department's Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979). For the following reasons, NHTSA tentatively concludes that if made final, this proposed rule will not have any quantifiable cost effect on motor vehicle manufacturers. The proposed rule would not impose any new requirements but would instead relieve a restriction. In this document, NHTSA proposes to exclude horn controls activated by the driver pressing on the center of the face plane of the steering wheel from the standard's requirement that an identifier be provided. We believe that if this proposal is made final, there will be no measurable effect on safety. As discussed above, driver confusion as to the location of the horn control decreases as the horn control returns to the center of the steering wheel hub where drivers intuitively expect to find it. If the horn control is located where drivers expect it, there is little safety benefit from the presence of the horn identifier. Because the economic effects of this proposal are so minimal, no further regulatory evaluation is necessary. B. Regulatory Flexibility Act Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). The Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR Part 121 define a small business, in part, as a business entity “which operates primarily within the United States.” (13 CFR § 121.105(a)). No regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. I have considered the effects of this rulemaking action under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ) and certify that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed rule would not impose any new requirements but would instead relieve a restriction. For these reasons, and for the reasons described in our discussion on Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures, NHTSA concludes that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. C. National Environmental Policy Act NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that implementation of this action will not have any significant impact on the quality of the human environment. D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) NHTSA has analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the principles and criteria set forth in Executive Order 13132, Federalism and has determined that it does not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation of a Federalism summary impact statement. If made final, this proposed rule will not have any substantial impact on the States, or on the current Federal-State relationship, or on the current distribution of power and responsibilities among the various local officials. E. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform) This proposal would not have any retroactive effect. Under 49 U.S.C. 21403, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, a State may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal standard, except to the extent that the state requirement imposes a higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles procured for the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 21461 sets forth a procedure for judicial review of final rules establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor vehicle safety standards. That section does not require submission of a petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court. F. Paperwork Reduction Act Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a person is not required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)control number. This proposed rule does not require any collections of information, or recordkeeping or retention requirements as defined by the OMB in 5 CFR Part 1320. G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272) directs NHTSA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA directs the agency to provide Congress, through the OMB, explanations when we decide not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. After conducting a search of available sources, we have determined that there is no applicable voluntary consensus standard for this proposed rule. H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA)requires Federal 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 in any one year (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). Before promulgating a rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires NHTSA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows NHTSA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the agency publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. If made final, this proposed rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of more than $100 million annually. Accordingly, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. I. Regulation Identifier Number
(RIN)The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier number
(RIN)to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document to find this action in the Unified Agenda. List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571 Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Rubber and rubber products, and Tires. In consideration of the foregoing, it is proposed that 49 CFR part 571 be amended as set forth below: PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS 1. The authority citation for part 571 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50. 2. Amend § 571.101 by revising the last sentence in S5.2.1, and by revising S5.4.3, to read as follows: § 571.101 Standard No. 101, Controls, telltales, and indicators. S5.2.1 * * * No identification is required for any horn ( *i.e.* , audible warning signal) that is activated by a lanyard or by the driver pressing on the center of the face plane of the steering wheel, or for a turn signal control that is operated in a plane essentially parallel to the face plane of the steering wheel in its normal driving position and which is located on the left side of the steering column so that it is the control on that side of the column nearest to the steering wheel face plane. S5.4.3 Each identifier used for the identification of a telltale, control or indicator must be in a color that stands out clearly against the background. However, no identifier is required for a horn control activated by the driver pressing on the center of the face plane of the steering wheel. For vehicles with a GVWR of under 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds), the compliance date for this provision is September 1, 2011. Issued on: September 21, 2007. Stephen R. Kratzke, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. [FR Doc. E7-19365 Filed 10-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P 72 192 Thursday, October 4, 2007 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request October 1, 2007. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding
(a)whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), *OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV* or fax
(202)395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling
(202)720-8681. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Rural Housing Service *Title:* Form RD 1940-59, Settlement Statement. *OMB Control Number:* 0575-0088. *Summary of Collection:* The real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), as amended, requires the disclosure of real estate settlement costs to real estate buyers and sellers. Disclosure of the nature and costs of a mortgage transaction enables the borrower to be a more informed customer and protects the public from unnecessarily high settlement charges. *Need and Use of the Information:* Form RD 1940-49 is completed by Settlement Agents, Closing Attorneys, and Title Insurance Companies performing the closing of RHS loans and credit sales use to purchase or refinance Section 502 Housing, Rural Rental Housing, and Farm Laboring Housing. The same parties performing the closing of FSA Farm Ownership loans and credit sales complete the form. The information is collected to provide the buyer and the seller with a statement detailing the actual costs of the settlement services involved in certain Agency financed real estate transactions. Failure to collect the information and disclose the information would be a violation of the RESPA. *Description of Respondents:* Business or for-profit. *Number of Respondents:* 11,928. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: On occasion. *Total Burden Hours:* 7,530. Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E7-19628 Filed 10-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-XT-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2007-0089] Notice of Request for Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Pine Shoot Beetle; Host Material From Canada 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 pine nursery stock and various pine products from Canada to prevent the spread of pine shoot beetle into noninfested areas of the United States. DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before December 3, 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-2007-0089 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-2007-0089, 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-2007-0089. *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 pine nursery stock and various pine products from Canada, contact Mr. David Lamb, Import Specialist, Commodity Import Analysis and Operations, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737;
(301)734-4312. 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:* Pine Shoot Beetle; Host Material from Canada. *OMB Number:* 0579-0257. *Type of Request:* Extension of approval of an information collection. *Abstract:* As authorized by the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 *et seq.* ) (PPA), the Secretary of Agriculture may prohibit or restrict the importation, entry, exportation, or movement in interstate commerce of any plant, plant product, biological control organism, noxious weed, means of conveyance, or other article if the Secretary determines that the prohibition or restriction is necessary to prevent a plant pest or noxious weed from being introduced into or disseminated within the United States. This authority has been delegated to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), which administers regulations to implement the PPA. APHIS regulations in 7 CFR part 319 prohibit or restrict the importation of certain plants and plant products into the United States to prevent the introduction of plant pests. Subpart—Nursery Stock, Plants, Roots, Bulbs, Seeds, and Other Plant Products (7 CFR 319.37 through 319.37-14) restricts, among other things, the importation of living plants, plant parts, and seeds for propagation; and Subpart-Logs, Lumber, and Other Unmanufactured Wood Articles (7 CFR 310.40-1 through 319.40-11) governs the importation of various logs, lumber, and other unmanufacturerd wood products into the United States. The regulations in both subparts help prevent the introduction and spread of pine shoot beetle, a pest of pine trees, into noninfested areas of the United States and contain several information collection requirements, including permits, additional declarations on certificates and phytosanitary certificates, statements of origin and movement, compliance agreements, and information on designation of products. 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 this 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 0.0401 hour per response. *Respondents:* Growers and shippers of pine trees and pine tree products. *Estimated annual number of respondents:* 2,340. *Estimated annual number of responses per respondent:* 1. *Estimated annual number of responses:* 2,340. *Estimated total annual burden on respondents:* 94 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 27th day of September 2007. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E7-19651 Filed 10-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2007-0122] Notice of Availability of a Pest Risk Analysis for Importation of Arugula Leaves With Stems From Panama Into the Continental United States AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: We are advising the public that we have prepared a pest risk analysis that evaluates the risks associated with the importation into the continental United States of arugula leaves with stems from Panama. Based on that analysis, we believe that the application of one or more designated phytosanitary measures will be sufficient to mitigate the risks of introducing or disseminating plant pests or noxious weeds via the importation of arugula leaves with stems from Panama. We are making the pest risk analysis available to the public for review and comment. DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before December 3, 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-2007-0122 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-2007-0122, 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-2007-0122. *Reading Room:* You may read any comments that we receive on the environmental 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. Tony Román, Import Specialist, Commodity Import Analysis and Operation Staff, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231;
(301)734-8758. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Under the regulations in “Subpart-Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56 through 319.56-47, referred to below as the regulations), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture prohibits or restricts the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world to prevent plant pests from being introduced into and spread within the United States. Section 319.56-4 contains a performance-based process for approving the importation of commodities that, based on the findings of a pest risk analysis, can be safely imported subject to one or more of the designated phytosanitary measures listed in paragraph
(b)of that section. These measures are: • The fruits or vegetables are subject to inspection upon arrival in the United States and comply with all applicable provisions of § 319.56-3; • The fruits or vegetables are imported from a pest-free area in the country of origin that meets the requirements of § 319.56-5 for freedom from that pest and are accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate stating that the fruits or vegetables originated in a pest-free area in the country of origin; • The fruits or vegetables are treated in accordance with 7 CFR part 305; • The fruits or vegetables are inspected in the country of origin by an inspector or an official of the national plant protection organization of the exporting country, and have been found free of one or more specific quarantine pests identified by the risk analysis as likely to follow the import pathway; and/or • The fruits or vegetables are a commercial consignment. APHIS received a request from the Government of Panama to allow the importation of arugula leaves with stems from Panama into the continental United States. We have completed a pest risk assessment to identify pests of quarantine significance that could follow the pathway of importation into the United States and, based on that pest risk assessment, have prepared a risk management analysis to identify phytosanitary measures that could be applied to the commodity to mitigate the pest risk. We have concluded that arugula leaves with stems can be safely imported into the continental United States from Panama using one or more of the five designated phytosanitary measures listed in § 319.56-4(b). Therefore, in accordance with § 319.56-4(c), we are announcing the availability of our pest risk analysis for public review and comment. The pest risk analysis may be viewed on the Regulations.gov Web site or in our reading room (see ADDRESSES above for instructions for accessing Regulations.gov and information on the location and hours of the reading room). You may request paper copies of the pest risk analysis by calling or writing to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Please refer to the subject of the pest risk analysis when requesting copies. After reviewing the comments we receive, we will announce our decision regarding the import status of arugula leaves with stems from Panama in a subsequent notice. If the overall conclusions of the analysis and the Administrator's determination of risk remain unchanged following our consideration of the comments, then we will begin issuing permits for importation of arugula leaves with stems from Panama into the continental United States subject to the requirements specified in the risk management analysis. 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 27th day of September, 2007. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E7-19652 Filed 10-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2007-0060] Emerald Ash Borer; Availability of an Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: We are advising the public that an environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact have been prepared by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service relative to the release of three insect parasitoid species for the biological control of the emerald ash borer ( *Agrilus planipennis* ). The environmental assessment documents our review and analysis of environmental impact associated with, and alternatives to, the release of these biological control agents. Based on its finding of no significant impact, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Juli Gould, Entomologist, Otis Pest Survey, Detection, and Exclusion Laboratory, PPQ, APHIS, Building 1398, Otis ANGB, MA 02542-5008;
(508)563-9303 ext. 220. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The emerald ash borer
(EAB)( *Agrilus planipennis* ) is a destructive woodboring insect that attacks ash trees ( *Fraxinus* spp., including green ash, white ash, black ash, and several horticultural varieties of ash). The insect, which is indigenous to Asia and known to occur in China, Korea, Japan, Mongolia, the Russian Far East, Taiwan, and Canada, eventually kills healthy ash trees after it bores beneath their bark and disrupts their vascular tissues. The EAB regulations in 7 CFR 301.53-1 through 301.53-9 restrict the interstate movement of regulated articles from quarantined areas to prevent the artificial spread of EAB into noninfested areas of the United States. The States of Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio; Prince George's County, MD; and portions of the State of Michigan are currently designated as quarantined areas. Despite State and Federal quarantines designed to contain EAB, the lack of effective methods to detect EAB-infested trees and the large area of EAB infestation has resulted in a shift in strategy by regulatory agencies from area-wide eradication to eradication in outlying areas and containment in the core infestation areas. In the United States, EAB eradication efforts involve the removal of all ash trees within a specified radius around known infestations. However, by the time an infestation is discovered and treated, EAB has usually already dispersed outside the eradication zone. Besides natural dispersal, the spread of EAB has been accelerated through human-assisted movement of infested ash firewood, timber, solid wood packing materials, and nursery stock. As EAB spreads in North America, regulatory agencies, land managers, and the public are seeking sustainable management tools such as biological control to reduce EAB population densities and to slow its spread. On May 23, 2007, we published in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 28947-28948, Docket No. APHIS-2007-0060) a notice 1 in which we announced the availability for public review and comment of an environmental assessment, entitled “Proposed Release of Three Parasitoids for the Biological Control of the Emerald Ash Borer (Agrilus planipennis) in the Continental United States” (April 2, 2007), that examined the potential effects on the quality of the human environment that may be associated with the release of three specific biological control agents to control infestations of EAB within the continental United States. APHIS and the Forest Service proposed to release the three parasitoids into the environment of the continental United States for the purpose of reducing EAB populations. These parasitoids are known to attack EAB consistently in its native habitat in China. Post-release monitoring of the spread and establishment of each parasitoid species and impacts on EAB and non-target wood-boring beetles will also be conducted. 1 To view the notice, the environmental assessment, the finding of no significant impact, and the comments we received, go to *http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2007-0060.* We solicited comments on the environmental assessment for 30 days ending June 22, 2007. We received 41 comments by that date, of which 30 supported the release of the biological control agents to control infestations of EAB. The 11 comments that opposed the release are addressed at length in the updated environmental assessment. In this document, we are advising the public of our decision and finding of no significant impact regarding the release of three insect parasitoid species for the biological control of the emerald ash borer. This decision is based upon the updated environmental assessment, entitled “Proposed Release of Three Parasitoids for the Biological Control of the Emerald Ash Borer ( *Agrilus planipennis* ) in the Continental United States” (July 2007). The updated environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact may be viewed on the Regulations.gov Web site 2 or in our reading room at USDA, room 1141, South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. Persons wishing to view the updated environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact are requested to call ahead on
(202)690-2817 to facilitate entry into the reading room. You may request paper copies of the updated environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact by calling or writing to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Please refer to the title of the environmental assessment when requesting copies. 2 See footnote 1. The environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact have been prepared in accordance with:
(1)The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* ),
(2)regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508),
(3)USDA regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1), and
(4)APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372). Done in Washington, DC, this 27th day of September 2007. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E7-19647 Filed 10-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Sunshine Act Notice AGENCY: United States Commission on Civil Rights. ACTION: Notice of meeting. Date and Time: Friday, October 12, 2007; 9:30 a.m. Place: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 624 Ninth Street, NW., Rm. 540, Washington, DC 20425. Meeting Agenda I. Approval of Agenda. II. Approval of Minutes of September 21, Meeting. III. Announcements. IV. Staff Director's Report. V. Management and Operations. • Strategic Plan. • Establishment of Briefing and Meeting Schedule for 2008. • Celebration of Commission's 50th Anniversary. • Information Quality Guidelines. • Involvement of Commissioners in Staff Activities. VI. Program Planning. • Consideration of Proposed Debate on Race and Intelligence. VII. State Advisory Committee Issues. • South Carolina SAC. • Involvement of Commissioners on State Advisory Committees. VIII. Future Agenda Items. IX. Adjourn. Contact Person for Further Information: Manuel Alba, Press and Communications,
(202)376-8582. Dated: October 2, 2007. David Blackwood, General Counsel. [FR Doc. 07-4949 Filed 10-2-07; 12:32 pm]
Connectionstraces to 34
Traces to 34 documents
U.S. Code
38 references not yet in our index
  • 14 CFR 39
  • 21 CFR 870
  • Pub. L. 94-295
  • Pub. L. 101-629
  • Pub. L. 105-115
  • 21 CFR 801
  • 5 USC 601-612
  • Pub. L. 104-4
  • 44 USC 3501-3520
  • 26 CFR 301
  • 28 CFR 16
  • 109 Stat. 48
  • 42 USC 4321-4347
  • Pub. L. 94-163
  • 18 USC 4203(a)(1)
  • 40 CFR 52
  • 40 CFR 2
  • Pub. L. 104-113
  • 63 Stat. 390
  • 40 USC 486(c)
  • 41 USC 418b
  • 49 CFR 571
  • 49 CFR 512
  • 13 CFR 121
  • 49 USC 21403
  • 49 USC 21461
  • 5 CFR 1320
  • 49 CFR 1.50
  • Pub. L. 104-13
  • 7 CFR 319
  • 7 CFR 319.37
  • 7 CFR 310.40-1
  • 7 CFR 319.56
  • 7 CFR 305
  • 7 CFR 2.22
  • 7 CFR 301.53-1
  • 7 CFR 1
  • 7 CFR 372
Citation graph
cites case law
Proposed Rules
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
Fed. Reg.Proposed Rules
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 106
C.F.R.§ 39.19
U.S.C.§ 3501
U.S.C.§ 301
U.S.C.§ 360c
U.S.C.§ 360
C.F.R.§ 870.9
Cite14 CFR 39
Cite21 CFR 870
Pub. L.Pub. L. 94-295
Cites 72 · 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.