Proposed Rules. Notice of proposed rulemaking
30,447 words·~138 min read·
/register/2007/11/06/07-5505A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Bureau of Customs and Border Protection 8 CFR Parts 100 and 212 [USCBP-2007-0084] RIN 1651-AA71 Issuance of a Visa and Authorization for Temporary Admission Into the United States for Certain Nonimmigrant Aliens Infected With HIV AGENCY: Customs and Border Protection; DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Department of Homeland Security
(DHS)proposes to amend the regulations pertaining to admission of certain nonimmigrants to the United States. This rule proposes to authorize issuance of certain short-term nonimmigrant visas and temporary admission for aliens who are inadmissible solely due to their infection with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). The proposed rule would provide, on a limited and categorical basis, a more streamlined process to authorize these nonimmigrant aliens to enter the United States as visitors (for business or pleasure) for up to thirty days, subject to certain conditions to ensure the control and departure of such aliens. Nonimmigrant aliens who do not meet the specific circumstances of these clarifying instructions or who do not wish to consent to the conditions that would be imposed by this proposed rule may still elect a case-by-case determination of their eligibility for a waiver of the nonimmigrant visa requirements for aliens afflicted with HIV. The proposed rule also updates regulatory language to conform to a statutory change brought about by the Immigration Act of 1990. DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 6, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number, by one of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • Mail: Border Security Regulations Branch, Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. (Mint Annex), Washington, DC 20229. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael D. Olszak, Customs and Border Protection, Office of Field Operations,
(703)261-8424. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Public Participation Interested persons are invited to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments on all aspects of the proposed rule. DHS also invites comments that relate to the economic, environmental, or federalism effects that might result from this proposal. Comments that will provide the most assistance to DHS in developing these procedures will reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include data, information, or authority that support such recommended change. *Instructions:* All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this rulemaking. All comments received will be posted without change to *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided. *Docket:* For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Submitted comments may also be inspected on regular business days between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. at the Office of International Trade, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 799 9th Street, NW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC. Arrangements to inspect submitted comments should be made in advance by calling Mr. Joseph Clark at
(202)572-8768. II. Intent of the Proposed Rule This proposed rule, initiated at the direction of the President ( *see* White House, *Fact Sheet: World AIDS Day 2006,* December 1, 2006) through the Secretary of State ( *see* Section VIII), would establish a more streamlined process for issuance of a nonimmigrant visa and temporary admission to the United States for aliens who are inadmissible to the United States due to HIV infection. DHS is proposing to allow these aliens to enter the United States as visitors (for business or pleasure) for a temporary period not to exceed thirty days, without being required to seek such admission under the more complex (individualized, case-by-case) process provided under the current DHS policy. The proposed rule would provide an additional avenue for temporary admission of these aliens while minimizing costs to the government and the risk to public health. These goals are accomplished by setting requirements and conditions that govern an alien's admission, affect certain aspects of his or her activities while in the United States ( *e.g.* , using proper medication when medically appropriate, avoiding behavior that can transmit the infection), and ensure his or her departure after a short stay. Nonimmigrant aliens who do not meet the specific circumstances of these clarifying instructions or who do not wish to consent to the conditions imposed by this rule may still elect a case-by-case determination of their eligibility for a waiver of the nonimmigrant visa requirements for aliens afflicted with HIV. III. Applicable Law and Regulations An alien infected with HIV is inadmissible to the United States under section 212(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA), as amended, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(1)(A)(i). An inadmissible alien may be temporarily admitted to the United States under INA section 212(d)(3)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(3)(A). DHS may authorize temporary admission to the United States under 8 CFR 212.4(a) or (b). The categorical authorization process proposed in this rule would be added to 8 CFR 212.4 in new paragraph (f). IV. HIV Infection as a Ground of Inadmissibility The INA has provided since 1952 that aliens “who are afflicted with any dangerous contagious disease” are ineligible to receive a visa and are to be excluded from admission into the United States. Aliens infected with HIV have been inadmissible to the United States since 1987, when Congress directed the Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS)to add HIV infection to its list of dangerous contagious diseases. Public Law 100-71, section 518, 101 Stat. 475 (July 11, 1987); 52 FR 32543 (Aug. 28, 1987). Accordingly, aliens infected with HIV have been ineligible to receive visas and have been excludable from admission to the United States because of infection with a dangerous contagious disease. *See* INA section 212(a)(6), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6) (1988). In 1990, Congress amended the INA by revising the classes of excludable aliens to provide that an alien “who is determined (in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services) to have a communicable disease of public health significance” is excludable from the United States. Immigration Act of 1990, Public Law 101-649, section 601, 104 Stat. 4978 (Jan. 23, 1990); INA section 212(a)(1)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(1)(A)(i), (effective June 1, 1991). HHS subsequently published a proposed rule that would have removed from the list all sexually transmitted diseases (including HIV). 56 FR 2484 (Jan. 23, 1991). Based on comments received and reconsideration of the issues, HHS published an interim rule retaining all sexually transmitted diseases on the list and committing its initial proposal to further study. 56 FR 25000 (May 31, 1991). While HHS again considered a regulatory amendment to remove HIV from the list, Congress amended INA section 212(a)(1) to specify that “infection with the etiologic agent for acquired immune deficiency syndrome” is a communicable disease of public health significance, thereby making explicit in the INA that aliens with HIV are ineligible for admission into the United States. National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act of 1993, Public Law 103-43, section 2007, 107 Stat. 122, (June 10, 1993). The INA, as presently worded, makes inadmissible to the United States any alien “who is determined (in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services) to have a communicable disease of public health significance, which shall include infection with the etiologic agent for acquired immune deficiency syndrome * * * .” INA section 212(a)(1)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(1)(A)(i). Therefore, any alien infected with HIV is inadmissible to the United States. V. Authority To Grant Temporary Admission The Secretary of Homeland Security has broad discretionary authority, subject to certain exceptions, to approve the issuance of a nonimmigrant visa and the temporary admission into the United States of an alien inadmissible due to many of the existing grounds of inadmissibility, including HIV infection. See INA section 212(d)(3)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(3)(A). Pursuant to INA section 212(d)(3)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(3)(A), the Secretary of Homeland Security may not authorize issuance of a nonimmigrant visa or admission into the United States of an otherwise inadmissible alien if the alien's inadmissibility is based on certain security or terrorism related grounds, specifically INA sections 212(a)(3)(A)(i)(I), (3)(A)(ii), (3)(A)(iii), (3)(C), (3)(E)(i), and (3)(E)(ii), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(A)(i)(I), (3)(A)(ii), (3)(A)(iii), (3)(C), (3)(E)(i), and (3)(E)(ii). The Secretary is not prohibited from authorizing the issuance of a nonimmigrant visa or admission if the alien's inadmissibility is based on HIV infection under INA section 212(a)(1)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(1)(A) (health-related grounds). The Secretary of Homeland Security may authorize issuance of a nonimmigrant visa and temporary admission to the United States ( *see* INA section 212(d)(3)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(3)(A)(i), and 8 CFR 212.4(a)) or authorize temporary admission only ( *see* INA section 212(d)(3)(A)(ii), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(3)(A)(ii), and 8 CFR 212.4(b)). Nonimmigrant aliens may seek a nonimmigrant visa and temporary admission to the United States from a consular officer or the Secretary of State. An alien who is applying for a nonimmigrant visa and is known, or believed by, the consular officer to be ineligible for a visa, may, after approval by the Secretary of Homeland Security of a recommendation by the Secretary of State or by the consular officer that the alien be admitted temporarily despite his inadmissibility, be granted such a visa and may be admitted into the United States temporarily in the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security. [0] An applicant who has already been issued a nonimmigrant visa (or who has been granted a waiver of the nonimmigrant visa requirement) may apply to DHS for approval of temporary admission; such approval is granted at the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security. When Congress first enacted this authority to authorize admission for nonimmigrants despite inadmissibility in 1952, the Committee on the Judiciary stated that “cases will continue to arise where there are extenuating circumstances which justify the temporary admission of otherwise inadmissible aliens, both for humane reasons and for reasons of public interest.” S. Rep. No. 1137, 82d Cong., 2d Sess. 12 (1952). This statement of Congressional understanding and purpose has continued validity today and supports the proposed streamlined process for authorizing, on a categorical basis, issuance of a nonimmigrant visa and temporary admission to the United States for HIV-positive aliens seeking admission to the United States under B-1 (business visitor) or B-2 (visitor for pleasure) nonimmigrant status who satisfy the conditions discussed below. The Secretary may exercise his discretion by rulemaking rather than on a case-by-case basis. As the Supreme Court noted, “[e]ven if a statutory scheme requires individualized determinations * * *, the decisionmaker has the authority to rely on rulemaking to resolve certain issues of general applicability unless Congress clearly expresses an intent to withhold that authority.” *Lopez* v. *Davis* , 531 U.S. 230, 243-44
(2001)( *quoting American Hosp. Ass'n* v. *NLRB* , 499 U.S. 606, 612 (1999)) (emphasis added). *See also id.* at 244 (noting that purely case-by-case decision making “could invite favoritism, disunity, and inconsistency”). Accordingly, “it is a well-established principle of administrative law that an agency to whom Congress grants discretion may elect between rulemaking and ad hoc adjudication to carry out its mandate.” *Yang* v. *INS* , 79 F.3d 932, 936 (9th Cir.), *cert. denied* , 519 U.S. 824 (1996). Absent an indication of contrary Congressional intent in the INA, the Secretary of Homeland Security may determine to exercise discretion under INA section 212(d)(3)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(3)(A), on a categorical basis, to authorize issuance of a nonimmigrant visa to, and admission of, otherwise inadmissible aliens, including aliens inadmissible due to HIV infection. Unlike other provisions governing the Secretary of Homeland Security's authority to waive grounds of inadmissibility, the language of INA section 212(d)(3)(A) does not clearly limit the Secretary's exercise of discretion under that provision to case-by-case determinations. The reference in the last sentence of section 212(d)(3)(A) to aliens, in the plural, provides contextual support for the Secretary exercising this discretion on a categorical basis. In contrast, an explicit waiver provision under the INA specifically requires the exercise of discretion “in individual cases.” INA section 212(d)(4), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(4) (permitting waiver of “[e]ither or both of the requirements” of INA section 212(a)(7)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(7)(B)(i)). The lack of comparable language limiting the Secretary's authority under INA section 212(d)(3)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(3)(A), indicates that Congress did not intend to prohibit the Secretary from exercising his authority on a categorical basis under this section. DHS has previously granted blanket authorization under INA section 212(d)(3)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(3)(A), for specific, limited purposes, such as to permit HIV-positive aliens to attend particular events, including the Salt Lake City Olympic games, the United Nations General Assembly Special Session on HIV/AIDS in 2001, various Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches events, and the 2006 Gay Games in Chicago. The legislative history of INA section 212(d)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(3), suggests that DHS should apply the provision where “there are extenuating circumstances which justify the temporary admission of otherwise admissible aliens, both for humane reasons and for reasons of public interest.” S. Rep. No. 1137, *supra* , at 12. Authorization on a categorical basis, as proposed by this rule, would require approval only by the consular officer or the Secretary of State, provided that all requirements and conditions are satisfied; authorization under more expansive terms and conditions will still require individualized, case-by-case consideration by DHS. VI. Current DHS Policy DHS policy currently allows otherwise inadmissible aliens, pursuant to INA section 212(d)(3)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(3)(A), to apply for admission on a case-by-case basis by employing a balancing test involving several factors (regardless of whether the authorization is applied for before a consular officer, the Secretary of State or directly to DHS). Consideration is given to the risk of harm to society if the applicant is admitted into the United States, the seriousness of any immigration law or criminal law violations (the basis for inadmissibility), and the nature of the reason for travel. *See Matter of Hranka* , 16 I&N Dec. 491 (BIA 1978). These are general criteria applicable to any application for authorization under INA section 212(d)(3)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(3)(A). This proposed rule would incorporate current policy further developed in a series of instructions from the former Immigration and Naturalization Service
(INS)and the Department of Justice. In cases involving HIV-positive aliens, DHS policy requires that consideration be given to whether:
(1)The danger to the public health is minimal,
(2)the possibility of the transmission of the infection is minimal, and
(3)any cost will be incurred by any level of government agency in the United States (local, state, or federal) without the prior consent of that agency. Consular officers must find (based on evidence provided by the applicant that satisfies reviewing officials) that the former two factors are no more than minimal and that there will not be a cost to an agency absent prior consent. Other specific instructions clarify that nonimmigrant visas may be granted and temporary admission may be provided to short-term nonimmigrant individuals with HIV who establish that their entry into the United States, for up to thirty days, would confer a public benefit that outweighs any risk to the public health. A sufficient public benefit can include attendance at academic or health-related activities (including seeking medical treatment), conducting temporary business in the United States, or visiting close family members in the United States. Currently, applicants whose situations do not fit the specific circumstances of these clarifying instructions, such as those entering for periods of more than thirty days or for tourism purposes alone, must apply for case-by-case consideration and authorization. These applicants must satisfy the more general criteria of the general policy (risk of harm to society, seriousness of immigration/criminal violations, reason for travel), as these criteria apply to all situations. Determination of the risk of harm to society includes whether the danger to the public health and the possibility of transmission of the infection are minimal and whether there will be any cost incurred by any level of government agency in the United States. In addition, supplemental instructions provide that DHS may grant authorization for admission whenever the Secretary of HHS advises that attendance at a scientific, professional, or academic conference in the United States is in the public interest, and the alien establishes that his or her visit to the United States is for the purpose of seeking admission to such a designated conference and will not exceed ten days. Under the current policy, these criteria are applied on a case-by-case basis to applications (or a consular officer's or the Secretary of State's recommendation) for authorization for admission. In practice, DHS, the Department of State (DOS), and the Department of Justice (DOJ)(through the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)) have denied very few applications (or recommendations) for authorization for admission when the specific criteria for short stays of up to thirty days were satisfied or when the Secretary of HHS initiated the designated-event waiver for visits of up to ten days. However, some applications have been denied when the applicant failed to meet all relevant criteria, e.g., when an applicant refused to provide adequate assurance that he or she would comply with medical advice against engaging in behavior that would risk transmitting the infection to others. In addition, under the general criteria, as applied in practice to HIV-positive applicants for admission, these applicants must establish that they are aware of their HIV positive condition, have received (and are following) adequate medical counseling, are currently under medical care, and are traveling to the United States with, or will have access to, a supply of drugs, as medically appropriate, that is adequate to cover the length of the anticipated stay. The applicant also must be able to demonstrate that he or she has adequate insurance, which is accepted in the United States, or other financial means available to cover anticipated medical expenses. VII. Experience Gained During the twenty years since Congress directed HHS to add infection with HIV to the list of dangerous contagious diseases, thus adding infection with HIV as a ground of inadmissibility under the INA, the Executive Branch has gained considerable experience in deciding when to allow the admission of nonimmigrant aliens with HIV infection. The history of this period has shown that DHS and the Department of Justice have consistently approved DOS consular recommendations that nonimmigrant visas be granted to aliens with HIV infection when the applicant: Sought to travel to the United States for thirty days or less for a lawful purpose consistent with the business visitor or tourist nonimmigrant classification; had been diagnosed with HIV infection; had received medical counseling; was in compliance with medically-advised behavior and medically-prescribed treatment protocols; was able to demonstrate availability once in the United States of an adequate supply of antiretroviral medications if medically appropriate; and was not likely to require assistance that would result in any cost incurred by any level of government agency in the United States without the prior consent of that agency. HHS and its components also have gained considerable expertise regarding the threat to the public posed by HIV-positive individuals. HHS has expressed the view that present DHS policy has provided adequate protection to the public health of the United States and HIV-positive aliens who are aware of their medical conditions, receive appropriate medical counseling, and are in compliance with medically appropriate treatment protocols and medically advised behavior have presented little risk to the public health in the United States. VIII. Presidential Directive Predicating This Rulemaking On December 1, 2006, President Bush directed the Secretary of State to request that the Secretary of Homeland Security initiate a rulemaking that would propose a categorical waiver of inadmissibility for aliens who are HIV-positive and who seek to enter the United States on short-term visas. In furtherance of the President's directive, Secretary of State Rice, by letter dated June 6, 2007, recommended that the Secretary of Homeland Security grant a limited waiver of inadmissibility under the INA to persons who are currently inadmissible to the United States solely due to their HIV-positive condition. Secretary Rice specifically recommended a waiver for persons who seek short-term B-1 and B-2 visas and do not have active, contagious, symptomatic infections associated with HIV or AIDS. DHS shares the President's and Secretary Rice's firm commitment to enable, on a categorical basis, the admission into the United States for short visits of HIV-positive aliens, who do not exhibit symptoms indicative of an active AIDS-related condition that is contagious, through a permanent, streamlined process that employs standardized criteria as opposed to the current case-by-case, individualized process. IX. The Proposed Rule DHS is proposing, on a categorical basis under new provisions of 8 CFR 212.4(f), to authorize issuance of visas and admission of nonimmigrant aliens who are currently inadmissible to the United States solely due to their HIV-positive status. DHS is proposing this categorical authorization to allow application for admission to the United States under B-1 (business visitor) or B-2 (visitor for pleasure) status for a period not to exceed thirty days if the applicant establishes specific facts and meets certain conditions. A. Safeguards This proposed rule does not conflict with Congress' restriction regarding HIV as a communicable disease of public health significance and is consistent with Congress' humanitarian purpose in enacting INA section 212(d)(3)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(3)(A). The proposed regulations demonstrate DHS's recognition of the seriousness of HIV infection and, at the same time, comply with the statute by prescribing “conditions * * * to control and regulate the admission and return of inadmissible aliens applying for temporary admission.” INA section 212(d)(3)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(3)(A). Thus, under the proposed rule, an HIV-positive applicant for a nonimmigrant visitor visa would be required to satisfy criteria designed to ensure that the risk to the public health is minimized to the greatest reasonable extent and that no cost will be imposed on any level of government in the United States (local, state, federal) without prior consent of a government agency. The short duration of admission under the proposed regulations, and the various conditions designed to control the alien's temporary stay and ensure his or her return, minimize the risk of disease transmission in the United States, as well as the risk of increased burden on our public health resources. HIV-positive aliens not meeting the criteria under the proposed regulations would still be able to seek individualized (case-by-case) consideration for admission pursuant to INA section 212(d)(3)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(3)(A), under current DHS policy. B. Specific Conditions of Admission, Control, and Return The proposed rule includes specific requirements (based in part on criteria discussed above), which are set forth here by type.
(1)*Medical etiology.* A visa applicant, who has tested positive for HIV, must show a controlled state of HIV infection such that there is no anticipated need for additional medical care during the applicant's visit to the United States. A controlled state of HIV infection means that the applicant does not exhibit, at the time of application, symptoms indicative of an active AIDS-related condition that is contagious or that requires urgent treatment. In cases involving HIV-positive aliens, DHS policy requires that consideration be given to whether:
(1)The danger to the public health is minimal,
(2)the possibility of the transmission of the infection is minimal, and
(3)any cost will be incurred by any level of government agency in the United States (local, state, or federal) without the prior consent of that agency. Consular officers must find (based on evidence provided by the applicant that satisfies reviewing officials) that the former two factors are no more than minimal and that there will not be a cost to an agency absent prior consent.
(2)*Understanding.* The applicant must establish that he or she is aware of, understands, and has been counseled on the nature and severity of his or her medical condition. As part of this process, the applicant also must establish that he or she has been counseled on and is aware of the communicability of his or her medical condition, including the fact that the applicant must not donate blood or blood components.
(3)*Limited potential health danger* . The applicant must establish that his or her admission to the United States for a short duration poses minimal risk of danger to the public health in the United States. The applicant must establish that his or her admission poses a minimal risk of danger of transmission of the infection to any other person in the United States through demonstration of knowledge of the routes of transmission of HIV, including sexual contact, sharing needles, and blood transfusions.
(4)*Continuity of health care.* As with existing policy, admission is contingent upon assurances that the applicant will not impose costs on the health care system of the United States. Accordingly, the applicant must establish that he or she has, or will have access to, an adequate supply of antiretroviral drugs if medically appropriate for the anticipated stay in the United States. The Food and Drug Administration
(FDA)has developed enforcement policies under which it may exercise its enforcement discretion not to interdict the importation of unapproved medications for personal use in such circumstances. See *http://www.fda.gov/ora/compliance_ref/rpm/chapter9/ch9-2.html* . Moreover, the applicant must establish that he or she possesses sufficient assets or insurance, that is accepted in the United States, that would cover any medical care that the applicant might require in the event of illness at any time while in the United States. These two factors lead to a third factor: The applicant must establish that his or her admission will not create any cost to the United States, or a state or local government, or any agency thereof, without the prior written consent of that agency.
(5)*Temporary Admission.* The proposed categorical treatment, like the individualized treatment under current DHS policy, is designed only for a temporary admission. Accordingly, the applicant must establish that he or she is seeking admission solely for activities that are consistent with the B-1 (business visitor) or B-2 (visitor for pleasure) nonimmigrant classifications. Travel for tourism only is an activity consistent with this categorical admission. The applicant must understand that because of his or her inadmissibility, he or she is not eligible to seek admission under the Visa Waiver Program. INA section 217, 8 U.S.C. 1187. Under current statutes and regulations, all HIV-positive applicants for admission from Visa Waiver Program countries must apply for and be granted a visa to be admitted to the United States. The applicant must also understand and agree that no single admission to the United States will be for more than thirty days. Because the proposed regulations apply to a specific ground of inadmissibility, the applicant must establish that no other ground of inadmissibility applies. Authorization for admission may not be granted if any other ground of inadmissibility exists. If the applicant requires an additional waiver of inadmissibility, the applicant must use the process described in either 8 CFR 212.4(a) or (b), as applicable.
(6)*Enforcement of the Authorization Agreement.* As this authorization for admission is being granted for a narrow, limited purpose, DHS believes that the applicant must agree to certain conditions. DHS believes that the applicant must understand and agree in writing, once the Department of State issues a waiver form, that he or she, for the purpose of admission pursuant to this waiver, is waiving the opportunity to apply for any extension of nonimmigrant stay, a change of nonimmigrant status, or adjustment of status to that of permanent resident, 1 whether filed affirmatively with DHS or defensively in response to an action for removal. DHS alternatively solicits comments on whether consular officers may orally advise or provide written notification to the applicant that he or she has waived the opportunity to apply for any extension of nonimmigrant stay, a change of nonimmigrant status, or adjustment of status to that of permanent resident in lieu of the applicant executing a written waiver of these opportunities. If the applicant chooses not to waive the opportunity to apply for any extension of nonimmigrant stay, a change of nonimmigrant status, or adjustment of status to that of permanent resident, the applicant is not eligible for the streamlined process delineated in this proposed rule. However, the applicant may still elect a case-by-case determination of his or her eligibility for a waiver of the nonimmigrant visa requirements for aliens afflicted with HIV. 1 Nothing within this proposed rule would prohibit an alien from applying for an immigrant visa before a consular officer abroad. Furthermore, under the proposed rule, an applicant must understand and agree that any failure to comply with conditions of admission will make him/her permanently ineligible for authorization for admission under the proposed regulations.
(7)*Duration.* The nonimmigrant visa issued to the applicant will be valid for twelve months or less and may be used for a maximum of two applications for admission. The authorized period of stay will be for thirty calendar days calculated from the initial admission under this visa. The holder of the nonimmigrant visa will be permitted to apply for admission at a United States port of entry at any time during the validity of the visa if he or she is otherwise admissible in B-1 (business visitor) or B-2 (visitor for pleasure) nonimmigrant status. C. Benefit of the Proposed Regulations An alien inadmissible to the United States due to HIV infection under INA section 212(a)(1)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(1)(A)(i) (or any other ground of inadmissibility under section 212(a), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a), except (3)(A)(i)(I), (3)(A)(ii), (3)(A)(iii), (3)(C), (3)(E)(i), or (3)(E)(ii)), has been, and is currently, able to apply for admission pursuant to INA section 212(d)(3)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(3)(A), under either 8 CFR 212.4(a) or (b). Although authorization for admission pursuant to 8 CFR 212.4(a) is sought from a consular officer or the Secretary of State, it is an application for issuance of a nonimmigrant visa and temporary admission that requires the approval of the Secretary of Homeland Security. Authorization for admission pursuant to 8 CFR 212.4(b) is applied for, with payment of a fee, directly to DHS (on Form I-192) by an alien who already has a nonimmigrant visa, or for whom the nonimmigrant visa requirement is waived, and is approved at the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security. These existing processes require action by DHS upon submission of eligibility information (the same kind of information that is required under the proposed regulations) that must be reviewed, evaluated, and ruled upon on a case-by-case (or individualized) basis. In contrast, the proposed regulation would authorize a consular officer or the Secretary of State to categorically grant a nonimmigrant visa and authorize the applicant to apply for admission into the United States, notwithstanding an applicant's inadmissibility due to HIV infection, if the applicant meets applicable requirements and conditions, without the additional step of seeking review and decision by DHS prior to granting of the nonimmigrant visa. Using a categorical authorization would provide a more streamlined and quicker process for obtaining temporary admission under INA section 212(d)(3)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(3)(A)(i). X. Other Proposed Amendment DHS also is proposing to amend 8 CFR 212.4(e) to reflect changes in the grounds of inadmissibility brought about by the Immigration Act of 1990. Section 212.4(e) authorizes the temporary admission of a nonimmigrant visitor notwithstanding inadmissibility under INA section 212(a)(1), if the alien is accompanied by a member of his or her family or a guardian. Prior to June 1, 1991, INA section 212(a)(1) made excludable from the United States aliens who were “mentally retarded.” Effective June 1, 1991, the Immigration Act of 1990 reorganized all medical grounds of excludability into a new general provision, INA section 212(a)(1). The references in 8 CFR 212.4(e) to INA section 212(a)(1) were never updated. There is no present ground of inadmissibility for aliens who are “mentally retarded.” However, INA sections 212(a)(1)(A)(iii)(I) and 212(a)(1)(A)(iii)(II), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(1)(A)(iii)(I) and 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(1)(A)(iii)(II), make inadmissible aliens who have, or have had, a mental disorder with associated threatening or harmful behavior. DHS is proposing to amend 8 CFR 212.4(e) by replacing the references to INA section 212(a)(1) with references to the current INA sections relating to the grounds of inadmissibility for aliens with mental disorders, INA sections 212(a)(1)(A)(iii)(I) and 212(a)(1)(A)(iii)(II). As neither the current nor the proposed regulations authorize the granting of a nonimmigrant visa, only aliens who already have facially valid nonimmigrant visas or for whom the nonimmigrant visa requirement is waived would be able to benefit from the proposed amendment to 8 CFR 212.4(e). XI. Statutory and Regulatory Reviews A. Regulatory Flexibility Act. DHS has reviewed the proposed rule in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ), and, by approving it, certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The individual aliens to whom this rule applies are not small entities as that term is defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(6). Thus, the RFA does not apply. B. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 The proposed rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one-year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. C. Executive Order 12866 This rule has been determined to be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), Regulatory Planning and Review. Accordingly, this regulation has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review. There are no new costs to the public associated with this rule. This rule does not create any new or additional requirements. D. Executive Order 13132 The proposed rule 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. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. E. Executive Order 12988 The proposed rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. F. Paperwork Reduction Act Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, all Departments are required to submit to OMB, for review and approval, any reporting and recordkeeping requirements inherent in a rule. This rule does not impose any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act. List of Subjects 8 CFR Part 100 Organization and functions (Government agencies). 8 CFR Part 212 Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Immigration, Passports and visas. Proposed Amendments to the Regulations For the reasons stated in the preamble, parts 100 and 212 of chapter I of title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations (8 CFR parts 100 and 212) are proposed to be amended as follows: PART 100—STATEMENT OF ORGANIZATION 1. The general authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows: Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103; 8 CFR part 2. § 100.7 [Amended] 2. Section 100.7 is amended by removing the citation “212.4(g)” in the list of parts and sections and adding in its place the citation “212.4(h)”. PART 212—DOCUMENTARY REQUIREMENTS; NONIMMIGRANTS; WAIVERS; ADMISSION OF CERTAIN INADMISSIBLE ALIENS; PAROLE 3. The general authority citation for part 212 continues to read as follows: Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101 and note, 1102, 1103, 1182 and note, 1184, 1187, 1223, 1225, 1226, 1227; 8 U.S.C. 1185 note (section 7209 of Pub. L. 108-458). 4. Section 212.4 is amended by: a. In paragraph (e), removing the citation “212(a)(1)” in the paragraph text and adding in its place “212(a)(1)(A)(iii)”, and removing the citation “212(a)(1) of the Act” and adding in its place “212(a)(1)(A)(iii)(I) or
(II)of the Act due to a mental disorder and associated threatening or harmful behavior”; b. Redesignating paragraphs (f), (g), (h), and
(i)as paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and
(j)and adding new paragraph
(f)to read as follows: § 212.4 Applications for the exercise of discretion under section 212(d)(1) and 212(d)(3).
(f)*Inadmissibility under section 212(a)(1) for aliens inadmissible due to HIV.*
(1)*General.* Pursuant to the authority in section 212(d)(3)(A)(i) of the Act, any alien who is inadmissible under section 212(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Act due to infection with the etiologic agent for acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV infection) may be issued a B-1 (business visitor) or B-2 (visitor for pleasure) nonimmigrant visa by a consular officer or the Secretary of State, and be authorized for temporary admission into the United States for a period not to exceed thirty days, provided that the authorization is granted in accordance with paragraphs (f)(2) through (f)(7) of this section. Application under this paragraph
(f)may not be combined with any other waiver of inadmissibility.
(2)*Conditions.* An alien with HIV infection who applies for a nonimmigrant visa before a consular officer may be issued a B-1 (business visitor) or B-2 (visitor for pleasure) nonimmigrant visa and admitted to the United States for a period not to exceed thirty days, provided that the applicant establishes that:
(i)The applicant has tested positive for HIV;
(ii)The applicant is not currently exhibiting symptoms indicative of an active, contagious infection associated with acquired immune deficiency syndrome;
(iii)The applicant is aware of, has been counseled on, and understands the nature, severity, and the communicability of his medical condition;
(iv)The applicant's admission poses a minimal risk of danger to the public health in the United States and poses a minimal risk of danger of transmission of the infection to any other person in the United States;
(v)The applicant will have in his or her possession, or will have access to, as medically appropriate, an adequate supply of antiretroviral drugs for the anticipated stay in the United States and possesses sufficient assets, such as insurance that is accepted in the United States, to cover any medical care that the applicant may require in the event of illness at any time while in the United States;
(vi)The applicant's admission will not create any cost to the United States, or a state or local government, or any agency thereof, without the prior written consent of the agency;
(vii)The applicant is seeking admission solely for activities that are consistent with the B-1 (business visitor) or B-2 (visitor for pleasure) nonimmigrant classification;
(viii)The applicant is aware that no single admission to the United States will be for a period that exceeds 30 days;
(ix)The applicant is otherwise admissible to the United States and no other ground of inadmissibility applies;
(x)The applicant is aware that he or she cannot be admitted under section 217 of the Act (Visa Waiver Program);
(xi)The applicant is aware that any failure to comply with any condition of admission set forth under this paragraph
(f)will thereafter make him or her ineligible for authorization under this paragraph; and
(xii)The applicant, for the purpose of admission pursuant to a waiver under this paragraph (f), waives any opportunity to apply for an extension of nonimmigrant stay, a change of nonimmigrant status, or adjustment of status to that of permanent resident;
(3)*Nonimmigrant visa.* A nonimmigrant visa issued to the applicant for purposes of temporary admission under section 212(d)(3)(A)(i) of the Act and this paragraph
(f)may not be valid for more than 12 months or for more than two applications for admission during the 12 month period. The authorized period of stay will be for thirty calendar days calculated from the initial admission under this visa.
(4)*Application at U.S. port.* If otherwise admissible, a holder of the nonimmigrant visa issued under section 212(d)(3)(A)(i) of the Act and this paragraph
(f)is authorized to apply for admission at a United States port of entry at any time during the period of validity of the visa in only the B-1 (business visitor) or B-2 (visitor for pleasure) nonimmigrant categories.
(5)*Admission limited.* Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, no single period of admission under section 212(d)(3)(A)(i) of the Act and this paragraph
(f)may be authorized for more than 30 days.
(6)*Failure to comply.* No authorization under section 212(d)(3)(A)(i) of the Act and this paragraph
(f)may be provided to any alien who has previously failed to comply with any condition of an admission authorized under this paragraph.
(7)*Additional limitations.* The Secretary of Homeland Security or the Secretary of State may require additional evidence or impose additional conditions on granting authorization for temporary admissions under this paragraph
(f)as international conditions may indicate.
(8)*Option for case-by-case determination.* If the applicant does not meet the criteria under this paragraph (f), or does not wish to agree to the conditions for the streamlined 30-day visa under this paragraph (f), the applicant may elect to utilize the process described in either paragraph
(a)or
(b)of this section, as applicable. Michael Chertoff, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-21841 Filed 11-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 11 CFR Parts 100 and 104 [Notice 2007-23] Reporting Contributions Bundled by Lobbyists, Registrants and the PACs of Lobbyists and Registrants AGENCY: Federal Election Commission. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Federal Election Commission requests comments on proposed rules implementing new statutory provisions regarding the disclosure of information about bundled contributions provided by certain lobbyists and registrants. The proposed rules would require authorized committees, leadership PACs and political committees of political parties to disclose certain information about lobbyists and registrants and lobbyists' and registrants' political committees that provide bundled contributions. No final decisions have been made by the Commission on any of the proposed regulations in this Notice. Further information is provided in the supplementary information that follows. DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 30, 2007. The Commission will announce the date of a hearing at a later date. Anyone seeking to testify at the hearing must file written comments by the due date and must include in the written comments a request to testify. ADDRESSES: All comments must be in writing, must be addressed to Ms. Amy L. Rothstein, Assistant General Counsel, and must be submitted in e-mail, facsimile, or paper copy form. Commenters are strongly encouraged to submit comments by e-mail or fax to ensure timely receipt and consideration. E-mail comments must be sent to *bundling07@fec.gov* . If e-mail comments include an attachment, the attachment must be in Adobe Acrobat (.pdf) or Microsoft Word (.doc) format. Faxed comments must be sent to
(202)219-3923, with paper copy follow-up. Paper comments and paper copy follow-up of faxed comments must be sent to the Federal Election Commission, 999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 20463. All comments must include the full name and postal service address of the commenter or they will not be considered. The Commission will post comments on its Web site after the comment period ends. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Amy L. Rothstein, Assistant General Counsel, or Ms. Cheryl A.F. Hemsley, Attorney, 999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 20463,
(202)694-1650 or
(800)424-9530. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission is proposing changes to its rules to implement section 204 of Public Law 110-81, 121 Stat. 735, the “Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007,” signed September 14, 2007. The new law amended the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (2 U.S.C. 431 *et seq.* ) (“the Act”) by requiring certain political committees to disclose information about each lobbyist and registrant, and each political committee established or controlled by a lobbyist or registrant (“lobbyist/registrant PAC” 1 ), that forwards, or is credited with raising, two or more bundled contributions aggregating in excess of $15,000 during a specific period of time. 2 *See* 2 U.S.C. 434(i) (henceforth referred to as the “new law” or “new 2 U.S.C. 434(i)”). The Commission uses the term “lobbyist/registrant” to refer to registrants and lobbyists under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (“LDA”). 1 “PAC” is an acronym often used to refer to a political action committee other than an authorized committee or a political committee of a political party. 2 As discussed *infra* , the new law requires the reporting of information about certain bundled contributions that have been “provided” to certain political committees, and defines a “bundled contribution” as a contribution that is either “forwarded” to the political committee by a lobbyist/registrant or lobbyist/registrant PAC, or that is received by the political committee from the contributor but “credited” to the lobbyist/registrant or lobbyist/registrant PAC that “raised” it. 2 U.S.C. 434(i)(1), (8)(A). To clarify that the reporting requirement does not apply only to contributions that have been provided directly to a political committee by a lobbyist/registrant or lobbyist/registrant PAC, this NPRM describes the reporting requirement as applying to lobbyist/registrants or lobbyist/registrant PACs that have either forwarded, or that have been credited with raising, bundled contributions. The Commission proposes to implement these provisions by adding a new subparagraph to 11 CFR 100.5(e) and adding a new section to the reporting rules at 11 CFR Part 104. The proposed reporting requirements would apply only to authorized committees of Federal candidates, political committees of political parties, and political committees directly or indirectly established, financed, maintained or controlled by a candidate or an individual holding Federal office (“leadership PACs” 3 ). 3 The new law provides a definition of leadership PAC that the Commission proposed to implement as 11 CFR 100.5(e)(6) in a separate rulemaking regarding candidate travel. *See* 72 FR 59953 (October 23, 2007). The Commission assumes that a definition will be promulgated in the travel rulemaking before these disclosure rules are promulgated and thus, cites to 11 CFR 100.5(e)(6). I. Background A. The Current Statutory and Regulatory Framework Currently, the Act and Commission regulations impose certain reporting and recordkeeping requirements for contributions received and forwarded by any person to a political committee. Each person who receives and forwards contributions to a political committee must also forward certain information identifying the original contributor. *See* 2 U.S.C. 432(b); 11 CFR 102.8. Additionally, 2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(8) and 11 CFR 110.6 impose certain reporting and recordkeeping requirements for contributions received and forwarded by persons known as “conduits” or “intermediaries” to the authorized committees of Federal candidates. The Commission is not proposing any changes to these rules. B. Revisions to 2 U.S.C. 434(i)—Reporting Requirements New 2 U.S.C. 434(i) requires authorized committees of Federal candidates, leadership PACs and political committees of political parties to disclose certain information about any person reasonably known by the committee to be a lobbyist/registrant or lobbyist/registrant PAC that forwards, or is credited with raising, two or more bundled contributions aggregating in excess of $15,000 to the committee within a “covered period” of time. 2 U.S.C. 434(i)(1), (2),
(3)and (8). Reporting committees must disclose the name and address of the lobbyist/registrant or lobbyist/registrant PAC, the lobbyist/registrant's employer (for individual persons), and the aggregate amount of contributions bundled to the committee within the covered period. 2 U.S.C. 434(i)(1). II. Proposed Revisions to 11 CFR 100.5. Political Committee (2 U.S.C. 432(4), (5), (6); 2 U.S.C. 434(i)(7)(C) and (8)(B)) Currently, 11 CFR 100.5(e) provides examples of types of political committees. Proposed 11 CFR 100.5(e)(7) would add the term “lobbyist/registrant PAC” as an example, and would define the term as “any political committee established or controlled” by a lobbyist/registrant, as defined in proposed 11 CFR 104.22(a)(3). This definition is consistent with the new law. *See* 2 U.S.C. 434(i)(7)(C). Political committees that meet this definition would have to identify themselves as such on their Statements of Organization. *See* 11 CFR 102.2(a)(1) (requiring each political committee to disclose its name, address and type on its Statement of Organization). Further, the Commission anticipates that any political committee that is already registered with the Commission and that fits this proposed definition would be required to amend its Statement of Organization to reflect its status as a lobbyist/registrant PAC. 4 The Commission requests comments on this approach. When would a nonconnected committee be considered to be “controlled” by a lobbyist/registrant? Is a committee whose treasurer is a lobbyist/registrant *per se* “controlled” by the lobbyist/registrant? What if that treasurer serves only in a ministerial or custodial function? As discussed further in Part III, the law requires disclosure of bundling by either an individual who registers as a lobbyist under the LDA or a “registrant” under that Act, which includes any organization that employs in-house lobbyists. Thus, the Commission proposes to define “lobbyist/registrant” to include both lobbyists and registrants under the LDA. Moreover, since the SSF of a corporation, labor organization or other connected organization ( *see* 11 CFR 100.6) that employs in-house lobbyists would be, by definition, controlled by a registrant, the Commission proposes to include such SSFs within the ambit of “lobbyist/registrant PACs.” The Commission requests comment on this approach. The Commission currently requires committees to identify themselves as only one type of committee. *See* FEC Form 1 Statement of Organization, Question 5 (“Type of Committee (Check One)”). How should an organization that is both an SSF and a “lobbyist/registrant PAC” identify itself on FEC reports? Should one type of registration control? Alternatively, should the Commission allow committees to identify themselves as more than one type of committee? Of note, allowing multiple registrations could affect the Commission's current disclosure processes. The Commission also requests comments on the placement of the definition of “lobbyist/registrant PAC” in 11 CFR 100.5(e), “examples of political committees,” as opposed to placing this definition in proposed 11 CFR 104.22. III. Proposed New 104.22. Disclosure of Bundling by Lobbyist/Registrants (2 U.S.C. 434(i)) To implement the new disclosure requirements, the Commission is proposing to add new 11 CFR 104.22 to its reporting regulations. A. Definitions 1. Reporting Committee New 2 U.S.C. 434(i) adds reporting requirements for three types of political committees: authorized committees of a candidate, leadership PACs, and political party committees. 2 U.S.C. 434(i)(6). Proposed 11 CFR 104.22(a)(1) would define the term “reporting committee” to encompass these three types of political committees, which are defined in 11 CFR 100.5. The Commission requests comments on this new term, “reporting committee.” 2. Covered Period New 2 U.S.C. 434(i) requires that reporting committees disclose information about any lobbyist/registrant or lobbyist/registrant PAC that forwards, or is credited with raising for the committee, two or more bundled contributions aggregating in excess of $15,000 during any “covered period.” 2 U.S.C. 434(i)(1), (2),
(3)and (8). It defines “covered period” as January 1 through June 30, July 1 through December 31 “and * * * any reporting period applicable to the committee under [2 U.S.C. 434] during which any [lobbyist/registrant or lobbyist/registrant PAC] provided two or more bundled contributions to the committee in an aggregate amount greater than [$15,000].” 2 U.S.C. 434(i)(2). The new law also provides the Commission with the authority to require reporting committees filing their campaign finance reports more frequently than on a quarterly basis 5 to disclose information about lobbyist/registrants who provide bundled contributions in excess of $15,000 on a quarterly basis, rather than monthly. *See* 2 U.S.C. 434(i)(5)(A). The Commission presents both a proposed and an alternative definition of “covered period.” Each definition would exercise the Commission's statutory authority to place monthly filers on the same schedule as committees that file quarterly campaign finance reports. 2 U.S.C. 434(i)(5)(D). For ease of public consumption of disclosed bundled contributions, consistent disclosure periods would provide the public with semi-annual aggregate snapshots for all categories of filers. Does the language in 2 U.S.C. 434(i)(5)(A) permit the Commission also to require aggregate semi-annual disclosure from these monthly filers? Should the Commission, instead, not exercise its statutory authority, and require monthly filers to disclose information about bundled contributions on a monthly and semi-annual basis? *See* 2 U.S.C. 434(i)(2). a. Proposed Definition of “Covered Period” Under proposed 11 CFR 104.22(a)(2)(i), the term “covered period” would be the semi-annual periods of January 1 through June 30 and July 1 through December 31. Additionally, proposed 11 CFR 104.22(a)(2)(ii) provides that in any calendar year in which a reporting committee is required to file or files monthly or quarterly campaign finance reports, the covered period would also include the quarterly periods of January 1 through March 31 and July 1 through September 30 if, during those periods, a lobbyist/registrant or a lobbyist/registrant PAC provided two or more bundled contributions to the reporting committee which aggregate in excess of $15,000. Thus, under the proposed rule, any committee that receives more than $15,000 in bundled contributions from a lobbyist/registrant or lobbyist/registrant PAC during the first or third calendar quarter would have to disclose information about the bundler twice: once for the report covering the quarter during which the committee received the bundled contributions from a lobbyist/registrant or lobbyist/registrant PAC, and again at the end of the six-month period. 4 The Commission notes that this same identification requirement would apply to political committees that meet the definition of leadership PAC. *See* 11 CFR 100.5(e)(6). In conjunction with this rulemaking, the Commission anticipates amending FEC Form 1, the Statement of Organization, to include both “lobbyist/registrant PAC” and “leadership PAC” as types of political committees. 5 National committees of political parties (including the national congressional campaign committees) must report monthly in all calendar years. *See* 2 U.S.C. 434(a)(4)(B); 11 CFR 104.5(c)(4). State, district and local committees of political parties are required to file monthly if they exceed certain levels of Federal election activity. *See* 2 U.S.C. 434(e)(4); 11 CFR 300.36(c). Further, some authorized committees of presidential candidates are required to file monthly during presidential election years. *See* 2 U.S.C. 434(a)(3); 11 CFR 104.5(b). For example, if lobbyist/registrant PAC Z is credited with having raised $20,000 for a reporting committee in the first quarter, then the reporting committee would disclose lobbyist/registrant PAC Z in its report covering the first quarter as having provided $20,000 in bundled contributions to the committee. If, in the second quarter, the reporting committee credits lobbyist/registrant PAC Z with having raised another $5,000, the reporting committee would disclose on its semi-annual report the entire $25,000 in bundled contributions provided by lobbyist/registrant PAC Z in the first two calendar quarters. The Commission requests comments on whether this is the correct reading of the statutory requirements, and whether this duplicative reporting could lead to the mistaken impression that lobbyist/registrant PAC Z provided $45,000 rather than $25,000 to the committee during the first two calendar quarters. The Commission further requests comments on whether there is a statutory basis on which the Commission might consider some means of eliminating this duplicative reporting. For example, is there a statutory basis for the Commission to consider exempting reporting committees from having to disclose semi-annually information about lobbyist/registrants or lobbyist/registrant PACs providing bundled contributions if the information was already fully disclosed in a prior report filed with the Commission? Would this approach be confusing or result in the appearance of over-or under-reporting the contributions bundled by lobbyist/registrants or lobbyist/registrant PACs? Is the Commission's interpretation consistent with the requirement in the new law that the Commission “provide for the broadest possible disclosure of activities described in this subsection?” b. Alternative Definition of Covered Period In the alternative, the Commission requests comments on the following definition of “covered period.” Alternative 11 CFR 104.22(a)(2)(i) would provide that in any calendar year in which a reporting committee is required to file or files reports on a quarterly or monthly basis under 11 CFR 104.5, the covered period would be defined as quarterly periods of January 1 through March 31, April 1 through June 30, July 1 through September 30, and October 1 through December 31. Under alternative 11 CFR 104.22(a)(2)(ii), in any calendar year in which a reporting committee files semi-annual reports, the covered period would also include the semi-annual periods of January 1 through June 30 and July 1 through December 31. For example, if lobbyist/registrant PAC Z is credited with having raised $20,000 in the first quarter for a reporting committee that files on a monthly or quarterly basis, then the reporting committee would disclose lobbyist/registrant PAC Z in its report covering the first quarter as having provided $20,000 in bundled contributions to the committee. If, in the second quarter, the reporting committee credits lobbyist/registrant PAC Z with having raised another $5,000, the reporting committee would not disclose on its second quarter reports any bundled contributions provided by lobbyist/registrant PAC Z because the second quarter bundled contributions fell below the $15,000 threshold for the second quarter reporting period. No aggregate semi-annual reporting would be required. The Commission requests comments on whether this is a permissible reading of the statutory requirements, and whether this alternative could lead to the under reporting of contributions that take place across quarterly reporting periods, but within the semi-annual period. For example, under this alternative, a lobbyist/registrant or lobbyist/registrant PAC could provide $15,000 in bundled contributions to a reporting committee during each calendar quarter and the reporting committee would not have triggered the disclosure requirement under the new law. Additionally, in lieu of either the proposed rule or the alternative, the Commission seeks comment on whether reporting committees should report both semi-annual and quarterly information at the end of each semi-annual period. If, in the example above, in the second quarter lobbyist/registrant PAC Z provides the reporting committee with $25,000 (having also provided $20,000 in bundled contributions in the first quarter), should the reporting committee disclose that it received $45,000 for the semi-annual period, and also disclose that it received $25,000 for the second quarter period? 3. Lobbyist/Registrant and Lobbyist/Registrant PAC The new law applies only to contributions bundled by “a current registrant under section 4(a) of the [LDA] [2 U.S.C. 1603(a)]; 6 an individual who is listed on a current registration filed under section 4(b)(6) of such Act [2 U.S.C. 1603(b)(6)] or a current report under section 5(b)(2)(C) of such Act [2 U.S.C. 1604(b)(2)(C)]; or a political committee established or controlled by such a registrant or individual.” 2 U.S.C. 434(i)(7). 6 The *Web sites* of the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives provide the following guidance regarding who is a “registrant”: A lobbying firm or an organization employing in-house lobbyists that files a registration pursuant to Section 4 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995. *See http://www.senate.gov/legislative/common/briefing/lobby_disc_briefing.htm#3* ; *http://lobbyingdisclossure.house.gov/lda_guide.html* . Proposed 11 CFR 104.22(a)(3) would create a new term, “lobbyist/registrant,” to encompass both current registrants and individuals listed on a current registration or report filed under the LDA. As discussed above, the Commission is proposing to add a definition of “lobbyist/registrant PAC” at 11 CFR 100.5(e)(7). 4. Bundled Contributions Proposed 11 CFR 104.22(a)(4)(i) and
(ii)would implement new 2 U.S.C. 434(i)(8)(A) by defining the term “bundled contribution” as any contribution that a lobbyist/registrant or lobbyist/registrant PAC forwards to the reporting committee from the contributor, or that the reporting committee receives from the contributor but credits to the lobbyist/registrant or lobbyist/registrant PAC through records, designations, or other means of recognizing that a certain amount of money has been raised by the lobbyist/registrant or lobbyist/registrant PAC. Under proposed 11 CFR 104.22(a)(4)(i), forwarded contributions would satisfy the proposed definition of “bundled contributions” regardless of whether the bundler receives credit from the reporting committee. Would it be helpful to the regulated community for the Commission to define the term “forwarded” in the rule as, for instance, “arranging or causing the physical or electronic delivery or transmission of a contribution”? Under proposed 11 CFR 104.22(a)(4)(ii), a contribution must be both received by the reporting committee and credited to a lobbyist/registrant or lobbyist/registrant PAC to satisfy proposed 11 CFR 104.22(a)(4)(ii). The mere crediting of a contribution to a lobbyist/registrant or lobbyist/registrant PAC would not satisfy proposed 11 CFR 104.22(a)(4)(ii) if the contribution is not received. In the alternative, should the amount credited control? With respect to these contributions, should the rule apply to in-kind contributions as well? Proposed 11 CFR 104.22(a)(4)(iii) states that bundled contributions do not include contributions from the personal funds of the bundling person or that person's spouse. This provision would be consistent with the new law, which excludes contributions made to the reporting committee by the lobbyist/registrant or lobbyist/registrant's spouse from counting towards the $15,000 reporting threshold. See 2 U.S.C. 434(i)(3)(A). Proposed 11 CFR 104.22(a)(5) provides that the term “candidate involved” means, for authorized committees, the candidate for whom the committee is authorized; and for leadership PACs, the candidate or individual holding Federal office who directly or indirectly establishes, maintains, finances or controls the leadership PAC. This is consistent with the language of the new law in describing who would credit, designate or otherwise recognize a lobbyist/registrant or lobbyist/registrant PAC with having raised contributions in excess of $15,000 during the covered period. *See* 2 U.S.C. 434(i)(8)(A)(ii). The Commission requests comments on whether the proposed provision would be helpful in providing guidance to the regulated community. As noted above, the proposed definition of “lobbyist/registrant” includes current registrants under section 4(a) of the LDA (2 U.S.C. 1603(a)). Such registrants are primarily organizations that employ one or more lobbyists. Does the new law cover bundled contributions provided by employees and agents of organizations that are registrants, when those individuals are not themselves lobbyist/registrants? Can an organization that is prohibited from making contributions, such as a corporation or a labor organization, but nonetheless is a registrant, be credited with having raised contributions? There is seemingly some incongruity in statements made by some of the new law's supporters and the section-by-section analysis of the legislation provided by the three principal Senate authors of the bill (the “section-by-section analysis”). *See* 153 CONG. REC. S10709 (daily ed. August 2, 2007). For example, in a colloquy on the Senate floor, Senator Feingold and Senator Obama indicated that the disclosure requirement would be triggered by contributions bundled by an employee of a lobbyist, if that employee is acting as an agent of the lobbyist, even if the employee is not listed on a current registration or report filed under the LDA. 153 CONG. REC. S10699 (daily ed. Aug. 2, 2007) (statements of Sen. Feingold and Sen. Obama). On the other hand, the section-by-section analysis states that the statute “covers only contributions credited to registered lobbyists.” 153 CONG. REC. S10709 (daily ed. Aug. 2, 2007). The Commission requests comments on whether the new requirements should cover employees who are agents of lobbyist/registrants or lobbyist/registrant PACs, even if such individuals are not listed as registered lobbyists under the LDA. How should the Commission give content to the statutory requirement that bundling by registrant organizations be disclosed? In addition, how should the new law be applied with regard to crediting multiple lobbyist/registrants or lobbyist/registrant PACs involved in a single fundraiser? In a statement on the Senate floor, Senator Feingold stated that “when two or more lobbyists are jointly involved in providing the same bundled contributions—as for instance, in the case of a fundraising event co-hosted by two or more lobbyists—then each lobbyist is responsible for and should be treated as providing the total amount raised at the event for purposes of applying the applicable threshold to the funds raised by that lobbyist” and for reporting purposes. 153 CONG. REC. S10699 (daily ed. August, 2, 2007) (statement of Sen. Feingold). Thus, the Commission requests comments on how multiple hosts of a fundraiser should be credited by the reporting committee. For example, if three lobbyist/registrants jointly co-host a fundraiser that raises $20,000 in contributions for Senator X, should each of the three co-hosts be deemed to have raised the entire $20,000 for reporting purposes? Would this approach be misleading or inaccurate from a disclosure perspective? Should the sum total instead be prorated among the three co-hosts? Proposed 11 CFR 104.22(a)(6) would explain the meaning of “designations or other means of recognizing.” The proposed rule provides that “designations or other means of recognizing” a lobbyist/registrant or lobbyist/registrant PAC's fundraising would include “titles based on levels of fundraising, access to events reserved exclusively for those who generate a certain level of contributions, or similar benefits provided as a reward for successful fundraising.” The Commission requests comments on this approach and also requests other examples of records, designations or other means of recognizing a lobbyist/registrant or lobbyist/registrant PAC's fundraising. Should service by an individual on a host committee of a fundraising event serve as “designation or other means of recognizing that a certain amount of money has been raised by the person”? Should honorary titles within the reporting committee be deemed a “designation or other means of recognizing that a certain amount of money has been raised by the person”? *See* 153 CONG. REC. 510699 (daily ed. Aug. 2, 2007) (statement of Sen. Obama); *id.* at 510709. Would such an approach encompass individuals who have no actual role in fundraising? Further, would any “other means of recognizing” have to be designated in writing? The legislative history provides other guidance that the Commission has not proposed as a part of new 11 CFR 104.22(a)(4). In a statement on the Senate floor, Senator Feingold noted that a reporting committee must know that a lobbyist/registrant or lobbyist/registrant PAC has raised a certain amount, not just be generally aware that the lobbyist/registrant or lobbyist/registrant PAC has been fundraising. Should the Commission include a similar interpretation in the concept of credited? B. Reporting Requirement 1. Required Disclosure Proposed 11 CFR 104.22(b), consistent with the new law, requires reporting committees to disclose on a new form certain information about any person reasonably known to be a lobbyist/registrant or lobbyist/registrant PAC that forwards, or is credited with raising, two or more bundled contributions in excess of $15,000 to the reporting committee during the covered period. 2 U.S.C. 434(i)(1). Specifically, the reporting committee must disclose the name of the lobbyist/registrant or lobbyist/registrant PAC, the address of the lobbyist/registrant or lobbyist/registrant PAC, the employer of the lobbyist/registrant who provided the bundled contributions (for individual lobbyist/registrants), and the amount of bundled contributions provided during the covered period. *Id.* In conjunction with this rulemaking, the Commission intends to create a new form for disclosing information about lobbyists and lobbyist PACs that provide bundled contributions. The form would be filed with the Form 3 (House and Senate authorized committees), Form 3P (Presidential authorized committees) and Form 3X (leadership PACs and political party committees) following the appropriate covered period. 2. Reasonably Known To Be The new law requires the disclosure of information about a person who forwards, or who is credited with having raised, two or more bundled contributions aggregating in excess of $15,000 during the covered period if the person is “reasonably known by the [reporting] committee to be” a lobbyist/registrant or a lobbyist/registrant PAC. 2 U.S.C. 434(i)(1). The new law requires the Commission to “provide guidance to [reporting] committees with respect to whether a person is reasonably known by a committee to be” a lobbyist/registrant or lobbyist/registrant PAC. 2 U.S.C. 434(i)(5)(B). In so doing, the Commission is to include a “requirement that [reporting] committees consult the Web sites maintained by the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives containing information filed pursuant to the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995.” 2 U.S.C. 434(i)(5)(B). Proposed 11 CFR 104.22(b)(2) would provide guidance with respect to how a reporting committee is to comply with these requirements. This paragraph directs the committee to consult the Web sites maintained by the Clerk of the House of Representatives, the Secretary of the Senate, and the Federal Election Commission in order to determine whether a person is identified on a filing under the LDA or the Act as a registrant, a lobbyist, or a political committee established or controlled by a registrant or lobbyist. The Commission seeks comment on these proposed regulations. Does the regulatory text adequately implement the statutory requirements? May the Commission require committees to consult the Commission's Web site for information regarding registration of lobbyist/registrant PACs, since that information is not currently available on the Web sites of the Secretary of the Senate or the Clerk of the House of Representatives? The Commission requests comments on what other guidance the Commission might issue as to how a reporting committee can reasonably know that a bundler of contributions is a lobbyist/registrant or lobbyist/registrant PAC. What other steps could the Commission take to make information regarding lobbyist/registrant PACs more easily accessible? C. Where To File Under current 11 CFR Part 105, authorized committees of candidates for the House of Representatives, the principal campaign committees of Presidential candidates, and any other political committees that support such candidates must file their regular campaign finance reports with the Commission. *See* 11 CFR 105.1, 105.3 and 105.4. Authorized committees of candidates for the Senate and any other political committees that support only Senate candidates must file their reports with the Secretary of the Senate. *See* 11 CFR 105.2. Proposed 11 CFR 104.22(c) would require the form required by the new law to be filed in accordance with 11 CFR Part 105. The Commission requests comments on this proposal. D. When To File New 2 U.S.C. 434(i)(1) requires reporting committees to file a form listing information about each lobbyist/registrant or lobbyist/registrant PAC with “the first report required to be filed under this section after each covered period” in which a lobbyist/registrant or lobbyist/registrant PAC provided bundled contributions exceeding $15,000. 2 U.S.C. 434(i)(a)(1). As noted above, the proposed rule defines “covered period” as the semi-annual periods of January 1 through June 30 and July 1 through December 31. Additionally, proposed 11 CFR 104.22(a)(2)(ii) provides that in any calendar year in which a reporting committee is required to file or files monthly or quarterly campaign finance reports under 11 CFR 104.5, the covered period would also include the quarterly periods of January 1 through March 31 and July 1 through September 30 if, during those periods, a lobbyist/registrant or a lobbyist/registrant PAC provided two or more bundled contributions to the reporting committee which aggregate in excess of $15,000. Thus, proposed 11 CFR 104.22(d) would require a reporting committee to file a form semi-annually in every calendar year, and in the calendar quarters of January 1 through March 31 and July 1 through September 30 if any lobbyist/registrant or lobbyist/registrant PAC forwarded, or was credited with having raised, two or more bundled contributions aggregating in excess of $15,000 during those calendar quarters. The Commission requests comments on proposed 11 CFR 104.22(d). As discussed above, the alternative definition of “covered period” would require reporting committees to disclose information about lobbyist/registrants or lobbyist/registrant PACs that provide bundled contributions on a slightly different schedule than that under the proposed rule. Under alternative 11 CFR 104.22(a)(2)(i), monthly and quarterly filers would be required to file, concurrently with their campaign finance reports filed in April, July, October and January, a form listing any lobbyist/registrant or lobbyist/registrant PAC that provided bundled contributions aggregating in excess of $15,000 during the previous calendar quarter. Further, in any calendar year in which a reporting committee files its campaign finance reports on a semi-annual basis, the committee would concurrently file its form disclosing information about any lobbyist/registrant or lobbyist/registrant PAC that provided bundled contributions in excess of $15,000 during the semi-annual covered period. The Commission requests comments on the effect of the alternative “covered period” on report timing. Reporting Hypotheticals The following examples illustrate how proposed 11 CFR 104.22 would interact with the Commission's existing reporting requirements for forwarded contributions. The first hypothetical involves the authorized committee of a candidate as the reporting committee and thus, also invokes 11 CFR 110.6 regarding earmarking contributions to authorized committees, if the person earmarking the contributions qualifies as a “conduit” under that section. The second hypothetical involves either a leadership PAC or a political party committee as the reporting committee. This hypothetical would not invoke 11 CFR 110.6 because that section applies only to contributions earmarked for an authorized committee. Hypothetical Example 1 *Facts.* Candidate A's authorized committee files campaign finance reports on a quarterly basis. On February 20, Lobbyist/Registrant Z delivers a $30,000 check to Candidate A's treasurer, representing fifteen $2,000 contributions that Lobbyist/Registrant Z collected on February 15 on behalf of Candidate A. Lobbyist/Registrant Z also provides a list of each contributor's name, mailing address, employer and occupation, and the date received by Lobbyist/Registrant Z as required under 11 CFR 110.6(c)(1)(iii) and (iv). On March 21, Lobbyist/Registrant Z, although he does not occupy a significant position in Candidate A's campaign, 7 hosts a fundraiser on Candidate A's behalf, at which Candidate A makes a speech. At the fundraiser, five contributors hand checks totaling $10,000 directly to Candidate A. 7 An individual who occupies a significant position within a campaign may be exempt from the earmarking regulations. See 11 CFR 110.6(b)(2)(i)(E). On June 5, Lobbyist/Registrant Z delivers to the authorized committee five checks totaling $6,000 that he collected on Candidate A's behalf during the preceding week. *Reporting Requirements.* 1. On the committee's first quarterly campaign finance report, it must: a. Pursuant to 11 CFR 110.6, report: i. The name, mailing address, occupation and employer of Lobbyist/Registrant Z. ii. As a memo entry, the total amount of contributions forwarded by Lobbyist/Registrant Z ($30,000), the date received by the committee (February 20) and a notation of whether the Lobbyist/Registrant's contribution limit was affected or not pursuant to 11 CFR 110.6(d). iii. The name, mailing address, employer, occupation of each contributor, as well as the date that Lobbyist/Registrant Z received the contributions (February 15) and a notation that it was earmarked through him. This reporting requirement is triggered by Lobbyist/Registrant Z's having acted as a conduit under 11 CFR 110.6 for the contributions that he received on February 15 and delivered on February 20, because he physically forwarded the contributions to the authorized committee. b. Pursuant to 11 CFR 104.3, report for each of the five contributors who made contributions at the March 21 fundraiser: The person's name, mailing address, occupation, and employer, date received (March 21) and amounts, itemizing the contributions as necessary under 11 CFR 104.3. c. Pursuant to proposed 11 CFR 104.22, report the name, address and employer of Lobbyist/Registrant Z, as well as the total amount bundled by Lobbyist/Registrant Z, $40,000, during the covered period. This reporting requirement is triggered because Lobbyist/Registrant Z forwarded, or was credited with raising, more than $15,000 in contributions during the committee's reporting period (the calendar quarter). 2. On the authorized committee's second quarterly campaign finance report, it must: a. Pursuant to 11 CFR 110.6, report: i. The name, mailing address, occupation and employer of Lobbyist/Registrant Z. ii. As a memo entry, the total amount of contributions forwarded to the committee by Lobbyist/Registrant Z ($6,000) and the date received by the authorized committee (June 5). iii. The name, mailing address, employer and occupation of each contributor, the date each contribution was received by Lobbyist/Registrant Z and whether the contributions affected Lobbyist/Registrant Z's contribution limits pursuant to 11 CFR 110.6(d). Lobbyist/Registrant Z is a conduit under 11 CFR 110.6, because he collected and forwarded the contributions to the authorized committee. Thus, the authorized committee disclosed his contributions in a manner similar to hypothetical 1.a., above. b. Pursuant to proposed 11 CFR 104.22, file a form disclosing the lobbyist/registrant's name, address and employer, as well as the aggregate amount of bundled contributions that the committee received from or credited to Lobbyist/Registrant Z during the six-month covered period ($46,000). While the aggregate amount of contributions forwarded or raised by and credited to Lobbyist/Registrant Z did not exceed $15,000 during the committee's second quarterly reporting period, the aggregate amount of bundled contributions provided by Lobbyist/Registrant Z during the January 1 through June 30 semi-annual covered period, $46,000, does exceed the $15,000 reporting threshold for that covered period. Hypothetical Example 2 *Facts.* A leadership PAC files campaign finance reports on a monthly basis. 8 8 The same hypothetical applies to a political party committee. On February 20, lobbyist/registrant PAC X delivers a check to the leadership PAC for $30,000, representing contributions to the leadership PAC from fifteen individual contributors, along with information about each contributor as required under 11 CFR 110.6(c)(1)(iii) and (iv). On March 12, lobbyist/registrant PAC X hosts a fundraiser at which the “candidate involved” with the leadership PAC makes a speech. Between March 13 and March 31, the leadership PAC receives 6 checks aggregating to $12,000. Each check notes that the contributor is helping the leadership PAC because of the speech given at the March 12 fundraiser. The leadership PAC thanks the contributors and also sends a note to lobbyist/registrant PAC X recognizing it for having raised the $12,000. Reporting Requirements 1. On the leadership PAC's campaign finance report covering February, it must: a. Pursuant to 11 CFR 104.3 and 104.8, report for each of the fifteen contributors who made the contributions delivered by lobbyist/registrant PAC X on March 20: The person's name, mailing address, occupation, employer, and date of receipt by lobbyist/registrant PAC X, itemizing the contributions as necessary under 104.8. 2. On the leadership PAC's campaign finance report covering March, it must: a. Pursuant to 11 CFR 104.3 and 104.8, report for each of the six contributions that make up the $12,000 that the leadership PAC received directly from contributors and credited to lobbyist/registrant PAC X: The person's name, mailing address, occupation, employer, and the date of receipt by lobbyist/registrant PAC X itemizing the contributions as necessary under 11 CFR 104.8. b. Pursuant to proposed 11 CFR 104.22, include a separate form disclosing lobbyist/registrant PAC X's name and address, and, the total amount of bundled contributions that lobbyist/registrant PAC X provided to the leadership PAC during the first calendar quarter. This form would be required because the aggregate amount of bundled contributions provided by lobbyist/registrant PAC X exceeds $15,000 during the unauthorized committee's covered period of January 1 through March 31. The Commission requests comments on these hypotheticals. E. Recordkeeping Current Commission regulations implement certain statutory recordkeeping requirements that also apply to certain bundled contributions. For example, committees must keep a record and account of each contribution exceeding $50 for three years after filing the report to which the record or account relates. *See* 2 U.S.C. 432(c)(2) and (d); 11 CFR 102.9(a) and (c). In addition, any person who receives and forwards contributions to any political committee must also forward certain information about the original contributor. *See* 2 U.S.C. 432(c) and 434a(a)(8); 11 CFR 102.8(c). Any authorized committee that receives contributions forwarded by a “conduit” is subject to additional recordkeeping and reporting requirements. *See* 2 U.S.C. 434a(a)(8); 11 CFR 110.6(c). Therefore, the Commission proposes new 11 CFR 104.22(e), which refers to the existing recordkeeping requirements in Commission regulations and also requires reporting committees to maintain for three years records of information about any lobbyist/registrant or lobbyist/registrant PAC that forwards, or is credited with raising, two or more bundled contributions aggregating in excess of $15,000 during any covered period. These records would include the name and address of the lobbyist/registrant or lobbyist/registrant PAC, the employer of the lobbyist/registrant (if an individual), the dates contributions are received and forwarded, and the aggregate amount of contributions bundled for each covered period. The Commission would urge reporting committees to begin keeping records of lobbyist/registrants or lobbyist/registrant PACs who forward, or are credited with raising, bundled contributions as of January 1, 2008. Any rules promulgated by the Commission will likely become effective in early 2008, making the first semi-annual reporting period cover January 1 through June 30, 2008. The Commission requests comments on this approach. F. Price Index Increase New 2 U.S.C. 434(i)(3)(b) requires that the $15,000 disclosure threshold be indexed for inflation annually, using the Consumer Price Index as verified by the Secretary of Labor. The proposed rule at 11 CFR 104.22(f) would require that the $15,000 disclosure threshold be indexed in the same manner as certain contribution limits under the Act and Commission regulations. *See* 2 U.S.C. 441a(c) and 11 CFR 110.17. The Commission proposes regulatory language that is identical to that already in portions of 11 CFR 110.17, but proposes placing the new requirement in new 11 CFR 104.22 rather than in 11 CFR 110.17 because the dollar amount in this instance is merely a threshold for disclosure rather than a contribution limit covered under 11 CFR Part 110. The Commission requests comments on this approach. The Commission also requests comments on the timing of the application of the indexing for inflation requirement. New 2 U.S.C. 434(i) provides that the indexing requirement “shall apply” to the reporting threshold “[i]n any calendar year after 2007.” 2 U.S.C. 434i(3)(B). The new law also provides, however, that 2 U.S.C. 434(i) will go into effect “with respect to reports filed * * * after the expiration of the 3-month period which begins on the date that the regulations required to be promulgated [under new 2 U.S.C. 434(i)] become final.” The Commission expects that these proposed rules will become final in early 2008, and that the new disclosure requirements will apply to reports filed three months later. Thus, the first semi-annual reporting period would be January 1 through June 30, 2008, and the first quarterly reporting period would be April through June, 2008. Given that 2008 is a “calendar year after 2007,” should the reporting threshold be indexed in 2008? If so, then the effective reporting threshold would never be $15,000; rather, it would be $15,000 in 2006 (the base period) dollars, as indexed for inflation in 2008. The Commission requests comments on this interpretation of the new law, which is not included in the proposed rule. Certification of No Effect Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b) (Regulatory Flexibility Act) The attached proposed rules, if promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The basis for this certification is that few, if any, small entities would be affected by these proposals, which apply only to Federal candidates and their campaign committees, political committees established, financed, maintained or controlled by Federal candidates or individuals holding Federal office, and political committees of political parties. Authorized committees of Federal candidates would not be considered small entities under the definition at 5 U.S.C. 601(6). Leadership PACs established, financed, maintained or controlled by Federal candidates or individuals holding Federal office also would not qualify as small entities. Such committees, while established by an individual, are not independently owned and operated because they are not financed and controlled by a small identifiable group of individuals; rather, they rely on contributions from a variety of persons to fund the committee's activities. Political committees representing the Democratic and Republican parties have a major controlling influence within the political arena and are thus dominant in their field. However, to the extent that any party committees representing major or minor political parties or any other political committees might be considered “small organizations,” the number that would be affected by this rule is not substantial. The proposed rules also would not impose any additional restrictions. Instead, the proposed rules would only require disclosure of further information already held by the political committees affected. Therefore, the proposed rules would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. List of Subjects 11 CFR Part 100 Elections. 11 CFR Part 104 Campaign funds, political committees and parties, reporting and recordkeeping requirements. For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Federal Election Commission proposes to amend Subchapter A of Chapter 1 of Title 11 of the *Code of Federal Regulations* as follows: PART 100—SCOPE AND DEFINITIONS (2 U.S.C. 431) 1. The authority citation for part 100 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 2 U.S.C. 431, 434, and 438(a)(8), and 439a(c). 2. Section 100.5 is amended by adding a new paragraph (e)(7) to read as follows: § 100.5 Political committee (2 U.S.C. 431(4), (5), (6)).
(e)* * *
(7)*Lobbyist/Registrant PAC* means any political committee established or controlled by a “lobbyist/registrant,” as that term is defined at 11 CFR 104.22(a)(3). PART 104—REPORTS BY POLITICAL COMMITTEES AND OTHER PERSONS (2 U.S.C. 434) 3. The authority citation for part 104 continues to read as follows: Authority: 2 U.S.C. 431(1), 431(8), 431(9), 432(i), 434, 438(a)(8) and (b), 439a, 441a, and 36 U.S.C. 510. 4. Section 104.22 is added to read as follows: § 104.22 Disclosure of bundling by Lobbyist/Registrants (2 U.S.C. 434(i)).
(a)*Definitions* — *Reporting committee* means:
(i)An authorized committee of a Federal candidate as defined at 11 CFR 100.5(f)(1);
(ii)A leadership PAC as defined at 11 CFR 100.5(e)(6); or
(iii)A party committee as defined at 11 CFR 100.5(e)(4). [Proposed Definition of Covered Period]
(2)*Covered period* means:
(i)In any calendar year the semi-annual periods of January 1 through June 30 and July 1 through December 31; and
(ii)In any calendar year in which a reporting committee is required to file or files monthly or quarterly reports pursuant to 11 CFR 104.5, the quarterly periods of January 1 through March 31 and July 1 through September 30 if, during those periods a lobbyist/registrant or lobbyist/registrant PAC provided two or more bundled contributions to the reporting committee which aggregate in excess of $15,000. [Alternative Definition of Covered Period]
(2)*Covered period* means:
(i)In any calendar year in which a reporting committee is required to file or files on a quarterly basis pursuant to 11 CFR 104.5, the quarterly periods of January 1 through March 31, April 1 through June 30, July 1 through September 30 and October 1 through December 31; and
(ii)In any calendar year in which a reporting committee files semi-annual reports pursuant to 11 CFR 104.5, the semi-annual periods of January 1 through June 30 and July 1 through December 31.
(3)*Lobbyist/Registrant.* For purposes of this section, lobbyist/registrant means a person who, at the time a contribution is forwarded to, or is received by, a reporting committee, is:
(i)A current registrant under Section 4(a) of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1603(a)); or
(ii)An individual who is named on a current registration or current report filed under Section 4(b)(6) or 5(b)(2)(C) of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1603(b)(6) or 1604(b)(2)(C)).
(4)*Bundled contribution* means any contribution:
(i)Forwarded from the contributor or contributors to the reporting committee by a lobbyist/registrant or lobbyist/registrant PAC ; or
(ii)Received by the reporting committee from the contributor or contributors, and that is credited by the committee, individual holding a Federal office or candidate involved to a lobbyist/registrant or lobbyist/registrant PAC through records, designations, or other means of recognizing that a certain amount of money has been raised by the lobbyist/registrant or lobbyist/registrant PAC , except that
(iii)Bundled contributions do not include contributions from the personal funds of the lobbyist/registrant who forwards or is credited with raising the contributions or that person's spouse.
(5)*The committee or candidate involved* means: The reporting committee; the candidate by whom the authorized committee is authorized; or the candidate or individual holding Federal office who directly or indirectly established, finances, maintains or controls the leadership PAC.
(6)A designation or other means of recognizing bundled contributions includes titles based on levels of fundraising, access to reporting committee events reserved exclusively for those who generate a certain level of contributions, and events provided by a reporting committee as a reward for successful fundraising.
(b)*Reporting requirement* .
(1)Each reporting committee must file a form listing each person reasonably known by the committee to be a lobbyist/registrant or lobbyist/registrant PAC that provides two or more bundled contributions ( *see* 11 CFR 104.22(a)(4)) to the reporting committee aggregating in excess of $15,000 during the covered period. Each form shall set forth:
(i)The name of the lobbyist/registrant or lobbyist/registrant PAC;
(ii)The address of the lobbyist/registrant or lobbyist/registrant PAC;
(iii)The employer of the lobbyist/registrant; and
(iv)The aggregate amount of bundled contributions provided by the lobbyist/registrant or lobbyist/registrant PAC to the reporting committee during the covered period.
(2)In order to comply with paragraph (b)(1) of this section, a reporting committee must consult the Web sites maintained by the Clerk of the House of Representatives, the Secretary of the Senate, and the Federal Election Commission to determine whether, at the time a contribution was forwarded to, or received by, the reporting committee:
(i)The person was listed as a current registrant under Section 4(a) of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1603(a)), or
(ii)The person was an individual listed on a current registration filed under Section 4(b)(6) or a current report filed under Section 5(b)(2)(C) of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1603 or 1604); or
(iii)The person identified itself as a lobbyist/registrant PAC on its Statement of Organization, FEC Form 1, filed with the Commission; or
(iv)The person was listed as a political committee established or controlled by a lobbyist or registrant on a report filed under Sec. 203
(a)of the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, amending the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1604).
(c)*Where to file* . Reporting committees shall file either with the Secretary of the Senate or with the Federal Election Commission in accordance with 11 CFR Part 105.
(d)*When to file* . Reporting committees must file the forms required under this section with the first report required under 11 CFR 104.5 following the end of each covered period.
(e)*Recordkeeping* . In addition to any requirements to maintain records and accounts under 11 CFR 102.8, 102.9 and 110.6, each reporting committee must maintain for three years after the filing of the report to which the information relates a record of any bundled contributions ( *see* 11 CFR 104.22(a)(4)) provided by a lobbyist/registrant or lobbyist/registrant PAC that aggregate in excess of $15,000 for any covered period. The information required to be maintained is:
(1)The name and address of the lobbyist/registrant or lobbyist/registrant PAC;
(2)The employer of the lobbyist/registrant; and
(3)The amount of bundled contributions provided by the lobbyist/registrant or lobbyist/registrant PAC for each covered period.
(f)*Price index increase* .
(1)The threshold for reporting bundled contributions established in paragraph (d)(1) of this section shall be increased by the percent difference between the price index as defined at 11 CFR 110.17(d), as certified to the Commission by the Secretary of Labor, for the 12 months preceding the beginning of the calendar year and the price index base period.
(2)Each bundling threshold so increased shall be the threshold in effect for that calendar year.
(3)For purposes of this paragraph (e), the term base period means calendar year 2006.
(4)Rounding of price index increases. If any amount after the increases under this paragraph
(e)is not a multiple of $100, such amount shall be rounded to the nearest multiple of $100. Dated: October 30, 2007. Robert D. Lenhard, Chairman, Federal Election Commission. [FR Doc. E7-21711 Filed 11-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6715-01-P SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 20 CFR Parts 404, 405, and 416 [Docket No. SSA-2007-0053] Compassionate Allowances for Rare Diseases; Office of the Commissioner, Hearing AGENCY: Social Security Administration (SSA). ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Announcement of Public Hearing and Limited Reopening of Comment Period. SUMMARY: We are considering ways to quickly identify diseases and other serious medical conditions that obviously meet the definition of disability under the Social Security Act (the Act) and can be identified with minimal objective medical information. At present, we are calling this method “Compassionate Allowances.” We plan to hold four public hearings over the next year. The purpose of this first hearing is to obtain your views about the advisability and possible methods of identifying and implementing compassionate allowances for children and adults with rare diseases. We will address other kinds of medical conditions in later hearings. DATES: Dates and location: We must receive written comments by December 21, 2007. Comments made at the hearings will be considered in preparation of a final rule. The first hearing will be held on December 4 and December 5, 2007, between 8:45 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), in Washington, DC. The hearings will be held at 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, in the main hearing room of the International Trade Commission. Space limitations and time constraints require hearing attendance to be by invitation only. However, you may listen to the proceedings by calling 1-888-456-0278, at 9 a.m., EST, the mornings of December 4 and 5. If you plan to listen in, please send an e-mail to *Compassionate.Allowances@ssa.gov* by November 21, 2007. Your e-mail will help ensure that we have enough telephone lines for everyone interested in listening to the proceedings. ADDRESSES: You may submit up to two pages of written comments about the compassionate allowances initiative with respect to children and adults with rare diseases, as well as topics covered at the hearing by:
(1)Internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at *http://www.regulations.gov*
(2)e-mail addressed to *Compassionate.Allowances@ssa.gov* or
(3)mail to Diane Braunstein, Director, Office of Compassionate Allowances and Listings Improvement, ODP, ODISP, Social Security Administration, 4535 Annex, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Compassionate.Allowances@ssa.gov. You may also mail inquiries about this meeting to Diane Braunstein, Director, Office of Compassionate Allowances and Listings Improvement, ODP, ODISP, Social Security Administration, 4535 Annex, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401. For information on eligibility or filing for benefits, call our national toll-free number 1-800-772-1213 or TTY 1-800-325-0778, or visit our Internet site, Social Security Online, at *http://www.socialsecurity.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Under titles II and XVI of the Act, we pay benefits to individuals who meet our rules for entitlement and have medically determinable physical or mental impairments that are severe enough to meet the definition of disability in the Act. The rules for determining disability can be very complicated, but some individuals have such serious medical conditions that their conditions obviously meet our disability standards. To better address the needs of these individuals, we are looking into ways to allow benefits as quickly as possible. On July 31, 2007, we published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) in the **Federal Register** to solicit the public's views on what standards we should use for making compassionate allowances, methods we might use to identify compassionate allowances and suggestions for how to implement those standards and methods. (See 72 FR 41649.) You may read the ANPRM at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html* , or at *http://www.regulations.gov* where you may also read the public comments we received. The 60-day comment period on the overall compassionate allowances initiative ended on October 1, 2007. This notice constitutes a limited reopening of the comment period with respect to children and adults with rare diseases, as well as topics covered at the hearing on December 4 and 5, 2007. Will We Respond to Your Comments? We will carefully consider your comments, although we will not respond directly to comments sent in response to this notice or the hearing. Thereafter, we will decide whether to implement the compassionate allowances initiative and, if so, how the initiative will be implemented. If we decide to issue regulations addressing compassionate allowances, we will publish a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)in the **Federal Register** . In accordance with the usual rulemaking procedures we follow, you will have a chance to comment on the revisions we propose in the NPRM, and we will summarize and respond to the significant comments in the preamble to any final rules. Additional Hearings We plan to hold additional hearings on cancers, chronic conditions, and traumatic injuries, and will announce those hearings later with notices in the **Federal Register** . (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 96.001, Social Security—Disability Insurance; 96.006, Supplemental Security Income.) Dated: October 31, 2007. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security. [FR Doc. E7-21828 Filed 11-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4191-02-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [REG-143397-05] RIN 1545-BE99 Partner's Distributive Share; Correction AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Correction to notice of proposed regulations. SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to the notice of proposed regulations (REG-143397-05) that was published in the **Federal Register** on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 (72 FR 46932) concerning the application of sections 704(c)(1)(B) and 737 to distributions of property after two partnerships engage in an assets-over merger. The proposed regulations affect partnerships and their partners. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jason Smyczek or Laura Fields at
(202)622-3050 (not toll-free number). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-143397-05) that is the subject of these corrections is under sections 704(c) and 737 of the Internal Revenue Code. Need for Correction As published, this notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-143397-05) contains errors that may prove to be misleading and are in need of clarification. Correction for Publication Accordingly, the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-143397-05) that was the subject of FR Doc. E7-16189 is corrected as follows: 1. On page 46932, column 1, the heading, the subject “Partner's Distributive Share” is corrected to read “Rules for Contribution and Subsequent Distribution of Section 704(c) Property in Connection with Partnership Mergers”. 2. On page 46932, column 3, in the preamble under the paragraph heading **Background** , first full paragraph in the column, line 6, the language “described in § 1.708-1(c)(3). Rev. Rul.” is corrected to read “described in § 1.708-1(c)(3)(i). Rev. Rul.”. 3. On page 46933, column 3, in the preamble under the paragraph heading “A. Assets-Over Partnership Mergers”, first full paragraph in the column, line 2, the language “3(c)(4)(iii) provide that taxpayers may” is corrected to read “3(a)(9) provide that taxpayers may”. § 1.704-3 [Corrected] 4. On page 46934, column 2, § 1.704-3(a)(9), line 6, the language “§ 1.708-1(c)(3) (the transferor” is corrected to read “§ 1.708-1(c)(3)(i) (the transferor”. § 1.704-4 [Corrected] 5. On page 46935, column 1, § 1.704-4(c)(4), line 3 from the top of the column, the language “§ 1.708-1(c)(3) by a partnership (the” is corrected to read “§ 1.708-1(c)(3)(i) by a partnership (the”. 6. On page 46935, column 2, § 1.704-4(c)(4)(ii)(B), second line from the bottom of the paragraph is corrected to read “See § 1.737-2(b)(1)(ii)(B) for a similar rule in”. 7. On page 46935, column 3, § 1.704-4(c)(4)(ii)(E) is corrected by adding a sentence at the end of the paragraph to read as follows: § 1.704-4 Distribution of contributed property.
(c)* * *
(4)* * *
(ii)* * *
(E)* * * See § 1.737-2(b)(1)(ii)(E) for a similar rule in the context of section 737. 8. On page 46936, column 1, § 1.704-4(c)(4)(ii)(F), Example (2)(i), line 7 from the bottom of the paragraph, the language “fair market value of $400x, and $450x in” is corrected to read “fair market value of $400x, and $400x in”. 9. On page 46936, column 1, § 1.704-4(c)(4)(ii)(F), Example (2)(i), lines 3 and 4 from the bottom of the paragraph, the language “PRS1 as follows: A, 25%; B, 25%; C, 16.67%; D, 16.67% and E, 16.67%. On January 1,” is corrected to read “PRS1 as follows: A, 25.76 percent; B, 25.76 percent; C, 16.16 percent; D, 16.16 percent; and E, 16.16 percent. On January 1,”. 10. On page 46936, column 2, § 1.704-4(c)(4)(ii)(F), Example (2)(ii), first line of the column, the language “as a result of the merger. C also has $100 of” is corrected to read “as a result of the merger. C also has $100x of”. 11. On page 46936, column 2, § 1.704-4(c)(4)(ii)(F), Example (3)(i), lines 3 and 4 from the bottom of the paragraph, the language “loss interests in PRS1 as follows: A, 27.5%; B, 27.5%; C, 15%; D, 15% and E, 15%. On” is corrected to read “loss interests in PRS1 as follows: A, 27.5 percent; B, 27.5 percent; C, 15 percent; D, 15 percent; and E, 15 percent. On”. 12. On page 46936, column 2, § 1.704-4(c)(4)(ii)(F), Example (3)(i), last line of the paragraph, the language “when its value is still $600.” is corrected to read “when its value is still $600x.'' 13. On page 46936, column 2, § 1.704-4(c)(4)(ii)(F), Example (3)(ii), line 8, the language “($600x (fair market value)—100x (adjusted” is corrected to read “($600x (fair market value)—$100x (adjusted”. 14. On page 46936, column 2, § 1.704-4(c)(4)(ii)(F), Example (3)(ii), line 5 from the bottom of the paragraph, the language “E each succeed to $150 of new section 704(c)” is corrected to read “E each succeed to $150x of new section 704(c)”. 15. On page 46936, column 2, § 1.704-4 paragraph (c)(4)(ii)(F), Example (3)(ii), last line of the paragraph, the language “recognize $150 of gain.” is corrected to read “recognize $150x of gain.”. 16. On page 46936, column 3, § 1.704-4(c)(4)(ii)(F), Example (5)(i), line 5 from the bottom of the paragraph, the language “of the partnerships, A contributed the Asset” is corrected to read “of the partnerships, A contributed Asset”. 17. On page 46936, column 3, § 1.704-4(c)(4)(ii)(F), Example (5)(ii), last line of the paragraph, the language “distributes all of Asset X to A.” is corrected to read “distributes Asset X to A.”. § 1.737-2 [Corrected] 18. On page 46937, column 1, item 2 in instructional Par. 5. is corrected, and item 3 is added to read as follows: **Par. 5.** Section 1.737-2 is amended as follows: 1. * * * 2. Paragraph
(e)is redesignated as paragraph (f). 3. New paragraph
(e)is added. The addition and revision read as follows: § 1.737-2 Exceptions and special rules.
(e)*Reverse section 704(c) gain* . * * * 19. On page 46938, column 3, § 1.737-2(b)(1)(ii)(F), Example (5)(ii), line 2 from the bottom of the paragraph, the language “liabilities. In 2006, PRS2 distributes all of” is corrected to read “liabilities. In 2006, PRS2 distributes”. Cynthia Grigsby, Senior Federal Register Liaison Officer, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration). [FR Doc. E7-21820 Filed 11-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. COTP St. Petersburg 07-046] RIN 1625-AA87 Security Zone; Tampa Bay, Port of Tampa, Port of St. Petersburg, Rattlesnake, Old Port Tampa, Big Bend, Weedon Island, and Crystal River, FL AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to revise certain security zones within the Captain of the Port Sector St. Petersburg Zone (formerly the Captain of the Port Tampa Zone). The purpose of these revisions is to ensure the security of vessels, facilities, and the surrounding areas within these zones. Entry into the area encompassed by these revised security zones would be prohibited without permission of the Captain of the Port. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before December 6, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Coast Guard Sector St. Petersburg, Prevention Department, 155 Columbia Drive, Tampa, FL 33606-3598. Coast Guard Sector St. Petersburg, Prevention Department maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at Coast Guard Sector St. Petersburg, Prevention Department, 155 Columbia Drive, Tampa, FL 33606-3598 between 7:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Jessica Crandell at the Waterways Management Division, Sector St. Petersburg, FL
(813)228-2191 Ext 8146. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Request for Comments We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please identify the docket number for this rulemaking (COTP Sector St. Petersburg 07-046), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission. For example, we may ask you to resubmit your comment if we are not able to read your original submission. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them. Public Meeting We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. You may submit a request for a meeting by writing to Waterways Management Division at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the **Federal Register** . Background and Purpose The Maritime Transportation Security Act authorized the establishment of Area Maritime Security Committees
(AMSC)that “advise, consult with, report to, and make recommendations” on matters relating to maritime security in an AMSC's port area. See 46 U.S.C. 70112(a)(2) and 33 CFR 103.205. One topic the Tampa AMSC discussed is the existing security zones established soon after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. See 68 FR 47852, August 12, 2003, and 68 FR 52340, September 3, 2003. These existing security zones were established in 2003 and codified in 33 CFR 165.760 and 165.764 by the Captain of the Port Tampa. As noted in the notice of proposed rulemakings for these two final rules, there were a number of temporary security zone rules issued before these two final rules. See 68 FR 7093, February 12, 2003 and 68 FR 19166, April 18, 2003. Some of the security zones in §§ 165.760 and 165.764 were suspended from July 26, 2007 until January 1, 2008, and revised, temporary security zones were made effective during this same period. See 72 FR 45162, August 13, 2007. These temporary changes were made based on the newly-developed Maritime Security Risk Analysis tool utilized by the AMSC. A Tampa AMSC working group evaluated risk to the maritime transportation system
(MTS)within Tampa Bay, and assessed various risk mitigation options. The results of the risk assessment indicated the need to revise the following established security zones for the purpose of enhancing port security for the region: • § 165.760(a)(1), Rattlesnake, Tampa, FL; • § 165.760(a)(3), Sunshine Skyway Bridge, Tampa, FL; • § 165.760(a)(5), Piers, Seawalls, and Facilities, Port of Tampa, Port Sutton and East Bay; • § 165.760(a)(7), Piers, Seawalls, and Facilities, Port of Tampa, on the western side of Hooker's Point; • § 165.764(a)(1), Big Bend, Tampa Bay, Florida zone. The five revised zones temporarily replacing these five suspended zones appear in § 165.T07-047(a)
(1)through (5), but will expire January 2, 2008. The risk assessment also indicated that two of the zones suspended—§ 165.760(a)(6) [Piers, seawalls, and facilities, Port of Tampa, East Bay and the eastern side of Hooker's Point], and (a)(8) [Piers, seawalls, and facilities, Port of Manatee]—were no longer needed. The security zones proposed in this notice have been discussed, vetted and recommended by representatives of the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Infrastructure Protection, the Western Florida Area Maritime Security Committee, the Florida Region IV and VI Regional Domestic Security Task Forces, and numerous local agencies who share in the maritime security mission in the Tampa Bay region. These proposed revisions are needed to ensure the security of vessels, facilities, and the surrounding areas within the Captain of the Port Sector St. Petersburg Zone following the expiration of the currently-effective temporary final rule, 72 FR 45162, August 13, 2007. In 2005, Sector St. Petersburg was created, replacing the Captain of the Port Tampa Zone. Authority to create security zones in the Tampa Bay region now resides with the Sector St. Petersburg Captain of the Port. See 70 FR 41415, July 19, 2005, and 72 FR 36316, July 2, 2007. Discussion of Proposed Rule The security zones described in this notice have been discussed, vetted and recommended by representatives of the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Infrastructure Protection, the Western Florida Area Maritime Security Committee, the Florida Region IV and VI Regional Domestic Security Task Forces, and numerous local agencies who share in the maritime security mission in the Tampa Bay region. The following areas are proposed to be established as permanent security zones in 33 CFR 165.760 by revising or adding the following paragraphs in that section. All coordinates were fixed using the North American Datum of 1983. • Revise § 165.760(a)(3), Sunshine Skyway Bridge, Tampa, FL. All waters in Tampa Bay, from surface to bottom, in Cut “A” channel beneath the bridge's main span encompassed by a line connecting the following points: 27°37.30′ N, 082°39.38′ W to 27°37.13′ N, 082°39.26′ W; and, the bridge structure columns, base and dolphins. This zone is specific to the bridge structure and dolphins and does not include waters adjacent to the bridge columns or dolphins outside of the bridge's main span. • Revise § 760(a)(5), Piers, Seawalls, and Facilities, Port of Tampa, Port Sutton and East Bay. All waters, from surface to bottom, extending 50 yards from the shore, seawall, and piers around facilities in Port Sutton within the Port of Tampa encompassed by a line connecting the following points: 27°54.15′ N, 082°26.11′ W; east northeast to 27°54.19′ N, 082°26.00′ W; then northeast to 27°54.37′ N, 082°25.72′ W, closing off all Port Sutton channel; then northerly to 27°54.48′ N, 082°25.70′ W. • Revise § 165.760(a)(7), Piers, Seawalls, and Facilities, Port of Tampa, on the western side of Hooker's Point. All waters, from surface to bottom, extending 50 yards from the shore, seawall, and piers around facilities on Hillsborough Bay northern portion of Cut “D” channel, Sparkman channel, Ybor Turning Basin, and Ybor channel within the Port of Tampa encompassed by a line connecting the following points: 27°54.74′ N, 082°26.47′ W; northwest to 27°55.25′ N, 082°26.73′ W; then north-northwest to 27°55.60′ N, 082°26.80′ W; then north-northeast to 27°56.00′ N, 082°26.75′ W; then northeast to 27°56.58′ N, 082°26.53′ W; and north to 27°57.29′ N, 082°26.51′ W; west to 27°57.29′ N, 082°26.61′ W; then southerly to 27°56.65′ N, 082°26.63′ W; southwesterly to 27°56.58′ N, 082°26.69′ W; then southwesterly and terminating at 27°56.53′ N, 082°26.90′ W. • Remove § 165.764(a)(1) and add § 165.764(a)(14), Big Bend Power Plant, FL. All waters of Tampa Bay, from surface to bottom, adjacent to the Big Bend Power Facility, and within an area bounded by a line connecting the following points: 27°48.08′ N, 082°24.88′ W; then northwest to 27°48.15′ N, 082°24.96′ W; then southwest to 27°48.10′ N, 082°25.00′ W; then south-southwest to 27°47.85′ N, 082°25.03′ W; then southeast to 27°47.85′ N, 082°24.79′ W; then east to 27°47.55′ N, 082°24.04′ W; then north to 27°47.62′ N, 082°84.04′ W; then west to 27°47.60′ N, 082°24.72′ W; then north to 27°48.03′ N, 082°24.70′ W; then northwest to 27°48.08′ N, 082°24.88′ W, closing off entrance to Big Bend Power Facility and the attached cooling canal. • Remove § 165.764(a)(2), revised its heading but add its text unchanged to a new § 165.764(a)(15), Weedon Island Power Plant, FL. All waters of Tampa Bay, from surface to bottom, extending 50-yards from the shore, seawall and piers around the Power Facility at Weedon Island encompassed by a line connecting the following points: 27°51.52′ N, 082°35.82′ W; then north and east along the shore to 27°51.54′ N, 082°35.78′ W; then north to 27°51.68′ N, 082°35.78′ W; then north to 27°51.75′ N, 082°35.78′ W, closing off entrance to the canal; then north to 27°51.89′ N, 082°35.82′ W; then west along the shore to 27°51.89′ N, 082°36.10′ W; then west to 27°51.89′ N, 082°36.14′ W, closing off entrance to the canal. • Revise § 165.760(a)(1), Rattlesnake Tampa, FL. All water, from surface to bottom, in Old Tampa Bay east and south of a line commencing at position 27°53.32′ N, 082°32.05′ W; north to 27°53.36′ N, 082°32.05′ W, including on land portions of Chemical Formulators Chlorine Facility, where the fenced area is bounded by a line connecting the following points: 27°53.21′ N, 082°32.11′ W; west to 27°53.22′ N, 082°32.23′ W; then north to 27°53.25′ N, 082°32.23′ W; then west again to 27°53.25′ N, 082°32.27′ W; then north again to 27°53.29′ N, 082°32.25′ W; then east to 27°53.30′ N, 082°32.16′ W; then southeast terminating at 27°53.21′ N, 082°32.11′ W. Please note that the portion of the description of § 165.760(a)(1) after the word “including” differs from the currently effective temporary § 165.T07-047(a)(1). We determined that the “fenced area” should be more clearly defined in the permanent regulation and propose replacing the following description “including the fenced area encompassing the Chemical Formulator Chlorine Facility” in TFR 72 FR 45162-01 with a more accurate North American Datum Description. The new description is: “including on land portions of Chemical Formulators Chlorine Facility where the fenced area is bounded by a line connecting the following points: 27°53.21′ N, 082°32.11′ W; west to 27°53.22′ N, 082°32.23′ W; then north to 27°53.25′ N, 082°32.23′ W; then west again to 27°53.25′ N, 082°32.27′ W; then north again to 27°53.29′ N, 082°32.25′ W; then east to 27°53.30′ N, 082°32.16′ W; then southeast terminating at 27°53.21′ N, 082°32.11′ W.” Entry into or remaining on or within these proposed revised zones would be prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector St. Petersburg or his designated representative. Persons desiring to transit the area of the security zone may contact the Captain of the Port Sector St. Petersburg or his designated representative on VHF channel 16 to seek permission to transit the area. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port or his designated representative. In the case of moving security zones, notification will be given by Broadcast Notice to Mariners on VHF FM Marine Band Radio, Channel 22A. For vessels not equipped with a radio, there will also be on site notification via a designated representative of the Captain of the Port. A graphical representation of all fixed security zones will be made available via the World Wide Web: *http://homeport.uscg.mil/mycg/portal/ep/portDirectory.do?tabId=1&cotpId=50,* Coast Pilot and nautical charts. Because we proposed to move the only two security zones in § 165.764 to § 165.760, we propose to remove and reserve § 165.764. We also proposed to reverse the order of the regulations and definitions paragraphs in § 165.760 by having the definitions appear first. We proposed to add a definition *designated representative* to the revised paragraph (b). In revised paragraph
(c)we have replaced references to the Captain of the Port Tampa with references to Captain of the Port Sector St. Petersburg and made references to using Broadcast Notice to Mariners to announce the activation of moving security zones by cruise ships entering certain waters—see § 165.760(a)(9). Regulatory Evaluation This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. This proposed rule may have some impact on the public, but these potential impacts will be minimized for the following reasons: There is ample room for vessels to navigate around security zones, and there are several locations for recreational and commercial fishing vessels to fish throughout the Tampa Bay Region. Also, the Captain of the Port may, on a case-by-case basis allow persons or vessels to enter a security zone. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the majority of the zones are limited in size, leaving ample room for vessels to navigate around the zones. The zones will not significantly impact commuter and passenger vessel traffic patterns, and mariners will be notified of the zones via local notice to mariners and marine broadcasts. Also, the Captain of the Port may, on a case-by-case basis, allow persons or vessels to enter a security zone. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the office listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , for assistance in understanding this rule. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is not likely to have a significant effect on the human environment. A preliminary “Environmental Analysis Check List” supporting this preliminary determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record keeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways. Words of Issuance and Regulatory Text For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6 and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. In § 165.760, revise paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(7),
(b)and (c), and add paragraphs (a)(14) and (a)(15) to read as follows: § 165.760 Security Zones; Tampa Bay, Port of Tampa, Port of Saint Petersburg, Rattlesnake, Old Port Tampa, Big Bend, Weedon Island, and Crystal River; Florida.
(a)* * *
(1)*Rattlesnake, Tampa, FL.* All water, from surface to bottom, in Old Tampa Bay east and south of a line commencing at position 27°53.32′ N, 082°32.05′ W; north to 27°53.36′ N, 082°32.05′ W, including on land portions of Chemical Formulators Chlorine Facility, where, the fenced area is bounded by a line connecting the following points: 27°53.21′ N, 082°32.11′ W; west to 27°53.22′ N, 082°32.23′ W; then north to 27°53.25′ N, 082°32.23′ W; then west again to 27°53.25′ N, 082°32.27′ W; then north again to 27°53.29′ N, 082°32.25′ W; then east to 27°53.30′ N, 082°32.16′ W; then southeast terminating at 27°53.21′ N, 082°32.11′ W.
(3)*Sunshine Skyway Bridge, FL.* All waters in Tampa Bay, from surface to bottom, in Cut “A” channel beneath the bridge's main span encompassed by a line connecting the following points: 27°37.30′ N, 082°39.38′ W to 27°37.13′ N, 082°39.26′ W; and, the bridge structure columns, base and dolphins. This zone is specific to the bridge structure and dolphins and does not include waters adjacent to the bridge columns or dolphins outside of the bridge's main span.
(5)*Piers, seawalls, and facilities, Port of Tampa and Port Sutton, Tampa, FL.* All waters, from surface to bottom, extending 50 yards from the shore, seawall, and piers around facilities in Port Sutton within the Port of Tampa encompassed by a line connecting the following points: 27°54.15′ N, 082°26.11′ W; east northeast to 27°54.19′ N, 082°26.00′ W; then northeast to 27°54.37′ N, 082°25.72′ W, closing off all Port Sutton channel; then northerly to 27°54.48′ N, 082°25.70′ W.
(7)*Piers, seawalls, and facilities, Port of Tampa, on the western side of Hooker's Point, Tampa, FL.* All waters, from surface to bottom, extending 50 yards from the shore, seawall, and piers around facilities on Hillsborough Bay northern portion of Cut “D” channel, Sparkman channel, Ybor Turning Basin, and Ybor channel within the Port of Tampa encompassed by a line connecting the following points: 27°54.74′ N, 082°26.47′ W; northwest to 27°55.25′ N, 082°26.73′ W; then north-northwest to 27°55.60′ N, 082°26.80′ W; then north-northeast to 27°56.00′ N, 082°26.75′ W; then northeast to 27°56.58′ N, 082°26.53′ W; and north to 27°57.29′ N, 082°26.51′ W; west to 27°57.29′ N, 082°26.61′ W; then southerly to 27°56.65′ N, 082°26.63′ W; southwesterly to 27°56.58′ N, 082°26.69′ W; then southwesterly and terminating at 27°56.53′ N, 082°26.90′ W.
(14)*Big Bend Power Plant, FL.* All waters of Tampa Bay, from surface to bottom, adjacent to the Big Bend Power Facility, and within an area bounded by a line connecting the following points: 27°48′08″ N, 082°24′88″ W; then northwest to 27°48′15″ N, 082°24′96″ W; then southwest to 27°48′10″ N, 082°25′00″ W; then south-southwest to 27°47′85″ N, 082°25′03″ W; then southeast to 27°47′85″ N, 082°24′79″ W; then east to 27°47′55″ N, 082°24′04″ W; then north to 27°47′62″ N, 082°84′04″ W; then west to 27°47′60″ N, 082°24′72″ W; then north to 27°48′03″ N, 082°24′70″ W; then northwest to 27°48′08″ N, 082°24′88″ W, closing off entrance to Big Bend Power Facility and the attached cooling canal.
(15)*Weedon Island Power Plant, FL.* All waters of Tampa Bay, from surface to bottom, extending 50-yards from the shore, seawall and piers around the Power Facility at Weedon Island encompassed by a line connecting the following points: 27°51′52″ N, 082°35′82″ W; then north and east along the shore to 27°51′54″ N, 082°35′78″ W; then north to 27°51′68″ N, 082°35′78″ W; then north to 27°51′75″ N, 082°35′78″ W, closing off entrance to the canal; then north to 27°51′89″ N, 082°35′82″ W; then west along the shore to 27°51′89″ N, 082°36′10″ W; then west to 27°51′89″ N, 082°36′14″ W, closing off entrance to the canal.
(b)*Definitions.* As used in this section— *Cruise ship* means a vessel required to comply with 33 CFR part 120. *Designated representative* means Coast Guard Patrol Commanders including Coast Guard coxswains, petty officers and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port (COTP), in the enforcement of regulated navigation areas, safety zones, and security zones.
(c)*Regulation.*
(1)Entry into or remaining on or within the zones described in paragraph
(a)of this section is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or his designated representative.
(2)Persons desiring to transit the area of the security zone may contact the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or his designated representative on VHF channel 16 to seek permission to transit the area. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port or designated representative. In the case of moving security zones, notification of activation of these zones will be given by Broadcast Notice to Mariners on VHF FM Marine Band Radio, Channel 22A. For vessels not equipped with a radio, there will also be on site notification via a designated representative of the Captain of the Port. Note to § 165.760 (c)(2): A graphical representation of all fixed security zones will be made available via the Coast Pilot and nautical charts.
(3)*Enforcement.* Under § 165.33, no person may cause or authorize the operation of a vessel in the security zones contrary to the provisions of this section. § 165.764 [Removed] 3. Remove and reserve § 165.764. Dated: October 29, 2007. J.A. Servidio, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port St. Petersburg. [FR Doc. E7-21760 Filed 11-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. COTP St. Petersburg 07-226] RIN 1625-AA87 Security Zone; Manbirtee Key, Port of Manatee, FL AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and public meeting. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a new security zone in the Manbirtee Key area of Port of Manatee, Florida. The purpose of this security zone is to ensure the security of vessels, facilities, and the surrounding area. Entry into the security zone would be prohibited without permission of the Captain of the Port. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before December 6, 2007. A public meeting will be held starting at 10 a.m. on November 13, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Coast Guard Sector St. Petersburg, Prevention Department, 155 Columbia Drive, Tampa, FL. 33606-3598. Coast Guard Sector St. Petersburg, Prevention Department maintains the public docket for this rule making. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at Coast Guard Sector St. Petersburg, Prevention Department, 155 Columbia Drive, Tampa, FL. 33606-3598 between 7:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The location of the public meeting is Port Manatee, 300 Tampa Bay Way, Palmetto, FL 34221. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Jessica Crandell at the Waterways Management Division, Sector St. Petersburg, FL
(813)228-2191 Ext 8146. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Request for Comments We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include the docket number for this rulemaking (COTP 07-226), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission. For example, we may ask you to resubmit your comment if we are not able to read your original submission. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them. Public Meeting We will hold a public meeting to discuss any items of concern related to the proposed changes to the security zone outlined in this document. The date and time of this meeting is 10 a.m., November 13, 2007. The location of the meeting is Port Manatee, 300 Tampa Bay Way, Palmetto, FL 34221. Background and Purpose The Maritime Transportation Security Act authorized the establishment of Area Maritime Security Committees
(AMSC)that “advise, consult with, report to, and make recommendations” on matters relating to maritime security in an AMSC's port area. See 46 U.S.C. 70112(a)(2) and 33 CFR 103.205. One topic the Tampa AMSC discussed is the existing security zones that were established immediately following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. See 68 FR 47852, August 12, 2003, and 68 FR 52340, September 3, 2003. In July 2007, using the newly-developed Maritime Security Risk Analysis tool, the Tampa AMSC working group evaluated risk to the maritime transportation system
(MTS)within Tampa Bay, and assessed various risk mitigation options. The results of the risk assessment indicated the need to establish a new security zone in the vicinity of Manbirtee Key, FL. To assist in assessment of risk mitigation options in the vicinity of Manbirtee Key, FL, a focus group session was held with Coast Guard licensed mariners on July 25, 2007. Discussion of Proposed Rule This proposed rule would create a security zone in the following area: All waters of Tampa Bay, from surface to bottom, surrounding Manbirtee Key, Tampa Bay, FL extending 500 yards from the island's shoreline, in all directions, with the exception of the Port Manatee Channel. Entry into or remaining on or within this zone would be prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector St. Petersburg or his designated representative. Persons desiring to transit the area of the security zone may contact the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or his designee on VHF channel 16 to seek permission to transit the area. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port or his designated representative. Regulatory Evaluation This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. This proposed rule may have some impact on the public, but these potential impacts will be minimized for the following reasons: There is ample room for vessels to navigate around the security zone, and there are several locations for recreational and commercial fishing vessels to fish throughout the Tampa Bay Region. Also, the Captain of the Port may, on a case-by-case basis allow persons or vessels to enter a security zone. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the zone is limited in size, leaving ample room for vessels to navigate around the zone. The zone will not significantly impact commuter and passenger vessel traffic patterns, and mariners will be notified of the zone via local notice to mariners and marine broadcasts. Also, the Captain of the Port may, on a case-by-case basis, allow persons or vessels to enter a security zone. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the office listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , for assistance in understanding this rule. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is not likely to have a significant effect on the human environment. A preliminary “Environmental Analysis Check List” supporting this preliminary determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways. Words of Issuance and Proposed Regulatory Text For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6 and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Add § 165.767 to read as follows: § 165.767 Security Zone; Manbirtee Key, Port of Manatee, Florida.
(a)*Regulated area.* The following area is a security zone: All waters of Tampa Bay, from surface to bottom, surrounding Manbirtee Key, Tampa Bay, FL, extending 500 yards from the island's shoreline, in all directions, with the exception of the Port Manatee Channel.
(b)*Definitions.* As used in this section, *designated representative* means Coast Guard Patrol Commanders including Coast Guard coxswains, petty officers and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port (COTP), in the enforcement of regulated navigation areas, safety zones, and security zones.
(c)*Regulation.*
(1)Entry into or remaining on or within the security zone described in paragraph
(a)of this section is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or his designated representative.
(2)Persons desiring to transit the security zone may contact the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or his designated representative on VHF channel 16 to seek permission to transit the area. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port or the designated representative.
(3)*Enforcement.* Under § 165.33, no person may cause or authorize the operation of a vessel in the security zone contrary to the provisions of this section. Dated: October 29, 2007. J.A. Servidio, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port St. Petersburg. 1 [FR Doc. E7-21761 Filed 11-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R08-OAR-2007-0622; FRL-8490-5] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Colorado; Revised Denver PM10 Maintenance Plan AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to take direct final action approving a State Implementation Plan
(SIP)revision submitted by the State of Colorado. On September 25, 2006, the Governor's designee submitted a revised plan for particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter, less than or equal to 10 microns
(PM10)for the Denver metropolitan area for the PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). This revised maintenance plan addresses maintenance of the PM10 standard for a second ten-year period beyond redesignation, extends the horizon years, and contains revised transportation conformity budgets. EPA is approving the removal of Regulation No. 11, “Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program” from Denver's revised PM10 maintenance plan. In addition, EPA is approving a transportation budget trading protocol for estimating the PM10 and nitrogen oxides
(NOx)for each conformity determination. This action is being taken under section 110 of the Clean Air Act. In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this **Federal Register** , EPA is approving the State's SIP revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial SIP revision and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the preamble to the direct final rule. If EPA receives no adverse comments, EPA will not take further action on this proposed rule. If EPA receives adverse comments, EPA will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of the rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before December 6, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2007-0622, by one of the following methods: • *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: videtich.callie@epa.gov* and *fiedler.kerri@epa.gov.* • *Fax:*
(303)312-6064 (please alert the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , if you are faxing comments). • *Mail:* Callie A. Videtich, Director, Air and Radiation Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. • *Hand Delivery:* Callie A. Videtich, Director, Air and Radiation Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. Such deliveries are only accepted Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. 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: Kerri Fiedler, Air and Radiation Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, phone
(303)312-6493, and e-mail at: *fiedler.kerri@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the information provided in the Direct Final action of the same title which is located in the Rules and Regulations Section of this **Federal Register** . Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Dated: October 22, 2007. Robert E. Roberts, Regional Administrator, Region VIII. [FR Doc. E7-21613 Filed 11-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R06-OAR-2006-0271; FRL-8491-5] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Louisiana; Approval of 8-Hour Ozone Section 110(a)(1) Maintenance Plans for the Parishes of Beauregard, Grant, and St. Mary AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Louisiana State Implementation Plan
(SIP)concerning the 8-hour ozone maintenance plans for the parishes of Beauregard, Grant, and St. Mary. On August 23, 2006, the State of Louisiana submitted separate SIP revisions containing 8-hour ozone maintenance plans for Beauregard and Grant Parishes, and on October 10, 2006, Louisiana submitted an 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for St. Mary Parish. These plans ensure the continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) through the year 2014. These maintenance plans meet the statutory and regulatory requirements, and are consistent with EPA's guidance. EPA is approving the revisions pursuant to section 110 of the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA). DATES: Written comments must be received on or before December 6, 2007. ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following the detailed instructions in the Addresses section of the direct final rule located in the rules section of this **Federal Register** . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Belk, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, U.S. EPA, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone
(214)665-2164; fax number 214-665-7263; e-mail address *belk.ellen@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section of this **Federal Register** , EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no relevant adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional information, see the direct final rule, which is located in the rules section of this **Federal Register** Dated: October 26, 2007. Lawrence E. Starfield, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6. [FR Doc. E7-21688 Filed 11-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 74 [MB Docket No. 07-172; FCC 07-144] Use of FM Translators by AM Stations as a Fill-in Service AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This document proposes rule changes that would allow AM stations to use FM translator stations to rebroadcast the AM signal locally (i.e., the service area of the FM translator station would not extend beyond a 25-mile radius from the AM transmitter site, or the daytime coverage area of the AM station, whichever is smaller) to improve the viability of the AM broadcast service and preserve localism in the service. Comments are sought on the proposal and related eligibility rules, program origination questions, technical issues and timing issues. DATES: Comments for this proceeding are due on or before January 7, 2008. Reply comments are due on or before February 4, 2008. Written comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act proposed information collection requirements must be submitted by the public, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and other interested parties on or before January 7, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by MB Docket No. 07-172; FCC 07-144, by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Federal Communications Commission's Web Site:* *http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail:* 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, with a copy to the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. • *People With Disabilities:* Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: *FCC504@fcc.gov* or phone: 202-418-0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432. For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Legal information: Tom Hutton, 202-418-2700; technical information: James Bradshaw, 202-418-2700. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Federal Communications Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in MB Docket No. 07-172, FCC 07-144, adopted August 7, 2007, and released August 15, 2007. The full text of this document is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. These documents will also be available via ECFS ( *http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs* ). The complete text may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. To request this document in accessible formats (computer diskettes, large print, audio recording and Braille), send an e-mail to *fcc504@fcc.gov* or call the FCC's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at
(202)418-0530 (voice)
(202)418-0432 (TTY). Summary of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposes to amend the Commission's Rules to allow AM broadcast stations to license and operate FM translator stations. The rule changes would allow AM stations to operate FM translators to retransmit their AM service as a fill-in service, as long as no portion of the 60 dBu contour of the FM translator extends beyond the lesser of
(a)the 2 mV/m daytime contour of the AM station, or
(b)the 25-mile radius of the AM transmitter site. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeks comment on several rule changes necessary to expand the permissible service of FM translator stations to allow their use as a fill-in service for AM radio stations, including eligibility and ownership issues and appropriate technical limitations. Also, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposes to modify the rules to allow daytime-only AM licensees, during the hours their AM stations are not able to operate, to originate programming on fill-in FM translators. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis This document contains proposed information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and other interested parties to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency comments are due January 7, 2008. Comments should address:
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on how we might “further reduce the information collection burden for small burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.” The proposed information collection requirements that the Commission seeks public comment on are as follows: *OMB Control Number:* 3060-0075. *Title:* Application for Transfer of Control of a Corporate Licensee or Permittee or Assignment of License or Permit for an FM or TV Translator Station or a Low Power Television Station. *Form Number:* FCC Form 345. *Type of Review:* Revision of a currently approved collection. *Respondents:* Business or other for profit entities. *Number of Respondents:* 1,000. *Estimated Time per Response:* 0.084-1 hour. *Frequency of Response:* Recordkeeping requirement; on occasion reporting requirement; third party disclosure requirement. *Total Annual Burden:* 1,542 hours. *Total Annual Costs:* $1,548,625. *Nature of Response:* Required to obtain or retain benefits. *Nature and Extent of Confidentiality:* There is no need for confidentiality with this information collection. *Privacy Act Impact Assessment:* No impact(s). *Needs and Uses:* On August 15, 2007, the Commission adopted a *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)* , Amendment of Service and Eligibility Rules for FM Broadcast Translator Stations, MB Docket No. 07-172, FCC 07-144. The *NPRM* proposes rules that will permit AM radio stations to use FM translator stations under certain circumstances. Therefore, AM radio stations will use FCC Form 345 when applying for authority for assignment of license or for consent to transfer of control of such FM translator stations. The Commission proposes to revise the FCC Form 345 to reflect the revised changes in the rules applicable to FM translator stations. Filing of the FCC Form 345 is required when applying for authority for assignment of license or permit, or for consent to transfer of control of corporate licensee or permittee for an FM or TV translator station, or low power TV station. *OMB Control Number:* 3060-0110. *Title:* Application for Renewal of Broadcast Station License. *Form Number:* FCC Form 303-S. *Type of Review:* Revision of a currently approved collection. *Respondents:* Business or other for profit entities; Not for profit institutions. *Number of Respondents:* 3,884. *Estimated Time per Response:* 0.67—11.5 hours. *Frequency of Response:* Every eight year reporting requirement; Third party disclosure requirement. *Total Annual Burden:* 6,446 hours. *Total Annual Costs:* $1,943,778. *Nature of Response:* Required to obtain or retain benefits. *Nature and Extent of Confidentiality:* There is no need for confidentiality with this information collection. *Privacy Act Impact Assessment:* No impact(s). *Needs and Uses:* On August 15, 2007, the Commission adopted a *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)* , Amendment of Service and Eligibility Rules for FM Broadcast Translator Stations, MB Docket No. 07-172, FCC 07-144. The *NPRM* proposes rules that will permit AM radio stations to use FM translator stations under certain circumstances. FCC Form 303-S will be used in applying for renewal of license of such commercial or noncommercial FM translator stations. The Commission also proposes to revise the FCC Form 303-S to reflect the revised changes in the rules applicable to FM translator stations used by AM stations to rebroadcast their AM signals. FCC Form 303-S is used in applying for renewal of license for a commercial or noncommercial AM, FM or TV broadcast station and FM translator, TV translator or Low Power TV, and Low Power FM broadcast stations. It can also be used in seeking the joint renewal of licenses for an FM or TV translator station and its co-owned primary FM, AM, TV, or LPTV station. *OMB Control Number:* 3060-0250. *Title:* Sections 73.1207, 74.784, and 74.1284, Rebroadcasts. *Form Number:* Not applicable. *Type of Review:* Revision of a currently approved collection. *Respondents:* Business or other for profit entities; Not for profit institutions; State, local or tribal government. *Number of Respondents:* 6,462. *Estimated Time per Response:* 0.50 hours. *Frequency of Response:* Recordkeeping requirement; On occasion reporting requirement; semi-annual reporting requirement; Third party disclosure requirement. *Total Annual Burden:* 5,506 hours. *Total Annual Costs:* None. *Nature of Response:* Required to obtain or retain benefits. *Nature and Extent of Confidentiality:* There is no need for confidentiality with this information collection. *Privacy Act Impact Assessment:* No impact(s). *Needs and Uses:* On August 15, 2007, the Commission adopted a *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)* , Amendment of Service and Eligibility Rules for FM Broadcast Translator Stations, MB Docket No. 07-172, FCC 07-144. The *NPRM* proposes rule changes that would allow AM stations to use FM translator stations to rebroadcast the AM signal. The *NPRM* is only proposing to amend 47 CFR 74.1284 from this information collection. 47 CFR 74.1284 requires that the licensee of an FM translator station obtain prior consent to rebroadcast programs of any broadcast station or other FM translator. The licensee of the FM translator station must notify the Commission of the call letters of each station rebroadcast and must certify that written consent has been received from the licensee of that station. *OMB Control Number:* 3060-0404. *Title:* Application for an FM Translator or FM Booster Station License. *Form Number:* FCC Form 350. *Type of Review:* Revision of a currently approved collection. *Respondents:* Business or other for profit entities; not for profit institutions; State, local or tribal government. *Number of Respondents:* 450. *Estimated Time per Response:* 1 hour. *Frequency of Response:* On occasion reporting requirement. *Total Annual Burden:* 450 hours. *Total Annual Costs:* 56,250. *Nature of Response:* Required to obtain or retain benefits. *Nature and Extent of Confidentiality:* There is no need for confidentiality with this information collection. *Privacy Act Impact Assessment:* No impact(s). *Needs and Uses:* On August 15, 2007, the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Amendment of Service and Eligibility Rules for FM Broadcast Translator Stations, MB Docket No. 07-172, FCC 07-144. The Commission proposes rule changes that would allow AM stations to use FM translator stations to rebroadcast the AM signal. The FCC Form 350 will not be revised. The Commission has concluded that revisions to the FCC Form 350 were not needed because FCC Form 350 only confirms that the FM translator station has been built to technical terms specified in the outstanding construction permit. FCC Form 350 does not require the FM translator station to specify the primary station that it will rebroadcast. Licensees and permittees of FM Translator or FM Booster stations are required to file FCC Form 350 to obtain a new or modified station license. Please send your PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of Management and Budget, via Internet at *Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov* or via fax at
(202)395-5167 and to Cathy Williams, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C823, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC or via Internet at *Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov* . To view a copy of this information collection request
(ICR)submitted to OMB:
(1)Go to the Web page *http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain* ,
(2)look for the section of the Web page called “Currently Under Review,”
(3)click on the downward-pointing arrow in the “Select Agency” box below the “Currently Under Review” heading,
(4)select “Federal Communications Commission” from the list of agencies presented in the “Select Agency” box,
(5)click the “Submit” button to the right of the “Select Agency” box,
(6)when the list of FCC ICRs currently under review appears, look for the title of this ICR (or its OMB control number, if there is one) and then click on the ICR Reference Number to view detailed information about this ICR.” For additional information or copies of the information collection(s), contact Cathy Williams at
(202)418-2918. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (“IRFA”), set forth in an Appendix to the Notice, concerning the possible significant economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in the Notice. Written public comments are requested on the IRFA. These comments must be filed in accordance with the same filing procedures and deadlines for comments and reply comments in response to the Notice, and should have a distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA. The Commission will send a copy of the Notice, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). 5 U.S.C. 603(a). In addition, the Notice and IRFA (or summaries thereof) are here published in the **Federal Register** . A. Need for, and Objective of, the Proposed Rules The Notice proposes rules that will permit AM station licensees to use FM translator stations as a fill-in service within the service area of their daytime operating contour, to overcome nighttime coverage losses and daytime interference-related losses. The record in the proceeding demonstrates significant daytime and nighttime service problems in the AM band. B. Legal Basis The authority for the action proposed in the Notice is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i) and (j), 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 319, and 324. C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that will be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3). The SBA defines a radio broadcast station that has no more than $6.5 million in annual receipts as a small business. 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS Code 515112. Business concerns included in this industry are those primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs by radio to the public. See NAICS Code 515112. According to Commission staff review of the BIA Publications, Inc. Master Access Radio Analyzer Database on July 10, 2007, about 10,520 of 11,055 commercial radio stations (or about 95 percent) have revenues of $6.5 million or less and thus qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. We note, however, that, in assessing whether a business concern qualifies as small under the above definition, business (control) affiliations must be included. Our estimate, therefore, may overstate the number of small entities that might be affected by our action, because the revenue figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. In addition, an element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity not be dominant in its field of operation. We are unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific radio station is dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to which the proposed rules may apply do not exclude any radio station from the definition of a small business on this basis and therefore may be over-inclusive to that extent. Also, an additional element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity must be independently owned and operated. We note that it is difficult at times to assess these criteria in the context of media entities and our estimates of small businesses to which they apply may be over-inclusive to this extent. The proposed rules and policies could affect licensees of FM translator and booster stations and low power FM (“LPFM”) stations, as well as to potential licensees in these radio services. The same SBA definition that applies to radio broadcast licensees would apply to these stations. As of December 31, 2006, there were approximately 4131 licensed FM translator and booster stations and 771 licensed LPFM stations. Given the nature of these services, we will presume that all of these licensees qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. Representatives of LPFM broadcasters have commented that the proposed expansion of eligibility for, and service by, FM translators may have a detrimental effect on the development of the LPFM service by limiting the availability of frequencies remaining for LPFM service. We seek comments on the impact the proposed rule changes would have on LPFM and other stations, as well as on parties seeking to obtain authorizations to operate such stations. D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements The Notice proposes rules that will permit AM station licensees to use FM translator stations as a fill-in service within the service area of their daytime operating contour, to overcome nighttime coverage losses and daytime interference-related losses. Use of an FM translator is at the option of the broadcast licensee. The Notice would not impose any mandatory reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements, unless the licensee chooses to use an FM translator as a fill-in service. The proposed rule changes that will directly affect reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements are described in an Appendix to the Notice. The Notice provides for no changes in the current application filing and processing procedures for FM translator stations, except that FCC Forms 303-S, 345, and 350 (including related instructions) will be modified to reflect the revised purpose and eligibility changes in the rules applicable to FM translator stations. We invite small business entities to comment in response to the Notice. E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered The use of FM translator stations by AM radio stations is not mandatory. Therefore, with respect to the issue of the impact of the proposed rules on smaller entities, we believe small business broadcasters would benefit from the opportunities offered by the proposed rule changes. The Notice seeks comment on alternative eligibility standards and implementation rules that could particularly benefit small business broadcasters such as stand-alone AM stations and/or daytime-only AM stations. We invite small business entities to comment on the impact of the proposed rule changes, including the alternatives discussed in the Notice, on small business broadcasters, including FM and LPFM stations. F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rules None. Ex Parte Restrictions This proceeding has been designated “permit but disclose” for purposes of the Commission's ex parte rules, 47 CFR 1.1200-1.1216. Ex parte presentations will be governed by the procedures set forth in 47 CFR 1.1206 applicable to non-restricted proceedings. Filing Requirements *Comments and Replies.* Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using:
(1)The Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS),
(2)the Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal, or
(3)by filing paper copies. • *Electronic Filers:* Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing ECFS: *http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/* or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov.* Filers should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting comments. • For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one electronic copy of the comments for each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions, filers should send an e-mail to *ecfs@fcc.gov,* and include the following words in the body of the message, “get form.” A sample form and directions will be sent in response. • *Paper Filers:* Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. • The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of *before* entering the building. • Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. • U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington DC 20554. *Availability of Documents.* Comments, reply comments, and ex parte submissions will be available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., CY-A257, Washington DC 20554. These documents will also be available via ECFS. Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Word 97 and/or Adobe Acrobat. *Accessibility Information.* To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to *fcc504@fcc.gov* or call the FCC's Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY). Ordering Clauses *It is ordered* that pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i) and (j), 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 319, and 324 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i) and (j), 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 319, and 324 that notice is hereby given of the proposals and tentative conclusions described in this Notice of Proposed Rule Making. *It is further ordered* that the Reference Information Center, Consumer Information Bureau, shall send a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rule Making, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 74 Radio, FM Translators. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. Proposed Rules For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 74 as follows: PART 74—EXPERIMENTAL RADIO, AUXILIARY, SPECIAL BROADCAST AND OTHER PROGRAM DISTRIBUTIONAL SERVICES 1. The authority citation for part 74 continues to read as follows: Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i) and (j), 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 319, and 324. 2. Amend § 74.1201 by revising paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (g), and adding paragraph (j), as follows: § 74.1201 Definitions.
(a)*FM translator.* A station in the broadcasting service operated for the purpose of retransmitting the signals of an AM or FM radio broadcast station or another FM broadcast translator station without significantly altering any characteristics of the incoming signal other than its frequency and amplitude, in order to provide FM broadcast service to the general public.
(b)*Commercial FM translator.* An AM or FM broadcast translator station which rebroadcasts the signals of a commercial FM radio broadcast station.
(c)*Noncommercial FM translator.* An FM broadcast translator station which rebroadcasts the signals of a noncommercial educational AM or FM radio broadcast station.
(d)*Primary station.* The AM or FM radio broadcast station radiating the signals which are retransmitted by an FM broadcast translator station or an FM broadcast booster station.
(e)*AM or FM radio broadcast station.* When used in this subpart L, the term AM broadcast station or AM radio broadcast station or FM broadcast station or FM radio broadcast station refers to commercial and noncommercial educational AM or FM radio broadcast stations as defined in § 2.1 of this chapter, unless the context indicates otherwise.
(g)*Translator coverage contour.* The coverage contour for an FM translator providing “fill-in” service is congruent with its parent station: For a fill-in translator for a commercial Class B station it is the predicted 0.5 mV/m field strength contour; for a fill-in translator for a commercial Cass B1 station it is the predicted 0.7 mV/m field strength contour; and for a fill-in translator for all other classes of commercial stations as well as all noncommercial educational stations it is the predicted 1 mV/m field strength contour. A fill-in FM translator's coverage contour must be contained within the primary station's coverage contour. The coverage contour of an FM translator rebroadcasting an AM radio broadcast station must be contained within the lesser of the 2 mV/m daytime contour of the AM station and a 25-mile (40 km) radius centered at the AM transmitter site. The protected contour for an FM translator station is its predicted 1 mV/m contour.
(j)*AM Fill-in area.* The area within the lesser of the 2 mV/m daytime contour of the AM radio broadcast station being rebroadcast and a 25-mile (40 km) radius centered at the AM transmitter site. 3. Amend § 74.1231 by revising paragraphs (a),
(b)and (h), and adding new paragraph
(i)to read as follows: § 74.1231 Purpose and permissible service.
(a)FM translators provide a means whereby the signals of AM or FM broadcast stations may be retransmitted to areas in which direct reception of such AM or FM broadcast stations is unsatisfactory due to distance or intervening terrain barriers and a means for AM daytime-only stations to continue operating at night.
(b)An FM translator may be used for the purpose of retransmitting the signals of a primary AM or FM radio broadcast station or another translator station the signal of which is received directly through space, converted, and suitably amplified, and originating programming to the extent authorized in paragraphs (f), (g), and
(h)of this section. However, an FM translator providing fill-in service may use any terrestrial facilities to receive the signal that is being rebroadcast. An FM booster station or a noncommercial educational FM translator station that is operating on a reserved channel (Channels 201-220) and is owned and operated by the licensee of the primary noncommercial educational station it rebroadcasts may use alternative signal delivery means, including, but not limited to, satellite and terrestrial microwave facilities. Provided, however, that an applicant for a noncommercial educational translator operating on a reserved channel (Channel 201-220) and owned and operated by the licensee of the primary noncommercial educational AM or FM station it rebroadcasts complies with either paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section:
(1)The applicant demonstrates that:
(i)The transmitter site of the proposed FM translator station is within 80 kilometers of the predicted 1 mV/m contour of the primary station to be rebroadcast; or,
(ii)The transmitter site of the proposed FM translator station is more than 160 kilometers from the transmitter site of any authorized full service noncommercial educational FM station; or,
(iii)The application is mutually exclusive with an application containing the showing as required by paragraph (b)(2)(i) or
(ii)of this section; or,
(iv)The application is filed after October 1, 1992.
(2)If the transmitter site of the proposed FM translator station is more than 80 kilometers from the predicted 1 mV/m contour of the primary station to be rebroadcast or is within 160 kilometers of the transmitter site of any authorized full service noncommercial educational FM station, the applicant must show that:
(i)An alternative frequency can be used at the same site as the proposed FM translator's transmitter location and can provide signal coverage to the same area encompassed by the applicant's proposed 1 mV/m contour; or,
(ii)An alternative frequency can be used at a different site and can provide signal coverage to the same area encompassed by the applicant's proposed 1 mV/m contour.
(h)An FM translator station that rebroadcasts an AM radio broadcast station may originate programming during the hours the AM radio broadcast station is not authorized to operate.
(i)FM broadcast booster stations provide a means whereby the licensee of an FM broadcast station may provide service to areas in any region within the primary station's predicted, authorized service contours. An FM broadcast booster station is authorized to retransmit only the signals of its primary station which have been received directly through space and suitably amplified, or received by alternative signal delivery means including, but not limited to, satellite and terrestrial microwave facilities. The FM booster station shall not retransmit the signals of any other station nor make independent transmissions, except that locally generated signals may be used to excite the booster apparatus for the purpose of conducting tests and measurements essential to the proper installation and maintenance of the apparatus. Note 1 to § 74.1231: In the case of an FM broadcast station authorized with facilities in excess of those specified by § 73.211 of this chapter, an FM booster station will only be authorized within the protected contour of the class of station being rebroadcast as predicted on the basis of the maximum powers and heights set forth in that section for the applicable class of FM broadcast station concerned. Note 2 to § 74.1231: For paragraphs
(b)and
(i)of this section, auxiliary intercity relay station frequencies may be used to deliver signals to FM translator and booster stations on a secondary basis only. Such use shall not interfere with or otherwise preclude use of these frequencies for transmitting aural programming between the studio and transmitter location of a broadcast station, or between broadcast stations, as provided in § 74.531
(a)and
(b)of this part. Prior to filing an application for an auxiliary intercity relay microwave frequency, the applicant shall notify the local frequency coordination committee, or, in the absence of a local frequency coordination committee, any licensees assigned the use of the proposed operating frequency in the intended location or area of operation. 4. Amend § 74.1232 by revising paragraphs
(c)and
(d)to read as follows: § 74.1232 Eligibility and licensing requirements.
(c)Only one input and one output channel or frequency will be assigned to each FM translator. Additional FM translators may be authorized to provide additional reception. A separate application is required for each FM translator and each application shall be complete in all respects.
(d)An FM translator providing service to an AM fill-in area will be authorized only to the permittee or licensee of the AM radio broadcast station being rebroadcast. An authorization for an FM translator whose coverage contour extends beyond the protected contour of the commercial primary station will not be granted to the licensee or permittee of a commercial FM radio broadcast station. Similarly, such authorization will not be granted to any person or entity having any interest whatsoever, or any connection with a primary FM station. Interested and connected parties extend to group owners, corporate parents, shareholders, officers, directors, employees, general and limited partners, family members and business associates. For the purposes of this paragraph, the protected contour of the primary station shall be defined as follows: the predicted 0.5mV/m contour for commercial Class B stations, the predicted 0.7 mV/m contour for commercial Class B1 stations and the predicted 1 mV/m field strength contour for all other FM radio broadcast stations. The contours shall be as predicted in accordance with § 73.313(a) through
(d)of this chapter. In the case of an FM radio broadcast station authorized with facilities in excess of those specified by § 73.211 of this chapter, a co-owned commercial FM translator will only be authorized within the protected contour of the class of station being rebroadcast, as predicted on the basis of the maximum powers and heights set forth in that section for the applicable class of FM broadcast station concerned. An FM translator station in operation prior to March 1, 1991, which is owned by a commercial FM (primary) station and whose coverage contour extends beyond the protected contour of the primary station, may continue to be owned by such primary station until March 1, 1994. Thereafter, any such FM translator station must be owned by independent parties. An FM translator station in operation prior to June 1, 1991, which is owned by a commercial FM radio broadcast station and whose coverage contour extends beyond the protected contour of the primary station, may continue to be owned by a commercial FM radio broadcast station until June 1, 1994. Thereafter, any such FM translator station must be owned by independent parties. 5. Amend § 74.1263 by revising paragraph
(b)to read as follows: § 74.1263 Time of operation.
(b)An FM booster or FM translator station rebroadcasting the signal of an AM or FM primary station shall not be permitted to radiate during extended periods when signals of the primary station are not being retransmitted. Notwithstanding the foregoing, FM translators rebroadcasting daytime-only AM stations may continue to operate during nighttime hours only if the AM station has operated within the last 24 hours. 6. Amend § 74.1284 by revising paragraphs
(b)and
(c)to read as follows: § 74.1284 Rebroadcasts.
(b)The licensee of an FM translator shall not rebroadcast the programs of any AM or FM broadcast station or other FM translator without obtaining prior consent of the primary station whose programs are proposed to be retransmitted. The Commission shall be notified of the call letters of each station rebroadcast and the licensee of the FM translator shall certify that written consent has been received from the licensee of the station whose programs are retransmitted.
(c)An FM translator is not authorized to rebroadcast the transmissions of any class of station other than an AM or FM broadcast station or another FM translator. [FR Doc. E7-21271 Filed 11-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P 72 214 Tuesday, November 6, 2007 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Research Service Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive License AGENCY: Agricultural Research Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of intent. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, intends to grant to ISTO Technologies, Inc. of St. Louis, Missouri, an exclusive license to U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 11/058,034, “Porous Polymeric Matrices Made of Natural Polymers and Synthetic Polymers and Optionally at Least One Cation and Methods of Making”, filed on February 15, 2005. DATES: Comments must be received within thirty
(30)days of the date of publication of this Notice in the **Federal Register** . ADDRESSES: Send comments to: USDA, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Rm. 4-1174, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-5131. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: June Blalock of the Office of Technology Transfer at the Beltsville address given above; telephone: 301-504-5989. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Government's patent rights in this invention are assigned to the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. It is in the public interest to so license this invention as ISTO Technologies Inc. of St. Louis, Missouri has submitted a complete and sufficient application for a license. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within thirty
(30)days from the date of this published Notice, the Agricultural Research Service receives written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. Richard J. Brenner, Assistant Administrator. [FR Doc. 07-5505 Filed 11-5-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 47
Traces to 47 documents
U.S. Code
- Inadmissible aliens§ 1182
- Visa waiver program for certain visitors§ 1187
- Definitions§ 601
- Powers and duties of the Secretary, the Under Secretary, and the Attorney General§ 1103
- Definitions§ 1101
- Travel control of citizens and aliens§ 1185
- Transferred§ 431
- Transferred§ 434
- Transferred§ 432
- Transferred§ 441a
- Registration of lobbyists§ 1603
- Reports by registered lobbyists§ 1604
- Avoidance of duplicative or unnecessary analyses§ 605
- Disclosure of and prohibition on certain donations§ 510
- Maritime Security Advisory Committees§ 70112
- Establishment, functions, and activities§ 272
- Transferred§ 1226
- Transferred§ 191
- Congressional findings and declaration of purpose§ 7401
- Federal agency responsibilities§ 3506
- Initial regulatory flexibility analysis§ 603
- Purposes of chapter; Federal Communications Commission created§ 151
- Licensing federally owned inventions§ 209
register
CFR
- Political committee (52 U.S.C. 30101(4), (5), and (6)).§ 100.5
- Receipt of contributions (52 U.S.C. 30102(b)).§ 102.8
- Earmarked contributions 52 U.S.C. 30116(a)(8)).§ 110.6
- Disclosure of bundling by Lobbyist/Registrants and Lobbyist/Registrant PACs (52 U.S.C. 30104(i)).§ 104.22
- Statement of organization: Forms and committee identification number (52 U.S.C. 30102(g), 30103(b), (c)).§ 102.2
- Connected organization (52 U.S.C. 30101(7)).§ 100.6
- Filing dates (52 U.S.C. 30104(a)(2)).§ 104.5
- Reporting Federal election activity; recordkeeping.§ 300.36
- Place of filing (52 U.S.C. 30102(g), 30104(g)).§ 105.1
- Contents of reports (52 U.S.C. 30104(b), 30114).§ 104.3
- Uniform reporting of receipts.§ 104.8
- Accounting for contributions and expenditures (52 U.S.C. 30102(c)).§ 102.9
- Price index increase.§ 110.17
- Authority of the COTP as the Federal Maritime Security Coordinator (FMSC).§ 103.205
- Security Zones; Port of Palm Beach, Port Everglades, and Port of Miami, Florida.§ 165.760
- Delegation of rulemaking authority.§ 1.05-1
- What size standards has SBA identified by North American Industry Classification System codes?§ 121.201
- Exclusive, co-exclusive, and partially exclusive licenses.§ 404.7
44 references not yet in our index
- 8 CFR 212.4(a)
- 8 CFR 212.4
- Pub. L. 100-71
- 101 Stat. 475
- Pub. L. 101-649
- 104 Stat. 4978
- Pub. L. 103-43
- 107 Stat. 122
- 8 CFR 212.4(b)
- 531 U.S. 230
- 499 U.S. 606
- 79 F.3d 932
- 519 U.S. 824
- 8 CFR 212.4(f)
- 8 CFR 212.4(e)
- Pub. L. 104-13
- 8 CFR 100
- 8 CFR 212
- 8 CFR 2
- Pub. L. 108-458
- Pub. L. 110-81
- 121 Stat. 735
- 11 CFR 104
- 11 CFR 105
- 11 CFR 105.2
- 2 USC 434a(a)(8)
- 11 CFR 110
- 2 USC 434i(3)(B)
- 11 CFR 100
- 26 CFR 1
- 33 CFR 165
- 5 USC 601-612
- Pub. L. 104-121
- 44 USC 3501-3520
- 2 USC 1531-1538
- 42 USC 4321-4370f
- Pub. L. 107-295
- 33 CFR 120
- 40 CFR 52
- 47 CFR 74
+ 4 more
Citation graph
cites case law
Proposed Rules
Notice of proposed rulemaking
SCOTUS531 U.S. 230
SCOTUS499 U.S. 606
F. App'x79 F.3d 932
Cites 91 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources